Harper Government to crack down on public servants -- again

[Peter F]

http://mail.aimsedu.org/solutions/goalpostsol/goalsol.html

[eyeball]

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.

Apparently there is way more psychological stress between workers on the floor due to as little as a 1$ an hour difference in wages than there is between them and their CEO's making 300 times as much.

The 1% probably laugh their asses off when they stumble into threads like this.

Edited September 23, 2014 by eyeball

[overthere]

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.

Nobody that is actually rich earns wages, regardless of education or skill.

So envy on.....

[waldo]

That is without question a public service story.

huh! So... in your view of the private corporate world, you've never heard of or experienced incompetent managers that get cycled around... you know, "groomed" for their next promotion?

[overthere]

huh! So... in your view of the private corporate world, you've never heard of or experienced incompetent managers that get cycled around... you know, "groomed" for their next promotion?

In my experience of both the public and private sectors, it is far less common in the private sector. In both sectors, comeptence is often rewarded. But in only one is incompetence often challenged.

The reason is simple: money.

If a senior manager hires a series of incompetent managers, profits will be affected. The refreshing thing is that the senior guy may well be the first one canned, since the bad hirings are on him. In the public sector, its much more likely that everybody gets shuffled out of harms way, better people are moved in, and everybody gets paid indefinitely.

Huh.

[waldo]

In my experience of both the public and private sectors, it is far less common in the private sector.

not my experience, at all. Corporate bum-sniffers are the epitome of the 'Peter Principle' in action.

[Argus]

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.

A good reason? In order to have less capable employees making far more mistakes?

I presume you believe in this in hopes your own meager capabilities would then allow you to be hired?

[Argus]

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

I've been there, and you never have been. I know what I'm talking about, and all you know are cliche's you heard somewhere.

[Argus]

In my experience of both the public and private sectors, it is far less common in the private sector. In both sectors, comeptence is often rewarded. But in only one is incompetence often challenged.

Crap. Large organizations accumulate lots of lower performers because there's so many places to hide. They used to call General Motors the Kremlin on the Hudson for a reason. Lots of very highly paid 'performers' in private industry have done horrifically bad jobs and run companies into the ground.

[Argus]

That is without question a public service story.

Yes, because there are no incompetent, suckup managers in the private sector.

[guyser]

Yes, because there are no incompetent, suckup managers in the private sector.

Lots of them.

Paid with private money .

On the other hand in the govt sector....................

[Michael Hardner]

If a senior manager hires a series of incompetent managers, profits will be affected. The refreshing thing is that the senior guy may well be the first one canned, since the bad hirings are on him.

Sounds good in theory... but...

My experience is that government is indeed managed worse than large organizations such as banks... but only marginally so... I would say it's impossible to quantify anyway...

[Argus]

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.

Maybe you should find one to help you, then, for you've failed miserably.

Where I've been providing links from a variety of sources (media, academic, actual CBA's etc),

The problem with your fabulous links is virtually NONE have anything to do with the federal public service.

you've done nothing but natter on about how much smarter and more educated the Elite Public Servant class is

I've pointed out that the percentage of the federal public service with post secondary education is double that in the private sector, that a large organization has more complex systems and complicated policies, and that the work force is generally older, and thus more skilled. It seems relevant in terms of wages...

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.

Given the lack of coherency in your arguments, and the noted bitterness, quite an easy conclusion to make.

The PBO did NOT support your position. It merely stated that federal sick leave benefits don't lead to incremental costs,

Which essentially supported my position. Thanks.

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.

But we're talking about the federal government not your free spending provincial and municipal governments. The federal wage increases have been 1% last year and 1% this year.

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

What numbers would you realistically expect to see, assuming realism played much of a part in your arguments?

Yes, but this statement would imply that there are actually greener pastures for these folks

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.

Reducing benefits to "fantastic" from "insane" wouldn't lead to the mass exodus you're implying.

Once again, this is a very Tea Party type of assessment. A worker coming over from Europe would look at the benefits and gasp in horror at how miserly they were. But your attitude about employees seems very American-centric, ie. give them gruel and a blanket and beat them every hour on the hour.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Lots of them.

Paid with private money .

On the other hand in the govt sector....................

I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make. There are always going to be less than stellar performers in any organization. The bigger the organization, the more room for them to hide and escape notice. The biggest organization in the country is the federal government. So naturally it's going to have some non-performers. Many of them, in my experience are in management. Cutting sick leave to the entire public service is somehow going to do something to ameliorate this?

