Treasury Board Bargaining in Bad Faith

[jolinar of malkshor]

The Public Service Alliance of Canada
(PSAC) doesn't buy Treasury Board's recent statement that they are committed
to the bargaining process and achieving a fair settlement. Treasury Board has
called on the union to respect bargaining dates that had been tentatively
scheduled for June.
After a year at the bargaining table, PSAC is essentially in the same
place as it was going into bargaining in 2007, according to PSAC's National
President John Gordon.
"In one year of bargaining, we've spent most of our time signing off
articles in the collective agreement that are being renewed without change, or
resisting Treasury Board's attempts to reduce existing benefits," says Gordon.
"Many of the employer's demands for take-aways are finally being withdrawn,
but this only brings us back to the status quo."
Gordon says the last straw was the unacceptable wage offer Treasury Board
presented to our bargaining teams. At negotiation sessions that have been
taking place over the last two weeks, PSAC members were offered increases of
1.5%. 1.5%, 1.2% and 1.2% over a four-year agreement; increases that will see
the value of their salaries decrease as a result of inflation.

PSAC represents over 100,000 workers in five Treasury Board bargaining
units.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/a.../29/c6087.html

I mean really? An average yearly increase of 1.35%? What a deal, seeing since the inflation rate in Canada for 2007 was 2.0% and expected to be 2.4% this year. Are you kidding me? Not to mention some of these bargaining units have been reclassified and in some cases independant pay studies have shown that they are underpaid compared to the private sector by as much as 30%.

Underpaid by 30% but the treasury board is proposing a increase of 5.7% over 4 years? No wonder we get such good workers in the government.

[simmer2]

As soon as the government becomes as efficient as private industry, then we can start paying government workers as such. Until then, 2 people doing the work of 1 get paid the work of 1.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by simmer2

As soon as the government becomes as efficient as private industry, then we can start paying government workers as such. Until then, 2 people doing the work of 1 get paid the work of 1.

Oh? You feel that police officers, corrections officers, parole officers, border services officers are only doing half the work they should be doing? Pretty pathetic statement as far as I am concerned.

[fredr123]

Whatever the results of the current stalled negotiations in a long line of stalled negotiations, I really hope the workers represented by CPAC aren't going to rely on the tried and true work to rule campaigns of the past. Increasing wait times at borders and airports isn't the best way to get the public behind your cause.

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Oh? You feel that police officers, corrections officers, parole officers, border services officers are only doing half the work they should be doing? Pretty pathetic statement as far as I am concerned.

The comment I made was likely a little harsher than it needed to be, but what I am saying is from the involvement I have had with government, their bureaucracy is ridiculous. I have nothing against people that work for government, they earn their money just like I do. I feel it is the govt's responsibility to reduce overhead to allow their members to be paid fairly though, otherwise our tax dollars just go up to pay for the increased salaries; the inefficiencies simply get ignored.

Unions like this shouldn't be fighting for increased wages, they should be fighting for the removal of unnecessary overhead.

I am getting away from the main point though, and needless to say, that's not the way to be bargaining.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Whatever the results of the current stalled negotiations in a long line of stalled negotiations, I really hope the workers represented by CPAC aren't going to rely on the tried and true work to rule campaigns of the past. Increasing wait times at borders and airports isn't the best way to get the public behind your cause.

Lets take the place of work that you have picked out for an example. If the Treasury Board does not make an offer that is acceptable or even appropriate for the workers, what recourse does the union have to push for a better increase in pay? The proposed wage increase by the treasury board clearly shows that a fair deal is NOT what they want. If it were they would have offered atleast an increase compariable to inflation. Should work action be required then yes it would most likely make it inconvienient for the traveling public. But is that the essance of any work action regardless if it is public or private?

Maybe these kind of work actions would not be required if the public stood by the people that they rely on to run the government, health system, law enforcement, parks, social services ect. But instead we get comments like simmer2 and the I dont care attitute unless it affects me that you have.

Isn't it ultimately in the best interest of the government and you the tax payer to have a resepectable work environment between the employer and the unions, not a hostile one that is usually set up by the government barganning team?

