Careers

300 Service Canada Employees Laid Off

  • Last Updated:
  • Apr 6th, 2012 11:05 am
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 9, 2004
1098 posts
256 upvotes
OMG the government is laying off people? I guess gov jobs aren't as secure as it used to be...
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3220 upvotes
Calgary
KennethToronto wrote: I think it's pathetic you're cheering the fact other people are losing their jobs.

Get a life.

Its a very necessary step towards economic reform and downsizing a massively bloated government. But we should all hope that the cutbacks are across all levels of government, in particular, concentrated in the upper managerial ranks that originally facilitated much of the bloat in the first place.

Theres a much larger 'bang for the buck' cutting some $250k/year EX-ranked person, than there is in cutting back some $40-$50k secretary that probably does most of the work of the EX person anyways. Chances are, the EX-person is some disruptive liberal/socialist anyways, who impedes progress because they're 65 years old and have no life outside of work.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Member
User avatar
Dec 11, 2003
264 posts
10 upvotes
Mark77 wrote: Its a very necessary step towards economic reform and downsizing a massively bloated government. But we should all hope that the cutbacks are across all levels of government, in particular, concentrated in the upper managerial ranks that originally facilitated much of the bloat in the first place.

Theres a much larger 'bang for the buck' cutting some $250k/year EX-ranked person, than there is in cutting back some $40-$50k secretary that probably does most of the work of the EX person anyways. Chances are, the EX-person is some disruptive liberal/socialist anyways, who impedes progress because they're 65 years old and have no life outside of work.

There would be a great "bang for the buck" by cutting an EX making $250,000 a year. The challenge I put forth to you, is to find an EX making $250,000 a year. Especially since the top pay bracket for an EX is $191,000 (and there aren't all that many EX-5's).
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/gui/eg09-eng.asp

If you want to trim the fat in upper management, you'd want to reduce the number of boards, agencies and departments, and amalgamate them into existing departments. You'll get rid of a minister, a deputy, and a set of assistant deputy ministers as well, but not lose working level staff (except some executive and admin assistants, some of which get EX-1 level pay themselves). Of course, that would also mean a reduction in the size of cabinet - and politicians, like any occupational group, protect their own.
Sr. Member
Sep 15, 2009
586 posts
183 upvotes
Moogleknight wrote: There would be a great "bang for the buck" by cutting an EX making $250,000 a year. The challenge I put forth to you, is to find an EX making $250,000 a year. Especially since the top pay bracket for an EX is $191,000 (and there aren't all that many EX-5's).
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/gui/eg09-eng.asp

If you want to trim the fat in upper management, you'd want to reduce the number of boards, agencies and departments, and amalgamate them into existing departments. You'll get rid of a minister, a deputy, and a set of assistant deputy ministers as well, but not lose working level staff (except some executive and admin assistants, some of which get EX-1 level pay themselves). Of course, that would also mean a reduction in the size of cabinet - and politicians, like any occupational group, protect their own.

Not that I agree with his position, but eliminating the job of a person earning 191k could result in a 250k savings once total compensation (all costs related to the employment of the person, including benefits, employers contribution to superannuation, cpp, wcb premiums, etc) is factored in.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3220 upvotes
Calgary
Moogleknight wrote: There would be a great "bang for the buck" by cutting an EX making $250,000 a year. The challenge I put forth to you, is to find an EX making $250,000 a year. Especially since the top pay bracket for an EX is $191,000 (and there aren't all that many EX-5's).
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/gui/eg09-eng.asp
a) You're forgetting the cost of pension and health contributions.

b) You're forgetting that, at these high ranks and the pension based on the final years' worth of salary, that the additional compensation paid to such a manager through the pension is disproportionately enormous.

A $190k EX salary easily comes to $250k+ once you add in the extra benefits including pension top-up. In some cases, it could be over $500k/year these people are being paid, depending on the discount rate you use for pension funding, and the rules of their particular pension scheme.
If you want to trim the fat in upper management, you'd want to reduce the number of boards, agencies and departments, and amalgamate them into existing departments. You'll get rid of a minister, a deputy, and a set of assistant deputy ministers as well, but not lose working level staff (except some executive and admin assistants, some of which get EX-1 level pay themselves). Of course, that would also mean a reduction in the size of cabinet - and politicians, like any occupational group, protect their own.

