1 out of 3 workers in Canada a civil servant?

[mikedavid00]

Ok. So I'm researching and reading up on things as I usually do. I read about everything. Research everything. Read numbers and facts all the time becuase I like to get to the bottom of things and find out the truth.

Anyhow, this I just can't beleive so I'm going to ask you guys if this is true. I was reading our employment numbers (as I don't like to do because i'm more interested in job creation numbers). Anyhow, I read:

Class of worker

Public/private sector employees (in thousands (meaning millions below))

Public 3,248.7

Private 10,936.1

Does this mean that 1 out of three employed people in Canada are workign as civil servants??

Isn't that 1/3 communism?

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Subjects/Labour/LFS/lfs-en.htm

"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.

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

Again, if this is true, isn't this basically China style communism? A communist rule where I am pertty much working to fund 'insiders' pockets?

Whare you your opinions on this?

Edited September 3, 2007 by mikedavid00

[msj]

Ok. So I'm researching and reading up on things as I usually do. I read about everything. Research everything. Read numbers and facts all the time becuase I like to get to the bottom of things and find out the truth.

Anyhow, this I just can't beleive so I'm going to ask you guys if this is true. I was reading our employment numbers (as I don't like to do because i'm more interested in job creation numbers). Anyhow, I read:

Class of worker

Public/private sector employees (in thousands (meaning millions below))

Public 3,248.7

Private 10,936.1

Does this mean that 1 out of three employed people in Canada are workign as civil servants??

Isn't that 1/3 communism?

I will assume that you are off on the basis that it should be 3.2M + 10.9M = 14.1M employed and, based on this at a simplistic level, is 22.6%.

The problems here being many:

1) Self-employed people aren't counted as employed (unless they work for their own corporation as an employee)

2) Part time/full time breakdowns may also prove beneficial

3) Government's contract out (often to former employees) so these people are counted as self-employed or as private sector employees.

4) Etc...

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Subjects/Labour/LFS/lfs-en.htm

"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.

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

Again, if this is true, isn't this basically China style communism? A communist rule where I am pertty much working to fund 'insiders' pockets?

Whare you your opinions on this?

Why wouldn't most civil servants be making more money than many in the private sector?

The private sector is weighed down by the retail and hospitality industries. Break that out and perhaps some other industries and then do a proper comparison of like job to like job.

One would likely find the typical bottom civil servant is overpaid, the middle civil servant is slightly overpaid, and the top civil servant is underpaid and likely the least competent amongst the three (if only because anyone who is competent at a high level works in the private sector for 10 times the pay).

[gc1765]

Again, if this is true, isn't this basically China style communism? A communist rule where I am pertty much working to fund 'insiders' pockets?

no hyperbole there...

By the way, in your favourite country, the United States, government workers make significantly more as well: Link

[bk59]

Ok. So I'm researching and reading up on things as I usually do. I read about everything. Research everything. Read numbers and facts all the time becuase I like to get to the bottom of things and find out the truth.

Anyhow, this I just can't beleive so I'm going to ask you guys if this is true. I was reading our employment numbers (as I don't like to do because i'm more interested in job creation numbers). Anyhow, I read:

Class of worker

Public/private sector employees (in thousands (meaning millions below))

Public 3,248.7

Private 10,936.1

Does this mean that 1 out of three employed people in Canada are workign as civil servants??

Isn't that 1/3 communism?

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Subjects/Labour/LFS/lfs-en.htm

"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.

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

Again, if this is true, isn't this basically China style communism? A communist rule where I am pertty much working to fund 'insiders' pockets?

Whare you your opinions on this?

My opinion is that reading is good, but you have to know what you're looking at. Particularly with stats. For July 2007 the breakdown by class of worker is:

Employees 14,200.6

Self-employed 2,647.9

TOTAL 16,848.6

Employees are then broken down further into public & private. So the numbers look like this:

Public 3,229.2

Private 10,971.5

Self-employed 2,647.9

TOTAL 16,848.6

Which translates into:

Public 19%

Private 65%

Self-employed 16%

So it's hardly 1/3 civil servants. I'll ignore the 1/3 communism line since it makes no sense.

As for the salary info, I'm not sure where it comes from, but msj is right. You have to compare apples to apples. Without a comparison of equivalent jobs, how do you know who is being paid more?

One would likely find the typical bottom civil servant is overpaid, the middle civil servant is slightly overpaid, and the top civil servant is underpaid and likely the least competent amongst the three (if only because anyone who is competent at a high level works in the private sector for 10 times the pay).

