PSAC Strike 2023

[harls]

I worked over two years on a 'contract' position for the feds. No benefits, no pension. They just kept extending my contract, never offering me a term position. Same with about 5 other people in my department. I guess this is a cost-cutting measure? Seems really shitty.

When I asked them politely why.. after 2 years of getting extended contracts.. they wouldn't just hire me on? I was sacked.

[OTownandDown]

Harls, that's a common story.

Having said my rant, I will be honest and say that I've considered moving into the public sector. I fear for my sanity and the golden handcuffs and the existential crises that may arise. However as I grow older, I realize with my current RPP I can retire in about 300 years (literally how fast it's growing).

It gets more and more appealing to jump into the golden parachute before it becomes too late. Where else can I work in an office and receive cash for life? Not many places, and nowhere in my field.

[YOWetal]

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.

There are lots of stories like this but without specifics which understanblly people can't post its' hard to know how widespread it is.

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

Harls, that's a common story.

Having said my rant, I will be honest and say that I've considered moving into the public sector. I fear for my sanity and the golden handcuffs and the existential crises that may arise. However as I grow older, I realize with my current RPP I can retire in about 300 years (literally how fast it's growing).

It gets more and more appealing to jump into the golden parachute before it becomes too late. Where else can I work in an office and receive cash for life? Not many places, and nowhere in my field.

Interesting points but the cash for life thing is nonsense. They save 10% of their salary which is matched. If you save that much you will be better off. The pension only seems excessively generous to people who don't know how to save or invest. Usually both. Middle age public servants are the worst for this thinking their pension is worth millions and therefore they have to stay.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Interesting points but the cash for life thing is nonsense. They save 10% of their salary which is matched. If you save that much you will be better off. The pension only seems excessively generous to people who don't know how to save or invest. Usually both. Middle age public servants are the worst for this thinking their pension is worth millions and therefore they have to stay.

It really depends on how long you live. Even a good saver would struggle to have enough nest egg to cover 30 years of (fully-indexed retirement).

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Interesting points but the cash for life thing is nonsense. They save 10% of their salary which is matched. If you save that much you will be better off. The pension only seems excessively generous to people who don't know how to save or invest. Usually both. Middle age public servants are the worst for this thinking their pension is worth millions and therefore they have to stay.

The PS gets a lot of flak due to their "gold plated pensions", but your point above is valid.. to a point.

My private sector experience is a company match to either 6 or 8% of salary, so the PS is generous, but not excessively so.

However, if PS employees are SOOOO convinced the plan is rock solid and funded, then why not agree to switch to a DC plan? My beef is that I'm on the hook as a taxpayer to fund any shortfall, and that's not fair.

Pension plans have failed all over the world, and in many private sector companies. As much as I believe in actuarial science, I have a hard time believing that working for 30 years, then retiring for 40 years is sustainable.

Simply switch to a DC plan and much of the argument against PS benefits would go away.

[harls]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It really depends on how long you live. Even a good saver would struggle to have enough nest egg to cover 30 years of (fully-indexed retirement).

When I signed up to work for the feds, they asked me if I would be willing to die at 70.

..seemed like it.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

The PS gets a lot of flak due to their "gold plated pensions", but your point above is valid.. to a point.

My private sector experience is a company match to either 6 or 8% of salary, so the PS is generous, but not excessively so.

However, if PS employees are SOOOO convinced the plan is rock solid and funded, then why not agree to switch to a DC plan? My beef is that I'm on the hook as a taxpayer to fund any shortfall, and that's not fair.

Pension plans have failed all over the world, and in many private sector companies. As much as I believe in actuarial science, I have a hard time believing that working for 30 years, then retiring for 40 years is sustainable.

Simply switch to a DC plan and much of the argument against PS benefits would go away.

I think that this is a fair assessment, particularly with respect to the longer retirements these days. It would be reasonable to look at increasing retirement ages in the plans, given the longer payout period.

As for taxpayers funding shortfalls, that is true, but taxpayers also receive the benefit when the plan investments do well in the sense that the government doesn't need to contribute, so has balanced out over time. It's a collective assumption of risk that I can accept.

I think people also believe that average pensions are much higher than they actually are. The average pension is something like $33,000, which isn't exactly a gold plated lifestyle. I'd also point out that people with pensions are greatly restricted in what they can contribute to RRSPs tax free, which offsets their impact on the tax system.

