Public Sector - Alternatives to Unionization?

[Michael Hardner]

Shouldnt we establish that theres a problem to fix first?

I think the lack of responsiveness, the lack of information available as to costs/benefits and service levels to the public is obvious. What do you think ?

[Guest]

Workers can de-certify.

Individually?

[Boges]

Individually?

That's called Right to Work. Apparently it's the worst thing since Hitler.

[TimG]

The same Union rules do apply, so says the courts. You don't lose your Constitutional rights just because you work for the government.

You do lose your rights when join a union shop because you are required to join the union. If the constitution mattered a person's right to freedom of association would trump any putative collective rights.

[Boges]

Also how is it right that Union votes aren't anonymous?

[Bryan]

If the constitution mattered a person's right to freedom of association would trump any putative collective rights.

And it absolutely should. This country desperately needs right to work legislation. It's ridiculous that I "have to" join a union if I want to accept a job that someone who is NOT in the union is offering me. Those two should have no connection whatsoever.

[Michael Hardner]

It's ridiculous that I "have to" join a union if I want to accept a job that someone who is NOT in the union is offering me. Those two should have no connection whatsoever.

There is another entity that holds the rights to the labour market for that enterprise. I can buy cigarettes cheaply too, but there are people licensed to sell them, collect taxes and so on. If you want to have a government, then this is part of the service they deliver you.

[Boges]

There is another entity that holds the rights to the labour market for that enterprise. I can buy cigarettes cheaply too, but there are people licensed to sell them, collect taxes and so on. If you want to have a government, then this is part of the service they deliver you.

Yeah but unions don't make that service better. The taxpayers are shareholders in that "enterprise".

[dre]

I think the lack of responsiveness, the lack of information available as to costs/benefits and service levels to the public is obvious. What do you think ?

Im not sure because I havent really looked for the information. But even if I accept what you say as true then contracting out is not necessarily a solution. I dont see any reason at all that would increase responsiveness because the better the service provided the less profit there is to be made. And private contractors would be even more opaque than government. At the end of the day you would be counting on the same politicians to structure these agreements to provide the things that you want, as you are counting on now.

To determine if theres a "problem" to fix, you need to compare our service levels and tax rates to those of our peers. My guess is that you would find we come out ok.

[dre]

And it absolutely should. This country desperately needs right to work legislation. It's ridiculous that I "have to" join a union if I want to accept a job that someone who is NOT in the union is offering me. Those two should have no connection whatsoever.

You both have it exactly backwards. Freedom of association is what allows unions to exist in the first place.

[Boges]

You both have it exactly backwards. Freedom of association is what allows unions to exist in the first place.

Then allow people to negotiate their own contracts.

[dre]

Then allow people to negotiate their own contracts.

In most cases they can. In some cases though it would weaken the bargaining rights of workers which would be a huge mistake and effect all workers in the economy negatively. You should go back and read about the history of organized labor in this country before you engage in mindless union bashing, and find out what things were like for workers before labor unions.

[Michael Hardner]

Im not sure because I havent really looked for the information. But even if I accept what you say as true then contracting out is not necessarily a solution. I dont see any reason at all that would increase responsiveness because the better the service provided the less profit there is to be made.

Service levels could be written into the contract.

[Boges]

It's not mindless Union Bashing. It's. Public Sector Union Bashing.

Public Sector Unions don't have to respect to market conditions. They get the money they make forcibly removed from the public they're supposed to serve.

If a private workforce want to organise fine. The employer can close up shop if they don't like it. A government can't really do that.

[dre]

Service levels could be written into the contract.

Right and once that contract expires the government no longer has the infructure, equipment, and personel in place to reclaim delivery of the service. At that point they are over a barrel. Service levels go down, and costs go up. Also... many things that get contracted need very large organizations to operate. There is often only one such entity in a region so theres little in the way of competition.

But in any case youre failing to use critical thinking. You are starting with an unvalidated assumption (that theres a problem), following that up with another unvalidated assumption (that contracting out would resolve the problem), and then making a rather extreme recommendation (contract out the civil service). This is a really bad way to formulate public policy.

[jacee]

Then allow people to negotiate their own contracts.

That would take a lot of people and time and be quite costly. I doubt principals would be interested in taking that on.