This may be true in some cases, but I know for a fact that in other cases bottom level civil servant jobs actually pay much less than their private sector counterparts. While I like to complain about the government as much as the next person, I'm not sure that I'm willing to generalize about the competency of the civil service like that.

[jennie]

My opinion is that reading is good, but you have to know what you're looking at. Particularly with stats. For July 2007 the breakdown by class of worker is:

Employees 14,200.6

Self-employed 2,647.9

TOTAL 16,848.6

Employees are then broken down further into public & private. So the numbers look like this:

Public 3,229.2

Private 10,971.5

Self-employed 2,647.9

TOTAL 16,848.6

Which translates into:

Public 19%

Private 65%

Self-employed 16%

So it's hardly 1/3 civil servants. I'll ignore the 1/3 communism line since it makes no sense.

As for the salary info, I'm not sure where it comes from, but msj is right. You have to compare apples to apples. Without a comparison of equivalent jobs, how do you know who is being paid more?

This may be true in some cases, but I know for a fact that in other cases bottom level civil servant jobs actually pay much less than their private sector counterparts. While I like to complain about the government as much as the next person, I'm not sure that I'm willing to generalize about the competency of the civil service like that.

excellent post! thanks bk.

I am going to remind some who may not think of it ... because I've known people who didn't ...

From the salaries quoted ...

SUBTRACT all income taxes (There are NO employment expense deductions for public employees.)

SUBTRACT hefty employee share of hefty pension and hefty benefits (HEFTILY appreciated later, though!)

And there are NO tips, no gratuities, no gifts, no "$hare$", no perks allowed ... period.

Those salary figures do not imply what you might think ... disposable income.

They do translate into hefty but wise investments in health and future care and financial stability.

Is that because of a too "generous" government employer? Or just because of a natural selection process?

Perhaps it is simply because the people attracted to public service are inclined to value that future-focus,

and not mind giving up some disposable income along the way.

[msj]

As for the salary info, I'm not sure where it comes from, but msj is right. You have to compare apples to apples. Without a comparison of equivalent jobs, how do you know who is being paid more?

This may be true in some cases, but I know for a fact that in other cases bottom level civil servant jobs actually pay much less than their private sector counterparts. While I like to complain about the government as much as the next person, I'm not sure that I'm willing to generalize about the competency of the civil service like that.

Good way to delve into the stats bk59.

My opinion on the payment of federal civil servants is informed at the bottom of this link:

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/spsm-rgsp/er-ed/vol1/vol106_e.asp

As for compentency: you're right we can only judge on an individual basis but how many people are there who are highly competent and are willing to take a pay cut for the public good when they see CEO's in the private sector making a ton of money?

As much as I think the private sector pay grades are ridiculous (at the top levels) we don't have much choice but to follow them to some extent if we want to have competent leaders in the civil service (of course, I wonder sometimes if there are people who don't want to properly pay our civil service to only make it useless and to justify cutting back government programs to get further tax cuts but that is a topic for another thread).

[msj]

excellent post! thanks bk.

I am going to remind some who may not think of it ... because I've known people who didn't ...

From the salaries quoted ...

SUBTRACT all income taxes (There are NO employment expense deductions for public employees.)

SUBTRACT hefty employee share of hefty pension and hefty benefits (HEFTILY appreciated later, though!)

And there are NO tips, no gratuities, no gifts, no "$hare$", no perks allowed ... period.

Those salary figures do not imply what you might think ... disposable income.

They do translate into hefty but wise investments in health and future care and financial stability.

Is that because of a too "generous" government employer? Or just because of a natural selection process?

Perhaps it is simply because the people attracted to public service are inclined to value that future-focus,

and not mind giving up some disposable income along the way.

1) Most employees don't get employment expenses. Even those that do they are often scaled back considerably through stupid laws such as only allowing apprentices to deduct up to $500 worth of tools but s/he has to spend $1,500 to get that $500 deduction.

Also, why do people consider this a perk? If I have to shell out $100 on expenses in order to maintain my employment then I am still out of pocket $60 after the tax savings. Why do people think that this is good for someone? Think about it: you are better off if you are not paying for expenses in the first place or, if you are, you are being reimbursed at a high level (see below regarding government employee reimbursement rates re: meals/vehicle use).

