babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » Solidarity with government workers!

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Solidarity with government workers!
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 21 August 2004 05:09 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's about time babble had this thread. Here's a link to PSAC...including "What's New", Strike Bulletin, etc. Of course the website is bilingual.

Public Service Alliance of Canada

By the way...one of the suggestions for an improved collective agreement by Nicole Turmel (PSAC President) included putting "whistleblower protection" into the agreement. That way, such things could be grieved instead of having some prolonged process drag the whole thing out, during which time the employer can carry out all sorts of atrocities against employees. The 3 scientists at Health Canada are a case in point.

This idea of putting important matters into the collective agreement is not new. Any union person who knows anything...knows that putting basic human rights into the collective agreement means that a right-wing scumbag government can't undo working conditions where a collective agreement has the basic rights written in. A clause that says that workers get two 15 minute breaks every day can't be undermined by a government that weakens labour laws in regard to breaks. And so on. Another good example is Human Rights legislation...by including a clause that asserts that the employer must abide by Human Rights legislation ...this means that a Human Rights violation becomes a grievance...which takes a hell of a lot less time to resolve than the time for a Human Rights complaint.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 27 August 2004 09:34 AM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What is particularly ominous about this series of negotiations is the results of the negotiations with the Ministry of the Attorney General and their union. They had a signed deal and when Sheila Fraser submitted the bill to Treasury Board Treasury Board refused to pay it and effectively tore up the signed contract.

Now it's not like the clerks were getting a windfall - a mere 4.5% over two years but it was still too rich for TB and their masters.

In 1981 PSAC had a contract that was also retroactively annulled by Parliament. The union went to the Supreme Court of Canada arguing that the government of the day could not act so arbitrarily. We lost. The decision meant that we needed a constitutional amendment to protect collective bargaining rights with Parliament.

In about three weeks 40,000 of us will be ready to hit the bricks. And we are ready to go. The effect of the Treasury Board decision has got people's dander up.


Sheila Fraser and her employees are now seen as victim's of petty revenge for blowing the whistle on the Liberal sponsorship scandal.

There are many social and political implications in this decision. How will the auditor's office be able to act freely if the staff is abused by Treasuruy Board? Who IS Treasury Board anyway? They ought to have no right to question settlements of independent Agencies.

They are the domestic equivalent of the WTO, unelected, unaccountable - beann counters gone mad!


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DonnyBGood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4850

posted 08 September 2004 08:39 PM      Profile for DonnyBGood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We are on strike today but back tommorrow.

What is interesting is the wage offer. If you are a retired civil service worker the cost of living increment built into your pension plan was 3.3% this year. The employer is offering working employees less than 2%/year!

Is this right?

The employer has said that they wish to be the leader in human resources management. You know, set a standard that the private sector would follow.

Well they seem to be trying to lead in the wrong direction.

wages settlement forcasts 2004 - 2005

Take the average civil servant wage in Canada at about $40,000.00 and figure that 4% a year represents inflation but a little extra for good work and improving performance. That's $1600.00 a year for each employee, multiplied by 100,000 civil servants gives $160 million to keep us happy for the most part. Compare that to budget surpluses forcast over the next 10 years that will bring in 80 billion dollars, 8 billion each year. That is 50 times what public servants are asking and we have to go for a strike?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 09 September 2004 01:35 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Never use averages. They tend to be skewed by inflated top-end management salaries. What's the median? Any idea?
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 09 September 2004 02:32 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post
No, in this case, the average is what you want to use: average times number of employees = total wage bill. I think the point was about how much (or little) extra spending is associated with a given increase. I don't think the point was that $40k should be considered a representative number.

But as a geneal concern, you're quite right. Wage distributions are skewed right, so the mean will always be greater than the median.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
DonnyBGood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4850

posted 09 September 2004 08:08 PM      Profile for DonnyBGood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Think of the sponsorship scandal.

Cost:$250 million.

Was this the reponsibility of the unionized civil servant who has for years been fighting to get whistle blower protection? So that we can fight corruption we called for it but successive Liberal governments hav balked so their pals can feed at the public trough.

Are we then somehow responsible for Liberal failings at the polls? I voted against the pricks and so should have anyone else with half a brain but now we are asked to accept the conventional wisdom that we must accept not only the resposnibility for public disatisfaction put also the hissy fit of our disgruntled paymasters!

No fucking way! (Pardon my french as they say)

Please read this article
Ten year itch

[ 09 September 2004: Message edited by: DonnyBGood ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sine Ziegler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 225

posted 10 September 2004 07:53 PM      Profile for Sine Ziegler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was going to start this thread but I wasn't sure what to say. When you are a Govt employee on strike... some things you can't talk about in public. Is this board "in public" ?

We haven't been out in Calgary yet - or anywhere in the Prairie region but I keep hearing we will be out on monday. A lot of people wish we were having a General Strike but it doesn't look like it is part of the strategy. It's hard to know if the next day will be a day of work, or picketing and can make things stressful and uneasy. As the shop steward on my floor, I have been yelled at numerous times this week. Good thing I have a mouth on me.


From: Calgary | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DonnyBGood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4850

posted 11 September 2004 02:37 AM      Profile for DonnyBGood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am a picket captain and we were out on Wednesday. It was good and I enjoyed it. Much better than sitting in front of a computer screen!

The local strike general is a bit of a card, telling all the managers that there was going to a strike the following day which of course meant they all had to show up for work at 6:00!

Of course there wasn't one. Some cranky managers were wiping sleep out of their eyes on Thursday...early in the morning

I am staying loose and think that the national executive have excellent human skills and are quite understanding. But we have got to be prepared.

I don't know but I think we will be doing rotational until Parliament returns and then we'll all hit the bricks along with many other components - that is if they don't settle before then.

[ 11 September 2004: Message edited by: DonnyBGood ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 11 September 2004 09:28 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This site is very much public. Don't post anything on it that management or the police can't know about.

It is a very good means of developing solidarity, however. Today I'm going to a demonstration by the trade unions here, but it concerns the public sector negotiations - and cuts to social services - on the Québec level.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
DonnyBGood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4850

posted 11 September 2004 01:29 PM      Profile for DonnyBGood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This site is very much public. Don't post anything on it that management or the police can't know about.

The police are obliged to protect our peaceful right to strike. They are not on the side of management and by alaw are strictly neutral in these matters.

The modern Canadian police force have an fair record in dealing with public service strikes.

Anyway, we need to send a message to teh bean counters that society runs better with a well paid happy civil service. Our wage settlement should light the way for the private sector not toady up to their attitucdinal malfeasance.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 11 September 2004 02:15 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quite frankly the government should set an example by having a system of binding final offer arbitration with a neutral arbitrator.
From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DonnyBGood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4850

posted 12 September 2004 10:02 AM      Profile for DonnyBGood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Binding arbitration is not usually the preferred method of solving labour disputes. It is only used where the withhdrawal of services would be too harmful to the public interest - for example medical services.


The strike is the time honoured method -I don't call it a "weapon" - for dealing with crappy employers. It is shameful that the government of Canada has to go out on strike over the pathetic wage and benefit package they are offering.

Take the work force adjustment policy which has become increasingly important over the last 15 years. In 1992 the Mulroney government after running up 100s of billions of dollars in deficits to keep pace with the Reagan economic plan of hobbling government with debt and offering tax breaks to the rich froze public service wages for two years. The Liberals won the next election with a landslide which was contributed to by the support of many civil servants. They abruptly signed on the dotted line on the Mulroney wage freeze, effectively wage freezing public servants for another 4 years. Since then senior management and middle management systems have blossomed . The average team manager's salary adjusted for inflation has increased by my estimate (from $45K/yr to 60K/yr) - 25% the average workers wage has decreased by about 10%.

These new line management initiatives are the base of a vast new pyramid of bean counting corporate culture zealots who fall over themseleves to answer the public perception that we need to "cut out the deadwood".

You would think that with all the hype about innovation and excellence buzzing through the halls of power these days we would get some original ideas about how to effectively restructure government. But no. What we get is mindless copycating of the corpiorate agenda - downsizing, outsourcing and relocating to save dollars.


For example,(and this is just one tiny one) we used to have a forms counter where the pulbic could go talk to a real person get some help in selecting a form and actually pick one up. Now they drywalled the window over and put up a sign advising that all of the forms were now available for download on the internet and a small range of them were available on the bookshelf around the corner.

This was touted as a great savings. The clerical staff were absorbed into other positions within the bureaucracy and the person who suggested it got a laminated award for excellence and a cheesey gift. Now without the work force adjustment those clerks would have lost their jobs.

This is happening on a much larger scale across the country. Every young keener management trainee is not thinking of how to spend more money to improve service delivery but on how to spend less to improve his resume. His or her supervisor is looking for someone to promote who will then be one of the upper management's proteges etc.

Well, I am all in favour of a collegial atmosphere if it extends to all employees butagainst it entirely if it is limited to a managerial clique that has a slash and burn mentality at the expense of everyone else.

The problem is that the art of middle management is the art of dissembling and being totally neutral on every issue.

But as a result the entrire cadre becomes dumb and pointless. In one instance clerical positions were upgraded, then reclassified upward, then someone came up with an idea to relocate the entire service in Ottawa. Local (Toronto) people were given a "reasonable" job offer in Ottawa at one level below their current level. If they didn't accept the offer they were toast.

This is going on across the country. Need to have a computer glitch attended to? Call the IT number and you get someone 50 kilometers way when you used to get someone three floors up top come down and fix it. If they can't help you still can't call up three floors, they have to call your IT people and you have to wait for them to call you.

Corporate culture gives awards for excellence for this kind of lunancy.

Now we go to neotiations and ask for improvements to WFA saying that we would like a reasonable job offer within 40 kilometers of residence and the employer balks.

We are not saying that management shouldn't do all this reshuffling and reorganizing and wasting millions on studying ways to rip workers off or reduce the workforce costs. We are just saying that as a union we would like to protect our jobs, pay our bills and feed our families.

