Harper Government to crack down on public servants -- again

[Michael Hardner]

Nowhere but in the public service sector are the employees in a position to 'vote out' their bosses if they disagree with changes in their workplace and compensation. In the private sector, a worker's only option is to leave and try to find a different job. Public sector employees, however, probably control something like 25-35% of the overall vote (combine the % of the overall pop in the public service, add their spouses/voting-age children, assume for obvious reasons that almost all of them vote, and then compare that to voter turnout).

I find your posts on this topic to be informative, but I want to bring this debate up to date a little with the realities of the current workplace.

I work in many areas (sometimes called 'verticals') and in my experience, the changes in the labour market have made employee retention more important than ever. The idea that people have to quit to get a better situation may be somewhat true, however it doesn't mean that private sector management/employee relations are worse than government. In fact, my experience with people in both types of situations tell me - paradoxically - that people in union situations work in worse environments, from the point of view of the labour-management relationship.

[Argus]

So what, these are common in the private sector. What you did not include in that comment was telling. Where are the layoffs, industry wide closures, wage reductions found in the private sector when the economy founders?

But the biggest lie of all is the pay scale itself. A CR-4(very common clerical level in federal govt)position could lose roughly 40% of the starting salary for that level to get paid a private sector equivalent salary for the same work. Instead, there is blubbering about a 1% raise to a seriously overpaid position. Boo hoo.

Your posts reek of jealousy and bitterness. And you forget that while a plant can shut down and a store close, the federal government can't just decide it costs too much to take care of pensioners or enforce tax laws or provide passports or monitor goods and people entering and leaving the country. Nor can it fire thousands of people and move the jobs to a cheap foreign country like China or Pakistan. You also ignore the fact that most of those clerks are doing work far more complex and responsible than a generic private sector 'clerk' would be expected to deal with. When you compare 'public sector' with 'private sector' you're comparing an enormous and complex organization to everything under the sun, including every little mom and pop shop out there. It's simply not possible to make an accurate comparison of the numbers and duties under those circumstances.

[overthere]

Downsizing, restructuring and outsourcing are rampant in the public service at such times.

Oh you mean women should be underpaid, and men overpaid, in the public sector too, so they too can experience the inequity that pervades the private sector?

Aim higher.

.

Nope.

If you wish to peddle the misogyny and sexism meme, do it somewhere else. It has no place in this particualr discussion. Take your outrage elsewhere.

The issue I am raising regarding pay scale is between public and private sectors, for the same work.

The gulf is significant, and it is not because the private sector is underpaid.

The gulf is not consistent across all job types either, in some areas civil servants are paid equal to or less than comparable private sector jobs.

But not in the the vast number of clerical staff.

[jacee]

Nope.

If you wish to peddle the misogyny and sexism meme, do it somewhere else. It has no place in this particualr discussion. Take your outrage elsewhere.

The issue I am raising regarding pay scale is between public and private sectors, for the same work.

The gulf is significant, and it is not because the private sector is underpaid.

The gulf is not consistent across all job types either, in some areas civil servants are paid equal to or less than comparable private sector jobs.

But not in the the vast number of clerical staff.

I was referring to info in my previous post, that clarifies the exact issue you raise:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23929-harper-government-to-crack-down-on-public-servants-again/?p=996596

.

[Argus]

The gulf is not consistent across all job types either, in some areas civil servants are paid equal to or less than comparable private sector jobs. But not in the the vast number of clerical staff.

Some clerical positions are overpaid. No question about it. A lot of positions at higher levels are underpaid. No question.

I suppose in a way it's like much of income tax law, designed to minimize the differences between the university educated people up top and the high school educated people down below. The government committed itself many decades ago to pay a living wage even to its lowest paid workers. Clearly this is not something the Tea Party (aka, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business) approves of. Why, if that sort of thing caught on it might mean their members would have to pay higher wages and at least some benefits to their lowly workers!

But still, it's very hard to make exact comparisons between positions, especially clerical jobs. The title encompasses so many different variables in the government.

[Moonbox]

I think you have a different definition of the term 'fact' than I do.

