Harper Government to crack down on public servants -- again

Peter F · September 17, 2014

The person could very well have gone on Short Term Disablity if that is in the plan they have at work. No need to wait that long.

Most LTD's start at 120 days, not 91 as you counter (IIRC)

Part 1-See above.

Wait a sec Peter. His pay isnt really cut at all. The benefit paid is non-taxable unless the employer contributes 100%, which I find isn't many. If the employer pays 50% then its a 50% taxable benefit.

At present there is no short term disability, only long term available after 13 weeks off work.

"Your benefits begin after an 'elimination period' of 13 continuous weeks of disability, or upon the expiration of your paid sick leave, whichever is later."

(see http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hr-rh/bp-rasp/benefits-avantages/dip-rai/dis-eng.asp)

regarding wether the benefit is taxable:

"If you qualify for benefits under the Plan, the amount you receive will be subject to income tax. At the end of each year, the Insurer will send you a form indicating the total amount of benefits paid to you during that particular year."

(same link as above)

Perhaps you are thinking of the premiums paid that can be deducted as explained further on in the same document:

" If you become eligible for benefits, the total amount of the premiums you have paid from the time you became a member of the Plan may be deducted for tax purposes from the amount of the disability income you received from the Plan. If the total amount of premiums you have paid under the Plan exceeds the benefits you receive during the first taxation year in which your benefits begin, you can carry over the excess amount to the following year."

But, yes, in the example I gave I suppose the premiums he paid may exceed benefits received for, what? a months worth? So yes

I suppose its no cut at all in that specific case.

ETA: To clarify: the above paragraph would be true under the present system. Under the proposed system where the employee would

be put on disability at 2-3 weeks off work, his paid premiums will probably not exceed benefits received and so the most part of the benefits would be taxable.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Peter F

guyser · September 17, 2014

At present there is no short term disability, only long term available after 13 weeks off work.

Could that be why the bennies are somewhat generous? (total time off, sick days and banking them?)

regarding wether the benefit is taxable:

"If you qualify for benefits under the Plan, the amount you receive will be subject to income tax. At the end of each year, the Insurer will send you a form indicating the total amount of benefits paid to you during that particular year."[/size]

(same link as above)[/size]

Perhaps you are thinking of the premiums paid that can be deducted as explained further on in the same document:[/size]

" If you become eligible for benefits, the total amount of the premiums you have paid from the time you became a member of the Plan may be deducted for tax purposes from the amount of the disability income you received from the Plan. If the total amount of premiums you have paid under the Plan exceeds the benefits you receive during the first taxation year in which your benefits begin, you can carry over the excess amount to the following year."[/size]

But, yes, in the example I gave I suppose the premiums he paid may exceed benefits [/size]received for, what? a months worth? So yes

I suppose its no cut at all in that specific case.

ETA: To clarify: the above paragraph would be true under the present system. Under the proposed system where the employee would

be put on disability at 2-3 weeks off work, his paid premiums will probably not exceed benefits received and so the most part of the benefits would be taxable.

Thats weird.....or par for the course for Federal Govt employees?

Here is what is normal in the private sector.

If you and your employer share the cost of a disability plan, you are only liable for taxes on the amount received due to payments made by your employer. So, if you pay the entire cost of a sickness or injury plan with after-tax money, you do not need to report any payments you receive under the plan as income. If your employer pays half the cost of premiums and does not deduct these payments from your pay, then you most likely must report half the payments received as income

Moonbox · September 17, 2014

Waldo explained that most of this (post 10) is due to a variety of factors, not the least of which is the public service is generally older.

Why is the public service generally older? Could it be, perhaps, because retention is a lot higher and people STAY with the public service because of pay/benefits? I'd like to get your thoughts on that!

There are also a variety of ailments which routinely come about due to the sedentary nature of much of the work, and how close the working conditions are (the government has reduced the allotted space required for public servants three times in the last twenty years, reducing the size of cubicles accordingly). All those people jammed tightly together every day in a closed environment touching the same doors, elevator buttons, photocopy machines, etc., is an excellent environment for passing on sicknesses.

