Alberta Politics Thread v2

[Muta]

Originally Posted by tripin_billie

Except that when the good times are rolling, the public sector doesn't see the giant 25% of salary bonuses and other perks of the private sector. There is a trade off that is made. Security (typically even through recessions) vs. large bonuses and higher salaries. I don't see folks in the private sector complaining when the good times are rolling and public sector employees are being left behind. It is pretty petty to then turn around and complain that those who took the security path should feel pain because you did...

Bingo. When times were good, people avoided roles in the public sector because you got paid more in the private sector (even though public sector paid well). The trade off was the job security. Now that the economy has reversed, those who stayed in the public sector when times were good in Calgary have security in their well-paid jobs, and I'm not sure they should be a target for anything. Oil and gas is volatile, and anyone who went into the industry not knowing that would have had to have been incredibly naive.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by woob

I've always wondered why this isn't more of a thing in the core downtown area. There's so much dead space in tower lobbies, why isn't more of that space used as commercial/restaurant/store space? Is it safety thing?

because restaurants and shops aren't going to open up in a dead downtown.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Muta

Bingo. When times were good, people avoided roles in the public sector because you got paid more in the private sector (even though public sector paid well). The trade off was the job security. Now that the economy has reversed, those who stayed in the public sector when times were good in Calgary have security in their well-paid jobs, and I'm not sure they should be a target for anything. Oil and gas is volatile, and anyone who went into the industry not knowing that would have had to have been incredibly naive.

OK, but what about the argument that public sector wages had to rise to meet the private sector so they could get employees? Have they ever dropped now that private sector wages dropped, and there is no employee shortage?

[V]

While I agree that public sector wages should be market driven, I would be shocked if anyone on here would actually argue that public sector wages should be tied to supply and demand factors. They very clearly believed that public sector wages should be tied to the private sector because reasons. I think because it’s fair or something.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

OK, but what about the argument that public sector wages had to rise to meet the private sector so they could get employees? Have they ever dropped now that private sector wages dropped, and there is no employee shortage?

I don't work in the public sector, but I'm not sure the public sector salaries ever reached their private sector counterparts. While public salaries are good, they're not ludicrously high like private sector was at the time. Not sure why people should have their salaries reduced, too, just because private sector salaries dropped. Do you mean new hires? If so, public sectors typically follow rate sheets that have a set minimum and maximum for that particular role.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Muta

I don't work in the public sector, but I'm not sure the public sector salaries ever reached their private sector counterparts. While public salaries are good, they're not ludicrously high like private sector was at the time. Not sure why people should have their salaries reduced, too, just because private sector salaries dropped. Do you mean new hires? If so, public sectors typically follow rate sheets that have a set minimum and maximum for that particular role.

No, but the argument I remember at the time was they needed to rise more than other provinces because of the challenges here. I haven't looked at the numbers, but maybe we should be aiming for the Canadian average at this point.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Muta

I don't work in the public sector, but I'm not sure the public sector salaries ever reached their private sector counterparts. While public salaries are good, they're not ludicrously high like private sector was at the time. Not sure why people should have their salaries reduced, too, just because private sector salaries dropped. Do you mean new hires? If so, public sectors typically follow rate sheets that have a set minimum and maximum for that particular role.

To be fair their job is more secure than the private sector. Also when you add in the union pensions and other benefits, they do quite well.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Dion

To be fair their job is more secure than the private sector. Also when you add in the union pensions and other benefits, they do quite well.

I am being fair. They do, do quite well. Not as well as oil and gas though at the time of the boom. I'm sure someone who works in the public sector can chime in?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Muta

I am being fair. They do, do quite well. Not as well as oil and gas though at the time of the boom. I'm sure someone who works in the public sector can chime in?

I worked in the public sector. (support staff, not in a management position)
I would say pay was fair. not great, but fair.

we do have a pension, but it's only one pension, (not like the city of Calgary) and 10% of pay goes into it.
there is a pay scale with a min and max. doesn't take many years to max out.

no raises, no cost of living increase, no bonuses. normally little to no overtime. no jumping to another company for a better opportunity/more money.
never got a raise to match the private sector. that maybe was an upper management thing to "retain talent"

union only protects you so much. someone wants you gone, 19 times of 20, they can find a way to get rid of you if they have a bit of patience.

you get what you get and that's it. try living in Alberta with the price of everything going up so much and your pay staying the same. just spending power slowly getting eaten away with every tax, surcharge and raise in the price of food.

