Discussions

Here is a link about a muzzled report regarding the US military spending and inefficiencies and how it was swept it under the carpet.  
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.5eb39786d376  
 
In my opinion, this is very indicative if the culture in governments at all levels and in all jurisdictions, where job security and growing the size of government, and therefore government spending, is much more important than delivering government services in the most effective and cost efficient way possible.  
 
I’m not really concerned on placing blame at this point.  
 
What I am concerned about is that there needs to be a drastic change in the mind set and culture of government bureaucrats and officials that understands that our future financial stability must i:nclude drastically reduced government waste and inefficiencies.  
 
Do we need to cut programs and services? If there is a more efficient way, change the method of delivery. If there is duplication, eliminate it.  
 
Reward people for engaging in being part of the solution rather than being part of the problem.  
 
Are people who hold government jobs bad people? No they are not. I have some really good friends who work or have worked in all levels of government, as well as crown corporations. For a majority the only thing that matters is how soon they can retire.  
 
The sense of worth for these people would improve immensely if the culture changed, and they were encouraged to engage in behavior that enabled them to use their skills and abilities properly, rather than being stifled because of bureaucratic and union strategies that have nothing to do with anything other than covering their butts and ensuring their job security.  
 
I was told by a co-worker years ago “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem”  
 
Governments need to focus on rewarding strategies and programs that are part of the solution, and eliminate strategies and programs that are part of the problem.  
 
Something to ponder.

You need to try this out. Will give you a better outlook on life...

There have been people concerned about the growth and inefficiencies of governments for quiet a while. In a way government is a business, but lacks the one part of business that the private sector has to live with, and that is competition. Without competition overspending is a reality, and in the private sector it would cause a business to go broke, but with a tax system providing funds the growth and inefficiencies go unchecked.  
In the US, under the Obama administration 30 million jobs were created, but 12 million were in government, if that doesn't send a warning, nothing will.

tlr said "You need to try this out. Will give you a better outlook on life... "

Over the years I have volunteered for the Cancer Society, Ducks Unlimited, Booster Clubs,Canada Summer Games, coached kids soccer, kids hockey, organized adult golf leagues, softball teams, etc, etc.  
 
The one thing I know from volunteering is that the same people volunteer over and over again, while the rest sit on the sidelines and complain.  
 
I do not understand the connection between volunteering and a person's perspective on government wast and inefficiencies.  
 
Please enlighten me.

Your a glass half empty kind of guy.

Actually I considerate myself to be fortunate beyond belief.  
 
As a Canadian living in the middle class I live in the top 1% worldwide.  
 
In 2015 (remembering that the Canadian dollar was very close to par at that point) anyone who made the equivalent of $34000 US was in the top 1% worldwide.  
 
Our country is so wealthy on a relative basis that we should have no shortage of money to pay for our governments to deliver services.  
 
Overspending by governments justified by low interest rates in the hope that future growth will pay for it is foolhardy and is going to cripple the quality of life we enjoy for many generations to come.  
 
It concerns me.

The problem with the way government is structured really is how advancement and payment works. As far as the professional world works, the real professionals work in the private sector, which leaves the decision making in the hands of the “untrained” professionals. This all stems from the fact that governments can’t nor will they ever be able to afford to pay a lawyer, for example, a full lawyer’s wage.  
As much as I love unions, unions are the other problem. The government, due to it’s unionized culture, rewards those based on years of service, and not on ability and training. The same can be said for management. I see it first hand….yes, I work for the government. The friends in Management just help each other advance, hire underqualified people and mismanage departments through apathy and downright laziness.  
I’ve also worked in the private sector, where a wage was “earned”. In the world of unionized government employees, wage increases are mandatory. This kind of culture only leads to a lazy, apathetic and underqualified group of people making the rules and spending your money.

