# Federal Public Service Compensation & Benefits



## The Bread Guy (18 Jun 2013)

I guess it's _one_ way to "find" money ....


> The Conservative government is proposing to claw back four per cent of the public service payroll from its employees as part of its sweeping plan to modernize its pay system and bring it in line with the private sector.
> 
> Public Works and Government Services Canada, the federal paymaster and receiver-general, wants to recover two weeks pay from every public servant’s pay cheque for the next year beginning Jan. 1. All new hires will start on the new system when they begin work and would have the first two weeks of their pay withheld.
> 
> ...


_Ottawa Citizen_, 17 Jun 13


----------



## Remius (18 Jun 2013)

Is it me or is this a dumb idea?


It looks to me that more and more the government might not be on track to balance the books and are literally checking the seat cushions for change.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Jun 2013)

Payment in arrears does make sense - it provides payroll staff time to make adjustments when needed, so the adjustments appear for the dates that are being paid instead of making corrections after the fact.

And once you decide to make that transition, you have two options:

(1) Skip one payrun to shift everyone over to being paid in arrears; or

(2) Make the transition over a period of time to reduce the impact on personnel.


----------



## Remius (18 Jun 2013)

Ok, from that point of view I can see that as a good thing.  but...

Given that they are going after sick leave benefits, severance for some, pension contributions, PER implementation etc,

Is clawing back 4% on everyone's pay a good thing to be doing when they are trying to negotciate the other stuff?  

Now, this might be something they've thrown in there to use as a bargaining chip, which would be smart but it looks like they are wanting the Unions to get up in arms.


----------



## Shamrock (18 Jun 2013)

I do not have a great deal of faith in this. 

An additional 4% loss - no matter how short term - would be sufficient for me to release.


----------



## Remius (18 Jun 2013)

I think it's more the PS they are going after.  However what hits the PS normally hits the CF after as well.  For good or for bad.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jun 2013)

This is from the article:

     "Public servants are currently paid biweekly for the work they have done, which means the cheque they receive every payday covers the 10 days just worked including the payday Wednesday.

      This means pay cheques are calculated and processed before the work is actually done so they don’t reflect transactions or changes that may have occurred, such as leave without pay, resignation,
      termination, salary increases if promoted.

      Under the new plan, the government wants to pay bureaucrats two weeks after the work is done. Public Works claims this is the industry standard and means employees will be paid for 10 days worked
      from a Thursday to a Wednesday that was completed two weeks earlier."

From what I have read - and I am certainly not an accountant so I may have misunderstood - this is both: a) pretty standard practice amongst large, diverse employers like the insurance industry and major manufacturers; and b) good accounting practice, too.


----------



## MeanJean (18 Jun 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I think it's more the PS they are going after.  However what hits the PS normally hits the CF after as well.  For good or for bad.



It will be interesting to see this in execution, as most employees are currently making more now than when they were first hired.  To be fair, the amount withheld/deducted should reflect their initial pay.  If this policy were to translate to the CF, two weeks pay as a private or officer cadet is a lot easier to swallow and sell to the troops.

Now the question is... what are they going to cut next?  No more soup at Stand Easy?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (18 Jun 2013)

I haven't heard of private employers doing this in years.

Normally in private companies there's a cut-off about 2 or 3 days before payroll is processed. Changes made after that (expense reimbursements for example) are processed in the next payroll period. I think that just floating a trial balloon to roll this out in a private company would cause enough unrest to get someone in HR or Accounting fired. You might even have enough dirt to get "constructive dismissal" which would mean you could quit and get severance.

This sounds more like GC payroll methods need to be updated.


----------



## Remius (18 Jun 2013)

Well if they are are holding back 4% on pay for the next 24 months it will be at whatever rate they are at and get that total back at the end when they leave.  I would imagine that would be the simplest way of doing it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jun 2013)

Makes perfect sense to this Union guy..........

That is at least the way I read it as they aren't 'losing' any negotiated wages.


----------



## Monsoon (18 Jun 2013)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> I haven't heard of private employers doing this in years.
> 
> Normally in private companies there's a cut-off about 2 or 3 days before payroll is processed. Changes made after that (expense reimbursements for example) are processed in the next payroll period. I think that just floating a trial balloon to roll this out in a private company would cause enough unrest to get someone in HR or Accounting fired. You might even have enough dirt to get "constructive dismissal" which would mean you could quit and get severance.
> 
> This sounds more like GC payroll methods need to be updated.


At my last two civilian employers I didn't receive my first payroll until after a month of work because of this; I also didn't receive my first non-stat vacation until after a year of employment. These were both large engineering companies that do a lot of business with the gov't. As a contractor now, I send out my invoice and get paid net 30 days. And as a class "A" reservist, I get paid for the two weeks leading up to the last pay run, entailing an obnoxious pay lag whenever I take short class "B"s (paid immediately) and then switch back to class "A".

This is all very much "no biggie".


----------



## Remius (18 Jun 2013)

More or less agree except you know that going in.  People are being told now that they have to take a 4% cut for two years until it balances out.  Mind you we all have until Jan 1st to plan for it.  I'm sure at that point people will cry that the sky is falling because they failed to plan.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (18 Jun 2013)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> At my last two civilian employers I didn't receive my first payroll until after a month of work because of this; I also didn't receive my first non-stat vacation until after a year of employment. These were both large engineering companies that do a lot of business with the gov't.



Still not "normal" in the private sector, not even in consulting where the largest barrier to entry is the "float" required for the gap between when they pay you, and when they get paid by the government.  The vacation days are within the employment standards, but not normal. Most employers allow you to start taking earned vacation days about 6 months after you start, and are actually quite keen on you taking all of them by the end of the year since there's usually a ban on accumulating days.



> As a contractor now, I send out my invoice and get paid net 30 days.



That's normal in private sector. There's a huge difference between a "Contract for services" and an "Employment contract". You're allowed to do an awful lot of things to contractors that you can't do to employees.



> This is all very much "no biggie".



I think you're going to see people quit the PS over it, if not substantial class action suits.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Jun 2013)

Yep, everyone wants the government to get a grip on finances.....oh, but not affect me personally.



			
				drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> I think you're going to see people quit the PS over it, if not substantial class action suits.


I doubt you'll see either.  

You'll see lots of hand-wringing, shop stewards saying their single-moms are all on suicide watch, burning effigies of PM Harper......but by the time this is actually implemented, the downtrodden public servants (_and_ the CF, if such a knock-on effect were to occur) will be focused on the Leafs having another losing season and browsing for seat-sales to the Dominican.


----------



## mariomike (18 Jun 2013)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Most employers allow you to start taking earned vacation days about 6 months after you start, and are actually quite keen on you taking all of them by the end of the year since there's usually a ban on accumulating days.



Depends on the employer. We were allowed six weeks "Vacation Carry-Over" each year.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (18 Jun 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yep, everyone wants the government to get a grip on finances.....oh, but not affect me personally.



This doesn't have anything to do with the government getting a "grip on finances". It'll actually cost more to switch to a new system.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (18 Jun 2013)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Depends on the employer. We were allowed six weeks "Vacation Carry-Over" each year.



Private or public sector?


----------



## mariomike (18 Jun 2013)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Private or public sector?



Public ( City ).


----------



## dapaterson (18 Jun 2013)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> This doesn't have anything to do with the government getting a "grip on finances". It'll actually cost more to switch to a new system.



The switch is happening already - federal payroll is currently rolling over to a COTS solution instead of the current custom & costly in-house solution that's labour intensive, slow and unresponsive.  I suspect this proposal is a part of that larger, overall change.




			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> You'll see lots of hand-wringing, shop stewards saying their single-moms are all on suicide watch, burning effigies of PM Harper......



Indeed, given the current government, I suspect that plays into the decision.  They are being aggressive in their dealings with the public service.  "We're getting tough with those over-pampered bureaucrats" is a message they like to sell.  There have been a series of policy decisions - most, in my mind, sound - related to things such as severance pay, pension contributions and sick leave.  In all cases, government has elected to take on a confrontational approach with bargaining agents.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (18 Jun 2013)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Public ( City ).



There ya go. You'd never get that in the private sector.


----------



## mariomike (18 Jun 2013)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> You'd never get that in the private sector.



But, how many City of Toronto residents would vote to have their Emergency Services privatized?

( That would likely include the right to strike. )


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Jun 2013)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Depends on the employer. We were allowed six weeks "Vacation Carry-Over" each year.



Coast Guard used to and may still encourage banking of time to cover ship layups and courses.


----------



## cupper (18 Jun 2013)

It's not a cost cutting measure, as there is no net reduction in salary or wages. Because they cannot retroactively go back and recoup the 2 week hold back, or take it all at once, spreading over a long period of time is the only fair and equitable way of doing it.

The other reasoning for doing a 2 week hold back is to ensure that any outstanding accounts are recovered in part or in whole.


----------



## mariomike (18 Jun 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Coast Guard used to and may still encourage banking of time to cover ship layups and courses.



The Department encouraged banking of vacation ( and sick ) time because it saved them money. They did not have to call in so many crews on overtime. Especially for Special Events. 

Keeping the OT under control was a higher priority than the vacation and sick banks.


----------



## charlesm (18 Jun 2013)

The BC Government did this a few years ago. Everyone thought the sky was falling. They did take 1 year for the adjustment, they also allowed vacation, CTO, and archived vacation to be used to pay for this.

Our difference is that we only had to do a week.

Became a nothing event.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (18 Jun 2013)

cupper said:
			
		

> The other reasoning for doing a 2 week hold back is to ensure that any outstanding accounts are recovered in part or in whole.



They can't already take it out of leave?


----------



## foresterab (18 Jun 2013)

This was common when I worked private sector...pay 2 weeks after date worked with initial time covered off by a custom issued paycheck and thereafter direct deposit.  Also no carry over of vacation time (if I got it at all due to games played with length of employment).    

Working public sector now it's pay 2 weeks after earned still which makes for fun with overtime or end of calander payouts showing up on the mid-Jan check (with higher taxes) instead of the end of December.   

Overall...a non-issue and 2 years is actually pretty generous for implementing.


----------



## cupper (18 Jun 2013)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> They can't already take it out of leave?



Yes, assuming you have leave to take it from (and if that was the policy). I was speaking in a general principle for a hold back, not public vs private sector.

It's the same concept as taking taxes out of your paycheck each pay period, rather than having you send a check every April when you do up your tax return. To make sure that the money is there when it is required.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jun 2013)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> They can't already take it out of leave?



Now THEN I'd scream.......


----------



## McG (4 Dec 2013)

Exploiting sick-leave on the eve of retirement (ie. the 1 – 2 years just prior) is something I have seen too much of.  It would be good to see this looked at, but not just to address the abusers.  It would be nice to see new employees looked after longer if they become struck by some unpredictable tragic illness.


