Harper Government to crack down on public servants -- again

[Argus]

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.

I'd say, chances are you don't know what you're talking about. And would ask if you'd want to do their job.

[scribblet]

Accumulated sick days are a liability to the company, but this is a move other public companies are taking now. Toronto did away with it for new employees in 2009. There has been too much abuse of these sick days which is why the Ont. gov't ended the banking of sick days, so this isn't something new to the CPC.

[cybercoma]

The government is now suddenly a "public company"?

[Argus]

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.

SOME federal employees abuse the benefits. SOME people abuse ALL benefits, unemployment, disability, welfare, health care, you name it. If the government has a benefit SOME people will abuse it. Have efforts been made to halt the abuse? Not that I'm aware of. Does this abuse pose a heavy financial burden on the government? According to the PBO it does not.

What's the problem with reducing it to something more in line with private sector benefits.

What does that mean '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.....

You have to demonstrate you're sick for anything beyond two days. And if you take time off too often your manager can demand a doctor's notice for even one day off.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

In a non-competitive environment, holding taxpayers hostage.

Really? There hasn't been a national strike in I don't know how long, and the government can, as has been amply demonstrated, both legislate people back to work immediately, and retroactively change their already signed collective agreements. Just how is you see the government as helpless before the unions?

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.

Job security doesn't seem to be much in vogue with the federal government lately. As to the higher level than the private sector, I would ask you to define the private sector. Are you including, say, janitors and retail store clerks, the people who work in fast food restaurants and security guards? The private sector includes a lot of very low skilled, low education jobs, none of them unionized.

Because the public service doesn't have any non-skilled positions. It has a very high rate of jobs needing either university degrees or a lot of experience in them or both. And while it's true that some lower level staff, principally clerks, earn higher rates of compensation than in the 'private sector' it's also true there are an awful lot of higher level people in the public service earning less than their private sector counterparts.

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

Maybe they live better because they have a higher level of education, have more skills, and have put more years into work. Their pensions are FAR from golden, either, any more than their benefits are.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Argus

[Peter F]

'mental health days' ? 15 days annually?

I call bullshit

[Argus]

Accumulated sick days are a liability to the company, but this is a move other public companies are taking now. Toronto did away with it for new employees in 2009. There has been too much abuse of these sick days which is why the Ont. gov't ended the banking of sick days, so this isn't something new to the CPC.

This was pretty much dispelled by the Parliamentary Budget Officer in the cite I posted. This costs the government very, very little.

[jacee]

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

They lose, you lose.

As black dog says, you are getting sucked into joining the race to the bottom.

If you "dream of" those benefits, you should support any workers who can get them as they set an example, a standard for private sector workers to try to achieve.

They lose, you lose more.

.

[Argus]

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.

This is just a rant with no facts behind it. The government wanted to set an example by being a good employer and paying a liveable wage even to its lowest level employees. It also wanted to achieve low turnover, including providing 'golden handcuffs' to its more experienced mid to high level public workers to prevent them from deserting them for greener (higher paying) private sector pastures. Nobody wonders why the best private sector organizations like Google try to provide really great benefits and working conditions to their employees. Why should everyone wonder when the government does it?

Of course, over the past twenty years, and particularly over the past ten years, the attraction of working for the government has diminished. The work environment is poisonous, often mind-numbingly boring, (soul destroying one person put it), and rarely provides anything so esoteric as job satisfaction. And as pensions, pay and other benefits have been cut back and working conditions grown harsher a lot of talented people have left the government. That's why, when a government regulatory agency tries to impose fines or penalties on a company it's a near certainty the people opposing them who work for the company came from that same regulatory agency, and know all the ins and outs and regulatory requirements as well as, and often better than their government counterparts. CRA has a hard time retaining a lot of its better tax professionals because they get lured to the private sector by much higher wages and benefits and much better working conditions. The government is continually hiring outside consultants and lawyers because such people refuse to work for the lousy wages and under the stifling working conditions which now permeate the government.

[jacee]

dp

Edited September 16, 2014 by jacee

[Bryan]

This was pretty much dispelled by the Parliamentary Budget Officer in the cite I posted. This costs the government very, very little.

The PBO is full of it. It costs a lot, because the staffing levels need to be kept at a level that allows for those people to routinely not be at work, and not actually be missed. Taxpayers are paying for salaries and benefits for people who would not even be needed if the other employees actually had realisitc work expectations.

[Peter F]

The PBO is full of it. It costs a lot, because the staffing levels need to be kept at a level that allows for those people to routinely not be at work, and not actually be missed. Taxpayers are paying for salaries and benefits for people who would not even be needed if the other employees actually had realisitc work expectations.

You mean in the private sector, everyone comes to work every day no matter what?

[Moonbox]

Really? There hasn't been a national strike in I don't know how long, and the government can, as has been amply demonstrated, both legislate people back to work immediately, and retroactively change their already signed collective agreements. Just how is you see the government as helpless before the unions?

There hasn't been any strikes because the government has generally been compliant. The government (and subsequently taxpayers) negotiate from a position of weakness because a disruption of services often has an EXTREMELY negative impact on the average person's life. There's also an enormous public sector union lobby who, as we saw in the recent Ontario election, can throw millions of dollars for or against political candidates.

As to the higher level than the private sector, I would ask you to define the private sector. Are you including, say, janitors and retail store clerks, the people who work in fast food restaurants and security guards? The private sector includes a lot of very low skilled, low education jobs, none of them unionized.

Read my post again. Equally skilled workers, on average, have significantly better compensation in the public sector than the private sector. A high school educated front-desk clerk makes a fortune more than a high-school educated fry cook.

Because the public service doesn't have any non-skilled positions. It has a very high rate of jobs needing either university degrees or a lot of experience in them or both.

