PSAC Strike 2023

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

I think that there have been quite a few conversions to DB in the private sector. In the public sector, I know that CMHC converted to DC, but then converted back to DB. A big reason was what I mentioned above - the legacy liabilities of the DB plan become bigger and bigger as the number of paying members shrinks. In the very long term it would reduce liabilities, but in the medium term it greatly increases the liabilities to the plan sponsor.

Another issue is that the public DB plans are huge factors in employee retention. DC plans do very little for employee retention, as employees can usually take the value of their plan and leave at any point. If you were to remove that retention tool from the public sector, you would likely see a decline in the quality of the workforce and an exodus of senior expertise to the private sector (see consultant conversation above). Personally I don't think that is in our interest as a country.

My point is the conversions lower the contribution rate. Actually I know someone who worked at CMHC and as a new hire was on the DC. They had a choice of how much to contribute though the max was way lower than a DB and 3 or 4 % was minimum.

This risk of a actuarial loss isn't something companies worry about though sure it's a liability in theory for a profitable company. For the big govt funds in reality if it was short the indexing or other costs would be reduced as the whole economy would be in trouble at that point.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

My point is the conversions lower the contribution rate. Actually I know someone who worked at CMHC and as a new hire was on the DC. They had a choice of how much to contribute though the max was way lower than a DB and 3 or 4 % was minimum.

This risk of a actuarial loss isn't something companies worry about though sure it's a liability in theory for a profitable company. For the big govt funds in reality if it was short the indexing or other costs would be reduced as the whole economy would be in trouble at that point.

I don't doubt that some people contribute less than the max, so that would reduce DC liabilities. I'm not sure that we want to move in the direction of having people less prepared for retirement, but it does save money that way.

A legacy DB plan is not creating an actuarial loss, it's an actual liability. Unless the company fully funds a payout of the plan immediately, which is a massive liability, it is in a situation where it has to pay benefits to more and more retirees with fewer (or no) employees paying into the plan. So the company's liability gets bigger and bigger as time goes by, and any shortfalls are 100% on the company, as there is no option to increase employee contributions. If you are worried about the potential liability of going concern plans, you should be more worried about the potential liability from a closed DB plan, there is a much greater likelihood of big payouts in that case.

[lrt's friend]

Nobody should hope for a DC pension plan. I have one and I was hammered this year because of world economic turmoil.

[originalmuffins]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

I spent 2.5 years consulting for various Federal departments. My consulting consisted of doing the job of various full-time employees who were incapable of producing anything of value.

I'm not painting a broad brush here.. there are a LOT of talented, dedicated, hard working people in the PS.. but I can confirm the only reason I was there was to do the job of FTEs who couldn't do their own job... and I was not alone.

That's laughable. Lol half of people don't realize that our private economy is heavily tied to the public sector. Yeah yeah, we have the Shopifys and the like... but then you have all the consulting firms literally basing all of their business on securing work from the government.... for contracts and rates that are designed just to squeeze as much as possible... I would know, working in one of those firms for almost 5 years... and they weren't the only ones. You know, "qualifying" experts to the contract only to have them do minimal work and then pawn it off to some analyst who doesn't know what the hell they're doing. Let's reel it back, there are a lot of competent employees in the PS, even if there are some bad apples - the firms just leech as much as they can for as little work as possible to "add value".

Let's also have a little more respect for the people who administer and work on our publicly funded programs. All they were doing was fighting for better standards - because without unions, we would have horrible work standards where parental leave isn't a thing. I don't see why every time we come back to PS workers, the minions come out in droves just to talk crap - not everything they do is bad and we need to disconnect them from politicians (because there are many who can't disconnect the parties they hate from workers who would be there regardless of which party wins).

[Norman Bates]

In 1996, then Finance Minister Paul Martin, removed several billions of dollars of surplus from the three superannuation funds (Public Service, Canadian Forces, RCMP).

The pension funds were doing well, and the surpluses were redeployed as a deficit reduction measure.

The public service unions objected and the matter was litigated through to the Supreme Court that confirmed in 1999 the legality of Paul Martin’s manoeuvre.

