By kelly egan, OTTAWA CITIZEN February 10, 2014

 Kelly Egan.

Photograph by: PAT McGRATH , THE OTTAWA CITIZEN

OTTAWA — Here’s what happens when an MP calls in sick, or when Tony Clement is flat out with the flu, unable to crawl to the limo: nothing.

MPs don’t have sick leave. Or maternity leave.

Absent a long-term disability, no one officially counts the days they “call in” sick. They don’t have to produce a doctor’s note. They don’t have to put on their hoarsest voice and fake-cough their way through the morning grovel to the short-pants in PMO.

They can just stay home. Today, tomorrow, all week, next week, all month if necessary. Do MPs take more than 11.5 or 18 days off annually from illness, like the average federal public servant?

Who knows? They don’t even take real attendance in the House of Commons. In a public document that outlines their $160,200 annual salaries ($76,700 extra for cabinet ministers), there is a provision about attendance, about which it’s difficult not to reach for the big sack of snarky.

It says $120 a day will be deducted from pay if a member misses more than 21 days in a session of the House, unless you’re away for these reasons: illness, official business, service in the armed forces or House adjournment.

And here’s the comical justification for those last exclusions: “because these days count as a day of attendance.” So, an MP is counted as “present” even when he’s at home with an illness, and attendance, in any case, seems to be self-reported. And they’re worried about secretaries and clerks jerking the system?

The Treasury Board president’s targeting of sick leave has that weird whiff of government trying to solve problems that don’t exist or aren’t pressing, like the long-form census nonsense or the face-slap to Canada’s war veterans.

And the sick-leave debate has this accusatory undertone of wide-scale fraud, as in: the numbers are higher than the private sector, therefore slackers and fakers, grown diseased on a diet of entitlement, are to blame.

Sick leave, one suspects, is not the biggest worry in the public service. We are, crazily, looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

If we accept that 11.5 days are taken in paid sick leave annually, this is about five per cent of the yearly total of days worked.

The more pressing matter for taxpayers, surely, is this: what are public servants doing with the other 95 per cent?

If gainfully employed, great. If not, this is not a union problem, this is a management problem. If there are too many public servants doing the wrong things, or nothing at all, this is a management problem, not a union plot.

Put another way, if the goal is to reduce the 11.5 sick days to eight or five or zero, what is the point if the worker is asleep at his desk anyway?

And, it should hardly need be said, sick leave is a benefit the government negotiated. It is not a “favour” the employer has bestowed on the working masses. And is it not rather rich that their masters in the House can be “sick” however, whenever?

There will be much parsing of numbers in this dispute and loads of unhelpful omissions. The payout for sick leave has risen sharply in the last decade or so, but why?

The Parliamentary Budget Officer puts the figure in 2011-12 at $871 million, or about 107 per cent higher than in 2001-02. But hold on. Adjusted for inflation, the increase is 68 per cent. And, of that, 25 per cent is due to increased wages, 25 per cent to a larger public service, 33 per cent to more actual sick days, and a further 17 per cent is put down to “interactions” of factors.

The real number to focus on is a 23-per-cent increase (over the decade) in the average number of sick days that a typical public servant takes in a year. (Further complicating things, according to the budget officer, is that Treasury Board counts employees in a way that makes the problem look even worse.)

Possibly the increase is due to an aging workforce and typical middle-aged maladies that afflict the demographic. Possibly there has been an increase in abuse.

Does it make sense, though, that over the course of a decade, tens of thousands of workers have suddenly become cheaters and con artists?

The diagnosis, doc, is just sick in the head.

Conservatives take aim at sick leave benefits

By Kathryn May, Postmedia News February 12, 2014 9:31 AM

Photograph by: Aaron Lynett / National Post , Postmedia News

OTTAWA — Finance Minister Jim Flaherty set the stage in Tuesday’s budget for a watershed round of collective bargaining in 2014 with plans to save at least $7.4 billion over six years by reducing the benefits of former and current public servants.