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I mean really? An average yearly increase of 1.35%? What a deal, seeing since the inflation rate in Canada for 2007 was 2.0% and expected to be 2.4% this year. Are you kidding me? Not to mention some of these bargaining units have been reclassified and in some cases independant pay studies have shown that they are underpaid compared to the private sector by as much as 30%.

Underpaid by 30% but the treasury board is proposing a increase of 5.7% over 4 years? No wonder we get such good workers in the government.

This post was from today.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

It's not about if they can take the stress or not...they obviously can....the point is why do it???? Why put up with so much when they can go work at home depot for the same amount???? This is what they want to do but why??? Why stick with it when they get paid jack ??? Why put up with the late nights, the deaths, the people that attack them for no reason? The lower life expectancy??? That is the point....do you get it NOW?

This one was from a thread about EMS workers going on strike from July last year.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Oh? You feel that police officers, corrections officers, parole officers, border services officers are only doing half the work they should be doing? Pretty pathetic statement as far as I am concerned.

Again, this post was from today's thread.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

That is sick...

I have been working for the government for about 7 years now....and I have to say that my experience has been there is a higher rate than 10% of slackers....closer to 25-30%. And it is absolutly sick. The problem is that the old timers are on cruise control....waiting for retirement.....and then when we get new staff.....some tend to pick up the habits of these slack asses.

Now I have worked many different jobs.....and there are slackers in union and non-union organizations alike....but in my profession....we cannot afford to have ANY slackers let alone 25%.

This post was from a thread started by Jolinar in February last year titled "Unions - What's Your opinion".

Now I'm probably the last person to start pointing out people who change their positions on things over time. Hell, I rarely express an opinion anyway. And I'm not accusing Jolinar of flipping or flopping on these issues.

I only point these things out and juxtapose them for the sake of debate. On the one hand you talk about how EMTs could (and perhaps, maybe should) move to a different job where they can get the same or better pay while having to deal with fewer work-related risks. Perchance the same logic could apply to PSAC employees or at least members like CBSA officers who work in dangerous situations like at border crossings.

The second set of statements just goes to show that, while maybe a 2:1 ratio of workers employed to workers required may be a bit of hyperbole, it can be acknowledged that there are a lot of slackers in the federal service. Sure, there are people cruising at work all the time (says the guy posting on CP during work hours) but calling simmer2's comment pathetic may be a bit much.

Back to the point of the link, though, I'm not entirely sure how this shows the Treasury Board has been bargaining in bad faith. The bottom line issue for both sides seems to be wage increases. That's where negotiations have stalled.

Does anyone know the numbers for any other recent union negotiations? It might provide some context to know if the Treasury Board lowballs everyone or if they're just trying to stick it to PSAC.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Lets take the place of work that you have picked out for an example. If the Treasury Board does not make an offer that is acceptable or even appropriate for the workers, what recourse does the union have to push for a better increase in pay? The proposed wage increase by the treasury board clearly shows that a fair deal is NOT what they want. If it were they would have offered atleast an increase compariable to inflation. Should work action be required then yes it would most likely make it inconvienient for the traveling public. But is that the essance of any work action regardless if it is public or private?

Maybe these kind of work actions would not be required if the public stood by the people that they rely on to run the government, health system, law enforcement, parks, social services ect. But instead we get comments like simmer2 and the I dont care additute unless it affects me that you have.

Isn't it ultimately in the best interest of the government and you the tax payer to have a resepectable work environment between the employer and the unions, not a hostile one that is usually set up by the government barganning team?

My opinion (hey, I'm expressing an opinion for once) is that inconveniencing the public is not an effective way to gain the support of the public. I would go from being upset at the government for disrespecting its employees to being upset at the government AND the surly CBSA officer who just spent 45 minutes searching my car after I waited 4 hours in line to cross the border.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by simmer2

The comment I made was likely a little harsher than it needed to be, but what I am saying is from the involvement I have had with government, their bureaucracy is ridiculous. I have nothing against people that work for government, they earn their money just like I do. I feel it is the govt's responsibility to reduce overhead to allow their members to be paid fairly though, otherwise our tax dollars just go up to pay for the increased salaries; the inefficiencies simply get ignored.