It has tons of non-skilled positions. It also has tons of low-skilled positions where an ubiquitous 3-4 year university degree (doesn't matter in what) is enough to land them a $60,000+ compensation packages right out of university if you have a family member in the public sector already. Go look up the average pay of a recent university grad. I dare you.

And while it's true that some lower level staff, principally clerks, earn higher rates of compensation than in the 'private sector' it's also true there are an awful lot of higher level people in the public service earning less than their private sector counterparts.

Some lower level staff actually means virtually all lower and even mid level staff. While it's true that a very small percentage of the top earners in the private sector may make more than their public sector counterparts, they generally got there by being highly successful at their jobs in a competitive industry, rather simply being there a long time in a non-competitive industry where you have to do something REALLY stupid to lose your job.

Maybe they live better because they have a higher level of education, have more skills, and have put more years into work. Their pensions are FAR from golden, either, any more than their benefits are.

Like I said, similar education and similar skill sets are paid better in the public sector. The starting salary of a teacher, for example, was significantly better than the starting salary of a university grad (~5-10,000/year better) and most of them only had to complete a farcically easy 1 year program. That's a return on investment of a few years on the cost of their education and the compensation package skyrockets over a short period of time. After 10 years, that pathetic 1 year teacher's certificate qualifies them for a $90,000 salary. I challenge you to find any industry anywhere in the private sector that pays $90,000 a year to the average long-term worker with 5 years of education. Please. Try. While you're at it, look up the average earnings of a lawyer (with 7 years education) in the private sector.

[Moonbox]

If you "dream of" those benefits, you should support any workers who can get them as they set an example, a standard for private sector workers to try to achieve.

They lose, you lose more.

The average private sector worker can't hope to achieve similar pay/benefits because they would drive their company out of business. Good thing the government can't go out of business!

If the average person COULD get a job in the public sector then they would. Unfortunately, it's extremely difficult to do so for a host of reasons.

[waldo]

The average private sector worker can't hope to achieve similar pay/benefits because they would drive their company out of business. Good thing the government can't go out of business!

I've worked in both... benefits were on par and my private pension return was better (as the employer matched contributions on a higher rate basis).

[Moonbox]

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

They're trying to eliminate the banking of sick days, which is a ludicrous concept in the private sector. They're also trying to curb the rampant abuse of sick day usage in the public sector. BTW, what's the 'sick days' average in the private sector and public sector right now?

[jacee]

The starting salary of a teacher, for example, was significantly better than the starting salary of a university grad (~5-10,000/year better) and most of them only had to complete a farcically easy 1 year program. That's a return on investment of a few years on the cost of their education and the compensation package skyrockets over a short period of time. After 10 years, that pathetic 1 year teacher's certificate qualifies them for a $90,000 salary.

Link?

[Moonbox]

I've worked in both... benefits were on par and my private pension return was better (as the employer matched contributions on a higher rate basis).

One person's testimonial. Good for you.

Let's talk big picture though.

[Moonbox]

Link?

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/2619721-nothing-middle-class-about-teachers-salaries-prof-says/

[waldo]

One person's testimonial. Good for you.

Let's talk big picture though.

my one person testimonial is... more than you provided.

[Moonbox]

my one person testimonial is... more than you provided.

Check the link right above your post.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Moonbox

[waldo]

Check the link right above your post.

written before I saw your post... in any case, if you/anyone presumes to want to speak to your referenced 'big picture', some agreed to comparative/representative public-to-private wage scale must be defined. What does your linked reference to "middle-class" and teachers shifting in & out of it (whatever "middle class" actually means in terms of wages), have to do with a representative public/private wage comparison?

[Moonbox]

written before I saw your post... in any case, if you/anyone presumes to want to speak to your referenced 'big picture', some agreed to comparative/representative public-to-private wage scale must be defined.

Yes, I agree.

What does your linked reference to "middle-class" and teachers shifting in & out of it (whatever "middle class" actually means in terms of wages), have to do with a representative public/private wage comparison?

Well why don't we define that. I'll be going to bed shortly, but maybe for tomorrow we can compare the starting and 10 year wage of an average university grad to the starting and 10 year pay of a teacher (who's only done 1 extra year of school).If we can find another ~5 year program with similar requirements for academic achievement (ie. Teacher's college < Masters of Engineering) then we can look at that too?

[Bob Macadoo]

Well why don't we define that. I'll be going to bed shortly, but maybe for tomorrow we can compare the starting and 10 year wage of an average university grad to the starting and 10 year pay of a teacher (who's only done 1 extra year of school).If we can find another ~5 year program with similar requirements for academic achievement (ie. Teacher's college < Masters of Engineering) then we can look at that too?

How can you select a general graduate? Trained discipline professional comparison. Picking a BA grad who's selling vacuum s door to door is hardly a comparison. Pick BBA in a business job, BComp in a software company, etc.

[scribblet]

This was pretty much dispelled by the Parliamentary Budget Officer in the cite I posted. This costs the government very, very little.

It is an unfunded liability, and also results in higher absenteeism, if they don't fill the position with a temp then I suppose it wouldn't cost them much more except on retirement - if they can cash them out. If they can't cash them out then it's not as huge a liability, does anyone know if they can? Toronto, various public utilities and teachers got similar sick day accumulation are or where paid up to 6 months on retirement. Teachers got a year. If you had more accumulated it was gone, but it's a nice chunk of non taxable change if rolled right over into an RRSP.

Teachers in Ontario have fewer days to bank now and cannot accumulate, Toronto made similar changes but the garbage men won that strike I believe and get to continue accumulating and cashing out. It's an entitlement that is gradually being phased out. The one thing I don't like is the unpaid seven days before the disability kicks in, that's too long. Maybe they could get say 7 sick days a year which can be used prior to the disability if needed.