Harper Government to crack down on public servants -- again

[Argus]

I couldn't manage high school econ? Good one! It's no surprise you haven't clued in by now what my undergrad and post-grad were. After you embarrassed yourself trying to apply standard economic theory to public sector unions (which, I promise you every ECON textbook in North America explains you can't do), your only defence since then has been to bluster incompetently and call me uneducated.

And bitter. But if your economic knowledge doesn't extend far enough to understand how higher wages and benefits attract better workers then I'd suggest you try and get your money back.

Talk about selectively picking your facts! Not only did you completely misrepresent what it said (it merely stated expenses went down for the 1991-1998 time period),

There was a long period of wage freezes during that time period.

you also conveniently (and purposely) excluded the IMMEDIATELY following statement:

Since then, however, the public service has more than made up for lost time and has reached new heights in terms of number of workers and compensation.

Between 1999 and 2012, personnel costs per employee — or full-time equivalent using government terminology — rose by an average 5.1 per cent annually, more than twice the 2.1 per cent average annual inflation rate.

I suppose it depends on what years you select for your figures and how you interpret them. If you look at the wage data in the PBO's report this year you'll read the following:

Wage data from the Receiver General show that straight time civilian pay grew more than 68% over the period of interest. After controlling

for inflation and growth in the population of the CPA, the real wage growth is approximately 17% over a 10-year period, in 2012 dollars.

http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/files/files/Sick%20Leave%20EN.pdf

So after a long period of wage restraint public service wages grew 1.7% per year over the rate of inflation. Not exactly highway robbery, and more likely just making up wages eaten up by inflation during the wage freeze period.

So while you lament the tragic 1% pay increases federal public servants are earning this year,

And last year, and I believe it was 1.5% the previous two years...

The Nordic economic model doesn't succeed by overpaying its public servants. Indeed, it went to great lengths to reduce out of control entitlements in the 1990's and came out much better for it. The Nordic model succeeds due to an overall goal of promoting equality, workforce participation and opportunities for social mobility. Excessive public sector entitlements directly conflict with this.

What you call 'excessive public sector entitlements' aren't even as good as non-unionized people get in the Nordic countries.

A really dumb red-herring. Nobody said high school drop-outs were earning $114,000/year in overall compensation in the public service. The question is rather why the average federal public servant (only ~50% of whom are even university educated), earns an average of $114,000 per year in compensation.

That's a good question. But I think you need to look at what's behind the numbers. Generally, compensation is equal to about 30% more atop wages. The vast majority of public sector civilian employees earn between $45-$60k. Those are clerks up to junior program officers or lower level management and administrators (PM-2s and AS-2s). Above that you would have program and project officers, senior program and project officers and management types, as well as lawyers, doctors, scientists, etc. Then again, the figure the PBO is using includes the Canadian Armed Forces. Pay for a lieutenant in the CAF goes from $70-$92k. Corporal (the main enlisted rank) is about $60-$70k, and you get more for specialties. I would assume their benefits are probably better than what the public service generally gets. His figure also includes the RCMP ($82,000 after three years) which also get a lot of benefits the civilian public service doesn't get.

[Argus]

Ok, but the fact remains is if one says white, and evidence is proferred that its black....I guess that 'means nothing of the sort'

Except I've never said white in the first place. Have I ever argued that the public service was worse paid than the private sector?

Thats funny, because I took that job posting right off the Public Service website. Why would a contractor have access to that to post jobs?

When I worked at the Macleod street museum there were about 25 of us contracted guards working on the floors, directing people, etc., and two or three actual government security guards. They didn't do the same stuff at all. I'm not entirely certain what they did, though they were responsible for the alarm systems and building integrity, which included making sure nobody shipped art works out the back door, or nobody did anything to the alarms in the day which would make them not function come closing hours, among other things (inspecting accessible wires and contacts for example).

Sun Life may have lower expectations, however they too are most concerned with mitigating errors vis a vis the equivalent of SIN #'s -contract numbers and employee benefits numbers, and addresses.

You see.....I work in insurance and know what I am talking about. The difference is I dont project my experiences as anything better than anyone else.

Can you say the same?

You work in insurance. Do you do data entry? Have you done data entry? I am speaking directly about the job and how it functioned. BDS was not overly concerned with error rates. They were a sweatshop outfit that wanted records pushed out. So we entered the numbers, most of them for prescription drugs, and what probably happened was any larger numbers were validated behind the scenes by someone else. If a prescription was 8.75 and entered as 7.85 I don't think they really cared. Chances are for every dollar they lost through that sort of error they'd gain another anyway.

