Quote:
Originally Posted by phil235
I think that the whole debate is missing a key data point - where their wages are now - below or above market. If they are already well above market, then I see less of an argument for big increases. If they are at market or below, then the asks are reasonable. I’ve never seen any neutral analysis of where compensation stands, but it probably varies by bargaining unit.
As for work from home, that is being a bit misconstrued. The government isn’t saying that they can’t have flexibility to work from home, just that the employer can’t give up the right to tell its employees where to work. That’s a pretty clear management right, and the union’s ask would be a fundamental re-write of labour law. From a practical perspective, just imagine how much the system would be bogged down by grievances if individual employees could grieve every time the employer told them they needed to come into the office. Not a recipe for a productive workforce. I don’t have sympathy for that ask.
|
Market rate is impossible to determine for so many of these people.
How much is the team that approved the Covid vaccine before the FDA worth? Should they make half as much as a pharmaceutical lobbyist?
Conversely a government admin assistant has nowhere near as much stress as a private sector "Secretary" does. They almost aren't the same job. Even the assistant to a Deputy Minister I'd argue has less stress than the secretary to the head of sales in typical car dealership.