No, there's nothing wrong with the size of cabinet. The admin structure in the departments is simply far too large. Cabinet stands for re-election every 2-4 years anyways, so the public can turf them out. Not so much with the civil servants, which is why their pay needs to be reduced substantially, benefits reigned in (ie: cancel the pensions!), and numbers reduced dramatically. Ideally, all public servants would run for election, but that's not very feasible.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3220 upvotes
Calgary
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpub ... fp-eng.asp

Just in case anyone wants to challenge my math:

Example: $100k/year civil servant appointed to $190k EX position 5 years before retirement at age 65. Life expectancy = 90 years old.

Original pension obligation = 70%*100k = $70k/year for 25 years, indexxed to inflation @ 2%, long-term interest rate = 4%.

NPV = $1.324M (retired with $100k/year final average salary)
NPV = $2.52M (retired with $190k/year average final salary).

So for 5 years of EX service @ $190k, the pension plan (ie: taxpayer) is on the hook for an additional $1.2M. In addition to the $190k/year salary.

So plenty of these $190k/year "EX" workers are being paid nearly $500k/year once you add in the cost of pension top-ups.

This is completely unsustainable. We cannot afford half-million dollar a year civil servants. There is little need for anyone paid more than $100k/year in unelected government positions, especially since this is more than twice the average Canadian salary.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Member
User avatar
Dec 11, 2003
264 posts
10 upvotes
Mark77 wrote: a) You're forgetting the cost of pension and health contributions.

b) You're forgetting that, at these high ranks and the pension based on the final years' worth of salary, that the additional compensation paid to such a manager through the pension is disproportionately enormous.

A $190k EX salary easily comes to $250k+ once you add in the extra benefits including pension top-up.
I will admit, I didn't take that into account. Your point.

Mark77 wrote: No, there's nothing wrong with the size of cabinet. The admin structure in the departments is simply far too large. Cabinet stands for re-election every 2-4 years anyways, so the public can turf them out. Not so much with the civil servants, which is why their pay needs to be reduced substantially, benefits reigned in (ie: cancel the pensions!), and numbers reduced dramatically. Ideally, all public servants would run for election, but that's not very feasible.
I disagree that there's nothing wrong with the size of cabinet. You have parliamentary secretaries and Ministers of state that do not fall into a department's managerial structure making additional salary for no reason other than repayment of political debts. Also, you don't elect cabinet ministers - you elect MPs. Voters don't choose who gets the additional pay, except the Prime Minister (indirectly). If you attack the public service pension, I would suggest that you also attack parliamentarian pensions. Full pension after 5 years. 70% of the average of their best 5. Don't tell me that's not entirely unreasonable. Make someone a parliamentary secretary and watch that pension obligation skyrocket.
Just in case anyone wants to challenge my math:

Example: $100k/year civil servant appointed to $190k EX position 5 years before retirement at age 65. Life expectancy = 90 years old.

Original pension obligation = 70%*100k = $70k/year for 25 years, indexxed to inflation @ 2%, long-term interest rate = 4%.

NPV = $1.324M (retired with $100k/year final average salary)
NPV = $2.52M (retired with $190k/year average final salary).

So for 5 years of EX service @ $190k, the pension plan (ie: taxpayer) is on the hook for an additional $1.2M. In addition to the $190k/year salary.

So plenty of these $190k/year "EX" workers are being paid nearly $500k/year once you add in the cost of pension top-ups.

This is completely unsustainable. We cannot afford half-million dollar a year civil servants. There is little need for anyone paid more than $100k/year in unelected government positions, especially since this is more than twice the average Canadian salary.
I challenge the assumptions behind your math.

A 100k civil servant is more or less an EX-1. They, for the most part, are not going to be appointed to an EX-5 level position, as that's not how EX resourcing works (the exception being external hires in which case they have no years of service when they're appointed, and their pension obligation after 5 years is 2x5=10% of the average of their best 5. If they were an internal candidate applying in an external process, then as an EX-1, they will almost definitely not have the depth and breadth of experience to qualify). I'm not saying it can't happen, but they're minutely rare given the actual numbers of EX-5's allowed by departments, which are controlled by the Treasury Board of Canada.

Generally, an EX-1 will spend 3-5 years in that position before they qualify to be appointed to an EX-2 or EX-3 position, as EX-2/3 processes are generally closed to anyone outside the EX-1 level.
That EX-3 will spend 3-5 years in that position until they qualify to be appointed to an EX-4 level position, as EX-4 positions are almost always closed to anyone outside the EX-3 level (so if they were an EX-2, they'd have to get to the 3 before they applied to be appointed to the 4 level). Then that EX-4 spends 3-5 years at that level to be appointed for an EX-5 level position.