> *Managers complicit in allowing a few long-time employees to abuse sick leave: experts*
> Kathryn May
> Ottawa Citizen
> 29 Nov 2013
> ...


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/managers+complicit+allowing+long+time+employees+abuse+sick+leave+experts/9225006/story.html


----------



## Occam (4 Dec 2013)

As the unions have stated, it's not a problem with the policy, it's a problem with enforcement.  If managers enforced the sections of the collective agreements which allow for the employer to request a doctor's note (at cost to the employer), then there wouldn't be a problem.  I can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't have a problem going on EI sick benefits briefly until disability kicked in, if I didn't have enough sick leave.  After two years in the PS, I don't have a lot of sick leave banked...I have a six-year old in the petri dish primary school, and a wife who teaches at the same school, so I get exposed to all of the current plagues and take time off or work from home as necessary.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Dec 2013)

On top of that is a HR system that is afraid of dealing with an issue. If you have a problem employee your HR 'adviser" will not be much help. In fact it would be good if at a certain stage of the issue, the employee file is handed off to HR to be dealt with and not sucking up most of the managers time. But I dream, hell HR can't seem to hold on to employees, yet they are the "specialist" telling us how to manage, when they clearly can't themselves.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Dec 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> On top of that is a HR system that is afraid of dealing with an issue. If you have a problem employee your HR 'adviser" will not be much help.


Making management even less likely to pounce, feeling their six isn't covered.

Then again, if HR is support, SOME levele of "command" should be able to tell HR to make things happen.  And that doesn't appear to be happening.

And it's _not_ just in one department, either.


----------



## captloadie (4 Dec 2013)

Occam said:
			
		

> As the unions have stated, it's not a problem with the policy, it's a problem with enforcement.  If managers enforced the sections of the collective agreements which allow for the employer to request a doctor's note (at cost to the employer), then there wouldn't be a problem.



I just heard a grievance from a member who grieved the fact a Dr's note was requested from him. He asked his supervisors why, they said because we can, so he filed a grievance. Granted, I did find in his favour, because there was no real grounds for management to ask for a note (no history of abuse, an apparent valid illness, etc.) other than the collective agreement says we can.

I would say that the problem with the policy is there is no mandatory requirement to ask for a note after so many days, which allows management to make all sorts of back room deals with employees. What rights would the employee be giving up by agreeing to insert this into the collective agreement?


----------



## Occam (4 Dec 2013)

I'm puzzled as to why you would find in his favour.  The CA clearly grants the Employer the right to ask for proof, and doesn't go into what constitutes valid grounds for asking...so it should be fair game to demand one as required?

Personally, I wouldn't see a problem with adding in a requirement that a note becomes mandatory after X days.  Our current CA says:

_19.02 An employee is eligible for sick leave with pay when he or she is unable to perform his or her duties because of illness or injury provided that:

a.he or she has the necessary sick leave credits, and
b.he or she satisfies the Employer of this condition in such manner and at such time as may be determined by the Employer.

{...}

19.04 Unless otherwise informed by the Employer, a statement signed by the employee stating that because of illness or injury he or she was unable to perform his or her duties shall, when delivered to the Employer, be considered as meeting the requirements of paragraph 19.02(b)._


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Dec 2013)

Occam said:
			
		

> I'm puzzled as to why you would find in his favour.  The CA clearly grants the Employer the right to ask for proof, and doesn't go into what constitutes valid grounds for asking...so it should be fair game to demand one as required?
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't see a problem with adding in a requirement that a note becomes mandatory after X days.  Our current CA says:
> 
> ...


Similar wording in our contract.  Around the workplace, though, "common practice" has been that documentation is needed for more than 2 days of sick leave.


----------



## GR66 (4 Dec 2013)

My personal experience (and it may obviously be different in other units) was that many public service employees viewed Sick Leave as additional holiday days rather than insurance against illness.  I don't think I took a single sick day during my time with DND but when my contract wasn't extended many people told me to make sure I used them up before I left.  There was definitely a concerted effort by some retiring employees to make sure that their accumulated sick time was used before they left.

As bad as that was, you should see people's heads explode when you tell them you didn't use up (and lost) a family-related or volunteer day because you didn't have a family-related emergency or work-day volunteer activity to attend!


----------



## Harris (4 Dec 2013)

GR66 said:
			
		

> As bad as that was, you should see people's heads explode when you tell them you didn't use up (and lost) a family-related or volunteer day because you didn't have a family-related emergency or work-day volunteer activity to attend!


My former employees used the volunteer day as a shopping day at Christmas.  I asked HR and was told that I was not allowed to ask them for proof that they actually volunteered with an organization.  I stopped asking questions about that particular leave after that.


----------



## mariomike (4 Dec 2013)

Public sector unions, I guess, likely compare collective agreements to their federal, provincial and municipal counterparts when the time comes to negotiate.



> Public servants get 15 days of sick leave a year which they can accumulate and carry over year to year.



Municipal ( the union I was a member of ) are allowed to carry over 18 days per year. There was no limit on how many days you could accumulate in your sick bank.



> Sick employees must exhaust accumulated sick leave before they qualify for disability which covers 70 per cent of their salary.



We only had to exhaust six months of sick leave to go on 75 per cent disability. At that point, to make up the difference, the remaining 25 per cent is deducted from your sick bank.



> Federal employees can’t cash out their sick leave when they retire.



We cashed out our sick bank when we retired. It topped out at nine months pay for members with 35 years of service.  

Changes were made in 2009, but they only affect employees hired _after_ 2009. All others were grand-parented.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Dec 2013)

I guess I was lucky, especially in my last job. I recall having to, literally, shoo them out of the office and insist that they take a day off, now and again, just to make up for the travel, the Saturdays and Sundays they worked, without complaining, and so on ... military and civilians alike. My team before that was larger and more diverse and a couple of the junior admin folks were not above trying to "play" the system, but they were a noticeable (and noted) exception to the rule. I don't want to say obviously, because I know some exceptions, but, generally, the high up the pay scale one goes the more _dedication_ one finds, and that's as it should be. But one of the ones I had to push out of the office was a very young, very junior (and did I mention very pretty?   ) engineer. I think she was the lowest paid of the degreed staff (we had some senior NCOs/technicians on the team, too) but she was super-keen to learn and to work (unpaid, unrecorded) overtime to get her job done.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Dec 2013)

Meanwhile you have other parts of the government putting up posters saying "If your sick stay home!". Because of the crazy workload we have people stumbling in to the office sick as a dog desperately trying to stay ahead unrealistic deadlines imposed in front of other deadlines so "messaging" can be approved at the ADM level before the other deadline.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Dec 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Meanwhile you have other parts of the government putting up posters saying "If your sick stay home!". Because of the crazy workload we have people stumbling in to the office sick as a dog desperately trying to stay ahead unrealistic deadlines imposed in front of other deadlines so "messaging" can be approved at the ADM level before the other deadline.



That's us for sure.......friggin stupid kid-like posters everywhere but if we call in sick more than 4 occurrences or 7 days in any 12 month period we move up in the "program".
I went to level 3 [level 4 they can try and kick your ass out] for 11 sick days in 2 years.   Five occurrences of one day each the first and 5 occurrences [one with 2 days] the second year. 

 Not to mention that if I need the shoulder surgery soon I'll be right back there..........


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Dec 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I went to level 3 [level 4 they can try and kick your *** out] for 11 sick days in 2 years.   Five occurrences of one day each the first and 5 occurrences [one with 2 days] the second year.


I know bosses have to keep a grip on these things, but using 5.5 sick days/year for two years in a row kicking off some level of intervention/sanction makes me question the intervention/sanction more than the worker.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Dec 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I know bosses have to keep a grip on these things, but using 5.5 sick days/year for two years in a row kicking off some level of intervention/sanction makes me question the intervention/sanction more than the worker.



"kicking off some level of intervention"???  Heck, I was 5 occurances [yes, that could mean just 5 days] from being in the level 4 which is the possible dismissal level.  It was waaaaay past "kicking off".

You should see how friggin sick some folks show up here now..........just wait until a real virus hits the jail. We've managed to avoid that scenario SO FAR.


----------



## vivelespatates (5 Dec 2013)

Does anyone can tell me in french what the main point of this article? Some difficulties to translate it by myself. Or if anyone has an article in french it would be nice. Couldn't find one on google.


----------



## mariomike (5 Dec 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> That's us for sure.......friggin stupid kid-like posters everywhere but if we call in sick more than 4 occurrences or 7 days in any 12 month period we move up in the "program".



Sounds like what we called an "Attendance Management Program". Before that, they called it "Positive Report". Both were bad news.

I never became ensnared in either of them, but the union put out a very useful memorandum to those who were titled, "Six Practical Ways of Protecting Yourself Against the Attendance Management Program."


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Dec 2013)

The solution is to come in sick and vomit on your boss or at least on the floor of his office. They will never question you again.....


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Dec 2013)

vivelespatates said:
			
		

> Does anyone can tell me in french what the main point of this article? Some difficulties to translate it by myself. Or if anyone has an article in french it would be nice. Couldn't find one on google.


Here is the news release, en français, that the first post in the thread (pay changes)is about, and here's the French news release about changes to sick leave.  

I hope this helps you find news stories about these, because that is as far as my French skills take me  ;D


----------



## vivelespatates (5 Dec 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Here is the news release, en français, that the first post in the thread (pay changes)is about, and here's the French news release about changes to sick leave.
> 
> I hope this helps you find news stories about these, because that is as far as my French skills take me  ;D



Thx a lot! 

I have just another question because the article doesn't show any details concernings how this new process will take place.

So, as I read on this topic, the person who work for the Canadian Government and the ministry will have to pay 4% of their salary on each paycheck instead of, for exemple, 20 dollars for the dental insurance Etc etc.

Is that correct.?


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Dec 2013)

vivelespatates said:
			
		

> Thx a lot!
> 
> I have just another question because the article doesn't show any details concernings how this new process will take place.
> 
> ...



Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux Canada:  Paye en arrérages - questions et réponses
Alliance de la Fonction publique du Canada:  Paie en arrérages : ils disent enfin la vérité
Bonne chance, mon ami!


----------



## vivelespatates (5 Dec 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux Canada:  Paye en arrérages - questions et réponses
> Alliance de la Fonction publique du Canada:  Paie en arrérages : ils disent enfin la vérité
> Bonne chance, mon ami!



Thank you so much!


----------



## Occam (6 Dec 2013)

vivelespatates said:
			
		

> So, as I read on this topic, the person who work for the Canadian Government and the ministry will have to pay 4% of their salary on each paycheck instead of, for exemple, 20 dollars for the dental insurance Etc etc.
> 
> Is that correct.?