We end up on strike.

Does the employer's approach strike you as a rational human approach to administering public service employment?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 12 September 2004 10:16 AM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DonnyBGood:


Anyway, we need to send a message to teh bean counters that society runs better with a well paid happy civil service. Our wage settlement should light the way for the private sector not toady up to their attitucdinal malfeasance.


So how much more than the private sector do you feel you should be paid to achieve this happiness?


From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 12 September 2004 01:43 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Oatmeal Savage:

So how much more than the private sector do you feel you should be paid to achieve this happiness?


Ya, let's privatize everything from social welfare to federal government services like they did in Chile in the 1970's-80's. That'll show these heady public servants who demand a living wage.

Charest is a real hawk at heart. We already know that.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
DonnyBGood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4850

posted 12 September 2004 01:54 PM      Profile for DonnyBGood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So how much more than the private sector do you feel you should be paid to achieve this happiness?

OK assume you are the private guardian of what constitutes fair taxes. What do you think the average civil servant working in tax should be paid? Do you think they should be able to have clauses in contracts that protect their communities from job losses?

I cannot discuss any tax policy issue but what about the labour issue? If there are valid critiques of tax policy and the employee has to implement that policy in the face of increasing public resistance to it should we not be given more pay for doing a tough job?

Lumping us together with the policy makers is unfair and doubly unfair if those who are doing it have been unsuccessful in getting their agendas approved using the usual channels like lobbying government or electing sympatheic MPs.

In fact we are invaribly blamed for service deficiencies that are the direct result of underfunding and corporate "good sense".

So what do you think would be fair? How about inflation or cost of living plus 1%. Consider this. Last year people who have retired after long and dutiful careers doing a tough job got pension index increases of 3.3%.

A full time worker doing the exact same job that the other guy was pensioned off on is offered a meagre 1.9%.

Does that make any sense from the tax efficiency side of things? People are people. Are they going to want to be helpful and move to quickly resolve tax issues with this in mind?

If you are critical of tax policy then isn't the best place to start is to ensure that the people doing it are the best paid and most satisfied of workers? Who benefits when there is this attitude of venting against the front line workers going on? We are scapegoats and deserve better.

How much would you recommend if it was your call?


Be honest but be fair and don't shoot the messenger.

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: DonnyBGood ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 12 September 2004 08:07 PM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Simple question. How much more than the private sector should you be paid?
From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 12 September 2004 08:58 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's turn that around, OS, and ask, where has the private sector done anything cheaper or better ?.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sine Ziegler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 225

posted 13 September 2004 08:17 AM      Profile for Sine Ziegler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey Oatmeal, I don't think we are exactly asking for a HIGHEr wage than the private sector accountants are asking for - just FAIR. There are a lot of Chartered and Certified Accountants in audit who aren't paid nearly as much as their counter parts in the private industry, and we don't expect to be. Many of us chose the public sector lifestyle because of hours and enjoyment in serving the public. (sometimes it is trying... )

The wage gap is getting rediculous though, not only for auditors but for people across the Federal Service, especially in blue collar skill areas in maintenance and the like.

Many CRA employees need the same skill set as private sector accountants, PLUS the extra tax skill.

5. whatever % over the next three years is not a wage increase. We are losing money. Why would anyone want to work for that?

That is what the wage aspect of the strike is about, among a gazillion other issues that of course the media doesn't have time or care to cover.

[ 13 September 2004: Message edited by: Sine Ziegler ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 13 September 2004 09:52 AM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your man Donny was asking for a wage settlement that 'should light the way for the private sector', I'm asking how much 'lighter'.
From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
DonnyBGood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4850

posted 13 September 2004 10:07 PM      Profile for DonnyBGood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's the thing Oatmeal. In a free market of profit making companies how do decide what the wage increase of the workers should be?

You might start by saying that the basic cost of labour plus cost of living and then prorate the profit component using the cost of labour. Something like this:

Sales per employee: 100,000
Materials 10,000
Labour Costs 50,000
Pensions Healthcare 15,000
Overhead (rent etc,) 5,000
Gross Profit 20,000

Inflation 3,000
Net Profit 17,000
Taxes 7,000
Balance 10,000
Prorated amount for Wages 5,000
Cost of Living for Wages 150
Net 5,150


% increase for wages 5.15
% increase for profit 4.85

... you get the idea,

Most settlements are 3%-4% on average.

But what about government revenues?

Surpluses available are sufficient to easlily meet this target.

Is it just because we are "civil servants" that we are denied a fair settlement based on acceptable and reasonable business practices.

[ 13 September 2004: Message edited by: DonnyBGood ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 13 September 2004 10:10 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post
The short answer is: enough to keep your workers from quitting their jobs and doing something else.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 14 September 2004 09:58 AM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Donny. Quit ducking the question, how much more than the private sector do you think you should be paid? You made a statement, back it up. Or do you realize that maybe the people who pay taxes to pay your wages might not want you to be paid more than them to do the same job? Why should a taxpayer have their taxes increased,(and their take home pay decreased) so that you can make more money than them? I thought unions and socialism was about everybody being equal.

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: The Oatmeal Savage ]


From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 14 September 2004 11:45 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Yes, Donny, explain yourself, and RIGHT NOW!. Oatmeal is the only taxpayer in Canada (as we've heard many, many, many times on this forum) and is more than entitled to a full accounting of exactly how you determine income within two entirely different paradigms (private sector paradigm of market and money vs. public sector paradigm of meeting needs).

Don't make him wait. OS will in fact stop paying his taxes in retaliation, and then...well, hello food bank! I personally can't bear the thought of going without the beer and cigarettes he has so generously subsidised lo these many years.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 14 September 2004 07:52 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Heh-heh. Hinterland funny.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 14 September 2004 08:12 PM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Still doesn't answer the question, though. I wonder why it is so hard to explain why government workers should have a better wage package than the people who pay those wages.
From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 14 September 2004 08:28 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just out - there will be a nation-wide strike tommorrow.

quote:
Why should a taxpayer have their taxes increased,(and their take home pay decreased) so that you can make more money than them? I thought unions and socialism was about everybody being equal.

The same logic applies to corporations.

"Why should owners give more money to employees and have their profits reduced?"

About the only good argument is that it is better to share than to hoard money.

But what do we do with public servants? Obviously since there are more taxpayers than public servants the arguments we normally use about democratizing wealth will not apply... or will they?

The public gets service for its tax dollars. Is it unreasobanble to expect that improved services will result in budget surplusses? Shouldn't the surplusses be distributed to those who generate them as profit might be in the private sector? Or would you be against that in principle too?

Using Oatmeal Savage's argument there is never a reason to pay civil servants more for doing a better job. In Oatmeal Savage's ideology there is no room for rewarding public institutions collectively for working cohesively and effectively for the public benefit.

I don't buy such arguments.

All that has been asked is for these so called experts in public spending to come up with some sort of system that will fairly address the working conditions of public servants who, I might add, are grossly underpaid by comparison to the private sector.

Yesterday for example I coordinated a high level negotiation on a tax matter with various parties where the average hourly rate in the room was 5 to 10 times what they are paying me an hour.

We have all the crap work to do. We have to listen to all the whining and griping about the scandals and tax rates, the bloated bureaucracy, the problems they are having with their sick uncles and every other lame excuse for not paying their fare share. We have to put up with high level airhead consultants who although ostensibly on "our side" in reality work to undermine you at every step in the name of "objectivity" and fair play (read not wanting to risk the funds or tick off voters). We don't mind this. It comes with the territory but then to be offered less than the cost of living as a wage increment? It makes the blood boil.

What gets me about these antitax types is that usually their agenda is completely self serving.

Is there not one of them that would say that civil servants in the tax sector ought to be paid the same as their counterparts in the private sector?

Apparently not.

To me it is just another perfect example of situational ethics and whoring for capital.

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: Boinker ]


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 14 September 2004 08:36 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Oatmeal Savage:
I wonder why it is so hard to explain why government workers should have a better wage package than the people who pay those wages.

I think it's because nobody actually said that. That's just a guess, though.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sine Ziegler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 225

posted 14 September 2004 09:42 PM      Profile for Sine Ziegler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Boinker, you rock.
From: Calgary | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
steam.machine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4916

posted 18 September 2004 03:44 AM      Profile for steam.machine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are a few issues in these strikes as of late, money being one of them, politics being another.

Myself, as one who has worked for Revenue Canada for the past five years now, have an inside view on what is happening right now. When the likes of Oatmeal Savage ask the question of whether one would be paid more in the private sector, it shouldn't be avoided...in the case of handling tax sensitive information, should that be in the hands of private interests? Should not those who handle that sensitive information on a daily basis be property compensated for the work that they do in that environment?

Another point that has to be made when it comes to Revenue Canada...why is it that those who do the actual work for the Government (ie Administer the Child Tax Benefit Program, the GST Credit Program, Client Services, process Payroll Remittances and GST Returns) have to fight for a cost of living increase while those who are senior aides to Paul Martin get an immediate pay increase of up to 30%? Where is the fairness in that?

I have stated to people who have asked me about this strike that if Paul Martin and his team would lead by example and roll back their raises and take a three year freeze on wages in the name of fiscal management and debt reduction, then I would agree to do the same. After all, we do have a financial mess in this country. Paul Martin has a glorious opportunity to show leadership on this file and he is missing the boat on this big time.

Then there is the politics of this situation...I would suspect that Martin is telling Treasury Board to agree to no deal until the strike funds are all used up. Then he will agree to a deal that pretty well ensures that he can claim victory (Because he protected the public treasury) and the union brass can say they fought and won a deal for their members (reminding those members of that very fact when they raise monthly union dues after this strike is over).

These strikes are part of a three prong political strategy for Martin. He will scratch the union leaders' back in return for some back scratching from them in the next election. And when he takes ten seats from the NDP next time out, as well as ten from the Bloc in Quebec (the health care deal with Charest should go a long way to acheiving that) and scaring Ontario voters about those bad Western Conservatives should give him another ten in Ontario, ensuring he regains his majority in two years' time.