don brown said "There have been people concerned about the growth and inefficiencies of governments for quiet a while. In a way government is a business, but lacks the one part of business that the private sector has to live with, and that is competition. Without competition overspending is a reality, and in the private sector it would cause a business to go broke, but with a tax system providing funds the growth and inefficiencies go unchecked.   In the US, under the Obama administration 30 million jobs were created, but 12 million were in government, if that doesn't send a warning, nothing will. "

I agree in principle, but we need to be sure we get the numbers right. At the start of Obama's first term (coinciding with the start of the 2008-09 recession) the US private sector jobs dropped by -4m : subsequently the private sector bounced back with +14m job growth, for a net growth of +10m over his two terms.  
 
Same time frame, US public sector (government) jobs first dropped by -700k, then recovered by about +2m , for a net gain of +1.3m.  
 
So Obama's numbers would realistically net out to gains of +10m private sector, and +1.3m public sector , so more private sector growth than public sector.

The real top 1% wage earners quote should say:  
The top one per cent comprises anyone with an income over $34,000 USD after tax, meaning a family of four must earn $136,000 USD to make it in the category, according to CNN.  
 
Of interest is your wage against the average wage in Canada compared to the world  
http://money.cnn.com/interactive/news/economy/davos/global-wage-calculator/  
 
Edited by loeog, 2016-12-08 20:41:14

loeog said "The real top 1% wage earners quote should say:   The top one per cent comprises anyone with an income over $34,000 USD after tax, meaning a family of four must earn $136,000 USD to make it in the category, according to CNN.     Of interest is your wage against the average wage in Canada compared to the world   http://money.cnn.com/interactive/news/economy/davos/global-wage-calculator/     Edited by loeog, 2016-12-08 20:41:14"

Foa a family of 4, you are correct. The number is $136,000 USD.  
 
However for a single person the number is $34,000.  
 
More important than the number, is recognition that as a nation we are extremely wealthy and fortunate, but our governments continue to spend beyond their means.  
 
The legacy we are leaving for future generations is concerning and unfair.  
 
It needs to stop.

PrimeConvoy said "The problem with the way government is structured really is how advancement and payment works. As far as the professional world works, the real professionals work in the private sector, which leaves the decision making in the hands of the “untrained” professionals. This all stems from the fact that governments can’t nor will they ever be able to afford to pay a lawyer, for example, a full lawyer’s wage.   As much as I love unions, unions are the other problem. The government, due to it’s unionized culture, rewards those based on years of service, and not on ability and training. The same can be said for management. I see it first hand….yes, I work for the government. The friends in Management just help each other advance, hire underqualified people and mismanage departments through apathy and downright laziness.   I’ve also worked in the private sector, where a wage was “earned”. In the world of unionized government employees, wage increases are mandatory. This kind of culture only leads to a lazy, apathetic and underqualified group of people making the rules and spending your money. "

Evidence shows that poverty rates are lower in countries that have a unionized workforce.  
 
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2014/02/evidence-shows-unions-and-collective-bargaining-reduce-poverty  
 
Who looks out for the average worker if not the union? The company? Tough to do when profit is the diving force.  
 
There will always be those who under perform or move up the ladder simply because of seniority but if it is a real problem then management has options for dealing with it.  
 
The increasing wages of unionized workers is a cost of running a successful enterprise. Why should just the executive and stock holders be the beneficiaries?  
 
The real problem is the lack of oversight by any level of government and special interest lobbying that undermines the will of the populace.  
 
$5000 for 56 bathroom hooks? Come on!  
 
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trudeau-government-spent-416k-renovate-100000803.html  
 
I'm not sure how we stop this but it should start with a letter to your local MLA stating that you find this unacceptable.  
 
http://www.larrymaguire.ca/contact  
 
If you want it to change, stand up and be heard.  
 
