# Public Sector Unions



## Edward Campbell (14 Jan 2011)

While this is, tangentially, related to a few other discussions, I think it – the issue of public service unions – deserves a topic of its own.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a report on _political activism_ from a public service union:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/union-accuses-senior-tories-of-selling-out-national-security/article1869973/


> Union accuses senior Tories of selling out national security
> 
> COLIN FREEZE
> 
> ...




First point: I am *not* anti-union. Those who follow my economic posts will know that I believe that labour must be properly valued and that trade unions and collective bargaining provide the best available way to do that. I also support the unions’ fights for workplace health and safety.

Second point: I am, however, skeptical about the utility and value of public sector unions. The public sector, and regulated monopolies, can derive the value of their labour and workplace health and safety issues from the private sector’s examples. _Traditionally_ the public sector employees sacrificed some percentage of salary for nearly iron clad job security. Then, beginning in the 1950s, they began to bargain collectively but the employers (governments at the municipal, provincial and federal levels) never demanded (enough) job security concessions in exchange for better pay. The result, today, is that public sector employees are, too often, better paid that their private sector confreres – something that should almost never happen – even though they are also much better protected from job loss.

Thus, I find this action troubling: overpaid and overprotected public employees are engaging in partisan politics; it needs to stop; better we need to decertify PIPS and PSAC and UNDE and CUPE and all their affiliates and return the public sector to an older, sounder model of labour relations: good job security in exchange for wages that lag (but not too far) behind the private sector. You want more money? Take your chances in the market place. You want security? Settle for a little less money every month.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Jan 2011)

For the most part I agree with you but, once again from experience, most times we have had private contractors hired for things in secure areas it turns into a goat rodeo.

I have several instances right on the tip of my fingers but since some companies still have their hand in the jar, and my best buddy just got a 3 day suspension for posting something THEY said was work related on Facebook, I should probably err on the side of caution.

As a handful have proven to me over the years, loyalty and ethic's can't be bought, but the financial consequences of losing $30 an hour compared with $12 and never being able to work another Govt. job are substantial. Maybe just enough to keep someone "solid".





Ya pay peanuts, ya get monkeys......


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jan 2011)

There's a good military connection here, too:  Mr Capstick is the son of Col (retired) Capstick.

This points out the fundamental failings of Canadian courts to respect workers rights - to work as a member of the public service, one must pay to support this sort of foolishness.  The Rand formula (as expanded and explained in _Lavigne v OPSEU_ - Canada's Supreme Court does nto seem to think that freedom of association is infringed when one is forced to associate with a group as a term of employment) means that every public servant is required to pay the union for non-representational expenses and activities - even if one does not become a union member.

Interesting that these paragons of fiscal responsibility who critique this option don't provide the cost of their own alternatives; similarly, has anyone ever been able to find online copies of PSAC's financials?  One would think members (and those forced to contribute) would be entitled to see how those union dues are spent...


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jan 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> For the most part I agree with you but, once again from experience, most times we have had private contractors hired for things in secure areas it turns into a goat rodeo.
> 
> I have several instances right on the tip of my fingers but since some companies still have their hand in the jar, and my best buddy just got a 3 day suspension for posting something THEY said was work related on Facebook, I should probably err on the side of caution.
> 
> ...




I don't disagree that in some public sector jobs - especially those where the public servant may use the full weight and force of the law on my behalf - there is little or no room for the private sector. Public service _values_ might be required. But that does not, in any conceivable way, mean that public sector employees need or should be allowed unions or collective bargaining, with its (inherent) right to strike. If a job is _public_ then hire adequate people, pay them adequately and offer them adequate benefits and job security. If the job can, properly, be done by the private sector then let them compete for it. Maybe lower paid public employees are cheaper and better - maybe not.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Jan 2011)

Trust me Edward, I'd give back the right to strike in a heartbeat however do not fool yourself, the Govt. has far less loyalty to its employee's than the private sector.

I do good work for Joe's Garage and Joe is very happy because Joe's kids get to go to University as he makes money off of my labour,  no matter what I do for my employer I am just a drain on his/her budget, and his/her kids get to go to school anywhichway.....

When they closed the my old "building" the only reason we kept our jobs was their bungling and the Union exploitation of that, otherwise I would now be delivering drywall even though I, and most others, had been a great employees.  They screwed us over, [and the screw job they did on our non- union managers would be illegal for a private company to do] to assist their *cough* "friends" in the private company they had hired to run the new "building" thinking we would have no options and be cheap, trained and available labour for them.

Until that time I was as anti-union as a soul can be.....................


EDIT: and just to add an example, it would be closing CFB Trenton and letting go everyone posted there regardless of any circumstances while touching no one else in the CF.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Jan 2011)

I guess I should have actually had a point with my rant above,.... :-[

Don't kid yourself with the job security shtick,...like was quoted to me, "Remember you're dealing with the folks who can change the rules at any time".


----------



## mariomike (14 Jan 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Thus, I find this action troubling: overpaid and overprotected public employees are engaging in partisan politics; it needs to stop; better we need to decertify PIPS and PSAC and UNDE and CUPE and all their affiliates and return the public sector to an older, sounder model of labour relations: good job security in exchange for wages that lag (but not too far) behind the private sector. You want more money? Take your chances in the market place. You want security? Settle for a little less money every month.



You do not always have a choice, if you want to work.

I was a dues paying member of Toronto Civic Employee's Union TCEU-CUPE. Outside workers. ( Inside workers belong to a different local. ) It was a closed shop. We tried to get out and form our own Separate Bargaining Unit SBU with the city, like police and fire, but it was impossible.


