Discussions

Please explain to taxpayers why you are asking for three cents an hour for Social Justice Fund a union slush fund?  
As well $12.00 a day meal fund even if your working at home? A$2.50 an hours shift premium for night shifts, pay close attention to this one people as hours for this overlap the last hour of every employee's day? All I am asking is what drives these demands on a struggling taxpayers income that is not tied to a super annotated pension and benefits package? Thanks for any reasonable response that can be factually backed up and not propaganda or political spiel.

They are complaining they are working pay check to pay check. Is that not the same as the majority of Canadians these days? Possibly even better off than most with the cost of food right now.

I think they would have a difficult time finding an average citizen willing to support their demands. Add to that the delay there will be now for tax refunds. I know the timing is leverage for them, but I have little sympathy.

The name of this post should refer to the union employee strike as the post title is a generic one asking for wanting to understand reasons and nothing else referring to the situation.  
 
The federal government employees would like pay increases and work from home choices. Please read or better yet listen to the links below. The first link was on Manitoba CBC as an interview.  
 
Workers are demanding work from home agreements & 4.5 % increase in wages. I feel it's a stretch in these tough times as most regular people cannot even have that possibility.  
 
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-29-information-radio-mb/clip/15979755-local-hr-expert-talks-psac-strike-impact-workers  
 
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-2023-public-service-strike  
 
Edited by PT1001, 2023-04-21 16:06:05

Your post is very welcome however you are incorrect with some facts, yes they want a wage increase 13.5% not 4.5 and yes the work from home with no supervision or accountability. The 2 parties involved are not bargaining in good faith and as a taxpayer am appalled that government has dragged this out for better that 2 years on the other side of coin union is demanding totally unreasonable perks .03 cent per hour for their own slush fund this equates to 3.25 million dollars a year. Yes I can agree they deserve a fair wage and the key word is fair. Also what most do not see is this agreement only gets us to the new year and we are in the same boat wasting tax dollars squabbling. Frustrated taxpayer in me find it very hard to swallow how we should fund some of the side perks as I thought the whole purpose of union dues was to fund union? Please if you wish to support your unions then pay higher dues and leave us regular people to negotiate our own wages as we have always done and stop holding out your hand demanding things we cannot afford to fund as taxpayers. And if anyone is willing to discuss this and show me I'm misinformed I will gladly buy us a coffee and listen!

It's a 4.5% increase in wages being demanded for 3 years by the union employees. It is unions demanding this. The Government has not dragged this out, but it's union related. Listen to the interview straight for the facts.  
 
I agree that most reasonable private sector employees would never be able to demand a work from home order.  
 
We in the private sector are lucky to have jobs that feed our families and help keep a roof over our heads.  
 
In these times right now, picketing and holding taxpayers hostage for more wages and demanding work at home directives seems selfish and entitled to me.  
Just my opinion.  
 
Edited by PT1001, 2023-04-21 19:34:44

I don't recall having a 4.5 % increase for 3 years in a row ever on any union contracts I was part of . In my opinion everyone who wants to work from home should not get any pay increase at all they save on fuel and time to get ready to and from work that's a increase in my opinion already.

I will agree you are correct stating 4.5  
however please read more as the union demands are 4.5% PER YEAR and the 3 year deal is a total of 13.5% there is a lot of information out there but one needs to read carefully to get the real picture.  
This is clearly written in the second article you posted above.  
 
Edited by Thummmper, 2023-04-21 21:06:43

Just to clarify a few things:  
 
1. It is correct that they are asking for 4.5% per year for 3 years., adding up to 13.5%. This is less than inflation, and like most employees from most sectors, previous increases have also been below inflation. It's not unreasonable to ask for an an increase that is below inflation. The government is offering 9%, which to me seems almost reasonable. The end result will probably be between the 2 numbers. Keep in mind too that this contract will practically be expired by the time it comes into effect, whenever that is. Contracts are retroactive to when the last one ended. See #2.  
 
2. They have been without a contract for several years. That means there hs been zero wage increases for that long. No one should have to work that long without a contract, private or public sector.  
 
3. Work from home isn't new to the public service. It was a thing back in the mid 2000's for some people when I was working for CRA. It was the employer that instigated it as a way to save money on real estate. I even asked for it, but was denied in part because there wasn't clear rules about it. My spouse could do it sometimes before the pandemic.  
 
The union is asking for rules about it to be enshrined in the agreement- then both the employer and the employees have a framework from which to work. Lots, if not the majority, of government jobs could easily be done from home 20 years ago, and people successfully did. The tech has only improved since then. It will save everyone money. The larger issue here is that it will have a trickle-down effect into other levels of government and private industry. The government is getting lots of pressure to not to codify it for this reason. Once it becomes codified, it will be harder for employers of all types to force people into a office instead of accommodating them.  
 