In 2006, employee contribution rates were increased because the superannuation funds were trending towards deficit…

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

In 1996, then Finance Minister Paul Martin, removed several billions of dollars of surplus from the three superannuation funds (Public Service, Canadian Forces, RCMP).

The pension funds were doing well, and the surpluses were redeployed as a deficit reduction measure.

The public service unions objected and the matter was litigated through to the Supreme Court that confirmed in 1999 the legality of Paul Martin’s manoeuvre.

In 2006, employee contribution rates were increased because the superannuation funds were trending towards deficit…

Interesting so the government is not on the hook and this was normal times. In a crisis of course they can re-write the rules however they want.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Interesting so the government is not on the hook and this was normal times. In a crisis of course they can re-write the rules however they want.

In normal times as well - the increase of employee contributions to 50% is quite recent.

[harls]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

Harls, that's a common story.

In most jobs, if you can prove you can do it after a period of time (i.e. - less that 2 years), you are hired on as a full time employee.

Not so with the federal government.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by harls

In most jobs, if you can prove you can do it after a period of time (i.e. - less that 2 years), you are hired on as a full time employee.

Not so with the federal government.

But most companies can fire you at any time so the risk of taking you on fulltime is much lower. I don't see any reason the public sector should be so different on this front. Other than I guess after some years you become unemployable in the private sector so should be compensated for this in some way.

[harls]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

But most companies can fire you at any time so the risk of taking you on fulltime is much lower. I don't see any reason the public sector should be so different on this front. Other than I guess after some years you become unemployable in the private sector so should be compensated for this in some way.

It's a messed up system. You prove you can do the job after X amount of time, but nope, jump through a few more hoops.

'Hey this guy does exactly what we want.. f&@k him.'

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

But most companies can fire you at any time so the risk of taking you on fulltime is much lower. I don't see any reason the public sector should be so different on this front. Other than I guess after some years you become unemployable in the private sector so should be compensated for this in some way.

The federal government can fire its employees at any time too (either for cause or by declaring a position surplus). I think it happens less often because managers have to document the reasons for firing and most can’t do that effectively.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The federal government can fire its employees at any time too (either for cause or by declaring a position surplus). I think it happens less often because managers have to document the reasons for firing and most can’t do that effectively.

I think it's more than just not being able to document properly. Firing someone for cause is very challenging and almost guarantees a lengthy grievance process with few guarantees of the outcome. There is little incentive for mid-level managers to take that on when they don't get much support. Plus, it's such a massive organization that it is generally much easier for a manager to ignore or move a problem than to deal with it properly.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

I think it's more than just not being able to document properly. Firing someone for cause is very challenging and almost guarantees a lengthy grievance process with few guarantees of the outcome. There is little incentive for mid-level managers to take that on when they don't get much support. Plus, it's such a massive organization that it is generally much easier for a manager to ignore or move a problem than to deal with it properly.

This is all true. Although none of them are legal impediments. It is not the case that public servants can't be fired, as some suggest.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

I think it's more than just not being able to document properly. Firing someone for cause is very challenging and almost guarantees a lengthy grievance process with few guarantees of the outcome. There is little incentive for mid-level managers to take that on when they don't get much support. Plus, it's such a massive organization that it is generally much easier for a manager to ignore or move a problem than to deal with it properly.

"Canadians not surprised porn-surfing federal worker gets his job back"

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...183723562.html

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

This is all true. Although none of them are legal impediments. It is not the case that public servants can't be fired, as some suggest.

