Public sector wages

[Eaglelord17]

Hi all,

Just thought I would try and develop my thoughts on a topic I have been musing with recently.

So I was reading the public service just rejected a 1.5% raise every year for the next 4 years and I can't help but think of the ever steadily growing pay gap between public service employees (all levels of government, police, politicians, clerks, etc.) and private sector employees.

For example my current workplace the agreed upon wage increase for the 5 years the union agreement spanned was 0% for the first two years, 1% for the third year, and 2% for the last 2 years, equaling out to 5% 5 years later. The public service in this case is rejecting a 6% increase over 4 years which is already much better than what many in the private sector will be receiving. In this case that's 1% more than what my wage increase would be and it is a year less than what mine is. And this is just what was rejected, odds are they shall end up with a better wage increase than that.

So my thoughts are why not tie the income of public service jobs into the national average income. So how this would work is say your a police officer, your average wage would be something like 1.5x the national average, a politician would be something like 3x the national average, etc.

What this would do is cause public sector wages to respond to how the private sector is as opposed to not being tied into it and always increasing (when has the public sector ever had wages drop?), remove Unions from holding the government and people hostage (being able to strike on public services is ridiculous as you are literally holding the tax payer hostage), and prevent the government from being able to dictate their own wages (look at how many times in the last while where politicians voted for their own wage increases even well everyone else is on a pay freeze). It also means that you don't have to waste time negotiating wages as they would be set in stone.

Curious as to what peoples thoughts are on the topic.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Hmmm.....been in the public service for the last 30 years.  Can't see the Auto Workers taking all the zeros I've taken over that time.

 

[Remius]

The Phoenix fiasco is a main reason why the union is asking for more.  They want compensation that from the government.

Imagine what would happen in the private sector if you failed to pay your people for years, messed up their lives permanently and have no real outlook to solving it. 

 

[mariomike]

So my thoughts are why not tie the income of public service jobs into the national average income. So how this would work is say your a police officer, your average wage would be something like 1.5x the national average, a politician would be something like 3x the national average, etc.

In emergency services ( at least in Metro ) we did not have, and did not seek, the right to strike.

In its place is the the arbitration system.

Reference to the discussion,

April 8, 2011

Escalating Emergency Services Labour Costs and the Ontario Taxpayers’ Ability to Pay

Looking at these years, the cumulative wage increases for police, fire and paramedics have clearly exceeded the other cumulative increases.

Consider that the emergency
services exceeded these comparators between 2005 and 2010 as follows:
· CPI by 77% (Police), 89% (Fire) and 110% (EMS);
· Average public sector increases by 19% (Police), 27% (Fire) and 41% (EMS);
· ONA Nurses by approximately 6% (Police), 13% (Fire) and 25% (EMS);
· Teachers by approximately 33% (Police), 42% (Fire) and 58% (EMS);
· OPSEU (OPS) by 43% (Police), 53% (Fire) and 70% (EMS);
· CUPE by 11.5% (Police), 19% (Fire) and 32% (EMS)

A similar trend exists with respect to benefit increases within the emergency services sector.

It is the ESSC’s view, based on the reported interest arbitration awards, that arbitrators and
arbitration boards have focused more on the benefit entitlements of emergency services
personnel in other municipalities rather than on the benefit entitlements of non-emergency
services employees (and even non-union employees) employed in the same municipality.
https://www.amo.on.ca/AMO-PDFs/Reports/2011/2011AbilitytoPayPositionPaper2011.aspx

 

[Eaglelord17]

Obviously you aren't going to get a perfect example as some workplaces will have been doing better than others. But even with the auto sector for example they probally aren't doing to well if they are at the Oshawa plant. I can name a bunch of private sector jobs where the wages went down over the years, and others that went up. Some went under, some boomed. The example I provided is likely somewhere towards the middle, but my current job is also loaded with a large lack of job security as it is a cyclical industry, its either booming or your all laid off.

Public sector is security, the job is guaranteed. Its next to impossible to be fired from many of these job once your in it. Stability, extremely well paying with tons of benefits and basically the only place with top notch pensions anymore.

My idea is simply fairly limiting the wages to ensure they don't greatly exceed the private sector as ultimately they are the one who is paying the bills, which would be reflected in the national average income. It would prevent politicians from doing things like giving yourself a 25% raise well the province is on a pay freeze (Wynne) etc.


I understand the issues with Phoenix system, and to me it is complete garbage. Everyone involved in it should be fired. Monies owed should be paid back with interest and any fees or debts incurred due to lack of pay should be paid as well. But ultimately this isn't what this thread is about, I am more targeting the concept of having a fixed amount for jobs not rectifying previous issues.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

'Almost impossible to get fired?"  We follow the exact same rules as any other workplace in Canada so you are already starting your argument off with a lack of knowledge.
If management does thier job and a solid case is made the best I can do as a Union Steward is try and soften the landing.  Those don't make the news of course...you are pretensing on cases you've seen in the news where folks got their jobs back who clearly shouldn't have.  Like anything rare, that makes the news.  Unions don't keep people's jobs, we certainly don't have that power, but we can ensure those who are supervising our workplaces follow guidelines.
And really, that's a bad thing?

