You were overpaid, the government wants it back

[whitedog]

I watched in dismay, the little debate between the PSAC union and Treasury Board Pres, T. Clement. Specifically, the 900 million in savings from getting rid of the banked sick leave of public servants. Clement claim that the banked sick leave was a contingent liability, hence the 900m.

Now before the political lines are drawn, the union for and against types are lit up, lets look at what the government is proposing to do. And it matters.

Regardless of whether their compensation packages were overly generous, undeserved etc., in the collective agreements of public servants was, in return for their work, they would be compensated cash and certain benefits. One of those, was sick leave, of 15 days per year, which if unused could be carried forward, to be used when needed. Again, whether or not it should have been part of their compensation package, it was.

If the government says it can take it away, something that has been earned, then whats to stop it from simply reaching into someone's bank account and taking, for instance, a child tax credit, claiming it paid too much, or simply, it needs the cash?

I know there are a lot of you out there that believe your political party can do no wrong, and its easy if the "wrong" they do is to someone you don't like, but what is at stake is stability and consistency in how things are done. If a government can undo something to someone who happens to be the "disflavour" of the month, then how long is it before we all inadvertently fall out of favour.

Crappy deal or not, deal's a deal, it has to stay that way.

 

[Goober]

I watched in dismay, the little debate between the PSAC union and Treasury Board Pres, T. Clement. Specifically, the 900 million in savings from getting rid of the banked sick leave of public servants. Clement claim that the banked sick leave was a contingent liability, hence the 900m.

Now before the political lines are drawn, the union for and against types are lit up, lets look at what the government is proposing to do. And it matters.

Regardless of whether their compensation packages were overly generous, undeserved etc., in the collective agreements of public servants was, in return for their work, they would be compensated cash and certain benefits. One of those, was sick leave, of 15 days per year, which if unused could be carried forward, to be used when needed. Again, whether or not it should have been part of their compensation package, it was.

If the government says it can take it away, something that has been earned, then whats to stop it from simply reaching into someone's bank account and taking, for instance, a child tax credit, claiming it paid too much, or simply, it needs the cash?

I know there are a lot of you out there that believe your political party can do no wrong, and its easy if the "wrong" they do is to someone you don't like, but what is at stake is stability and consistency in how things are done. If a government can undo something to someone who happens to be the "disflavour" of the month, then how long is it before we all inadvertently fall out of favour.

Crappy deal or not, deal's a deal, it has to stay that way.

Ask about the 30 Billion plus surplus in the Public Service pension and Military-RCMP fund that was taken by Chretien-Martin to balance the budget.

 

[whitedog]

Ask about the 30 Billion plus surplus in the Public Service pension and Military-RCMP fund that was taken by Chretien-Martin to balance the budget.

Oh, so that makes the latest move ok? And there is a difference between the two cases, in the pension case, the government argument was simply that they are responsible for the pension liability, and any shortfalls that may exist in the account, therefore, they are equally entitled to any surplus.
The pension account was not the property of pensioners or public servants, only their annuities were their property.

Had the liberals attempted to reduce the pension payments to the pensioners, well, that would have been no different than what the present government is trying to do.

Regardless, this isn't about conservatives or liberals, so saying the libs did it too is not the point, the point being if someone earns something, it should be unacceptable for the government, any government, to go back and take it back.

 

[taxslave]

I watched in dismay, the little debate between the PSAC union and Treasury Board Pres, T. Clement. Specifically, the 900 million in savings from getting rid of the banked sick leave of public servants. Clement claim that the banked sick leave was a contingent liability, hence the 900m.

Now before the political lines are drawn, the union for and against types are lit up, lets look at what the government is proposing to do. And it matters.

Regardless of whether their compensation packages were overly generous, undeserved etc., in the collective agreements of public servants was, in return for their work, they would be compensated cash and certain benefits. One of those, was sick leave, of 15 days per year, which if unused could be carried forward, to be used when needed. Again, whether or not it should have been part of their compensation package, it was.

If the government says it can take it away, something that has been earned, then whats to stop it from simply reaching into someone's bank account and taking, for instance, a child tax credit, claiming it paid too much, or simply, it needs the cash?

I know there are a lot of you out there that believe your political party can do no wrong, and its easy if the "wrong" they do is to someone you don't like, but what is at stake is stability and consistency in how things are done. If a government can undo something to someone who happens to be the "disflavour" of the month, then how long is it before we all inadvertently fall out of favour.

Crappy deal or not, deal's a deal, it has to stay that way.

It is a deal, not a right. Therefore the employer(government) can renegotiate the terms at contract time. Or if it is not specifically spelled out in the contract it can be revoked at any time. Nothing wrong with that. Alternatively the government could declare banked sick days as a taxable benefit or asset and tax it.
Child tax credit is one of numerous vote buying schemes and can be ended at any time. Although there might be political repercussions.

 

[whitedog]

It is a deal, not a right. Therefore the employer(government) can renegotiate the terms at contract time. Or if it is not specifically spelled out in the contract it can be revoked at any time. Nothing wrong with that. Alternatively the government could declare banked sick days as a taxable benefit or asset and tax it.
Child tax credit is one of numerous vote buying schemes and can be ended at any time. Although there might be political repercussions.

Yes, going forward, the government can negotiate any deal it wants. I'm talking about what was negotiated and executed. Where you work, would you be so understanding it your employer said to you, "oh a few years ago, that salary we agreed to pay, and paid you, for your work, we've changed our mind, we decided to lower it by a few thou, so we've contacted your bank and had a refund paid to us."

What is in these people's bank accounts, or sick leave accounts, is theirs, they negotiated with the government for it, a deal was struck, and compensation paid.

If the government can do this to these people, it can do it to any one.

Oh and, although not the point, the sick leave is taxed. It forms part of thire income if they use it.

 

[DaSleeper]

Sounds like something P.E.T. did in '75 with wage and price control...................

 

[captain morgan]

If the government says it can take it away, something that has been earned

Nothing was 'earned'

Yes, going forward, the government can negotiate any deal it wants. I'm talking about what was negotiated and executed. Where you work, would you be so understanding it your employer said to you, "oh a few years ago, that salary we agreed to pay, and paid you, for your work, we've changed our mind, we decided to lower it by a few thou, so we've contacted your bank and had a refund paid to us."

What is in these people's bank accounts, or sick leave accounts, is theirs, they negotiated with the government for it, a deal was struck, and compensation paid.

If the government can do this to these people, it can do it to any one.

Oh and, although not the point, the sick leave is taxed. It forms part of thire income if they use it.

You need to see the contract and how it is organized.

I find it unlikely that the gvt could do this unless they felt they had a legal right to do so.

Devil's always in the fine print