every single one oil and gas person I personally knew or made at least $40,000 more than me per year. more often than not, it was double. they didn't feel bad about it. (and that's after factoring in the value of my benefits)

now the friends I am jealous of were the ones that went into a trade. I have a plumber friend who 20 years ago tried to get me to go for it, and I wish I had. but I wanted the safe, steady 9-5 mon-Friday job.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by V

While I agree that public sector wages should be market driven, I would be shocked if anyone on here would actually argue that public sector wages should be tied to supply and demand factors. They very clearly believed that public sector wages should be tied to the private sector because reasons. I think because it’s fair or something.

Salaries should be set based on supply and demand. The Salary should be the minimum amount that gets a reasonably qualified person and reasonable retention time of good employees.

The other reason is how much can you pay for services. If we want to cut costs of government and you ignore 50% of the cost of government you can’t cut costs.

In general though cuts don’t make sense as much as freezes do. Far easier to implement and you just inflate your way to the norm.

[MBates]

I am not sure what can be gleaned from simple anecdotal examples regarding public service compensation but I thought I would put a factual example forward.

Alberta’s top public servant, Marcia Nelson, was interviewed at a conference in 2017 and discussed the fiscal challenges in tough economic times for the province and how that necessity would be the mother of invention to climb out of such problems (loose paraphrase).

https://canadiangovernmentexecutive....utive-council/

So, I looked up her compensation.

As the Deputy Minister of Executive Council (Cabinet) in 2017 she was paid a salary of $357,346.60 plus cash benefits of $27,419.96 plus non cash benefits of $87,494.55.

Quick math - total compensation $472,261.11.

Rather than just do a drive by and declare that an outrageous number, I guess I would say, what accountability is there that allows the taxpayers who pay that compensation to have any way to ensure that is a good value?

Objectively that compensation makes her above the limit to be in the top 1% of earners even in the significantly inflated city of Calgary:

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/m.huffin...da_a_23385825/

I think many would rightly question if that is appropriate value for this public servant position and whether in times where tens of thousands lost employment altogether or took major cuts to keep their jobs is it not a major problem that we have a massive public service that does not get reduced and keeps the same compensation as during boom times?

Necessity doesn’t need to invent much here. Just a political will to take very hard looks at the amounts of money being spent as compared to the amounts coming in. Is it really more difficult than that?

And perhaps a more interesting thing to debate - when politicians talk about taxing the rich and going after top tax bracket earners for their “fair share” I wonder how many people realize just how many people in that target demographic are actually in the public service? If you spend much time going through the ‘sunshine list’ you realize quickly that it is not insignificant.

I’m not saying that is unjustifiable, perhaps it is. But I don’t think the average voter has the image of a government employee in mind when that issue is being hit on the campaign trail.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Muta

I don't work in the public sector, but I'm not sure the public sector salaries ever reached their private sector counterparts. While public salaries are good, they're not ludicrously high like private sector was at the time. Not sure why people should have their salaries reduced, too, just because private sector salaries dropped. Do you mean new hires? If so, public sectors typically follow rate sheets that have a set minimum and maximum for that particular role.

Most studies show that after you take into account pensions and benefits, most public sector employees make MORE than private sector workers doing similar work.

This is also reflected in the low attrition rate in the public sector, even during 'boom' times. People don't leave the public sector for higher paying jobs in the private sector because often they don't exist.

The fantasy that public workers take lower pay in exchange for job security doesn't exist. They get their cake and eat it too.

The entire point of the chart is showing that the HUGE MULTI-BILLION dollar deficits are primarily driven by the growing public sector workforce. It's simply unsustainable to keep going down this path. If we want to balance the budget, it has to include facing the reality we pay far too much for our government services.

[Voodooman]

Originally Posted by Muta

I am being fair. They do, do quite well. Not as well as oil and gas though at the time of the boom. I'm sure someone who works in the public sector can chime in?

I worked in the public sector, in a large organization with accountants, a few engineers as well as some lawyers and other professionals. I think in Calgary, the public sector salaries were never close to comparable with the O&G sector when times were good. A senior accountant type in my organization will make somewhere in the $100-120K range, although with a great work/life balance and job security that makes the compensation package far more attractive.

Even as recently as a year ago, the organization couldn't attract anyone from the O&G sector. They were still all convinced their old jobs at the much higher salaries were coming back, and turned their noses up at jobs that were actively offered at $100K.