Agreed.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

"Canadians not surprised porn-surfing federal worker gets his job back"

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...183723562.html

It is an interesting case to read. He basically won by arguing he was doing all of his assigned work and wasn't bothering anyone. From the tribunal:

It seems clear to me that there was some failure on the part of the grievor’s managers to manage him. While both his supervisors contended that they should not have to supervise minutely an employee at the grievor’s classification level, I believe that they have some responsibility to supervise, which they do not seem to have done in this case. I find it surprising that an employee could spend the amount of time that the grievor did on non-work-related activities for months without his supervisors noting a lack of production or engagement. The employer argued that the grievor negotiated the time - frames for the projects assigned to him and that he also refused long-term projects on the grounds that he would soon be leaving. Even so, it seems to me that the grievor’s supervisors had a responsibility to regularly review his work and production and to assess his workload, which clearly they did not do.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is an interesting case to read. He basically won by arguing he was doing all of his assigned work and wasn't bothering anyone. From the tribunal:

It seems clear to me that there was some failure on the part of the grievor’s managers to manage him. While both his supervisors contended that they should not have to supervise minutely an employee at the grievor’s classification level, I believe that they have some responsibility to supervise, which they do not seem to have done in this case. I find it surprising that an employee could spend the amount of time that the grievor did on non-work-related activities for months without his supervisors noting a lack of production or engagement. The employer argued that the grievor negotiated the time - frames for the projects assigned to him and that he also refused long-term projects on the grounds that he would soon be leaving. Even so, it seems to me that the grievor’s supervisors had a responsibility to regularly review his work and production and to assess his workload, which clearly they did not do.

Yeah, it's a case of mismanagement, and a case demonstrating that it can't be time theft if the employee didn't have anything else to do. I am a bit surprised that the pornography wasn't given more weight, as that has to be a serious violation of several workplace policies.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

Yeah, it's a case of mismanagement, and a case demonstrating that it can't be time theft if the employee didn't have anything else to do. I am a bit surprised that the pornography wasn't given more weight, as that has to be a serious violation of several workplace policies.

The punishment decided by the tribunal was a 2 year suspension without pay, which is still a pretty substantial penalty.

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is an interesting case to read. He basically won by arguing he was doing all of his assigned work and wasn't bothering anyone. From the tribunal:

It seems clear to me that there was some failure on the part of the grievor’s managers to manage him. While both his supervisors contended that they should not have to supervise minutely an employee at the grievor’s classification level, I believe that they have some responsibility to supervise, which they do not seem to have done in this case. I find it surprising that an employee could spend the amount of time that the grievor did on non-work-related activities for months without his supervisors noting a lack of production or engagement. The employer argued that the grievor negotiated the time - frames for the projects assigned to him and that he also refused long-term projects on the grounds that he would soon be leaving. Even so, it seems to me that the grievor’s supervisors had a responsibility to regularly review his work and production and to assess his workload, which clearly they did not do.

lol, this is exactly what I was trying to get across in my earlier comments. This guy 'refused' additional work and/or long-term projects, and 'negotiated' deadlines. Then it's the manager's fault for not loading him up with work? He would have grieved again for being bullied!

How much workload review gets done elsewhere in government, and how is production formally tracked? Is it a one-on-one weekly in an informal setting? That's easy enough to say 'ohh, i'm so busy this week, I have these several tasks!'

In the private sector, if you're not filling out a punch card, you're filling out a job-specific timesheet for invoicing purposes, and God help you if you've overbooked something, or can't complete your 37.5hrs.

I once saw a guy fired for wearing denim to an important meeting. No joke.

Moonlighting? Porn? Fired.

Acting like your busy but your production doesn't match? Fired.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

lol, this is exactly what I was trying to get across in my earlier comments. This guy 'refused' additional work and/or long-term projects, and 'negotiated' deadlines. Then it's the manager's fault for not loading him up with work? He would have grieved again for being bullied!

How much workload review gets done elsewhere in government, and how is production formally tracked? Is it a one-on-one weekly in an informal setting? That's easy enough to say 'ohh, i'm so busy this week, I have these several tasks!'

In the private sector, if you're not filling out a punch card, you're filling out a job-specific timesheet for invoicing purposes, and God help you if you've overbooked something, or can't complete your 37.5hrs.

I once saw a guy fired for wearing denim to an important meeting. No joke.

Moonlighting? Porn? Fired.

Acting like your busy but your production doesn't match? Fired.

The idea that large corporations have perfect controls is dubious. Yes certain professions bill in 6 minute increments but in many general corporate jobs you can easily get lost in the shuffle.