Personally I think pensions are a key factor in attracting and retaining talent in the public service. Rather than targeting pensions, I'd rather see the focus put on performance management and holding those that aren't doing their jobs accountable.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Consultants (particularly politically connected consultants) have clearly been misused. But I also don't think it is a question of bureaucrat good, consultant bad.

A consultant, even if they have a higher hourly rate is usually a one off expense. Each new bureaucrat hired is more or less a 5 million dollar lifetime commitment.

I didn't mean to suggest that all consultants are bad, just that a smaller public service isn't more efficient if the work is shifted to consultants at higher rates. Just looking at the numbers of public servants in a vacuum doesn't tell you much at all.

I do think that there are lots of incidents where we have public servants with the requisite skills to do what is needed, but due to budgets or politics or some other reason, the decision is to go out to consultants for the more interesting project or specialized work. In my experience that is regularly done regardless of whether the consultants truly have specialized skills, and it has to be incredibly demoralizing for the PS employees who have worked in that area for years. Particularly when projects are strung together and consultants are there for years and years, making multiples of what the public servants make.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by phil235

As for taxpayers funding shortfalls, that is true, but taxpayers also receive the benefit when the plan investments do well in the sense that the government doesn't need to contribute, so has balanced out over time. It's a collective assumption of risk that I can accept.

I'm not sure what is meant by "government doesn't need to contribute"? Do you mean the Govt doesn't kick in it's 10% match if the plan is doing good?

The "collective assumption of risk" is something I cannot accept. Sounds like you're saying risk of plan falling short is SO LOW, why change things? I think the risk of the plan falling short (eventually) is not so low.. and I only think it's fair that risk is on the plan participants, and not pension-less private sector taxpayers.

DC is such a simple concept, and would kill the "gold plated pension" argument in a heartbeat... why such a reluctance to accept it?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

I didn't mean to suggest that all consultants are bad, just that a smaller public service isn't more efficient if the work is shifted to consultants at higher rates. Just looking at the numbers of public servants in a vacuum doesn't tell you much at all.

I do think that there are lots of incidents where we have public servants with the requisite skills to do what is needed, but due to budgets or politics or some other reason, the decision is to go out to consultants for the more interesting project or specialized work. In my experience that is regularly done regardless of whether the consultants truly have specialized skills, and it has to be incredibly demoralizing for the PS employees who have worked in that area for years. Particularly when projects are strung together and consultants are there for years and years, making multiples of what the public servants make.

Yes, if a consultant is there for years and years or works on something that is a permanent responsibility of that particular department then there has been some sort of a management or human resources failure.

But, if a project, initiative, etc. is only needed for a short term then it makes more sense to pay a consultant more in the short term than accrue a lifetime liability of hiring a permanent employee with an effective job for life and defined benefit pension.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

I'm not sure what is meant by "government doesn't need to contribute"? Do you mean the Govt doesn't kick in it's 10% match if the plan is doing good?

The "collective assumption of risk" is something I cannot accept. Sounds like you're saying risk of plan falling short is SO LOW, why change things? I think the risk of the plan falling short (eventually) is not so low.. and I only think it's fair that risk is on the plan participants, and not pension-less private sector taxpayers.

DC is such a simple concept, and would kill the "gold plated pension" argument in a heartbeat... why such a reluctance to accept it?

It is a significant retention tool. It pretty much ensures anyone with more than about 10-15 years of service sticks around.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by phil235

Also, you can't really discuss the size of the public service without looking at the number of consultants in the shadow public service, which has been ballooning for years. The government is at least talking about reducing consulting expenses, which would have a bigger positive impact on budgets than staff cuts (not to mention the impact on public service morale). If you feel that the public service has a lot of waste, I would love to introduce you to the Deloittes and McKinseys of this world. Having dealt with those types of consultants extensively, I particularly enjoy the idea of paying someone who just left the public service three times as much to provide the same advice, with very little stake in the long-term outcome of what they are advising on.

And then not taking their advice because it's too expensive.

Originally Posted by RideauRat

while I agree the number of PS workers is exuberantly high for no reason our population did grow little under 9 million people, also, Tech has increased, Society has changed, and so did the Bureaucracy that may of comes along with all of the above. Why aren't more systems like Passport Canada automated? Who knows at this point.