Additionally, you also make the assumption that the EX-5 starts at the 191k pay rate. They don't. They start at the $161,00 minimum rate, and over 5 years hit $191,000 job rate. Therefore, the average of their best 5 isn't 191k. Year 5 is 191k, with
years 1-4 being less.

Finally, you seem to also make the assumption that the taxpayer funds 100% of the pension obligation. the taxpayer funds 60% of the obligation. The other 40% is paid by public servants. This isn't General Motors here.

Also, life expectancy for Canada is 81 to 82 years, not 90.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... /2102.html

That being said, I don't necessarily disagree with the notion that there are too many executives in the public service, but the problem isn't the number of 5's (honestly, there aren't that many), it's the number of EX-1 to EX-3's, which are not limited by Treasury Board. There are a lot of them, and for many of those EX-1 to 3's, there is little justification behind their existence, except perhaps empire building.
Deal Addict
User avatar
May 15, 2010
2000 posts
113 upvotes
North York
KennethToronto wrote: I think it's pathetic you're cheering the fact other people are losing their jobs.

Get a life.
YOU get a life. Most government workers are significantly overpaid, have very light workloads and spend most of their days slacking off, and will retire with massive pensions, at my expense. It gives me a boner to see them lose their jobs.
[OP]
Newbie
Nov 25, 2009
35 posts
3 upvotes
BC
trini shotta wrote: Where did you get this info from?

Friends got their notice. It's not technically a layoff but a non-renewal. If you are sunset term you're more than likely getting a pink slip if you haven't already.

Problem is EI is totally slammed and backlogged, and these positions are higher-level that are required for claims that do not automate. If you think waiting 60 days to get paid is bad, wait till after September.

The workload is not going down but getting much larger. It's nearly double the level of claims where they can meet speed of service when they had these 300 workers active.
Moderator
User avatar
Sep 21, 2004
10457 posts
4740 upvotes
Calgary
Dilton wrote: YOU get a life. Most government workers are significantly overpaid, have very light workloads and spend most of their days slacking off, and will retire with massive pensions, at my expense. It gives me a boner to see them lose their jobs.

oh why oh why do you think government worker pension is based on your tax dollar? You must have been brainwashed by Fox news.

here is some information for you, if you know how to read and comprehend:
http://psac.com/news/2011/issues/20110728-e.shtml

http://www.canadianlabour.ca/news-room/ ... or-workers

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/s ... story.html
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 19, 2002
12031 posts
399 upvotes
I'm all for a rationalization of the government workforce, provided it's done the right way - actually attacking inefficiencies and reducing unnecessary headcount while trying to maximize the value of those who remain (yes, this is probably a pipe dream - I'm sure some valuable hard workers will go, and some overpaid blobs will stay). Sorry to those who lose jobs over this, but those jobs shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Sr. Member
Jun 13, 2009
729 posts
417 upvotes
Toronto
With all that is happening (U.S. credit rating downgrade, troubles in Europe), I do think the Canadian economy will slow down again. I'm sure those 300 will be hired back in the near future.
Newbie
User avatar
Apr 14, 2009
31 posts
3 upvotes
Dilton wrote: YOU get a life. Most government workers are significantly overpaid, have very light workloads and spend most of their days slacking off, and will retire with massive pensions, at my expense. It gives me a boner to see them lose their jobs.
People like you sicken me. Yeah, I bet it really is "boner inducing" to watch hundreds of people you don't know get laid off.

And yet, when it's mommy or daddy at home who gets laid off, it's always the likes of you that bitches, cries and moans the loudest about how life suddenly became a lot more difficult as you start eating baloney sandwiches for a few days straight for lunch and dinner.

Get a stable job and then lose it. Come back to me and tell me with a straight face that it makes you feel aroused. Jerk.
Newbie
Apr 3, 2012
1 posts
ETOBICOKE
bellou wrote: I just got back from a service canada location the other day after getting my new photo card, i am not surprised 300 employees would get laid off i really expected more to go. better than my taxes paying them to chat in the back while everyone was waiting in line.

Your dumb. Service Canada doesn't even Issue photo ID's. Who can trust comments from someone who doesnt know the difference between right and left.

Top