Harper Government to crack down on public servants -- again

[Argus]

So once again, being unable to accomplish much of value for Canada the Harper government has turned to that reliable old winning method of throwing raw meat to its base by announcing its going to take away public servants' accumulated sick leave and then slash their yearly sick leave entitlements by two thirds. There's a lot of nonsense in the announcement about cost savings, but most of it is exaggerated. This move, like so much the government does, is mean spirited, and designed mainly for PR.

Let's backtrack a bit. How did public servants get their sick leave? It didn't come all at once. It came year after year, decade after decade, in negotiations over contracts. All those years, the unions accepted lower wage increases, or sometimes none, in exchange for better benefits. Suddenly, the government is announcing its cancelling all that out of hand. It's not, of course, going to compensate public servants for all the money it saved by not increasing wages so many times in the past.

And the reason is... because some people are jealous, basically. People in generally low wage industries are upset that these employees get more generous benefits than they do. Rather than fight to have their own benefits improved, they feel a sort of bitter satisfaction at having those other guys lose theirs.

Many years back I had an argument with John Baglow, who was then the local PSAC president about wages and benefits. He acknowledged they were generally good, better than average, but he asked me did I think the government should be setting the bar as low as possible, as an example to private sector employers or setting the bar high. In other words, what kind of society were we looking to have, one more like the Europeans, where workers are given far more generous benefits, or one like the US where the workers are serfs who, even if they have a couple of weeks holidays are often too frightened of angering their boss by taking them.

The Harper government seems intent on setting the bar as low as possible, gradually eliminating or cutting back on pensions, security, sick leave, vacation pay, wages, heck, even parking support. It seems to be emulating the tea party belief that all money and power should flow to the top, and the workers should be made as miserable as possible, their faces ground into the dirt.

I think this mean spirit Harper and his party have shown since he took over is what will cost them their support. It's not that they've governed appallingly badly, or been corrupt. It's the mean spirited way they set about doing everything.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/11/conservative-government-aims-to-cut-public-servants-paid-sick-leave-and-get-rid-of-banked-days/

Parliamentary Budget Officer finds sick leave costs almost nothing

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/16/budget-office-report-finds-federal-civil-service-sick-leave-costs-almost-nothing/

[Shady]

Accumulating sick leave is absurd. It's about time something was done about.

[PIK]

Accumulating sick leave is absurd. It's about time something was done about.

They have had it to good for to long.

[Argus]

Accumulating sick leave is absurd. It's about time something was done about.

It'\s not absurd. It makes a lot of sense, and according to the PBO really doesn't cost the government much of anything.

The reason the government wants to eliminate it is to makes its base applaud, and to provoke a strike before the next election, for much the same reason.

[Argus]

They have had it to good for to long.

Really? How do you measure 'too good'? Do you mean better than you?

Edited September 15, 2014 by Argus

[guyser]

And the reason is... because some people are jealous, basically. People in generally low wage industries are upset that these employees get more generous benefits than they do. Rather than fight to have their own benefits improved, they feel a sort of bitter satisfaction at having those other guys lose theirs.

What about all the people who make a lot more than Public servants but can see that they have benefits beyond the pale, make money beyond the norm or for work that is merely low level stuff.

Are they jealous? Ah....no.

Fed up? Perhaps, rightly so.

[jacee]

They have had it to good for to long.

I'd like to stack up all the business owners who say things like that, and evaluate their employee benefits, staff turnover, etc.

There's always a bunch who grumble and complain because business is 'tough'.

Maybe that's not the employees' fault.

.

Edited September 15, 2014 by jacee

[jacee]

What about all the people who make a lot more than Public servants but can see that they have benefits beyond the pale, make money beyond the norm or for work that is merely low level stuff.

Are they jealous? Ah....no.

Fed up? Perhaps, rightly so.

Taking benefits away from some makes it less likely everyone will ever get them too.

.

[overthere]

And the reason is... because some people are jealous, basically.

No, the reason is because federal civil servants abuse the benefit. DEspite being no more or less than the general populace, they take more sick leave because they can.

What's the problem with reducing it to something more in line with private sector benefits. After all, public sector unions also have short and long term disability plans they can access. Oh wait, with those plans you have to actually demonstrate an illness. No more 'mental health days', which oddly enough cure themselves when the 15 day annual entitlement is used up.....

[waldo]

No, the reason is because federal civil servants abuse the benefit. DEspite being no more or less than the general populace, they take more sick leave because they can.

What's the problem with reducing it to something more in line with private sector benefits. After all, public sector unions also have short and long term disability plans they can access. Oh wait, with those plans you have to actually demonstrate an illness. No more 'mental health days', which oddly enough cure themselves when the 15 day annual entitlement is used up.....

per StatsCan 2012 Labour Force Survey... demographics!

- the average public sector employee is older than the average private sector employee;

- there are more women in the public sector than in the private sector; and

- more public sector employees are unionized than their private sector counterparts

"StatsCan found that accounting for these three factors reduced the difference in the absenteeism of these two populations to 1.1 days"

[Boges]

per StatsCan 2012 Labour Force Survey... demographics!