In a one-two punch, the Conservative government is taking aim at sick leave benefits of public servants and the $1.4 billion in salary costs from estimated future banked sick leave.

At the same time, it intends to double the premiums that retired bureaucrats pay for the Public Service Health Care Plan while limiting their eligibility for the plan. That move will save $1.5 billion in 2014-15 and up to $7.4 billion by 2018-19.

The compensation cuts are the biggest savings the government booked in its drive to a balanced budget.

They come on top of the two-year operating freeze for departments the government announced last fall to save $1.7 billion. The freeze will ratchet up the pressure at the negotiating table if departments have to absorb any wage increases, which in turn will squeeze more jobs, programs and services.

The budget also signalled new legislation to get rid of “redundant” organizations and consolidate support and administrative services. Unions have long been braced for services like finance and human resources to be consolidated like the government did with IT when it created Shared Services Canada.

Public servants also took another hit with the government’s decision to give veterans released on medical leave top priority for jobs in Canada’s public service, ahead of laid off and surplus bureaucrats. This means the 1,000 veterans a year can go on the priority list for five years.

The government spends about $46 billion a year on personnel and compensation, its biggest single operating costs. Treasury Board President Tony Clement has vowed to bring this in line with the private sector to make it more “affordable and reasonable.”

The budget comes as the government heads into a much-anticipated round of collective bargaining with 17 federal unions that parallels the run-up to the 2015 election. As expected, the top priority is to replace existing sick leave benefits with a new short-term disability plan.

Unions have signed a “solidarity” agreement to refuse concessions on sick leave but their bargaining clout has been significantly weakened by new legislation that strengthens the government’s hand at the table.

Ian Lee of Carleton University’s Sprott School of Business said the government’s unusual step of booking some of its expected compensation savings as collective bargaining is poised to begin shows the Conservatives won’t be dickering at negotiations.

“They are sending the message to the unions that this is going to happen whether they agree or not,” he said. “Tony Clement isn’t going to back down and they would be grinning from ear to ear if the unions even contemplate a strike because the government feels it has the court of public opinion on its side when it comes to reducing public service pensions and benefits.”

Robyn Benson, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, said the government is balancing its books on the “backs of public servants” and gutting services Canadians rely upon.

Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, called the cuts an “irresponsible abuse of the public purse to build the Conservatives’ election kitty” while compromising programs and services.

NDP MP Paul Dewar said the government could pay for the public service cuts at the ballot box in the seven area Conservative ridings.

“If the Conservatives think they can take public service for granted, I think there is a surprise for them coming up and they better take it seriously,” said Dewar. “It will be interesting to see how they sell this to their constituents.”

But Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, the Conservative MP for Ottawa West-Nepean, said the cuts came as no surprise and are “mild” compared to the Liberals’ downsizing of the 1990s. He said no one is keen on paying more but the benefits enjoyed by public servants will still be among the best in the country after the changes.
“You know the best assurance for stability and security for the National Capital Region’s economy and the public service is a balanced budget, and the good news we are incredibly close and we will be in surplus next year and that will be the ultimate stability and security.”

The budget’s announced changes to the health-care plan have been rumoured since last summer.

The National Association of Federal Retirees quickly launched a national campaign to drum up the support of the 500,000 retired public servants, military and RCMP who belong to the plan.

The government intends to make retired public servants pick up 50 per cent of the cost of contributions for the plan rather than the 25 per cent they pay now.

The government is also changing the eligibility for the plan. Under the existing rules, retirees who worked for two years in the public service can join the plan. The government argues two years is too short a time to access the plan and is lengthening that to six years.

The health plan is optional and popular with retirees, with about three-quarters signing up for the plan when they retire. With the new cost-sharing, the government estimates a retiree’s contribution cost would double from $261 to $550 a year.