No.  The 4% that was being referred to was a payment that was going to be deducted from each paycheque for one year in order to accumulate enough "in the bank" to make payment in arrears work.  If they hadn't done that, there would have been an interruption in regular pay periods in order to move us to being paid in arrears.

As it stands, the government decided not to do either of the above.  They're issuing a "one-time transition payment" so that the interruption in pay doesn't take place.  Employees won't see any changes to their pay or pay schedule now, and we'll be transitioning to payment in arrears.


----------



## roughneckrico (15 Dec 2013)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> This doesn't have anything to do with the government getting a "grip on finances". It'll actually cost more to switch to a new system.



Hit the nail on the head. 

It's all about public perception that the government is doing something to balance the budget, because the average Canadian believes inaction on the part of government is bad governance.


----------



## McG (25 Jan 2014)

A fairly length opinion piece on the governments efforts to modernize PS compensation and benefits.  This whole thing will be worth watching as compensation & benefits changes to the PS often have a way of eventually coming into the military aswell.


> * Fight over public servants’ benefits is more about dollars than sense*
> Kathryn May, Ottawa Citizen
> 24 January 2014
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (25 Jan 2014)

Continued:





> Since then, Clement says he has “picked his spots” and tackled, one at a time, the kinds of perks and benefits workers in the private sector don’t have.
> 
> “How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time,” he says.
> 
> ...


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Fight+over+public+servants+benefits+more+about+dollars+than+sense/9428299/story.html


----------



## McG (26 Jan 2014)

With the unions deciding to take a common front, the negotiations could be a long time to conclusion.  It may be a while before anyone knows the military 2014 cost of living increase.


> * PS unions sign pledge to oppose government sick leave changes*
> As bargaining set to begin, 16 unions take first common stance in 50 years
> KATHRYN MAY, Ottawa Citizen
> 25 January  2014
> ...


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/unions+sign+pledge+oppose+government+sick+leave+changes/9430702/story.html


----------



## Occam (26 Jan 2014)

I'd like to know which union decided not to stand with the others.


----------



## kev994 (26 Jan 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> With the unions deciding to take a common front, the negotiations could be a long time to conclusion.  It may be a while before anyone knows the military 2014 cost of living increase.http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/unions+sign+pledge+oppose+government+sick+leave+changes/9430702/story.html



This is absurd! I thought we lived in a democracy, but apparently the government just makes up the rules as they go along.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jan 2014)

kev994 said:
			
		

> This is absurd! I thought we lived in a democracy, but apparently the government just makes up the rules as they go along.



Ummmm?  Isn't it the job of Government to make up the Rules?


----------



## GAP (26 Jan 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ummmm?  Isn't it the job of Government to make up the Rules?



Don't be silly.....there was a reason heart & soul were sold out to unions......


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Jan 2014)

kev994 said:
			
		

> This is absurd! I thought we lived in a democracy, but apparently the government just makes up the rules as they go along.



As opposed to unelected union bosses pushing whats good for their pocketbooks in order to keep themselves employed?  :facepalm:


----------



## Occam (26 Jan 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ummmm?  Isn't it the job of Government to make up the Rules?



Yes, that's their job.  However, previous governments have successfully negotiated collective agreements by following set rules.  When another government comes along years later and decides that they don't like the terms of those agreements and consequently changes the rules causing a huge disadvantage to the unions in the collective bargaining process, then there's something seriously wrong.  What's worse is that Tony Clement et al honestly think what they're doing is fair.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> As opposed to unelected union bosses pushing whats good for their pocketbooks in order to keep themselves employed?  :facepalm:



I hate to tell you this, but union bosses are elected by and represent the union membership.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jan 2014)

Occam said:
			
		

> Yes, that's their job.  However, previous governments have successfully negotiated collective agreements by following set rules.  When another government comes along years later and decides that they don't like the terms of those agreements and consequently changes the rules causing a huge disadvantage to the unions in the collective bargaining process, then there's something seriously wrong.  What's worse is that Tony Clement et al honestly think what they're doing is fair.



I agree with you for the most part.  On Tony Clement et al; who is it that is actually doing all the 'leg work' for him?  Senior Bureaucrats.  They are the ones selling their subordinates down the tubes.  With their six or seven figure incomes, they have lost touch with the worker bees who are making the whole machine run.  For the most part, the middle managers can see this, but are powerless to do anything.  Look closely at the loss of Severence Pay and who did the wheeling and dealing, and you can see problems lie at the top of the Public Civil Service as well.  We just haven't reached the stage of exposure seen in Ontario politics with their heads of the OLG, ORNGE, Ontario Hydro, etc..


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Jan 2014)

kev994 said:
			
		

> This is absurd! I thought we lived in a democracy, but apparently the government just makes up the rules as they go along.



Why is this absurd? 

The government wants to balance the budget and one way is to reduce the SWE.


----------



## Ostrozac (26 Jan 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Senior Bureaucrats.  They are the ones selling their subordinates down the tubes.  With their six or seven figure incomes, they have lost touch with the worker bees who are making the whole machine run.



Let's not get too carried away. No one in the public service is pulling down a seven figure income.

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=secretariats&sub=spsp-psps&doc=sal/sal2012-eng.htm

Six figures? Absolutely. And Majors and above make six figures in the CF. The public sector in Canada has all kinds of flaws -- but the senior manager to average employee compensation ratio probably isn't one of them.


----------



## Occam (26 Jan 2014)

I don't buy that, George.  This is coming from the top.  Out of the last Conservative convention came a resolution that the government's agenda was going to address pension and sick leave provisions with the Public Service.  I see this as a purely politically motivated move, and the senior bureaucrats are simply being told "This is the way it will be, find a way to make it happen".  It's union-busting.

Yes, PSAC agreed to the end of severance, but as I've mentioned before, they were presented with an ultimatum by TB - conceding severance pay was a pre-condition to any other negotiations in the collective bargaining process.  Failure to concede on severance would have resulted in an impasse.  The government was not bending on it.  The only thing you can do in that situation is make sure you get something back in kind.



			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> The government wants to balance the budget and one way is to reduce the SWE.



Taking potshots at pension reform and sick leave benefits has nothing to do with SWE, though.  Reducing SWE is being handled through a virtual hiring freeze in the PS, and targetted layoffs.  I'm in a section where there are three people doing the work for five positions, and as much as my boss would love to hire some help, his hands are tied.  The other two guys working with me are both within grasp of retiring, and if something doesn't change soon they're going to have more than the current two vacant positions to worry about.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Jan 2014)

Benefits and pension provisions are part of the total package, thus a reduction in those items reduce the SWE.


----------



## Occam (26 Jan 2014)

By definition, SWE (Salary and Wage Envelope) doesn't include pension costs and the cost of providing other benefits.  Different pots of money entirely.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/att_9801xe05_e_9005.html


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Jan 2014)

Occam said:
			
		

> By definition, SWE (Salary and Wage Envelope) doesn't include pension costs and the cost of providing other benefits.  Different pots of money entirely.
> 
> http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/att_9801xe05_e_9005.html



Point made.  The government has a mandate to reduce the amount of money it takes from Canadians. They have a majority government. They - the government- is doing what we want it to do. Just my opinion.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jan 2014)

Occam said:
			
		

> I don't buy that, George.  This is coming from the top.  Out of the last Conservative convention came a resolution that the government's agenda was going to address pension and sick leave provisions with the Public Service.  I see this as a purely politically motivated move, and the senior bureaucrats are simply being told "This is the way it will be, find a way to make it happen".  It's union-busting.
> 
> Yes, PSAC agreed to the end of severance, but as I've mentioned before, they were presented with an ultimatum by TB - conceding severance pay was a pre-condition to any other negotiations in the collective bargaining process.  Failure to concede on severance would have resulted in an impasse.  The government was not bending on it.  The only thing you can do in that situation is make sure you get something back in kind.
> 
> Taking potshots at pension reform and sick leave benefits has nothing to do with SWE, though.  Reducing SWE is being handled through a virtual hiring freeze in the PS, and targetted layoffs.  I'm in a section where there are three people doing the work for five positions, and as much as my boss would love to hire some help, his hands are tied.  The other two guys working with me are both within grasp of retiring, and if something doesn't change soon they're going to have more than the current two vacant positions to worry about.




Indeed, and it's also part of the liberal democratic process. The Conservative Party of Canada has not made a secret of its views on public sector work: the party believes the public sector is, broadly and generally, too big, very well, even too well paid and underworked or, at the very least, unproductive.

The data I have seen - and I'm no expert - suggests that the large number of lower lever/low skill workers are, indeed, overpaid, but the top levels (DMs, ADMs, DGs, etc) are underpaid.

Anyway, at the last last (21011) general election, a plurality of Canadians voted for the CPC in a majority of ridings, despite ~ maybe even because of ~ that party's published views on civil service salaries. Maybe a lot of Canadians agree that the civil service is overpaid and underworked. Maybe a _fat_, idle, civil service is a good political target in 2015, too.


----------



## Occam (26 Jan 2014)

I can't speak to the salaries of the DMs/ADMs/DGs - but speaking as a humble EL-06, I can say that I would have no problem finding work in the private sector at a higher salary than the PS pays me.  I might not find it today, or tomorrow...but there's enough of it out there.

I don't know anyone (myself included) who voted for the Conservatives in the last election because of their published views on PS salaries.  Hell, I don't think I'd have been able to tell you what their views on PS salaries were - I didn't think it was an issue with them.  I voted Conservative because I vowed that hell would freeze over before I'd ever consider voting Liberal given their performance during the decade of darkness.  As far back as I can remember, I've voted with the right.  I was pleased as punch when Harper got elected.  He did a great job getting us through the global banking crisis relatively unscathed.  He vastly increased defence spending and bought us much needed big-ticket items.  However, like every other government seems to do given enough time, they've gotten comfortable, and what's coming out of the CPC trenches isn't "Conservative" as I used to know it.  It's an abomination of Reform policy.  They've botched the F-35 purchase, very nearly bungled the Cyclone purchase, had scandal after scandal plague them (the Senate travel fiasco, Guergis/Jaffer, etc.), allowed Rob Anders to act like a complete fool and keep his job, and given out medals to convicted criminals.  Making an announcement _during National Public Service Week_ that they're going to overhaul sick leave was nothing short of contemptuous.  I'm actually embarrassed to admit that I voted for these people.

Like many other Canadians, I've become disillusioned with the CPC.  They seemed like a good idea at the time, but they're no different than the ones they replaced.  The targeting of the PS pension and sick benefits is simply the nail in the coffin for me.  My (CPC) MP knows that he's lost my vote in the next election, and the best leader the Liberal party has been able to muster is someone with good hair and controversial ancestry.  I think a lot of people are like me and are wondering if maybe it's time someone else got a kick at the cat.

Sorry for the rant.


