• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Civilians complaining about Police/Emergency Services' Pay

Furniture

Sr. Member
Reaction score
140
Points
480
And its not a race to the top off the backs of those paying your wages either. I am for a fair wage, benefits, and pension. What that means is they should be tied more to averages than anything else as you can't get more fair than that. If you disagree with that being fair, please explain to me why? The only reason I could see is if you believe you could get a better deal otherwise.

Considering the fact that the Private sector has to compete globally, not just locally (and even then only from their workforces, you can't have a competing workforce for the same jobs) like the Public sector, it isn't a option to demand significantly more, they just close you down and ship the job off elsewhere.

To put in perspective how unfair the way we currently do things are, generally government employees receive about 2% wage increases every year. Private sector is a fraction of that. What this means is based on the same amount of money coming in from the private sectors taxes we either have to reduce services (which we are seeing in most the public service, part of the reason why our health care system is in shambles is due to this), or increase taxes to make up for the increase in cost as the private sector income didn't increase proportionately to the amount of money now required.

Now that private sector person who isn't keeping up inflation to begin with, has been hit with a double whammy of having higher taxes to pay with a diminishing return off their take home. This creep has been going on for decades, and it doesn't seem like much at first but now it has resulted in most similar private sector and public sector jobs not even being comparable in terms of wage, benefit, working conditions, and pension.
Which public sector jobs pay more than private sector? Which public jobs pay less than private sector?

You keep speaking in generalities as if everyone in the public sector is massively overpaid for what they do, but when my brother released from the CAF as an electrician he immediately made 50% more that his previous Sgt pay.

This seems to be comng from place of personal frustration based on your pay and benefits as compared to the public service. Why not join the mob, or join the public service? Why not upgrade your skills rather than demand others make less?
 

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
124
Points
480

It took an arbitrator to get us 7.5% over 4 years retro to 2018........by far the best raise I've gotten in over 20 years. Maybe somebody somewhere is averaging your 2% but I sure don't know them.
Military alone just got a 6.2% increase for 3 years, many other governmental organizations that is more or less the standard.
Do you have references to prove the inequity of the pay difference? I’d be keen to see it. I’m in the private sector and receive progressive compensation that considers inflation...and it is more regular and immediate than the fits and starts of military remuneration. Your assertion that equitable should mean equal doesn’t fly. What are the metrics to which equality is measured? And then there’s the issue of ‘higher taxes’ for someone in the private sector than someone you argue is paid unfairly more as a public servant. What tax tables are using? Last I checked, the higher the net income, the more the tax paid. How is it the opposite as you state?
Well the metrics are the fact that historically the Public sector tended to pay less, but offered more security, better benefits, and a better pension. Fast forward to 2021 with decades of wage growth in the Public sector and wage stagnation/job exportation in the private sector the tables have turned and pretty much every public job is significantly better in terms of pay, benefits, security and pension.

We are losing services due to paying well above what we should for people. I truly believe we need to hire a group to go through, examine the government as a whole organization and much like the military try to cut the tail and bring more teeth. I can guarantee you the results would be we are paying way too much, employ too many people for many jobs, and there would be wildfire slashes made to whole departments.

I never said private sector pays higher taxes than the public sector, I said when you aren't keeping up with inflation to begin with, and to keep paying the public sector we have to increase taxes (which is constantly happening, carbon tax being the most recent) the person who isn't keeping up in the the first place is feeling the effects of a tax increase disproportionately.
(1) Everyone pays taxes. Essentially, a percentage of my pay goes back into gov coffers to pay my own salary.
Yes and basically it is like a self-licking ice cream cone.
We used to run into the occasional, "I pay your salary" type. I never talked back to a taxpayer. But, I used to wonder why they didn't redirect their anger towards the banks, financiers and Wall Street rather than blue collar guys out there breaking their backs for them.
Believe it or not I am actually supportive of most police officers and government servants. But support doesn't translate into blind loyalty. I believe in general we need to make some serious cuts to the public sector or greatly increase taxes because the way we are fiscally mismanaging our government for the last few decades is unacceptable and is quickly bringing us down the path to Greece. Look at Newfoundland where the biggest expense on their budget is simply servicing their provincial debt.