----------



## mariomike (16 May 2011)

From News talk 1010
"Why we need to talk trash: 
The Ford administration is taking the next steps toward privatizing trash collection in the city and it's a worthy experiment. But let's not rush things. The idea that contracting out would skirt city council would have sent Ford and his inner circle into spasms a year ago but everything changes when you get into power.

Splitting the city in two and running parallel systems for five years or so would be the best scenario. Private garbage collection has a mixed record in other jurisdictions and the usual pattern is for the price to come down in the early years and then start creeping up. In the end you arrive at a system that costs roughly the same or even more but finds its profit in reduced benefits for workers. You have to be a pretty mean-spirited person to think that people who collect garbage for a living should have their wages and benefits knocked down simply to allow a private company to pocket the difference.

What many Torontonians don't know is our collection service is already cheaper than most other municipalities in southern Ontario. It costs $72 a ton to collect solid waste in Toronto compared to $86 in Durham, $87 in Halton and $107 in Peel. Almost all of the other three are privately run. It's also significant to note that even though Etobicoke has private garbage collection the city actually receives MORE customer complaints in Etobicoke than the rest of Toronto.

The solution is to set aside the dogmas that one system is always necessarily better than the other. Let's take it slow and get the best value for our tax dollars.":
http://www.newstalk1010.com/shows/johnmoore/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10228593


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jun 2013)

I often (usually) disagree with Jeffrey Simpson but, in this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, I think he sees the situation clearly:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/when-politicians-campaign-against-public-sector-unions/article12288568/#dashboard/follows/


> When politicians campaign against public-sector unions
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Don't worry too much about Baumol’s cost disease, the fact that he's right doesn't mean there is any political will to change, but envy is a powerful emotion and look carefully at Simpson's statistics:

     1. 70 per cent union density in the broad public sector and 18 per cent in the private sector; and

     2. Only 9 per cent of private sector workers have defined benefit pension plans. The rest have defined contribution plans, hybrid plans or no plans; more than 50 per cent of workers in the public sector still have them. 

That, the _envy factor_, is what politicians want to exploit. If, in the process, they can mange to bring some _reasonable_ level of _productivity_ to public sector work that's a nice bonus ~ and remember that what we define as productive in the public sector might surprise us all.

It is always a fallacy to suggest that we should run government like a business and nowhere is the fallacy more clear than in deciding what is productive. Just consider national defence: there is pretty much nothing that is less _productive_ or more wasteful than military spending, but we do it because we understand that, despite its poor totally unproductive nature we *need* to have a military, just like we need a fire department and home insurance.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I often (usually) disagree with Jeffrey Simpson but, in this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, I think he sees the situation clearly:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/when-politicians-campaign-against-public-sector-unions/article12288568/#dashboard/follows/
> 
> ...



At the same time, many Canadians have grown up with our EI and Welfare Systems and do not have the will to actually save for their own retirement.  The Government does offer Canadians tax breaks in the form of various "Savings" plans; RSPs, Tax Free Savings Accts, education savings accts for children, etc.  A vast majority of Canadians do not even take the most basic of plans into consideration towards planning for their futures.  A great number of Canadians would rather complain that some other Canadians are getting a benefit that they work towards, than work towards earning such a benefit themselves.   A large number of Canadians, seriously, need to be weaned off of the Welfare and Social Systems they demand and currently live off of.  While one part of the population is working, some as part of a Union, and contributing towards a pension plan, another part of the population is "draining the pot" by living off "Social Assistance".   If this were Biology, is would fly against all Natural Laws; where the strong would survive and the weak perish so that the species would survive.  Perhaps this is an indicator that our society is in grave danger of becoming "extinct".


----------



## mariomike (3 Jun 2013)

> Watching the Rob Ford saga unfold in Canada’s largest city must make Canadians elsewhere wonder: How did he ever get elected?
> 
> Elections are never one-dimensional, so there were obviously many reasons, but principal among them was a contract signed by the previous mayor, David Miller, with the powerful Canadian Union of Public Employees ending a garbage strike.
> 
> That deal was the last straw for many citizens who came to believe that the inmates, namely public-sector employees, were running the asylum. They wanted someone who would keep taxes down and unionized employees in their place. Hello, Rob Ford.



I retired before the strike* and "cut the gravy" became the unofficial slogan to many in the city. But, we did run into the occasional "I pay your salary" type over the years. From what I hear, it is much more frequent now.

Of course, we never argued with members of the public. But, as far as productivity was concerned, they really did not have much to complain about. Historically, we had one of the highest - if not the highest - Unit hour Utilization ( UhU is how our productivity was measured ) of any service in North America.

* Edit. As an Essential Service, paramedics in Toronto do not have, and do not seek, the right to strike.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Jun 2013)

We just had our best employees surplused while other ones are left untouched. The message to the rest is that how well you do your job is immaterial to our decision making process. Needless to say our workflow is dropping.


----------



## mariomike (3 Jun 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> We just had our best employees surplused while other ones are left untouched. The message to the rest is that how well you do your job is immaterial to our decision making process. Needless to say our workflow is dropping.



Reminds me of what one of our former mayors, Mel Lastman, was quoted as saying: “Try and fire them, you can’t. It’s jobs for life.”


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Jun 2013)

40% cut out here and 60% in the maritime's 

A big focus of my G110 management course was the releasing of staff, taught by a CBSA director who did release staff caught doing naughty things. The big issue is following the process to the letter and knowing the process before you start. What we found here in one case was a complete lack of appetite by our HR staff to support and follow through on a release. Either HR needs to take over the process or get the hell out of the way. But the trend now under the Soviet Central Committee  I mean Harper government is to reduce frontline manager authority.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 May 2015)

Here is an interesting _infographic_ from _The Economist_

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





It is, perhaps, interesting to note that union membership peaked in the UK around 1980-85, after Margaret Thatcher came to power, but the precipitous decline (union membership was cut in half in 30 years) began during Mrs Thatcher's _watch_.

