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

Federal Public Service Compensation & Benefits

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Occam said:
........  They need to be careful lest they trade a disgruntled Public Service for an inexperienced Public Service.

>:D

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). 
 
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. 
 
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.
 
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."
 
 
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.
 
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 μsecond, 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.
 
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.

[:D

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.
 
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. 
 
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
Treasury Board President Scott Brison will repeal controversial Conservative changes to the federal public service sick leave program, but has said it will not return to the status quo regarding the leave.

Treasury Board President Scott Brison has tabled legislation in the House of Commons to repeal controversial Conservative changes to the sick leave program for federal public servants, a move that will add $900 million to the government's mounting budget deficit.

But the Liberal government said reversing the change is not an endorsement of the status quo, and Brison said he will still push to "modernize" sick benefits for bureaucrats.

"Repealing what the Conservatives did was the right thing to do," Brison told reporters when asked about the latest move to reverse legislation enacted by the last government. "What the Conservatives did disrespected the negotiating process. It was irresponsible and unfair.

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

Canada’s public servants are living so long their death-benefits account has a $2.6-billion surplus.

That has some worried that the federal government could use the overage to offset its mounting deficit. The latest actuarial report by the Office of the Chief Actuary into the 60-year-old plan showed had a $2.6-billion surplus after setting aside $642 million in death benefits obligations for 2014. The plan has been running surpluses for years and the report estimates it will hit $4.3-billion by 2039.

The premiums and interest are not set aside but instead go into the consolidated revenue account, from which the government also pays all benefits.

That’s one reason why the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, which represents professionals from federal engineers to scientists, has long argued the fund should be transferred from the consolidated revenue account into a segregated fund.

PIPSC Vice-President Shannon Bittman said, in a report, that federal unions should “keep close tabs” on the fund to ensure the “government doesn’t amend the legislation” to allow them to claim the surplus.

“It’s always been a concern that the government would see that surplus and view it as a source of revenue, “ Bittman said in an interview, just as the Chrétien government did when it claimed the $30-billion surplus in the pension fund 15 years ago.


The legislation governing the death benefit account does not describe what to do with a surplus. Robyn Benson, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, said the government should work with unions and retirees before taking any action on the surplus. The account is almost entirely funded by employees and pensioners.

The benefit, which is like life insurance, is compulsory for public servants in the pension plan but they can opt out after they retire. 

Public servants pay about 15 cents a month per $1,000 coverage in annual premiums and beneficiaries are entitled to two times their salaries until they hit age 65. That means someone earning a $100,000 salary can leave a beneficiary a $200,000 payment upon death, if it is before age 65.

The older public servants are when they die, however, the smaller the benefit. After 65, the payment is reduced 10 per cent a year until the age 75 when the payment falls to a flat $10,000.

The death benefit is paid over and above survivors’ pensions to which families of public servants are also entitled.

Full death benefits are rarely paid out because most employees and retirees live beyond age 65 and a growing number are living beyond age 75.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada says some death payments are never collected. A beneficiary isn’t named or the beneficiary doesn’t know and doesn’t apply for it.

The actuarial report shows that benefits paid out every year are less than the combined interest earned and premiums paid – the lion’s share coming from employees. In fact, the interest is often enough to cover the plan’s expenses.

In other words, many argue public servants are paying too much for the benefit and the premiums they contribute aren’t necessary.

“As far as we are concerned we are over-funding it,” said Bittman. “The longevity of public servants is increasing and they are paying for benefits they will never access if they die after age 75.” “Given how big the surplus is and most people aren’t dying before age 75 then the $10,000 payments to estates isn’t going deplete that fund.”

The plan was originally designed as insurance to give higher payments to public servants who die young and have fewer savings and lower payments to older workers for funeral expenses.

The unions long argued the surplus could be reduced by improving benefits. One option is doubling the current minimum payment upon death from $10,000 to $20,000, which is closer to today’s funeral costs.

Bittman said PIPSC normally doesn’t support contribution holidays but she said the plan has had such a large surplus for so long that a contribution holiday may make sense. She noted the Conservatives jacked up the cost of public servants pensions by making them pay more and work longer for the same benefits so a contribution holiday on death benefits could offset that.

For years, the government and unions were content to leave the surplus as a large age discrimination lawsuit against the plan worked its way through the courts that could have cost more than $2 billion to settle.

The plan was thrown into the spotlight when two widows led a class-action suit, arguing that reduced death benefits for surviving spouses of public servants and military personnel based on the age of the deceased violated Charter rights. The case made it to the Supreme Court where it was rejected in 2011.

“The court case was a good argument back then to build the surplus in case they needed the money but that argument no longer holds true,” said Bittman.

The last time steps were taken to reduce the surplus was in 1998. That’s when premiums were reduced from 20 cents to today’s 15 cents; the benefit for those over 75 was doubled to $10,000 and the government agreed to defer the 10 per cent reduction until public servants turned 65 rather than at age 60.

In an email, Treasury Board said it has no plans to change the death benefit plan. Any changes would have to be considered by the Public Service Pension Advisory Committee which advises the minister, Scott Brison, on the running of the plan.

But unions have a long memory when it comes to the government taking surpluses. The Chrétien government passed legislation 15 years ago that allowed it to take a $30-billion surplus out of the public service pension plans. The unions jointly fought it that all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada but lost.

In that case, the government won for a variety of reasons, including there was no real cash or assets in the account.

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

“For those whose alarm bells are not yet ringing this is the same situation that existed in 1999 when the government stole $30 billion of our pension surplus to pay down the deficit,” said Bittman in her report.

More on LINK.


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


WAIT FOR IT!
 
George Wallace said:
The Liberals and Conservatives did it before; will they do it again?
If they can, they CERTAINLY will - bet on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top