The longer it takes to rein it all in and manage it properly the worse it is going to be in the long run because the balanced cuts I am talking about won't even be considered if things get too much farther out of hand.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
198
Points
630
Military alone just got a 6.2% increase for 3 years, many other governmental organizations that is more or less the standard.

Well the metrics are the fact that historically the Public sector tended to pay less, but offered more security, better benefits, and a better pension. Fast forward to 2021 with decades of wage growth in the Public sector and wage stagnation/job exportation in the private sector the tables have turned and pretty much every public job is significantly better in terms of pay, benefits, security and pension.

We are losing services due to paying well above what we should for people. I truly believe we need to hire a group to go through, examine the government as a whole organization and much like the military try to cut the tail and bring more teeth. I can guarantee you the results would be we are paying way too much, employ too many people for many jobs, and there would be wildfire slashes made to whole departments.

I never said private sector pays higher taxes than the public sector, I said when you aren't keeping up with inflation to begin with, and to keep paying the public sector we have to increase taxes (which is constantly happening, carbon tax being the most recent) the person who isn't keeping up in the the first place is feeling the effects of a tax increase disproportionately.

Yes and basically it is like a self-licking ice cream cone.

Believe it or not I am actually supportive of most police officers and government servants. But support doesn't translate into blind loyalty. I believe in general we need to make some serious cuts to the public sector or greatly increase taxes because the way we are fiscally mismanaging our government for the last few decades is unacceptable and is quickly bringing us down the path to Greece. Look at Newfoundland where the biggest expense on their budget is simply servicing their provincial debt.

The longer it takes to rein it all in and manage it properly the worse it is going to be in the long run because the balanced cuts I am talking about won't even be considered if things get too much farther out of hand.
If you were to simply get the teachers' salaries under control you would probably accomplish all of this. Their increases have been far above that of the average public servant; certainly correctional types and first responders. I know that the nurses have not received anything close to cost of living recently nor have the other members of the union correctional services belong to.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,309
Points
1,060
The longer it takes to rein it all in and manage it properly the worse it is going to be in the long run because the balanced cuts I am talking about won't even be considered if things get too much farther out of hand.

I'm pretty sure that COVID will provide the impetus to tug pretty hard on those reins:

Government’s workforce transformation playbook​

Canadian workforce of the future survey—Government employee insights


Governments are looking to transform to meet the workforce challenges of a rapidly changing world—whether they’re ready or not.

 

lenaitch

Sr. Member
Reaction score
409
Points
810
The longer it takes to rein it all in and manage it properly the worse it is going to be in the long run because the balanced cuts I am talking about won't even be considered if things get too much farther out of hand.
But how do we rein in the results of collective bargaining?
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
377
Points
1,130
Someone has to have the guts to say no.
If negotiations toward a new collective agreement fail, there may be a strike.

If the union is barred from going on strike, a third-party arbitrator will be appointed to come up with an agreement that is binding on both sides.

The threat of arbitration is often enough to force municipalities to settle with the union at the bargaining table.
 

lenaitch

Sr. Member
Reaction score
409
Points
810
Someone has to have the guts to say no.

Then you have to replace free collective bargaining with a system that is independent and fair to both sides. Otherwise, you have a system where public section pay is doled out on the good graces of the government of the day, pretty much what the RCMP has been dealing with until recently. If the parties are unsuccessful at the table, they can go to mediation or arbitration. 'Ability to pay' is much more difficult in the public section, particular in first responder services and there is a distinction between 'ability' and 'willingness' which most bureaucrats and politicians don't get.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
488
Points
880
I have no issue with teachers pay. The kids and parents they put up with, no thank you.

You couldn't pay me enough to do that job.

