Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

regarding the strike.
For pay, they're asking for 12% over 3 years and the government is offering 9%?

Strictly looking at pay, I think 9% is pretty fair.
I don't know what else is a stumbling block in the negotiations, but to me striking over that 3% is greedy. (again, just my opinion.)

You know whose wages are keeping up with inflation right now? Nobody's. Thats what happens when inflation is rampant.

Further, as calgarygeologist stated, I believe 'Working From Home' is the Hill they're prepared to die on.

But apparently its their #1 issue.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Locke

You know whose wages are keeping up with inflation right now? Nobody's. Thats what happens when inflation is rampant.

I mean, that's clearly not true. Average hourly wages in Canada have grown by 5.3% in the last 12 months which is higher than the rate of inflation in that period. And in the longer term, average hourly wages have gone up by about 18-19% in the last 5 years while the CPI has increased by 17%.

[Azure]

I'm not a big union guy either, but 13% over 3 years seems reasonable to me.

Hard to believe this is being held up.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by timun

That's unfortunate and I don't mean to pick on you or Ironhorse, but frankly your earlier comment about PSAC seeming "greedy" comes across as "crabs-in-a-bucket mentality": if you don't get a raise, no one should get one.

I'm not saying that's what you mean, but I hope you understand how someone such as myself could perceive it that way.


I know a lot of people who believe the federal public services is full of a bunch of overpaid dog-####ers with gold-plated benefits and pensions, but my experience is that's not the case. The most spoiled and entitled people I've ever dealt with have been white-collar private sector workers in one particular industry.

To a certain extent you're correct. part of my feeling on it does stem from jealousy.

I do think they deserve a raise, I just think they're asking for too much, especially if their benefit plan is maintained.

There are likely other issues they're at odds over, but on salary increases alone I think the union might be a bit unreasonable in striking.

[Mr.Coffee]

why not just link rates to inflation to avoid this stupid arduous process?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

why not just link rates to inflation to avoid this stupid arduous process?

Because that's only part of the issue. It's issues like working conditions and things like that they're also negotiating.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

Because that's only part of the issue. It's issues like working conditions and things like that they're also negotiating.

That’s true, things like remote work are apparently a big sticking point for a lot of employees. But at the end of the day I think those issues would be more easily resolved or conceded if the money was there.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

That’s true, things like remote work are apparently a big sticking point for a lot of employees. But at the end of the day I think those issues would be more easily resolved or conceded if the money was there.

I find it hard to believe that they would just cave on critical issues like working conditions purely on the basis of money.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

I find it hard to believe that they would just cave on critical issues like working conditions purely on the basis of money.

Perhaps I should have worded it a little better but what I meant was that finding middle ground in negotiations is a little easier when there are fewer outstanding items on the table. The government is probably hoping that as time goes by that the what I assume to be a minority of workers who are fighting for remote work rights will have a hard time maintaining the support of those in the bargaining unit who aren’t, making it easier to maintain the status quo.

[timun]

As I understand it, half the reason that the "return-to-the-office" mandate is so contentious is that office planning fell apart during the Covid pandemic and there physically isn't enough space in government offices for them all to return as directed.


My corporate head office finally instituted a return-to-office policy effective next month, expecting everyone back 2-3 days a week starting next Tuesday, but we're going to run into a massive, massive problem: we gave up two-thirds of our office space a couple years ago. I planned ahead and kept enough desks for my team permanently carved out, but everybody else is scrambling. Corporate bozos expect that the lack of office space can simply be "scheduled around", but fail to grasp the simple math that if you are expecting a proportion of people to be back two out of three days midweek, you need at least two-thirds of the total number of workers worth of desks for everybody. Even jamming everybody into cubes, we're still ~20 workstations short...

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

There was a piece in the Globe and Mail this weekend that outlined that, and also the fact that a lot of these public servants are making more than their private counterparts. There's really not a lot of rationale for that. They've got greater job security, pensions and benefits, and all of the trappings that come with government work in general, so why are they being paid more and demanding larger raises?

Instead of arguing that the public sector should fall in line with the private sector, the better question to ask would be what, if anything, could these private sector workers do to move themselves closer to what their public sector counterparts are earning? Is there potentially 1 consistent difference between the two groups aside from one being in the private sector and the other in the public sector?