So yes, I would 'project my experience' of doing data entry for the government and sun life as being better than someone who hadn't done data entry. Just as I would 'project my experience' working in various positions in the public service over someone who hadn't worked in the public service.

I don't think that's being all that arrogant, just realistic.

[Moonbox]

And bitter. But if your economic knowledge doesn't extend far enough to understand how higher wages and benefits attract better workers then I'd suggest you try and get your money back.

With that type of brain-dead logic we might as well pay the average public servant $300,000/year, because then we'd get even BETTER workers and every single extra dollar spent would be well worth it in increased productivity. The same logic works for your lowly burger-flippers. A $30/hr burger flipper would make THREE TIMES as many burgers (or burgers that were 3x as delicious) right? Yep, your theory is TOTALLY sound!

So after a long period of wage restraint public service wages grew 1.7% per year over the rate of inflation. Not exactly highway robbery, and more likely just making up wages eaten up by inflation during the wage freeze period.

Nice try. The 13 year increase from 1999-2012 was 5.1 annually, or 2.1% higher than inflation. Only going back to 2002 might give you a slightly better number to quote us, but that's just being selective with your data points. As for 'making up' for wage freezes, the math doesn't support that conclusion, nor does the PBO. Six years of wage freezes in the 1991-1997 period (at ~2% average inflation) would have been more than made up for by 2005. Any increases beyond that were pure gravy. All of this ignores the fact, however, that the original wage freezes in the 90's were a result of out of control public spending in the first place.

And last year, and I believe it was 1.5% the previous two years...

Poor dears! It seems you've forgotten already how it was an average of 5.1% for 13 years up until 2012...also that the average compensation is $114,000/year. That's SO tough!

What you call 'excessive public sector entitlements' aren't even as good as non-unionized people get in the Nordic countries.

The average Scandinavian doesn't earn $114,000/year like the average Canadian federal public servant does. I can tell you conclusively that they don't earn anything even CLOSE.

The vast majority of public sector civilian employees earn between $45-$60k. Those are clerks up to junior program officers or lower level management and administrators (PM-2s and AS-2s).

Sorry to abbreviate that large and mostly useless wall of text but I wanted to take this point from it and do a little exercise in logic with you, using numbers we have and statements you've made throughout this thread:

1) The AVERAGE federal public servant earns $114,000/year in compensation according to the PBO.

2) The vast majority of public servants, according to you, are clerks, administrators, junior program officers and low-level management.

3) The federal public service, underpays its high-level and technically experienced staff.

If the above is true (and it's coming from your own mouth and/or the PBO), then our average public servant makes $114,000/year and the vast majority of them are clerks, administrators, junior program officers and low-level management. What's more is that since the senior staff is underpaid, we can also conclude that this is NOT a matter of the top earners skewing the averages upwards like we see in the private sector. That brings us to the pretty safe conclusion that the average public servant is grossly overpaid.

Thank you for proving my point for me.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Moonbox

[The_Squid]

$114,000/yr is not the average wage of a federal civil servant.

[jacee]

... then our average public servant makes $114,000/year ...

That's ridiculous.

.

[jacee]

... then our average public servant makes $114,000/year ...

That's ridiculous.

.

[overthere]

There always have been. You fixate on clerks and ignore the fact there are tons of people in the public service with complex, in-depth knowledge of government regulatory frameworks and policies which the private sector very much likes to hire away. You also forget, in your fixation on clerks, that the higher ups very often make less than in the private sector, not more.

Your funniest post yet, in a thread full of howlers.

In reality, having extended government service on a resume for a managerial or clerical worker would most likely result in the application for employment being binned forthwith. Public sector workers know that this reality- that unless they have specific technical skills- they need to cling to their jobs like rabid wolverines to a rotting corpse.

You're better off with 'ten years in prison' on your CV than 'ten years with increasing resposnsibilities with PWGSC'.

Edited September 26, 2014 by overthere

[Moonbox]

$114,000/yr is not the average wage of a federal civil servant.

It's not their average salary, but it's the average cost of their compensation with their benefits included. Those numbers are from the PBO, not my head, so I suggest you take them up with his office.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Moonbox

[The_Squid]

It's not their average salary, but it's the average cost of their compensation with their benefits included. Those numbers are from the PBO, not my head, so I suggest you take them up with his office.

I know that... but you stated that's what they make.

then our average public servant makes $114,000/year

Simply not true.

[Smallc]

It actually is rather true. Your compensation (what you make) is noy just your salary.