A more troubling graphic, and surrounding text, from  the same article in _The Economist_ ...

     Following a major recession, the NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) often goes up. Periods of unemployment have lingering effects on workers, from a loss of vim to clinical depression. Time out
     of work can mean skills dwindle or become mismatched to the needs of the market; the skills needed by industries that flourish in the recovery may differ from those central to the industries which laid people off in the slump.
     All this means some unemployed workers will find it harder to get back into the workforce - indeed, some may stay unemployed until they reach pensionable age - and their presence on the unemployment rolls thus does little
     to hold down wages. So after a big crisis the NAIRU rises; inflation should kick in sooner rather than later.

     In the wake of the current recession, though, this rule of thumb has been broken in a number of countries (see chart 2). In 2013 the OECD, a rich-country think-tank, thought wage-driven inflation would kick in in Britain
     if unemployment got back below 6.9%. But joblessness was well below that throughout 2014 and average real wages still declined by 0.6%. In a 2013 paper Federal Reserve economists estimated a stable unemployment-wage rule
     for America: every percentage-point reduction in unemployment should lift inflation by 0.3% over the next year. But despite the fact that joblessness has fallen by more than two percentage points since then, median hourly wages
     were the same in the first quarter of 2015 as a year earlier. In Japan, unemployment averaged 3.6% in 2014, well below its pre-crisis average, but real pay fell by 2.5%.

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




     Odd, but if temporary perhaps not too troubling. And there is evidence that real-terms wages might now be shaking off their sloth. In late February IG Metall, Germany’s largest union, brokered a 3.4% raise for its members,
     well above the current inflation rate, 0.3%. The latest British data show average salaries up by 1.7% in a year; with inflation close to zero this is a decent real-terms rise. In America, average real pay is up by 2.2% over the past year.
     If this continues as unemployment falls it would mean a return to pre-crash normality, with sustained wage inflation eventually triggering central-bank interest-rate hikes.

     There is, though, another possibility; that the recent hints of a wages bump are largely an artefact of unexpectedly low inflation, and that the underlying wage stagnation continues. Average pay data in America and Britain may
     be hiding the continuing plight of the median worker behind the success of the most sought after. It may be that the damage this recession did to the labour market—the loss of skills and the mismatch between industries where
     workers have experience and those where there are vacancies—is being expressed not in the form of long-term unemployment but as lasting low pay. If that is true, and low pay locks in, sustained inflation might not return even
     with low rates of unemployment. That labour-market shift would chart a very different course for central banks, which would keep rates low. It would also mean the politics of low pay could be here to last.

     What might account for a change of this sort? One likely factor is that, in many places, more flexible labour contracts make it easier to fill posts without raising wages. In Germany “mini jobs”—positions with pay under €400 ($440)
     per month - are rocketing. In Britain, “zero hours” contracts, in which neither employer nor employee commits to a fixed number of hours, have been becoming more common. By making it easier to fire workers these contracts
     aim to take the worry out of hiring. By making workers’ positions more fragile they cut bargaining power.

In Chart 2 we can see that America is "best" in that both _productivity_ (measured by output) and wages have risen, but wages should have risen farther. Britain is, just barely, keeping it's head above water, and France is on exactly the wrong track. The 10% _gap_ between output and wages is one of the main reason unemployment has fallen in America and Britain. The correlation between labour costs and employment is real and, pretty much, consistent across all markets.

At the risk of repeating myself, it is important, actually quite _vital_ _in my opinion_, that we can get both the price and value of labour right. Unions and the collective bargaining process are an important element in "pricing" labour. But the process of "pricing" labour also opens management's eyes to alternatives and so we get automation/robotics and "out-sourcing" to e.g. India and Philippines. One of the reasons wages _should_ lag behind output is that steadily rising wages without concomitant increases in productivity (UK _circa_ 1980, France now) force enterprises to either move the work offshore or do it with machines. So the _bargaining_ process, a useful aspect of trade unions, serves both labour and management.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 May 2015)

The major issues facing productivity in the organized workplace is policies, procedures and totally risk adversity by managers. Treasury Board has a policy for everything. Force them to start ditching their policies and put responsibility back to frontline managers. 

 Also having family and friends in private sector jobs the real reason private industry looks more productive is because of "ghost hours". A great deal of their staff work unpaid and unaccounted hours to meet imposed timelines or expectations. In my brothers company, he will be asked to estimate the cost of doing a job, he will calculate $200,000. Next week the boss will come back and say; "Great we got the job, but we are getting paid $150,000 and you have to come under that. So staff have to work extra hours unbilled and all regular hours have to be billed, but can't be billed to that project as it is running overbudget.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 May 2015)

"Ghost hours" and "internet browsing hours" are mutually a wash.  The former are required to make up for the latter.


----------



## mariomike (30 Sep 2015)

I was a member of a public sector union for over 36 years. As our union negotiated our collective agreements with Metro, there was little discussion of  party politics. 

From what I recall, members supported our union's active participation in the local political process. Members wanted political action to be about them and their needs, not about candidates or political parties.  
They, the members, wanted the union to provide information, not voting instructions. They wanted the union to downplay the party partisan rhetoric. To support the candidates who supported us.

I was never an official with the union or the department, but that is the way I recalled the political situation in our Local. I've been retired for over six years, so things may have changed somewhat since then.

I've never followed party politics, just my 2 cents on local politics. Which I didn't find particularly interesting prior to 1998.