Unions like this shouldn't be fighting for increased wages, they should be fighting for the removal of unnecessary overhead.

I am getting away from the main point though, and needless to say, that's not the way to be bargaining.

I agree the bureaucracy is pathetic, this offer clearly shows it. You say you have no problem with government workers making money the same as you do, fair enough. Would you be happy or settle for a contract that pays you less than inflation, essentially giving you a pay reduction?

Or what about the increase in inefficiencies created by the disolussioned government workers who feel that they are not respected and the work they do is not being appreciated by their employer? Do you not think that would create even more inefficiencies and overhead? Increased sick leave, stress leave, hiring incompetent workers because the good ones are not attracted to the public sector because they can make much more in the private sector? Would you rather pay a bunch of idiots less money to run government services or pay more money and have competent people running it?

Why shouldn't unions be fighting for better wages and working conditions for there members? Wouldn't that eliminate some of the inefficiencies and overhead? Is it there responsibility or is it the taxerpay/voter to demand that the politicians do there jobs properly?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by fredr123

This one was from a thread about EMS workers going on strike from July last year.

Way to misrepresent what was said their Fred. If you had posted the whole argument I was in complete support of a LARGE increase for the EMS workers because they damn well deserved it. If I remember right I was arguing this point becuase someone said they should just go work somewhere else. I was making the point that WHY should they when they are doing a job they love.

Here are some other remarks I made in that thread

many people want to do certain jobs regardless of the secondary outcomes such as stress. (usually public sevice positions...ie: teachers, police, EMT) However, just because someone loves a job doesn't mean they have to put up with BS because it is the job of their choice. Many people get fed up with the politics and stress of a certain job and get burnt out because it just isn't worth it for what they are geting paid. So why would you want to let very good professionals that save peoples lives leave the job because you think they should have to put up with the stress because they are aware of it prior to being hired?

It means getting paid what they are worth.....it lets the employee know that their work is appreciated and respected (hard to come by when you work in the public service)......it helps with having to watch people die, having to be in contact with people that have communicable diseases, people that dont want your help and try to hurt you, having to be away from your family because of shift work, having a lower life expectancy because of shift work......these people deserve what they are asking for....it is very straight forward.

Very unlike you to misrepresent a quote so much.

This post was from a thread started by Jolinar in February last year titled "Unions - What's Your opinion".

Again Fred, way to misrepresent what I was saying. I did say that in my experience the rate of slackers was 25-30%. I never said that was soley public employees. I did mention that I had work for the government for the last 7 years but I have also worked in the private sector.

And lets take a look at why there may be so many disenfranchised employees with in the government. Because of BS offers like the one in this thread. Not to mention the government legislated contract in the early 90's of 0%. 0% thats right. No matter who you work for you deserve to get an increase of atleast the inflation rate or you are taking a pay cut. Do you think that maybe do to governments bargaining in bad faith may be a root cause in the inefficiencies of the government????

Also regarding the quote you quoted me above, you failed to include this:

Now I have worked many different jobs.....and there are slackers in union and non-union organizations alike....but in my profession....we cannot afford to have ANY slackers let alone 25%.

AND

Unions are there for a reason....to protect the employees. The problem with most unions is that they want everyone to be equal. The reality is....they are not. My biggest problem with unions (and I am in one) is that the unproductive and lazy people get paid the same as the productive and hard working people. There needs to be a mechanizam that allows hard working and productive workers to be not only recognized but also rewarded for their hard work.

Why didnt you include these quotes in your smear campaign? There are lazy people in all organizations, there shouldn't be but there is, that doesn't mean you pay the majority less because of a few lazy people.

I only point these things out and juxtapose them for the sake of debate. On the one hand you talk about how EMTs could (and perhaps, maybe should) move to a different job where they can get the same or better pay while having to deal with fewer work-related risks. Perchance the same logic could apply to PSAC employees or at least members like CBSA officers who work in dangerous situations like at border crossings.

Again not was I said at all. WOW

The second set of statements just goes to show that, while maybe a 2:1 ratio of workers employed to workers required may be a bit of hyperbole, it can be acknowledged that there are a lot of slackers in the federal service. Sure, there are people cruising at work all the time (says the guy posting on CP during work hours) but calling simmer2's comment pathetic may be a bit much.

