Civil servants share $6B 'severance' without losing jobs

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
While federal budget cuts are sending some public servants to the unemployment line, most of those keeping their jobs will be laughing all the way to the bank with a pay raise and special lump-sum cheques of up to $150,000.

The Harper government is in the process of handing out a jaw-dropping $6 billion in special "severance" cheques to hundreds of thousands of federal workers who aren't losing their jobs or even changing desks.

Government officials say the average payout to date has been roughly $20,000, but the highest-paid government executives and military brass could be getting cheques up to $150,000.

Thousands of Canadian soldiers not even entitled to severance will be getting cheques anyway.

In total, the government expects to have cut cheques worth about $2 billion by the end of this year.

The payouts are part of the Harper government's move to scrap a long-standing public service perk that gives federal workers severance pay even when they quit or retire.

The government has agreed to compensate public servants for all of the severance they have accumulated to date at the rate of one week's wages for each year of employment.


While the total payout to federal workers is expected to top $6 billion, the Treasury Board estimates that scrapping severance for those who quit or retire will save taxpayers about $500 million a year.

Treasury Board President Tony Clement, the federal minister responsible for public service compensation, defends the severance changes and payouts as short-term pain for longer-term gains.

"The savings for Canadian taxpayers are significant," he says in a written statement to CBC News. "The government is no longer liable for future accumulation of voluntary severance payouts that would continue to climb.

"This benefit does not exist in the private sector and there is a reason. It is costly and to perpetuate it would be unfair."

But those savings could be significantly offset by public service pay raises.

CBC News has learned that in exchange for getting rid of the severance provision, the Harper government is giving public servants a special 0.75 per cent increase in wages, a move that will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Dan Kelly, head of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, says the government is right to be killing the severance perk, but asks, at what price?

"To spend billions of dollars in severance package for people that are not losing their jobs, people that have the best form of job security in the country, that have gold-plated pensions to leave to, just seems nuts.

"This should be taken away from civil servants.… But to trade it off for higher wage increments, I think will not pass the smell test for average Canadians."

The union that represents the largest number of federal public servants said the severance for retirement and resignation predates collective bargaining and defended the compensation it negotiated to end the practice.

"The present government decided to end the accumulation of severance and negotiated a compensation package with some federal government workers," said Robyn Benson, national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

"At the same time, PSAC negotiated stronger provisions for severance upon layoff so the thousands of federal workers this government is recklessly cutting have a better chance of continuing to pay their mortgages and contributing to the economy."

Toronto financial consultant Barry Ferguson represents a large number of public service clients getting the severance windfall.

"The payouts that we've seen that we're talking about are somewhere in the $40,000 to $80,000 range. So, you know, these are not life-altering amounts of money, but they can certainly be life-enhancing amounts of money."

Ferguson says most of his public service clients are being conservative with their unexpected windfall.

"In many cases, people have credit card debt, or small loans, or mortgage balances that they simply want to pay down, so we're really seeing kind of a broad spectrum."

Workers' choice: Get paid now, or later

The government is offering public servants the option of immediately cashing out their severance, or waiting until they actually leave their jobs.

So far, most public servants are opting to take the money now, and Treasury Board officials say that will reap big additional savings for the government.

Since severance payments are based on an employee's final pay rate, workers who opt to cash out now will cost the government a lot less than they would years down the road after many pay raises and promotions.

Meanwhile, Canada's 92,000 members of the regular military and reserve forces are getting a special break from the severance buyout bonanza.

In the past, Canadian soldiers with less than 10 years service were not entitled to any severance pay, and even those in the Forces longer received compensation at a much lower rate than the general public service gets.

No matter: All members of the regular and reserve Forces will soon be eligible for compensation for accumulated severance based on the same formula as the rest of the government — one week's pay for every year of service.

The public service windfall should not be confused with an additional $900 million in special severance being given to 19,000 federal workers who are actually losing their jobs to government cost-cutting.