This is a real brain buster right here folks.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Instead of arguing that the public sector should fall in line with the private sector, the better question to ask would be what, if anything, could these private sector workers do to move themselves closer to what their public sector counterparts are earning? Is there potentially 1 consistent difference between the two groups aside from one being in the private sector and the other in the public sector?

This is a real brain buster right here folks.

I think the first question is: Has performance been impacted by WFH, then you start asking if the performance trade off is worth it. Depending on if there is a loss in productivity with WFH then that would determine part of the pay package.

Then your argument of public be private WFH could happen.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think the first question is: Has performance been impacted by WFH, then you start asking if the performance trade off is worth it. Depending on if there is a loss in productivity with WFH then that would determine part of the pay package.

Then your argument of public be private WFH could happen.

My understanding is that its less about performance than it is about security.

CRA's 'Performance' is garbage, has been garbage and will be garbage. If there is a Government tree in dire need of pruning it is that one. And yet...they're highly paid and now demanding more.

What its really about is that CRA's network security is essentially swiss cheese. They'd been hacked something like 5 years in a row.

So they put a ton of money into network security and then....they've got employees working from their houses with no real network security to speak of.

They essentially just want to get value from their investment.

Frankly? We'd be best off firing all of these clowns on both sides and starting over.

The Government is being stupid and the CRA is being stupid.

Think of it this way...they're being offered 9% raises on top of their already bloated salary and benefits. You make that offer to almost anyone at the moment and they'd be signing on the dotted line so fast it'd make your head spin.

But these people want more.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Locke

My understanding is that its less about performance than it is about security.

CRA's 'Performance' is garbage, has been garbage and will be garbage. If there is a Government tree in dire need of pruning it is that one. And yet...they're highly paid and now demanding more.

What its really about is that CRA's network security is essentially swiss cheese. They'd been hacked something like 5 years in a row.

So they put a ton of money into network security and then....they've got employees working from their houses with no real network security to speak of.

They essentially just want to get value from their investment.

Frankly? We'd be best off firing all of these clowns on both sides and starting over.

The Government is being stupid and the CRA is being stupid.

Think of it this way...they're being offered 9% raises on top of their already bloated salary and benefits. You make that offer to almost anyone at the moment and they'd be signing on the dotted line so fast it'd make your head spin.

But these people want more.

And yet two posts up, someone is still trying to suggest the public sector workers could teach the private sector a lot. I just assume that’s entirely facetious.

[PepsiFree]

Wasn’t there something that mentioned most people working at the CRA getting between $40k-60k?

If so, I wouldn’t call that highly paid.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think the first question is: Has performance been impacted by WFH, then you start asking if the performance trade off is worth it. Depending on if there is a loss in productivity with WFH then that would determine part of the pay package.

Then your argument of public be private WFH could happen.

If this post was an unintentional deflection show it to your boss and I can almost guarantee that you’ll be named employee of the month

You’re forgetting that both public and private sector workers have the ability to work from home GGG, but regardless my post had absolutely nothing to do with WFH.

While I’m sure that the handful of posters who would rather lay on a bed of hot coals than admit that there’s even an ounce of legitimacy to anything I say appreciate your efforts here, you know as well as I do what the main reason is for the disparity between in overall wages, benefits and job security between the private and public sectors. It’s the same reason why private sector employees on average do better than their private sector counterparts where that reason is absent.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Wasn’t there something that mentioned most people working at the CRA getting between $40k-60k?

If so, I wouldn’t call that highly paid.

Google says the average is $140k and entry level is $71k. I think that $40-60k is the PSAC average or something and I’m not sure what that includes. It seems to be pretty low though.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Wasn’t there something that mentioned most people working at the CRA getting between $40k-60k?

If so, I wouldn’t call that highly paid.

Woah woah Pepsi, you don’t want to let facts get in the way of things. Otherwise you might have people asking accountants to disclose their earnings and justify why they aren’t overpaid when you could almost certainly find the same service elsewhere for cheaper.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by Slava

Google says the average is $140k and entry level is $71k. I think that $40-60k is the PSAC average or something and I’m not sure what that includes. It seems to be pretty low though.

140k??? Average???? I don't believe it for a second. Please share the link.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

And yet two posts up, someone is still trying to suggest the public sector workers could teach the private sector a lot. I just assume that’s entirely facetious.

They could. And as I mentioned in a follow up post since then, some of their counterparts in the private sector have already learned that lesson.

The old saying goes when you assume you make an ass you and me, but when you do so for one reason or another I seem to come out of it relatively unscathed.