[Peter F]

Interesting concept. So does my compensation include the pension I don't collect? The health insurance I don't use? The company car I don't have?

[The_Squid]

Interesting concept. So does my compensation include the pension I don't collect? The health insurance I don't use? The company car I don't have?

Exactly.... no one calls your entire benefit package (whatever that is) the amount that you "make". What you "make" is generally referred to as your salary.

To try and pretend that people mean it in a different way is totally dishonest. Nice try.

[Argus]

Your funniest post yet, in a thread full of howlers.

In reality, having extended government service on a resume for a managerial or clerical worker would most likely result in the application for employment being binned forthwith.

Have you ever even held a job?

[Argus]

It's not their average salary, but it's the average cost of their compensation with their benefits included. Those numbers are from the PBO, not my head, so I suggest you take them up with his office.

Except the PBO's figures include the military and RCMP, something you deliberately deleted and would not address. These people have much higher average salaries and much higher benefit levels.

[Smallc]

The military salaries are not that great, and the RCMP (like most police forces) are also overpaid.

[Argus]

With that type of brain-dead logic we might as well pay the average public servant $300,000/year, because then we'd get even BETTER workers and every single extra dollar spent would be well worth it in increased productivity. The same logic works for your lowly burger-flippers. A $30/hr burger flipper would make THREE TIMES as many burgers (or burgers that were 3x as delicious) right? Yep, your theory is TOTALLY sound!

Wow. A towering level of ignorance. You're like those movies that are so horribly made they can be fascinating to watch.

So you suggest we should be paying our pilots, doctors and lawyers minimum wage if I've got that right? I mean, the higher levels of compensation don't result in better performers than, say, Wal-Mart stock clerks, right? One wonders why the private sector overpays so many people since clearly that has nothing to do with the quality and capability of the employees involved.

Nice try. The 13 year increase from 1999-2012 was 5.1 annually, or 2.1% higher than inflation. Only going back to 2002 might give you a slightly better number to quote us,

I'm using the figures the PBO used in his latest report. Again, this is about sick leave, not your failure in life, yet you've turned it into a bitter rant that public servants make more money than you.

The average Scandinavian doesn't earn $114,000/year like the average Canadian federal public servant does. I can tell you conclusively that they don't earn anything even CLOSE.

Nor does the average public servant. And unlike you, I was one for many years.

[Argus]

The military salaries are not that great, and the RCMP (like most police forces) are also overpaid.

Did you read the salaries I posted for the military? They are way above what public servants make. And btw no one is suggesting cutbacks in either their pensions or sick leave.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Argus

[Moonbox]

Except the PBO's figures include the military and RCMP, something you deliberately deleted and would not address. These people have much higher average salaries and much higher benefit levels.

Nice try. I didn't deliberately delete them, I just didn't need to pick them apart until now. Your insistence to discuss them strongly highlights the bizarre and amusing logic you employ for your argument. First off, why does including the military and RCMP in the figures change anything? Are they not public servants, and therefore part of the discussion? Second, do you have any evidence to suggest that they're significantly skewing the average upwards? If not, we can safely conclude that this is more gobbledygook - more crap you've tossed around hoping that something will stick.

Speaking of things people won't address, would you care to go back to my previous summary of our discussion, where we were able to conclude from your own words that the vast majority of federal public servants are clerks and such, yet somehow the average compensation for federal servants is $114,000/year?

Edited September 26, 2014 by Moonbox

[Argus]

Nice try. I didn't deliberately delete them, I just didn't need to pick them apart until now. Your insistence to discuss them strongly highlights the bizarre and amusing logic you employ for your argument. First off, why does including the military and RCMP in the figures change anything?

Not with regard to your bitterness at people making more than you, clearly, but this discussion was about the government removing sick leave from the public service. It is not doing that to the military and RCMP.

Second, do you have any evidence to suggest that they're significantly skewing the average upwards?

I posted examples of their salaries.

Speaking of things people won't address, would you care to go back to my previous summary of our discussion, where we were able to conclude from your own words that the vast majority of federal public servants are clerks and such, yet somehow the average compensation for federal servants is $114,000/year?

We're discussing that now.

[Moonbox]

Wow. A towering level of ignorance. You're like those movies that are so horribly made they can be fascinating to watch.

So you suggest we should be paying our pilots, doctors and lawyers minimum wage if I've got that right? I mean, the higher levels of compensation don't result in better performers than, say, Wal-Mart stock clerks, right? One wonders why the private sector overpays so many people since clearly that has nothing to do with the quality and capability of the employees involved.