You know those leave banks? The people who have them are the ones who keep coming to work, not the ones who wait until April every year and then rub their hands in glee at all the new sick days they can take.

[Moonbox]

Maybe you should find one to help you, then, for you've failed miserably.

I'm not surprised you think that considering how badly you've butchered your clumsy attempts to discuss economics. When I say that an ECON 101 student could embarrass you, I'm being generous. They offer introductory courses in high school and it's pretty clear you never even made it that far. It's like a dumb criminal trying threatening to sue police after being arrested based on Charter violations. He's heard about the Charter, but clearly doesn't have clue.

The problem with your fabulous links is virtually NONE have anything to do with the federal public service.

The links I've provided are illustrations of how public sector unions can inflate compensation and don't follow standard workforce economics. The fact that they didn't directly reference the federal public service is a sad and flimsy deflection that suggests that federal public sector employees don't fare as well as municipal or provincial ones, which is completely false.

Let's see what the PBO has to say (since you referenced it earlier to support your claims):

The paper from Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page shows the average public servant costs taxpayers $114,100 a year in total compensation.

What's more, the PBO says compensation in the federal service has outpaced inflation and that of other employees — both in business and other levels of government — over the last 13 years.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/budget-watchdog-finds-average-public-service-job-costs-114k-1.1174021

I've pointed out that the percentage of the federal public service with post secondary education is double that in the private sector,

and I've explained that the education difference is accounted for when economists are stating public sector workers earn substantially more. Similarly educated, similarly skilled private sector workers earn less. Also, to highlight how truly full of crap you are, your previous statement that there aren't many low-skilled/low educated public sector employees is by virtue of your own math completely false. Nearly half of them don't have university education but are compensated as if they do.

that a large organization has more complex systems and complicated policies, and that the work force is generally older, and thus more skilled. It seems relevant in terms of wages...

The older workforce argument is demonstrably circular logic. The reasons the workforce is older are that the pay is so much better and increases over time, the pensions are ridiculous and it's MUCH harder to get terminated with the union at your back. The idea that paying workers more automatically leads to value-added productivity is categorically false. This is true only up to a certain point and it's very clear from the low public-sector turnover and lack of job openings that this point was passed long ago.

Given the lack of coherency in your arguments, and the noted bitterness, quite an easy conclusion to make.

and it's equally easy for me to conclude that the above statement is made by an overpaid data-entry clerk working in a cubicle who's outraged that someone would question the sweet ride he's earned not by personal merit, but by collective bargaining at the taxpayers' expense.

Is this true? Just as likely as not, but how am I supposed to know? Since you clearly missed my attempt to show how childish you sounded, I'll be more explicit:

Insults (thinly veiled or not) are the ammunition of the unintelligent.

Which essentially supported my position. Thanks.

Your position was that the current federal sick leave policies are reasonable or actually a boon to productivity. The PBO didn't say that, he merely said that hours lost to absenteeism aren't made up by over-time or substitute workers. Nice try though!

But we're talking about the federal government not your free spending provincial and municipal governments. The federal wage increases have been 1% last year and 1% this year.

Check out the CBC link I posted earlier. Compensation increases in the federal public service were higher than the CPI for the 13 years leading up to 2012, while private sector increases lagged well behind. Those poor federal public servants, earning $114,000/year in overall compensation! I feel so bad for them!

What numbers would you realistically expect to see, assuming realism played much of a part in your arguments?

I would expect that if you make the claim that there's an increasing trend of federal public servants leaving for the greener pastures (lol) of the private sector (ie. not full-pension retirement), you'd have some sort of reference or data to back that up. Otherwise, we can reasonably assume that the continued low turnover relative to the private sector suggests you're completely full of crap and giving us another useless testimonial.

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.

So what you're saying then is that the small percentage of public servants with the ACTUALLY impressive education/experience/credentials aren't paid enough. The fact that majority trend for the overall public service is lower turnover, however, suggests that this is simply a matter of overpaid low/mid level staff and underpaid high level staff.

Once again, this is a very Tea Party type of assessment. A worker coming over from Europe would look at the benefits and gasp in horror at how miserly they were. But your attitude about employees seems very American-centric, ie. give them gruel and a blanket and beat them every hour on the hour.

