13&1/2% or 47%? Depends who you ask…

[Ron in Regina]

Wage increases are the main point of contention. PSAC is demanding a “minimum” 4.5 per cent annual increase for its workers at a time of sky high inflation and rising cost of living, whereas the government is generally offering a two per cent raise.

The union says talks have broken down with the Treasury Board for four more bargaining groups over the same issue: proposed wage increases that are outstripped by the rate of inflation.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/psac-strike-votes-program-administration-four-groups-1.6723389

But each side has tabled hundreds of proposals for the other side to consider, leading one mediation body to conclude in a recent report that 18 months later, negotiations are still at square one. It also called PSAC’s total request for a 47 per cent increase in compensation over three years for its operational group as “far beyond” reasonable.”http://apple.news/AvGApqs8sSv6Xs_pie-AkXQ

OTTAWA — A key organizer for the largest federal public service union is calling on its 120,000 members to vote for a “destructive” strike to “shut down” the government and force it back to the table and offer “proper” compensation like 4.5 per cent annual pay increases.

Nearly 50 Department of Employment staffers fired after allegedly taking Covid relief benefits illegally — Toronto Sun

Forty-nine staff at the Department of Employment have been fired as Covid relief cheats taking benefits they weren’t entitled to, the Commons public accounts committee discovered. Politicians weren’t able to find out the number of pink slips that were handed out in other departments or the...

apple.news

(A separate PSAC-affiliated union representing 35,000 Canada Revenue Agency employees also announced a strike vote.)

Largest federal public union calls on members to vote for strike that will 'shut down' government — National Post

An PSAC executive says the union is working toward a 'PSAC general strike' that would be the largest national strike by a single union ever in Canada

apple.news

On Monday, the Treasury Board accused PSAC of “prematurely” declaring negotiations at an impasse last spring, noting “that should have been the start of bargaining, not the end.”

It also argued that unions’ total compensation increase demand of 47 per cent over three years would cost the government $9.3 billion

“PSAC argues they are asking for 4.5% annually, but this fails to account for the cost of the hundreds of demands they have put forward beyond base wages,” the department said.

The most rebellious are in the National Capital Region, where nearly half of the public service works. Senior bureaucrats privately predict a “very rocky ride,” chaos and a “total nightmare” sorting out the logistics of hybrid work that many workers don’t want.

Strike votes planned for more than 120,000 federal workers

Canada's largest public sector union is launching strike votes for more than 120,000 public service workers after the union says talks with the federal government broke down over wages.

ottawa.ctvnews.ca

Uh-Oh…better not protest in or near the National Capital Region…or obstruct traffic…or make noise…’cuz that precedent on reaction was already set last year in February. Trudeau could flex his Emergencies Act if a parking bylaw situation develops!! Are these Federal Gov’t Unionized Racist Misogynists a Fringe Group? Only time will tell…

The federal government is bargaining with nearly all the unions representing more than 300,000 public servants. Like all Canadian workers, they want wage increases to cover galloping prices. But what also fuels their fire is frustration over being ordered to return to the office two to three days a week after working remotely for nearly three years.

The biggest public service union prepares for the first national strike in decades

Canada’s biggest public service union prepares for a strike while the federal government braces for a rocky ride.

policyoptions.irpp.org

In response, PSAC national president Chris Aylward accused the Treasury Board of presenting an “inflated” projection to “distract” from the fact its offer didn’t keep up with inflation, he said in a statement to the National Post.

'Far beyond' reasonable: Federal union wants 47% compensation increase over three years — National Post

The commission, which acts as a mediator, noted that after 'many days' of bargaining, it was evident there have not been any 'true negotiations' between the parties

apple.news

The union is seeking a wage increase of 13.5 per cent over three years, which is in line with inflation. But that’s on top of a laundry list of other demands, which Treasury Board estimates says could add up to as much as $3.1 billion a year. That’s $9.3 billion over a three-year contract.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Huh….being required to go to the office 2-3 days a week (not five). The inhumanity. Personally, I missed zero days to illness since the beginning of Covid, & all of those days have been in the office, except for the work I do from home on the weekends, but I helped to keep the business alive and did not see a pay increase during that either, and knowing where the economy is going, I don’t expect to see one for another year at least also because….reality.

