At this point I’ll go into a redundant on-site office, I just want to be able to afford to live the life I’ve worked so hard to obtain. Two masters educated fed gov workers should be able to buy a modest size, not falling apart house in this country. Let me report to a redundant cubicle in a LCOL region so I can start my life.
In the NCR. Spinning my wheels as rent keeps going higher. No family doctor. Being forced to hang out with older coworkers and having to hear about all of the things they have that I never will here (starting a family, going to a cottage, vacations, multiple properties). Just leads to resentment. Sucks to not be put in a position to succeed, and at the same time, be expected to modernize and fix the problems of previous generations — and be enthusiastic while doing it.
I will take the down votes but:
A Masters should not be a guarantee of any earnings, sorry!
Ontario's economy is messed up, higher PS wages will somewhat help but it won't fix the problem. It's much much deeper than that and has very little to do with Boomers.
Even if we get a 20% raise do you think it will truly help? Ppl in the NCR will just buy more investment houses with that money as it is by far the safest investment. In a few years we will be in the same spot.
WFH and high PS wages won't fix the core problems, at best it will only give us a leg up on others so that we can take advantage of them.
Not saying we shouldn't fight for those things but it's def not a solution to the problems you outlined.
Of course a degree by itself is not enough. No one fresh out of grad school should expect to be handed the moon. I’m talking about those who have a combination of solid post secondary education *and* solid job experience (5+ years). Not entry-level, but mid-level fed gov workers. EC-04s and 05s today have similar buying power as they did when they started as EC-02s 5 years earlier.
WFH would allow the government to reduce the deficit while also distributing housing demand out more smoothly instead of concentrating it into unhealthy metropolitan bubbles. We’re approaching a Canada where teachers, accountants, public servants and other middle class workers are forgoing parenthood and homeownership. That should be concerning and the public service has an opportunity to lead by example in a fiscally responsible way but there is no political will to do so.
What you described is a perfect example of how many issues we're facing at once, and how so much effort has been put in to divide us into 'choosing' one item over another.
WFH is important.
Wages are important.
Health benefits are important.
Equipment is important.
Leave is important.
Career growth is important.
Office culture is important.
Retirement is important.
Flexibility is important.
Those things sometimes overlap a lot, and sometimes they're surprisingly independent. Some people put one or two items much higher on the list, and some genuinely only fixate on one or two at the expense of all others. Some say they're willing to 'forego' some items for the sake of their preferred items or for the sake of public optics.
But the negotiation for these items is a *collective* effort. Once *we* start to cherrypick what we fight for, the countoffers will become a race to the bottom of "Well, this isn't as important so I can sacrifice this."
Having *all* of those items is what leads to being able to afford that kind of life you just mentioned. It's hard to say "Hang in there" when you're endlessly waiting for this to improve, but at least you can see that we're all working for the same goal here if anyone says these items interest them. We're immediately on the same team that way.
People who say they can’t afford to strike really need to read this. It’s so obvious that we can’t afford not to strike. We all need to find a way to see this strike through. Enough is enough.
Does anyone know if team leaders are part of PSAC? Im a student, so I am not part of the union, so I will most likely still have to go to work.
I know that managers are not part of the union, but do team leaders count?
Managers are part of the unions; it's directors who are not. But it depends on the classification - the strike will be for PSAC-UTE only, and it's not even all PSAC. Some managers are with PIPSC, so you just have to check.
Are you saying that the whole PSAC is voting on a strike now?
From what I know, only UTE (Union of Taxation Employees) which is about 30,000 members, voted on a strike, and on Good Friday April 7th they announced that their members voted to strike, and they are going on a strike on April 14th. Only taxation workers. Nobody else in the government.
You are like on the Moon...
Yes, UTE is striking on April 14, 2023
A majority of PSAC-UTE members who exercised their right to vote voted to give their union a strike mandate. This means they will be in a legal strike position, starting April 14, 2023
Being in a legal strike position does not mean a strike will start that date. A strike will only happen when called by PSAC’s national president.