That's funny. First you propose the straw-man that reducing federal public sector benefits (regardless of them already being significantly more generous than private sector comparisons) would lead to a mass exodus of employees. Next, when called out for exaggerating, you suggest that I'm an American-centric Tea Party advocate. This is in addition to you earlier calling me uneducated. All of this offers a pretty clear indication of how poorly you're able to form an argument and how frustrated you get in your cubicle when someone questions your dubious conclusions.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

Sounds good in theory... but...

My experience is that government is indeed managed worse than large organizations such as banks... but only marginally so... I would say it's impossible to quantify anyway...

The colossal management failures of the major banks in the 2000-2008 years and the enormous write-offs they suffered as a result would suggest that most of them are not, in fact, better managed. The chronic and critical staff turnover rates they experience would also suggest that people are much more unhappy working there than in the government.

[Michael Hardner]

The colossal management failures of the major banks in the 2000-2008 years and the enormous write-offs they suffered as a result would suggest that most of them are not, in fact, better managed. The chronic and critical staff turnover rates they experience would also suggest that people are much more unhappy working there than in the government.

Interesting. Your position is more nuanced than I suspected. The fact that people are more unhappy working there than in the government would lead one to think that government is better at managing the people side, no ?

And it does lead one to support the idea that large organizations have similar problems, and that government's challenges are a result of its size.

[Moonbox]

Interesting. Your position is more nuanced than I suspected. The fact that people are more unhappy working there than in the government would lead one to think that government is better at managing the people side, no ?

I'm willing to believe that people are equally miserable working for the major banks and the government, but the government pays far, far more than the major banks do for the majority of their employees. People are more willing to work lousy jobs if they're getting paid a lot to do it, so voluntary turnover is limited. Additionally, the union makes it very difficult to terminate the bottom performers, who linger on earning automatic wage increases until they're able to retire with full pension.

And it does lead one to support the idea that large organizations have similar problems, and that government's challenges are a result of its size.

There's a lot to be said about the 'quirks' of working for a large organization. I imagine most of us can come up with a story about an incompetent and out of touch supervisor they've had in the past working for one. There are plenty of examples of large and well-run organizations with relatively happy employees, however, to dismiss the theory that they grow less efficient and employees get less happy the bigger things get.

Where you generally see the worst and most complacent/inefficient organizations is where there is some sort protected market. The public sector unions have a monopoly on labour and thus inflate wages while doing little/nothing to promote service standards. On the same token, heavily regulated industries like banks and telecoms remove most of the competitiveness of the industry. The banks or Rogers/Bell/Telus can barely be called competitive, as they consistently earn fat profits and offer terrible value for their services, all while driving wages for their entry/mid level staff into the dirt. Service standards can be kept low by the weak and oligopolistic competitive market, so no steps need to be taken to maintain experienced low/mid-level staff or to increase value for customers.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Moonbox

[Topaz]

Since we are talking about the federal workers, what about the MP's and clerks ? Do they get paid sick days? What health care do the MP's get after leaving or do they? In Ontario, I was told teachers don't get heath care benefits after retiring.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm willing to believe that people are equally miserable working for the major banks and the government, but the government pays far, far more than the major banks do for the majority of their employees. People are more willing to work lousy jobs if they're getting paid a lot to do it, so voluntary turnover is limited. Additionally, the union makes it very difficult to terminate the bottom performers, who linger on earning automatic wage increases until they're able to retire with full pension.

Ok. If the government jobs are lousy, shouldn't they be more unhappy than the bank employees ?

I have no point to this line of questioning, I'm just exploring here.

The public sector unions have a monopoly on labour and thus inflate wages while doing little/nothing to promote service standards.

Service standards are set by management, though. The banks have more miserable working conditions from what you say, but likely better service levels - presumably because management cares about service.

On the same token, heavily regulated industries like banks and telecoms remove most of the competitiveness of the industry. The banks or Rogers/Bell/Telus can barely be called competitive, as they consistently earn fat profits and offer terrible value for their services, all while driving wages for their entry/mid level staff into the dirt. Service standards can be kept low by the weak and oligopolistic competitive market, so no steps need to be taken to maintain experienced low/mid-level staff or to increase value for customers.

That sounds right.

[Argus]

When I say that an ECON 101 student could embarrass you, I'm being generous. They offer introductory courses in high school

Which you couldn't manage. Trust me.

The links I've provided are

Irrelevant to the discussion.

The paper from Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page shows the average public servant costs taxpayers $114,100 a year in total compensation.

What's more, the PBO says compensation in the federal service has outpaced inflation and that of other employees — both in business and other levels of government — over the last 13 years.