Gee, you think? Your reasoning throughout this discussion has been based on nothing but selective application of fact. Your brainless/choosy interpretation of economic theory (as it applies to the public sector) shows us everything we need to know about how ignorant and/or delusional you are on the subject.

This is so laughably stupid I don't know why I even bother. It's paranoid looniness. By this the government should have been busily ingratiating themselves with public servants for decades,

Who said they weren't? We have enough examples over the last few decades of exactly what I'm describing to make it pretty obvious. Look at the transition from Trudeau/Mulroney spending to Chretien/Martin cuts, or David Peterson/Bob Rae deficits leading to the infamous Mike Harris. Yup, that's pure delusion! I completely made all of that up....

but as I've already pointed out, there have been long periods of wage freezes and below inflation raises.

Which unsurprisingly proves absolutely nothing. You provide these 'details' with no context or comparison to the private sector, suggesting somehow that these draconian wage freezes were happening while private sector wages were flourishing. They weren't. Oops!

And this government is hardly the first to get itself some free publicity by attacking public servants. In fact, it's pretty much a regular thing. The only area where annoying the public service can cost any seats if Ottawa, and it doesn't seem to be deterring Harper much.

Yeah, sure. It has nothing to do with federal finances or with public servants already being well paid and having superior benefits. It's just a bunch of mean-spirited political jerks out to score points...

By the way, federal public servants got a 1% wage increase this year.

What a travesty! Why don't you tell us how the private sector fared??

Remember how you like to quote economic theory in your arguments? Why don't we apply it to this nightmarish scenario of public sector wage freezes or below-inflation annual raises?

Here goes:

If wages/benefits in the public sector were rising too slowly and employees weren't satisfied with them, they would leave, right? They would find better paying jobs in the private sector, just like you suggested private sector workers would join the public sector if the reverse were true.

Unfortunately for you, my deluded friend, the public sector is not experiencing labor shortages (usually the exact opposite) and has far better employee retention rates. What this means, therefore, is that essentially EVERYTHING you said about labour economics as they pertain to the public sector was pure crap.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

The idea that people have to quit to get a better situation may be somewhat true, however it doesn't mean that private sector management/employee relations are worse than government. In fact, my experience with people in both types of situations tell me - paradoxically - that people in union situations work in worse environments, from the point of view of the labour-management relationship.

Michael all of this is essentially true, but there are a few pieces missing from the overall picture. To start, employee/manager relations are fundamentally different in union vs non-union work environments. I'd rather be brief about why, as this could spiral into another discussion entirely, but the basic principles are easily summarized.

A unionized (particularly public sector) workplace often leads to a an environment where management and employees are working towards opposite ends. When CBA's dictate automatic increases to compensation over time and outline minimum standards of performance, workers lose a lot of the incentive they would otherwise have to excel and to ingratiate themselves with their boss. They also cause increased retention of lousy/mediocre/toxic employees, as on the one hand they're harder to terminate and at the same time the prospect of increased pay over time makes them less likely to leave.

The managers, invariably, are tasked with the unenviable goal of increasing the efficiency and performance of their workers with little to motivate and encourage them with. Why would you accept the suggestion that you should work harder when you aren't going to rewarded for it and cannot be punished for not complying? You wouldn't. You're therefore often left with a dysfunctional workplace where managers are constantly berating employees (who aren't even listening) to improve their performance. It's easy to see how this sort of dynamic would lead to miserable manager/employee relations.

The worst part is that this sort of friction festers and worsens over time and eventually becomes toxic. By the time a new CBA needs to be signed, you have miserable employees negotiating with frustrated and pissed off managers that probably hate each other. It's no surprise that this process ends up being antagonistic.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Moonbox

[Peter F]

"When CBA's dictate automatic increases to compensation over time and outline minimum standards of performance, workers lose a lot of the incentive they would otherwise have to excel and to ingratiate themselves with their boss. "

Incentive to ingratiate myself with my boss? Why would I aim to ingratiate myself with my boss? My work is proof of my value to the boss not wether I wash his car during my lunch-break or coo sweet-nothings into his ear or make him godfather of my children.

Y'see, this is why there are unions.

