Public Versus Private Sector Wages

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Canada's public servants earn an average salary far higher than those in the private sector, while the core public service workforce has swelled to its largest size in a decade, according to a new report.

The Treasury Board of Canada posted the 800-page study on its website last week.

In 2002-2003, the average salary of workers in the core public service was $53,000, increasing to $73,400 when factoring in benefits.

"For me to make that amount of money, I would have to work twice as much time," tradesman Tim Cogswell told CTV News.

In the private sector, the average salary was $38,885.

Roughly three per cent of public servants earned less than $35,000, while the same amount of bureaucrats made more than $100,000.

In the early 1990s, the size of the core public service was about 245,000. But between 1994 and 1998, Jean Chretien's government slashed 75,000 jobs to help curb Canada's deficit.

While the wages are a concern, I think the size of the civil service increasing rapidly is a very large concern as well.

Moreover, around 40% of the federal civil service lives in Ottawa whereas less than 20% of American civil servants live in Washington D.C.

The influence of the civil service in Ottawa to increase their numbers cannot be underestimated.

The Conservatives have shown under Harper they are prepared to spend and spend. The Liberals cut only so long as to clear the deficit. The growing civil service does not serve Canada's long term social or economic needs. It needs to be pared down.

If Harper can begin cutting back on that growth, it could do a lot of good in restoring faith in their ability to be fiscally responsible and run an efficient government.

Edited July 31, 2007 by jdobbin

[geoffrey]

Start with Health Canada?

[Harry Nads]

People are greedy and needy. The more money you pay them the more loyal they become. There is high turnover in the private sector. High turnover leads to instability and a waste of resources. All of you small government chest pounders tend to turn a blind eye to the inefficiencies in the corporate model.

[geoffrey]

Your kidding right? The inefficencies of corporate culture over the government? You really must be kidding.

Sure, turnover is higher, but then again, who would quit a slack job that pays a ridiculous sum. People in the public service are generally grossly overpaid for what they do... and now I have evidence from this to backup my opinion.

Time to cutback considerably. Three overpaid workers to do the work of one? Nahhhh. Not on my dollar.

[Riverwind]

Your kidding right? The inefficencies of corporate culture over the government? You really must be kidding.

The NP had a column on how average citizens are getting screwed by CUPE: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columni...b4-ed70c878232a

Prior to its forced merger with the City of Montreal, Montreal West employed 15 workers affiliated with another union. The workers mostly lived in Montreal West, local people with local roots. With amalgamation, those workers became forced members of CUPE Local 301

...

The small community, which now employes 18 people, is part of a massive 6,500-member union with a contract that covers more than 100 different job classifications. Under the contract, employees are only required to work within extremely narrow job descriptions. "There are no designated 'gardeners,' for instance -- and so no flowers are planted unless the union allows a qualified employee to work outside his limited category."

...

Under CUPE rules, Montreal West would have to increase worker numbers to 28 to get the work done. The union also wants wage increases of between 6% and 8% over the next three years. All of Montreal is now prepared for a CUPE 301 strike later this year.

Effecient my a^&. Never as long as CUPE is allowed to insist on perverse work place rules.

[Renegade]

The more money you pay them the more loyal they become. There is high turnover in the private sector. High turnover leads to instability and a waste of resources. All of you small government chest pounders tend to turn a blind eye to the inefficiencies in the corporate model.

They are not unformly overpaid at all levels:

The study also confirms that workers in lower-end jobs make considerably more than similar workers in the private sector, especially clerical employees, who won a historic $3.4-billion pay equity settlement. Those in the middle earn salaries comparable to the private sector, but enjoy better benefits. Those at the top jobs are paid significantly less.

Cost of federal bureaucracy climbs 50%

So do you think an orgainzation is efficient when it overpays its low level employees relative to the norm, but underpays its leaders relative to the norm?

Edited July 31, 2007 by Renegade

[Michael Bluth]

So do you think an orgainzation is efficient when it overpays its low level employees relative to the norm, but underpays its leaders relative to the norm?

Nope.

But look at by how much they are missing the average for each group.

Public sector employees have very little to whinge about.

Not that all private sector employees have it rough either, but the guaranteed jobs for life stuff is a huge bonus.

[jdobbin]

Start with Health Canada?

If trimming costs is going to be effective, it has to be across the board. You can be cutting 4000 workers from Health Canada only to replace them with 4000 workers in Defence.