Thats a bit of an assumption is it not? Really, a bit much? I wonder where most of the people are when they are posting on Calgary puck? Perhaps work? Including yourself? Does that mean you and everyone else cannot get there work done? Maybe you haven't noticed but I haven't been that active on CP for a while now, thats because I have been busy at work. I have priorities, family, work, CP. If time permits, I post on CP.
And do you really want to get into a war about what jobs are slack? Because let me tell you, there are MANY more slack jobs out there than government jobs.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Way to misrepresent what was said their Fred...

I only quoted what you said. There was much more there, no doubt, but I thought the point you were trying to make then is equally applicable now. If it's so crappy working for the government, if you're so disrespected and underpaid, then why do it? That was the message I got from your quote in the EMT thread though you went on to talk about how EMTs are worth much more than what they are being paid.

Regarding the second set of quotes, I did in fact include the part you said I omitted. It still doesn't change the point I was trying to make. There is a perception that the federal government is rife with lazy slackers. Simmer2 alluded to that and you jumped all over him. I was just trying to show that even you, being the reasonable poster you are, once recognized that about 25-30% of the workers in the government fall into the slothy category.

Originally Posted by jolinar

Thats a bit of an assumption is it not? Really, a bit much? I wonder where most of the people are when they are posting on Calgary puck? Perhaps work? Including yourself? Does that mean you and everyone else cannot get there work done? Maybe you haven't noticed but I haven't been that active on CP for a while now, thats because I have been busy at work. I have priorities, family, work, CP. If time permits, I post on CP.
And do you really want to get into a war about what jobs are slack? Because let me tell you, there are MANY more slack jobs out there than government jobs.

It's not a smear campaign and it's not an assumption so much as it is me pointing out your thoughts on the number of slackers in the federal government from your own experience. simmer2 was overestimating, probably for dramatic effect. I admitted I was posting from work. It's not about what jobs are more slack than others.

Now, recognizing it is my fault for derailing your thread I apologize. If you want to go back to debating the original topic let's do that. If you want to call me names and accuse me of misrepresenting your previous comments, we can do that over PM.

[flylock shox]

It's absolutely impossible to paint all government workers with the same brush. Not only do different levels of government differ in the pay they give their employees, but there are also considerable differences in workload and pay between different departments of government. As someone who works for the government, I can assure you that NO ONE in my office is underworked - everyone does the the work of two people, not the other way around. We're also not paid overtime, and our benefits are not particularly remarkable either.

Treasury Board has shown the same reluctance to bargain fairly with our representatives, despite the fact that anyone doing comparable work in the private sector, or even working for other (non-federal) governments, is clearly earning significantly more. Who suffers as a result of this? Well, we do obviously, since we're undercompensated given our qualifications, responsibilities, and workload. But so does the public which relies on our services. Would you rather have your government staffed by people who are competent and able to perform their jobs effectively, or people who are hired on the cheap, perform less effectively, and ultimately offer poorer quality service because they are either overworked or underskilled?

The position taken by the Treasury Board outlined above doesn't surprise me, given our department's experience in dealing with them. It does, however, mystify me, and isn't good government.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I only quoted what you said. There was much more there, no doubt, but I thought the point you were trying to make then is equally applicable now. If it's so crappy working for the government, if you're so disrespected and underpaid, then why do it? That was the message I got from your quote in the EMT thread though you went on to talk about how EMTs are worth much more than what they are being paid.

Regarding the second set of quotes, I did in fact include the part you said I omitted. It still doesn't change the point I was trying to make. There is a perception that the federal government is rife with lazy slackers. Simmer2 alluded to that and you jumped all over him. I was just trying to show that even you, being the reasonable poster you are, once recognized that about 25-30% of the workers in the government fall into the slothy category.



It's not a smear campaign and it's not an assumption so much as it is me pointing out your thoughts on the number of slackers in the federal government from your own experience. simmer2 was overestimating, probably for dramatic effect. I admitted I was posting from work. It's not about what jobs are more slack than others.