----------



## Rifleman62 (26 Jan 2014)

> Scandal after scandal



Scandal: an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and _*causing general public outrage*_. or

a state of affairs regarded as wrong or reprehensible and causing general public outrage or anger

Media produced/manufactured general outrage does not count.

Yes, the CPC has failings. yes, 





> However, like every other government seems to do given enough time, they've gotten comfortable, and what's coming out of the CPC trenches isn't "Conservative" as I used to know it.



Compare a Senator stealing $90,000 with a Liberal government and it's operatives stealing millions, let alone blowing billions on a gun registry, HRDC, etc.

Do you live in Ontario? Any scandals there to be outraged about? Is the national/local media going ballistic hourly about how the Liberal party is "governing" Ontario.

P.S. My recent month long contact with supervisors and some level of manager, including one under a Director, leaves me unimpressed, angered with thoughts of uncaring, lack of productivity, no sense of urgency. see Reserve Pension to see why. Nine months to fix their colossal blunders and omissions.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Jan 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Do you live in Ontario? Any scandals there to be outraged about? Is the national/local media going ballistic hourly about how the Liberal party is "governing" Ontario.



Nope, and they've been blatantly buying elections for a year.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Jan 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Nope, and they've been blatantly buying elections for a year.



You mean "years" right?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Jan 2014)

If people don't like what is being offered, they need to go to the polls anyway. Write in who they want, Rhino, Libertarian, whatever. That or just spoil the ballot. That way you're not taking a chance of helping someone not suitable of getting in and your displeasure will be registered instead of being taken as voter apathy.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Jan 2014)

The last provincial election I voted for the Green candidate.





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> If people don't like what is being offered, they need to go to the polls anyway. Write in who they want, Rhino, Libertarian, whatever. That or just spoil the ballot. That way you're not taking a chance of helping someone not suitable of getting in and your displeasure will be registered instead of being taken as voter apathy.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Jan 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> The last provincial election I voted for the Green candidate.



If you don't agree with their platform, you're cutting your nose off to spite your face.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Jan 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If you don't agree with their platform, you're cutting your nose off to spite your face.



She was better looking than the others and had no chance of winning.

I wrote in the Ayatollah Khomeni one year, he was already dead.


----------



## Occam (26 Jan 2014)

I have to apologize; I honestly didn't intend to derail the thread, and my rant may well belong elsewhere.  The attack (and it's nothing less than that) on the public service is, for me, the last straw.  I defended the CPC before friends when it was almost impossible to do so.  Whether scandal A by one party is monetarily bigger or smaller than scandal B by another party is, in my eyes, irrelevant.  It's a lack of morals and responsibility.  Attacking the PS when you need to deflect attention away from something the politicians have done wrong is offensive to me.

Someone asked if I lived in Ontario; yes, outside Ottawa.  My disgust with politicians doesn't end at just the federal level; the provincial and local governments are equally as inept.  Our electricity rates have skyrocketed so much, and are expected to climb so much, that the public is simply stunned beyond being able to express outrage anymore.  

Getting back on topic:  If the government thinks that the sick leave program is being abused, then the means exist under the current construct to deal with abusers.  Poisoning the work environment with broad, thinly veiled accusations that the PS are a bunch of malingerers and frauds isn't the way to do business, I don't care who you are.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Jan 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> You mean "years" right?



Can only prove the last year. We just haven't seen the paperwork from the other years yet.


----------



## kev994 (27 Jan 2014)

I can't wait until the strike rolls around and all the newly appointed "essential employees" call in sick.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Jan 2014)

kev994 said:
			
		

> I can't wait until the strike rolls around and all the newly appointed "essential employees" call in sick.



Must be careful with that,....it can be ruled as an illegal job action.


----------



## kev994 (27 Jan 2014)

There's a bug going around. And besides, everyone needs to use their accumulated sick leave before they lose it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jan 2014)

Occam said:
			
		

> I have to apologize; I honestly didn't intend to derail the thread, and my rant may well belong elsewhere.  The attack (and it's nothing less than that) on the public service is, for me, the last straw.  I defended the CPC before friends when it was almost impossible to do so.  Whether scandal A by one party is monetarily bigger or smaller than scandal B by another party is, in my eyes, irrelevant.  It's a lack of morals and responsibility.  Attacking the PS when you need to deflect attention away from something the politicians have done wrong is offensive to me.
> 
> Someone asked if I lived in Ontario; yes, outside Ottawa.  My disgust with politicians doesn't end at just the federal level; the provincial and local governments are equally as inept.  Our electricity rates have skyrocketed so much, and are expected to climb so much, that the public is simply stunned beyond being able to express outrage anymore.
> 
> Getting back on topic:  If the government thinks that the sick leave program is being abused, then the means exist under the current construct to deal with abusers.  Poisoning the work environment with broad, thinly veiled accusations that the PS are a bunch of malingerers and frauds isn't the way to do business, I don't care who you are.




The problem, for the PS, broadly, is that it isn't just the CPC that thinks "that the PS are a bunch of malingerers and frauds;" that view is held by a significant huber of Canadians, likely even a majority of Canadians, i.e. the 20% who always vote Conservative, the next 15% who often vote Conservative and 20% more, above that who almost never vote Conservative but who share the CPC's views on the PS. That's why the Liberals will not be any help. The NDP are the unions' friends, in fact the NDP is the political voice of the PS unions, shouting: "we want more, More, MORE ... even if the value of what we do is less than clear."

I used to work hand in glove with a load of excellent, hard working, dedicated public servants ... most in the ENG and EX classifications. Many, I dare say all, could have earned more in the private sector and many people went back and forth between the private and public sectors, always saying that they got paid more for doing less in the private sector but the work in the public sector was more professionally satisfying. Amongst the more senior folks, pretty much everyone intended to do their last five working years in the private sector, to earn a good, big, solid lump of cash before retirement ... many did just that. Not surprisingly, to me, anyway, about as many went into (university) teaching or "think tank" work, both lower paid than even the federal public service but both immensely satisfying to many people.

I know there are a lot of good, even great people in the PS, I know many, possibly even most public servants are neither malingerers nor frauds ... but some are, and no one can deny that. And that "some," be they few are many, are just what the CPC needs in 2014 and 2015.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jan 2014)

This "Slash and Burn" philosophy towards the PS has had a negative effect as well.  Where once you had several PS unionized people doing a job maintaining corporate knowledge and continuity, you now have one PS employee and twenty temporary 'contractors'.  Corporate knowledge is being restricted to fewer and fewer people to provide that continuity and corporate knowledge necessary that the Government doesn't have to reinvent the wheel every time a new project is implemented.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Jan 2014)

kev994 said:
			
		

> There's a bug going around. And besides, everyone needs to use their accumulated sick leave before they lose it.



My employer will demand a sick note, so that needs to be considered.

IMO using sick time "before they lose it" is immoral and unethical. You are stealing from your employer and the employer is the people.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jan 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This "Slash and Burn" philosophy towards the PS has had a negative effect as well.  Where once you had several PS unionized people doing a job maintaining corporate knowledge and continuity, you now have one PS employee and twenty temporary 'contractors'.  Corporate knowledge is being restricted to fewer and fewer people to provide that continuity and corporate knowledge necessary that the Government doesn't have to reinvent the wheel every time a new project is implemented.




But often, far too often, when the question is: "How do we do things _better_?" The "corporate knowledge" has only one answer: "We've always done it this way."

When I took my last job (after retiring from the CF) my Board of Directors/Executive Committee, my new employers, knew what it wanted us, the whole agency, to do ... our AIM was clear and correct. The Board also understood that our existing structure and methods of work had, pretty much, reached their peak in efficiency and effectiveness but they were inadequate. My job was to come in and change the organization and its culture so that we could accomplish the aim without increasing our costs. It was a relatively simple operation, but it was painful ... hard to accomplish because, eventually, I had to replace a lot of good, loyal, hard working people with new people who could and would do new things in new ways. Our own "corporate knowledge" actually worked against us. We needed to reinvent the wheel ... and, sometimes, more often than we may think, so do governments.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jan 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But often, far too often, when the question is: "How do we do things _better_?" The "corporate knowledge" has only one answer: "We've always done it this way."
> 
> When I took my last job (after retiring from the CF) my Board of Directors/Executive Committee, my new employers, knew what it wanted us, the whole agency, to do ... our AIM was clear and correct. The Board also understood that our existing structure and methods of work had, pretty much, reached their peak in efficiency and effectiveness but they were inadequate. My job was to come in and change the organization and its culture so that we could accomplish the aim without increasing our costs. It was a relatively simple operation, but it was painful ... hard to accomplish because, eventually, I had to replace a lot of good, loyal, hard working people with new people who could and would do new things in new ways. Our own "corporate knowledge" actually worked against us. We needed to reinvent the wheel ... and, sometimes, more often than we may think, so do governments.



There are Pros and Cons to it of course.  Change may be stifled or slow in coming, but the operations continue.  With temporary 'contractors' there is no continuity.  Often there is no record kept of what they have done to achieve the goal of the project they were hired to work on.   It is a philosophy where someone is hired to work on a project and on completion of their term they simply 'throw the keys' to someone else and let them figure out what was done.  If a problem or glitch arises, who knows how to fix it or find the cause?


----------



## McG (28 Jan 2014)

> *Benefits won’t be lost, Clement tells public servants*
> Kathryn May, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> 26 January 2014
> 
> ...


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/entertainment/Benefits+lost+Clement+tells+public+servants/9432555/story.html

This is definitely an improved message from the government, and I agree with it.  The current sick leave system provides an excess that can be abused by a few late in their careers while it fails to provide adequately for those new in the PS.  If the unions don’t want to engage in positive discussion on  a new system, they will be throwing new employees under the bus for the sake of the few with seniority who would abuse the system.  To reciprocate, the government will need to ensure it lives up to the promises in the article and that the new system is not a Trojan horse reduction.


----------



## Nemo888 (28 Jan 2014)

Hmmmm, exactly the same messaging they used when they introduced the New Veterans Charter. The NVC did save a lot of taxpayer money.


----------



## Occam (28 Jan 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> To reciprocate, the government will need to ensure it lives up to the promises in the article and that the new system is not a Trojan horse reduction.



I agree.  Unfortunately, I trust this government about as far as I could throw them - for the reason that Nemo888 mentioned.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jan 2014)

Having seen up front and personal their planning and attention to detail, I don't really consider them competent enough to carry out such a task without creating all sort of other problems.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2014)

From a new report out of the Parliamentary Budget Office:


> - The average sick leave of 18.26 days reported by Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) includes time missed due to workplace injuries and unpaid sick leave.  The average number of paid sick days taken by public servants in the core public administration (CPA) was reported at 11.52 days per year in 2011-2012.
> 
> - Consistent with the methodology used by the Government of Canada, the PBO assumed the CPA rate of sick leave for calculating the salary paid for sick leave for the federal public service (FPS).
> 
> ...