 

[Taxslave2]

Simple solution. Se, the taxpayers have no more money to give to government employees. If they want a raise it has to come from staff cuts. If they want 50% over three years, then 50% of staff has to be laid off.

 

[harrylee]

My AOC went up $2 this Jan..........Don't spend it all in one place.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Huh….being required to go to the office 2-3 days a week (not five). The inhumanity. Personally, I missed zero days to illness since the beginning of Covid, & all of those days have been in the office, except for the work I do from home on the weekends, but I helped to keep the business alive and did not see a pay increase during that either, and knowing where the economy is going, I don’t expect to see one for another year at least also because….reality.

My job was one which transitioned well (after they built up the infrastructure properly) to working from home. They returned to a hyrbrid model last summer (2 days per week). We are moving down to 1 day per week next month. It's a win win since having 4 days at home frees up office space which they can release and it is nice to work from home the majority of the time. Going in once or twice a week keeps up the personal connections with co-workers. I don't know why this would be a bone of contention -- assuming they are actually doing their work from home.

 

[The_Foxer]

Huh….being required to go to the office 2-3 days a week (not five). The inhumanity. Personally, I missed zero days to illness since the beginning of Covid, & all of those days have been in the office, except for the work I do from home on the weekends, but I helped to keep the business alive and did not see a pay increase during that either, and knowing where the economy is going, I don’t expect to see one for another year at least also because….reality.

Being able to work from home (where appropriate) is a major thing. It would cost me hundreds in gas each month to go to the office and back every day, not to mention a great deal of my personal time that i'm not paid for. There's a lower quality of life and less flexibility of time.

I mean, you might as well say "boy i remember the days when we had no healthcare benefits, we should go back to that", or "Lunch breaks? No need, why are they crying for those"?

So the "reality" of it is that it's a FREE way for employers to give a significant practical wage increase and quality of life benefit to employees at a time when cash increases are difficult. Why would you think that's a bad idea?

Not to mention it means fewer cars on the commute for those who do have to go in because they can't work remote, less gas used which helps keep prices from skyrocketing even more, less pollution and it allows for more people to live away from the city cores where costs are insane and raise their families in something other than a 12*12 square box of an apartment.

Still not seeing why you're thinking this is such a horrible idea.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Still not seeing why you're thinking this is such a horrible idea.

Did I say it’s a horrible idea (?) or is that your assumption? After three years of many government employees working from home, and the system being obviously broken (think passport offices), and then, after this three years, asking them to come into the office two or three days a week, and that’s a breaking point? That’s a line in the sand? Come into the office & put in an eight hour day 2-3 times a week instead of just a few hours a day from home and calling it an eight hour day?

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

instead of just a few hours a day from home and calling it an eight hour day?

I think this is the crux of the issue. Working from home requires the employee to be trustworthy. I would not call any government employee trustworthy. They don't get 8 hours of work from them in the office even when they attend for 8 hours.

 

[petros]

Robots.

 

[The_Foxer]

Did I say it’s a horrible idea (?) or is that your assumption? A

Yeah pretty much. You mocked people for thinking it was something they should be asking for. Sooooo are you claiming at this point you think it's a great idea that people should be mocked for asking for? How does that work? Lets see what you say in the rest of your post.

After three years of many government employees working from home, and the system being obviously broken (think passport offices),

So you ARE saying it's a horrible idea and this is why the passport offices didn't work. Gotcha. It's not the massive understaffing, it's not the failure of the liberal gov't to impliment online systems as the passport management was begging them to going back to mid 2020 to prevent exactly what happened, it's not the failure to co-ordinate opening up travel AND ramping up the passport offices again..... nope, it's those darn people working from home. That's why.

Not sure what your thinking is for why the airports are such a mess, they don't work from home.

working from home for the majority of people is MORE efficient. So if you are concerned about such things and want to see improvements why would you be calling for a LESS efficient model to be implemented.

Come into the office & put in an eight hour day 2-3 times a week instead of just a few hours a day from home and calling it an eight hour day?

Why. It's less efficient, more expensive for both the employer and the employee, and it also reduces the workforce. There's a lot of mobility challenged people and moms with younger kids and such who find it much easier to enter the workforce if they can work remotely and they still produce good results. At a time when we're short workers everywhere that kind of makes sense,

And frankly if they were going to do hybrid, then doing a week in and a week at home makes 100 times more sense. Half a week in and half not is the least efficient method. You don't get a rhythm down, you don't have the same routine.

there will be some who WANT to work in the office and that should be allowed of course, but it sounds like you feel they should be punished for not wanting to come into the office or something,

The simple fact is that the system being 'broken' has shit all to do with employees working from home. Unless you've got some sort of evidence to back up your claim there. And part of fixing the system would be coming up with ways to 'pay' staff without having to spend money, and making it easier for more staff to be hired.

The only 'mistake' the gov't is making here is not attaching a dollar value to it. The cost savings and benefits should be looked at as a significant permanent raise and calculated into whatever percent raise they want to keep costs down.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

42.

 

[petros]

42.

Thanks for the brevity.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Thanks for the brevity.

Brevity is the soul of twit.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Yeah pretty much. You mocked people for thinking it was something they should be asking for. Sooooo are you claiming at this point you think it's a great idea that people should be mocked for asking for? How does that work? Lets see what you say in the rest of your post.


So you ARE saying it's a horrible idea and this is why the passport offices didn't work. Gotcha. It's not the massive understaffing, it's not the failure of the liberal gov't to impliment online systems as the passport management was begging them to going back to mid 2020 to prevent exactly what happened, it's not the failure to co-ordinate opening up travel AND ramping up the passport offices again..... nope, it's those darn people working from home. That's why.

Not sure what your thinking is for why the airports are such a mess, they don't work from home.

working from home for the majority of people is MORE efficient. So if you are concerned about such things and want to see improvements why would you be calling for a LESS efficient model to be implemented.


Why. It's less efficient, more expensive for both the employer and the employee, and it also reduces the workforce. There's a lot of mobility challenged people and moms with younger kids and such who find it much easier to enter the workforce if they can work remotely and they still produce good results. At a time when we're short workers everywhere that kind of makes sense,

And frankly if they were going to do hybrid, then doing a week in and a week at home makes 100 times more sense. Half a week in and half not is the least efficient method. You don't get a rhythm down, you don't have the same routine.

there will be some who WANT to work in the office and that should be allowed of course, but it sounds like you feel they should be punished for not wanting to come into the office or something,

The simple fact is that the system being 'broken' has shit all to do with employees working from home. Unless you've got some sort of evidence to back up your claim there. And part of fixing the system would be coming up with ways to 'pay' staff without having to spend money, and making it easier for more staff to be hired.

The only 'mistake' the gov't is making here is not attaching a dollar value to it. The cost savings and benefits should be looked at as a significant permanent raise and calculated into whatever percent raise they want to keep costs down.

If it’s any consolation, I was trying to be unbiassed. Guess it didn’t work but I tried..

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Yeah pretty much. You mocked people for thinking it was something they should be asking for. Sooooo are you claiming at this point you think it's a great idea that people should be mocked for asking for? How does that work? Lets see what you say in the rest of your post.


So you ARE saying it's a horrible idea and this is why the passport offices didn't work. Gotcha. It's not the massive understaffing, it's not the failure of the liberal gov't to impliment online systems as the passport management was begging them to going back to mid 2020 to prevent exactly what happened, it's not the failure to co-ordinate opening up travel AND ramping up the passport offices again..... nope, it's those darn people working from home. That's why.

Not sure what your thinking is for why the airports are such a mess, they don't work from home.

working from home for the majority of people is MORE efficient. So if you are concerned about such things and want to see improvements why would you be calling for a LESS efficient model to be implemented.


Why. It's less efficient, more expensive for both the employer and the employee, and it also reduces the workforce. There's a lot of mobility challenged people and moms with younger kids and such who find it much easier to enter the workforce if they can work remotely and they still produce good results. At a time when we're short workers everywhere that kind of makes sense,

And frankly if they were going to do hybrid, then doing a week in and a week at home makes 100 times more sense. Half a week in and half not is the least efficient method. You don't get a rhythm down, you don't have the same routine.

there will be some who WANT to work in the office and that should be allowed of course, but it sounds like you feel they should be punished for not wanting to come into the office or something,

The simple fact is that the system being 'broken' has shit all to do with employees working from home. Unless you've got some sort of evidence to back up your claim there. And part of fixing the system would be coming up with ways to 'pay' staff without having to spend money, and making it easier for more staff to be hired.

The only 'mistake' the gov't is making here is not attaching a dollar value to it. The cost savings and benefits should be looked at as a significant permanent raise and calculated into whatever percent raise they want to keep costs down.

Whoa. . .

 

[Dixie Cup]

Huh….being required to go to the office 2-3 days a week (not five). The inhumanity. Personally, I missed zero days to illness since the beginning of Covid, & all of those days have been in the office, except for the work I do from home on the weekends, but I helped to keep the business alive and did not see a pay increase during that either, and knowing where the economy is going, I don’t expect to see one for another year at least also because….reality.

Apparently, they figure that everyone else will get a "raise" that covers inflation - that's a laugh!! I doubt very many people in the private sector are getting any kind of raise at all if they even still have a job. It's going to be an interesting year, that's for sure!

 

[The_Foxer]

Apparently, they figure that everyone else will get a "raise" that covers inflation - that's a laugh!! I doubt very many people in the private sector are getting any kind of raise at all if they even still have a job. It's going to be an interesting year, that's for sure!

Not only do they not think that everyone else will, they're seriously hoping that they don't. They will then point to their success at getting their people raises as a reason why every single worker in Canada should be unionized.

They will also be stunned when the gov't cuts their jobs in the future to save costs.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Apparently, they figure that everyone else will get a "raise" that covers inflation - that's a laugh!! I doubt very many people in the private sector are getting any kind of raise at all if they even still have a job. It's going to be an interesting year, that's for sure!

Hit and miss with regards to that. My company gave good cost of living increases this year. Others give nothing.

 

[Dixie Cup]

My job was one which transitioned well (after they built up the infrastructure properly) to working from home. They returned to a hyrbrid model last summer (2 days per week). We are moving down to 1 day per week next month. It's a win win since having 4 days at home frees up office space which they can release and it is nice to work from home the majority of the time. Going in once or twice a week keeps up the personal connections with co-workers. I don't know why this would be a bone of contention -- assuming they are actually doing their work from home.

I have dealt with CRA for the past 18 years or so through my work. In the last 2+ years, I have been unable to get the information I require for my job if I speak to anyone working from home because they cannot access the information I need. How is that being "efficient" after waiting on the phone for 45+ minutes to speak to someone? Oh, just wasted 45 mins. of my time & have to call back to speak to someone who is actually in the office & can give me what I need.

It's fine if you don't meet people at the office or one can easily call for information and receive it in a timely fashion but in my case, my employer doesn't allow files to leave the office (which is perfectly understandable since there is confidential information involved) so I couldn't work from home. It was a pain in the butt to have to call to either verify information or to get additional information & extremely time consuming.

Bottom line is that some people can work from home if it doesn't affect consumers/customers & are lucky. However, If it does affect consumers/customers then ..... bloody work from the office. Just my take.

Not an issue now as I've recently retired, Whew!!

 

[Dixie Cup]

Hit and miss with regards to that. My company gave good cost of living increases this year. Others give nothing.

I suspect it depends on how Covid affected the business revenues. If the shop was closed for any extended period, don't plan on getting a raise anytime soon.