Now, recognizing it is my fault for derailing your thread I apologize. If you want to go back to debating the original topic let's do that. If you want to call me names and accuse me of misrepresenting your previous comments, we can do that over PM.

Well, I don't remember calling you a name sooo, if I did, I am sorry but can you show me where I did?

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Well, I don't remember calling you a name sooo, if I did, I am sorry but can you show me where I did?

You didn't (though I'm sure a couple went through your head).

[jolinar of malkshor]

PSAC accepts wage 'restraint'


The 100,000 members of Canada’s largest federal union have voted to accept the Harper government’s wage ‘restraint’ giving them raises of 6.8 per cent over the four years.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada is one of the few unions to have actually negotiated a deal with the government after it imposed a final ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ offer in November and later threatened to force it by legislation. It offered wage increases of 2.3 per cent in 2008 and 1.5 per cent in each of the next three years.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/PSAC+ac...754/story.html

[Resolute 14]

Of course, the real question here is how much these workers are making to begin with.

One of my best friends is a CM with the RCMP doing the same job I do in the private sector. She makes about 20% more than I do. So yeah, 1.5% raise or not, I am keeping a very close eye on local job openings, because it is worth it.

So, without knowing how much affected PSAC members are making relative to the real world, I find it impossible to be up in arms about this the way you were when this was first posted, Jolinar.

[Dan02]

Why aren't public sector employees salarys just tied to inflation, seems to be the most fair thing to do to me imo.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Why aren't public sector employees salarys just tied to inflation, seems to be the most fair thing to do to me imo.

Oh, that most certainly would be a recipe for disaster.

Let's go back to the year 1999. Not only is the private sector paying huge $$$ to bring in last minute consultants to fix their Y2K programs, but Nortel, JDS Uniphase, and a slew of other tech giants were booming. And the private sector was offering $100,000 contracts to people making $50,000/year in the government. Whether you were an old-timer that knew COBOL and JCL or you were a new graduate skilled in C or Java, there was huge demand in the private sector for your skills. We were canceling projects at alarming rates and there was concern that we wouldn't have enough tech guys to run even the primary systems. Therefore Treasury Board stepped up with a significant pay increases which stopped the bleeding.

A similar situation has occurred now with the FI's (Financial Experts). With all the rules put in place after the sponsorship scandal and Gomery, we need financial accountants to ensure the rules are being followed. However, in tough economic times, experienced financial accountants are actually difficult to keep as private sector companies are looking for people who can analyze their business and make recommendations for reorganizations. So, again, Treasury Board gave significant salary increases to the senior FIs.

-=-=-=-=-=-

As for the current PSAC negotiation, that 2.3, 1.5, 1.5, 1.5 is atrocious and they had better not think to ask the CS community for the same thing. I actually would consider 2.3, 1.5, 1.5 but it is that fourth year that just stings. Now the 2.3% is for last year because most government workers have been working without a contract since 2007. Do I think that the current economic downturn is likely to keep inflation under 1.5 this year? Probably. Next year? Unlikely, but possible - and I realize that the private sector is putting in wage freezes or very, very modest increases. But adding that extra year in there just allows Treasury Board to exploit the tough economic times and put in a long-term contract (in the past most contracts have been two or three years in length as opposed to this 4 year contract) during a recession. Again, I would suggest that in 2012 when the economy is moving along quite well the government will have trouble attracting skilled labour because the private sector will be able to hire the best of the best. And the government will be left with the best solitaire players our universities can provide.

[Ronald Pagan]

This is an old Treasury Board tactic. My union has been working without a contract since June 2007 and it has taken a year and a half to come to an agreement with TB. And the only reason they came to an agreement was because the union buckled and took whatever it could get in light of the economic 'disaster.' As such we're getting the, across the board, 7 percent or whatever being offered to everyone.

Their tactic seemed to be just to stall, stall, stall until it was advantageous for them. I mean seriously, negotiating a contract for 18 months only to come to 7 percent over 4 years?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

So, without knowing how much affected PSAC members are making relative to the real world, I find it impossible to be up in arms about this the way you were when this was first posted, Jolinar.

I always wonder about total compensation too.

Even if the salary is lower, if the workload is less, there's total job security, a gold plated pension, benefits etc.