Unfortunately, in the grand political scheme of things, we pee-ons at the bottom of the totem pole are nothing more than pawns in the big game going on in Ottawa. And all taxpayers (yes even those in the public sector) will get to once again pay for the party.

Only in Canada...beautiful country, rotten politicians!


From: Calgary | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 18 September 2004 04:07 AM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The people who do the real work in government jobs, the clerks and such, do not make a lot of money. They also often have to work unpaid overtime. It's only the big shots who make the big bucks.

When I was in my government job, the wage freeze had us making less than those doing comparable jobs in the private sector. When our ministry eliminate workers, many got higher paying jobs elsewhere. It's been a very long time since government employees have had either job security or higher than normal wages.

Our government doesn't only screw the taxpayers, it habitually screws it's own employees.


From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 18 September 2004 08:26 AM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Steam Machine you are too cynical.

A look at the history of public service strikes reveals that governments that tick off the public service often lose elections.

But the point is that I believe however that politics has only a limited efect on the decision making process. Government need the money CRA employees collects to function. Withdrawing the labour needed to collect it and advising the public that we are doing this will have a big impact. The bean counting nerds at treasury board will suddenly realize that perhaps they should alter their myopic world view a little.

By the way CPAC is covering the sponsorship scandal investigation. How does treasury board justify VIA rail paying a million dollars for a Maurice Richard movie? They approved it . They still think that it might be "technically OK" but then maybe not.

So why should we collect the money if they will squander it and not give us CoL raises? What was the finance minister doing at the time - hmm?


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 20 September 2004 12:47 AM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
According to CUPE, government workers are paid more than workers in the private sector, they wouldn't lie, would they? So in the interest of fairness, why do the government workers think they deserve to be paid more than the people paying their wages? Should someone cleaning toilets int the private sector have to take home less money so their government employee counterpart can make even more money?
Shouldn't these civic minded government employees be out on the picket lines, rubbing onions in their eyes and demanding lower wages to eliminate this wage gap?

From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 September 2004 12:57 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oatmeal Savage, you seem to have high regard for the private sector. What do you have against people wanting to earn a living wage or collective bargaining in general ?.

Can you show us any proof that the private sector is consistently less expensive than unionized labour ?. I didn't think so.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 20 September 2004 01:18 AM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have nothing against people wanting to earn a living wage, which is why I don't understand why you think one group should make less money so that you can make more.
I don't seem to be able to get a rational explanation for that.
There's been lots of bafflegab, but no explanation of why the public sector should make more money than someone doing the same job in the private sector. Perhaps it is simply greed and a sense of entitlement that motivates the public sector to promote such an unbalanced policy. I thought socialism was all about fairness and equality.

From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 20 September 2004 01:25 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Oatmeal Savage:
According to CUPE, government workers are paid more than workers in the private sector, they wouldn't lie, would they? So in the interest of fairness, why do the government workers think they deserve to be paid more than the people paying their wages? Should someone cleaning toilets int the private sector have to take home less money so their government employee counterpart can make even more money?
Shouldn't these civic minded government employees be out on the picket lines, rubbing onions in their eyes and demanding lower wages to eliminate this wage gap?

No. The point is that all workers should be paid fairly (i.e. a living wage). The "logic" of privatization is quite simple: Pay people less.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 20 September 2004 01:30 AM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not argueing privatization here, I'm simply asking why public sector workers feel they should be paid more than the people who pay their wages.
Kinda hard to drum up support for a public sector strike when you're asking for support from people who will make even less as a result of that support.

From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 September 2004 01:33 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, there's nothing preventing me or you from going to our private sector employer and asking for a raise in pay. That's the joy of bargaining with over-paid management types for what they think you're worth. You see, when they privatise federal and provincial services, it costs at least the same and more than often, it costs more. Workers have to give up a fair amount of their living wages to over-bloated management. Much will have more for duplicating the services that one single government bureacracy used to do before they were privatised. And then you have the blue-chipper's demanding their cut off the top. It's often more expensive than public service which can operate at cost, theoretically. Look how much more health care is costing American's with private sector parasites draining the life blood of companies like GM, Ford and GE.
GM officials have joked about being in the business of providing group health insurance for employees while making cars on the side.

Union wages are good for an economy. They tend to have an elevating effect on wages for workers in similar private sector job descriptions, according to studies. That's good for local businesses and private sector businesses in general who benefits when more money circulates in the local economy.

So an even better question might be, who needs 'em ?.[the private sector that is] Anyway ?.

[ 20 September 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 20 September 2004 03:25 AM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So you feel that taking money out of a private sector workers paycheque and giving it to a government worker will stimulate the economy?
From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 September 2004 04:48 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Oatmeal Savage:
So you feel that taking money out of a private sector workers paycheque and giving it to a government worker will stimulate the economy?

Ok, I'll take Oatmeal's hook, line and sinker and no less than two barrels. Explain to us how unionized workers are stealing bread out of the mouths of private sector workers. And on the contrary, how will less money in workers pockets stimulate the economy in your utopian low wage economy ?.

And keep in mind that Port Au Prince and Nairobi are real examples of two cities where unionized workers are not stealing bread from the mouths of a lowly paid workforce.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
DonnyBGood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4850

posted 20 September 2004 06:43 PM      Profile for DonnyBGood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What Oatmeal savage does is to keep beleaguring some hypothetical argument or question that he says was never answered when in fact is was answered fully but not to his liking.

Conservatives never answer the question about what coonstitutes fair wages for civil servants.
Over the next 5 years there will be some 80 billion in surplusses. Over half will be dedicated to tax cuts for the wealthy and paying down the deficit.

Is the reward for this efficiency to cut everybody's salary over the sames period by 6 or 7%?

Is this the way Donald Trump operates? Profits are way up as a result of the suucessful implementation of program so he cuts everbody's wages?

Watch Oatmeal Savage scrupulously avoid this conundrum just so he can vent his prejudice and bigory against public service workers. (i.e. tnhat we are paid more than private sector workers)

quote:
Despite a demonstrated 20% wage gap between federal public sector workers and their counterparts in the private and public sectors, management still refuses to increase the wage proposal presented last August. The wage gap was identified as a result of a joint study conducted by the union and the government. Management has offered annual increases of 2.25%, 1.75% and 1.75% along with a 3% adjustment to narrow the wage gap. These sub-inflation increases would still leave workers far behind.

I'd say we are being modest in asking for 4.5% in the face of the raging success of the government agenda on the fiscal side of things.

[ 20 September 2004: Message edited by: DonnyBGood ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 September 2004 08:40 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Reminds me of an old 'All in the Family' episode where Archie comes home and tells them he's earned a 3% raise. But then Meathead informs Archie that inflation is 4% and all hell breaks loose.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 20 September 2004 09:14 PM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DonnyBGood:
What Oatmeal savage does is to keep beleaguring some hypothetical argument or question that he says was never answered when in fact is was answered fully but not to his liking.

Conservatives never answer the question about what coonstitutes fair wages for civil servants.
Over the next 5 years there will be some 80 billion in surplusses. Over half will be dedicated to tax cuts for the wealthy and paying down the deficit.

Is the reward for this efficiency to cut everybody's salary over the sames period by 6 or 7%?

Is this the way Donald Trump operates? Profits are way up as a result of the suucessful implementation of program so he cuts everbody's wages?

Watch Oatmeal Savage scrupulously avoid this conundrum just so he can vent his prejudice and bigory against public service workers. (i.e. tnhat we are paid more than private sector workers)

I'd say we are being modest in asking for 4.5% in the face of the raging success of the government agenda on the fiscal side of things.

[ 20 September 2004: Message edited by: DonnyBGood ]


Would you care to prove to me that the surpluses are the result of the government workers efforts?
Actually the surpluses are the result of taxing more than the government spends, nothing more, to claim credit for them is pure bullshit. But I'm a nice guy, when we start running deficits again, (or like we already do in Sask.), I'm prepared to let you take a wage cut to reflect the lack of effort by those same workers. It should work both ways, shouldn't it?
As far as your study on the wage gap, it would appear you want it both ways, claim on one hand that the public sector is better because it pays higher wages when argueing against privatisation, then wailing that the private sector makes more money when it comes to bargaining time. It would appear that greed and bullshit are alive and well in the socialist camp.

On the subject of what is a fair wage, if people are lining up for government jobs, you're paying enough. Spare me the sweatshop third world comparisons.
I've worked for contractors and suppliers to the government, so I have a good idea about what we're getting for our tax dollar, and I understand only too well why the government unions are dead against competing with the private sector.

As an afterthought, isn't it a good arguement for privatisation if indeed the private sector does pay more than the public sector? All the same arguements should apply, shouldn't they?
[

[ 20 September 2004: Message edited by: The Oatmeal Savage ]

[ 20 September 2004: Message edited by: The Oatmeal Savage ]


From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 20 September 2004 10:00 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But I'm a nice guy, when we start running deficits again, (or like we already do in Sask.), I'm prepared to let you take a wage cut to reflect the lack of effort by those same workers. It should work both ways, shouldn't it?

But it has only worked one way has it not? In the years of giant surpluses, the last 10 years, what has been the average annual pay increase for public sector workers? Has it matched the value of the surpluses they did help to produce with decreasing real incomes, heavier work loads due to layoffs, and the same loss of protections, services and federal programs we have all lost through federal cut backs?

And when there has been deficits, are not public sector workers always the first to pay with loss of benefits and stagnant pay increases? When they strike, they are ordered back to work.

You are on thin ice, Oatmeal. And for the record, the average annual pay increase for federal workers has been something like 2.5%. Do you know what the rate has been for private sector workers? 7.3%. Stats Canada

BTW, Donny, that is now 6854 posts since you are keeping track.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 20 September 2004 11:39 PM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The private sector still hasn't caught up. So there is no justification for pay increases in the public sector. And the surpluses were in spite of the public sector, not because of it.
From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 20 September 2004 11:44 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quite the rebuttal. Get that from an old Rush Limbaugh broadcast?