The real trouble here isn't what the public service is making. Its that our government has allowed, over generations, private companies to put profits over people. Oshawa, or Sarnia Ont are a great examples.
 

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
124
Points
480
But how do we rein in the results of collective bargaining?
Collective bargaining doesn't mean you have carte blanche. If the will power is there major cuts can be made even if they strike. The way many people save at the moment it wouldn't take too long for them to come back to the table. Even if there is no change made to pay, if someone wanted to there could be tons of redundancies made in most departments and likely thousands of jobs cut without any real loss to the effectiveness of the system.

This is why I like the idea of pay based off a multiplier of the average Canadian income (right now about 53k) which would be fixed. Just as random examples a clerk might be .9 times average income, a cop might be 1.6 times average income, etc. Even if the multiplier gets locked in at the current wages it prevents any extreme growth. The idea being that you wouldn't have to ever negotiate pay again unless there is a significant difference in how much a job is worth (say skilled trades wages go up significantly, or some other jobs value goes down significantly). If the economy stagnates so do the governments wages, if its booming, so is the governments wages, if its suffering, so does the governments wages. No need to go years without contracts, no need to constantly fight over money (which is the biggest part of the whole thing), simply a fair system which neither side controls.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
2,093
Points
990

It took an arbitrator to get us 7.5% over 4 years retro to 2018........by far the best raise I've gotten in over 20 years. Maybe somebody somewhere is averaging your 2% but I sure don't know them.

Collective bargaining doesn't mean you have carte blanche. If the will power is there major cuts can be made even if they strike. The way many people save at the moment it wouldn't take too long for them to come back to the table. Even if there is no change made to pay, if someone wanted to there could be tons of redundancies made in most departments and likely thousands of jobs cut without any real loss to the effectiveness of the system.

This is why I like the idea of pay based off a multiplier of the average Canadian income (right now about 53k) which would be fixed. Just as random examples a clerk might be .9 times average income, a cop might be 1.6 times average income, etc. Even if the multiplier gets locked in at the current wages it prevents any extreme growth. The idea being that you wouldn't have to ever negotiate pay again unless there is a significant difference in how much a job is worth (say skilled trades wages go up significantly, or some other jobs value goes down significantly). If the economy stagnates so do the governments wages, if its booming, so is the governments wages, if its suffering, so does the governments wages. No need to go years without contracts, no need to constantly fight over money (which is the biggest part of the whole thing), simply a fair system which neither side controls.

Yeah, you've been trying to pitch that system for a couple years now. It completely ignores that that would be a major breach of Charter rights underlying collective bargaining. You can't just set a rate of pay and say 'this is locked in now'. The right to collectively bargain, with or without the accompanying right to strike, is derived directly from the right to freedom of association. What you're suggesting wouldn't stand a chance of surviving judicial challenge. To further complicate, you're also glossing over the federal/provincial/municipal breakdown, and that the same jobs can exist in areas with very different economic conditions and costs of living.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
377
Points
1,130
Even if there is no change made to pay, if someone wanted to there could be tons of redundancies made in most departments and likely thousands of jobs cut without any real loss to the effectiveness of the system.
I could imagine some "stop the gravy train" type politician at City Hall pushing for a return to the two-platoon system. Like they had before there was a union.

Collective bargaining doesn't mean you have carte blanche. If the will power is there major cuts can be made even if they strike.

Some unions do not have, and do not seek, the right to strike. It goes to binding arbitration.

Layoffs are always a possibility. But, I've never heard of one involving emergency services in Metro.
 