From CTV.ca:


> ....  Parliamentary Budget Officer Jean-Denis Frechette said on CTV’s Power Play Thursday that a Statistics Canada report found little difference when comparing public-sector sick leave to similar demographics within the private sector.
> 
> “You have more unions, you have more women as well, and you have an older population (in the public sector),” Frechette said. “For those three factors, (Statistics Canada) found that the difference is only 1.1 days of sick leave.” ....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Feb 2014)

Not suprising,........a few years ago the Ontario Govt. put out a report about how much sick time Correctional Officers were using.
They used it during negotiations,..............we all made good bonus coin when we easily met all their [they thought] 'unattainable' sick numbers during the next 3 years.


----------



## McG (9 Feb 2014)

Again, the government seems to be saying the right things and pointing to the real problem: lack of coverage at the front end of a career and exploitable waste at the back end.


> * Sick leave policy for public servants outdated: Treasury Board President*
> Aly Thomson
> The Ottawa Citizen
> 08 February 2014
> ...


 http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Clement+proposes+changes+sick+leave+public+sector/9486121/story.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Feb 2014)

This is, as such reports so often are, a case of different organizations (or even individuals) using different accounting standards to _measure_ similar ~ but not exactly the same ~ things.

     Has the use (but only *maybe* abuse) of 'sick leave,' generally, increased in the civil service over the past decades? Yes!

     Do federal civil servants take more sick leave than private sector employees, in general? Yes!

     Do civil servants take a *lot more* sick leave then private sector employees?  :dunno: (You cannot manage what you cannot measure.)

     Is _'civil service bashing'_ a good election tactic? YES!!! _(Canadians, in general, believe that civil servants are overpaid and under worked.)

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




          It doesn't matter what public sector works *really do*; this is what the
          general public thinks they do._


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Feb 2014)

Other than clerical staff the PS does not generally pay the going rate, but did offer stability, pensions in lieu of. We are having a hellish time attracting ticketed Inspectors and the current discussions are scuttling those recruiting efforts, because why would anyone join an organization that your own bosses are targeting for less money?


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Feb 2014)

>because why would anyone join an organization that your own bosses are targeting for less money?

Obsession with cost reduction doesn't seem to have much adverse effect on hiring in my general area of work.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Feb 2014)

It is a factor for us and I am hearing one of the points that comes up when people attempt to recruit industry specialist.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Feb 2014)

Then I suppose the problem lies with the people drawn towards that kind of job culture in the first place, not with the employer's policies.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Feb 2014)

The tickets required, involve a career at sea to obtain them, at this stage they are either looking for some form of home stability or to maximize their income prior to retirement. We used to be able to offer the former, now we can offer neither. To give you an idea how bad it is, DFO reduced their habitat biologists by 60 and required everyone to compete for the remaining jobs, but 80 said "F off" and left, now they struggle to fill the 60 positions and industry snapped up the majority of the people. The amount of corporate knowledge that walked out the door was breathtaking.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Feb 2014)

I think everyone would like stability (predictability, security) and to maximize income prior to retirement.  But usually one is exchanged for the other.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Feb 2014)

Some people do well in a higher profit, greater risk environment and take that last 15 years to maximize the income, often retiring early and working for industry as consultants/contractors. To attract the talent that we need, you have to have something to offer them and currently we don't have anything to do so.


----------



## DBA (20 Feb 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Some people do well in a higher profit, greater risk environment and take that last 15 years to maximize the income, often retiring early and working for industry as consultants/contractors. To attract the talent that we need, you have to have something to offer them and currently we don't have anything to do so.



One option is to create positions that require less training, knowledge and skills so the pool of applicants grows enough to fill them all. Usually wages come down as well which unions will fight tooth and nail which makes it hard to do for public sector workers. 

An example would be the fast food industry which replaced cooks with basically assembly line workers by standardizing all the tasks involved. There are still some even higher paid positions developing the processes but the bulk of the food preparation workers don't need extensive skills.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Feb 2014)

They have a limited developmental program but they still need significant tickets to get into that as well. You really don't want process monkeys for inspectors, things generally go off the rails badly when you do.


----------



## DBA (20 Feb 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> They have a limited developmental program but they still need significant tickets to get into that as well. You really don't want process monkeys for inspectors, things generally go off the rails badly when you do.



Another option is to split the skills required across jobs in some way for a portion of the work so you don't need as many people with all the requirements. For inspections that would usually be a team that updates surveys (document any changes since the last inspection with pictures, measurements, take samples etc) that are then reviewed by inspectors before an inspection to help plan it or in lieu of one. Like sending oil and lubricant samples from a large engine off to a lab for analysis with the results then being used to optimize the frequency and scope of more costly engine inspections and maintenance. 

Speaking in general of course, I don't know enough specifics to tell if actually applies to your situation.


----------



## McG (8 Mar 2014)

By law, Member of Parliament pay increases equivalent to the average large private sector union pay increases of the year.  At least they did not vote themselves a pay raise, but the optics of MPs getting a larger increase while the public service gets small increases is not so great.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Raises+senators+more+than+double+average+wage+boost+public/9593722/story.html


----------



## Tibbson (8 Mar 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> By law, Member of Parliament pay increases equivalent to the average large private sector union pay increases of the year.  At least they did not vote themselves a pay raise, but the optics of MPs getting a larger increase while the public service gets small increases is not so great.
> 
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Raises+senators+more+than+double+average+wage+boost+public/9593722/story.html



Not that anything like optics has stopped them before.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jul 2014)

Some of the latest on government sick leave, from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (full report attached):


> The mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) is to provide independent analysis to Parliament on the state of the nation’s finances, the government’s estimates, and trends in the national economy; and upon request from a committee or parliamentarian, to estimate the financial cost of any proposal for matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction.
> 
> In February 2014, PBO published a report estimating the fiscal impact of paid sick leave in the federal public service at $871 million in 2011-12. PBO received a follow-up request from Mr. Paul Dewar, Member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre, to undertake an independent financial analysis of the variance in sick leave costs among departments.
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (16 Jul 2014)

Interesting.  11.8 for National Defence (I'm guessing that is only for civilian employees).

I doubt that it will have an impact on the "negociations" but it does put the government's position on a weak footing.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Jul 2014)

DBA said:
			
		

> Another option is to split the skills required across jobs in some way for a portion of the work so you don't need as many people with all the requirements. For inspections that would usually be a team that updates surveys (document any changes since the last inspection with pictures, measurements, take samples etc) that are then reviewed by inspectors before an inspection to help plan it or in lieu of one. Like sending oil and lubricant samples from a large engine off to a lab for analysis with the results then being used to optimize the frequency and scope of more costly engine inspections and maintenance.
> 
> Speaking in general of course, I don't know enough specifics to tell if actually applies to your situation.



there is some truth in this, we ran a "team concept" with 1 inspector and 1 assistant covering off a geographical area. It worked really well, our paperwork side was orderly and file load and production was pretty much 3x that of all the other regions. The only downside is that when both team members were away due to sick,course, meeting, inspections other people in the office were not very aware of what was going in that area. I am still a big believer in this approach but sadly I am mostly alone. The cuts wiped out most of our assistants and now we are doing the whole Province, so you don't have the same awareness or connections to help you do a proper review. They tell us to make use of "partners in other agencies" However most of my local contacts have been laid off as well.


----------



## Remius (11 Sep 2014)

Here we go.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/clement-wants-to-cut-public-servants-sick-days-to-five

Looks to me like the Mr. Clement is trying to lowball his first proposal to get somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Sep 2014)

Gee thanks, I have around 1,000hrs banked and will be punished for not using it. I always saw that time as an insurance policy in case I get hurt or really sick. I did not mind that it vanishes when I retire, but sticking a knife in me is not cool. I guess they missed the bit where more enlightened employers paid out a percentage of the sick leave bank as a reward for not abusing it. I guess that's to much private sector for them? Rewarding workers, cutting process, accepting actual risk...... :

Frankly at this point I would like to walk every political party off a short plank into a deep ocean. The Libs and NDP scapegoat me for being a gun owner and the CPC scapegoats me for being a Public Servant.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Sep 2014)

Le Droit has a good summary of the proposal. I suspect it is a barfaining position, and the endstate  will be more or less what Canada Post got - 7 days per year, max rollover of 5, unused cashed out annually, short term disability at 70%, with old sick credits used to top up short term disability up to 100%.


----------



## Northern Ranger (11 Sep 2014)

This just pisses me off.  We had a person that abused it and it was taken care of by management. As an aging worker I cherish the fact that I have mine in the bank.  There are so many other things that they should be focusing on.  I'm a PC at heart but when they attack me under the pretence of helping the newer employee .....


----------



## larry Strong (11 Sep 2014)

This is what pisses me off. 





> "Counting weekends, vacations, statutory holidays, sick days, family days and personal days, federal employees can already get between 150 and 165 days off every year with full pay," Thomas said.


 Must be nice!!

*Public servants want paid days off to grieve 'spirit friends'*

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/09/20140911-151206.html



> OTTAWA - The Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) wants its members to be able to take paid grieving days for "aboriginal spirit friends."
> 
> The Educational and Library Science group of the public servant union did not offer an explanation or definition of "aboriginal spirit friend," but wants the term added to the list of family members workers can take days off to mourn.
> 
> ...




What a load of horse puckies.....





Larry


----------



## Northern Ranger (11 Sep 2014)

So now we count weekends?  Stats?  Way to screw the figures up.  As for the aboriginal spirit friends that would be only for the aboriginals I suspect and considering how many are in the PS it would be a drop in the bucket compared to other types of religious holidays that are taken.   Can't wait for them to come up with the Cf plan on sick days  

Report to MIR with the flu?  Not service related. After five days cease to be a member and collect EI?


----------



## Remius (11 Sep 2014)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> This is what pisses me off.  Must be nice!!



It would be if it was actually true.  :


----------



## larry Strong (11 Sep 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> It would be if it was actually true.  :



Oops, just checked my calendar...yup todays the 1st of April.....


Larry


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Sep 2014)

Northern Ranger said:
			
		

> Report to MIR with the flu?  Not service related. After five days cease to be a member and collect EI?



Huge difference? We don't bank sick days. We use them if we're actually sick, not as some psuedo-benefit that we bank for retirement.

As long as there is a short, medium and long term sick leave policy that doesn't screw people for legitimate illness/injury, then I have 0 sympathy for you having it taken away due to abuse.


----------



## Occam (12 Sep 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Huge difference? We don't bank sick days. We use them if we're actually sick, not as some psuedo-benefit that we bank for retirement.
> 
> As long as there is a short, medium and long term sick leave policy that doesn't screw people for legitimate illness/injury, then I have 0 sympathy for you having it taken away due to abuse.