6859 posts, Donny.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 20 September 2004 11:53 PM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

The 7.3% increase in earnings for all Canadian workers between 1990 and 2000 reflects an increase in both the number of hours and weeks they worked per year, and also their hourly wage rates.

Over this period, the number of earners working on a full-time basis for a full year rose by 847,000, or 11%, to 8.6 million. Their average earnings in 2000 were $43,231, a 5.4% increase over 1990.

Only in Alberta and Ontario did full-time, full-year workers experience gains above the national average, with earnings increasing by 8.7% in Alberta and 7.8% in Ontario over 1990 levels.

Those in Saskatchewan posted gains of 4.0%, while those in British Columbia rose 4.2%. But in all other provinces the increases were less than 2%. Earnings for full-time, full-year workers actually declined in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and the Yukon.

quote:

Better go back to your link and re-read the info, or were you misleading us deliberately?
Kind of a shame to have to use bullshit to justify your greed.


From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 21 September 2004 12:00 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We are talking aout average wage increases. The avergae increase for public workers was 2.5%. How would they compare on a province-by-province basis?

Who is bullshitting who? And it is those, such as yourself, who would deny public workers a living wage so as they can keep a few measly pennies for themselves who are truly greedy in the worst possible way. And such people are usually quick to judgement and short on facts.

I am not nor have I ever been a member of PSAC. I just believe all people who work deserve a fair wage.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 21 September 2004 12:27 AM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

The 7.3% gain in average earnings during the past decade was the result of three factors: the demand for high-skilled workers in the face of advancing technologies and globalization; an aging workforce of baby boomers who experienced substantial gains in earnings during the decade; and more working people with university education.
quote:


That's an increase of 7.3 percent over the whole DECADE, not an annual increase. It's also a result of working more hours not just hourly increases. Compare that to 2.5 percent per year for government workers.
You seem to miss the point when you whine about "a few measely pennies" for government workers when those pennies are coming out of a private sector workers pocket who already makes less. What about letting them keep more of the money they earn instead of giving it to the hogs in the public sector. Talk about greed and living off the labour of others. Quite the hypocricy.

[ 21 September 2004: Message edited by: The Oatmeal Savage ]


From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 21 September 2004 12:48 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oatmeal Savage, if the private sector really doesn't like being held back by Canadian taxes , then why don't they move their operations to some desert island or any of the third world countries where unions don't exist and socialists tend to end up in jail more often than not ?. Surely private enterprise would be better off without paying taxes in support of civilized society ?. Surely such a fully deregulated economy exists or has been tried before ?.

Canada's in the middle of the pack as far as corporate taxation goes among developed countries. Why are first world nations with the highest corporate taxation experiencing greater annual economic growth than us in the far west ?.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
BLAKE 3:16
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2978

posted 21 September 2004 12:49 AM      Profile for BLAKE 3:16     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 21 September 2004: Message edited by: BLAKE 3:16 ]


From: Babylon, Ontario | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 21 September 2004 12:55 AM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I talked to a gentleman who is planning on moving his business out of Sask. He said the only reason we have potash and uranium mines here is that you can't move them. Kinda explains why there are so few value added businesses in socialist Sask.

Wages;
http://www.cupe.bc.ca/1033
http://www.cfib.ca/research/reports/WW_ON_e.pdf
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sk/sasknotes2-2.pdf

"Crown corporations and public
agencies contribute more than jobs
and direct services to people. They
are unionized and consistently
return higher wages and benefits to
the local economy than comparable
private service providers."


That's from that nest of commies, the CCPA.
Can't have it both ways, sports fans.

[ 21 September 2004: Message edited by: The Oatmeal Savage ]


From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 21 September 2004 01:12 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Businesses move around all the time. They'll move if enticements and tax breaks are better in another city. Observe the de-corporatisation of urban America in these post-cold war years. In Ontario during the late '90's, Ottawa and Toronto were where 70% of job growth occurred and yet posessed less than half the provincial population. There are parts of Ontario that are living in third world conditions, this after 42 consecutive years of conservative rule before Peterson.

Saskatchewan is wheat fields, some uranium and potash mines, which conservatives tried giving away to the Yanks several times, and a bit of oil of which only Alberta recovers less of the possible profits as a percentage of royalties from domineering foreign oil companies. I think "socialist" Saskatchewan is holding its own in spite of Ottawa's stinginess with farmers and bad provincial strategies before the NDP in general.

And if you're that dead set against socialism, then you may want to consider how more than half of all personal bankrupticies in the States are due to unpaid medical bills. Thank goodness you don't have to be afraid to see a doctor on a regular basis in good old Saskatchewan.

[ 21 September 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 21 September 2004 02:06 AM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Too bad you couldn't see a doctor in good old socialist sask in any reasonable amount of time.
But let's get back to why our private sector toilet scrubber should have to take a pay cut to pay for our public sector toilet scrubbers wage increase. Seems to go against all those socialist ideals about everyone being equal. Or did George Orwell get it right with the old "All the animals are equal, just some are more equal than others".
Funny how greed thrives in the public sector.

From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 21 September 2004 03:49 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Oatmeal Savage:
Too bad you couldn't see a doctor in good old socialist sask in any reasonable amount of time.

Ah yes, socialist Saskatchewan which relies on transfer payments from successive non-socialist federal governments, if I may recall. And socialist Saskatchewan isn't the only province experiencing waiting periods, OS. Lots of people in N. Ontario haven't seen a doctor in many years. Conservatives here have tried to shift blame every negative situation here on four years of Bob Rae. It doesn't wash.

And if you do a direct comparison of infant mortality and longevity between us, the States and those countries that actually have had a history of electing socialist governments at the national level, then you might be more critical of the mess our non-socialist leaders at both levels of government have made of socialized medicine here. Forget the private American model. Even Cuba has a better infant mortality than they do with their Darwinian approach to health care.

quote:
[bq]
But let's get back to why our private sector toilet scrubber should have to take a pay cut to pay for our public sector toilet scrubbers wage increase. Seems to go against all those socialist ideals about everyone being equal. Or did George Orwell get it right with the old "All the animals are equal, just some are more equal than others".
Funny how greed thrives in the public sector.[/QB]


As I've mentioned before, studies have shown that, if anything, union wages generally tend to apply upward pressure on wages of non-unionized workers in the same sector of a local economy. The guys in the thousand dollar suits who pay you what they think you're worth may not like the idea of competing with public money, but it makes for a higher degree of freedom in the market place with more participants. It's called a mixed economy and is key to democratic socialism. I mean, look at Singapore, socialist since about 1965. Their economy is booming right now. Workers there earn fifth highest incomes in the world on average. The Netherlands and Belgium have some of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world. Those economies have been expanding, and they're paying for socialized medicine, too.

You'll eventually have to present some sort of supporting evidence for your statement the above, or get off the stool. One or the other. It just doesn't make any sense to us here, and simply repeating it over and over doesn't make it true, believe it or not. You must try harder, TOS.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 21 September 2004 03:56 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oatmeal, there is no absolute standard for wages. If there was, in some fantasy land, it would be the real value of the wealth your labour produced, which would be quite a bit higher than most labourers get paid, public or private.

People get paid whatever they can negotiate from those that pay them. If their negotiating position is strong (I'm the only guy in a sixty-mile radius who can repair your engine so it's gonna cost you big time) then they will be paid well. If it is weak (anyone with a pair of hands can work in my cannery, but there are thousands of applicants and only ten positions. Let's see how you give head and then we'll talk about you getting the job) they will be exploited for peanuts and spend their lives toiling incessently and living like a dog only to die as poor as they were born. The reason that workers unionised in the first place is because it makes their negotiating position stronger, which allows them to get paid at a level somewhat closer to the real value of their labour than an ununionised worker. It has nothing to do with public vs. private except in the sense that more public sector workers are unionised. If your concern for private sector workers is at all genuine, then you should encourage them to do the same.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 21 September 2004 06:35 AM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes Oatmeal but you didn't answer the question. Government administration by your standards is now a raging success - reducing deficits and offering tax cuts for the wealthy.

So do you advocate wage cuts for the professionnals administering your most favoured program?

Wouldn't that mean you would be against it and by inference think a more progressive agenda of improved social welfare, healthcare and social services would justify better wages?

If you want to get some real numbers take the average ps wage from 1981 plug it into the cost of living calculator at the Bank of Canada and calculate what we should be paid to keep up.

We are 10-15% below that figure and would be a lot worse of without a union. Numerous studies have shown that public services are 20% more cost effective. This is likely the reason why.

Do you punish success or reward it?


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 21 September 2004 09:12 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That's an increase of 7.3 percent over the whole DECADE, not an annual increase.

You see, Oatmeal, your head is all mushy. A 2.5% average increase for government workers is over a decade. Get yourself out from your self-imposed ignorance.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 21 September 2004 10:00 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oatmeal's mastery of the facts is almost as good as his mastery of the [quote] function on this board.

[ 21 September 2004: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 21 September 2004 01:26 PM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

You are on thin ice, Oatmeal. And for the record, the average annual pay increase for federal workers has been something like 2.5%.


Did you notice the word 'ANNUAL' in YOUR post?


From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 21 September 2004 02:20 PM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
Jacob Two Two I think finally answered OS.

There is no "should" there is only "because I can".

Government workers are an in a kind of labour cartel negotiating for the best deal they can get. Fair enough. There's no particular justice issue here, either way, that I can see.

I could probably add a possible "should" answer on why one might want to pay public employees more than private ones: to get the most people applying for the jobs, so you have your pick of the best people in the field. Mind you, maybe you don't need the best people in the field to do the government job, in which case you could offer to pay less than the top end of the private sector.