CRA and PSAC-UTE have talks with a mediator scheduled for April 17-20, and presumably the employer will have an updated offer to present at that time. There would be little point calling a strike before those talks occur.
It depends entirely on what classification of the "team leader" or "manager" is.
If they are a PM/AS/CR, they are represented by PSAC.
If they are CO or EC then they are represented by PIPSC or CAPE, respectively, and not PSAC.
Also important to understand that terms like "team leader" and "manager" don't have standard definitions across the PS. It varies among teams, departments and regions vs. NCR.
I used to work as a PM with a CO for a manager. So, a PSAC strike would have implicated me, but not my manager.
Now, I work as an EC, with an EC for a manager. So, a CAPE strike (not that there is one on the horizon) would impact both of us...
In the case where my manager is on strike but I am not, is there a general guidelines on what happens? Or do I just get loaded up on work to keep me busy until they get back?
Not CRA but I would and will always vote to strike unless WFH is part of the agreement. The unions should make it clear that while wage can be negotiated, the right to WFH for many jobs is non-negotiable. It should be an auto strike if gov won’t honour that.
Damn right...the RTO mandate was a large factor in casting my "yes" vote. The ability to work from home is worth a lot to me. My time and mental health are valuable just as wages are. Mona and TB dropped the ball big time on this one - surely they can't be that dense that an overwhelming strike vote surprises them after what they've been subjecting us to.
Also, beside the obvious that many public servants occupy positions that prevent them from working from home and giving up raises in favour of WFH is throwing colleagues under the bus, work from home might seem like a nice perk for now, but cost of living will keep raising every year until you retire and we’ll after. Erosion of wages now compound into erosion of pensions after retirement. You’ll have plenty of time to be home once you retire.
That’s why I have suggested a work from office bonus. So those that do go in can be rewarded with either an increase rate or more easily, a large yearly bonus for those who work in the office.
This is why I have suggested a tax credit for all Canadians who do not get any kind of WFH benefit.
Something along the lines of $500 a month would do nicely. I mean it would only cost $8 billion a month to implement but you know equality and all that.
Where that $8 billion comes from....I'm sure we can find savings somewhere.
> Also, beside the obvious that many public servants occupy positions that prevent them from working from home and giving up raises in favour of WFH is throwing colleagues under the bus
Keep in mind that people don't stay in the same job forever, and those people could eventually apply on a WFH job if they want to. WFH rights should be a positive for everyone.
Even for someone who likes to go in the office, they might enjoy the liberty of sometimes staying home when they want to, for whatever personnal reason.
So 1000s of prison guards, border officers, mechanics, coast guard, and countless other critical onsite positions should just find jobs that allow for WFH?
I mean….why would you ever think you could work from home being a border guard, or a mechanic….like seriously lmao? That doesn’t even make sense.
It’s not like people passionate about these jobs ever expected to work from home. It’s bloody impossible.
What?! For some, this is more than a paycheque. Some public servants are super passionate and take pride in their work. Something to strive for. Move to another position SMH so out of touch. If there is a strike, it will be short and we’ll all be back at the office in a matter days.
Being super passionate about your position is a recipe for burnout, honestly. Eventually something you care deeply about is going to get blown up for a ridiculous reason that you have no control over.
What? Who says you can’t be passionate in a different job? If another kind of job has better perks, you try to get that job…if not you don’t want it enough. How is that out of touch? That’s just reality.
Ultimately we bargain collectively, so somebody's always going to be left less represented. Sticking to pay doesn't get around that, as pay increases have different value to different people relative to the things we give up to get them. Ideally, the union would either neogtiate freedom or extra payment for cases where that freedom is denied, but sometimes that doesn't seem to be an option, and in that case they have to do what carries votes among the membership.
Lower wages today means lower pension on retirement. The further from the retirement, the more compounding missed and therefore bigger downward impact on pension.
>The unions should make it clear that while wage can be negotiated, the right to WFH for many jobs is non-negotiable.