New Zeeland has one Government user portal that does everything, like EVERYTHING. Here, one hand doesn't speak to the other. How can a frauder usethe identity of a person who works and pays taxes to claim CERB? Should the Government not see, and say "hey, this person has a job and pays taxes, why are the claiming CERB? Maybe we should contact them and tell them they may have been hacked!".

Here's an excellent video from Paige Saunders on the subject.

• Video Link

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

I'm... a consultant. lol

I agree the number of consultants HAS ballooned, both consultants retained for one-off projects, and a ridiculous number working 'on contract' on a semi-permanent basis. I suspect the consultants who semi-permanently move in to a desk are not listed in the books in the same way as a full time employee. (I'm not talking about noobs who are 'on contract' and then 'made permanent' I mean consultants who work full time in house, take their $25k/month over 10 months, then leave).

The same has happened at the City of Ottawa, they are full of Colliers employees who have @Ottawa.ca email addresses, and physical desks. Are they actually on the books in the right place, or is the City 'cost cutting' by not having to pay for a retirement fund for Colliers employees?

The problem I'm seeing: Regular employees responsible for the programs I'm consulted on are literal bags of hammers. Speaking to a large group via Teams, it's tough to find a few brain cells to rub together. I do 99% of the work, a single person, and the team of 10 on the other side can't produce anything, don't absorb the information I provide, and the programs and services are delayed, limited in scope to cause additional blowback (and more consulting, year over year, for 10+ years on average), or cancelled altogether.

Its a catch-22 a bit. We need well paid, professional employees in the public service, who specialize in the task. Currently we have low paid pions who move around every 3 years out of boredom (aka 'stress', which is just an existential crisis labelled as stress) and they don't necessarily need prior experience or specialize in a topic, they just need their 'Pion PY3' level to be able to move about at will.

I do believe there is a lot of efficiencies to be found in Government. It seems no one does much of anything because they are in meetings most of the time trying to figure out what to do next, but nothing gets done because no one agrees (sometimes, people just don't get it), things are too expensive, or because of high turnover (people jumping from one position to the next to make more money or because the get frustrated from the lack of progress in their current department).

Ultimately, I blame the politicians for having no direction. Random new programs that may or may not be necessary instead of fixing what we have. And if the Conservatives come in, it will be blind cuts, not actual efficiencies.

I don't work for Government, this is what I gather from friends and family who work in Government. Every story frustrates me to no end. Fixing this and finding ACTUAL efficiencies is possible, but no one is willing to step up.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by harls

I worked over two years on a 'contract' position for the feds. No benefits, no pension. They just kept extending my contract, never offering me a term position. Same with about 5 other people in my department. I guess this is a cost-cutting measure? Seems really shitty.

When I asked them politely why.. after 2 years of getting extended contracts.. they wouldn't just hire me on? I was sacked.

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

Harls, that's a common story.

Having said my rant, I will be honest and say that I've considered moving into the public sector. I fear for my sanity and the golden handcuffs and the existential crises that may arise. However as I grow older, I realize with my current RPP I can retire in about 300 years (literally how fast it's growing).

It gets more and more appealing to jump into the golden parachute before it becomes too late. Where else can I work in an office and receive cash for life? Not many places, and nowhere in my field.

It can be hard to get in, but once you do, it's like getting Tenure. You are invincible, thanks in part to the Union who fights for bad employees and negotiates new contracts for one month every 4 years.

Originally Posted by phil235

I didn't mean to suggest that all consultants are bad, just that a smaller public service isn't more efficient if the work is shifted to consultants at higher rates. Just looking at the numbers of public servants in a vacuum doesn't tell you much at all.

I do think that there are lots of incidents where we have public servants with the requisite skills to do what is needed, but due to budgets or politics or some other reason, the decision is to go out to consultants for the more interesting project or specialized work. In my experience that is regularly done regardless of whether the consultants truly have specialized skills, and it has to be incredibly demoralizing for the PS employees who have worked in that area for years. Particularly when projects are strung together and consultants are there for years and years, making multiples of what the public servants make.

The Government needs to understand what the best use is for employees and consultants. As it stands, they don't.

Often times, they will higher overpaid consultants for something a employee could do faster and cheaper. Sometimes they hire specialized consultants that could bring valuable input, but don't register that input or don't use it because it's "too expensive".