Although the government is committed to the two major changes, it is willing to negotiate to ensure “current low-income pensioners are not affected” by the increase in contributions. The government picks up the contribution costs for all existing public servants and that will remain unchanged.

kmay@ottawacitizen.com

https://psac.webex.com/ec0701l/eventcenter/recording/recordAction.do?theAction=poprecord&AT=pb&internalRecordTicket=000000012d003934578f98af21958122c3c60440c52961a6af516fdc48a273d00ce18095&isurlact=true&renewticket=0&recordID=27390432&apiname=lsr.php&rKey=1b4a0ec09e8ed813&needFilter=false&format=short&&SP=EC&rID=27390432&siteurl=psac&actappname=ec0701l&actname=%2Feventcenter%2Fframe%2Fg.do&rnd=6665253816&entactname=%2FnbrRecordingURL.do&entappname=url0201l

posted on CEIU website Jan 29/14:

Some of the files from the four thousand five hundred Service Management Structural Model “SMSM” job description (JD) grievances at ESDC are moving on slowly, very slowly. Here are the details on the few files that have moved:

• A Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) Arbitrator heard the SMSM-1107 Citizen Services Specialist JD grievance last June. We are still waiting for the result.
• Last November, PSLRB rendered its decision on the SMSM-1113 Team Leader JD grievance. It was denied.
• Last November, ESDC released three revised PM-01 job descriptions covering the Payment Services Officer, Citizen Services Officer and Integrity Services Officer positions. The employer was under the impression that this would resolve PM-01 job description issues, but this led to nearly 1500 new job description grievances and a similar number of classification grievances.
• There were additional communications between ESDC JD review committee members and a National Union Representative (NUR) and its grievance team on the review of the Program and Service Delivery Clerk (CR-04) JD. However, the NUR and his team are waiting for the revised JD.

At the PSLRB, there is no other SMSM JD grievance hearing scheduled for the next 6 months. Neither CEIU nor PSAC has any control on the PSLRB hearing schedule.

CEIU anticipates that ESDC will release reviewed PM-02 JDs in the near future. CEIU asked the employer to be involved before their release.

Here is a recap of the current situation with all these job description grievances:
Grievances denied

• CR-03 Support Clerk
• PM-01 Payment Services Officer
• PM-02 Integrity Services Investigator
• PM-02 Citizen Services Specialist (heard by an arbitrator, waiting for a decision)
• PM-02 Services Canada Benefits Officer
• PM-03 Business Expertise Advisor
• PM-04 Business Expertise Consultant

Grievances allowed

• CR-04 Program and Service Delivery Clerk (at the ESDC review committee)
• PM-01 Integrity Services Officer

Grievances partially allowed

• PM-01 Citizen Services Officer
• PM-02 Program Officer

Grievances withdrawn

• PM-03 Senior Integrity Services Officer
• PM-05 Senior Citizen Services Specialist
• PM-05 Business Expertise Senior Consultant
• PM-05 Project Manager
• PM-05 Service Manager

Grievance denied at PSLRB

• PM-03 team Leader (2013 PSLRB 145)

Revised JD in November leading to new JD and classification grievances

• PM-01 Citizen Services Officer
• PM-01 Integrity Services Officer
• PM-01 Payment Services Officer

Occupational group structure review has stalled

At a meeting on January 17, after being pressured by national president Robyn Benson, Treasury Board finally admitted they will only complete the group structure exercise for the PA and TC groups by 2017-18 at the earliest.

Work on the occupational group structure review has been at a standstill for over 18 months. There have been changes in personnel at Treasury Board responsible for the occupational group review. It also appears that there was a lack of long-term commitment of resources, given the government’s focus on deficit reduction and job cuts.

Treasury Board also confirmed they will allocate long-term resources to classification reform. However, the union is still not convinced the employer has a realistic plan in place. We have demanded that the employer provide a clear plan and timetable for the work that needs to take place and wewill continue to push Treasury Board to meet its negotiated commitments.

The review so far

Progress on the review looked promising in 2012 when Treasury Board outlined its proposal to divide the PA group into three new occupational groups. At that time PSAC expected the new occupational group standards would be adopted by the fall 2012 and work on the new classification standards for the three new groups would follow. None of this work has been done.

