Do you think government salaries are out of control ?

[CouponWarriorTURBO]

The pensions these guys get are just too much compared to the private sector. There is a lot of job security because of the union who will protect them for anything.

Besides defending laziness and incompetence, unions artificially drive up member salaries making it difficult for an organization to justify hiring additional people.

So you are obligated to hire let's say 10 workers for $100,000 a piece. If not for the union you could hire 20 workers for $50,000 a piece. So the people "inside" are riding easy and are all happy campers who will defend the union until death - unfortunately - that results in 10 qualified, ready-to-work Canadians' being unemployed.

[mastercool]

For those naysayers who continue to not agree that gov employees salaries are lavish, consider this: every year, the union negotiates a higher contract which includes a cost of living increase and a general salary increase along with better benefits. In the private sector, it's pretty unusual to get any kind of salary increase.

It's kind of sad that I know people who have the IQ of a gerbil who have these "policy analyst" type jobs. Many of these people wouldn't last a day working a real job.

[NorthYorker]

. In the private sector, it's pretty unusual to get any kind of salary increase.

10 years ago when I was working permanent jobs, it was a routine. Assuming you are right, this is a nice illustration of how far the race to the bottom advanced.

[anon666]

For those naysayers who continue to not agree that gov employees salaries are lavish, consider this: every year, the union negotiates a higher contract which includes a cost of living increase and a general salary increase along with better benefits. In the private sector, it's pretty unusual to get any kind of salary increase.

It's kind of sad that I know people who have the IQ of a gerbil who have these "policy analyst" type jobs. Many of these people wouldn't last a day working a real job.

In fairness, much of the "policy analysis" work for those positions doesn't require a very high IQ.

And nothing is stopping private sector employees from unionising...

[ahujie]

For those naysayers who continue to not agree that gov employees salaries are lavish, consider this: every year, the union negotiates a higher contract which includes a cost of living increase and a general salary increase along with better benefits. In the private sector, it's pretty unusual to get any kind of salary increase.

It's kind of sad that I know people who have the IQ of a gerbil who have these "policy analyst" type jobs. Many of these people wouldn't last a day working a real job.

Having worked in the federal public service, I don't think these positions are overpaid so much as they are over staffed. Meaning, too many people and not enough work to go around. For example, a typical "Policy" unit which may have 12 people could be reduced in size to half that amount. Then, people will actually be consistently busy from 9-5 and the pointless make work projects will get cut. I think the problem could be solved by letting staff go. But since unions will not let this happen, Harper's plan of not filling jobs through attrition is a small step in that direction.

The real policy decisions are made by the government of the day - the politicians - not public servants. Although the public service can provide advice or options, it is ultimately the politicians who set the agenda. At least in Ottawa, not sure about provincial policy.

[Hitman21]

Besides defending laziness and incompetence, unions artificially drive up member salaries making it difficult for an organization to justify hiring additional people.

So you are obligated to hire let's say 10 workers for $100,000 a piece. If not for the union you could hire 20 workers for $50,000 a piece. So the people "inside" are riding easy and are all happy campers who will defend the union until death - unfortunately - that results in 10 qualified, ready-to-work Canadians' being unemployed.

These guys shouldn't be allowed to form unions since its public sector, they work for the taxpayer. The government needs to take a strong stand against these guys.

[DearSummer]

Bureaucrats’ pay is now far and away the federal government’s largest single expense. Each of the more than 450,000 federal civil servants costs taxpayers an average of $92,000 annually for salaries, benefits and pension contributions – nearly $20,000 a year more than the average private-sector worker. At $42 billion, total civil service compensation is nearly double what is was just a decade ago and accounts for almost 17% of all of Ottawa’s spending. There is no practical way for the Tory government to balance its budget again without dramatic cuts to the size and expense of the civil service.

To make matters worse, according to James Lahey, a former senior bureaucrat who has done the most comprehensive studies yet into civil service pay and benefits, no one is in charge of monitoring bureaucrats’ compensation. There are few controls and uneven management of raises, promotions and salary negotiations.

Mr. Lahey told the Ottawa Citizen over the weekend that over the last two decades, civil service pay has bested inflation by 22%. In the private sector, wages have barely budged, coming ahead not quite 10% in real terms over the same period.

There is a widespread belief – particularly among civil servants themselves – that the federal public sector is still reeling from the budget cuts of the mid-1990s. Nothing could be further from the truth.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ggest-expense/

Yes, they are out of control.

[Rainne]

Having worked in the federal public service, I don't think these positions are overpaid so much as they are over staffed. Meaning, too many people and not enough work to go around. For example, a typical "Policy" unit which may have 12 people could be reduced in size to half that amount. Then, people will actually be consistently busy from 9-5 and the pointless make work projects will get cut. I think the problem could be solved by letting staff go. But since unions will not let this happen, Harper's plan of not filling jobs through attrition is a small step in that direction.

The real policy decisions are made by the government of the day - the politicians - not public servants. Although the public service can provide advice or options, it is ultimately the politicians who set the agenda. At least in Ottawa, not sure about provincial policy.

Well, the problem with modern technology is you can hire less people to do the same work available. When you expect the same amount of people + technology to perform the same amount of work available, you should pay each employee less, which clearly is not the case in the government.

Problem: Unions

[Hitman21]

Well, the problem with modern technology is you can hire less people to do the same work available. When you expect the same amount of people + technology to perform the same amount of work available, you should pay each employee less, which clearly is not the case in the government.