I get it. Everyone is suffering. Everyone thinks public servants get paid a ton (they don't, my spouse would make more in the private sector, we are struggling too and we live very modestly). Yes, th benefits are comparably good, but even then they are what everyone should have - places like Denmark and Germany have similar things enshrined in their labour's laws for *all* workers.  
 
Edited by Abbysmum, 2023-04-21 22:19:19

Thank you for incites and you do make some valid points however some of my issues with part of the demands are as follows.  
1. Demanding work from home is a privilage, when available or required (eg. health or personnel) I can understand so please do not stand on tv wearing placard stating it is a right. If YOU choose to apply for a position that requires a 2 hr. commute YOU did so knowing and accepted that. Remember the job you applied for was to work IN employers office!  
 
2. Why are $2.50 shift premiums to be tied to hours that overlap regular work day hours (1 hr. X 155,000 people) this equates to $20,150,000.00 a year cash grab. I can agree with shift premiums if are administered in a manner that is governed by actually working night shift!  
 
3. Also as stated in previous post why three cents an hour for Social Justice Fund a union slush fund? Please explain this to me why taxpayer should fund this at a tune of over $9,000,000.00 per year, if this is so needed then pay the .03 cents an hour from additional union dues yourself .  
 
I can agree to a lot of things on both sides of table and can see faults in both camps but also see childish and ridicule's demands with no concern for taxpayers and on the other side see a government and unions drag this on for years. The bottom line is the taxpayers pockets and consent can only withstand so much before something has to give. While you make good points with other countries systems it is few and far between and their systems are based on some of the highest tax's in the world (Denmark 4th highest, Germany 12th ) both also have larger populations than Canada. Again I thank you for input and hope we can all learn from this sort of exchange of information.  
 
Edited by Thummmper, 2023-04-22 08:07:35

I too have an issue with the work from home issue. Its a privilege not a right and I say this as someone who works from home.  
 
I have also had the opportunity to talk with CRA reps working from home and let me tell you - it sucked. Dropped calls and muffled calls and when you call them you never really felt like you actually contacted CRA but some sketchy number. These calls were supposed to be confidential but I didn't feel they were.  
 
So what is the cost to taxpayers to make this work from home safe and confidential?

1. People also jobs at a certain salary, that doesn't mean they stay at that salary forever. The reality is that situations have probably chanced since they took the job. Maybe they were 30 minutes away, but increasing rent prices have meant that they had to move farther away, which was acceptable when doing WFH. WFH is a fight between many workers and employers right now and the government having a policy for it will impact that fight. Honestly, WFH becoming standard where possible in Canada would probably help with our housing situation.  
 
Also, federal employees having good perks is beneficial to us all. A rising tide lifts all boats. What the federal employees get becomes something for other employers to compare against, and right now the perks are far from some of the better companies in the private sector and a closer to the exploitative companies in the private sector. If want functioning federal institutions, it's better if we have people who are compensated well and have good perks. That will help retain good employees, and good employees surrounded by other good employees is a better working environment.  
 
An finally, the impacts of not providing proper compensation and perks is that the only people who will want those positions will be those who will figure out how to use them for other personal gain. We do not want corruption in our institutions. I've been in a country where I highly suspect my host got me an under-the-table visa extension by paying an official directly.  
 
2. I don't know anything about this. Could you provide more details?  
 
3. My knowledge about what all this is is also limited, but many modern employers do things like employee donation matching for causes. This doesn't really work out when your employer is the federal government, so it could be a way to negotiate money for that upfront. For all the things that the federal government puts money into, I wouldn't have an issue with federal workers being able to determine causes they care about that they would like to direct some of that money to. A cause federal workers care about is probably more likely to align with what I would want money to go to than probably what the majority of MPs care about.

Everything the union wants is spelled out in a 224 page brief given to the Federal Gov in Dec 2022. The list of wants is pretty long and a lot of them never made it into the news.  
 
 
http://psacunion.ca/sites/psac/files/590-02-44772_bargaining_agent_pa_pic_brief_en.pdf  
 
Edited by Livinthedream, 2023-04-22 15:48:01

Regarding your question on shift premiums, the shift premium is already $2 an hour for all hours worked between 4pm and 8am. Therefore, what PSAC is asking for is an increase of 50 cents per hour to the existing premium.  
 
The premium only applies to shift workers, not every public servant covered by PSAC.  
 
It's important to note that many union demands are actually revisions or minor improvements to existing entitlements, and not entirely new entitlements. You'd need to read their demands with a knowledge of the existing collective agreement to truly understand what is being asked.  
 
Edited by JosephC, 2023-04-22 18:02:57

A peaceful protest is one thing.  
But blocking access to government buildings and infrastructure is quite another and is absolutely unacceptable behaviour.

"Hundreds of public servants marched across the Portage Bridge between Ottawa and Gatineau, Que., where some of the biggest federal buildings are located, holding up traffic for a short period Tuesday morning.  
 
Outside the Prime Minister's Office building and the Treasury Board headquarters a few blocks away, strikers limited entry to just one person every five minutes."