Last edited:

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
198
Points
630
Carte blanche depends upon the union, their control of the media, political influence and the impact that withdrawal of services has on the tax payer. Teachers generally get more because of the size of their voting block and the impact that a work stoppage has. Their strike puts dozens of others out of work to stay home. Correctional people on the other hand have absolutely no pull politically nor do nurses really: they can't strike other than tokenism.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
377
Points
1,130
Carte blanche depends upon the union, their control of the media, political influence and the impact that withdrawal of services has on the tax payer.
When seconds count, I imagine pulling down the handle on a red fire alarm box and nobody shows up would also be pretty upsetting to most taxpayers.
 

lenaitch

Sr. Member
Reaction score
409
Points
810
Collective bargaining doesn't mean you have carte blanche. If the will power is there major cuts can be made even if they strike. The way many people save at the moment it wouldn't take too long for them to come back to the table. Even if there is no change made to pay, if someone wanted to there could be tons of redundancies made in most departments and likely thousands of jobs cut without any real loss to the effectiveness of the system.

This is why I like the idea of pay based off a multiplier of the average Canadian income (right now about 53k) which would be fixed. Just as random examples a clerk might be .9 times average income, a cop might be 1.6 times average income, etc. Even if the multiplier gets locked in at the current wages it prevents any extreme growth. The idea being that you wouldn't have to ever negotiate pay again unless there is a significant difference in how much a job is worth (say skilled trades wages go up significantly, or some other jobs value goes down significantly). If the economy stagnates so do the governments wages, if its booming, so is the governments wages, if its suffering, so does the governments wages. No need to go years without contracts, no need to constantly fight over money (which is the biggest part of the whole thing), simply a fair system which neither side controls.

Beyond being a non-starter in our legal framework, it would require a very 'command and control' economy; setting wages by legislative fiat.
except they can't not show up.
But the powers-that-be can establish the numbers available who can. Not directly related to pay packets, but that is another way to control payroll costs.
 

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
124
Points
480
Yeah, you've been trying to pitch that system for a couple years now. It completely ignores that that would be a major breach of Charter rights underlying collective bargaining. You can't just set a rate of pay and say 'this is locked in now'. The right to collectively bargain, with or without the accompanying right to strike, is derived directly from the right to freedom of association. What you're suggesting wouldn't stand a chance of surviving judicial challenge. To further complicate, you're also glossing over the federal/provincial/municipal breakdown, and that the same jobs can exist in areas with very different economic conditions and costs of living.
Explain to me how it violates any rights? If you go into a union negotiation and agree 'x' job shall be paid 1.5 times average income in perpetuity then it was agreed by collective agreement. I also never said that there wouldn't be differences between different locations either. Maybe Vancouver pays 'x' job 1.7 times average income instead of 1.5. Maybe there is a PLD type system where if your inside 'x' location you get a addition to your multiplier, just as specialties and such would receive a addition to the multiplier.

It is just a different way of looking at pay, which is a very fair way to do it.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
377
Points
1,130
Recalling what our Mayor Lastman went through, I'm not sure negotiating with unions is as simple as it may seem.

“I knew it was time to stop that. We tried to take it away from them because they had us by the balls. We fought like hell but couldn’t get rid of it. You don’t know what we had to go through." “Try and fire them, you can’t.”
 

lenaitch

Sr. Member
Reaction score
409
Points
810
Explain to me how it violates any rights? If you go into a union negotiation and agree 'x' job shall be paid 1.5 times average income in perpetuity then it was agreed by collective agreement. I also never said that there wouldn't be differences between different locations either. Maybe Vancouver pays 'x' job 1.7 times average income instead of 1.5. Maybe there is a PLD type system where if your inside 'x' location you get a addition to your multiplier, just as specialties and such would receive a addition to the multiplier.

It is just a different way of looking at pay, which is a very fair way to do it.
This conflicts with what you have said previously. Previous posts proposed a fixed pay rate per category based off of a statistical 'average income' whether or not anyone on the receiving end agreed to it. I suppose a bargaining unit could agree that its members are paid a factor of some average base (some do - like police CAs, but it is limited to ranks above Cst. being paid at cst.+x%), but there is no guarantee that the members would vote for it - that is their right under labour law. As well, no collective agreement exists in perpetuity.

This sounds like the position of Marxism which banned unions, simply because the system was so perfect they were unnecessary.
 
Top