----------



## Pusser (1 Oct 2015)

As I understand it, prior to the formation of the federal public sector unions in the 1960s, employee benefits were legislated and annual pay increases were based on a defined formula.  With the formation of these unions, this was all replaced by the collective bargaining process and as one public servant friend of mine used to put it, "we haven't seen a decent pay increase since."  I've often wondered what the results would be if someone were to compare the pay increases that the Public Service has seen since 1960 with what they would have been had that formula been applied every year instead.  Keep in mind that any study would have to take into account all the money public servants did not receive as a result of being on strike.


----------



## mariomike (1 Oct 2015)

> Keep in mind that any study would have to take into account all the money public servants did not receive as a result of being on strike.



In the municipal public sector, in the city I worked, Paramedics have been unionized since 1917. The International Association of Fire Fighters was established in 1918. Police Officers since 1944. 
All three have collective bargaining rights with the Employer. They do not have, and do not seek, the right to strike. They can not be locked-out by the Employer. 
Items that can not be negotiated, go to binding interest arbitration.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2015)

This story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ is both more and less worrisome than it looks:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/public-servants-shed-cloak-of-impartiality-at-least-for-the-day


> Public servants shed cloak of impartiality – at least for the day
> 
> LEE BERTHIAUME, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> KATHRYN MAY, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> ...




First, some background: Conservatives, going all the way back to John Diefenbaker, in the 1950s, have been very, very suspicious of the _public service_, writ large; just _Google_ Lester Pearson, Mitchell Sharp and Marcel Massé and you will see why ~ the upper ranks of the national _public service_ looked like an apprenticeship programme for the Liberal Party's cabinet table. That's why Brian Mulroney's "pink slips and running shoes" quip (1980s) resonated with Conservatives then ... and still does.

But, broadly and generally, the symbiosis between the the public service _Mandarins_ and the Liberals was a two way street. The Mandarins always had and still have their own mid to long term _plan_ for Canada which they "sold" to the Liberals at least as much ~ more, in my opinion ~ as the Liberals imposed their policies on the public service. That included the Pearson/Trudeau Liberals' _"lurch to the left"_ in the 1960s and '70s; the public servants were, generally, sympathetic towards, even enamoured with the Scandinavian model of the _Social Democratic_ welfare state. One must recall that public servants in the 1950s, '60s and, amongst the senior ranks, the 1970s, shared one common, defining experience ... not war (although a great many (1 in 12) Canadians put on a uniform, the Second World War was not the "defining" experience the First War had been ... the _unifying_ and _defining_ and, indeed, soul searing experience was the Great Depression. Senior men (they were all men) like Pearson and Sharp watched as the Great Depression destroyed the emerging prosperity of the 1920s and rendered people both homeless and hopeless ... those who have never read nor seen John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath need to watch/read it to have even a slight, remote sense of what the "dirty thirties" were  like, but trust me, the Great Depression was far, far more important (socially) that any war.

The _Mandarins_ had a _plan_, it closely matched the _plan_ the Liberals developed in Kingston in 1960, and it was the precursor of the _plan_ which Pierre Trudeau, Michael Pitfield, Ivan Head and others used when they set about re-ordering Canadian society in a way that owed far more to Prime Minister Trudeau's old teacher at the LSE, Harold Lasky, than it did to Arnold Heeney, Norman Robertson and Gordon Robertson, those exemplars of the Golden Age of Canadian public service and diplomacy.

One of the main outputs of Pierre Trudeau's _plan_ was that the public sector balooned in ways that bothered, in the 1980s and, I believe, still bothers many of the _Mandarins_.

Essentially, in my opinion, we have a _*traditional* public service_, made up of a mix of managers and clerical staff (officers and other ranks, if you like) that helps the government of the day develop and implement policies. But we also have, now, a much larger, unionized, public work force that _delivers_ services and programmes.

There is, of course, a need for public servants to deliver services. Any time, just as one example, the state can use all of it coercive powers against an individual (police, crown prosecutors, prison guards, tax collectors, etc) we ought to insist that they are all 100% public servants and, therefore, 100% accountable to the public. However, those 'public servants' who e.g. deliver mail, deliver air traffic control, (most) scientific research, technical regulations for e.g. radio licenses or the radio licenses themselves, or visas to visitors need not be _"public servants"_ in the same way that a police officer or a policy analyst ought to be. Much of what is now the _public sector_ can be and should be contracted out to the wholly private sector ... and credit is due to (mostly Liberal) governments which have, at least partially, privatized many "public services."

What we are seeing, in my opinion, in the story at the top, is a disconnect between the unionized "work force" and the _Mandarins_. I think the mandarins were, and still are, largely sympathetic to Prime Minister Harper's agenda ... they set a lot of it, including policies that aimed to curb the power of the too large, unionized "public sector." The too fat, too "detached" from real "public service" unionized "public sector" fought back and it thinks it has won ... I'm doubtful.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Nov 2015)

I think this is another case of the media seeking a story where there is none.  I was present at NDHQ in 2011 when the MND was re-elected and re-appointed; there were cheers and applause.  Flash forward to 2015, and once again there were cheers and applause.

I suspect there may have been similar applause in 2011 at External Affairs Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and Trade Development whatever the hell they're called today; the difference being that there was no media present.  Indeed, much of the "story" seems to be that some media were tipped off about the event while others were not; sour grapes among the pundit class = critical articles.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Nov 2015)

I think I see a little flaw in your analysis ERC.

The event described in the article occurred in the lobby of the headquarters of External Affairs. At that location, the overwhelming majority of civil servants would fall in your category of "traditional civil service", not  the "larger, unionized public workforce to deliver services and programs".