So? It also said it was probably making up for the ten years of cutbacks under Chretien. And while it increased at a higher level than business, business, as you've already so aptly mentioned, drives wages into the dirt. Is that the sort of example you want the federal government to set? It should drive employee wages and benefits into the dirt as much as possible?

I've said often enough in the past we ought to be emulating the Nordic countries, not the Americans.

and I've explained that the education difference is accounted for when economists are stating public sector workers earn substantially more. Similarly educated, similarly skilled private sector workers earn less. Also, to highlight how truly full of crap you are, your previous statement that there aren't many low-skilled/low educated public sector employees is by virtue of your own math completely false. Nearly half of them don't have university education but are compensated as if they do.

I've tried to point out that you cannot compare the 'public sector' and 'private sector' because of the inherent differences between large, unionized workplaces, and smaller, non-unionized workplaces, but your bitterness just won't allow you to see any logic. There is no equivalent in the federal public service to a Wal-mart employee, or to someone working in a parking lot, or Mcdonalds, or to janitors or other non-skilled, minimum wage positions.

Further, almost all the information you use comes from the anti-union CFIB (the Tea Party), which is the organization most determined to, as you put it, drive wages into the dirt, and can hardly be considered a reliable source. Do people who work in large, unionized organizations make more than people who don't? Yep. So the logical answer is to unionize more workplaces, not to take away the advantages which come from being in a union.

The older workforce argument is demonstrably circular logic.

No it's not. There are very few young people in government, certainly statistically much fewer than in the private sector. You can't get into the government without either a degree, or at least some years of experience at doing what they're recruiting for. They don't allow people without resumes to even write the tests. That is certainly going to affect the statistics.

the pensions are ridiculous

Why are they ridiculous? Unlike the auto unions for years, at least public servants had to contribute a lot of money to their pension plan.

It's 2% a year up to a maximum of 35 years, i.e., 70% of your salary after 35 years at 65 years of age.

and it's MUCH harder to get terminated with the union at your back.

It always is in a union environment. So what? It's SUPPOSED to be. Unions are supposed to protect their members from abusive or unfair management behaviour.

The idea that paying workers more automatically leads to value-added productivity is categorically false. This is true only up to a certain point

Perhaps, but there usually aren't that many increments. It's not really debatable that someone doing a job for four years is better at it in most cases than someone doing it for 1 year.

and it's equally easy for me to conclude that the above statement is made by an overpaid data-entry clerk working in a cubicle who's outraged that someone would question the sweet ride he's earned not by personal merit, but by collective bargaining at the taxpayers' expense.

That's because you're ignorant. Data entry clerks, even in the government, don't get cubicles.

Insults (thinly veiled or not) are the ammunition of the unintelligent.

That would sound more righteous if it wasn't in the middle of an insult-laden post, bud.

Your position was that the current federal sick leave policies are reasonable or actually a boon to productivity. The PBO didn't say that, he merely said that hours lost to absenteeism aren't made up by over-time or substitute workers. Nice try though!

As per Waldo's post #10 absenteeism isn't out of line, and as per the PBO it isn't costing much of anything. As per my own personal testament, it didn't cost the government anything in my case. What's you got to counter all that? I know, you're indignant that others get what you don't get. Well, bud, maybe you should form a union.

[guyser]

So?

So?...it means the PBO report shows exactly the opposite of what you have been trying to convey.

I've tried to point out that you cannot compare the 'public sector' and 'private sector' because of the inherent differences between large, unionized workplaces, and smaller, non-unionized workplaces, but your bitterness just won't allow you to see any logic. There is no equivalent in the federal public service to a Wal-mart employee, or to someone working in a parking lot, or Mcdonalds, or to janitors or other non-skilled, minimum wage positions.

If nothing else, that is a deflection and or an admission of defeat.

You are doing yourself no favours here and it is readily transparent that you disdain facts for ...well I am not sure.

Look at the bold part of your quote I highlighted, that in itself is a giant crock of BS and you, as smart as you normally are, know this.

Lets go to the bottom, what does a Security Guard do at Museum of Civilization that a WalMart or similar cannot do?

We both know....not a damn thing. So much for that theory. Data Entry is data entry, dont give a shite who for, its the same damn job but somehow we are to believe your pompous assumpion that Federal workers are oh so more clever and talented.

Wanna know why blowback comes your way? Because of that better than the rest attitude.