Marpet

Just look at what the military has tossed away in the last 20 years in cancelling contracts. the millions in rescue helicopters and fighter planes alone, not to mention our sub purchase from the British. Then look into the amount paid out in over time for RCMP a lot of the overtime paid out was for court days. Government studies rank high in over charging for the same study that is done time and time again after an election. One so called study sent 2 people out to a native community 2 hours from saskatoon for a week. This couple stayed in Saskatoon since the local hotel didn't offer the luxuries that they wanted and after charging out their time and expenses told the reserve to start trapping and hunting to help with their money budget. then sent the reserve a bill for about 60,000 dollars.  
 
Look at being involved with the Canadian Tax Payers Association, they are watch dogs with a voice that stand up for the tax payers.

Marpet said "    PrimeConvoy said "The problem with the way government is structured really is how advancement and payment works. As far as the professional world works, the real professionals work in the private sector, which leaves the decision making in the hands of the “untrained” professionals. This all stems from the fact that governments can’t nor will they ever be able to afford to pay a lawyer, for example, a full lawyer’s wage.   As much as I love unions, unions are the other problem. The government, due to it’s unionized culture, rewards those based on years of service, and not on ability and training. The same can be said for management. I see it first hand….yes, I work for the government. The friends in Management just help each other advance, hire underqualified people and mismanage departments through apathy and downright laziness.   I’ve also worked in the private sector, where a wage was “earned”. In the world of unionized government employees, wage increases are mandatory. This kind of culture only leads to a lazy, apathetic and underqualified group of people making the rules and spending your money. " Evidence shows that poverty rates are lower in countries that have a unionized workforce.     http://rabble.ca/columnists/2014/02/evidence-shows-unions-and-collective-bargaining-reduce-poverty     Who looks out for the average worker if not the union? The company? Tough to do when profit is the diving force.     There will always be those who under perform or move up the ladder simply because of seniority but if it is a real problem then management has options for dealing with it.     The increasing wages of unionized workers is a cost of running a successful enterprise. Why should just the executive and stock holders be the beneficiaries?     The real problem is the lack of oversight by any level of government and special interest lobbying that undermines the will of the populace.     $5000 for 56 bathroom hooks? Come on!     https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trudeau-government-spent-416k-renovate-100000803.html     I'm not sure how we stop this but it should start with a letter to your local MLA stating that you find this unacceptable.     http://www.larrymaguire.ca/contact     If you want it to change, stand up and be heard.     Marpet "

Unions are the cure for poverty?  
 
What would you expect a news source that is financed by Canada's biggest unions to conclude? That unions were to blame for poverty?  
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabble.ca  
 
As a taxpayer, I am a stockholder in the government.  
 
At this point, I am questioning where exactly the benefit is, specifically long term.  
 
Larry Maguire is our MP.  
 
Edited by beefer39, 2016-12-10 10:51:37

If you can supply some evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to read it and adjust my opinion if necessary.  
 
Marpet.

The connection was the level of unionized employees against the level of poverty in the country. Show me how the numbers are biased. You may be correct and maybe the news source is biased but is the evidence biased? Was something left out? Was the evidence skewed in some way?  
Let me know what you find. I would be happy to read it.  
 
Marpet

Marpet said "The connection was the level of unionized employees against the level of poverty in the country. Show me how the numbers are biased. You may be correct and maybe the news source is biased but is the evidence biased? Was something left out? Was the evidence skewed in some way?   Let me know what you find. I would be happy to read it.     Marpet "

The lower the union density the higher the income for middle and lower class people.  
 
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/rejecting-the-union-disadvantage-csr-fall-2015.pdf  
 
I know the Fraser Institute is slanted to the right, but they a very well respected think tank.

Just had a quick look at study (shopping in Wpg, yeah!) and a couple things jumped out at me.  
 
A lot of the comparisons were government unions against private sector unions. Government sector saw higher increases and early retirement compared to private sector. I agree that there is a lot of waste in government but it appears that unions make life better for the government employees. If their is waste then we need to be putting the government task over it.  
The last paragraph states that higher unionization doesn't necessarily lead to lower incomes for the middle to lower class, just that their may be a connection. Not definitive enough, I think.  
 