So the event does not support you narrative of disconnect between the two.

To be fair, as Dataperson indicated, a meet and greet with the new minister where they are cheered and applauded is not unheard of. In this case, particularly after PM Trudeau showed up, it was a little exaggerated a reaction, but civil servants are human being and more likely than not, some of them were ardent Liberal supporters (likely those who hugged the PM). As long as you didn't see any of the DM's, ADM's, and so forth from the upper echelons hugging the PM or cheering in an exaggerated fashion, I wouldn't read too much into this.

And I don't think, contrary to Dataperson, that some media were "tipped-off". The media are going gaga over this new government (more than the civil service, anyway) and Trudeau is playing that card (very well I must say) by publicizing every event and every move he makes. The media are just following on every one of those move like groupies, probably because every such move is now easy to find out, when only a few days before the journalist had to work their butts off just to find out if and where anything would happen or be announced.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2015)

I think there has been a huge, sea state change amongst the _Mandarins_. They, the senior civil servants, used to be reliably Liberal in values, as the lower levels still are. But my sense is that, since the 1970s, the _Mandarins_, let's say, just for the sake of arguments, the ADMs and above, have become less and less Liberal while the Conservative Party has come, more and more, to see the world through the eyes of the top levels of the civil service.

My sense is that the 1970s were the key: the _Mandarins_ lost faith in the Liberal Party on economic, social and foreign/defence policy issues. Many (by no means all) senior civil servants understood that what Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced could not be sustained, economically ~ indeed, Prime Minister Trudeau's own finance minister, Jean Chrétien, had, in his turn at the helm, to offload much of the "Just Society" costs on to the provinces, lest they bankrupt the national government. The decision (1968/69) to withdraw from NATO perplexed and frightened the _Mandarins_, so did the whole notion of "entitlements" rather than "needs" as a way of allocating money to social programmes.

So, in my opinion, two changes:

     1. The _Mandarin_ class, not the whole public sector, _left_ the Liberal Party, in the 1980s and '90s; and, almost simultaneously

     2. The Conservatives (PCs, Reform, Alliance, eventually the CPC) came to see the nation and the world through much the same lens as do the _Mandarins_.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Nov 2015)

If your view is correct ERC, then two things could happen:

Either (1) the newly elected Liberal ministers will take their cue and advice from the mandarins, in which case what they actually do while in office won't be much different from what the Harper government was doing; or (2) the alleged "friction/disconnect" between the civil service and the elected government will indeed exist, but at the top level this time, which cannot be good for the country.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Nov 2015)

I think it will be a muddle, some of the EX's came up under the Conservatives and will still think that way, although not out loud. The PS politically is a mixed bag, in my office it's a spread across the board from Green to Reform. I think the lower ranks of the PS are fooling themselves that "everything will be better now". For myself under this new government;

As a PS employee, I will likely benefit as no action against my pension or sick time is likely in the near future.
As a up and coming "senior" I will likely lose out some benefits.
As a gun owner I am likely to get truly fu*ked in about a year.

Once the new government gets a chance to drive for a bit, the same realities that faced the CPC will be there. The deficit pledge will give them some slack to play with for a bit, but sooner or later the piper will want to be paid.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (9 Nov 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If your view is correct ERC, then two things could happen:
> 
> Either (1) the newly elected Liberal ministers will take their cue and advice from the mandarins, in which case what they actually do while in office won't be much different from what the Harper government was doing; or (2) the alleged "friction/disconnect" between the civil service and the elected government will indeed exist, but at the top level this time, which cannot be good for the country.



I would suspect that case 1 is what we will see after a 4-6 month "period of change". The changes proposed are a mirror of Mr. Trudeau himself- lots of pomp and circumstance, not a lot of depth. 

At the end of the day, the Liberal platform didn't call for major changes to the PS aside from cosmetic changes. As Colin P noted, at some point the fiscal piper has to be paid in spite of a pledge of deficit spending. That said, I suspect that the piper will be paid in late 2019, AFTER the next election so that the liberals can run on all the great things they've paid for.

On a side note while discussing the PS- the PS employees in my office (in Manitoba) were generally pro-conservative and were not all that excited to see Mr. Trudeau elected, despite the fact that they generally agreed that they would be better off financially with a liberal government. I think the impression the media gives comes from 2 sources:

1. The Liberals, to their credit, have done a terrific job in taking advantage of Mr. Trudeau's main gift, which is his "likeability". Their use of the internet and pomp and circumstance (the change in government felt like a coronation...) has created an illusion of "real change".

2. The liberals are strongest (and conservatives weakest) in major urban centres (Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, etc) where the major media outlets are located. It's perfectly reasonable that the reaction to a liberal win in Toronto would be more frenzied than in say, Regina or Edmonton, amongst the civil service who reflect the population they're in. So the fact that a bunch of PS employees in Ottawa are excited and PS employees in Brandon, Mb are not excited shouldn't be a shock. The major media outlets (CTV news, CBC, National Post, Toronto star, etc) are centred in Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, etc so the fact that their reports reflect the reality as they see it shouldn't be that shocking. It would be less biased if they stated that, "The PS in Ottawa/Toronto is excited to see the change" vice just saying it's the PS in whole, but that's a discussion for another thread.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Nov 2015)

Other point to remember: Canada's urban areas are under-represented in the federal government. Historical issues push out disproprotionate influence to rural areas and to declining areas like the maritimes.  Seats in PEI have 33K voters, where some urban seats have in excess of 125K voters.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Nov 2015)

The problem for the Conservatives was they needed to "scapegoat" the PS to appeal to a portion of their base with the same reasoning the Liberals attacked gun owners to appeal to a part of their base. Are some PS types useless, absolutely, but many are very committed to their work. What the new CPC needs to avoid is generic messaging and targeting a particular group unless of course it's ISIS.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Nov 2015)

I really don't find the PS was scapegoated at all. The Tories sought fairer compensation for the taxpayer, and started cutting some bloat. Whether those cuts went in the right place is how they were managed.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Nov 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I really don't find the PS was scapegoated at all. The Tories sought fairer compensation for the taxpayer, and started cutting some bloat. Whether those cuts went in the right place is how they were managed.



in fact, the PS grew monstrously in the early years of the Conservative government; even after the "bloat" was cut, the PS was still larger than when they took office.