It would also be subject to appeal and lawsuit to try to standardize pay grades ... as already exists.

Doesn't seem feasible or helpful to me.

.

[dre]

It's not mindless Union Bashing. It's. Public Sector Union Bashing.

Public Sector Unions don't have to respect to market conditions. They get the money they make forcibly removed from the public they're supposed to serve.

If a private workforce want to organise fine. The employer can close up shop if they don't like it. A government can't really do that.

Unions are even MORE important in the public sector than in the private sector because the government has the power to actually write the rules of the game, and change laws. Especially in the bold new age of government collaborating the private sector to marginalize workers and labor.

[Smallc]

Unions are even MORE important in the public sector than in the private sector because the government has the power to actually write the rules of the game, and change laws. Especially in the bold new age of government collaborating the private sector to marginalize workers and labor.

In the public sector, negotiations happen with someone else's money.

[Boges]

That would take a lot of people and time and be quite costly. I doubt principals would be interested in taking that on.

It would also be subject to appeal and lawsuit to try to standardize pay grades ... as already exists.

Doesn't seem feasible or helpful to me.

.

Sure it doesn't.

Most workers don't negotiate a contract they're given one based on the job description and given raises based on cost of living and performance. Of course not in the land of Unions where everyone is the same.

[jacee]

Sure it doesn't.

Most workers don't negotiate a contract they're given one based on the job description and given raises based on cost of living and performance. Of course not in the land of Unions where everyone is the same.

I find it hard to believe that in a company with thousands of employees, there wouldn't be standard pay for positions and negotiation for pay raises as a group.

There must be a lot of time and money spent on individual evaluation and pay structures.

Teachers are given a contract too. The only difference in the collective bargaining process which seems much more efficient and cost effective than thousands of individual negotiations.

.

Edited May 7, 2015 by jacee

[Boges]

I find it hard to believe that in a company with thousands of employees, there wouldn't be standard pay for positions and negotiation for pay raises as a group.

There must be a lot of time and money spent on individual evaluation and pay structures.

.

Yeah individual annual evaluations are so expensive.

[jacee]

Yeah individual annual evaluations are so expensive.

It is in human service delivery.

I doubt very much that education is going to give up the efficiency of negotiating raises once every few years for each group,(ETFO, OSSTF, OECTA) covering all teachers in the province.

.

[dre]

In the public sector, negotiations happen with someone else's money.

So what? They would still be negotiating with other peoples money if they contracted out.

[Smallc]

So what? They would still be negotiating with other peoples money if they contracted out.

No, they actually wouldn't. The government would be paying a set rate, and the company would be dealing with a fixed amount of money during negotiations.

[dre]

No, they actually wouldn't. The government would be paying a set rate, and the company would be dealing with a fixed amount of money during negotiations.

Sorry thats just not how it works. The rate would only be set for the duration of a contract... At which point you would have to renegotiate again, just like you do when a CBA expires. And it wouldnt be dealing with a fixed ammount of money either because people expect a certain level of services and contractors can negotiate increases in their rates unless theres other contractors to keep them in check, which often there isnt.

Prices will go up, and access and service quality will go down.

Take medical diagnostics in Ontario for example which was privatized a few years back...

It now has the worst access in all of Canada and some of the highest prices.

Medical lab testing Contracting in would improve public access and save $175-$233 million a year

At one time in Ontario, most medical diagnostic lab tests took place in hospitals. But today, if you’re not a hospital patient, you’re forced to go to a for-profit private lab in the community. Ever since the Mike Harris government changed the rules, private lab companies have been making big profits on tests even though hospital labs can do the same tests for less.

Access

Using private labs has meant fewer options for Ontarians who need lab work done. 
When the Ministry of Health forced hospitals to close their doors to community-based patients, Ontarians lost more than 225 access sites. In 2010, the Ministry forced the not-for-profit Hospitals In-Common Laboratory (HICL) to sell its last remaining public collection centre even though HICL labs have a 25-30 per cent cost advantage compared to private for-profit labs. With 450 clients in Canada and the U.S. – and even with no community-based patients in Ontario – HICL returned $100 million in dividends to its member hospitals over eight years. All of that money helped fund public health care.