That's the thing - the overwhelming majority of employees aren't abusing it - and the government's own study shows that.  Clement fudges the numbers in whatever manner suits the government.


----------



## Northern Ranger (12 Sep 2014)

Northern Ranger said:
			
		

> So now we count weekends?  Stats?  Way to screw the figures up.  As for the aboriginal spirit friends that would be only for the aboriginals I suspect and considering how many are in the PS it would be a drop in the bucket compared to other types of religious holidays that are taken.   Can't wait for them to come up with the Cf plan on sick days
> 
> Report to MIR with the flu?  Not service related. After five days cease to be a member and collect EI?


 I should have clarified the last sentence or rather started with.  What is next...report to Mir....
IMHO it's all about taking something away that was given in a bargaining process in the past. Somewhere something was given up to get what we have today.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (12 Sep 2014)

Northern Ranger said:
			
		

> Somewhere something was given up to get what we have today.



Yup.  It's called a balanced budget.


----------



## Remius (12 Sep 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Le Droit has a good summary of the proposal. I suspect it is a barfaining position, and the endstate  will be more or less what Canada Post got - 7 days per year, max rollover of 5, unused cashed out annually, short term disability at 70%, with old sick credits used to top up short term disability up to 100%.



My thoughts exactly.  Canada Post does not even call it sick leave, just personal leave.  You can use it for whatever but you have the gist of it. Clement is lowballing and waiting to see how the unions will react.  Then he'll come up.  Back and forth and we'll likely see this being the result.


----------



## Occam (12 Sep 2014)

Can't speak for the unions' official reaction, but the reaction I'm seeing from my Facebook circle of PS friends is "Get stuffed!".


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Sep 2014)

Occam said:
			
		

> That's the thing - the overwhelming majority of employees aren't abusing it - and the government's own study shows that.  Clement fudges the numbers in whatever manner suits the government.



and that "liability" disappears when the employee leaves. I am fine with that, because I see that sick leave bank as insurance, not as accruing benefit.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Sep 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> and that "liability" disappears when the employee leaves. I am fine with that, because I see that sick leave bank as insurance, not as accruing benefit.



Which is the right way to look at it. You don't need that insurance if the mechanisms are there to cover you for longer term illnesses. Sick leave, regardless of the unions will spout, is not and should not be an accuring benefit. The intent of sick leave isn't for you to bank 250 days for retirement leave, its to ensure you're not financially disadvantaged for having an illness or injury.

As well, so what if the majority of employees aren't abusing it? All it takes is one bad apple to abuse it and they ruin it for everyone. Look at what happened to our IR package.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Sep 2014)

But that abuse can be dealt with if you train your managers and support them with competent HR staff and senior management that has some balls to support the frontline manager.


----------



## Occam (12 Sep 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Which is the right way to look at it. You don't need that insurance if the mechanisms are there to cover you for longer term illnesses. Sick leave, regardless of the unions will spout, is not and should not be an accuring benefit. The intent of sick leave isn't for you to bank 250 days for retirement leave, its to ensure you're not financially disadvantaged for having an illness or injury.



Hypothetical situation:

I have 120 days of sick leave banked.

I have a heart attack requiring me to take 8 weeks off. (No idea if that's a realistic amount of time, but let's run with it)

Under the existing system, I'm paid 100% of my salary for the full 8 weeks (40 working days), and still have 80 days sick leave left.

Under the proposed system, I get 100% of my pay for the first week, then no pay for one week, then 6 weeks at 75% pay.

Yeah, I'm gonna sign right up for that.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Sep 2014)

The problem with allocated and banked sick leave is that it makes a personal quota out of what should be a pooled resource.  It's basically insurance, and insurance works on the principle that a whole bunch of people participate but only a small number make claims.

>Somewhere something was given up to get what we have today.   

Not necessarily.  Many trade unionists discuss negotiations over specific points in two ways: "win" (get something for nothing), and "tradesies".  Of course if you can "win", you can also "lose"; but that is overlooked (or never admitted) which is why some labour disputes produce a crop of startled employees when they realize they are going to be allowed to walk a picket line for several weeks.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Sep 2014)

You mean like BC teachers? ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Sep 2014)

Occam said:
			
		

> I have 120 days of sick leave banked.
> 
> I have a heart attack requiring me to take 8 weeks off. (No idea if that's a realistic amount of time, but let's run with it)



How many people retire without having that heart attack or use the sick leave? I completely agree there needs to be a robust system to help people through short/long term illness. Allowing you to bank sick leave and use it as regular leave prior to retirement is a complete joke and waste of tax dollars. You want people compensated for being healthy? I'd rather see them supported to GET healthy and back to work.


----------



## Remius (12 Sep 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How many people retire without having that heart attack or use the sick leave? I completely agree there needs to be a robust system to help people through short/long term illness. Allowing you to bank sick leave and use it as regular leave prior to retirement is a complete joke and waste of tax dollars. You want people compensated for being healthy? I'd rather see them supported to GET healthy and back to work.



You make sound like everyone does that.  Plenty of people retire without using any of their banked sick leave.  In my shop alone two people retired and both had over 6 months accumulated and never touched it.  It may have been like that once where people would abuse it right left and centre but managers are holding people accountable and doctors are reluctant to sign off on any long term chit.  Don't believe the hype.  The people that abuse it are the exception.  Not the rule.


----------



## Northern Ranger (12 Sep 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> You make sound like everyone does that.  Plenty of people retire without using any of their banked sick leave.  In my shop alone two people retired and both had over 6 months accumulated and never touched it.  It may have been like that once where people would abuse it right left and centre but managers are holding people accountable and doctors are reluctant to sign off on any long term chit.  Don't believe the hype.  The people that abuse it are the exception.  Not the rule.



Couldn't have said it better.


----------



## DBA (12 Sep 2014)

Banking sick leave as 'days' means every promotion or raise also applies to those banked days. Wasn't that big a deal when public service pay wasn't that great but these days it's just too large a cost / liability. 

Might be worthwhile to do it similar to how a lot of the private sector does vacation pay: bank it as a $ amount instead of as days. On promotion or getting a raise do a top up for the current year only.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Sep 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> You make sound like everyone does that.  Plenty of people retire without using any of their banked sick leave.  In my shop alone two people retired and both had over 6 months accumulated and never touched it.  It may have been like that once where people would abuse it right left and centre but managers are holding people accountable and doctors are reluctant to sign off on any long term chit.  Don't believe the hype.  The people that abuse it are the exception.  Not the rule.



I didn't say there was systematic abuse, a few posts ago I said one bad apple ruins the bunch. It just takes one of those guys with 6 months accumulated getting paid while sitting at home (at what, $30k conservatively?) for the public to want it fixed. Look at Leslie and his $75k move across town. The optics of the current sick leave plan are bad, and it needs an overhaul. With an adequate long term sick leave plan, no one will miss their banked sick days anyways, right? 

As well, everyone else is getting bit by budget crunches and benefits reviews, why shouldn't the public service?


----------



## Remius (12 Sep 2014)

My issue isn't with budget crunch and all that.  It's how they are misleading to justify what they are doing.  The PBO has proven Clement fudged numbers were wrong and that sun media report about public servants getting 160 days of paid leave a year was so preposterous that it was laughable. 

Can we have a better system? Sure.  But not by waging war on the public sector.


----------



## Occam (12 Sep 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Allowing you to bank sick leave and use it as regular leave prior to retirement is a complete joke and waste of tax dollars. You want people compensated for being healthy? I'd rather see them supported to GET healthy and back to work.



Where is this "allowing you to bank sick leave and use it as regular leave" coming from?  Where is that allowed?  As others have said, doctors are reluctant to sign off on long term illnesses unless they're absolutely sure they're legit.  If someone is determined to screw the system, they're going to get a doctor to flip a bogus note whether they're going to use sick leave, or they're going to use short/long term disability leave.

There is no liability on the books for sick leave.  It doesn't become a liability until you actually claim against your banked days.  If you retire without using the banked days, that liability goes poof into nothingness.

If the government wants to argue that there is a liability for banked days, then that liability has a value (even if you don't utilize the benefits and they go poof when you retire).  If that's their position, then let's see them pony up something in exchange for it.  They won't do that because even they realize that there's no value to an unclaimed bank of sick days.

I'm tired of this rush to the bottom as far as benefits go.  Even my non-CF, non-PS friends agree that sick days are something every worker should have.  If it's a valuable benefit, then give it to everyone because they need it, instead of taking it away from those who have it to make those who don't feel better.


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Sep 2014)

I think the number of sick days is probably starting to rise over the last few years anyway; people are getting incredibly burnt out.  The workload has increased significantly, mostly due to a lot of stupid internal processes to get anything done, plus reporting everything to everyone, and doing 'risk assessments', 'business cases' and 'focused working groups' on every commonplace activity.  Add to that a large number of managers that can't/won't make decisions, and some of the odd byproducts of the EX pay incentive KPIs, and the huge holes left by people retiring with no replacements, and the GAFF is spiraling pretty low.

I think that the majority of public servants are really doing it because they want to do the right things for Canadians and are getting ground down by all this constant attack from the gov't they are working for.  I think that Gazebo Tony has probably pushed them too far and is mostly looking for a scapegoat on a made up election issue, to distract people from all the actual things not going well in the country.


----------



## Occam (12 Sep 2014)

DBA said:
			
		

> Banking sick leave as 'days' means every promotion or raise also applies to those banked days. Wasn't that big a deal when public service pay wasn't that great but these days it's just too large a cost / liability.
> 
> Might be worthwhile to do it similar to how a lot of the private sector does vacation pay: bank it as a $ amount instead of as days. On promotion or getting a raise do a top up for the current year only.



Assuming you didn't cash out your entire severance, are you prepared to have your severance paid out years down the road at the rank you were when severance benefits ceased accruing?  Or are you going to want them paid out at the pay rate for the rank you are when you retire?


----------



## DBA (13 Sep 2014)

Occam said:
			
		

> Assuming you didn't cash out your entire severance, are you prepared to have your severance paid out years down the road at the rank you were when severance benefits ceased accruing?  Or are you going to want them paid out at the pay rate for the rank you are when you retire?



Banking as $ instead of days or forcing people to take vacation days (so it does not accumulate) both have the same effect for the government: reduce liability from the cost of each banked day going up. One is just more flexible in when vaction leave is taken. In either case long term banking of days becomes less desireable (or impossible) for employees and more use their days each year.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2014)

This debate, over the past couple of days, _suggests_, to me that the CPC's _tactic_ of feuding with the public sector (part of larger _strategy_ creating "we" vs "they" divisions in many, many areas and then _gathering_ the "we" into a loyal, CPC voter base) is working.