----------



## Remius (9 Nov 2015)

No one can deny that there was a frosty relationship between the PS and the CPC.  While I don't denounce the actions some people took at that Foreign Affairs welcome session in terms of welcoming the new minister and PM, I do take issue with booing the questions the media had.  That is where the line was crossed.  I'm sure there were some e-mails circulating after the event reminding Public Servants of their role and conduct.

I do belive that this is an isolated event.


----------



## TCM621 (9 Nov 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> No one can deny that there was a frosty relationship between the PS and the CPC.  While I don't denounce the actions some people took at that Foreign Affairs welcome session in terms of welcoming the new minister and PM, I do take issue with booing the questions the media had.  That is where the line was crossed.  I'm sure there were some e-mails circulating after the event reminding Public Servants of their role and conduct.
> 
> I do belive that this is an isolated event.


I do denounce it. While individual members of the PS can have whatever personal viewpoints they want, having our "non-partisan"  civil service fawning over the Liberals like a bunch of girls at a Beiber concert is unprofessional at best and shows am incredible bias at worst. This lends some credence to the theory that the CPC had to deal with a adversarial public service. 

And I can see why this might have contributed to the fact Harper felt the need to run everything from the PMO . If you can't trust your senior civil servants to implement policy objectively then maybe you feel like you need to have it run by people you trust ie partisans and personal staff. 

Real or not, this perception is out there and affects the running of this country.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The problem for the Conservatives was they needed to "scapegoat" the PS to appeal to a portion of their base with the same reasoning the Liberals attacked gun owners to appeal to a part of their base. Are some PS types useless, absolutely, but many are very committed to their work. What the new CPC needs to avoid is generic messaging and targeting a particular group unless of course it's ISIS.




But, remember, please, that the Conservatives' (of various types) animus towards the PS is well rooted in fact: see my para beginning, "First, some background ..." One cannot deny that the PS, top to bottom, in the 1950s, '60s and into the '70s, was really nothing more than a "farm team" for the Liberal Party of Canada. And, it was a two way street: the PS _believed_ in Liberal _values_ because they, men like Pearson, Sharp and Marcel Massé, when they were senior public servants, brought those values to the Liberal Party.

The Conservatives were wrong to believe, as too many ~ including Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper ~ did, at first, that the _Mandarins_ didn't want to be non-partisan. The _Mandarins_, so many of whom were _Oxbridge_ men (not many women, at all), were very much influenced by the British PS with its ability to _moderate_, equally, Churchill's Tories and Labourites like Nye Bevin. They, like their British confrères, had a "master plan" which they intended to implement through both Liberal and Conservative (Conservative and Labour in the British case) administrations.

My sense of our, Canadian, PS is that the senior ranks (DMs and ADMs) are non-partisan, despite individual socio-economic and political views ranging from socialist to libertarian, and want to _serve_ the government of the day fairly and honestly and to keep it, the elected government, on a sane, moderate course ~ veering left here and right there but, never, too very far from the centre. Middle management (managers, directors and DGs) is, often, more actively partisan than the senior folks but it (middle management) is _buffered_ from the levers of real power by the seniors, so no harm is done. The "bottom" of the PS doesn't matter.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Nov 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I really don't find the PS was scapegoated at all. The Tories sought fairer compensation for the taxpayer, and started cutting some bloat. Whether those cuts went in the right place is how they were managed.



I got all the CPC mailings the reduction of numbers and changing pension and sick leave was fairly prominent. What I saw from a internal viewpoint is a total lack of trust, which I can say had some grounding in truth, but it was clear that we would be targeted regardless of whatever facts came out. Case in point is holding up as example, peoples with large sick leave banks (because they didn't abuse it) as something that was bad. Cutting a program staff by 40% without any consultation with the programs managers or regional managers and only giving those managers 15minutes notice of the extent of the cuts and which positions would be cut. Thanks to the poor job in the regulatory reduction consultation, the poor job in drafting said Act and zero input allowed in how to manage staff reduction, we ended up with a Clusterf*ck which ended up having to hire people back to handle the workload that never dropped as much as anticipated. However they did succeed in dumping corporate knowledge out the door and morale in the dumpster. The problem with the CPC is they took many good ideas and implemented them terribly. I personally would like to wrap anchor chain around the twit that came up with the Omibill ideas and toss them off the pier. Crappy governance is crappy governance no matter who does it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Nov 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> .... we ended up with a Clusterf*ck which ended up having to hire people back to handle the workload that never dropped as much as anticipated ....


And in some departments, those hired back were getting their pension AND their salary, doing their old job in their old cubicle - way to save money!



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> However they did succeed in dumping corporate knowledge out the door and morale in the dumpster.


 :nod:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Nov 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The problem with the CPC is they took many good ideas and implemented them terribly.