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 21 September 2004 02:33 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rather funny that OS only wants to talk about government 'toilet scrubbers'. Being unionized, it is rather likely that they are indeed better paid than their powerless private counterparts. But at the top end of the scale, government workers are not better compensated than their private sector counterparts - and before OS chimes in with cracks about bureaucrats, let me say that some of the most impressive people I have encountered in my professional life were senior-level federal bureaucrats.

(Interestingly, I can't say the same of the people I've met at Queen's Park or Nathan Philips Square.)

[ 21 September 2004: Message edited by: Lard tunderin' jeesus ]


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 21 September 2004 03:22 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is absolutely no proof that non-unionized labour, in the end, is any cheaper than union labour.

And if public service, ammenities, health care, pensions, social housing, education etc doesn't create wealth, then why is it that the private sector wants government services deregulated ?. Why don't these entrepeneurial types stick with making luxury goods for the rich if they really do believe in capitalism ?.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
DonnyBGood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4850

posted 21 September 2004 04:00 PM      Profile for DonnyBGood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Government workers are an in a kind of labour cartel negotiating for the best deal they can get. Fair enough. There's no particular justice issue here, either way, that I can see.

I could probably add a possible "should" answer on why one might want to pay public employees more than private ones: to get the most people applying for the jobs, so you have your pick of the best people in the field. Mind you, maybe you don't need the best people in the field to do the government job, in which case you could offer to pay less than the top end of the private sector.


Please! Will you stop!

Government workers have been under severe wage restraints since 1991. The average team leader was paid approximately $42K a year then (in 2004 dollars) and the average rank and file worker about 37K/yr roughly about a 12% spread the average worker now earns 45K - about 7% less than the cost of living. The average team leader now makes $60K a year for doing essentially the same job. That is a whopping 25% more than the average worker and approximately 13% ahead of the cost of living.

Now ask yourself would any organization requiring professionals to do the work long survive in the private sector by reducing the wages of the employees and increasing the wages of the managers? What is increasingly absurd is this is all in the name of reducing government expenditures and bureaucratic payolla.

In the post office - an entirely different union than PSAC - there are labourers whos skill set means that they would get simple labouring jobs in the private sector. In our union most have extensive education and ongoing training.

Our job is unpopular to many and we have to deal with a disgruntled public. People have got to realize that we serve their interests by ensuring that your taxes are properly appled and accounted for. If this is of importance to the average Canadian and it seems to be then you are better served by properly paying government workers to continue to do the excellent job we do rather than pay for a high priced accountant to try and beat an underfunded and overloaded public labour force.


You can play with the numbers here:Inflation Calculator


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 21 September 2004 04:20 PM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
I didn't mean to imply support for privatization of any particular part of the public service.

There's nothing wrong with you striking as a negotiation tactic. Makes sense.

If you're making an argument to "the public"--as your ultimate employers--as part of salary negotiations, to show why you deserve a raise, fair enough. And I wouldn't have necessarily bought a government's line about how increasing management salaries will ultimately save money.

I'm just saying I don't see any particularly relevant justice issue in all the stats you cite. It all looks like a standard contract negotiation.

I also get the impression you've got a pretty rosy view of what it's like (in general) to work in the private sector. Most jobs would be bearable if it weren't for the @5$#! clients.

Granted, I can see it would doubly suck when the @%$#! clients front like they're also you're @%$#&! bosses.


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
DonnyBGood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4850

posted 21 September 2004 05:16 PM      Profile for DonnyBGood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What I'm saying is that we are not negotiating with the public at all. The public has elected members of Parliament to implement tax policy. That tax policy has called for the reduction of spending, paying down public debt and giving tax cuts to the wealthy. Their elected representatives have instructed the civil service to deliver this. We have done it. We now have massive surplusses available to fund this program and there are plenty of funds left over to address salary issues.

It would be in the public interest to reward those who have delivered the services they have demanded with modest cost of living increases and some sort of acknowledgement that we have done a difficult job well.

Instead we get a lot of negative press and misinformation.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 21 September 2004 05:19 PM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So which is it, you guys argue that you make more than the private sector when debating privatisation and argue that you make less when it comes to bargaining time?
From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 21 September 2004 05:42 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Did you notice the word 'ANNUAL' in YOUR post?

Did you notice the word 'AVERAGE' preceding annual?

quote:
So which is it, you guys argue that you make more than the private sector when debating privatisation and argue that you make less when it comes to bargaining time?

This is teh problem when you lack basic comprehension skills. The public sector, on average, will earn less than their unionized private sector equivalents, but more than their non-unionized, private sector equivalents. Most privatized services go to non-unionized or poorly unionized contractors.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DonnyBGood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4850

posted 21 September 2004 06:48 PM      Profile for DonnyBGood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So which is it, you guys argue that you make more than the private sector when debating privatisation and argue that you make less when it comes to bargaining time?

You are niot answering the question. How would you remunerate public servants? Or do you propose not having any at all?

If you want public services and understand that non-profit organizations are cost efficient if properly administered (which includes reasonable wage settlements) what would you propose?

You are the supposed expert in these matters - give me a concept and I will try and discuss it with you.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 21 September 2004 09:19 PM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well for starters, get rid of the government unions monopoly. Allow more privatisation and allow the government unions to compete for the contract. If a private corporation had a monopoly similar to what the public sector unions have, the left would be screaming blue murder.
Remember the post office going on strike pretty much every Christmas or the longshoremen holding the farmer's grain hostage every second fall or so.
If you are so efficient, you should be able to compete, after all, you don't have to make a profit. Anyone who has been in a government office on the day before or after a long weekend may have their doubts about that.
What should you get paid? If there are line ups to get government jobs, I think you're getting enough.
Drop some of the more ridiculous contract demands like wage parity across the country, new flash, the cost of living in Manybugs, Manitoba isn't the same as in downtown TO.
And lastly, get off your ass and do some work, I worked for suppliers and contractors to different levels of govenment and have been in the workplaces enough to be pretty disgusted with the amount of dog-fucking that goes on. And I'm not the only one who sees it.
You might get a little support for your wage demands from the public that way.

[ 21 September 2004: Message edited by: The Oatmeal Savage ]


From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 21 September 2004 11:19 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I worked for suppliers and contractors to different levels of govenment and have been in the workplaces enough to be pretty disgusted with the amount of dog-fucking that goes on.

....particularly by the suppliers and contractors.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 21 September 2004 11:34 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well for starters, get rid of the government unions monopoly. Allow more privatisation and allow the government unions to compete for the contract. If a private corporation had a monopoly similar to what the public sector unions have, the left would be screaming blue murder.

Do you even know what the fuck you are talking about? Who contracts the administrative work at Wal-Marts head office? How about GM? That argument is so stupid I can't believe I am responding to it.
quote:

Remember the post office going on strike pretty much every Christmas or the longshoremen holding the farmer's grain hostage every second fall or so.

Really? Provide the year of each christmas strike by postal workers since, say, I don't know, 1965. And I will assume you can come up with at least three consecuticve years or acknowledge you are a liar.

Capitalists are the very definition of dog fuckers earning their living off of other people work and using patent laws to even steal the work of others. Whores have more dignity.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 22 September 2004 02:08 AM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You don't remember the postal strikes or threats of strikes in the seventies?

The point of the monopoly is that in the real world if a union's demand get out of hand they can damage the company's ability to compete and make money which in turn can damage the union, eg lay-offs or plant closures. In the government unions monopoly, when their demands get out of hand, they have an almost endless supply of tax dollars that can be given to them for political reasons, and the economics take a back seat.
In the last ten or 15 years that has changed somewhat because there has been some political will to tell CUPE et al to stick it in their ass.


From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 22 September 2004 02:12 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wingy, that was OS's acknowledgement that he's been pulling his 'facts' out of his flapping butt-cheeks.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 22 September 2004 02:18 AM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:

....particularly by the suppliers and contractors.


Hey, if you don't believe me, write a letter to your local newspaper explaining how much more efficient government workers are because they don't have to make a profit. You can get away with that bullshit on Rabble but I don't think the general public is going to buy it. They might think that the private sector is more efficient precisely because they do have to make a profit.
What is the motive for efficiency by employees in the public sector anyhow? Or is there one?

While you're at it explain to them why they should take money out of their pockets and give it to the government workers.
Good luck.


From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 September 2004 02:32 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's mini-debates like this really make me agree with the adage that unions are an opiate for the masses and further believe that socialism isn't left enough.

Recall that episode of the Simpsons where Krusty the Clown is way-layed in drug rehab. The feature cartoon, "Itchy and Scratchy" are pre-empted for a cheaper Soviet era filler entitled, "Worker versus parasite." ha ha.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
DonnyBGood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4850

posted 22 September 2004 07:37 AM      Profile for DonnyBGood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The point is that Oatmeal Savage and those who take his view of public service and the people that provide it really have no plan at all for public services.

It is conceptually outside of the mindset. The only reason privatisation and outsourcing are attractive is that they are essentially for profit services.

Productivity studies were done in the eighties and they revealed that public service workers are more productive than their private sector counterparts.

So absent of some factual data demonstrating that public servants should not be rewarded for implementing a successful program of tax cuts and deficit reduction you have that these various slurs are out and out bigottry and bad faith.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that outsourcing means initial wage cuts (if collective agreemenst are not maintained), this results in unionization drives which eliminate the "savings", additional administrative costs, and of course profit added on top. Oursourcing thusly becomes payolla.

We see this kind of market driven rationale behind things like the sponsorship scandal, the gun registry, and other classic examples of outsourcing "efficiency".


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 22 September 2004 08:47 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

You don't remember the postal strikes or threats of strikes in the seventies?


Do you? You said they went on strike every christmas. Prove it. I think it is a lie. Prove me wrong.
quote:

The point of the monopoly is that in the real world if a union's demand get out of hand they can damage the company's ability to compete and make money which in turn can damage the union, eg lay-offs or plant closures. In the government unions monopoly, when their demands get out of hand, they have an almost endless supply of tax dollars that can be given to them for political reasons, and the economics take a back seat.
In the last ten or 15 years that has changed somewhat because there has been some political will to tell CUPE et al to stick it in their ass.