Picking winners and losers in this manner just encourages no permanent cuts to the civil service because numbers of employees never changes. Worse, the numbers that do get cut are often restored because their cuts were motivated politically by one party,

Edited July 31, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

People are greedy and needy. The more money you pay them the more loyal they become. There is high turnover in the private sector. High turnover leads to instability and a waste of resources. All of you small government chest pounders tend to turn a blind eye to the inefficiencies in the corporate model.

An efficient government should be the hallmark of any administration. The larger it gets, the harder it is to get things done because so many handle basic decision-making.

[From another nation in Canada]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Canada's public servants earn an average salary far higher than those in the private sector, while the core public service workforce has swelled to its largest size in a decade, according to a new report.

The Treasury Board of Canada posted the 800-page study on its website last week.

In 2002-2003, the average salary of workers in the core public service was $53,000, increasing to $73,400 when factoring in benefits.

"For me to make that amount of money, I would have to work twice as much time," tradesman Tim Cogswell told CTV News.

In the private sector, the average salary was $38,885.

Roughly three per cent of public servants earned less than $35,000, while the same amount of bureaucrats made more than $100,000.

In the early 1990s, the size of the core public service was about 245,000. But between 1994 and 1998, Jean Chretien's government slashed 75,000 jobs to help curb Canada's deficit.

While the wages are a concern, I think the size of the civil service increasing rapidly is a very large concern as well.

Moreover, around 40% of the federal civil service lives in Ottawa whereas less than 20% of American civil servants live in Washington D.C.

The influence of the civil service in Ottawa to increase their numbers cannot be underestimated.

The Conservatives have shown under Harper they are prepared to spend and spend. The Liberals cut only so long as to clear the deficit. The growing civil service does not serve Canada's long term social or economic needs. It needs to be pared down.

If Harper can begin cutting back on that growth, it could do a lot of good in restoring faith in their ability to be fiscally responsible and run an efficient government.

If Harper does so, MPs from Liberal and NDP will cry "we don't want to Americanize Canada" and definitely they will block the budget by uniting Bloc Quebecois.

[fellowtraveller]

Start with Health Canada?

Perhaps, though they are relatively small.

I'd start with a public audit of the eternally closed books at Indian Affairs and Northern Developent.

[Argus]

Your kidding right? The inefficencies of corporate culture over the government? You really must be kidding.

Depends on the corporation. General Motors bureacracy was once compared - negatively - to the Soviet Union's

Sure, turnover is higher, but then again, who would quit a slack job that pays a ridiculous sum. People in the public service are generally grossly overpaid for what they do... and now I have evidence from this to backup my opinion.

Mmm, only partially. If you compare what a unionized clerk working for the federal government earns to a payroll clerk working for some mom and pop company, or a small business somewhere, then yes, the government job is going to earn a lot more. Compare it to what a clerk makes in a major corporation, like Nortel, though, and the differences are often minimal. This study compared employees in a large enterprise - the government - to employees in the private sector, which includes everything from the clerks at Mac's Milk, to the data-entry people at a store front, sweatshop data entry outfit, to the guy sitting in the little hut in the parking lot collecting your parking fees. A more realistic comparison would be to workers in other large private sector enterprises, where wages and benefits and working conditions tend to be higher.

As for the proliferation of jobs, some of that is due to population growth, but a lot of it is due to creeping bureacratization which inflicts more and more paperwork, forms, processes and requirements on everyday workers every month. Human Resources is an out-of-control, hydra-headed monster which consumes ever increasing amounts of resources. It can easily take a full year to run a competition to hire someone. And we have to tell people we do hire that it will be at least six weeks after their hiring before they can hope to collect a pay cheque. I've worked a lot of places and never encountered anything like it.

Then there are ever growing financial requirements put in place by management eager to cover its ass from even the slightest hint of impropriety in spending. This is an outgrowth of the sponsorship scandal, and it too is taking more resources because instead of just buying something or a service you now have to involve all sorts of contracting people and multiple layers of management with all kinds of complex forms justifying every decision and purchase. This costs money and it requires more resources.

Give you an example. Three years ago if I need a temporary agency clerk I'd call up an agency, tell them what I wanted, and I'd have a clerk there the next day. I'd create a purchase order for them in about ten minutes, and that would be that. We hired an agency guy last week - after three weeks of paperwork, forms, consultation, arguments over pricing with Contracting, bidding processes, and permission that had to go up three levels of management.