Those workers are getting both the special severance connected to government downsizing, and the regular severance now being bought out by the government.




Civil servants share $6B 'severance' without losing jobs - Politics - CBC News
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Saw this on P&P last night.

The Harper government is also giving them a .75 raise every year and can't substantiate if the move will end up saving money in the long run because they "don't know what their salaries are."

What a good conservative government we have.

Always looking out for the taxpayer by making moves without actually knowing what the fiscal outcome will be. :lol:
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
The way I read it, it looks like Harper will be paying these folks under the 'old rules' and then changing the 'rules in which the taxpayer is absolved from paying the inflated rates in the future.

It does make good sense in the medium and long runs
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
The way I read it, it looks like Harper will be paying these folks under the 'old rules' and then changing the 'rules in which the taxpayer is absolved from paying the inflated rates in the future.

Whatever rules you like to believe, the de facto truth is that Harper is paying their severance now to the tune of $6 Billion and then giving them a .75 annual raise on top of that. The government has stated that stopping future benefit will save taxpayers $500 million per year, but has not stated how much it will cost us to give public servants their annual raise that he has granted.

So, ultimately, we do not know if this move will actually save or cost money.

Transparency and accountability at it's best from the fiscal aficionados.
 
Last edited:

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
My understanding is that federal workers currently get severance pay when they retire. If this is fact then a payoff now will produce huge savings for ever. And since it is a contractual item they must be bought out. Should do the same to their defined benefit solid gold pension plan.

Saw this on P&P last night.

The Harper government is also giving them a .75 raise every year and can't substantiate if the move will end up saving money in the long run because they "don't know what their salaries are."

What a good conservative government we have.

Always looking out for the taxpayer by making moves without actually knowing what the fiscal outcome will be. :lol:

So then we are all agreed that Harper is not a conservative. Glad you agree.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Whatever rules you like to believe, the de facto truth is that Harper is paying their severance now to the tune of $6 Billion and then giving them a .75 annual raise on top of that. The government has stated that stopping future benefit will save taxpayers $500 million per year, but has not stated how much it will cost us to give public servants their annual raise that he has granted.

So, ultimately, we do not know if this move will actually save or cost money.

Transparency and accountability at it's best from the fiscal aficionados.


What is says is:

The payouts are part of the Harper government's move to scrap a long-standing public service perk that gives federal workers severance pay even when they quit or retire.

...... in exchange for getting rid of the severance provision, the Harper government is giving public servants a special 0.75 per cent increase in wages, a move that will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

And yes, we do know that it will save money.

The critique of all of that transparency you desire should be directed at the liberals for allowing this circumstance to have ever begin in the first place

My understanding is that federal workers currently get severance pay when they retire. If this is fact then a payoff now will produce huge savings for ever. And since it is a contractual item they must be bought out. Should do the same to their defined benefit solid gold pension plan.

I don't think that Flossy gets it.

You know, when you pay the minimum balance on your credit card, it's always less money than the total bill; and because it's less, it MUST mean that you're saving money
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Well we know that scrapping the benefit cuts $500 million/year.


We paid $6 Billion and gave the workers a .75 raise..


So, let's assume for now that there wasn't any raise..

$6B / $500 M/year = 12 years to pay off the severance cost.


But since there is a raise, then that would cut into the $500 M savings quite heavily and extending this to possibly 30 or 40 years before any of that money is finally paid back.

The fact that PSAC is so happy about this deal should tell you something.
 
Last edited:

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
Well we know that scrapping the benefit cuts $500 million/year.


We paid $6 Billion and gave the workers a .75 raise..


So, let's assume for now that there wasn't any raise..

$6B / $500 M/year = 12 years to pay off the severance cost.


But since there is a raise, then that would cut into the $500 M savings quite heavily and extending this to possibly 30 or 40 years before any of that money is finally paid back.

Don't be betting the farm that they will get a raise every year or for that matter any year. Consider that a negotiating position.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Well we know that scrapping the benefit cuts $500 million/year.