The Canadian Union of Public Employees? Who do they represent? Do you even know?

More companies and more workers and more investors, by a huge margin, have been harmed by monopoly of management and ownership than by any union. But, tell you what, I will agree. I will agree to end the union's right to be the sole negotiator for its members if you will agree to that company management give up final say on any company decison that will impact the workers or the larger community. In other words, both employer and employee representative surrender their respective monopolies. Agreed?

Or is your sense of justice really just a sense of greed?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 22 September 2004 09:39 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hey, if you don't believe me, write a letter to your local newspaper explaining how much more efficient government workers are because they don't have to make a profit.
Hey, not only do I not believe you, I know what you've said is a pack of lies. As I mentioned before, been there, done that. And time and time again, the inefficiencies and roadblocks in getting anything done are the 'contractors' and 'consultants' who set themselves up to have all the control, and none of the responsibility. As someone mentioned earlier, look at where the money went for the gun registry and the sponsorship scandal - into the black hole of private company contracts. Look at how Accenture pillaged Ontario under the Harris government. Look at the computer leasing scandal at the city of Toronto.

Look at reality, and then put up or shut up .


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sine Ziegler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 225

posted 22 September 2004 10:12 AM      Profile for Sine Ziegler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Most jobs would be bearable if it weren't for the @5$#! clients.

Granted, I can see it would doubly suck when the @%$#! clients front like they're also you're @%$#&! bosses.


hehehehe. Thanks for the laugh. It's so true. This thead is getting a bit tense.

Yesterday in Calgary, all the Picket Captains from Southern Alberta and Red Deer met and picketed in front of the Sheraton Hotel where Ralph Goodale was speaking to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.


From: Calgary | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 22 September 2004 12:14 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
What's the vacation plan like for public sector workers these days? Five weeks? Six weeks? How about benefit costs? You have to take these things into consideration if comparing wages in the public vs. private sector. The private might get a little more, but that's offset by higher benefits costs, less sick time, less vacation time.

The public salary/private salary comparison is a bit like the difference in tax rates between the US and Canada. Sure, it might look like they're getting a better deal, but when you add it all up, there isn't much of a difference at the end of the day.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 22 September 2004 09:47 PM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Postal workers strikes

1965
1972 common front strike
1974
1976 general strike
1977
1978
1981
1987
1988
1991
1992 legislated back to work
And so on, I may have missed a few by some of the postal unions.

Anybody come up with an answer to what would motivate the public sector to be efficient?
The private sector has the profit motive, what's the public sector's motive?

[ 22 September 2004: Message edited by: The Oatmeal Savage ]


From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 22 September 2004 09:50 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I may regret asking this (I usually do when replying to one of your posts), but:

So, what's your point?


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 22 September 2004 09:59 PM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was replying to the wingnut. I didn't want to provide too many details as he appears to get confused easily.
From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 22 September 2004 10:12 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, I see. In other words, his post about CUPE led you to post the history of strikes by CUPW and the former Letter Carriers' Union.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 22 September 2004 10:15 PM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nah, it was his post about postal workers strikes.
Hey, maybe you know what would motivate the public sector to be efficient being that they don't have the profit motive?

From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 22 September 2004 10:54 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Oh, fuck. How about people being motivated because they like doing their jobs? Oh, right, only self-made electricians such as yourself know what that's about.

By the way, does anyone want to hear my story about the string of rip-off artists I had traipsing through my yard this summer when I tried to get my electric meter fixed?


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 23 September 2004 01:14 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by worker_drone:

The public salary/private salary comparison is a bit like the difference in tax rates between the US and Canada. Sure, it might look like they're getting a better deal, but when you add it all up, there isn't much of a difference at the end of the day.

That's true. Some U.S. states taxes are higher than others. And purchasing power parity -PPP is an important factor when comparing the two countries. Our bottom 60% of wage earners have more PPP than the same group in the States. "Stuff" is generally cheaper in the States than here, but our services in general are about a fourth of the cost. Health care is a big one for us while more than half of all personal bankrupticies in the States are due to unpaid medical bills.

The Yanks have the most efficient work force in the world ... as well as the most "flexible" labour market. They work more unpaid overtime hours than any other, and coincidentally, the U.S. has the lowest rate of unionization of all developed nations. Longer production runs in the U.S. is also looms large. On a normal, eight hour a day basis, the French and German's are more productive, and they enjoy more paid vacation time, maternity/paternity leave and shorter work weeks with higher average salaries.

I think workers in North America have simply lost focus on what it's really all about, the joy of life itself.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 23 September 2004 07:08 AM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think you are missing the point entirely.

Across Canada public services workers are picketing, in every province in every municipality where public services are located.

Next week and the following week thousands more will go on strike. We do not have to justify why we are doing it. We have already done that.

What we need to have someone take responsibility for is fairly paying public servants. Public servants who should come ahead of payola for one's pals and hangers on, ahead of expensive programs that are over budget by 10 times, ahead of labour and management consultants, management bonuses, vast new levels of bureaucracy, etc., etc.

Once this idea gets into the PM's head or the minister reponsible, once the Agencies are allowed to operate at "arm's length" from the corrupt Treasury Board we will get a fair settlement I believe.

Billions were spent setting up these Agencies to improve human resources labour management relations but the utter folly of it all is that the same control freaks run the treasury board and have the same addiction to abusing the public service in order to meet some demented totally bogus notion of fiscal responsibility.

..it get's my dander up!


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 24 September 2004 01:53 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Oatmeal Savage:
The private sector has the profit motive, what's the public sector's motive?

Let's break that down a bit.
Most private sector workers don't have the profit motive, because profits don't get shared with them. During the heyday of North American economic growth there was a sort of implicit social contract that said the workers got a share in the gains made, but that is long gone now. For a while they were instead motivated by fear of layoffs if the firm wasn't profitable, but then firms started laying people off en masse when they *were* profitable, so layoffs are no longer a motivator, just a vague, generalized fear.
The top managers don't have the profit motive for the firm, only for themselves. It's rarely the same thing, especially these days. They make their money by giving themselves raises and stock options, by insider trading, by causing a short-term stock uptick through some decisive-sounding action and then getting a golden handshake and moving on to the next firm before their mistakes catch up to them.
Directors generally don't have the profit motive for the firm either. They're often CEOs in other firms, or generally people in the same club. They play the game the CEOs' way and they get invited to be directors of other firms. It's fairly incestuous, and the bottom line is if everyone scratches each other's back they can all get lots of interlocking directorships, each at a fat fee for showing up once every few months. Responsible directors will probably get fewer directorships. No profit motive there.

The stockholders have the profit motive. But a lot of them aren't buy-and-hold investors. The speculators, the momentum investors, none of that sort have the profit motive for the firm either, again especially not for the long term. They'll be gone before it matters much.

So. What does that leave? Buy-and-hold investors, especially things like pension funds. They're motivated by the profit levels of the firm itself. They're really not enough to keep the game going all by themselves. How does it?

Because many of these people do try to make the firms they're associated with be profitable, even though they themselves have no profit motive prompting them to do so. The oh-so-profit-oriented private sector depends utterly on people who feel that doing a good job is its own reward, or a matter of pride, or goopy stuff like that. The moment everyone involved, or even a key chunk of them, starts taking capitalist ethics seriously, you get Enron.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 24 September 2004 02:23 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
Rufus your post is so full of straw men it's practically a fire hazard. No offense, but it sounds like a stereotypical view of a public sector employee who's spent an entire career in an ivory tower and thinks they know how the "real" world works.

The profit motive for a typical private sector employee is not a perception that their work will entitle them to a dividend if their company is profitable and the value of the stock rises. It's the "perception" that if they do a good job that will help them get a raise, a promotion, a better office etc. Sometimes this is true, and sometimes it really doesn't matter how much you put into your job, you're still going to get screwed.

In the public sector, it really doesn't matter how hard or how little you work. Your raises are determined by collective bargaining, and your promotions are determined more by seniority than your work performance. So there is little incentive to put in more than the minimum effort required to get your job done and go home by 4:00 pm.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 24 September 2004 02:39 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by worker_drone:

In the public sector, it really doesn't matter how hard or how little you work. Your raises are determined by collective bargaining, and your promotions are determined more by seniority than your work performance. So there is little incentive to put in more than the minimum effort required to get your job done and go home by 4:00 pm.

My own experience includes both sectors, and I can tell you that you're generalizing too. I've seen people who mark time until quitting time in both sectors. I've seen people who work hard and make an effort to do a good job in both sectors.

I've seen people get ahead by playing politics in both sectors and I've seen people who have advanced through determination, diligence and intelligence in both sectors.

There are accountability problems in areas of the public sector that are unlike private industry but in my own experience it's unfair to blame that on the unions or on most employees.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 24 September 2004 05:13 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by worker_drone:
Rufus your post is so full of straw men it's practically a fire hazard.

No. What you mean to say is that I'm wrong.
A straw man is where I claim you said something and argue against that, when you never said it. I never made any claims that anyone said anything. Get your terms straight, fool.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 24 September 2004 08:43 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
I pity the fool who don't get his terms straight!
From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 24 September 2004 08:58 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Oh, God that's funny...ah ha *acck*...

Sorry. Choked on my own saliva.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 24 September 2004 11:23 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've worked for several private companies on both sides of the border. Efficiency doesn't count for a whole lot when the economy goes tits up. You may be living off your ten thousand dollar "pull your weight" bonus a year later when the company CFO's come to realize that no one's buying anything. Research and development is nice work, but we need more of it in Canada. We won't have more of it though if we continue to allow foreign content in Canada to increase the way it has.