I am curious what union contract sets out minimum performance standards. I suggest that no contracts set out minimum performance standards. Such minimum standards are set by management and not the union. No doubt - at least I would hope - some consultation with the union takes place but such minimum performance standards full under managements 'right to manage'. They are set by upper managers so that the lower managers know wether they are whipping the work force enough - not too much so's they all quit or get destructive - and not too little so as nothing gets done. Minimum performance standards are entirly for managers to determine wether they are managing effectively. That is not the purvue of the Union nor the employee. They perform to whatever level management wants them to. Or quit. or get destructive.

They also cause increased retention of lousy/mediocre/toxic employees, as on the one hand they're harder to terminate and at the same time the prospect of increased pay over time makes them less likely to leave.

Increased retention of lousy /toxic employees is entirely 100% managements responsibility - not the unions. If lousy or toxic employees are being retained its because managment is too chickenshit to fire them.

When such employee's actually do get fired (as happens from time to time) the union cannot stop the sacking. They employee is sacked no matter what the union does. The only thing a union can do is appeal the sacking to an arbitrator somewhere and let managment account for thier decision to them. Either the sacking will be upheld or it wont. The union has no power to stop any manager from sacking anyone.

I left out mediocre employees...why would they be sacked? y'see thats why there are unions.

The managers, invariably, are tasked with the unenviable goal of increasing the efficiency and performance of their workers with little to motivate and encourage them with

Bunk. Pay encourages them. Bonus's encourage them. Praise encourages them. Discipline encourages them. Sackings encourage them.

company BBQ's encourage them. Recognition encourages them.

Why would you accept the suggestion that you should work harder when you aren't going to rewarded for it and cannot be punished for not complying?

Why isnt the worker going to be rewarded? I think its entirely within managements power to reward employees for good performance. Management does not need to seek union permission for this. Nor will there be found a clause in the contract for this. Managers now get to

use thier brains .

I would go on but my essential point is this: Moonboxs post is another example of management refusal to take responsibility for thier own failures in management.

Cant get the trooops motivated? Unions fault.

Cant sack lousy employees? Unions fault

Cant get employees to ingratiate themselves to managemnt? Unions fault

Cant get employees to excel? Unions fault.

ad nauseum

[Guest]

I can only speak for the union I was in, of course, but the most infuriating thing about belonging to it was exactly that I couldn't be rewarded for working harder, (in fact, the union discouraged it) and no one was punished for hardly working at all.

[Moonbox]

Incentive to ingratiate myself with my boss? Why would I aim to ingratiate myself with my boss?

Too dumb of a question to answer. Also, 'ingratiate' doesn't mean the same thing as be his/her bi***.

Bunk. Pay encourages them. Bonus's encourage them. Praise encourages them. Discipline encourages them. Sackings encourage them.

If you're talking about the private sector, sure. Since we weren't, then no, because the public sector CBA's make it difficult/impossible to offer much of what you just mentioned. I guess you missed the whole part about promotion/pay raises by seniority, rather than exceptional work.

I can only speak for the union I was in, of course, but the most infuriating thing about belonging to it was exactly that I couldn't be rewarded for working harder, (in fact, the union discouraged it) and no one was punished for hardly working at all.

A fairly common complaint for union workers themselves, let alone the people who pay them.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Moonbox

[Peter F]

I guess you missed the whole part about promotion/pay raises by seniority, rather than exceptional work.

I guess you have no idea how the public sector promotes. It ain't by seniority.

[Moonbox]

I guess you have no idea how the public sector promotes. It ain't by seniority.

Wait, they don't offer things like automatic pay raises based on years worked? Really?

At the five-year rate, an elementary teacher at the Waterloo Region District School Board is earning $66,893 and according to Johnson, that puts teachers at the 75th percentile — meaning only 25 per cent of Canadians earn more than them. At the 10-year rate, a teacher earns $88,759.

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

Even better, from a 30-second Google search, I was able to bring up a relatively recent CBA negotiated by the Public Service Alliance of Canada:

41.01 Seniority shall be a prime factor applied in determining preference for promotions, transfers,

lay-off and recall.

http://www.neu.ca/sites/all/themes/employee/pdfs/ca/gjoa_haven_hamlet.pdf

So basically we can say that you're completely full of crap. Got it.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Moonbox

[Argus]

Gee, you think? Your reasoning throughout this discussion has been based on nothing but

Facts and experience, while yours seems entirely based on bitterness and resentment that other folks, mostly better educated and skilled, earn higher wages than you do.

