Treasury Board Bargaining in Bad Faith

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

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.

(A) Workload depends on the person. I can tell you now that my workload in the government is more than I ever had in my various private sector jobs. Which is certainly an area where these blanket contracts fall down. I know that based on the work I did last year, I deserve a raise, but I know at least three other guys that have the same classification that I do that deserve a swift boot to the rear.

(B) The job security is the main reason I have stayed with the government as long as I have. I have seen way too many friends and family get the boot after pouring their heart and soul into a company. So I'll definitely grant you that one.

(C) The gold plated pension (aka "golden handcuffs") is generous. But we also pay a lot into that. Whenever someone looks at my pay stub they are gobsmacked by how much I pay every 2 weeks.

(D) Benefits are similar to what I was getting in the private sector. Actually, I'm getting less in government for eye care. (what is it? $200 every 2 years? Can't afford contacts on that... and the government plan won't cover laser surgery)

-=-=-=-=-=-
The one thing I would do if I were the head of Treasury Board is cut the severance benefits but PAY OUT SICK LEAVE. I have 36 weeks of sick leave in my bank which I'll never use unless I come down with something totally debilitating like cancer. I'm sick and tired of the asshats that think "sick leave" = "vacation days". But you get those asshats in the private sector as well....

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by 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.

You want to know how much every public service emplyee make? Here you go
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hr...s-taux-eng.asp

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

-=-=-=-=-=-
The one thing I would do if I were the head of Treasury Board is cut the severance benefits but PAY OUT SICK LEAVE. I have 36 weeks of sick leave in my bank which I'll never use unless I come down with something totally debilitating like cancer. I'm sick and tired of the asshats that think "sick leave" = "vacation days". But you get those asshats in the private sector as well....

Agreed, atleast pay it out half a day for every day of sick leave.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

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.

He wasn't saying tie it with what the the privte sector made he said tie it to inflation for the raise. That is totaly different than what you are arguing.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Agreed, atleast pay it out half a day for every day of sick leave.

does that get paid out in the real world?

i'm also curious if there's a comperable for the real world wage increases?Seems like many face the prospect of no increase and maybe no job. Comparatively, the offered increase + no chance of being laid off seems ok.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

You want to know how much every public service emplyee make? Here you go
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hr...s-taux-eng.asp

Holy crap. Only two units currently have a valid contract? I had no idea TB was that bad. Yikes.

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

(A) Workload depends on the person. I can tell you now that my workload in the government is more than I ever had in my various private sector jobs. Which is certainly an area where these blanket contracts fall down. I know that based on the work I did last year, I deserve a raise, but I know at least three other guys that have the same classification that I do that deserve a swift boot to the rear.

In my own experience, this is painfully true. There are a buttload lazy unmotivated government workers but there are a handful of good ones that work their tails off and basically make up the difference. Those guys get hosed and painted with the same brush as the rest which isn't really fair.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by fredr123

In my own experience, this is painfully true. There are a buttload lazy unmotivated government workers but there are a handful of good ones that work their tails off and basically make up the difference. Those guys get hosed and painted with the same brush as the rest which isn't really fair.

Kinda what you sign up for in a union, no?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Kinda what you sign up for in a union, no?

As I mentioned in the union thread, you take the good with the bad. It's unfortunate that I can't get the job security I currently have without being in a union.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

does that get paid out in the real world?

i'm also curious if there's a comperable for the real world wage increases?Seems like many face the prospect of no increase and maybe no job. Comparatively, the offered increase + no chance of being laid off seems ok.

Don't know don't care, the point is that if they want to make government run more efficiently, they would do this. Instead of people calling in sick to use up their sick leave, people would be at work working because they know that there is a financial benifit in the end if they do.

I know a lot of people in the private sector that make sure they use up all their sick leave every year because it doesn't get carried over to the next year.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Don't know don't care, the point is that if they want to make government run more efficiently, they would do this. Instead of people calling in sick to use up their sick leave, people would be at work working because they know that there is a financial benifit in the end if they do.

Not sure the solution to lazy people milking the system is rewarding those who do what they get paid for.

In the don't know don't care world of responses I'd say fire the slackers and cut sick leave. Then we'd be talking about actual efficiency.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Not sure the solution to lazy people milking the system is rewarding those who do what they get paid for.

In the don't know don't care world of responses I'd say fire the slackers and cut sick leave. Then we'd be talking about actual efficiency.

Oh ya, that would make thing more efficient eh. Lets see you get good quality workers with your slave labour approach.

With your arguement, no one should get bonuses then should they because they are just doing the job they are supose to do, who cares how profitable the company becomes.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Not sure the solution to lazy people milking the system is rewarding those who do what they get paid for.

In the don't know don't care world of responses I'd say fire the slackers and cut sick leave. Then we'd be talking about actual efficiency.

Try telling that to the call centers. They found that rewarding those with good attendance worked far better than punishing those with bad attendance.

As for "fire the slackers", that doesn't work. In government you can only fire those with cause. I've tried that route once... you document, you record work done, you track arrival times and departure times. Either by the end of the year of documenting someone they either get the hint or we take further steps and go into a disciplinary hearing between the employer and the union. It is a long drawn-out process. However, you can only introduce things into evidence that can be observed on the job. If someone calls in sick, I don't have any proof that they are not sick. If someone continually calls in sick I can't present that at any disciplinary hearing as they can just claim "bad immune system".