We paid $6 Billion and gave the workers a .75 raise..


So, let's assume for now that there wasn't any raise..

$6B / $500 M/year = 12 years to pay off the severance cost.


But since there is a raise, then that would cut into the $500 M savings quite heavily and extending this to possibly 30 or 40 years before any of that money is finally paid back.

That $6 billion will have to be paid regardless, in fact, it would be greater as the amount(s) would accrue as more time passed. The $500MM is offset by the 0.75% raise, and let's face facts, will anyone even notice an extra 0.75% on a paycheque?

This is not so much a big win for Harper as it is a huge loss of CUPE and the other applicable unions
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Don't be betting the farm that they will get a raise every year or for that matter any year. Consider that a negotiating position.

Giving everyone in the public service an increase only once is already a considerable amount of money.

That $6 billion will have to be paid regardless, in fact, it would be greater as the amount(s) would accrue as more time passed.

We know how long it will take to pay back the $6 Billion with no raise. It's at least 12 years.

The $500MM is offset by the 0.75% raise, and let's face facts, will anyone even notice an extra 0.75% on a paycheque?

If that offset means the projection is cut by $300M, then that means it will take at least 30 years to pay off this debt.

Believe me, I can see the rationale in this - but waiting 30 years is a pretty hefty price to pay to make savings.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
Giving everyone in the public service an increase only once is already a considerable amount of money.



We know how long it will take to pay back the $6 Billion with no raise. It's at least 12 years.



If that offset means the projection is cut by $300M, then that means it will take at least 30 years to pay off this debt.

You don't have enough data to make a claim like that. It depends on just how may workers retire in a given year and how many years service they had in. SOme years may be higher some may be lower.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
We know how long it will take to pay back the $6 Billion with no raise. It's at least 12 years.

The $6B still has to be paid Flossy, it doesn't go away just because you defer the payment.

If that offset means the projection is cut by $300M, then that means it will take at least 30 years to pay off this debt.

No, it means that the taxpayer pays $200MM less to the public servants each year
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
You don't have enough data to make a claim like that. It depends on just how may workers retire in a given year and how many years service they had in. SOme years may be higher some may be lower.

I'm going based on the CPC's own estimates.

If you're going to be this critical, then you should be equally skeptical of the claim that there will be $500 M in savings every year.

The $6B still has to be paid Flossy, it doesn't go away just because you defer the payment.

Yes, it will take at least 12 years to pay the $6B.

No, it means that the taxpayer pays $200MM less to the public servants each year

You didn't understand my post.

Instead of a savings of $500M/year stemming from this move, the savings could be something like $200M/year as a result of the salary increase - meaning a higher cost to the taxpayer until the debt is fully paid off.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
I'm going based on the CPC's own estimates.

If you're going to be this critical, then you should be equally skeptical of the claim that there will be $500 M in savings every year.



Yes, it will take at least 12 years to pay the $6B.



You didn't understand my post.

Instead of a savings of $500M/year stemming from this move, the savings will now only be $200M/year as a result of the salary increase - meaning a higher cost to the taxpayer until the debt is fully paid off.


An accountant, you are not
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
I have Flossy, but you refuse to acknowledge the big picture. Somehow you've twisted the logic and believe that this $6 billion cost would not have existed had Harper elected to pay it now.

There's really nothing more I can say if you elect to ignore the elephant in the room
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
I have Flossy, but you refuse to acknowledge the big picture. Somehow you've twisted the logic and believe that this $6 billion cost would not have existed had Harper elected to pay it now.

Of course that cost would still have existed, but it would not be incurred all at once.

Now where's my cookie.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Of course that cost would still have existed, but it would not be incurred all at once.


No question, but it still exists and as more time elapses, the cost increases. Dealing with it now AND changing the rules/policy that allowed it in the first place has a significant medium and long term cost savings benefit to the taxpayer

Now where's my cookie.

Here ya go you crazy ole cookie monster you