[phil235]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

I'm not sure what is meant by "government doesn't need to contribute"? Do you mean the Govt doesn't kick in it's 10% match if the plan is doing good?

Yes, there are actually statutory provisions that the employer from making its contribution to the plan if the plan is above a certain solvency ratio. I'm not in the public service, so I don't know their situation, but plans are generally doing quite well at the moment due to the high interest rates.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But, if a project, initiative, etc. is only needed for a short term then it makes more sense to pay a consultant more in the short term than accrue a lifetime liability of hiring a permanent employee with an effective job for life and defined benefit pension.

Agreed, if the existing workforce doesn't have the skills or capacity, then consultants make sense. You've just got to remember that when the consultant walks out the door, that experience goes with them. That's why you often see consultants called in again and again, sometimes even to fix mistakes that they made in the first place. Meanwhile the employees who didn't get to work on the project stagnate and check out.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The Government needs to understand what the best use is for employees and consultants. As it stands, they don't.

Often times, they will higher overpaid consultants for something a employee could do faster and cheaper. Sometimes they hire specialized consultants that could bring valuable input, but don't register that input or don't use it because it's "too expensive".

Yep, plus there is an over-reliance on consultants. Sometimes the reasons for engaging them are solid, but often it is a case of getting consultants and paying them more because they don't have approval to hire more employees, or worse, for self preservation, because it's easier to blame an outside firm when things go wrong.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by phil235

Yes, there are actually statutory provisions that the employer from making its contribution to the plan if the plan is above a certain solvency ratio. I'm not in the public service, so I don't know their situation, but plans are generally doing quite well at the moment due to the high interest rates.

I really don’t want to belabor this…. But that’s a terrifying provision. If history is any indication, when (not if) the plan goes underwater, us pensionless private sector folks will be on the hook.

Sorry PS people.. convert to DC and the animosity will go away. If you truly believe it’s solid because you pay so much into it, and it’s such a magnificently managed plan…. then show your faith and say DC is ok. Otherwise PS people are just talking out of both sides of their mouths.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

I really don’t want to belabor this…. But that’s a terrifying provision. If history is any indication, when (not if) the plan goes underwater, us pensionless private sector folks will be on the hook.

Sorry PS people.. convert to DC and the animosity will go away. If you truly believe it’s solid because you pay so much into it, and it’s such a magnificently managed plan…. then show your faith and say DC is ok. Otherwise PS people are just talking out of both sides of their mouths.

I'm not sure why it's terrifying. The same rules ensure that plans are adequately funded and make sure the risk of failure is low. Which public sector plans are you referring to that have gone under?

Converting to DC isn't really a solution. It does nothing to the existing DB liabilities, so it wouldn't help at all in the short term. It would actually be worse. Assuming that you stopped expanding the DB plan today and made new employees join a new DC plan, you would have fewer and fewer employees paying into the DB plan, and more and more potential liability for the government.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Here's an excellent video from Paige Saunders on the subject.

• Video Link

RE: Canadian Passports Are Insecure and Slow

I'll just interject here and mention that I went to a Service Canada Centre (with Passport Services) on the afternoon of April 17th, 2 days before the PSAC strike started, with a passport renewal application and my photos. The application was reviewed and all my information was entered into the system as I sat there with the agent. My new passport arrived, by mail, on April 25th, during the strike.

I can't complain about that service!

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

Yes, there are actually statutory provisions that the employer from making its contribution to the plan if the plan is above a certain solvency ratio. I'm not in the public service, so I don't know their situation, but plans are generally doing quite well at the moment due to the high interest rates.

It varies by plan. I think in the Public service case there was a surplus and it was given all to the government with the logic a deficit is entirely the responsibility of theirs. Of course if the pension is in deficit it's after a financial Armageddon so all bets are off.

A 10% each DC would absolutely be a great choice. Has this ever been offered by any corporation? Normal is to cut costs. The failure of corporate DB plans usually involves either fraud or the failure of the company itself. They switch to DB to save costs now. Even if they offered up to 10% most employees won't contribute the max saving companies bigly.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

A 10% each DC would absolutely be a great choice. Has this ever been offered by any corporation? Normal is to cut costs. The failure of corporate DB plans usually involves either fraud or the failure of the company itself. They switch to DB to save costs now. Even if they offered up to 10% most employees won't contribute the max saving companies bigly.

I think that there have been quite a few conversions to DC 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.