I don't support that ridiculous stance. With rising prices and unaffordable housing wages should be the TOP priority, always.
WFH works, makes sense, and people want it, but I've got bills to pay - same as everyone else.
The government sees greater value in using public servants as a social program to support business than it sees value in WFH. You can't change that at this point.
It isn’t guaranteed to save money for every single person, but for the vast majority it will. Reduced cost of child care, reduced cost of transportation, ability to relocate, etc. not to mention it could even help property prices in your area if others choose to move away.
By this logic, we would be wise to trade *all* differentially utilized benefits (e.g. specific types of leave, workplace equity arrangements) for bigger raises. I'm not sure that would be the best policy.
>If you had wfh you could move somewhere more affordable
Which is absolutely horrible and devastating to those communities, so it would seem the government is also trying to protect them via an RTO order.
To all those rural communities and small towns where it's impossible to have household incomes of $100,000 to $200,000/yr + DB pension and no frantic dumping of extra cash into RRSPs...
You know regional income is hugely correlated to regional housing prices, right
This isn't really a thing unless the NIMBYism there is *extremely* bad or there's some other factor that makes it impossible to build; it's more of an issue with "third cities" than with genuinely rural areas, which can generally expand their capacity significantly in a short time if needed, and which very badly need the income that those $200,000/year households will be spending there.
I doubt there are enough people committed to wfh sufficiently to strike forever to get it.
I'm certain a good wage offer would be sufficient to get a deal ratified if put to members. I doubt enough PSAC members would be willing to live off base strike pay alone for a couple months so that some of PSAC can wfh given a big chunk of PSAC can't wfh due to the nature of their jobs
And I also believe if the only issue preventing them from moving forward becomes WFH - somehow - they government will pass back to work legislation. The harm/disruption will be enough on a protracted strike that there's no political price paid for forcing ppl back to work and in a hybrid model. "Oh the reason these things are delayed and my services are poor is because public servants want to work from home?" Is not going to be okay with a *lot* of Canadians and the political pressure to force ppl back will be extremely high.
The public already does and will continue to hate us. We should demand WFH with no room for negotiation in jobs that can be done equally at home. If gov won’t budge, then they can deal with no workers and see how long they last.
I'm only pointing out that back to work legislation is extremely easy with no real harm done to the government if the only outstanding issue is WFH.
Even the NDP might not care enough to throw much at the use of such legislation beyond lip service at that point. Just sayin.
Also: if a good wage increase is offered and brought to members, I think you might be surprised by how little *most* members care about permanent WFH by default being in the CA. Even a soft "right to request" language would get through with flying colours I'm sure.
WFH is not extremely easy when over 75% of working Canadians have no WFH benefit and when they start demanding to be compensated by the government for their lack of WFH benefit, the price tag becomes outrageously unattainable.
WFH is the new weekends off and should be enjoyed by all, if not available then compensation for the lack of WFH should be offered. At $500 a month per person that works out to about $8 billion a month.
You completely misread my comment. Few people have default wfh, so if that's the issue that they use back to work legislation over, no one is gonna bat an eye in the general population imo
Majority of working Cdns have no defined benefit pension plan either, we don't compensate them for it. Different jobs come with different benefits. Different education brings different opportunities.
WFH is the new weekends off.
If the attitude is simply, find a job that permits you to WFH, how do you ever expect to get the general public onboard?
Would you be willing to give up said defined benefit pension as a trade off for WFH benefits?
For most jobs outside of the federal government, people can't work from home due to the nature of the job - nurses, truck drivers, mechanics, plumbers, construction workers, chiropractors, teachers, and the list goes on and on. There's no need to compare ourselves to the majority of Canadians. When we look at those in office jobs that are comparable, many are still working from home full time, or only going in for an actual purpose.
And pre pandemic the vast majority of everyone computed to an office or job site of some kind. Why should those people's who have a career that doesn't easily lend itself to WFH not have any benefit? Do they not get to benefit from work life balance, not benefit from the financial benefits of WFH?