Argus I suggested no such thing. Rather, I was literally spoon-feeding you the reasoning that should have led you to the conclusion that wages and performance/productivity are NOT correlated in a straight line. Not only have I explicitly stated that diminishing returns start to take effect when wages go too high or too low (economics!), I actually gave you a no-brainer illustration of the concept with your oft-mentioned burger-flippers.

The fact that all of this went over your head (the direct explanation of the economics, the tongue-in-cheek mockery of your logic AND the gift-wrapped and painfully simple analogy) is an extremely worrying sign for the type of minds we have employed in the federal public service. Good thing the union had your back!

I'm using the figures the PBO used in his latest report. Again, this is about sick leave, not your failure in life, yet you've turned it into a bitter rant that public servants make more money than you.

Case in point there. Having been embarrassed on a variety of topics regarding public sector entitlements, you've erected the comic and tragically dumb defence that none of it is relevant because people were talking about sick leave pay 10-15 pages ago on this thread. It doesn't matter that you and I have spent over half a dozen pages arguing whether federal public servants are overpaid, you've decided you can save face by pretending we weren't.

Nor does the average public servant. And unlike you, I was one for many years.

Except the PBO explicitly stated they do. Perhaps your years of inactivity collecting a public pension (most of it funded by taxpayers), has dulled your reasoning. Your continued insistence on presenting YOUR personal testimonials defending the justification for YOUR benefits is a shining example of foolishness.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Moonbox

[Peter F]

Apparently each and every FPS makes 114000/year thus the outrage that the lowest level clerks make $114,000/year.

I get the distinct impression that moon box really doesn't know what 'average' means. I suggest he refer to Cybercoma's post regarding averages back at post 91 of this thread. Low level clerks in the federal public service do not make $114,000/year. In fact even mid-level clerks do not make 114,000/year.

As an assistance in this thread here is a link to the PBO study that the 114000/year average total compensation figure comes from:

http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/files/files/Fed%20Personnel%20Expenses_EN.pdf

Edited September 26, 2014 by Peter F

[Moonbox]

I posted examples of their salaries.

You posted an INCORRECT example of the CAF wage for an officer position (the figure you quoted was for a flight-rank captain). That ONE mid/high level position comprises a tiny fraction of the overall military staff and therefore provides literally NO useful information for an aggregate comparison of military vs CPA compensation. If you ACTUALLY had a worthwhile point to make, you'd provide some evidence that military (add the RCMP if you like) compensation packages are so much higher than in the CPA that the small percentage their combined work forces present in the federal public service are responsible for skewing the numbers up.

Unfortunately, you can't, because you're categorically full of crap.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

Apparently each and every FPS makes 114000/year thus the outrage that the lowest level clerks make $114,000/year.

I never said they did. I just said they're overpaid and a simple comparison of their compensation package vs low-level clerks in the private sector would confirm this.

I get the distinct impression that moon box really doesn't know what 'average' means. I suggest he refer to Cybercoma's post regarding averages back at post 91 of this thread. Low level clerks in the federal public service do not make $114,000/year.

I'd suggest maybe that YOU don't understand averages. If you inflate the wages of the lowest earners on the scale, you push the average upwards in two ways. First, the increased salary of the lowest earners directly pushes the average up by simple mathematics. Second, you generally have to pay the people in more senior positions more to give them a reason to take on more responsibility.

Thanks for coming by though Peter. Your goof contributions are always insightful....

Edited September 26, 2014 by Moonbox

[Argus]

Nice try. I didn't deliberately delete them, I just didn't need to pick them apart until now. Your insistence to discuss them strongly highlights the bizarre and amusing logic you employ for your argument.

Well, at least it IS logic, as opposed to your sputtering bitterness.

First off, why does including the military and RCMP in the figures change anything?

They have a generally much higher salary than is most public servants, and a lot of benefits civilian public servants don't get.

This is why it's called 'logic', you see.

Are they not public servants, and therefore part of the discussion?

Not really. The government hasn't threatened their sick leave and benefits.

Second, do you have any evidence to suggest that they're significantly skewing the average upwards?

Again it's that LOGIC thing you can't quite wrap your mind around. A large group with higher salaries and benefits will skew the average upwards.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Argus

[overthere]

Low level clerks in the federal public service do not make $114,000/year.

Correct. They make about $45,000 per year plus a whopping benefit and pension package.

About 30% more than private sectors staff doing very similar work, with less benefits, and generally higher consequences of error. That's what makes complaints of 1% raises to already inflated salaries so annoying.

Has anybody wondered about the OP premise yet? If Harper hates the civil service so much, why does he hire so many of them in the last eight years?