No offense Argus, but that's a pure nonsense answer and only a public sector worker/apologist would even offer it. The same cramped and/or sedentary working conditions are demonstrated all over the private sector as well. Thankfully for all of those mistreated cubicle monkeys, however, is that they don't have to actually have to come into contact with the 'normals' like most of the private sector does, avoiding the perilous handshake!

Yes, bureaucracy sure is dangerous work. All of the fax-machine and elevator button-touching (apparently) leads to almost as much illness and absenteeism as we see from nurses! Are we to believe that an office bureaucrat is in contact with as much potential infection as the average nurse? Apparently!

And btw, one of the things you're ignoring is the cost of coming to work sick and passing it on so everyone's sick. Everyone works - technically - since there's no sick leave, but how productive are they really? How do you document the cost of that?

To answer that appropriately we would have to know the actual (rather than fake) average rate of illness, which is itself difficult to quantify. The implication you make, however, is that the private sector worker is a martyr and comes to work hacking golf-ball sized wads of phlegm. This is most assuredly not the case. While I might go to work with a little sniffle or feeling a bit groggy for a couple of days, this generally doesn't explode into a pandemic. If you're visibly ill, most managers will send you home because they don't want you to get everyone else sick. As for how productive someone with the sniffles or a light headache might be, I would generally say a lot more productive than someone who's not there at all!

But you're assuming that means they take it when they're not sick. I think you're leaving out the fact many in the private sector will simply come to work sick or not, because they don't get paid otherwise.

I'm not assuming anything. I know that public servants take sick leave when they're not sick, just like I know private sector workers do too. The difference between the two is that it's far more systemic and/or easier to get away with in the public sector. There are also far fewer consequences. If I decide to go Pittsburgh and get wasted at an Sunday NFL game (and subsequently call in sick) I potentially lose business. All my teacher friend needs to do is send an email before 7:00am and someone comes in (no questions asked) to cover his classroom for the day.

I don't see the complaint with unpaid sick leave. There is a disability plan which employees contribute to with Sun Life for longer term disability, and requires multiple medical reports from multiple doctors.

Sure, no complaint with unpaid sick leave. As for disability plans, federal public servants contribute minimal amounts to these programs relative to similar private sector plans. What's worse is that a lot of the private sector workers don't get any LTD plans at all.

Maybe the private sector isn't so full of jobs which have zero job satisfaction, tons of pressure, a heavy workload, and an employer who treats them like garbage.

Oh boo-hoo. Look up the average job satisfaction of someone working for a major Canadian bank. Actually, here, take a look at a few of the reviews here and tell me how much better it is at CIBC:

http://www.ratemyemployer.ca/Employers/CI/CIBC

They also get paid a LOT less.

Added in the fact that management in the public service suck about as badly as you'll find anywhere in this country, and that it sucks more the higher they get and you have a workplace rife with miserable people.

Everyone hates their boss. Cry me a river. Job satisfaction is terrible in the private sector too, particularly in larger corporations. The unfortunate part is that it's WAY easier to lose your job than it is where you work.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Moonbox

Peter F · September 17, 2014

Why is the public service generally older? Could it be, perhaps, because retention is a lot higher and people STAY with the public service because of pay/benefits? I'd like to get your thoughts on that!

No offense Argus, but that's a pure nonsense answer and only a public sector worker/apologist would even offer it. The same cramped and/or sedentary working conditions are demonstrated all over the private sector as well. Thankfully for all of those mistreated cubicle monkeys, however, is that they don't have to actually have to come into contact with the 'normals' like most of the private sector does, avoiding the perilous handshake!

Yes, bureaucracy sure is dangerous work. All of the fax-machine and elevator button-touching (apparently) leads to almost as much illness and absenteeism as we see from nurses! Are we to believe that an office bureaucrat is in contact with as much potential infection as the average nurse? Apparently!

To answer that appropriately we would have to know the actual (rather than fake) average rate of illness, which is itself difficult to quantify. The implication you make, however, is that the private sector worker is a martyr and comes to work hacking golf-ball sized wads of phlegm. This is most assuredly not the case. While I might go to work with a little sniffle or feeling a bit groggy for a couple of days, this generally doesn't explode into a pandemic. If you're visibly ill, most managers will send you home because they don't want you to get everyone else sick. As for how productive someone with the sniffles or a light headache might be, I would generally say a lot more productive than someone who's not there at all!