How much in time and effort did that all cost compared to a few years back? Dunno, but it did cost a lot, and you can mutiply that over every purchase the government makes. Thanks, Mr. Chretien.

As for IT - we're still using software programs that are years out of date because the certification process for new software is so long. Even something as simple as Windows Media Player can take ages. I think they're up to version 11 now - but the only version approved so far with us is version 6.

Finally, it should be noted that Treasury Board, which authored the study, is presently negotiating with its unions over their next contract. The present one expires in October. Now from the report itself, in a comparison of unionized workers in government, and those in the private sector working for employers with at least 500 workers, we see that the average wages rose higher in the private sector. In fact, in real terms, wages rose 7.5% among unionized workers in large private sector companies, but only .2% for public sector workers.

Edited July 31, 2007 by Argus

[Pat Coghlan]

Start with Health Canada?

Start with ending the practice of pretending that either English or French can be used in the workplace and the resulting 1-2 years of language training for about 20% of employees ... most of which never gets used.

[jdobbin]

If Harper does so, MPs from Liberal and NDP will cry "we don't want to Americanize Canada" and definitely they will block the budget by uniting Bloc Quebecois.

The important thing is for the government to concentrate on outcomes rather than how many people are employed.

Certainly there will be people who complain about any trimming for efficiencies but the public is not concerned about overall employee numbers as they are about how well the department works and whether the costs are handled well.

[jdobbin]

Start with ending the practice of pretending that either English or French can be used in the workplace and the resulting 1-2 years of language training for about 20% of employees ... most of which never gets used.

I think you are getting into territory that will guarantee nothing gets done.

If each department looks at efficiencies rather than targeting areas that appeal to various political audiences such as: Cut Defence! Cut Social Services!

I think each department needs to bear the responsibility. Why cut Health to the bone if you are going to have a bloated Foreign Affairs department?

[jdobbin]

Effecient my a^&. Never as long as CUPE is allowed to insist on perverse work place rules.

I think the only way to combat a large municipal civil service is have the civil service bid on things such as garbage pick-up and the like.

I don't even know why cities are left with the bill for ambulances which I think is a provincial responsibility.

I don't know why cities like Calgary and Winnipeg own zoos which have a public servants. Winnipeg's zoo costs $2 million a year. That $2 million could be a permanent cut to the business tax.

[geoffrey]

I'd start with a public audit of the eternally closed books at Indian Affairs and Northern Developent.

You'd also never get elected! You terrible racist, Indians all spend their money appropriately and band councils have never been known to be corrupt. Honour is a way of life for them, we should just honour their privacy.

I think the only way to combat a large municipal civil service is have the civil service bid on things such as garbage pick-up and the like.

Let's extend that to the public health care system. Let the public system bid against private docs and hospitals. Mmm mmm mmm.

I don't even know why cities are left with the bill for ambulances which I think is a provincial responsibility.

Cities are an extension of the province, they don't exist under our constitution. They have responsibilities and taxing privledges based upon what the provinces decide to allocate to them.

I don't know why cities like Calgary and Winnipeg own zoos which have a public servants. Winnipeg's zoo costs $2 million a year. That $2 million could be a permanent cut to the business tax.

I'm sure the zoos cost more than that at the end of the day. It's a good place to start.

[jdobbin]

Let's extend that to the public health care system. Let the public system bid against private docs and hospitals. Mmm mmm mmm.

Cities are an extension of the province, they don't exist under our constitution. They have responsibilities and taxing privledges based upon what the provinces decide to allocate to them.

I'm sure the zoos cost more than that at the end of the day. It's a good place to start.

It certainly gets more complicated when you talk about doctors and hospitals. Many hospitals in Canada are already semi-private in that they are run by Jewish, Catholic and various Protestant religions as well as communities. Most doctors are not civil servants.

I know some in the right want complete privatization but I don't know that saves anyone money. It may reduce any waiting though.

You can ask Harper why his government is skeptical of it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

Canada's doctors want to be able to work simultaneously in both the public and private systems, a flexibility that critics say could lead to queue-jumping and further depletion of public health care.

It's also a proposal that puts the medical community on a collision course with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who argues that physicians would have an incentive to stream patients into the private portions of their practice.

There are certainly areas for reducing costs or keeping costs under control. Those have been discussed in other threads. I certainly think we could look Britain, France, Italy and Japan to see what they do to keep costs under control and be responsive.