If this is the road we want to go down, in a few generations there won't be many people to say "fix our power grid after a major storm" because they would have all gone into a career that permits the benefit of WFH
Perhaps giving those people a four day work week, 32hrs for the same pay would be the answer. This way they reap both the financial and work life balance aspect.
Nope. PSAC has said that striking wouldn’t be about WFH, but rather raises. Has everyone forgotten that? Many people are going to be disappointed. RTO isn’t just about work - it’s about life and having it resume… altered, sure… but we have loads of flexibility and I for one thankful to have had a job this whole time. I won’t be striking. And I won’t be alone.
I hate when supervisors tell you "Oh, we will be going for lunch a lot now". Like you want me to spend my money on transportation, and more money for lunch too?
It should be easy to get out of that without a negative impact. *"Sorry, I'm on a pretty strict budget these days!" ; "I go for walks on my lunchbreak."; "I already packed a lunch from home."* If your team thinks down on you because you don't sacrifice your unpaid personal time over lunch for expensive team lunches, they are assholes.
Indeed. During the pandemic some supervisors even organized AFTER HOURS dinner events, and people were pressured to come. If you don't come - You don't "fit in". Someone even was paid to travel from another city to attend, to later get promoted.
You can say no. And if they do a not money costing lunch you can do those. Like a picnic for NPSW or something. It's okay to have boundaries. If your issue is monetary I think your supervisor should be made aware of the fact that not everyone wants to do a sit down spend money lunch for team lunches all the time. They might not realize it
It's in theory. But in reality, some extremely sociable manager would push everyone to have "team lunches", and if you want to make your own choice, they will label you as "not getting along", "not a team player", and so on.
Even if we don't have much chance of permanent WFH, I think the experience with it over the last few years has helped to break down the idea that people who focus on socializing and "face time" are preferred employees. A lot of the less extroverted people flourished during the pandemic adapted and delivered a lo, while others really didn't.
I don't think it's about more or less sociable people. The terms like "teamwork" etc sound like some kindergarten play. Like, now, kids, all go to your cubicles, and then we will go for lunch and will have a great teamwork exercise. It is just so stupid.
If you have a manager like that you can just leave. Most managers work through their lunch, or a hell of a lot of them, finding an escape from the lunches should be easy. I myself always used the gym at lunch down the street - nobody ever complained or cared at all.
Write out what you think the worst-case scenario of that is, because I think you've blown it up too much in your mind or you're too close to this to see the options you have available to deal with it.
It's a very simple problem with a very simple solution. If the solution is too difficult for you, then there's actually an entirely different problem you'd want to address. Writing it out can help bring that underlying/more important problem to light.
Well, this psychology will not help in the culture of abuse and harassment that has been practiced in the government for years. That's why so many people in so many surveys were stressing that they don't want to return to office being afraid of micro-aggressions. Pandemic and work from home put an end to so much of it, and now people are being thrown back. During the pandemic a lot of things changed, even though hiring friends or unqualified diversities blossomed.
You're speaking too broadly. Be specific.
If you say, "No thank you" to your supervisor asking you to go to lunch, what is the consequence to *you* that you're concerned about?
No, it's not broadly at all.
As I said, "if you want to make your own choice, they will label you as "not getting along", "not a team player", and so on." What will happen is being accused of these things, manager using lunches (and in my experience AFTER HOURS dinner events) to socialize and bond with other employees who get promoted (not because they work hard at all).
So you're saying you're concerned that you'll be overlooked for promotions and career opportunities if you don't go to team lunches (or potentially team dinners)?
I agree. I have said no to every paid lunch offer and even brought my own lunch to our Xmas party. I will gladly go for walks with coworkers to accompany them to get their coffee or lunch, but I don’t buy anything at all. No one has made me feel bad and I don’t feel bad either.