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Oh ya, that would make thing more efficient eh. Lets see you get good quality workers with your slave labour approach.

With your arguement, no one should get bonuses then should they because they are just doing the job they are supose to do, who cares how profitable the company becomes.

My argument is that a flippant 'don't know don't care but it'll make me more efficient if i get a cheque for not screwing my employer' is as ######ed as suggesting if employers treat their staff like cattle they'll do better as well.

Lazy people with no pride screw the pooch regardless. No entitlement will change that. For hard working people, showing up shouldn't be a proxy for performance.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Try telling that to the call centers. They found that rewarding those with good attendance worked far better than punishing those with bad attendance.

As for "fire the slackers", that doesn't work. In government you can only fire those with cause. I've tried that route once... you document, you record work done, you track arrival times and departure times. Either by the end of the year of documenting someone they either get the hint or we take further steps and go into a disciplinary hearing between the employer and the union. It is a long drawn-out process. However, you can only introduce things into evidence that can be observed on the job. If someone calls in sick, I don't have any proof that they are not sick. If someone continually calls in sick I can't present that at any disciplinary hearing as they can just claim "bad immune system".

Sadly the latter part is equally true in a non-union environment. Outside of the extreme, there's no such thing as firing with cause. In my experience there's firing with cheque, which avoids being sued, and firing without cheque, which is always open to lawsuit.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

My argument is that a flippant 'don't know don't care but it'll make me more efficient if i get a cheque for not screwing my employer' is as ######ed as suggesting if employers treat their staff like cattle they'll do better as well.

Lazy people with no pride screw the pooch regardless. No entitlement will change that. For hard working people, showing up shouldn't be a proxy for performance.

Well my friend, the comment I made was anything but flippant. Why does it matter one way or another in this case what is done in the public sector? They are different entities. What works in the public sector might not work in the private sector. Unlike the private sector where employees can be rewarded for hard work and dedication, it isn't that easy in the public sector. By paying an employee half of their sick leave on retirement, it rewards them for actually being a worker that shows up for work. I would guarntee you that if they did this, there would be much less sick leave taken and more productivity.

Your right that some lazy people will screw the system no matter what benifit is in place. But why should the hard working people be penalized by the lazy? They shouldn't. Let me tell you something, people feel a little resentment when they work for 30 years and take very little sick leave, ony when they need to but do not get anything back for this other than a pin when they retire. Mean while coworker buddy has cashed in on thousands of dollars worth of sick leave over the last 30 years and gets the same pin when he retires. Do you think that maybe the guy who didn't use the sick leave felt a bit of resentment for having to pick up the slack of the other worker while he was at home using sick leave? Do you think that maybe the guy who never used sick leave, maybe his productivity was reduced the more and more he worked seeing what was happening? I would suggest yes.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Sadly the latter part is equally true in a non-union environment. Outside of the extreme, there's no such thing as firing with cause. In my experience there's firing with cheque, which avoids being sued, and firing without cheque, which is always open to lawsuit.

What a load man. This is so not true.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Do you think that maybe the guy who never used sick leave, maybe his productivity was reduced the more and more he worked seeing what was happening? I would suggest yes.

I think Johnny resentful is as lazy assed as Johnny sick leave because he sat in his bitter little cubicle growing resentful for 30 years, instead of changing his circumstance. Worse even; at least Johnny sick leave makes no claim to moral high ground.

IMO, showing up does not equal hard work and performance, unless showing up is pretty much all it takes to do your job well.

But hey, if PSAC can negotiate that for its members, good for them.

[flylock shox]

On a related topic, has anyone been following the situation at York University, and the Ontario government's proposal to legislate striking faculty back to work?

The move to legislate was blocked today in a very rare Sunday session. Good thing too. That's a very abusive stance to take - one typically reserved only for essential services. Sucks for York University students, but at least it suggests bargaining will have to take place.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I think Johnny resentful is as lazy assed as Johnny sick leave because he sat in his bitter little cubicle growing resentful for 30 years, instead of changing his circumstance. Worse even; at least Johnny sick leave makes no claim to moral high ground.

IMO, showing up does not equal hard work and performance, unless showing up is pretty much all it takes to do your job well.

But hey, if PSAC can negotiate that for its members, good for them.

You may be right, but just because people SHOULD work, doesn't mean they will and as an employer they need to look at ways to increase productivity and kep employees happy. That is why ANY company has perks, benifits, sick eave, holidays. To keep their employes happy and working. By your arguements, workers shouldn't get any of these becuase they should be happy with just having a job. Doesn't work that way in the real world my friend.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

You may be right, but just because people SHOULD work, doesn't mean they will and as an employer they need to look at ways to increase productivity and kep employees happy. That is why ANY company has perks, benifits, sick eave, holidays. To keep their employes happy and working. By your arguements, workers shouldn't get any of these becuase they should be happy with just having a job. Doesn't work that way in the real world my friend.

Again, thats not my argument. And since I actually work in the real world, I'm not sure I need the interpretation.

In any case, I still think it'd be interesting to know if this is paid elsewhere, regardless of whether the union stewards think it's their entitlement. Perhaps it is.