Problem: Unions

Completely agree with you. The taxpayer has to pay the salaries of these people so they know they can keep increasing the salaries. The public sector unions have to be stopped, they are out of control and will bankrupt Canada.

[peanutz]

I'm not saying government is completely blameless, but how do you explain TELUS paying it's employees better and still maximizing profits if they are all on an even scale? It has to be greed from the other companies who want to invest in frivolous projects/while maximizing their profits.

First of all, TELUS is not first so it is hard to say whether they are "still maximizing their profits". Secondly, what TELUS is paying their employees vs. Rogers and Bell because that is only tangentially related to my original point and not really concerning to me because I am not paying TELUS, Rogers or Bell employees' salaries through my taxes.

Btw, first you said that it costs companies more to pay employees better salaries, and now you're telling me that these same companies get massive tax breaks? Not saying you're incorrect, but quite contradictory.

I am not contradictory. Please take your goggles off and you may see more than your tunnel-visioned world of Corporations vs. Government.

"Companies" and "businesses" doesn't just mean corporations. In fact, read my posts and you'll see I am not sympathetic to corporations, either. I am talking about businesses in general, which include a much wider spectrum than just corporations--you know, non-corporated businesses that also have employees on a payroll?

The fact of the matter is, I DO NOT BELIEVE corporations should be getting tax breaks from the government that takes taxes from everyone else in such a manner that they can stifle their viability/growth while feeding those at the bottom of their chain their inflated salaries and benefits.

[Navvy]

Having worked in the federal public service, I don't think these positions are overpaid so much as they are over staffed. Meaning, too many people and not enough work to go around. For example, a typical "Policy" unit which may have 12 people could be reduced in size to half that amount. Then, people will actually be consistently busy from 9-5 and the pointless make work projects will get cut. I think the problem could be solved by letting staff go. But since unions will not let this happen, Harper's plan of not filling jobs through attrition is a small step in that direction.

The real policy decisions are made by the government of the day - the politicians - not public servants. Although the public service can provide advice or options, it is ultimately the politicians who set the agenda. At least in Ottawa, not sure about provincial policy.

This. Civil servants are hired for specific projects and then are made indeterminate almost by default. You end up with a surplus of as and cr workers who get cycled through the system. That said, it's not an unstoppable force. There were massive job cuts in the 90s and there will be more next month. For all the talk of job security, those in the private sector can't have their livelihoods voted out of existence by jealous compatriots.

Yep, there are generous benefits (benefits private sector employees have been unable to hang on to), but those are balanced against serious wage compression. Moreover Canada has a world class civil service. For all the silly talk, I'd suggest most would realise that having a government contract manager making minimum wage with no prospect of a comfortable retirement is not the person you want looking after billion dollar spending projects.

Finally, the notion that this is a serious problem that will be the ruin of Canada is absurd. The business of government is mostly just writing cheques these days. Actual program spending is negligible and certainly isn't a drag on the Canadian economy. Anyone who suggests that ps salaries are going to bankrupt us shouldn't be taken seriously.

[sixvicious]

Plenty of idiotic rationalizations in this thread.

I work for the public service. 2 degrees. Paid a lot for school. 6 years out of the full-time workforce due to school.

My friends who got into mechanics or trades right out of high school will make more than I will in my lifetime. I don't run around saying they should have their salaries cut so I can get cheaper oil, cars, homes etc.

I get paid a fair salary with good benefits. I worked for it. Hard. You are welcome to try and work for the public service as well. If you enjoy working with outdated technologies and at times a stifling environment, this might be for you.

I am a professional and take my job seriously. I provide a valuable service for external clients (aka most of you in this thread).

Remember the recent EI stuff and people not getting paid for over 2 months? That was a relatively small reduction of 400 people. It caused havoc. I think Canadians are finally starting to see a connect with the types of services affected and who is affected when cuts occur.

I'd also like to fire many public servants for incompetence, however this is inherent in most professions. We also have very good people. Some departments are much better than others. Some classifications are overpaid in my opinion, others underpaid. I think it's generally close to private.

We have a good pension. You want to take it from us? Why instead of racing to the bottom, how about asking employers to provide you with a decent pension and benefits plan? I think most if not all workers should be entitled to some kind of plan.

I have a permanent "indeterminate" job with the government. Want to know what that really means? It means my employer has to *try* to find me another position or give me 6 months notice before laying me off.

I dislike unions in practice however I agree with the idea.

And it's not like they matter. Look at Caterpillar. I like the idea of everyone racing to the bottom much better than bringing people up to a decent standard of living...

[Hitman21]

These bureaucrats really need their salaries and benefits cut. Hopefully Harper will come to his senses and start cutting them.

[CouponWarriorTURBO]

You are welcome to try and work for the public service as well.

That would be nice! If only I was born French Canadian, visible minority, or Aboriginal! Then I could get $90,000/yr for sitting in a beautiful office in the city counting down until my next of 15 daily union-mandated breaks!

[Maedhros]

For those naysayers who continue to not agree that gov employees salaries are lavish, consider this: every year, the union negotiates a higher contract which includes a cost of living increase and a general salary increase along with better benefits. In the private sector, it's pretty unusual to get any kind of salary increase.

It's kind of sad that I know people who have the IQ of a gerbil who have these "policy analyst" type jobs. Many of these people wouldn't last a day working a real job.

I have a friend who is Over qualified yet not getting hired due to oldies sitting in positions for too long.