Treasury Board and PSAC had also begun to discuss timelines for the occupational group review of the TC bargaining unit, and to begin consulting with departments and Components. We also agreed that the SV and EB groups are supposed to follow once the PA and TC groups are completed.

It already has been five years since PSAC negotiated a commitment from Treasury Board in the PA agreement to engage in a meaningful process with the union to update the classification system in the federal government

JANUARY IS MENTORING MONTH! THIS YEAR’S THEME IS “MENTORING WORKS”!

The ESDC Mentoring Program offers a readily available learning opportunity to all ESDC employees across Canada.

Becoming a mentor or mentee expands professional networks, facilitates the transfer of knowledge and exposes both parties to new perspectives and experiences, while promoting personal and professional growth.

Want to get involved? Visit the ESDC Mentoring Program site.

 http://dialogue/grp/MENTORING-MENTORAT/default.aspx

Elections for National Vice President’s (NVP’s) -Ontario Region, Women’s Issues NVP and CEIU National Convention Delegate are being held in your offices. There will also be an election for the CIC NVP (voted by CIC employees only)

Election date is Wednesday, February 5 and there will also be advance polls.

Elections will take place in the 6th floor lunchroom at 457 Richmond St. in London 11:30am-1pm Jan 30 and Feb 5.

The smaller offices will also hold elections, so that everyone has an opportunity to vote!

Even if you don’t know the candidates personally, please come out. There are resumes and other information to help you make a decision. It will only take a few minutes.

Thank you.

Where? Orange boardroom @ 457 Richmond St. London

When?  Thursday, February 20, 2014 starting at 4:30pm

One of our PSAC regional reps will be attending and speaking briefly.

There will be food and drink and an opportunity to discuss important issues.

We hope you can come – we are all the Union!

***If you require conference call info. to call into the meeting, please contact one of your Executives

The Chicago Teachers’ Union is a fighting union and the city’s strongest advocate for children and youth.

And according to Michael Harrington, the union’s director of operations, this didn’t happen by accident.

The union built support from its members and the public by focusing on the social model of unionism – empowering members to take action and be involved politically.

In Harrington’s opinion, too many of the unions in the United States treat their members like they’re their customers. He calls this the service model of unionism.

The members in this model are dependent on what the leadership has to say, and decision making is pretty much top-down. Staff members are responsible for providing the “services” such as collective bargaining, grievances and negotiating benefits.

“Our union took this model and turned it around,” Harrington declared during a presentation at the PSAC building on January 21, 2014.

Social unionism

Harrington calls the CTU’s model the social organizing model, and its success was exemplified in the well-publicized massive mobilizations of union members and community supporters during the Chicago teachers’ strike in 2012. Harrington said they continue to use this approach in the “millions” of campaigns they are currently carrying out.

When Karen Lewis was elected president of CTU in 2010, she came in as part of a caucus of CTU members who wanted to reform the leadership and make the union be more a part of the movement for global social change.

“We saw our rank-and-file as the foundation, the starting point,” said Harrington. “We have an enormous amount of time invested in two-way communication between the union members and the officers and staff. We tell our members, ‘I may be an elected officer or I may be part of the staff, but I am here to enable, inspire, encourage, support and provide you with resources. Because, really, the union is you.’ And we try to make that real and honest, difficult as it may be.”

Democratic decisions

While expanding the role of the membership in the union is key, CTU’s brand of unionism also means a flatter model in decision making. In the 2012 negotiations, they had an unprecedented 60 members on their bargaining team facing off with the school board.

The 2012 teachers’ strike was one of the few recent labour struggles that became high profile due to the fact that it had widespread public support. Harrington also attributes this to the social organizing model of unionism, which he says must have a strong component of civic education.

“Our actions right now are all aimed at educating the public on why unions exist and why matter. We spend a lot of time working with the communities,” Harrington said. “We never talk about pay. We never talk about benefits. The public is not interested about that. They’re interested in who your job touches. Who your job affects.”