I'm not assuming anything. I know that public servants take sick leave when they're not sick, just like I know private sector workers do too. The difference between the two is that it's far more systemic and/or easier to get away with in the public sector. There are also far fewer consequences. If I decide to go Pittsburgh and get wasted at an Sunday NFL game (and subsequently call in sick) I potentially lose business. All my teacher friend needs to do is send an email before 7:00am and someone comes in (no questions asked) to cover his classroom for the day.

Sure, no complaint with unpaid sick leave. As for disability plans, federal public servants contribute minimal amounts to these programs relative to similar private sector plans. What's worse is that a lot of the private sector workers don't get any LTD plans at all.

Oh boo-hoo. Look up the average job satisfaction of someone working for a major Canadian bank. Actually, here, take a look at a few of the reviews here and tell me how much better it is at CIBC:

http://www.ratemyemployer.ca/Employers/CI/CIBC

They also get paid a LOT less.

Everyone hates their boss. Cry me a river. Job satisfaction is terrible in the private sector too, particularly in larger corporations. The unfortunate part is that it's WAY easier to lose your job than it is where you work.

After all that I still cannot understand why you think its actually good for better off workers to be brought low.

Moonbox · September 17, 2014

After all that I still cannot understand why you think its actually good for better off workers to be brought low.

Don't quote my entire post in its entirety (immediately below my post) and then offer a one-sentence response. You're just clogging board space and it's against the forum rules.

As an answer, I'm not looking for workers to be brought low. I'm looking for the public sector to be brought back to parity with the private sector -- nothing more, nothing less.

Peter F · September 17, 2014

Bullshit. What's your complaints about civil servants?

Your complaints are: They get paid better; They have better benefits, You want to see an end to those better conditions. You believe they should get what everyone else gets.

I'm not looking for workers to be brought low. I'm looking for the public sector to be brought back to parity with the private sector -- nothing more, nothing less.

Which is what?

Unpaid sick leave; Less vacation time; Lousier working conditions; Lousy managers; Less pay - more work; and most of all NO UNION.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Peter F

overthere · September 17, 2014

They get paid better; They have better benefits, You want to see an end to those better conditions. They should get what everyone else gets.

Your last bit contradicts all that comes earlier.

I do agree with your assertion that they should get what everyone gets. What everybody else gets is market wages and benefits for similar work. I am pleased that you are willing to reduce, for example, clerical salaries in PSAC by 30% or 40%. That will save taxpayers a fortune every year.

Peter F · September 17, 2014

ah my mistake. I have edited the subject post to be clear on what I meant.

Actually what would save the taxpayers a fortune every year is to eliminate government entirely.

overthere · September 17, 2014

ah my mistake. I have edited the subject post to be clear on what I meant.

Actually what would save the taxpayers a fortune every year is to eliminate government entirely.

I'm not sure that every civil service job could be contracted out, but I agree that many are cqndidates.

Actually many have- cleaners and tradespeople are examples from the past. Many more in other capacities have been hired though, how would you trim it down dramatically?

Here is a place to start: follow Australias lead and put everybody on a 3 year renewable contract, with renewal based on need and employee performance.

Peter F · September 17, 2014

Lord Jeebus here we go again. Every single Civil Service job - every one - no exception - could and actually can be contracted out. Every single one.

How would I trim it down dramatically? How dramatic do you want it trimmed. Sack the lot of them is one way. Would that be a good enough answer?

Canada is not Australia. There is no need in this country to put everybody on a 3 year renewable contract. For some reason you think that Federal government employee's in Canada are on some sort of Life-time contract to the government. Federal Employees only have a Terms of Employment contract. Here's a big not-so-secret secret: Federal Public Servants can have their employment ended immediately at the snap of a finger. There is no

contract saying FPServants must be employed for X duration. They can be sacked/laid off at the drop of a ministerial hat.....Holy moly! Just like every other non contract employee!

Canada thus has no need to enter into a 3 year contract with employees. In fact the Treasury Board would lose their elfin minds at the mere proposal.

overthere · September 17, 2014

Canada is not Australia.