[Moonbox]

Which you couldn't manage. Trust me.

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.

So? It also said it was probably making up for the ten years of cutbacks under Chretien.

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), 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.

So while you lament the tragic 1% pay increases federal public servants are earning this year, your self-absorbed idea of facts/history ignore that compensation increased by 5.1% annually (more than double inflation) for the THIRTEEN YEARS prior.

And while it increased at a higher level than business, business, as you've already so aptly mentioned, drives wages into the dirt. Is that the sort of example you want the federal government to set? It should drive employee wages and benefits into the dirt as much as possible?

You failed to explain how overpaying federal public servants ($114,000/year on average according to the PBO) helps the shrinking middle class that's paying for these compensation packages. Another unsurprising example of flimsy logic.

I've said often enough in the past we ought to be emulating the Nordic countries, not the Americans.

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.

There is no equivalent in the federal public service to a Wal-mart employee, or to someone working in a parking lot, or Mcdonalds, or to janitors or other non-skilled, minimum wage positions.

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.

Further, almost all the information you use comes from the anti-union CFIB

Except for the all the stuff (most of it) that wasn't, like the PBO findings I linked/quoted above. This is yet another pathetic deflection to mask how your feeble arguments crumble around you. Rather than argue the actual facts being discussed (namely the $114,000/year total average compensation for federal public servants #'s published by the PBO), you've pathetically attacked the credibility of some unspecified 'information' I may have provided somewhere, at some time.

What's especially funny, however, is that not only have you attempted a classic and particularly incompetent circumstantial ad hominem, the irony of your statement has clearly gone right over your head. You, who've been very liberal with your personal testimonials about working for the public service and how they somehow prove your point, are claiming my information is biased without even explaining what that information is! Personal testimonials though, THOSE are legit! No bias there!

Edited September 25, 2014 by Moonbox

[Argus]

So?...it means the PBO report shows exactly the opposite of what you have been trying to convey.

It means nothing of the sort.

Lets go to the bottom, what does a Security Guard do at Museum of Civilization that a WalMart or similar cannot do?

You know what, I used to be a security guard at the Museum of Civilization! (not kidding).

I'm sure a Wal-Mart employee could do the job. But the security guards there aren't public servants. They work for a private security guard company which has a contract with the government. The turnover is high and the pay is low. The benefits are, of course, non-existent.

Data Entry is data entry, dont give a shite who for, its the same damn job but somehow we are to believe your pompous assumpion that Federal workers are oh so more clever and talented.

You know what? I've been a data entry operator for the private sector (Business Data Systems) and for the public sector (CRA)

I got paid more for the government, and the working conditions were better too! The difference is probably in error rates. BDS would hire anyone who said they could type. I was doing insurance claims for Sun Life. If you mistyped something well... so what? Chances are no one would notice unless it was really big. And if no one notices then it's not an issue! They wanted the stuff put into the system and FAST. CRA wouldn't hire anyone without experience. The CRA system had a lot of automated background checks and reviews to point out mistakes being made (especially mistyped SINs and addresses) and it had a lot of different types of screens for the entry of different documents. They really put a premium on getting things right, and not just getting them into the computer. There were a lot of reviews being conducted on batches, and if you screwed up too much your pay went down or would be released (terms don't have any guarantee).

So you see, I actually do know what I'm talking about - unlike you.

[guyser]

It means nothing of the sort.

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'

You know what, I used to be a security guard at the Museum of Civilization! (not kidding).

I'm sure a Wal-Mart employee could do the job. But the security guards there aren't public servants.

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?

You know what? I've been a data entry operator for the private sector (Business Data Systems) and for the public sector (CRA)

I got paid more for the government, and the working conditions were better too! The difference is probably in error rates. BDS would hire anyone who said they could type. I was doing insurance claims for Sun Life. If you mistyped something well... so what? Chances are no one would notice unless it was really big. And if no one notices then it's not an issue! They wanted the stuff put into the system and FAST. CRA wouldn't hire anyone without experience. The CRA system had a lot of automated background checks and reviews to point out mistakes being made (especially mistyped SINs and addresses) and it had a lot of different types of screens for the entry of different documents. They really put a premium on getting things right, and not just getting them into the computer. There were a lot of reviews being conducted on batches, and if you screwed up too much your pay went down or would be released (terms don't have any guarantee).

So you see, I actually do know what I'm talking about - unlike you.

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?

Edited September 25, 2014 by Guyser2