In Ottawa, the largest employer is still the government of Canada. All those living wage jobs are good for the economy. In fact, we need to hire more Rev Canada people to track down all those corporate big wheel tax dodgers.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 25 September 2004 12:03 AM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
Sorry Hinterland. There are far better comedians around than me, but I've got seniority

pogge, yes definitely I'm generalizing. I work in the public sector right now and some of the people I work with are some of the most dedicated and hard working people I've ever seen. But their motivation is usually a matter of personality. They're the types of personalities that take pride and care in their work.

It's really not a public/private thing either. Both sides are fucked up. The really significant difference between the public and the private sector as far as I can tell is that in the private sector, a strong personality (i.e. a boss), if they're competent, can move things forward more efficently and make for a more successful business.

In the public sector it's very difficult to get things done because you can't just order people or departments to do things. Nothing is accomplished without a lot of negotiation. Which works out okay sometimes but is always gruelling and takes a lot out of people. I think office politics is what grinds public sector workers down, not innate laziness or anything like that.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 September 2004 12:15 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps you've never witnessed large, slow moving corporate bureacracy that tends to stifle worker initiative?.

In the States and Canada, large corporate monopolies are propped up with taxpayer handouts to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars each year. In fact, Uncle Sam spends a couple of trillion dollars a year to ensure that corporate America earns about $500 billion annually. The corporate welfare handouts are a reward for campaign contributions. What's that about efficiency ?.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
DonnyBGood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4850

posted 25 September 2004 09:16 AM      Profile for DonnyBGood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hershel Hardin wrote a book called The New bureaucracy: Waste and Folly in the Private Sector. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, in 1992.

The value of the book is that it contains data not anecdotes. The problem is that even here on a labour friendly forum there is a lack of factual points of reference about how labour should be remunerated.

The advantage of collective bargaining is that we can use statistical averages and big numbers to create an "average" worker. We can then evaluate statistically if she is doing a better job than last year, graph the results, look at charts etc., etc. When you do this you will find that the productivity/efficiency curve in the public sector matches and is sometimes steeper than the private sector in similar areas and using similar measures.

All this crap about the need for bossess and incentives and bonuses is just that - crap. For every bonus given two people feel cheated. For every favour granted by the boss three people feel ripped off etc., etc. What motivates people is having policy and procedures in place that help people do the job they have been hired to do. (This is not only true of the public and non- profit sector but also of the private sector as well). When the object of those policies is met say, as has been in our case: debt reduction, tax breaks for the rich, program downsizing, large government surplusses then you must conclude that the program is successful. The workers who implemented this program deserve to be rewarded with protection from cost of living increases,with job security clauses and a modest increase.That is the simple morality of it. But the practical business aspect is that you should reward the winning organization as well to ensure future success.

More importantly, and looking at it technically, a 4.5% increase annually along with provisions for job protection will ensure the continued success of the program - or any other for that matter.

(We are also looking to protect and provide better benefits for short term workers (contract workers). Temps are often the victims of pleistocene management practices, their whole future and well being tied to the sensitivities of some dinosaur corporate manager type or more commonly the irrationl bean counting and rubrics-cube financing provided by Treasury Board.)

In the future with the move back toward increased social spending though you will need to ensuure that public servants are paid not simply to do "damage control" in an environment of fiscal restraint but also to engage the program and ensure that it will suceed. In other words to reduce the risk of poorer results - more ciostly results in the future - you need to spend a little more money now on those implemeting the new programs.

There are lots of times where I stand around and chat with people about things or get involved with side issues that the nose-to-the-grindtone task master might take issue with. But most of the supervisory staff are also under the collective agreement and are intelligent enough to realize that they are better "managers" by being more democratic and people oriented.This humnanist approach results in better productivity. Results build confidence and confidence improves productivity. It just makes sense. But you have to pay for it!

Most of the issues in the public service are the human ones of dealing with the gap between the numbers on a massive scale and the individualized perceptions on the other. The point is that even if the numbers are good (or bad) people come to work every day to work, to earn our wages, to feed our families and to make our contribution to the larger society. On the whole we must be respected and remunerated for it. Doing so will improve our individual morale and self esteem. It is healthy basic labour psychology.

We should not be blamed because some observer feels someone takes too long on their coffee break or someone else with an axe to grind feels justified in slandering the entire civil service workforce to meet some wacko personal agenda.


Lets try an be accurate and look at the big picture.

[ 25 September 2004: Message edited by: DonnyBGood ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dief
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6394

posted 27 September 2004 01:34 AM      Profile for Dief     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you are ever in Ottawa, try to find a government employee who actually does something. Then, talk to me.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
DonnyBGood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4850

posted 27 September 2004 08:05 AM      Profile for DonnyBGood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you are ever in Ottawa, try to find a government employee who actually does something. Then, talk to me

What do you think they do then?

You seem fairly young to be retired.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 27 September 2004 09:35 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
According to CUPE, government workers are paid more than workers in the private sector, they wouldn't lie, would they?

I find this hard to believe. My colleagues in the private sector make anywhere from 3/4 of my wage to three times my wage(usually with a stock option plan, too). It really depends on who they work for, where, and whether the business was in boom or bust mode when they graduated.

Do you have a link for this, OS?

[ 27 September 2004: Message edited by: Briguy ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sine Ziegler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 225

posted 27 September 2004 04:15 PM      Profile for Sine Ziegler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What's the vacation plan like for public sector workers these days? Five weeks? Six weeks?

Pfft yeah right. It is better than the provincial labour standards here in Alberta though. I get three weeks for the first... I dunno 8 years of employment? Then it goes up to 4 weeks and then after like.. 15 years I get another week.

Mind you, we only have this much vacation time because of the work the Union members put into former strikes and bargaining.

Go Unions Go!


From: Calgary | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DonnyBGood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4850

posted 27 September 2004 07:02 PM      Profile for DonnyBGood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It goes on endlessly: people, usually those who have a business agenda to grind, trying to invert the priorities of the working class.

We are selling our labour and professional expertise. We do not develop the general schemes for making a profit or implemeting a government program.

If entrepreneurs, business people and high level bureaucrats fail it is not because of unions it is because they haven't developed way to profitably use our labour.

When you see cuts and attacks on labour to make profits or implement programs it is a sign of impotence and failure in the ruling and managerial classes.

If we get 4 or 5 or 10 weeks holidays it is because we have negotiated this through the sale of our labour. It is a done deal, ipso facto, unrelated to the profit or program developed by capitalists or policy and program wonks.

Other workers should and do applaud our success.

They should be able to use civil service unionism as a model to improve their own circumstances. That they can't on account of mean spirited power games is nothing more than political oppression.

I should also note that Jack Layton is against back to work legislation and I applaud him for it.

[ 27 September 2004: Message edited by: DonnyBGood ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sine Ziegler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 225

posted 28 September 2004 12:01 AM      Profile for Sine Ziegler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gott alove that 10% raise the MPs will vote for themselves, right in the middle of all these expired, ill negotiated collective agreements with the PSAC.

A group of workers from my local are going to visit with our MPs this week and ask that they vote against any back to work legislation. I doubt any Conservative in the Calgary area would care to support it's few Fed Govt constituents, but we have to do something for ourselves.

I remember client a few weeks ago said to me " how can you public servants be unionized? You have to serve the public, and by striking you are violating that."

I simply said " Sir, most public servants in Canada are unionized..."

And that they should be! If people from the public determined our wages, we would be up shit creek without a paddle.


From: Calgary | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 28 September 2004 02:03 AM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Briguy:
[QB]

I find this hard to believe. My colleagues in the private sector make anywhere from 3/4 of my wage to three times my wage(usually with a stock option plan, too). It really depends on who they work for, where, and whether the business was in boom or bust mode when they graduated.

Do you have a link for this, OS?

http://www.cupe.bc.ca/1033

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sk/sasknotes2-2.pdf

http://www.cfib.ca/research/reports/WW_ON_e.pdf

http://www.taxpayer.com/ltts/bc/January22-02.htm

http://www.taxpayer.com/ltts/bc/October25-01.htm


From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 28 September 2004 02:59 AM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:

Let's break that down a bit.
Most private sector workers don't have the profit motive, because profits don't get shared with them. During the heyday of North American economic growth there was a sort of implicit social contract that said the workers got a share in the gains made, but that is long gone now. For a while they were instead motivated by fear of layoffs if the firm wasn't profitable, but then firms started laying people off en masse when they *were* profitable, so layoffs are no longer a motivator, just a vague, generalized fear.
The top managers don't have the profit motive for the firm, only for themselves. It's rarely the same thing, especially these days. They make their money by giving themselves raises and stock options, by insider trading, by causing a short-term stock uptick through some decisive-sounding action and then getting a golden handshake and moving on to the next firm before their mistakes catch up to them.
Directors generally don't have the profit motive for the firm either. They're often CEOs in other firms, or generally people in the same club. They play the game the CEOs' way and they get invited to be directors of other firms. It's fairly incestuous, and the bottom line is if everyone scratches each other's back they can all get lots of interlocking directorships, each at a fat fee for showing up once every few months. Responsible directors will probably get fewer directorships. No profit motive there.

The stockholders have the profit motive. But a lot of them aren't buy-and-hold investors. The speculators, the momentum investors, none of that sort have the profit motive for the firm either, again especially not for the long term. They'll be gone before it matters much.

So. What does that leave? Buy-and-hold investors, especially things like pension funds. They're motivated by the profit levels of the firm itself. They're really not enough to keep the game going all by themselves. How does it?

Because many of these people do try to make the firms they're associated with be profitable, even though they themselves have no profit motive prompting them to do so. The oh-so-profit-oriented private sector depends utterly on people who feel that doing a good job is its own reward, or a matter of pride, or goopy stuff like that. The moment everyone involved, or even a key chunk of them, starts taking capitalist ethics seriously, you get Enron.