Agreed. We are several years away from the type of effective civil service reform they have achieved. Unlike Canada, they don't have jobs for life in their professional civil service.

For some reason you think that Federal government employee's in Canada are on some sort of Life-time contract to the government.

Speaking from personal experience as former employee and extensive experience as a contractor, I know it is very very difficult to get fired or laid off as a civil servant. That's just a fact. No need for either of us to pretend otherwise.

Federal Public Servants can have their employment ended immediately at the snap of a finger.

Please do not waste time and/or pixels on this kind of BS. It just does not happen.

In fact the Treasury Board would lose their elfin minds at the mere proposal.

No, that would not happen since the Treasury Board is composed entirely of politicans who are on 4 year contracts. Who would lose their minds would be the TB Secretariat, composed of civil servants with effective lifetime tenure. That's an excellent suggestion, let's start with them on 3 year contracts.,

guyser · September 17, 2014

Agreed. We are several years away from the type of effective civil service reform they have achieved.

We may be, but we are at much lower pay scales here than in Australia.

overthere · September 17, 2014

We may be, but we are at much lower pay scales here than in Australia.

and our civil service salaries are higher than US. Its all relative, the disposable income in Oz is similar to here. Mortgage rates there are a couple points higher than Canada.

They have their shit together in regard to management of their professional civil service, overall.

Argus · September 17, 2014

Your last bit contradicts all that comes earlier.

I do agree with your assertion that they should get what everyone gets. What everybody else gets is market wages and benefits for similar work. I am pleased that you are willing to reduce, for example, clerical salaries in PSAC by 30% or 40%. That will save taxpayers a fortune every year.

The public sector sets the bar on wages, you know. It will always be higher than the private sector simply because the public sector is a larger, unionized organization with much more complex systems, a much more stable and older, more educated workforce. If you think that lowering the public sector wages by 30-40% won't have a similar affect on the private sector you're an idiot. Private sector wages will go down across the board. Which, of course, is what business wants, which is why it's been lobbying so hard on this issue for years.

It's also, by the way, not at all clear this will save money. It IS clear it will result in much higher turnover, a much less effective, knowledgeable, capable workforce, and a lot more errors.

Argus · September 18, 2014

Why is the public service generally older? Could it be, perhaps, because retention is a lot higher and people STAY with the public service because of pay/benefits? I'd like to get your thoughts on that!

That's part of it, of course, which was the idea, by the way. It's also true that the government is responsible for a great deal of complicated systems and programs that aren't going to have a lot of young people in them (unlike fast food restaurants, retail outlets, and a lot of other private sector jobs. I would say in the buildings where I worked there were typically 9 project/program officer jobs for every 1 clerical type job.

No offense Argus, but that's a pure nonsense answer and only a public sector worker/apologist would even offer it. The same cramped and/or sedentary working conditions are demonstrated all over the private sector as well.

Yes, and no. As I've said, the workforce is older in the public service, and aside from a few counter service jobs (which keep being cut) there just aren't an awful lot of jobs which have people moving around (unlike in the private sector), virtually no entry level jobs, and we haven't been hiring a lot of new people the last five years or so either. There are TONS of jobs in the private sector which have people moving around a lot.

Are we to believe that an office bureaucrat is in contact with as much potential infection as the average nurse? Apparently!

I wouldn't know. I was merely pointing out that older, sedentary people suffer a lot more ailments, and that when they're jammed in they tend to spread sickness around.

To answer that appropriately we would have to know the actual (rather than fake) average rate of illness, which is itself difficult to quantify. The implication you make, however, is that the private sector worker is a martyr and comes to work hacking golf-ball sized wads of phlegm. This is most assuredly not the case. While I might go to work with a little sniffle or feeling a bit groggy for a couple of days, this generally doesn't explode into a pandemic.

Depends on your job. So you come to work while contagious and work when you're not your best. You don't know how many people get sick along the way because of you unless its a small workplace.

As for how productive someone with the sniffles or a light headache might be, I would generally say a lot more productive than someone who's not there at all!

Certainly true, unless he spreads his disease around so that ten more people are now less than productive, and they spread it around, and THEY spread it around. Now you have lots of unproductive people for a few days each instead of one guy who stayed home.

I'm not assuming anything. I know that public servants take sick leave when they're not sick, just like I know private sector workers do too. The difference between the two is that it's far more systemic and/or easier to get away with in the public sector.

Depends on the job and how much they need you. If you don't think managers can ride people for being sick a lot you're dreaming. And I'd like to point out that despite your obvious resentment that public servants have it better than you do, the standard around the world is a lot closer to what the public service has. All over the world people are given sick leave, usually more than the public servants in Canada have. I think Canada would be a better place to live if we moved more towards a European model than towards an American one.

There are also far fewer consequences. If I decide to go Pittsburgh and get wasted at an Sunday NFL game (and subsequently call in sick) I potentially lose business. All my teacher friend needs to do is send an email before 7:00am and someone comes in (no questions asked) to cover his classroom for the day.

Argus · September 18, 2014

As an answer, I'm not looking for workers to be brought low. I'm looking for the public sector to be brought back to parity with the private sector -- nothing more, nothing less.

Which will inevitably move the private sector lower, as well. Remember the public sector generally has higher skilled, more experienced, more educated workforce. They SHOULD get, statistically speaking, more than others.

Argus · September 18, 2014

I'm not sure that every civil service job could be contracted out, but I agree that many are cqndidates.

Actually many have- cleaners and tradespeople are examples from the past. Many more in other capacities have been hired though, how would you trim it down dramatically?

Here is a place to start: follow Australias lead and put everybody on a 3 year renewable contract, with renewal based on need and employee performance.

I wouldn't ever have even applied to the public service if that was the rule. Most of the people I know would have ignored them, as well. What you wind up with that sort of thing is people who can't get anything decent. I can find no information to back up your contention of a three year renewable contract for the Australian public service, by the way. I found a very recent announcement about changes to the public service which would indicate there is no such thing, for it speaks of a new method of being able to eliminate surplus employees with one year notice.

http://indaily.com.au/news/2014/09/11/public-service-permanency-gone-new-deal/

Edited September 18, 2014 by Argus

WestCoastRunner · September 18, 2014

The public sector sets the bar on wages, you know. It will always be higher than the private sector simply because the public sector is a larger, unionized organization with much more complex systems, a much more stable and older, more educated workforce. If you think that lowering the public sector wages by 30-40% won't have a similar affect on the private sector you're an idiot. Private sector wages will go down across the board. Which, of course, is what business wants, which is why it's been lobbying so hard on this issue for years.

It's also, by the way, not at all clear this will save money. It IS clear it will result in much higher turnover, a much less effective, knowledgeable, capable workforce, and a lot more errors.

Again, more generalizations and 'expertise' by someone who assumes plenty.

How is it CLEAR that it will result in higher turnover, less effective, capable blah blah blah workers. Do you have any idea of the number of university grads that cannot find jobs and who would gladly jump at a chance working for the government even with less pay, less benefits etc.

The public sector does not set the bar on many occupations in the private sector. Do they set the bar in the IT profession. Not likely. Do they set the bar in the film industry, the legal profession? Not likely.

You really need to get a grip on your long winded expert 'opinions'.

Edited September 18, 2014 by WestCoastRunner

WestCoastRunner · September 18, 2014

Let's not forget the banking industry, the insurance industry, the investment industry which have highly complex systems and are not unionized. Do you think the highly skilled, stable, and educated workforce from these industries are influenced by the wages of the public workforce. Not likely!

Moonbox · September 18, 2014

Which will inevitably move the private sector lower, as well. Remember the public sector generally has higher skilled, more experienced, more educated workforce. They SHOULD get, statistically speaking, more than others.

We've already been over this. Similarly skilled, similarly educated people get paid more (counting generous benefit packages) in the public sector. There is no statistical reason for that. The myth that there aren't low-skilled people in the public service and that it's just McDonald's employees that are bringing the private sector averages down is farcical as well. There are TONS of low-skilled front-end clerks in the public service, but they do not get paid low-skilled wages and benefits.