I think overall, at the lower levels, public service salaries tend to be pretty generous. When you get more senior, then there tends to be a much larger spread. I would say there would be less than 100 people in this organization of 15,000 who make more than $150K per year in base salary. Which is still a good living, but I think pales in comparison to senior level O&G jobs.

And before anyone asks, I'm out of that organization at the moment, so no, I don't have any inside track or contacts.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by MBates

I am not sure what can be gleaned from simple anecdotal examples regarding public service compensation but I thought I would put a factual example forward.

Alberta’s top public servant, Marcia Nelson, was interviewed at a conference in 2017 and discussed the fiscal challenges in tough economic times for the province and how that necessity would be the mother of invention to climb out of such problems (loose paraphrase).

https://canadiangovernmentexecutive....utive-council/

So, I looked up her compensation.

As the Deputy Minister of Executive Council (Cabinet) in 2017 she was paid a salary of $357,346.60 plus cash benefits of $27,419.96 plus non cash benefits of $87,494.55.

Quick math - total compensation $472,261.11.

Rather than just do a drive by and declare that an outrageous number, I guess I would say, what accountability is there that allows the taxpayers who pay that compensation to have any way to ensure that is a good value?

Objectively that compensation makes her above the limit to be in the top 1% of earners even in the significantly inflated city of Calgary:

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/m.huffin...da_a_23385825/

I think many would rightly question if that is appropriate value for this public servant position and whether in times where tens of thousands lost employment altogether or took major cuts to keep their jobs is it not a major problem that we have a massive public service that does not get reduced and keeps the same compensation as during boom times?

Necessity doesn’t need to invent much here. Just a political will to take very hard looks at the amounts of money being spent as compared to the amounts coming in. Is it really more difficult than that?

And perhaps a more interesting thing to debate - when politicians talk about taxing the rich and going after top tax bracket earners for their “fair share” I wonder how many people realize just how many people in that target demographic are actually in the public service? If you spend much time going through the ‘sunshine list’ you realize quickly that it is not insignificant.

I’m not saying that is unjustifiable, perhaps it is. But I don’t think the average voter has the image of a government employee in mind when that issue is being hit on the campaign trail.

This is the rub of the whole issue for top level public sector workers. On one hand, the general public seems to have a belief that something like $150k per year is more money than anyone could ever need, or be worth.

Yet, there is a resounding expectation that these same top level public sector workers have to be extremely capable and competent in their roles - they're in charge of _____ for the "people" after all.

Unfortunately, Joe and Jane public don't realize that the competency required to perform at these levels are valued far higher than what they "think" is fair... You cannot attract the right people to these roles for $150k pa. At that level, the right people are far better off out of the spotlight in the private sector making multiples of what the general population thinks is "a lot".

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Muta

Bingo. When times were good, people avoided roles in the public sector because you got paid more in the private sector (even though public sector paid well). The trade off was the job security. Now that the economy has reversed, those who stayed in the public sector when times were good in Calgary have security in their well-paid jobs, and I'm not sure they should be a target for anything. Oil and gas is volatile, and anyone who went into the industry not knowing that would have had to have been incredibly naive.

The rationale for cutting the public sector has nothing to do with what's perceived as 'fair' going back to a bygone era, just a realization that it costs much less to do more in the public sector in other jurisdictions. When the government is running a high operating deficit these are the questions that need to find answers.

Paying people more than their worth and paying more people than necessary (over-hiring) because it's the 'fair' thing to do because back in a past era, private sector people made good money doesn't do the province any good today. Like any other entity that provides services it should strive to provide the highest quality services at the lowest possible cost. Doing otherwise would be burdening Alberta businesses and residents with a higher than necessary tax burden, which in post-oil boom Alberta hurts efforts to diversify and grow the economy. The problem for many to understand this concept is that this cost is spread across millions and the opportunity lost is not explicitly quantified.

I will also say this and this only applies for a comparison between similar job types in the public and private sector. In my biased opinion on the margin I would gather that people who have higher employment risk have more skin in the game for bettering themselves, adding skills, and putting in a higher marginal effort day in day out, than someone who knows where their meal 10 years from now will come from and has their retirement already taken care of for them.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Most studies show that after you take into account pensions and benefits, most public sector employees make MORE than private sector workers doing similar work.