Yes, unionization in government drives up costs but I would put forward that miss management is a far greater expense on the Canadian taxpayer.  
 
Marpet.

The comparison was solely against labour relations in the US. That's a pretty narrow study, again, in my opinion.  
 
Marpet.

Marpet said "The comparison was solely against labour relations in the US. That's a pretty narrow study, again, in my opinion.     Marpet. "

Most if not all of the reference documents at the end are Canadian and the charts are Canadian.

So non union wages for the middle class have increased from 33,000 to 39,000 dollars in 20 years. (1990 to 2010) That isn't anywhere near the increase in the cost of living over the same 20 years.  
 
I love it when a conservative think tank plays with data to make people think big business is looking out for them.  
 
Imagine if the same 33,000 income had just a 2 percent per year increase, the wage would be 49,056 a year.  
Even a 1percent increase year over year is just over 40,000.  
 
Even more sad is the great pride they have showing low income earners in 2010 are being kept below $15,800.  
 
I wonder if we would even make that if unions had been banned so many years ago.

Having had a chance to look at the study a little more, I would argue that we aren't debating the same thing. Your point is that unions are holding Canadian wages down....that may be true based not your graphs but my argument was that unionized countries have lower rates of poverty. That may also be true but difficult to debate as they aren't the same thing.  
 
Marpet

...unions don't just fight for wages. Your study doesnt seem to take into account the other benefits that unions provide for the member. Do private industries provide benefits? Yes but there is no guarantee that it will continue and the employee is left to the will of the company.  
 
Poverty however is about the basic level of care and person has access to.  
 
Marpet

loeog said "So non union wages for the middle class have increased from 33,000 to 39,000 dollars in 20 years. (1990 to 2010) That isn't anywhere near the increase in the cost of living over the same 20 years.     I love it when a conservative think tank plays with data to make people think big business is looking out for them.     Imagine if the same 33,000 income had just a 2 percent per year increase, the wage would be 49,056 a year.   Even a 1percent increase year over year is just over 40,000.     Even more sad is the great pride they have showing low income earners in 2010 are being kept below $15,800.     I wonder if we would even make that if unions had been banned so many years ago. "

If you'd read the information the graphs are corrected to 2011 dollars.  
 
Just because information doesn't line up with your ideals doesn't make it wrong.  
 
We need to come together as a country and make this work.  
 
Canada is a very wealthy country, but governments at all levels need to eliminate waste and inefficiencies allowing the delivery of services and capital expenditures where needed rather than creating a bloated wasteful system where way too much money is spent in the wrong places.

Keep in mind that initial article is about USA. Everything in US is bigger, including their beurocratic waste.  
 
I've worked in a government job and came with the goal of working hard and being responsible knowing other tax payers like me were funding the department.  
 
So I was really surprised to discover the incredible waste and abuse of the system by...the tax payers.  
 
Many of our clients are the sweetest, least demanding people who we would have to encourage to even utilize the services they desperately needed.  
 
But on the other hand, the other clients acted with so much greed and entitlement, literally throwing away brand new supplies and govt property and misspending thousands of funding. It was frustrating when budgets are tight and many are in need, yet our time was spent babysitting so many clients who would not act responsibly with their own tax dollars.  
 
So my point is this: because services are not attached to a price point, it is easy to abuse them.  
 