Saving schools

It is by design, therefore, that the 2012 teachers’ strike is widely credited for preventing some school closures in Chicago and winning some gains in the contentious issue of standardized testing that has been deemed detrimental in student learning.

“We want to be and be seen as Chicago’s chief advocates for children,” said Harrington.

Op-Ed: Public sector pay promotes equality

By Toby Sanger and David-Alexandre Leblanc, Ottawa Citizen

January 13, 2014

With the passage of Bill C-4, the Conservative government not only “stacked the deck” in terms of collective bargaining process, but it will also eliminate the only independent federal organization that provides comparative information on the compensation of federal public service workers.

Hidden among the dozens of measures targeted at undermining unions and public sector workers, the elimination of the Compensation Analysis and Research Services of the Public Sector Labour Relations Board went somewhat unnoticed. This means the Conservative government can just rely on the results it gets from hand-picked private sector firms before it embarks on bargaining wages and benefits for tens of thousands of federal public sector workers whose collective agreements expire this year.

So why is this a problem — and why should anyone who isn’t a federal public servant care? Aren’t these comparisons straightforward and shouldn’t public sector workers be paid the same as private sector workers?

In fact, pay comparisons are not straightforward and how public sector workers are paid affects all workers, but in different ways than most might immediately think.

There’s a lot of misinformation about differences between public and private sector pay, with the general perception that all public sector workers are overpaid, fuelled by flawed reports produced by business lobby groups. If the federal government just relies on their analysis, we’re all in trouble.

CUPE conducted rigorous analysis of public and private compensation using the most detailed occupational data available from the census. These results, published in detail in the Battle of the Wages report, found that when similar occupations are compared, overall average pay for public sector workers is very similar to the private sector (higher by just 0.5 per cent). While overall averages are very similar, pay scales are very different with public sector pay much more equitable than the private sector. There’s a smaller pay gap for women and pay is also much more equitable by age, region and occupation.

Lower paid occupations tend to do better in the public sector while those in higher paid occupations don’t make as much in the public sector.

Pay for women in the public sector is more equitable largely because of pay equity laws that rarely apply in the private sector. Men in the public sector are actually paid on average about five per cent less than men employed in similar occupations in the private sector.

Other detailed comparisons of public and private sector pay, such as those conducted by the Institut de la statistique du Quebec, have also found no evidence for a public sector pay premium.

Public sector pay is more equitable than the private sector largely because unions advocate and achieve more equitable pay scales — but also because the public would be unlikely to tolerate multi-million executive pay packages or the poverty wages much more common in the private sector. But that’s exactly where we’ll go if private sector pay is used as the model for public sector pay.

Attacking the more equitable pay scales of public sector workers is a tactic used by the federal and many provincial governments to undermine public services, create jealousy and divide workers — and one that would lead to lower wages for all workers, especially the lowest paid. That would have negative social repercussions — and would also be bad for our economy.

The Conference Board, OECD and IMF have all identified growing inequality as a major problem with our economy and as a barrier to stronger economic growth. Many, including those at the IMF, also consider it one of the factors responsible for the recent financial and economic crisis.

More equitable public sector pay should be a model for the private sector and not the other way around. This won’t happen overnight, but we can and should work toward achieving it in a number of ways.

Steps that would help achieve this include: increasing minimum wages; requiring governments and their contractors to pay fair wages and living wages, allowing shareholders to have a say on CEO pay, restricting tax incentives that reward excessive CEO pay, improving public pensions such as the CPP and other social benefits, providing adequate funding for public services, and strengthening instead of undermining unions and workers rights.

We should be under no illusions. The present federal government has shown little interest in measures to boost pay for workers or to improve income equality and in fact has gone in the opposite direction. But measures to improve wages and income equality are supported by a majority of Canadians — and that’s who our governments must ultimately be accountable to.

Toby Sanger is senior economist for the Canadian Union of Public Employees. David-Alexandre Leblanc is senior research officer for the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen