• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trudeau Popularity - or not (various polling, etc.)

Anyone public sector - federal, provincial, municipal - needs to watch this like a hawk. If the feds lose defined benefit pensions, no reason to think the provincial and municipal plans won’t look to go that way too. The federal defined benefit plans are the Helm’s Deep of DB pensions in Canada.
Not something retired OMERS members need worry about. Current and future 🤷‍♂️

Yup…never say never.
 
OMERS already started by making an adjustment to put a cap on their indexing formula. A small adjustment, but the camel’s nose is under the tent flap.

Something the unions representing active and future OMERS members to keep their eyes on.

Yup…never say never.

Yup...Never for retired OMERS members.

I've been an OMERS member for 52 years. Retired long time ago.

Retired OMERS members are reprented by the Municipal Retirees Organization of Ontario. ( MROO ).
 
Something the unions representing active and future OMERS members should keep their eyes on.



Yup...Never for retired OMERS members.

Okay, don’t say never…

I've been an OMERS member for 52 years. Retired long time ago.

If the Feds revert DB to DC including for existing annuitants, what makes you think a Province wouldn’t revert either?

Retired OMERS members enrol in Municipal Retirees Organization of Ontario. ( MROO ).

Sure, and Fed employees have NAFR…
 
If you want to argue about OMERS members - who are already pensioned - phone OMERS or MROO for an explanation...

I wouldn’t be so smug.

Your pension is underfunded…

IMG_5471.jpeg


Congratulations. You do NAFR. I'll do OMERS and MROO...

You seemed to imply that MROO was some kind of panacea to keep your underfunded pension’s benefits from being adjusted. I just added that for those federal annuitants appearing to be not so fortunate to be an OMERS annuitant, they had some proponency as well.
 
Last edited:
I hope he’s not bound by it… Every CAF member should hope that too. It says right in there that they want to move public sector pensions away from defined benefit to defined contribution. That’s a bad thing for CAF, PS, and RCMP.
There was a reason why when Australia moved to DC Pensions vice DB, the folks who were given the option didn’t take it.
 
DC isn’t the end of the world the key is it needs to be well funded.

The problem is most places go DC to not pay what they should into the pensions.

My workplace for example has grandfathered DB pension workers and the newer employees (myself included) are on DC. The amount the company puts in is 3.25$ a hour. To be getting a equivalent of my co-workers on the DB pension it was worked out to about 8$ a hour.
 
DC isn’t the end of the world the key is it needs to be well funded.

The problem is most places go DC to not pay what they should into the pensions.

My workplace for example has grandfathered DB pension workers and the newer employees (myself included) are on DC. The amount the company puts in is 3.25$ a hour. To be getting a equivalent of my co-workers on the DB pension it was worked out to about 8$ a hour.

Yup. Pulling this back to the specific CPC policy declaration: “The Conservative Party is committed to bring public sector pensions in-line with Canadian norms by switching to a defined contribution model, which includes employer contributions comparable to the private sector.”

There’s really only one way to read this; the party wants to go after and eliminate, at the federal level, DB pensions in the public sector, AND to significantly reduce what the employer pays in- necessarily significantly increasing member contributions to make up. It would be a wholesale assault on these pension benefits. And, as the Feds go, we would see the provinces and other large plans go too.

Now, this is a party policy plank, and it’s coming from a very ideological place. Poilievre himself has not personally endorsed it, to be fair to him. However, this is something I would be looking for him to clearly and directly disavow in an election campaign. A CPC majority causes me concern with what it could do in causing a cascading impact on public sector retirement benefits.
 
From a partisan political perspective, payroll and pension processing for the Federal government are concentrated in two ridings in New Brunswick. Radical overhaul to one or both would have electoral consequences in those areas; for example, federal payroll is in NB to replace the gun registry jobs that were eliminated when the registry was wound down. (That it removed jobs mostly from Ottawa, a region the CPC has difficulty in, was just an added bonus).
 
From a partisan political perspective, payroll and pension processing for the Federal government are concentrated in two ridings in New Brunswick. Radical overhaul to one or both would have electoral consequences in those areas; for example, federal payroll is in NB to replace the gun registry jobs that were eliminated when the registry was wound down. (That it removed jobs mostly from Ottawa, a region the CPC has difficulty in, was just an added bonus).
And it is fair to say that almost everything that is considered by both Team Poilievre and Team Trudeau is from a highly partisan political perspective.
 
Yup. Pulling this back to the specific CPC policy declaration: “The Conservative Party is committed to bring public sector pensions in-line with Canadian norms by switching to a defined contribution model, which includes employer contributions comparable to the private sector.”

There’s really only one way to read this; the party wants to go after and eliminate, at the federal level, DB pensions in the public sector, AND to significantly reduce what the employer pays in- necessarily significantly increasing member contributions to make up. It would be a wholesale assault on these pension benefits. And, as the Feds go, we would see the provinces and other large plans go too.

Now, this is a party policy plank, and it’s coming from a very ideological place. Poilievre himself has not personally endorsed it, to be fair to him. However, this is something I would be looking for him to clearly and directly disavow in an election campaign. A CPC majority causes me concern with what it could do in causing a cascading impact on public sector retirement benefits.

There is also the part about relieving the 'overhead burden' by cutting the public service too.

Canadians want to cut Ottawa’s bureaucracy​


“The government does not have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem,” Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre said. “They have nearly doubled government spending in a decade [and they’ve] added about 50 per cent more bureaucrats.”

Poilievre promises to “fix the budget and bring Canadians the relief they desperately need.” His ability to deliver on that promise will be directly tied to his ability to shrink the bureaucracy.

That’s because the bureaucracy consumes more than half of the federal government’s day-to-day spending. There is no fixing the budget without cutting the cost of the bureaucracy.

 
It will be a difficult job, as likely the proportionate personnel cuts will be less than the budgetary reductions, as much of the force reduction will likely be from well compensated senior bureaucrats riding into the sunset, to tell stories of the heady days of the Trudeau expansion…leaving the middle managers and less experienced younger executives to sort out the challenge of a mass of WFH Gen Z’ers…

Good luck, next Government.
 
It will be a difficult job, as likely the proportionate personnel cuts will be less than the budgetary reductions, as much of the force reduction will likely be from well compensated senior bureaucrats riding into the sunset, to tell stories of the heady days of the Trudeau expansion…leaving the middle managers and less experienced younger executives to sort out the challenge of a mass of WFH Gen Z’ers…

Good luck, next Government.

Difficult... like ;)

Kids In The Hall Comedy GIF by CBC
 
Back
Top