Also, the main thing we forget when talking about govt waste is that govt is almost purely working with people. Working with people is complex and takes time and regulation. Some people in both sides are in it for money. Some want to make a real difference. Either way u have to appease the union and the employees and the clients and follow Minister direction. It takes time and it's messy. If everyone would just act like trustworthy adults it would be much better.

beefer39 said "    loeog said "So non union wages for the middle class have increased from 33,000 to 39,000 dollars in 20 years. (1990 to 2010) That isn't anywhere near the increase in the cost of living over the same 20 years.     I love it when a conservative think tank plays with data to make people think big business is looking out for them.     Imagine if the same 33,000 income had just a 2 percent per year increase, the wage would be 49,056 a year.   Even a 1percent increase year over year is just over 40,000.     Even more sad is the great pride they have showing low income earners in 2010 are being kept below $15,800.     I wonder if we would even make that if unions had been banned so many years ago. " If you'd read the information the graphs are corrected to 2011 dollars.     Just because information doesn't line up with your ideals doesn't make it wrong.     We need to come together as a country and make this work.     Canada is a very wealthy country, but governments at all levels need to eliminate waste and inefficiencies allowing the delivery of services and capital expenditures where needed rather than creating a bloated wasteful system where way too much money is spent in the wrong places. "

You might be happy with 5 and 10 cent pay increases, but I think making enough to pay tax makes for a country coming together.  
 
Welfare is a needed, but Welfare is incredible waste if it is used to support your 15000 dollar workers. Fat companies forget they need to pay real wages if they what to sell anything.  
 
Talking about government costs, we live in a country where a lady with 4 kids using daycare and working part time takes home more money then those union workers you like to blame.  
I think you will have a problem convincing me $15000 to $36000 dollars is enough money for an average Canadians wage.  
 
Edited by loeog, 2016-12-11 11:03:37

loeog said "    beefer39 said "    loeog said "So non union wages for the middle class have increased from 33,000 to 39,000 dollars in 20 years. (1990 to 2010) That isn't anywhere near the increase in the cost of living over the same 20 years.     I love it when a conservative think tank plays with data to make people think big business is looking out for them.     Imagine if the same 33,000 income had just a 2 percent per year increase, the wage would be 49,056 a year.   Even a 1percent increase year over year is just over 40,000.     Even more sad is the great pride they have showing low income earners in 2010 are being kept below $15,800.     I wonder if we would even make that if unions had been banned so many years ago. " If you'd read the information the graphs are corrected to 2011 dollars.     Just because information doesn't line up with your ideals doesn't make it wrong.     We need to come together as a country and make this work.     Canada is a very wealthy country, but governments at all levels need to eliminate waste and inefficiencies allowing the delivery of services and capital expenditures where needed rather than creating a bloated wasteful system where way too much money is spent in the wrong places. " You might be happy with 5 and 10 cent pay increases, but I think making enough to pay tax makes for a country coming together.     Welfare is a needed, but Welfare is incredible waste if it is used to support your 15000 dollar workers. Fat companies forget they need to pay real wages if they what to sell anything.     Talking about government costs, we live in a country where a lady with 4 kids using daycare and working part time takes home more money then those union workers you like to blame.   I think you will have a problem convincing me $15000 to $36000 dollars is enough money for an average Canadians wage.     Edited by loeog, 2016-12-11 11:03:37"

Where did I say that a 10 cent pay increase is right?  
 
Where did I say that the lowest wage earners are getting a fair shake?  
 
Companies need to pay fair wages in order to attract and retain good people allowing them to produce goods and services they can sell at a fair price so they stay in business.  
 
Where did I lay the blame directly on unions? Government waste and inefficiency is everyone's responsibility and it needs to stop.  
 
I said quite clearly in the OP that placing blame isn't important.  
 
Correcting the situation is.  
 