If the city of Calgary and Winnipeg can't turnover ambulances to the provinces, there is nothing in the legislation that say they cannot contract it out to private operators like they have in the U.S. That might make the provincial governments step in and veto it but it would be an exceptional move on their part if they weren't prepared to help with costs.

I don't know what Calgary's zoo costs but Winnipeg's costs $2 million a year. I think that cities shouldn't not be in the zoo business.

Edited August 1, 2007 by jdobbin

[mikedavid00]

People are greedy and needy. The more money you pay them the more loyal they become. There is high turnover in the private sector. High turnover leads to instability and a waste of resources. All of you small government chest pounders tend to turn a blind eye to the inefficiencies in the corporate model.

I worked for the Department of National Defense in Ottawa (becuase i grew up there my whole life before moving to torontostan.

I will say that out of about a dozen people, there was 2 people that were needed on our team. Almost everything anyone did in the building was a make work project including my own work. I can sit and tell you stories and you wouldn't believe it.

I call gov't work white collar welfare becuase honestly that's what it was.

[Michael Bluth]

You'd also never get elected! You terrible racist, Indians all spend their money appropriately and band councils have never been known to be corrupt. Honour is a way of life for them, we should just honour their privacy.

A former colleague of mine was working on a pretty high level for building one of the largest native casino projects in the country.

After repeated occasions of members of the band council with their hands out, literally, the company managing the project had to come up with 'creative' ways to show said members how to increase their personal cash flows.

But I'm sure that was a set of isoalted incidents.

[jdobbin]

Here is one cost that could be cut.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/241205

You know you've made it in this political town when you have a car and driver. Boy, are a lot people making it.

Politicians and senior mandarins, some living a short walk from Parliament Hill, climb each morning into the back of a taxpayer-supplied, chauffeur-driven set of wheels.

The cars, often black with tinted windows, are everywhere, waiting for the boss to come back from a meeting, lunch or a bit of shopping. Publicly funded luxury doesn't come cheap – the fleet costs taxpayers millions of dollars per year.

"What I don't think Canadians are aware of are the number of officials who do have access to a taxpayer-funded car and driver," says John Williamson, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. "And it's not just cabinet but also the unelected officials as well."

In the private sector, company-provided limos and drivers are usually reserved for the very top tier of executives.

Edited August 1, 2007 by jdobbin

[fellowtraveller]

You'd also never get elected! You terrible racist, Indians all spend their money appropriately and band councils have never been known to be corrupt. Honour is a way of life for them, we should just honour their privacy.

I think you have misinterpreted my remarks.

I really don't think the majority of the problem is with bands or Indians, they are only the final recipients of the cash and are not in any way accontable to me, a taxpayer. The politicians in charge of the department and the civil servants are accountable to me. That is where the focus of the audit should be, not on the end users who take what they are given.

It is riduclous to say "we should just honour their privacy". Auditing at the band level is starting at exactly the wrong end.

After repeated occasions of members of the band council with their hands out, literally, the company managing the project had to come up with 'creative' ways to show said members how to increase their personal cash flows.

Another load of crap, but more offensive. The 'company' is equally complict if they hand out bribes so they can increase their profits, and greed is certainly not exclusive to any race or ethnic group.

In the private sector, company-provided limos and drivers are usually reserved for the very top tier of executives.

In reality, company cars, take home vehicles or fat car allowances are extremely common and available to employees far below the executive level in the private sector. It is a common perk, though I admit that drivers are rare.

[Technocrat]

Yep... im one of em... I work in the private sector... get a full car allowance, my insurance is paid for and all of my gas. I doubt there are any civil servants at my level (I have only been in the workforce for a few years) that get benifits like me.

[Harry Nads]

Yep... im one of em... I work in the private sector... get a full car allowance, my insurance is paid for and all of my gas. I doubt there are any civil servants at my level (I have only been in the workforce for a few years) that get benifits like me.

Exactly. Those who bash government workers as overpaid and lazy always ignore the outlandish perks corporate executives receive.

[Michael Bluth]

Yep... im one of em... I work in the private sector... get a full car allowance, my insurance is paid for and all of my gas. I doubt there are any civil servants at my level (I have only been in the workforce for a few years) that get benifits like me.

Exactly. Those who bash government workers as overpaid and lazy always ignore the outlandish perks corporate executives receive.

Something tells me Technocrat's car deal is related to actually needing the vehicle for his job. Sales perhaps?

Not an outlandish perk in that context.

How many people make it to 'corporate executive' status only a couple years into the work force? That is if their last name isn't Stronach.