- the average public sector employee is older than the average private sector employee;

- there are more women in the public sector than in the private sector; and

- more public sector employees are unionized than their private sector counterparts

"StatsCan found that accounting for these three factors reduced the difference in the absenteeism of these two populations to 1.1 days"

StatsCan's numbers are now unreliable. Because of Harper's cuts I'm told.

[On Guard for Thee]

Just watched the opening round of QP in the fall sitting. Once again listening to Harper is the verbal equivelant of watching paint dry. Can someone please explain the actual meaning of the word "clear" to this man. No wonder JT is so far ahead of him in the polls.

[PIK]

Just watched the opening round of QP in the fall sitting. Once again listening to Harper is the verbal equivelant of watching paint dry. Can someone please explain the actual meaning of the word "clear" to this man. No wonder JT is so far ahead of him in the polls.

And when JT talks ,what is all the umms.

[On Guard for Thee]

Umm, if there was a vote today, JT would hava a majority, Harper wouldn't even be the opposition. Canadians have clearly had enough of "I've been very clear Mr. Speaker". They want somebody who can discuss issues without just re-hashing old wornout trumped up talking points. Even if you get a few umms in the process.

[Boges]

Umm, if there was a vote today, JT would hava a majority, Harper wouldn't even be the opposition. Canadians have clearly had enough of "I've been very clear Mr. Speaker". They want somebody who can discuss issues without just re-hashing old wornout trumped up talking points. Even if you get a few umms in the process.

There's a year. You going to be like this all year?

Polling has been wrong time and time again.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Boges

[waldo]

There's a year. You going to be like this all year?

how many years has it been... why were you like that all the time?

[Boges]

how many years has it been... why were you like that all the time?

Have I been predicting election results. I thought there was a thread for that already.

[waldo]

my bad! I thought you were one of those guys forever trumpeting the actual vote-splitting plurality as some alternate world "mega-majority"! Oh wait, you were! Carry on... and quit derailing this thread.

[Boges]

my bad! I thought you were one of those guys forever trumpeting the actual vote-splitting plurality as some alternate world "mega-majority"! Oh wait, you were! Carry on... and quit derailing this thread.

Only as big as the one's Chretien and was able to get.

And I wasn't the one commenting on Harper's performance during QP.

Civil Servants suck! There back on the rail.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Boges

[Moonbox]

Let's backtrack a bit. How did public servants get their sick leave? It didn't come all at once. It came year after year, decade after decade, in negotiations over contracts.

In a non-competitive environment, holding taxpayers hostage.

All those years, the unions accepted lower wage increases, or sometimes none, in exchange for better benefits.

Who cares? The benefits are worth real money and the overall compensation package for public servants is higher than the private sector (for similarly skilled people) WITH job security most private sector workers can only dream of.

Suddenly, the government is announcing its cancelling all that out of hand. It's not, of course, going to compensate public servants for all the money it saved by not increasing wages so many times in the past.

Good for the government. If the public sector isn't okay with this, they can go on strike. If they go on strike, they'll find once again that private sector workers aren't terribly sympathetic about paying higher taxes so public sector workers can live better than them. #golden pension

Edited September 15, 2014 by Moonbox

[cybercoma]

StatsCan's numbers are now unreliable. Because of Harper's cuts I'm told.

The census. Not the Labour Force Survey. And that doesn't mean they're useless, it means they have to be interpreted differently.

Edited September 15, 2014 by cybercoma

[Black Dog]

Excellent OP and many of the responses prove the point re: spite. To wit:

In a non-competitive environment, holding taxpayers hostage.


Who cares? The benefits are worth real money and the overall compensation package for public servants is higher than the private sector (for similarly skilled people) WITH job security most private sector workers can only dream of.


Good for the government. If the public sector isn't okay with this, they can go on strike. If they go on strike, they'll find once again that private sector workers aren't terribly sympathetic about paying higher taxes so public sector workers can live better than them. #golden pension

Race to the bottom indeed.

[Boges]

Race to the bottom indeed.

More like a business model that means you don't have to deal with competition allows the gumint to provide unrealistic perks. See firefighters retiring at 55 and LCBO clerks making $24/hour.

[Keepitsimple]

There was a time when there was a fair exchange of values. In exchange for wages that might not be as high as the private sector, Public employees would have more job security and a good pension. That fair exchange has gone to hell in a hand basket. Lets start turning around the Queen Mary and get back to that basic concept.

[Bob Macadoo]

In a non-competitive environment, holding taxpayers hostage.

Without a profit centre to show ability to pay. Unions hold you hostage no more than the PMO chief of staff holds you.....only difference is the gov't makes sure you know about the union.

Who cares? The benefits are worth real money and the overall compensation package for public servants is higher than the private sector (for similarly skilled people) WITH job security most private sector workers can only dream of.

Yes they are worth real money which was left on the table rather than take it in the past. Your argument is that th union should've taken the cash and ran? When you say higher compensation are you referring to professionals, trades or service personnel and do you have data to support this? Does a CPA at Revenue Canada make more or less than one privately? My private CPA friends seem quite well off.

Good for the government. If the public sector isn't okay with this, they can go on strike. If they go on strike, they'll find once again that private sector workers aren't terribly sympathetic about paying higher taxes so public sector workers can live better than them. #golden pension

You did know they are trying to reduce sick days to less than the private sector right?