Pretending it doesn't exist is idiotic

beefer39 said "Here is a link about a muzzled report regarding the US military spending and inefficiencies and how it was swept it under the carpet.     https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.5eb39786d376     In my opinion, this is very indicative if the culture in governments at all levels and in all jurisdictions, where job security and growing the size of government, and therefore government spending, is much more important than delivering government services in the most effective and cost efficient way possible.     I’m not really concerned on placing blame at this point.     What I am concerned about is that there needs to be a drastic change in the mind set and culture of government bureaucrats and officials that understands that our future financial stability must i:nclude drastically reduced government waste and inefficiencies.     Do we need to cut programs and services? If there is a more efficient way, change the method of delivery. If there is duplication, eliminate it.     Reward people for engaging in being part of the solution rather than being part of the problem.     Are people who hold government jobs bad people? No they are not. I have some really good friends who work or have worked in all levels of government, as well as crown corporations. For a majority the only thing that matters is how soon they can retire.     The sense of worth for these people would improve immensely if the culture changed, and they were encouraged to engage in behavior that enabled them to use their skills and abilities properly, rather than being stifled because of bureaucratic and union strategies that have nothing to do with anything other than covering their butts and ensuring their job security.     I was told by a co-worker years ago “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem”     Governments need to focus on rewarding strategies and programs that are part of the solution, and eliminate strategies and programs that are part of the problem.     Something to ponder. "

The problem with most government departments is there are not expectations of productivity. Unions protect underachieving workers by applying seniority to layoff situations. Departments hire new workers so the existing workers go up the seniority ladder if there are reductions. The young ambitious workers who are just hired are the first to be fired, the workers who have been there the longest know they we be the last to go even if they are just killing time at work. In private business you produce or you are gone but in govt unions protect the slackers.

loeog said "    beefer39 said "    loeog said "So non union wages for the middle class have increased from 33,000 to 39,000 dollars in 20 years. (1990 to 2010) That isn't anywhere near the increase in the cost of living over the same 20 years.     I love it when a conservative think tank plays with data to make people think big business is looking out for them.     Imagine if the same 33,000 income had just a 2 percent per year increase, the wage would be 49,056 a year.   Even a 1percent increase year over year is just over 40,000.     Even more sad is the great pride they have showing low income earners in 2010 are being kept below $15,800.     I wonder if we would even make that if unions had been banned so many years ago. " If you'd read the information the graphs are corrected to 2011 dollars.     Just because information doesn't line up with your ideals doesn't make it wrong.     We need to come together as a country and make this work.     Canada is a very wealthy country, but governments at all levels need to eliminate waste and inefficiencies allowing the delivery of services and capital expenditures where needed rather than creating a bloated wasteful system where way too much money is spent in the wrong places. " You might be happy with 5 and 10 cent pay increases, but I think making enough to pay tax makes for a country coming together.     Welfare is a needed, but Welfare is incredible waste if it is used to support your 15000 dollar workers. Fat companies forget they need to pay real wages if they what to sell anything.     Talking about government costs, we live in a country where a lady with 4 kids using daycare and working part time takes home more money then those union workers you like to blame.   I think you will have a problem convincing me $15000 to $36000 dollars is enough money for an average Canadians wage.     Edited by loeog, 2016-12-11 11:03:37"

The average wage for a unionized government worker is around the mid $20/hr range. I don't know what kind of part kind of part-time non-unionized job would pay more, or that child benefits would come close to matching that. The office I work in is full of unionized government staff, and over 3/4 of us make over $35/hr.

Care to name which department has 3/4 of its staff making over $35 an hour?? I am curious. I can also tell you that the average Government worker is not making $25 an hour either, likely closer to $20. In fact most private sector jobs that compete with the same Government job pay more these days. The Government loses lots of employees to private sector these days. And with Pallister at the reins there will soon be 100+ people that don't even have jobs anymore.  
 
This isn't the 90s having a Government/City job is not as cushy as everyone thinks.  
 
Edited by RustyTrebourne, 2016-12-12 13:28:59

...but this is Brandon, and I know that my employers are here.  
 
Let's just say that most departments start at north of $18 per hour and at least 3 departments start over $30/hour, and I happen to be in one of them. For example here's the data on Manitoba Hydro: the women earn from $56,471 - C$77,662 per year, and the men earn from $57,750 - C$90,000 on average.