Thing is, when you get an Enron in the private sector, you get an Enron, it disappears, goes tits up. In the public sector that doesn't happen.
I worked in the private sector contracting road repairs and roadbuilding to the governments, we bid on almost all jobs,(some very small ones were hourly), it gets to be very competitive and any edge we could get by thinking creatively or using our resources more efficiently was encouraged. You don't get that in the public sector. The public sector also likes to spend its budget so they can get more the next year, that doesn't happen much when you're in a competitive bid enviroment. There were also bonuses and penalties on the contracts for quality, so the work was done right or we lost money. That encouraged the company to get good people and keep them.
I know lots of people who worked both sides of the fence, they just laugh when I try to tell them there are people who actually believe that the public sector is more efficient. It's ridiculous.


From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 28 September 2004 03:23 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So why is it that the Queensway leading into Ottawa is always in such lousy condition in winter now that private road maintenance is on the job ?. I feel lucky when I can catch a sand truck actually doing his job during my sometimes icy commute.

And when are these successive conserviberal governments ever going to get around to fixing Hwy 69 that's killed so many drivers ?. What a mess.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 28 September 2004 08:40 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmm...from those links I'd say that OS believes most if not all government workers are low-skilled and low-trained. That they should be making minimum wage at entry level, or not much more. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to attack a strawman.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sine Ziegler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 225

posted 28 September 2004 09:59 AM      Profile for Sine Ziegler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I know lots of people who worked both sides of the fence, they just laugh when I try to tell them there are people who actually believe that the public sector is more efficient. It's ridiculous.

Oh for crying out loud OS, haven't you figured it out yet? The public sector is a requirement, not an option, in many areas of the economy including tax collecting. Can you imagine contracting that job out? Pffft. Having private employees looking at tax sensitive information all day long? I don't think so.


From: Calgary | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 28 September 2004 10:18 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, OS's real claim is that private-sector asphalt patchers are more efficient than public-sector asphalt patchers.

I know little about asphalt, so I have no reason to dispute that.
Just as OS has no reason to try to comment on the world of government beyond his own small frame of experience.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 28 September 2004 10:27 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Just as OS has no reason to try to comment on the world of government beyond his own small frame of experience.

Oh, yes he does. OS knows everything. Ask him a question about Canadian law and he'll provide a link to entirety of the Consolidated Statutes and Regulations.

[ 28 September 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 28 September 2004 10:42 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Ziegler:
Can you imagine contracting that job out? Pffft. Having private employees looking at tax sensitive information all day long? I don't think so.

Well, Ontario has privatized the issuing of birth certificates

During the 2003 Ontario leaders' debate, Ernie Eves actually stated that "the government should not be in the business of issuing birth certificates"

Coincidentally, it now takes over a year to get a birth certificate. :barfingsmilie:


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 28 September 2004 10:43 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
Oh, yes he does. OS knows everything. Ask him a question about Canadian law and he'll provide a link to entirety of the Consolidated Statutes and Regulations.

I thought he was capable of linking only to the Canadian Taxpayer Federation site.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
DonnyBGood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4850

posted 28 September 2004 07:12 PM      Profile for DonnyBGood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The public sector also likes to spend its budget so they can get more the next year, that doesn't happen much when you're in a competitive bid enviroment. There were also bonuses and penalties on the contracts for quality, so the work was done right or we lost money. That encouraged the company to get good people and keep them.

So what is the difference really? If a public servant's labour is deficient it costs the managers program dollars to remedy it. That is, it has to be redone or fixed. The same is true of a priivate sector contractor.

On the other hand if the private contractor completes his contractual obligations and pays his subtrades s/he gets a profit. Is s/he asked to give that back to the owner or buyer? No way that would be yes, of all things, communism!

So OK let me suggest that as a solution then to our ailing economy. Let us have corporations give their profits back to their buyers. The reasoning is, as the tax slashers say, that then the buyers will have more money to stimulate the economy...etc. etc.

"Absolute lunacy!", you'd say and I'd have to agree.

So now imagine that you are transprted to bizarro world where you are actually running a public service program so efficiently that it comes in under budget saving the taxpayers billions. Would you recommend the buyers (the taxpayers) who have contracted with their employees and management cadres (who have met the terms successfully), be refunded your "profit"?

Of course not - if you were thinking rationally about it.

But we understand that the public is not allowed to think rationally about it. The public has been brainswashed about taxes and government and the word is associated automatically with everything greedy and corrupt in the private sector. So we say, "OK, OK. You want to administer this insane tax cut agenda amnd provide full social benefits at the same time. We've done it and saved you money as well. But now you want us to take a pay cut as a reward! You are dreaming in technicolour my friend!"

If this is what the public thinks then they need to be radically re-educated about the reality of public services and the benefits they receive.

A national strike (probably full blown in a week or two) is one way to raise conciousness. A strike will not only benefit us but also the public.

So watch for it and learn, folks!

(Businesses could do the same thing if they had any backbone instead of "lowball bidding" contracts just to get the work and driving everybody's prices down.)

[ 29 September 2004: Message edited by: DonnyBGood ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
CYL688
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6963

posted 29 September 2004 07:10 AM      Profile for CYL688   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
This site is very much public. Don't post anything on it that management or the police can't know about.


Most people over 40 don't understand the concept of threaded discussion boards. To them there's browsing and there's chatting. Browsing is for CNN and that nifty new web site that sells boats. Oh and there's Amazon too. Chatting is something done by teenagers and of course all those predators that MacLean's warned them about. I am well over 40 so I know this is all true ;-)


From: Halifax | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
CYL688
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6963

posted 29 September 2004 07:12 AM      Profile for CYL688   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Oatmeal Savage:
Simple question. How much more than the private sector should you be paid?

15% !


From: Halifax | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
CYL688
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6963

posted 29 September 2004 07:22 AM      Profile for CYL688   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Oatmeal Savage:
According to CUPE, government workers are paid more than workers in the private sector, they wouldn't lie, would they? So in the interest of fairness, why do the government workers think they deserve to be paid more than the people paying their wages? Should someone cleaning toilets int the private sector have to take home less money so their government employee counterpart can make even more money?
Shouldn't these civic minded government employees be out on the picket lines, rubbing onions in their eyes and demanding lower wages to eliminate this wage gap?

Maybe the issue here is that private sector workers are often underpaid for their work? In any event - as a federal worker I doubt that I make more than my private sector counterparts - I'm in real estate and I know private sector real estate professionals and I would say they all make more money than I do. That being said - I bet they work odd hours. On the other hand, I have a predictable work week and am protected from market forces etc. As a result I have a really great home life and get to spend a lot of time with my wife and kids, so who is doing better? I really can't say and at the end of the day have no complaints.

You ask "why do the government workers think they deserve to be paid more than the people paying their wages?"

We don't all think about it in terms of "deserving". We are just trying to get what we can, like everyone else would. We are trying to get a reasonable increase in pay.


From: Halifax | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
DonnyBGood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4850

posted 30 September 2004 09:03 PM      Profile for DonnyBGood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Today Paul Martin announced that MPs weren't getting a raise. This must be in direct response to all the flack they are getting from public servants and their supporters.

In the last 5 years MP salaries have gone up over 50% while we have got 9%. So it is no big loss for them not to get another honking 10% raise.

MPPs are paid 85K a year - which pathetically low in my book. Does no one have any sanity about these things? All those associated with personal gain - stock brokers, accountants, corporate lawyers, CEOs. etc., - make 6 figure salaries and more.

Public servants and those interested in the public weal get penny pinched to death - and the public applauds! It's utter lunacy.


But I don't think it is even the wage issue that is what is holding up a settlement. It is the idea of temporary workers not being protected.

Here is a good testimonial on part of the problem:

term employee laments....

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: DonnyBGood ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 11 October 2004 11:31 AM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For the last week or so we have been working to rule for the most part. Some of the strike leaders and other executive have been picketing MPs and assisting the different components as they too get in a legal strike position.

Negotiations are ongoing and there is a last ditch effort to reach a settlement but as of last night we were advised that none had been reached and to be prepared for a national strike Tuesday.

Now I could go on and on about the completely incomprehensible position the employer is taking but I thought it might be more "rubber meets road" to explain what things this strike is holding up, indeed the entire approach to government emoployee remuneration.

I plan to buy a new car as soon as this matter is resolved. If this the settlement is reasonable I may be able to finance a PRIUS - the low emission hybrid from Toyotta. If I'm legislated back with an effective wage roll back of one or two per cent I won't be able to afford it.

Not all civil servants own automobiles or even new ones. Most that I know are driving vehicles that are 5 - 10 years old. They are a ready market for new vehicles. If even a third of the 120,000 could as a result of a decent settlement and the accompanying retroactive pay, afford to finance a $25,000 automobile that would be a significant stimulus to the economy.

The automotive industry would recognize an immediate sale jump (40K*25K) of 10 billion dollars. So is it really fiscally responsible to undermine the consumer confidence of a big portion of the Canadian workforce anfd have the sales deferred or avoided altogether ?

Without cost of living raises and a little bit extra people, including civil servants won't buy. We are already at all time high levels of consumer debt. Insurance rates have skyrocketed to the point where it now costs as much to insure a car as it does to finance it.

Fewer people buying cars and insurance then will be costly to the economy.

New homes, most of which require transportation by automobile, will be less accessible and attractive to the buyers.

The point is that there are sufficient surplusses earned by civil servants to justify modest wage increases. If these increases are given then the economy and everyone else will benefit.

Why not do it?

(Ask Treasury Board. Maybe the beans they stare at will tell them. it takes about the same amount of intelligence as possessed by one to figure out it is the right thing to do!)

:

[ 11 October 2004: Message edited by: Boinker ]


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 11 October 2004 05:25 PM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
That's a good effort, but I don't think the economic boost argument will win many people to your side of the dispute. If we're going for an economic boost, many people's first reaction will be "why do it through civil servants when you could do it through me?"

The same economic boost could be achieved through any number of targeted government expenditures, and also through a tax reduction.

Now of course, that doesn't have any impact on other arguments related to your negotiations.


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 11 October 2004 08:04 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Closed for length.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca