Same here- You could see this coming, along with pensions and benefits- pensions for the civil service are high when compared to the private sector- and yes I get a fed pension.
Canada's Left Okay with Corruption
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
The link is in Tony Clement's announcement. It's one of his stated reasons for this intiative.
Not necessarily "at work" injuries. Could be major surgery, cancer, etc. I don't really know what "short-term disability" is or how it works. I would imagine it's part of a benefits package for the job. And true, it may not be the employer's problem, but, at least in my line of work, if you are after quality employees, you're not going to do well with "you get five days a year, and no benefits" unless you are really paying top dollar.
It eventually comes down to what is affordable to the system. I certainly don't begrudge anyone that is receiving a public sector pension regardless of whether it is (or is not) in line with present expectations/standards... The strong pensions you see today are simply a byproduct of a smart negotiator and those arrangements must be honored whether we like it or not.
That said, what you are seeing the gvt do now is to change the system/standards for all new employees to the public sector and that is in no way off limits in my books
I don't recall Clement stating that most private sector employers have short term disability for their employees
To my knowledge, insurance policies for disability can be organized by an employer to cover-off on almost anything you like; obviously the premiums would reflect the scope of the coverage. My experience has been that the employers generally look for coverage that recognizes the relative risks of the employment and go a little farther 'just in case', but rarely have I seen a corporate policy that covers-off on a depth of non-work related issues or risks associated with disease, cancer, etc.
That said, any employee can also get an individual policy to recognize any areas that he/she would like (again, the cost is relative to the scope of coverage)... I'm guessing that the cost would be considerable
I worked for 50 years and took care of myself. Never had any paid sick days when i worked. Why should any business pay for your illness unless they want to? Gets really tiresome hearing all these people whining to be taken care of, especially when you see how they manage their money.
The Fed can offer a number of sick, both long and short term benefits, paid for by the employee.
One thing many in the private sector do for employees that are on long term is at age 55, force them on to CPP Disability -
The company - insurance benefits are non taxable as they are paid at a 60 to 70 % rate usually. CPP is taxable and the companies offload their debt onto the public purse.
This should be outlawed.
You're not wrong here. Particularly on the issue that the public pays for it in one form or another
At issue is also the 'obligation' for any employer to provide this for events/issues outside of the scope of employment. In my view, if someone were to be injured at work or contract some kind of disease as a direct result then no question that the employer is on the hook. But for things that are a result of living life, the individual should have something set aside to recognize that potential
They are covered according to the Insurance they sign up for- till age 65 is what many policies state- Some companies - insurance provider force long term clients onto CPP disability at age 55. Yes it happens.
Was not aware of that one. Thanks
I was not aware of the CPP one until a family member was forced onto CPP.
Clarity in these policies should be mandated by the and I am not unsure of this one, the Canada's Superintendent of Insurance
Same with another that is much worse- Travel insurance.
The Feds should cooperate with the Provinces as the numbers will warrant the best price. And yes I would see the Feds offer paying a small percentage, just as many companies do.
Myself I will draw CPP at 60 with the penalties as I will at age 65 have nearly a 100 % claw back on my CPP when drawing OAS due to the differing payments Military members paid.
Benefits and sick time can be negotiated when contracts come up for renewal. The only reason for the Conservatives to haul it out now is for political reasons.
Probably so. We don't have short term disability (I work for a municipal government). I bank sick days to a max of 100. If I get ill or hurt myself, any days I take off are considered sick days until the 100 days run out, then I go on long term disability. It does skew the numbers but that is entirely irrelevant. This is nothing more than the Conservatives trying to shift the focus.
Apparently you are blind as well.
You as usual do not have a smick of what is going on. How is that dictionary coming.
Yes FP - that means you and your childish games.
And I stand by what I posted- It is an informed opinion and not one that as you do pulled out of your ****.
Sure it does. Unions have contracts that expire and need to be renegotiated. Blathering on about the contracts at this point is just politics.
It was posted on the Treasury Board website:
Minister Clement to Modernize Disability Management in the Public Service
The Government is looking forward to working with stakeholders and bargaining agents to introduce, for the first time, a short-term disability program to support employees through illness. Approximately 87% of Canadian employers provide short-term disability insurance, making the federal government one of the few large employers that does not offer coverage for short-term illness.
It's in their contract as to what is legitimate. Most that I have heard of allow banking upto a certain number. What Canuck has posted is truth.
Just for fun, try doing research on shyte you know nothing about rather than listening to the idiots on this board.