2) At least public sector workers get pension plans. Increasingly private sector workers get no pension plans or contribution type plans rather than the defined benefit plans government workers get. There is a huge difference between these plans and they must be factored into anyone's pay because a benefit is a benefit whether it is felt now or 30 years from now.

3) Many private employees do not earn tips or gratuities and if they do it is part of their pay because that person is making minimum wage.

Increasingly private employees do not get stock benefits, nor tax free gifts (one or two gifts per year under $500 total (for both) is non-taxable to the employee - if the gift(s) go above $500 then the entire amount is a taxable benefit to the employee).

As for perks, at least civil servants get generous travel and meal allowances when they travel. When I travel on company business I get $0.44/km and I'm expected to buy reasonable meals for which I get reimbursed based on the receipts (therefore all of this is tax free to me). This is compared to the federal civil servant who gets ~$0.50/km and $78/day for meals. All of this tax free without the need for receipts.

[jennie]

1) Most employees don't get employment expenses. Even those that do they are often scaled back considerably through stupid laws such as only allowing apprentices to deduct up to $500 worth of tools but s/he has to spend $1,500 to get that $500 deduction.

Also, why do people consider this a perk? If I have to shell out $100 on expenses in order to maintain my employment then I am still out of pocket $60 after the tax savings. Why do people think that this is good for someone? Think about it: you are better off if you are not paying for expenses in the first place or, if you are, you are being reimbursed at a high level (see below regarding government employee reimbursement rates re: meals/vehicle use).

2) At least public sector workers get pension plans. Increasingly private sector workers get no pension plans or contribution type plans rather than the defined benefit plans government workers get. There is a huge difference between these plans and they must be factored into anyone's pay because a benefit is a benefit whether it is felt now or 30 years from now.

3) Many private employees do not earn tips or gratuities and if they do it is part of their pay because that person is making minimum wage.

Increasingly private employees do not get stock benefits, nor tax free gifts (one or two gifts per year under $500 total (for both) is non-taxable to the employee - if the gift(s) go above $500 then the entire amount is a taxable benefit to the employee).

As for perks, at least civil servants get generous travel and meal allowances when they travel. When I travel on company business I get $0.44/km and I'm expected to buy reasonable meals for which I get reimbursed based on the receipts (therefore all of this is tax free to me). This is compared to the federal civil servant who gets ~$0.50/km and $78/day for meals. All of this tax free without the need for receipts.

"bonuses"? That is something public sector employees never get.

HOWEVER ... I realize now that I was making this point more about the self-employed (not just private-sector employees who, I realize, have taken a big hit in recent downturns). The self-employed often mistake public salaries for disposable income, which is just not the case. I am reminded of going to the bank for a mortgage and when I told the lender my salary, he perked up thinking I would be a potential investor, so he drew up some plans for that to "sell" me. Then he looked at my pay slip bottom line and turned white and said "They really hit you with the income tax don't they?" (duh... ya). There was no money for investments.

I am reminded of a friend ... a farmer ... who expected me to pay for things because of my high salary. One day I asked him how much money he takes out of the farm as 'pay' per year. He said $40,000 (somewhat less than my gross salary). I asked what he had to pay for out of that (mortgage, vehicles, utilities, etc) ... He said "nothing ... a few groceries ... all of the expenses go with the farm". (Even a couple of holidays to attend conventions!)

$40,000 'walking around money' after all living expenses is comparable to a public sector salary of about $150,000 !!! My 'take home' was the same as his and I still had to pay all my living expenses!!! (That relationship did not last, obviously. )

So ... apologies to private sector employees: My message was for the self-employed.

[msj]

"bonuses"? That is something public sector employees never get.

HOWEVER ... I realize now that I was making this point more about the self-employed (not just private-sector employees who, I realize, have taken a big hit in recent downturns). The self-employed often mistake public salaries for disposable income, which is just not the case. I am reminded of going to the bank for a mortgage and when I told the lender my salary, he perked up thinking I would be a potential investor, so he drew up some plans for that to "sell" me. Then he looked at my pay slip bottom line and turned white and said "They really hit you with the income tax don't they?" (duh... ya). There was no money for investments.

I am reminded of a friend ... a farmer ... who expected me to pay for things because of my high salary. One day I asked him how much money he takes out of the farm as 'pay' per year. He said $40,000 (somewhat less than my gross salary). I asked what he had to pay for out of that (mortgage, vehicles, utilities, etc) ... He said "nothing ... a few groceries ... all of the expenses go with the farm". (Even a couple of holidays to attend conventions!)