 

[ModlrMike]

Perhaps public service wage increases could be tied to the provincial average salary changes, year over year. For example, the MB industrial average in 2015 was $44,869.24, and in 2016 was $45,768.84. The year over year improvement for that cycle is 2%. The cycle before that was 4%, and before that it was 2.6%. Generous I know, but let's say 1/2 the the change, as a modifying factor, and you still get decent increases. I know that makes it hard for the employer to budget, but it's at least driven by a formula that's understandable, and based in reality.

 

[mariomike]

Public sector is security, the job is guaranteed. Its next to impossible to be fired from many of these job once your in it. Stability, extremely well paying with tons of benefits and basically the only place with top notch pensions anymore.

Some people believed it was almost impossible to get kicked out. That unless you became a public disgrace, they would tolerate almost anything.

But, in the union's grievance of the dismissal of a co-worker, the arbitrator ruled,

Certain jobs require a high level of skill and a high level of trust from both the employer and the public. For employees working in those types of positions, it’s possible that off-duty behaviour can call into question that trust, if it demonstrates poor judgment. And if an employer no longer has confidence that an employee has the judgment to perform a job of high skill and responsibility, the result could be dismissal.
https://www.hrreporter.com/columnist/employment-law/archive/2013/04/22/professional-conduct-outside-of-profession/

 

[AbdullahD]

Regarding the right to strike.. some private sector jobs are not allowed to strike and in the opinion of some employees who work those jobs, the employer uses it as a weapon knowing the employee can not "walk off".

Also, I'm not sure how old you are etc.. but sometimes pay isn't everything. When comparing public vs private sector jobs look at the benfits both groups have or do not have and the difference that makes... i.e if I make the exact same amount of money as someone doing another job... but I have medical, dental, life benefits, a defined benefit pension plan and I start with 4 weeks paid vacation instead of two.. well I am really laughing heck with all that if i only make 80% of what someone without all that makes I'm doing "ok".

Abdullah

 

[mariomike]

Also, I'm not sure how old you are etc.. but sometimes pay isn't everything. When comparing public vs private sector jobs look at the benfits both groups have or do not have and the difference that makes... i.e if I make the exact same amount of money as someone doing another job... but I have medical, dental, life benefits, a defined benefit pension plan and I start with 4 weeks paid vacation instead of two.. well I am really laughing heck with all that if i only make 80% of what someone without all that makes I'm doing "ok".

Sick Bank Gratuity is another example. Something not really thought of, until you retire.

 

[meni0n]

Hi all,

Just thought I would try and develop my thoughts on a topic I have been musing with recently.

So I was reading the public service just rejected a 1.5% raise every year for the next 4 years and I can't help but think of the ever steadily growing pay gap between public service employees (all levels of government, police, politicians, clerks, etc.) and private sector employees.

For example my current workplace the agreed upon wage increase for the 5 years the union agreement spanned was 0% for the first two years, 1% for the third year, and 2% for the last 2 years, equaling out to 5% 5 years later. The public service in this case is rejecting a 6% increase over 4 years which is already much better than what many in the private sector will be receiving. In this case that's 1% more than what my wage increase would be and it is a year less than what mine is. And this is just what was rejected, odds are they shall end up with a better wage increase than that.

So my thoughts are why not tie the income of public service jobs into the national average income. So how this would work is say your a police officer, your average wage would be something like 1.5x the national average, a politician would be something like 3x the national average, etc.

What this would do is cause public sector wages to respond to how the private sector is as opposed to not being tied into it and always increasing (when has the public sector ever had wages drop?), remove Unions from holding the government and people hostage (being able to strike on public services is ridiculous as you are literally holding the tax payer hostage), and prevent the government from being able to dictate their own wages (look at how many times in the last while where politicians voted for their own wage increases even well everyone else is on a pay freeze). It also means that you don't have to waste time negotiating wages as they would be set in stone.

Curious as to what peoples thoughts are on the topic.

Have you actually done any research on how the public service works and how many classifications and steps there are?

I don't quiet understand what you are proposing. Are you talking about household median? You want to pay clerks and IT staff the same amount of money? How does that make any sense?

 

[Eaglelord17]

Have you actually done any research on how the public service works and how many classifications and steps there are?

I don't quiet understand what you are proposing. Are you talking about household median? You want to pay clerks and IT staff the same amount of money? How does that make any sense?

I am not proposing every single job have the same wage. The intent would be to figure out a fair point for someones salary to be tied to.

A clerk wouldn't be paid the same as IT. A cop wouldn't be paid the same as a Teacher. The idea would be to tie every government paid profession (including the military) to a fixed average based off the national average income. This would allow those wages to contract and expand based off of how the rest of the country is doing and prevent the gradual creep of government wages.

This isn't about benefits, its simply proposing a way to ensure government wages don't run rampant well private wages stagnant or drop.

 

[mariomike]

This isn't about benefits, its simply proposing a way to ensure government wages don't run rampant well private wages stagnant or drop.