I can tell you from direct knowledge that the girl you get your Driver's License stamp from at the Service Canada office makes more money than the Assistant Manager at most chartered banks. Neither of these jobs are particularly high skilled, but it's a FACT that the assistant BM at the bank has far more responsibility, far more required knowledge and just as much, if not more, regulatory and due-diligence requirements.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Moonbox

jacee · September 18, 2014

We've already been over this. Similarly skilled, similarly educated people get paid more (counting generous benefit packages) in the public sector. There is no statistical reason for that.

CORRECTION:

Similarly skilled, similarly educated WOMEN get paid more (counting generous benefit packages) in the public sector.

Now it's accurate, because the private-public wage gap doesn't exist for men: Only women are paid better in the public sector, a goal for the private sector to work toward:

https://cupe.ca/battle-wages-who-gets-paid-more-public-or-private-sector-workers

Average annual pay in the public sector was $49,655, 0.5 per cent higher than the private sector average of $49,407.

This public sector pay premium is entirely because of a smaller pay gap for women in the public sector. This is partly the result of stronger pay equity rules in the public sector.

...

These findings-less of a pay gap for women and lower average pay for men than in the private sector-are consistent for all different levels of government and major areas of the broader public sector: federal, provincial, local, health and social services, and education.

And there is less income disparity in the public sector:

Pay differences between the public and private sectors are more significant for occupations at the top and bottom of the pay scales.

-Those working in lower paid occupations - such as cleaning, food preparation, clerks - are generally better paid in the public sector than in the private sector.

-Higher paid occupations - such as managers, lawyers and accountants - tend to be paid considerably less in the public sector than in the private sector.

These are all good things the public sector has done to decrease inequity.

The private sector exploits women and low-skilled workers, and overpays managers.

Need for better income distribution there!

.

Edited September 18, 2014 by jacee

Argus · September 18, 2014

Let's not forget the banking industry, the insurance industry, the investment industry which have highly complex systems and are not unionized. Do you think the highly skilled, stable, and educated workforce from these industries are influenced by the wages of the public workforce. Not likely!

Yes, they are. Why wouldn't they be? Workers will gravitate towards the employer who pays the most and has the best working conditions, generally speaking. If you have skilled, educated people you know they'll drift away to a higher paying employer if you don't at least come close. That's particularly so if the other employer is a huge one like the government. Now have the government drop its wages 30-40% and what affect s that going to have on other large employers of skilled office people?

Argus · September 18, 2014

We've already been over this. Similarly skilled, similarly educated people get paid more (counting generous benefit packages) in the public sector. There is no statistical reason for that.

Look, workers gravitate towards the best jobs, meaning the highest paid, generally with the best benefits. Tons of people want to work for the government. Tons of people apply for every job. Your contention that the ones who don't make it are every bit as skilled and capable as those who do makes no sense.

If a guy working for TD knows he would be better off working for the government then he's going to apply. If he doesn't get accepted despite applying repeatedly it could well be other people who applied are more skilled, have better resumes, etc.

There are TONS of low-skilled front-end clerks in the public service, but they do not get paid low-skilled wages and benefits.

There just aren't that many 'front end clerks' with the government any more.

I can tell you from direct knowledge that the girl you get your Driver's License stamp from at the Service Canada office makes more money than the Assistant Manager at most chartered banks.

You're suggesting that the banks hire exceptionally stupid people then as managers and assistant managers? Ie, you have a guy working long, stressful hours with great responsibility working for less money than he could be making working as a simple clerk with the government? Why would he do that?

guyser · September 18, 2014

The public sector sets the bar on wages, you know. It will always be higher than the private sector simply because...

...those who do the negotiations from the govt side have absolutely no skin in the game.

Private sector does.

overthere · September 18, 2014

In the 1980s the federal government eliminated tens of thousands of cleaning staff across Canada, all of which was done internally until then. They were paid about 40% higher than the exact same work done in the private sector, and of course their benefits and defined benefit pension liabilites took it to another level. The work still needed to done, and all of it was contracted out with zero consequence to the quality of work despite prolonged howling from PSAC. It was much the same with many trades people, they just ired contractors because it was cheaper It's no different for many other aspects of government work. Procurement, IT, clerical, real esate operations and many more . I can promise you that the main reason for failure of outsourcing for many functions is because the projects are set up to fail, by the very people most affected by the outsource.