Well! Ain't that a first for a government   :facepalm:

I do agree however: kill the idiot that decided omnibus bills are OK in Canadian governance. I hate the things and find them totally undemocratic. Even if it's not your intention, it just has the perspective that you are trying to hide something deep in the bowels of the bill that you hope no one will find until it's too late - and without any chance of a debate.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Nov 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I do agree however: kill the idiot that decided omnibus bills are OK in Canadian governance. I hate the things and find them totally undemocratic. Even if it's not your intention, it just has the perspective that you are trying to hide something deep in the bowels of the bill that you hope no one will find until it's too late - and without any chance of a debate.


Ah, but it lets you throw together stuff the other side can't stand for (x) and stuff they might , and then say "hey, you had a chance to vote for y, but you didn't, did you?"


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Nov 2015)

No, no, no.  It's all about efficiency and brevity.  Saves time and paper by condensing it into one neat package instead of numerous bulky ones... :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Nov 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I got all the CPC mailings the reduction of numbers and changing pension and sick leave was fairly prominent. What I saw from a internal viewpoint is a total lack of trust, which I can say had some grounding in truth, but it was clear that we would be targeted regardless of whatever facts came out. Case in point is holding up as example, peoples with large sick leave banks (because they didn't abuse it) as something that was bad. Cutting a program staff by 40% without any consultation with the programs managers or regional managers and only giving those managers 15minutes notice of the extent of the cuts and which positions would be cut. Thanks to the poor job in the regulatory reduction consultation, the poor job in drafting said Act and zero input allowed in how to manage staff reduction, we ended up with a Clusterf*ck which ended up having to hire people back to handle the workload that never dropped as much as anticipated. However they did succeed in dumping corporate knowledge out the door and morale in the dumpster. The problem with the CPC is they took many good ideas and implemented them terribly. I personally would like to wrap anchor chain around the twit that came up with the Omibill ideas and toss them off the pier. Crappy governance is crappy governance no matter who does it.



The PMO tried the consultation route with DND and Leslies' report.....That went well.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Nov 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> No, no, no.  It's all about efficiency and brevity.  Saves time and paper by condensing it into one neat package instead of numerous bulky confusing ones... :nod:


FTFY  ;D


----------



## Jed (9 Nov 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I think it will be a muddle, some of the EX's came up under the Conservatives and will still think that way, although not out loud. The PS politically is a mixed bag, in my office it's a spread across the board from Green to Reform. I think the lower ranks of the PS are fooling themselves that "everything will be better now". For myself under this new government;
> 
> As a PS employee, I will likely benefit as no action against my pension or sick time is likely in the near future.
> As a up and coming "senior" I will likely lose out some benefits.
> ...



That concurs with my read of the situation based on considerable time (albiet dated) with in and around the Federal Public Service.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Nov 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> FTFY  ;D


Ta.   :cheers:


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Nov 2015)

A while back in the old (locked) election thread I posted some numbers to illustrate where federal dollars are spent.  To recap, a bit less than 3/4 goes out in transfers, and of the remaining 1/4+, roughly 1/3 is DND and 2/3 all other departments and agencies (so - again, very roughly - of all program expenditures, we have 1/12 DND, and 1/6 other).  The past government pretty much focused all its spending restraint on that last 1/4+, hence the perception of pressure.  Undoubtedly provinces and individuals are happy not to have taken it in the neck, even if they don't realize the past government made a point of not shorting them.

We also currently spend an amount slightly more than 1/10 of program expenditures on servicing debt; the cost is a bit less than 4.5% of the accumulated deficit (debt).  It doesn't take a very large increase in that percentage to move the debt cost up by amounts which dwarf whatever pork spending the Liberals are setting up behind the "infrastructure" smokescreen.

So if we are not to willy-nilly blow out the budget again, someone has to accept and deal with restraint.  Should it be the public service, or the other levels of government and the people relying on transfers?

Judging the PS by the behaviour of the foreign affairs crowd is unlikely to produce a sound conclusion.  The FA people were never shy about admitting their disappointment that they might not be well thought of by the people whose esteem they craved - Europeans.  And, everyone wants to believe his voice matters.  At root it is all just an ego problem - theirs.


----------



## cavalryman (9 Nov 2015)

Since I'm old enough and ornery enough to remember the public service strike in the early 90s, I can still vividly see images of picketers in front of Fort Pearson (the DFAIT HQ for those not up on Ottawa slang) wearing hockey helmets and carrying 2x4 which they liberally used to intimidate those wanting/needing to cross the picket lines.  If memory serves, it was pretty much the only place in Ottawa where it became violent.  Make of that what you will.  It remained sufficiently imprinted in my mind so that even two decades or so later, I seem to never have developed much respect for the DFAIT folks - perhaps unfairly, but there you have it.  Perception weighs heavily and seeing the bovine love-fest for Mr Trudeau from the spiritual descendants of those unprofessional louts of the 90s doesn't help me regain much respect for our ever-loving diplomatic folks.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Nov 2015)

I remember the strikes here, not much happened, some booing and shaming but that was about it. I was a term when the Coast Guard went on strike, I called the union and asked what was I supposed to do and they responded "your not a member so your not our problem" I had to dodge calls from management to use me as a strike breaker. Any particular actions on that strike where mostly revenge on wanker managers(which seemed that CCG had more than it's fair share), the strike being just an opportunity to extract some.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Nov 2015)

The public sector union, which were so happy to see the last of Prime Minister Harper and his government, are now complaining about their new political masters. "Jean-Pierre Fortin, president of the union representing Canada’s border and customs officers, said he expected a briefing by now, especially since the draft plan suggests his union members will be handling 900 passengers a day arriving on three flights to Montreal and Toronto. He said Canada Border Services Agency officials called him to a “quick” meeting Friday morning – after the draft was leaked – to tell him they could not talk about plans and impacts on employees until the overall plan is formally announced by the government."