I have mentioned, several times, that the CPC polls assiduously and "honestly" ... by which I mean they really do want to know what you think so that they can either _gather_ you into their base or use you as part of "they." The polling tells them that many (most?) Canadians are, at least, envious of the public service because they (at least a plurality of _envious_ Canadians) believe the public sector is under-worked, overpaid and in receipt of overly generous pensions. That means that Tony Clement's dissembling and _Sun Media's_ propagandizing are aimed at that envious plurality and the (relatively small) public sector can fend for itself ... and don't forget some of the public sector, especially parts in "management" who are concentrated in a couple of Ottawa area ridings, support the CPC, despite their distaste for some specific policy positions.


----------



## Old Sweat (13 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This debate, over the past couple of days, _suggests_, to me that the CPC's _tactic_ of feuding with the public sector (part of larger _strategy_ creating "we" vs "they" divisions in many, many areas and then _gathering_ the "we" into a loyal, CPC voter base) is working.
> 
> I have mentioned, several times, that the CPC polls assiduously and "honestly" ... by which I mean they really do want to know what you think so that they can either _gather_ you into their base or use you as part of "they." The polling tells them that many (most?) Canadians are, at least, envious of the public service because they (at least a plurality of _envious_ Canadians) believe the public sector is under-worked, overpaid and in receipt of overly generous pensions. That means that Tony Clement's dissembling and _Sun Media's_ propagandizing are aimed at that envious plurality and the (relatively small) public sector can fend for itself ... and don't forget some of the public sector, especially parts in "management" who are concentrated in a couple of Ottawa area ridings, support the CPC, despite their distaste for some specific policy positions.



And nasty and reprehensible as it may seem, it really is no different as a tactic than the sniping at the rich aka the 1% or the 10% in the class warfare that has long been a feature of campaigning by the political left.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Sep 2014)

>You mean like BC teachers?

I had in mind a private sector strike that occurred a number of years ago, although the BCTF strike is unfolding in a similar way.

My hypothesis is that the win/tradesies worldview is at the root of today's clawbacks.  As long as unions successfully impose that philosophy, monotonically increasing costs are imposed on employers - pay, benefits, and workplace rules that are effectively limitations on flexibility and efficiency. 

At some point, an employer decides conditions must abruptly change (some things must be removed) because status quo is unsustainable.  In the private sector, the end game is a long strike until the employees accept the offer.  In the public sector governments can try to remove costs by other means, but a long strike may still result.

If the employees miscalculate the employer's resolve and contest the removal of some costs, they lose a lot of income and end up with the employer's terms anyways.

During the decade-plus leading up to the 2008 recession, most unions likely went through two or three bargaining cycles.  Assuming competence, they arrived at every table armed with growth measurements and projections, essentially saying "See, you can afford this".  Settlements were gradually calibrated to those levels.  But that period was characterized by above average debt-fuelled private spending.  Future revenues (sales and taxes) were consumed in the present.  When people deleverage - as they must - revenue falls.  When governments borrow to pump up spending, they consume more future revenues.

My conclusion is that when people want to pay down their debts, governments should allow it and accept a short, sharp recession; while people are borrowing and spending, governments should plan budget surpluses and pay down debt to make room for some recession spending.

Governments which borrow to spend at the same time as people are borrowing to spend are as dumb as dirt.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This debate, over the past couple of days, _suggests_, to me that the CPC's _tactic_ of feuding with the public sector (part of larger _strategy_ creating "we" vs "they" divisions in many, many areas and then _gathering_ the "we" into a loyal, CPC voter base) is working.
> 
> I have mentioned, several times, that the CPC polls assiduously and "honestly" ... by which I mean they really do want to know what you think so that they can either _gather_ you into their base or use you as part of "they." The polling tells them that many (most?) Canadians are, at least, envious of the public service because they (at least a plurality of _envious_ Canadians) believe the public sector is under-worked, overpaid and in receipt of overly generous pensions. That means that Tony Clement's dissembling and _Sun Media's_ propagandizing are aimed at that envious plurality and the (relatively small) public sector can fend for itself ... and don't forget some of the public sector, especially parts in "management" who are concentrated in a couple of Ottawa area ridings, support the CPC, despite their distaste for some specific policy positions.



There was significant sympathy or wary openness in the PS to the CPC when they first came in and every new government gets a "grace period" as they learn how to use the levers of government. The PS were disgusted with Liberals and their lack of morality and were hoping the CPC would be different or at least equipped with a strong moral compass.  But the CPC headlong rush into legislation change with little thought and the senate scandal has all but extinguished that support. The attack on the rice bowel yields predictable results.


----------



## mariomike (30 Nov 2015)

National Post
November 26, 2015 

OTTAWA — Canada’s public servants take up to twice the number of sick days a year as private sector workers do, because of different motivations, work cultures and rules that encourage “gaming the system,” says a new report by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/public-servants-gaming-the-system-take-twice-as-many-sick-days-as-private-sector-workers-report


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Nov 2015)

Granted that's a right-leaning think tank (the Rideau Institute for the Tories), but the system is set up to reward taking sick leave that's not required, instead of having a robust system to keep paycheques coming in for those that are truly sick. PSAC et al don't want the gravy train to go away.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Nov 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Granted that's a right-leaning think tank (the Rideau Institute for the Tories), but the system is set up to reward taking sick leave that's not required, instead of having a robust system to keep paycheques coming in for those that are truly sick. PSAC et al don't want the gravy train to go away.



I've never understood the reason for paying out banked sick time. If you were not sick, then you shouldn't need to be paid for it. That being said, I do understand banking sick time in order to continue to draw full pay when you truly are sick.

What I would support is some form of sick leave where you bank the entitlement at X days per month, in case of a significant injury or illness. One could still have X days per month for immediate sick time, to include appointments etc, but the long term time could be earned as credits to be used prior to going on extended sick benefits - with the attendant reduction in pay. The caveat being that you consume your sick time as you use it, ie: if you used the days this month you don't have them available to bank. That might cut down on the "lifestyle management" use of sick time, and return it to the insurance policy it was intended to be. It would also reduce the end of career payouts that are a liability to the employer.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Nov 2015)

You realize that the government puts up posters in it's workplace saying "If your sick, stay home!" They don't want sick people infecting the office. I get annoyed when someone compares the PS to a small business, they are 2 different beasts, better to compare it to a huge company.

What I have noticed is that the two times you need more sick leave is when you have young kids and near your retirement time as you will be suffering from all the bugs kids get from daycare/kindergarten and all the injuries you accumulated over a career of working.

As for large scale abuse, if your away a lot you are putting a lot of work on your co-workers who will complain to the manager. If it's a real need people will understand and be supportive. If it's abuse, then the manager will hear about it. When we tried to release someone who was abusing the system, it was senior management that failed to act and even the union felt they had done for the person all they could do and they had more or less washed their hands of it.


----------



## captloadie (30 Nov 2015)

The sick leave issue is going to be a hard nut to crack. As long as there are employees that are willing to abuse the system, there doesn't seem to be a one solution fits all answer. Maybe we need to differentiate between short term sick leave, and long term sick leave. For example, all employees get x number of weeks of Long term sick leave. It needs to be certified by a doctor, and cannot be cashed in if not used. There could be a separate allotment of short term sick days earned, maybe x number per year, that are cashed out at some value at the end of every year at the current salary band, with no carry over.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Nov 2015)

captloadie said:
			
		

> It needs to be certified by a doctor, .



Which is about the easiest thing to do in the world.  They have no skin in the game so they'll pretty much right whatever you ask them too.....


----------



## captloadie (30 Nov 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Which is about the easiest thing to do in the world.  They have no skin in the game so they'll pretty much right whatever you ask them too.....


That's why I only said it would be for a long term sickness. While we have no requirement to know the details of a sickness, I think it would get around fairly quickly that an employee got a doctor to give him a month off, and he spent it either on the golf course or shopping for companionship in Thailand.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Nov 2015)

Normally someone who is going to abuse it regularly, does not have a month off, as they won't have any sick leave banked. They will use it as soon as they get it. Which is a warning sign to the Manager. I personally can't think of anyone who started to abuse sick time near their retirement age in at least the last decade.


----------



## GAP (30 Nov 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Normally someone who is going to abuse it regularly, does not have a month off, as they won't have any sick leave banked. They will use it as soon as they get it. Which is a warning sign to the Manager. I personally can't think of anyone who started to abuse sick time near their retirement age in at least the last decade.



You must work in isolation then....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Nov 2015)

Nope at least 25 on this floor and another 30 or so that I cross paths with on a regular basis. In fact we have had to send staff home as they were just to sick. We have one guy on a program to work him back into work as he had a serious heart issue. My boss that nearly died from a heart attack is back to work. We had one younger person I spoke of that abused the system, mainly due to outside issues. I have seen abuse of the system, but it's more of the exception than norm. due to cutbacks over the years there is not enough meat to allow the abuse to get out of hand, because of the workload that gets put on others. I know that does not fit the narrative but that is what i see. Perhaps I work in a program and or region that is more motivated than others. I see from my program stats that we handle about 3 times the work per officer as other regions. Not sure if the West Coast is just busier.


----------



## Remius (30 Nov 2015)

Same here.  4 people in the last 5 years retired from my team, and not one abused it.  In fact I have seen maybe one chronic case of someone abusing sick leave and it was handled.  To be honest I saw more more abuse in the CAF than in the PS.  But I have more time in the CAF.


----------



## McG (1 Feb 2016)

> *Be 'realistic,' Brison tells Public Service*
> Unions warned bargaining must acknowledge faltering economy
> Kathryn May
> Ottawa Citizen
> ...


There is clear room for compromise on sick leave.  Carry on with the plan to eliminate roll-over/accumulation while instituting a short term disability coverage, but leave the annual 15 day allotment of sick days (or cut it to 12 days) and allow the use of these days to bridge to the start of short term disability coverage.

0.5% and 0.5% for pay increase looks a litte rough, but they are better than what is happening in the oil patch since the fall.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Feb 2016)

Link for MCG's post:  http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/brison-warns-public-service-bargaining-must-be-realistic




I suppose his use of the wording "Unions warned bargaining must acknowledge faltering economy" could be justification for them to basically carry out the plans that the Conservatives were looking at trying to implement.  Not at all what the Liberals were campaigning on.  

Seems that our unions are quit gullible when they listen to Federal and Provincial Liberal promises.  (Looking back on what the Wynne Government has done with several Ontario unions.)


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Feb 2016)

Yes, their reward for voting Liberal might just be to have their heads lopped off anyhow.  Would serve them right.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Feb 2016)

There were a lot of PS types that were Conservative, but in this case we were being used as a scapegoat to the party base, just as gun owners were a scapegoat for the Liberals base. While we pay well for clerical, we do not pay well for trained technical people and we have quite a few positions open due to no one wanting to work for us, when they can make more money elsewhere. Benefits and pensions were the only carrots we had to offer. Now with the downturn we might see some relief. 
85% of the PS problems could be solved by decently trained Middle Management, allowed to do their job and supported by Senior management. But I am not holding my breath on that one.