$40,000 'walking around money' after all living expenses is comparable to a public sector salary of about $150,000 !!! My 'take home' was the same as his and I still had to pay all my living expenses!!! (That relationship did not last, obviously. )

So ... apologies to private sector employees: My message was for the self-employed.

Frankly your story is ridiculous.

I am a tax accountant so I know the difference between gross income, net income and after tax income.

Just because your farmer friend conducts himself in a way that involves tax evasion does not mean that all business people do.

The only expenses that are tax deductible are those that are reasonable and are incurred to earn income. As such, by definition, the typical business person or farmer is not better off for taking deductions since s/he has to spend money in order to make money whereas an employee often does not.

IOW, most farmers break out property taxes, utilities, mortgage interest etc... between business use and personal use.

Remember, too, that the self-employed do not get the chance of collecting EI benefits (although this has the advantage of not having to pay into EI) and have to pay both portions of CPP (i.e. 9.9% as compared to an employee contributing 4.95%).

Sure, your farmer friend has the opportunity to get preferential treatment for when he sells the farm (generally tax free capital gain if it is qualified farm property) but this is only an opportunity which is less likely to be realized than a civil servant's pension benefits.

[fellowtraveller]

The self-employed often mistake public salaries for disposable income, which is just not the case.

Good punchline, but usually they come at the end of long jokes like yours.

Self employed are acutely aware of the various types of income, since unlike civil servants they are not guaranteed a penny.

And what sector of society do you think Revenue Canada has under a microscope? Wage/salary earners have very simple returns, no money to be found there.. Large companies have much better accountants and lawyers than the government, no money to be found there.

Self employed individuals and small companies are the goldmine for CRA.

[jennie]

Frankly your story is ridiculous.

I am a tax accountant so I know the difference between gross income, net income and after tax income.

Just because your farmer friend conducts himself in a way that involves tax evasion does not mean that all business people do.

The only expenses that are tax deductible are those that are reasonable and are incurred to earn income. As such, by definition, the typical business person or farmer is not better off for taking deductions since s/he has to spend money in order to make money whereas an employee often does not.

IOW, most farmers break out property taxes, utilities, mortgage interest etc... between business use and personal use.

Remember, too, that the self-employed do not get the chance of collecting EI benefits (although this has the advantage of not having to pay into EI) and have to pay both portions of CPP (i.e. 9.9% as compared to an employee contributing 4.95%).

Sure, your farmer friend has the opportunity to get preferential treatment for when he sells the farm (generally tax free capital gain if it is qualified farm property) but this is only an opportunity which is less likely to be realized than a civil servant's pension benefits.

I wouldn't jump to any conclusion about tax evasion as that is not the issue at all, and I am sure his were broken out properly.

My point was ... because of what my gross salary was on paper, he thought I had more money than him while in fact, his disposable income was MUCH more than mine!!

I have encountered the same thing with another self-employed friend: After years of believing he was hard done by and his employees were "robbing him blind", with some urging, he actually looked at his employees 'expenses' situation compared to his own and concluded ... "How do they live on that? How do they even feed their kids?"

And yes, my farmer friend and businessman friend also have nice "pensions" in property and assets.

My point is simply that there is a great deal of angst against public AND private sector employees from the self-employed sector that stems from having a different perspective and not understanding the real financial facts.

[msj]

I wouldn't jump to any conclusion about tax evasion as that is not the issue at all, and I am sure his were broken out properly.

My point was ... because of what my gross salary was on paper, he thought I had more money than him while in fact, his disposable income was MUCH more than mine!!

I have encountered the same thing with another self-employed friend: After years of believing he was hard done by and his employees were "robbing him blind", with some urging, he actually looked at his employees 'expenses' situation compared to his own and concluded ... "How do they live on that? How do they even feed their kids?"

And yes, my farmer friend and businessman friend also have nice "pensions" in property and assets.

My point is simply that there is a great deal of angst against public AND private sector employees from the self-employed sector that stems from having a different perspective and not understanding the real financial facts.

For any self-employed person to not know what their after tax income is (that is, gross income minus the expenses they incur to earn that income = taxable income then minus taxes = after tax income) compared to their employees (since, gee, the business person is paying the employees' wages, deducting the employees' cpp/ei/tax, then adding 1.4 * the withheld EI and doubling up the CPP and then paying that to the government by the 15th of the next month) well, there is no explanation for their ignorance.