Yeah, sure. It has nothing to do with federal finances or with public servants already being well paid and having superior benefits. It's just a bunch of mean-spirited political jerks out to score points...

Correct, with ignorant, resentful people.

The facts (and PBO) support my position. This is not going to save them money.

What a travesty! Why don't you tell us how the private sector fared??

The average pay increase for non-unionized employees is projected to be 2.9 per cent next year, almost exactly in line with actual gains in 2013,

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/press/newsrelease/13-10-22/canadian_workers_can_expect_a_third_year_of_modest_salary_increases_in_2014.aspx

If wages/benefits in the public sector were rising too slowly and employees weren't satisfied with them, they would leave, right? They would find better paying jobs in the private sector, just like you suggested private sector workers would join the public sector if the reverse were true.

Correct, and we see that happening more and more as the Conservatives have attacked pay and benefits. The pension/benefits scheme used to be termed the golden handcuffs, keeping talented skilled people on where they could earn more because of the accrued benefits and job security. If those no longer apply then more and more people will be leaving for greener pastures, increasing turnover and decreasing institutional knowledge.

Unfortunately for you, my deluded friend, the public sector is not experiencing labor shortages

Nor is the local football team. You can always find bodies to fill your roster. That doesn't mean they'll be very good at what they do.

[Argus]

Wait, they don't offer things like automatic pay raises based on years worked? Really?

Which makes perfect sense. My first year using the SAP system to do things like pay bills and create purchase orders and requisitions I was slow and made a lot of mistakes and had to constantly go back and fix them. After I'd been doing the job for several years I found that I was getting bored because I didn't have enough work to do. Why didn't I? The size of our directorate had grown over that period so I was actually paying more bills but my skills had grown faster. I had to take on additional new purchasing duties to help fill my time. I recall having to reverse a document at one point and having trouble remembering how to do that. LOL. It had been so long since I'd made that kind of mistake, you see...

I was also, by that point, someone who could help out other newer employees, and advise management on policies and regulations. I was, in other words, a far more valuable and productive employee, and the employer, in recognition of this, paid me a little more money to keep me in that position.

Even better, from a 30-second Google search, I was able to bring up a relatively recent CBA negotiated by the Public Service Alliance of Canada:

So basically we can say that you're completely full of crap. Got it.

I've never seen a notice which spoke about seniority. Maybe they do things differently in Nunavut. Or maybe this is simply a continuation of an existing agreement the "Hamlet" had with their employees. I can certainly vouch for the fact there is nothing like that in the collective agreement the UTE has with CRA. You get promoted (except in temporary acting situations) by having the necessary demonstrated levels of experience and knowledge, and by passing tests and interviews, then being drawn from a pool. Edited September 22, 2014 by Argus

[The_Squid]

I think Moonbox is confusing a raise with a promotion.

One can get a raise without being promoted, and raises are automatic in the Federal civil service up until you reach the top of your category.

Civil servants aren't promoted, as far as I know. They have to compete for all positions. (unless you are high up in management ranks, then you can be appointed by the government, but these positions are rare).

[Argus]

A unionized (particularly public sector) workplace often leads to a an environment where management and employees are working towards opposite ends.

The only experience I have with this is employees working to do the job properly, and managers working to suck up to their superiors in order to make themselves look good.

For example, after doing a job for five years, I knew it backwards and forwards. Got a new manager coming in, one of those onward and upward types. She didn't know crap about anything, and wasn't interested in learning. She'd look at you with these glassy, fish eyes, like there was nobody there when you spoke, and then completely ignore whatever you said. Insisted we record all use of funds in Excel sheets and send them to her every week! I tried to point out that all that was recorded in the SAP system and contained in the monthly budget reports we produced. She didn't care. So we had to change our procedures, and add a new layer of time-consuming documentation so she could have these reports and file them. Why? Because first she didn't understand the SAP system and considered it beneath her to learn. Second, she wanted to list a 'new reporting regimen' as one of her accomplishments on her yearly review, and third wanted to have done it to cover her enormous ass in case any sort of discrepancy occurred. Not that the excel sheets (which she never looked at) would have informed her of anything, but she could have claimed that she'd made strenuous efforts at improving financial reporting!