In those studies what percentage of the private sector workers doing similar work were unionized? You often claim that public sector workers are overpaid yet never seem to consider the possibility that perhaps private sector workers are underpaid.

This is also reflected in the low attrition rate in the public sector, even during 'boom' times. People don't leave the public sector for higher paying jobs in the private sector because often they don't exist.

Source?

The fantasy that public workers take lower pay in exchange for job security doesn't exist. They get their cake and eat it too.

Are they too full of cake to ask for double meat on their subs?

The entire point of the chart is showing that the HUGE MULTI-BILLION dollar deficits are primarily driven by the growing public sector workforce. It's simply unsustainable to keep going down this path. If we want to balance the budget, it has to include facing the reality we pay far too much for our government services.

Primarily driven by a growing public sector workforce? The public sector workforce has always increased and there hasn’t always been deficits as a result. Are you sure it hasn’t been primarily driven by the collapse of our largest industry and the loss of tax revenue that went along with it?

If our service costs are too high and our revenue is already too low would you not agree that Kenney’s plan to lower corporate tax rates by 1/3 over 4 years would be unlikely to help reduce the deficit that you appear to be gravely concerned about?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by MBates

So, I looked up her compensation.

As the Deputy Minister of Executive Council (Cabinet) in 2017 she was paid a salary of $357,346.60 plus cash benefits of $27,419.96 plus non cash benefits of $87,494.55.

Quick math - total compensation $472,261.11.

Rather than just do a drive by and declare that an outrageous number, I guess I would say, what accountability is there that allows the taxpayers who pay that compensation to have any way to ensure that is a good value?

Objectively that compensation makes her above the limit to be in the top 1% of earners even in the significantly inflated city of Calgary:

I'd actually suggest compensation at the top of the public sector lags behind similar roles in the private sector. There have to be thousands of executives in Calgary pulling in 472k, when you include bonuses and stock options. I would expect a deputy cabinet minister who is in charge of thousands of employees and managing budgets in the 10s and 100s of millions to be compensated similarly to the CEO or CFO of a mid-sized energy or utilities company. If only because that's what the market should dictate if they're hiring from the same talent pool.

Public sector salaries are flat compared to the private sector. Those at the bottom of the salary structure earn more than their private-sector counterparts, while those at the top earn less.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'd actually suggest compensation at the top of the public sector lags behind similar roles in the private sector. There have to be thousands of executives in Calgary pulling in 472k, when you include bonuses and stock options. I would expect a deputy cabinet minister who is in charge of thousands of employees and managing budgets in the 10s and 100s of millions to be compensated similarly to the CEO or CFO of a mid-sized energy or utilities company. If only because that's what the market should dictate if they're hiring from the same talent pool.

Public sector salaries are flat compared to the private sector. Those at the bottom of the salary structure earn more than their private-sector counterparts, while those at the top earn less.

Would love to see some numbers to support your point, because I think it's way off base.

I would suggest that there would be very few executive in Calgary pulling in more than 400K, especially in the past few years. Maybe a handful make that amount, and most of those would be at the large international companies with Canadian headquarters.

Do you have any data?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Would love to see some numbers to support your point, because I think it's way off base.

I would suggest that there would be very few executive in Calgary pulling in more than 400K, especially in the past few years. Maybe a handful make that amount, and most of those would be at the large international companies with Canadian headquarters.

Do you have any data?

I don't think the comment is too off-base at all. If you want data, go look up the proxy circulars of some of Alberta's largest companies on SEDAR.ca. CEO comp would be multiple times $500k when all forms of comp are factored in.

The sins of the public sector are that they pay their average far too much and pay their exceptional far too little. The problem from a cost basis is that paying the rank and file too much adds up to a far greater expense than paying market for the top end. There's also a greater variation for talent at the top end. A more competent CEO has a much higher ability to add far more value to the organization than the increase in comp.

That's why Doug Ford government is being ridiculous in their treatment of Hydro One's executive. Making an example of it's former CEO will keep any good talent away from that organization as long as the Ontario government has a stake in it and it doesn't really save much money in the big scheme of things. But yet for the low information voter it plays well, because some 'fatcat' making what's perceived to be a ridiculous salary and severance package is being reigned in by Ford.

[CliffFletcher]

Here's a list of 100 CEOs of Calgary-based companies who are almost all making $1 mil or over in total compensation. I would expect many 100s more who are making half a mil.

https://calgaryherald.com/business/l...ites-last-year