The self-employed take risks. They don't get vacation pay like employees since when they take time off it generally means they are reducing business opportunities. They don't get overtime at 1.5 or double time, either.

They pay employees for work done even if the client/customer has not paid for the good/services yet.

They get reviewed and audited by the CRA at a much higher rate than employees.

They have to pay extra legal and accounting bills that most employees don't have to pay since they can do their own tax returns and rarely have to deal with issues of collections or liability that the self-employed have to deal with.

Etc...

[jennie]

For any self-employed person to not know what their after tax income is (that is, gross income minus the expenses they incur to earn that income = taxable income then minus taxes = after tax income) compared to their employees (since, gee, the business person is paying the employees' wages, deducting the employees' cpp/ei/tax, then adding 1.4 * the withheld EI and doubling up the CPP and then paying that to the government by the 15th of the next month) well, there is no explanation for their ignorance.

The self-employed take risks. They don't get vacation pay like employees since when they take time off it generally means they are reducing business opportunities. They don't get overtime at 1.5 or double time, either.

They pay employees for work done even if the client/customer has not paid for the good/services yet.

They get reviewed and audited by the CRA at a much higher rate than employees.

They have to pay extra legal and accounting bills that most employees don't have to pay since they can do their own tax returns and rarely have to deal with issues of collections or liability that the self-employed have to deal with.

Etc...

I have no quarrel with the complications of life for the self-employed - been there myself too.

Not all self-employed people do their own books or payroll.

I am simply sharing two incidents in my personal experience where self-employed people had grossly inflated ideas about the disposable income of regular salaried employees.

I suspect these misperceptions are quite widespread.

[msj]

I have no quarrel with the complications of life for the self-employed - been there myself too.

Not all self-employed people do their own books or payroll.

I am simply sharing two incidents in my personal experience where self-employed people had grossly inflated ideas about the disposable income of regular salaried employees.

I suspect these misperceptions are quite widespread.

Fair enough.

Probably almost as widespread as the misperception that self-employed people are better off since they get to deduct expenses.

[jennie]

Fair enough.

Probably almost as widespread as the misperception that self-employed people are better off since they get to deduct expenses.

Fair enough.

[Guest coot]

If you are really so inclined to do research and get to the bottom of numbers to find out the truth, you might consider going back to Grade 6 where they can teach you how 3/14 does not equal 1/3. It's not even close. You might want to also consider why having public workers (i.e., road maintenance, police, hospital, and teachers, etc.) equals communism. I think it's possible to have public services in a private system, and hyperbole that this is essentially communism is not only misinformed, but downright idiotic.

[guyser]

Ok. So I'm researching and reading up on things as I usually do. I read about everything. Research everything. Read numbers and facts all the time becuase I like to get to the bottom of things and find out the truth.

I stopped here. My sides are hurting.

[jennie]

If you are really so inclined to do research and get to the bottom of numbers to find out the truth, you might consider going back to Grade 6 where they can teach you how 3/14 does not equal 1/3. It's not even close. You might want to also consider why having public workers (i.e., road maintenance, police, hospital, and teachers, etc.) equals communism. I think it's possible to have public services in a private system, and hyperbole that this is essentially communism is not only misinformed, but downright idiotic.

Absolutely. Paying private interests not only for the cost of the services but also for their profits makes absolutely no sense to me.

[fellowtraveller]

Absolutely. Paying private interests not only for the cost of the services but also for their profits makes absolutely no sense to me.

It is very simple actually.

Sometimes-not always, but sometimes- it makes perfect sense. Would you like some examples? I feel confident you'll understand, I used to provide outsourcing services to government and it isn't that difficult. Corporately, we got zero pay and zero profit unless we could demonstrate that we saved them money. It is called performance contracting. No performance, no pay, it's the ultimate incentive.

1)Janitors: Private sector wage at the time was about $8.50/hour. Government wage about $19 plus killer benefits. Private sector had about a 40:1 ratio between nonlabouring supervision/productive labour. Government ratio was about 12:1, not counting a thoroughly bloated 'management' component. It was easy, we made millions and so did the government. And the government still has those savings.

2) Not my gig, but the provincial government used to employ laundry workers at around $22/hour. Comparable private sector work then , around $10 per hour. They outsourced. You do the math.

3. Liquor stores privatized. Same thing.

Edited September 4, 2007 by fellowtraveller

[jennie]

It is very simple actually.