Ontario has among the fewest access points in Canada where patients can have samples taken for medical diagnostic testing. In 2012, 179,800 Ontarians walked out of for-profit labs without having their tests done because of long waits to have their samples taken.

Meanwhile, our public hospitals are restricted to inpatient testing despite having considerable capacity to take on community work. Almost all hospital labs are underutilized. Volumes that used to make hospital labs even more efficient than they already are have been lost to sustain a private industry.

Price

Public hospital labs do medical diagnostic testing at less cost than private for-profit labs.

In 1997, the Ontario government initiated a pilot project in which 12 small rural and northern hospitals were given global funding to provide community-based testing. In a few cases these labs performed testing on samples collected by local clinics operated by the private labs. The project was not evaluated until 2008, when it was determined that these small hospitals were processing the work at an average cost of $22 per community patient per year compared to $33 for the for-profit private labs.

Similarly, when the Globe and Mail investigated the rising cost of vitamin D testing, they found BC private labs cost $94 per test, Ontario private labs cost $52 per test, and Ontario’s hospitals conducted the same test for $32. The Saskatchewan government lab performed at the lowest cost – at $17 per test.

Ontario spends about $700 million a year on private laboratory testing. By returning lab testing to the public sphere, savings would range from $175 million (25 per cent based on HICL model) to $233 million per year (33 per cent based on a report by RPO Management Consultants). Both these figures are conservative given that neither takes into account the efficiency gains hospitals could make as a result of higher volumes.

And Information Technology...

Information Technology

Providing IT services to the government of Ontario is no small job. Running the networks, databases, and 68,000 computers that deliver the services Ontarians depend on costs about $1.2 billion a year. Of this amount, $703 million, or 58 per cent, goes to private vendors, whose share of government IT work has increased by 63 per cent in the past five years. This work could be done more efficiently, and at much less cost, if it were provided by IT professionals of the Ontario Public Service (OPS). But instead of contracting in, the government is pushing ahead with an aggressive privatization plan that puts the jobs of all government IT staff at risk.

Service quality

The government has paid out more than $652 million in the past five years to three vendors for desktop services, server administration and network services. This is work that was once done, and is still done in some areas, by government employees. Here’s what the contracted-out service is like:

• It used to take government IT staff 30 minutes to two hours – at most – to image a desktop computer. The same request can take the hourly contractors between six to eight hours.
• Government IT staff who used to upgrade hundreds of “client” servers that power computer applications for 28 ministries are now required to provide instructions to the vendor’s hourly contractors. A single upgrade to 800 servers will require 800 identical requests. The government has more than 4,000 servers.
• Upgrades to the government’s servers are often held up because the vendor does not have staff during the available change windows – evenings and weekends.
• OPS employees who need a network jack activated so they can access the internet now wait up to three days for something that used to happen following a quick phone call to a government IT employee.
• Government IT staff who used to be down the hall ready to help their fellow OPS employees with a computer problem have been moved out of the worksite, adding another delay to the resolution of IT problems. (If the hourly contractor can’t fix your desktop problem, a government IT employee is called in. Government IT staff are the “safety net” for contractors.)

The Wynne government will put government data and e-mails at risk by closing 22 government data centres by 2016 and running an undisclosed number of computer applications through the privately-operated “Cloud.” This means the government programs that Ontarians rely on, such as social assistance, OSAP, and drivers’ license renewals, and even the government’s e-mail system, could run through the Cloud with data being stored outside of Canada.

This is unnecessary. The Guelph Data Centre, built at an estimated cost to government of $350 million over 30 years, has more than enough server capacity to meet the government’s needs now and into the future. In addition to being big, it is a highly-secure Tier 4 facility, built to withstand tornadoes and earthquakes.

Price

The cost in lost productivity should be reason enough to end the contracting out of government IT work. The cost in lost dollars is even greater.

A 2012 consultant’s report for the Ministry of Government Services found that private contractors cost two to three times more than government employees for five out of six IT services. This explains, handily, why private IT contractors cost more than half the government’s IT budget even though private contractors’ employees are only 25 per cent of the workforce. If the $703 million being paid to contractors is double what public employees would cost, that means $351.5 million is being lost to company profits and inefficiency. Thus, even a very conservative estimate suggests Ontario could save $200 million a year by ending contracting out of IT services.

Edited May 7, 2015 by dre