Within one year of her taking over every single person under her had left, the clerks, the junior managers, the team leaders. EVERYONE! The administration group was in chaos, half the employees were temps, and she wound up being forcibly relocated to another branch -- where she got promoted a short while later.

But that probably doesn't mesh with your Tea Party Employees bad! Bosses Good! beliefs, huh?

[guyser]

yes. So? whats odd unusual about that?

Versus the private sector, lots, as in there really isnt a limit for them. The govt almost nevers holds out like the private sector do.

All in all, there is a largesse available in the govt sector.

[Peter F]

Lordy you're hopeless...

At the five-year rate, an elementary teacher at the Waterloo Region District School Board is earning $66,893 and according to Johnson, that puts teachers at the 75th percentile — meaning only 25 per cent of Canadians earn more than them. At the 10-year rate, a teacher earns $88,759.

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

Who runs the Waterloo Region District Schoolboard? Hint: its not the Treasury Board of Canada.

Are the employees of the above mentioned school board Federal Public Servants?

Even better, from a 30-second Google search, I was able to bring up a relatively recent CBA negotiated by the Public Service Alliance of Canada:

41.01 Seniority shall be a prime factor applied in determining preference for promotions, transfers,

lay-off and recall.

http://www.neu.ca/sites/all/themes/employee/pdfs/ca/gjoa_haven_hamlet.pdf

So basically we can say that you're completely full of crap. Got it.

Who runs the Hamlet of Gjoa Havn? Hint: its not the Treasury Board of Canada

Are the employees of the above community Federal Public Servants?

Edited September 22, 2014 by Peter F

[overthere]

The pension/benefits scheme used to be termed the golden handcuffs, keeping talented skilled people on where they could earn more because of the accrued benefits and job security.

Good point, and a compelling reason to terminate the extremely plump and overly generous benefit and defined benefit pension schemes enjoyed only by the public sector. We can begin by moving to a defined contribution plan

We just cannot afford your excellence any more.

[Moonbox]

Facts and experience, while yours seems entirely based on bitterness and resentment that other folks, mostly better educated and skilled, earn higher wages than you do.

You're not offering facts. You're offering self-serving testimonials and brainless contradictions of economic theory which an ECON 101 student can thoroughly debunk. Where I've been providing links from a variety of sources (media, academic, actual CBA's etc), you've done nothing but natter on about how much smarter and more educated the Elite Public Servant class is (which ironically you belong/belonged to) and how horribly downtrodden its members are despite virtually all objective comparisons suggesting otherwise.

Your delusions go even further, however, as you've now made the farcical conclusion that my criticism of the public service stems merely from jealousy. After embarrassing yourself trying to discuss economics and failing to provide meaningful facts and comparisons for your position, you've neatly and conveniently bundled all of my arguments thus far as the jealous ranting of an uneducated private sector plebe.

I could similarly say that your defence of the public sector is the self-serving tantrum of an overpaid career bureaucrat with a lousy liberal arts degree. Maybe you're just worried that everyone will find out that data-entry positions are easily and cheaply replaced!?

The facts (and PBO) support my position. This is not going to save them money.

The PBO did NOT support your position. It merely stated that federal sick leave benefits don't lead to incremental costs, since there is little/no allowance in the budget to provide relief for absent employees. This is not an endorsement or condemnation either way in regards to productivity.

But in most cases, the report said, federal employees who call in sick are not replaced, resulting in no additional cost to taxpayers over and above regular public servant salaries.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/pbo-report-finds-no-incremental-costs-to-federal-civil-service-sick-leave-267312151.html

The average pay increase for non-unionized employees is projected to be 2.9 per cent next year, almost exactly in line with actual gains in 2013,

From your OWN link:

The expected increase in the private sector is three per cent, while the average increase for employees in the public sector is expected to be 2.7 per cent.