----------



## Occam (1 Feb 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I suppose his use of the wording "Unions warned bargaining must acknowledge faltering economy" could be justification for them to basically carry out the plans that the Conservatives were looking at trying to implement.



Well, resurrecting the plan the CPC had for axing the sick leave won't be one of them, because the $900 million in savings was a mirage.  They may push for reduced salary increases, which I think most (?) can live with for the short term - but Colin P is correct, there are more than a few PS classifications where one can do as good as or better in the private sector.  They need to be careful lest they trade a disgruntled Public Service for an inexperienced Public Service.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Feb 2016)

Those positions are likely offset by the unskilled labour positions that make far more in the PS than elsewhere.

Public sector will never be able to compete with private sector for wages, because the public sector can't toss money at a problem to make it go away.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Feb 2016)

Occam said:
			
		

> ........  They need to be careful lest they trade a disgruntled Public Service for an inexperienced Public Service.



 >

In some places, that already exists......In some cases more incompetent than inexperienced......(gleamed from conversations with persons in the Public Service or retired from).


----------



## Pusser (2 Feb 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> 85% of the PS problems could be solved by decently trained Middle Management, allowed to do their job and supported by Senior management.



Absolutely true, but unattainable in the current PS environement.  My observation of the PS is that it seems to exist more to support itself than the job it's supposed to.  Senior management often seems to be a revolving door where EXs change on a regular basis and many of them have changed departments so many times that they have little expertise in anything other than "management."  They often know little of what their organizations are actually supposed to be doing.  This approach seems to filter down to the lowest levels where every job is seen as a stepping stone to the next promotion.  With learning and career progression plans, many folks seem to have little interest in doing the job they're in.

Case in point:  I was hiring for a position a few years ago and when I asked the candidates why they wanted to work there, all of them (except one) gave me a canned statement that they wanted to gain experience in order to progress their career in the public service, blah, blah, blah.  The person we hired was the only one that said that the job we were offering was the kind of work she really liked to do and that she was excited about the prospect of being able to do it.

Career progression and personal ambition are a good thing, but doing your job well and showing initiative and leadership should be the criteria upon which advancement is based, not getting ticks in all the boxes.  Unfortunately, both the CF and the PS often seem permeated with a culture of only looking at the current job as a stepping stone to the next one.


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Feb 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Absolutely true, but unattainable in the current PS environement.  My observation of the PS is that it seems to exist more to support itself than the job it's supposed to.  Senior management often seems to be a revolving door where EXs change on a regular basis and many of them have changed departments so many times that they have little expertise in anything other than "management."  They often know little of what their organizations are actually supposed to be doing.  This approach seems to filter down to the lowest levels where every job is seen as a stepping stone to the next promotion.  With learning and career progression plans, many folks seem to have little interest in doing the job they're in.
> 
> Case in point:  I was hiring for a position a few years ago and when I asked the candidates why they wanted to work there, all of them (except one) gave me a canned statement that they wanted to gain experience in order to progress their career in the public service, blah, blah, blah.  The person we hired was the only one that said that the job we were offering was the kind of work she really liked to do and that she was excited about the prospect of being able to do it.
> 
> Career progression and personal ambition are a good thing, but doing your job well and showing initiative and leadership should be the criteria upon which advancement is based, not getting ticks in all the boxes.  Unfortunately, both the CF and the PS often seem permeated with a culture of only looking at the current job as a stepping stone to the next one.



To be fair to the PS, much the same could be said of our side of the house too.  How many times have your heard the "tick in the box" expression used as a benchmark for career progression, especially with Officers and Snr NCO.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Feb 2016)

My perception ~ clouded by the fact that I've been retired from the military for about 20 years and from the private sector (but from a job that dealt, almost daily, with government) for a decade is that:

1. The Canadian PS is, still, one of the best in the world;

2. The remuneration pyramid is inverted: the lower ranks ~ low skill, easy to fill jobs ~ are overpaid, often remarkably so, while the higher level jobs, especially ADMs and DMs are grossly underpaid; and

3. The steady rotation of executives is one of the strengths of the Canadian PS. The senior ranks are not filled with people who come from "stovepipes," they are (almost) all executives with a broad scope, a sense of the full range and complexity of government.

Re point 2: many, not all, of course, DMs are really first rate senior executives who can (and routinely do) retire and go to the private sector (industry and finance, not the lobbying firms) and earn twice, three times even ten times what they made as _"mandarins."_ Of course there are a few "time servers" in the senior ranks and of course a few were promoted for reasons other than merit, but, broadly and generally we have highly proficient, overworked and seriously underpaid civil service executives. The reverse is true in the clerical, general labour and trades and low level technology support jobs: they are, too often, a refuge for people who cannot cut it in the private sector ~ my own, personal experience, again. YMMV.

Re point 3: the level , in the PS, where "job skill" or specialized skill and knowledge and "executive" responsibility meet is at the director level; and it is about 50:50. Directors need to be both technically proficient in their specialty and good leaders/managers. At the director general level there is, often but not always, still some specialized knowledge required, but leading and managing is, at the very least, 2:1 management : specialized, technical ability. Above DG, i.e. at ADM and DM one can, often does, gain all the specialized knowledge needed "on the job."


----------



## dapaterson (2 Feb 2016)

Compensation: Director-level public servants (EX-01) at entry level are paid the same as senior Majors in the CAF.

There's a clear disconnect there, which either bodes well for the PS or ill for the CAF should there ever be a comprehensive review.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Compensation: Director-level public servants (EX-01) at entry level are paid the same as senior Majors in the CAF.
> 
> There's a clear disconnect there, which either bodes well for the PS or ill for the CAF should there ever be a comprehensive review.




Actually it is close to accurate, or would be, _in my opinion_, if the CF got its head out of its over-ranked ass.

Director is the first _executive_ level job in the PS; what's the first really _executive_ level job in the CF? Does anyone doubt, even for a _μ_second, that it is ship's captain, regiment or battalion commander or RCAF squadron commander? And, what ranks are those? Commander and lieutenant colonel, in most cases; now and again a lieutenant commander, very rarely a captain/colonel. And what ranks are military directors in NDHQ and staff branch haeds across the CF? Captains and colonels ... it's madness and a colossal waste of money.

All director level and staff branch head jobs in L1 HQs should be down-ranked to commander/lieutenant colonel. I doubt we would need many new three stripers, but we would have a nice, big surplus of four stripers, many of whom should go, immediately to DG (director general) level jobs, replacing commodores and brigadier generals who coudl be sent on early retirement and whose positions could be converted to OS/private to fill up the real 'working" ranks in the CF.

No need to thank me, Minister Sajjan, I don't even want one of your silly _gimme_ coins ~ please, just fix the all too obvious bloat morbid obesity in the CF's C2 superstructure.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Feb 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> To be fair to the PS, much the same could be said of our side of the house too.  How many times have your heard the "tick in the box" expression used as a benchmark for career progression, especially with Officers and Snr NCO.



 [

That is what he said:



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Career progression and personal ambition are a good thing, but doing your job well and showing initiative and leadership should be the criteria upon which advancement is based, not getting ticks in all the boxes.  Unfortunately, both the CF and the PS often seem permeated with a culture of only looking at the current job as a stepping stone to the next one.



Anyone who has attended gatherings where PS employees are in attendance and casually discussing their work environment and bosses have heard these stories.  Like similar gatherings among CAF pers, these discussions do take place.  It is not an isolated instance.  Pusser fairly well hit the nail on the head.  Of course the "official statements" put out will never identify those problems.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Feb 2016)

I am a believer in the 70/30 rule , 70% of your managers should have worked their way up the ranks in the department, with 30% new blood (from private or other departments) managers to provide a fresh view and new idea. to many new people and they are unaware of the scope of the departments mandate, history and failed ideas and then introduce a "new idea" that has failed twice before. The centralization of services has constrained the regional offices and managers from being innovative and responsive to their program needs, how about a year to get an application form and guide onto the web?  Before the death star of Shared Services and centralization, I produced the above in one day, tested it with some of our long term clients and had it up on our web site within a week. My program is small and we generally retain people because we are an oddball mandate that is always involved in interesting and ever changing stuff. Plus we treat people decently regardless of position and value their input.


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Feb 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> [
> 
> That is what he said:



Opps, missed that bit.   :-[


----------



## CougarKing (10 Feb 2016)

The Liberals appeasing the public service unions that form part of their voter base:

CBC



> *Liberals to roll back Tories' $900M federal sick leave changes
> 'The costs of this government just continue to escalate,' interim Tory leader says of changes*
> 
> By John Paul Tasker, CBC News Posted: Feb 04, 2016 3:39 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 05, 2016 1:05 PM ET
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (10 Feb 2016)

If Mr. Brisson thinks he can actually negotiate changes to the sick leave benefits with the Public Service unions without giving in to whatever they want or resorting to a duly adopted law (as the Conservatives did), then he is not the smart person I always believed him to be, but an idiot.


----------



## Occam (10 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If Mr. Brisson thinks he can actually negotiate changes to the sick leave benefits with the Public Service unions without giving in to whatever they want or resorting to a duly adopted law (as the Conservatives did), then he is not the smart person I always believed him to be, but an idiot.



That's not true at all.  Most if not all of the unions are well aware that the existing plan is not perfect and can be improved.  As far as I know, none of the unions are saying the status quo is the only option.  My own union actually put forth an improved sick leave plan to TB during negotiations last year, and TB shot it down because *their* negotiating policy was "_Our way or the highway..._".


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Feb 2016)

Unions basically employ two verbs at the table: "win" and "trade".  Despite the fact that they believe it's OK to pocket a "win", they seem to think "lose" should never apply to their side.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Feb 2016)

I would say that applies to both sides


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Feb 2016)

I have lost track of the number of times governments - particularly municipal governments - folded and passed the buck (future costs).


----------



## George Wallace (20 Feb 2016)

Anyone else see the writing on the wall for this one?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> PS living long and putting death benefit account into surplus
> KATHRYN MAY, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> Published on: February 19, 2016 | Last Updated: February 19, 2016 6:37 PM EST
> 
> ...



More on LINK.


The Liberals did it before; will they do it again?


WAIT FOR IT!


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Feb 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The Liberals and Conservatives did it before; will they do it again?


If they can, they CERTAINLY will - bet on it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Feb 2016)

"The big difference is that the government historically made higher contribution payments to the pension plan and was on the hook if it ran a deficit."

It is unreasonable to expect the government to own a deficit but not a surplus.  Going forward, that whole affair tends to strengthen the public unions' claims that government must make good on deficits, should any arise.

"With the death benefits, the employees pay almost all the contributions."

Not really the same thing at all.  I expect the unions to be on stronger ground with this one.


----------