Sometimes, an "I pay your salary" type would say something like, "I don't have it, so you shouldn't either."

Never any anger directed towards the financiers. More about cannibalizing gains made by other working people.

It was no use arguing with them. But, maybe they should have asked themselves, "They have it - why don't I?"

It's not a race to the bottom.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Why would you tie a miltary trades persons salary to someone in the private sector who paid out of pocket to learn their craft?

 

[meni0n]

Why would you tie a public servant's salary to the performance of private companies and how the amount of raises they give their employees.

 

[ballz]

Traditionally, public sector always paid slightly lower than the private sector. It competed for labour on the basis of job security, better and more stable ours, better benefits like pad leave and better pensions, etc.

This is no longer the case. Public sector jobs nowadays are absolutely, hands down, some of the best jobs available, particularly the ones that are low-skill. Compare the life of someone who works privately laying asphalt to that of someone on a city crew as an example.

Of course, we should always be trying to get the best bang for our buck and I demand any government to do it's absolutely best to keep the cost of human resources down, just like every other cost. But we also need to know what we want out of our public service.... because cheaper ain't always better. Right now, we allegedly have the most effective civil service in the world, so if we are paying more money in theory for better employees and more effectiveness, well, that's the cost of better human resources and more effectiveness.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/international-civil-service-effectiveness-incise-index-2017

I find myself rather conflicted with all this, of course, considering the previous Auditor-General roasted the public service, and anything he said that I am privy too, I've observed in the DND (both civilian and CAF...). And the things that I am not privy too, his observations seemed pretty compelling.

'Almost impossible to get fired?"  We follow the exact same rules as any other workplace in Canada so you are already starting your argument off with a lack of knowledge.

I will say that I have to disagree here with your assertion and that he is not at all out to lunch. The former Auditor-General Michael Ferguson and the former Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick also supported his point about a year ago, quite publicly. Government has no skin in the game like private companies who need to be competitive to survive, and accountability suffers for it. Same rules or not (which is not accurate, because collective bargaining ultimately brings in more "stuff," the laws alone are not the only rules in play), the culture is very different and not in a good way, and this was made pretty clear in a damning report by the AG.

It is unfortunately ironic that the Phoenix pay system which so many people have had to suffer for, as an example, was a self-inflicted wound that the Public Service did to itself out of its own incompetence.

And I'll add here again, I don't think the CAF is much better in this regard. I think the CAF suffers from the exact same problems the AG nailed the public service for.

And not surprisingly, after being roasted by the AG for lack of accountability, the Clerk Michael Wernick tried to deny it and said the AG's audit was just an "opinion piece." It was embarrassing quite frankly, but he did eventually fold and admitted the rules of regarding accountability in the public service should be looked at by Parliament. https://ipolitics.ca/2018/06/20/top-bureaucrat-says-parliament-should-look-at-changing-ps-rules-for-firing/

 

[ballz]

Why would you tie a public servant's salary to the performance of private companies the private sector as a whole and how the amount of raises they give their employees.

He has answered that pretty clearly, did you actually read his posts?

 

[Eaglelord17]

Why would you tie a public servant's salary to the performance of private companies and how the amount of raises they give their employees.

It would be tied to the whole private sector. The reason being that ultimately they are the ones providing the public sector with jobs, and paying the salary. Why should the public sector gradually creep up faster and faster, well the private sector stagnates or declines? Why shouldn't the two be linked is a fairer question.

Why would you tie a miltary trades persons salary to someone in the private sector who paid out of pocket to learn their craft?

It would be tying everyone in the governments wage to a fixed average. That average might just equal out to what the pay currently is for whatever job it is and just lock it in place.

The proposed idea would bring about accountability to the public sector that can be lacking (such as politicians deciding their own wages and wage increases), and set a fair and easy to understand model which would keep the private sector and public sector linked. This makes sense as one pays for the other, but currently there is no connection between the two.

 

[meni0n]

First of, private sector is not paying for the wages of the public sector. It is the government paying wages, private sector is not providing any jobs to the public sector, so get off the high horse there. Secondly, while I am in a classification that would greatly benefit from what you are proposing, I still don't see any sense in what you are proposing. Just because a company mismanaged its performance and doesn't provide pay increases to its employees, somehow that would also reflect on public sector wages because that would influence the national average, albeit not much but to make these dependent on each makes no sense at all. What about some companies that provide bonuses based on performance, that bonus is not part of the base salary, how would you go about taking that into account. Private sector or private companies base everything on one thing, performance and profits. Why would public service salaries be tied to that?

You seem to be one of those snowflakes that thinks they're paying for public service or military wages. Get over yourself, you're paying taxes to the government, which then decides what to do with them.

 

[mariomike]

Compare the life of someone who works privately laying asphalt to that of someone on a city crew as an example.

Ok

From the Sunshine List,

City of Toronto
Asphalt Concrete Worker

Salary Paid $ 101,094.58
Taxable Benefits $ 479.35

Not sure how that compares to the private sector?