When you take into account that public sector wages have risen significantly faster over the last ~15 years than private sector ones, this doesn't appear to be the crime you're suggesting it is.

Correct, and we see that happening more and more as the Conservatives have attacked pay and benefits.

Are we seeing this? Do you have any numbers to back that up, or are you just providing more testimonials?

The pension/benefits scheme used to be termed the golden handcuffs, keeping talented skilled people on where they could earn more because of the accrued benefits and job security.

It's usually termed, derisively, as the golden pension by us private-sector normals.

If those no longer apply then more and more people will be leaving for greener pastures, increasing turnover and decreasing institutional knowledge.

Yes, but this statement would imply that there are actually greener pastures for these folks and only further highlights your sad logic. Reducing benefits to "fantastic" from "insane" wouldn't lead to the mass exodus you're implying. There comes a point in time where it becomes clear the net marginal return on benefit spending is negative.

Nor is the local football team. You can always find bodies to fill your roster. That doesn't mean they'll be very good at what they do.

The football team can replace players with poor attitudes and mediocre performance. The public sector gives them regular wage and benefit increases.

[Moonbox]

The only experience I have with this is employees working to do the job properly, and managers working to suck up to their superiors in order to make themselves look good.

For example, after doing a job for five years, I knew it backwards and forwards. Got a new manager coming in, one of those onward and upward types. She didn't know crap about anything, and wasn't interested in learning. She'd look at you with these glassy, fish eyes, like there was nobody there when you spoke, and then completely ignore whatever you said. Insisted we record all use of funds in Excel sheets and send them to her every week! I tried to point out that all that was recorded in the SAP system and contained in the monthly budget reports we produced. She didn't care. So we had to change our procedures, and add a new layer of time-consuming documentation so she could have these reports and file them. Why? Because first she didn't understand the SAP system and considered it beneath her to learn. Second, she wanted to list a 'new reporting regimen' as one of her accomplishments on her yearly review, and third wanted to have done it to cover her enormous ass in case any sort of discrepancy occurred. Not that the excel sheets (which she never looked at) would have informed her of anything, but she could have claimed that she'd made strenuous efforts at improving financial reporting!

Within one year of her taking over every single person under her had left, the clerks, the junior managers, the team leaders. EVERYONE! The administration group was in chaos, half the employees were temps, and she wound up being forcibly relocated to another branch -- where she got promoted a short while later.

This long, boring and useless testimonial can be summarized as follows:

One time I had a lousy boss that was horrible to work for.

95% of people who've ever had a job could discuss a similar experience.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

Lordy you're hopeless...

Who runs the Waterloo Region District Schoolboard? Hint: its not the Treasury Board of Canada.

Are the employees of the above mentioned school board Federal Public Servants?

Who runs the Hamlet of Gjoa Havn? Hint: its not the Treasury Board of Canada

Are the employees of the above community Federal Public Servants?

What does the Treasury Board have to do with my comment? The statement of yours that I quoted and responded to was:

I guess you have no idea how the public sector promotes. It ain't by seniority.

It took me a 30 seconds on Google to find two examples that prove you're totally clueless. Do you have any more goof statements to make, or do you want to embarrass yourself more?

[The_Squid]

What does the Treasury Board have to do with my comment? The statement of yours that I quoted and responded to was:

It took me a 30 seconds on Google to find two examples that prove you're totally clueless. Do you have any more goof statements to make, or do you want to embarrass yourself more?

The thread is about federal civil servants. I'm quite certain that's who Peter F was referring to when he stated that they are not promoted by seniority. And that's true.

So finding a reference to city employees is irrelevant.

[overthere]

Within one year of her taking over every single person under her had left, the clerks, the junior managers, the team leaders. EVERYONE! The administration group was in chaos, half the employees were temps, and she wound up being forcibly relocated to another branch -- where she got promoted a short while later.

That is without question a public service story.

[Moonbox]

The thread is about federal civil servants. I'm quite certain that's who Peter F was referring to when he stated that they are not promoted by seniority. And that's true.

Except nothing that he was quoting me for saying had anything specifically to do with the federal public service. I made it very clear what I was talking about. Good on you for trying to help bail out a bro though.