One has some sympathy for border service agents who are waiting to hear what's going to happen, but it is _not_ their trade union's job to tell them. The information they need will come down to them, or maybe not, through their chains of command/control ... with all the efficiency or inefficiency that those chains normally exhibit.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> but it is _not_ their trade union's job to tell them. The information they need will come down to them, or maybe not, through their chains of command/control ... with all the efficiency or inefficiency that those chains normally exhibit.



Are you sure about that role of the union bit? I can think of many unions, teachers unions and other closed shops in particular, (such as police etc.,) that have collective bargaining rights for leadership to receive information prior to dissemination to union members, and the right to approve or object and call for changes to policies etc, generally on the basis of safety or quality of the delivery of service. The CBSA has morphed into something akin to a constabulary service (although they don't call it that). They can operate anywhere in Canada, not just at the border, and they are deployed internationally as well. All that to say members of the CBSA have some right to know their union leadership is looking after the best interests of the safety of the officers and that they are not being requested to perform tasks that exceed the mandate of the collective agreement. This is a due process issue (it needn't be overly complex or cumbersome) and also a fundamental tenant of labour protection in Canada, one that was granted as a result of the second word war and a man named Ivan Rand, with the support of two very important individuals- CD Howe and DPM Louis St Laurent.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Nov 2015)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Are you sure about that role of the union bit? I can think of many unions, teachers unions and other closed shops in particular, (such as police etc.,) that have collective bargaining rights for leadership to receive information prior to dissemination to union members, and the right to approve or object and call for changes to policies etc, generally on the basis of safety or quality of the delivery of service. The CBSA has morphed into something akin to a constabulary service (although they don't call it that). They can operate anywhere in Canada, not just at the border, and they are deployed internationally as well. All that to say members of the CBSA have some right to know their union leadership is looking after the best interests of the safety of the officers and that they are not being requested to perform tasks that exceed the mandate of the collective agreement. This is a due process issue (it needn't be overly complex or cumbersome) and also a fundamental tenant of labour protection in Canada, one that was granted as a result of the second word war and a man named Ivan Rand, with the support of two very important individuals- CD Howe and DPM Louis St Laurent.




I'm not suggesting union leaders should not be briefed in advance, nor that they should not pass on what they know to members. *But*: it is the job of the chain of command and control, not the union leadership, to tell people what to do and how to do it.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Nov 2015)

CBSA membership will likely get great opportunities for overtime just before Christmas.  I don't the rank and file will complain too much about extra money...


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Nov 2015)

Probably a great time to be an approved building contractor for the Feds. 

I wonder if the recently closed  hospital on Highbury avenue in London is under consideration? Apparently the city itself has one of the highest Muslim population ratios in the country, would seem to be a natural destination for a few hundred, maybe a thousand refugees. ( the city, not the hospital).


----------



## mariomike (1 Dec 2015)

Interesting discussion regarding sick benefits in "Federal Public Service Compensation & Benefits". 

I am posting here because my employment was in a municipal public service / sector union.

1) I was never on positive report aka the attendance management program. But, our sister union had/has a 13-page memorandum titled, "SIX PRACTICAL WAYS OF PROTECTING YOURSELF AGAINST THE CITY'S ATTENDANCE-MANAGEMENT PROGRAM” that I found interesting. I do not recall reading anything from the union I belonged to on the subject.
In particular, "DO YOU HAVE A "DISABILITY"?". "Disability" also includes "a mental disorder"." It gets a bit into the Human Rights Code.

Following is a list of some medical conditions which the union considers to be "disabilities" that have the capability to keep an employee from going to work:

Diabetes; arthritis; muscular dystrophy; cancer; cerebral palsy; chronic migraine headache; having a deformed limb, back, hand or foot; chronic deep vein thrombosis; epilepsy/seizures; polio; head or brain injury; a degree of paralysis, amputation, blindness or visual impairment; deafness or hearing impairment; muteness or speech impairment; physical reliance on a wheelchair or other remedial appliance or device; chronic gynecological condition; drug or alcohol dependency; chronic condition of the hand or wrist, including chronic carpel tunnel syndrome; fibromyalgia; chronic pain syndrome; heart disease or condition; hypertension (high blood pressure); Crohn's disease; ulcerative colitis; chronic enlargement of the prostate; chronic gastroenteritis; other chronic condition of the stomach, bowel, kidney or bladder; HIVIAIDS; allergies, including chronic sinusitis; back, spine, knee, elbow, neck, shoulder, groin, hip, foot or ankle condition or injury leading to a chronic medical problem; multiple sclerosis, ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), or other chronic neurological condition; Epstein-Barre syndrome; narcolepsy; stroke; chronic condition of the eye; obesity resulting from an injury, illness or other cause that is beyond the control of the individual; mental disorder including personality disorder, obsessive- compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or depression; chronic repetitive strain injury; Parkinson's disease; asthma, emphysema, or other chronic lung disease;and hepatitis. Included by definition in a "disability" are the side effects of prescribed medication being used to treat the "disability".

"Finally, we just want to emphasize that management is forbidden by the collective agreement to discriminate against an employee due to a "disability"."
http://www.cupelocal79.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/Attendance-Management-Memorandum.pdf

2) Regarding sick pay gratuity. At the time of my retirement, it was nine months’ pay for 35 years of service. Since my retirement, sick benefits for new hires are being negotiated away.   

Not sure how either of the above compare to federal public service / sector unions.


----------



## mariomike (18 Apr 2016)

A story about one public sector union,

How firefighters beat politicians at their own game: Cohn
Firefighters are the most successful lobbyists in Ontario, outsmarting and outmuscling all rivals.
http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/02/18/how-firefighters-beat-politicians-at-their-own-game-cohn.html


----------