Sometimes-not always, but sometimes- it makes perfect sense. Would you like some examples? I feel confident you'll understand, I used to provide outsourcing services to government and it isn't that difficult. Corporately, we got zero pay and zero profit unless we could demonstrate that we saved them money. It is called performance contracting. No performance, no pay, it's the ultimate incentive.

1)Janitors: Private sector wage at the time was about $8.50/hour. Government wage about $19 plus killer benefits. Private sector had about a 40:1 ratio between nonlabouring supervision/productive labour. Government ratio was about 12:1, not counting a thoroughly bloated 'management' component. It was easy, we made millions and so did the government. And the government still has those savings.

2) Not my gig, but the provincial government used to employ laundry workers at around $22/hour. Comparable private sector work then , around $10 per hour. They outsourced. You do the math.

3. Liquor stores privatized. Same thing.

And you think someone can raise a family, provide postsecondary opportunities for their kids and support themselves in retirement on those wages? A McJob is a McJob. It is not helpful.

Edited September 4, 2007 by jennie

[Higgly]

Well whatever the ratio is, I think it is important to also understand that federal civiil servants get full benefits - we're talking drug, dental, semi-private hospital - the whole nut, all through retirement.

Factor that in.

[M.Dancer]

And you think someone can raise a family, provide postsecondary opportunities for their kids and support themselves in retirement on those wages? A McJob is a McJob. It is not helpful.

So? Someone doesn't want a McJob, let them get another job. There is no gaurenteed shangri la..

[mikedavid00]

Well whatever the ratio is, I think it is important to also understand that federal civiil servants get full benefits - we're talking drug, dental, semi-private hospital - the whole nut, all through retirement.

Factor that in.

I used to work for the department of national defense in Ottawa. All my friends were students from around Canada.

I first hand whitnessed the waste and un responsible spending that went on.

How severe? I would say that 80% of the building was make work projects and didn't really neeed to be there. Heck.. 70% of people weren't at their desks at any given time. I later coined it 'white collar welfare'. The projects on worked on were totally useless make work projects.

You guys have no idea. Although I think 1 out 4 here on the site are a civil servant or some form of it.

And it's not that. It's also the companies in Ottawa who do NOTHING ELSE but work on Gov't contracts. Basically you can include them also in these stats becuase our tax dollars are paying for these companies too.

Then there's also 'charity' organizations.

For instance, I am listening to the CBC Radio here in Ontario and they featured this organization who recieves fudnign through citizinship and immigration Canada. While she is not a civil servant, her paycheck is funded through out tax dollars. This lady was talking about how they help immigrant high school students:

"We teach them how to use a locker"

"We show them around the school and tell them where things are"

The lady was south asian, and the majority of the kids in that school who were immigrants were south asian. There were 50 kids present for her little introduction. She aslo said that she is threre through the whole year for the parents concerns, or if the kids have a problem in the 'community'.

So it seems that a certain ethnic group that gets our funding to recieve special treatment in a public school.

She is also a civil worker at the end of the day.

I would actually put the number at around 1/3 are either directly working in the civil service, or are soley funded/employed by the gov't protectionism and the civil service (LCBO for example).

Communism?

[jennie]

I used to work for the department of national defense in Ottawa. All my friends were students from around Canada.

I first hand whitnessed the waste and un responsible spending that went on.

How severe? I would say that 80% of the building was make work projects and didn't really neeed to be there. Heck.. 70% of people weren't at their desks at any given time. I later coined it 'white collar welfare'. The projects on worked on were totally useless make work projects.

You guys have no idea.

No YOU have no idea what people's jobs are. What was yours? If I am not at my desk I am at a meeting. Where are you? Let me guess ... hanging out over someone's desk interrupting their work (which you don't understand) to share your gems of wisdom about how nobody there does anything.

I can understand why you didn't last long!

[Riverwind]

2) Not my gig, but the provincial government used to employ laundry workers at around $22/hour. Comparable private sector work then , around $10 per hour. They outsourced. You do the math.

The BC government had a big show down with its health unions over outsourcing. From the government's perspective they wanted cost savings and would have rather kept the current staff but at lower wage and benefit levels. Unfortunately, the unions refused to discuss wage or benefit cuts which forced the government to lay everyone off and outsource the work. If the unions actually cared about their workers they would have negotiated wage rollbacks in overpaid job categories. Edited September 4, 2007 by Riverwind