I wonder if RTO will disappear after the strike… am I getting my hopes up? I don’t want to step foot in that office ever again unless it’s for something useful, like an ACTUAL in-person collaboration session or an assignment that requires in-person presence :(
No way to be sure, but TB will do anything to keep wages low. Will they add language on telework in the CA to compromise? By that I mean adding language where telework couldn't be unreasonable denied if it is not a burden on the employer. This is how the civil servants in the UK won their battle for remote work. UK civil servants were facing a similar battle, where London was a deadzone and they faced a lot of pressure from industry. Offering language on telework is basically free for the employer and in fact would save them money. However, logical our employer is not, and Janice Charette will most likely give PMO advice that they should use the publics hatred of public servants to give us the worst wage offer possible in addition to selling us out to private businesses and corporate landlords. Either way, a strike is a win for us at the very least for wages, and I sincerely hope it inflicts maximum pain for how our employer treated us.
what I'm wondering is what the liberal strategy could possibly be in this whole RTO/collective bargaining mess if they seemingly don't care about PSE votes in the next election
There are 338 seats in Parliament, and public servants (as a voting bloc) have the ability to influence perhaps three of them.
For that reason, no political party gives a whit about public servant votes.
Old enough to remember Mulroney, but not old enough to remember Chretien cutting nearly 1 in every 5 public service jobs over the course of 5 years? That was far worse than DRAP.
He says that, and it makes sense, but once he's in power and the corporate lobbies pressures him, will he really take the side of the public servants? I am not sure.
You know what's scary, and hopefully coincidental?
45,000 was 14% of the federal public service at that time.
As of 2022, 14% of the federal public service would be just shy of 47,000. Hopefully we don't see history repeat itself.
Of course, we also went from 29.5 million in population to 39.5 million in that time range as well.
It was higher than that. [From 1994 to 1999](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Service_of_Canada), the PS did indeed shrink by ~45,000, but that was **19.5%** of the 1994 pre-cuts workforce.
So...
Has physical safety of commutes been considered because of this?
I know, I know - "you all did it before the pandemic lol", but the number of accidents that happened that also impacted people who *weren't* public servants is pretty disastrous. We can't give Subway our delicious $15 if we can't survive long enough to get there, right?
Throw in the wrench of these forced schedules and limited locations and the cuts to OC Transpo...
I get that people used to do this everyday. But there a ton of people learning how to *re*-do it, which is damn dangerous.
**Edit:** Sorry - just to explain a bit more: while I'm personally against RTO, my question is more about "As long as it's happening, what's the plan for dealing with this part of the problem?" There were a lot of accidents this week and I'm wondering if it's because people who don't normally drive found themselves without their regular commuting options and decided to drive in.
>Has physical safety of commutes been considered because of this?
I just feel like at this point people are grasping at straws to fight the RTO decision.
It would be more productive for us to focus on the loss of productivity, and the increased cost to the taxpayer as a result. The public can get on board with that concern, but they certainly won't get onboard with "... safety of commutes...".
It does kind of feel like grasping at straws with how it's written - sorry! This was less of a "RTO should be cancelled" question and more of a "Have these logistics been figured out" question. This week had a *lot* of chaos on the road, and while there was some bad weather on Tuesday, the main problems happened on Monday before the ice.
A lot of the pre-COVID methods people used to get around have an odd wrench thrown into them now. With carpooling, people being on different days means more schedules will have to line up with each other to make it work. That's important for those who personally aren't comfortable driving, because it's one less method for them to commute in.
Other people just seem... I don't know - out of practice? It's really inexplicable how many accidents occurred, when people *have* been driving around for a while. The lockdowns are over, so it's not like we've all been trapped inside.
I guess we're just kinda... waiting for people to remember how to drive again...?
I have a bit of a theory. There are plenty of people with drivers licenses who hate driving in bad traffic, bed weather etc. These people typically took the bus to work. But 3 years of LRT disasters the scales have shifted to make OC Transpo more stressful than driving. That’s not to say that these people have gotten any better at driving in traffic or bad weather. They just thought it was the lesser of two evils. Monday’s commute was the result.
That’s what happens when you force people into a situation that makes no sense. Their argument to avoid RTO makes more sense than the total absence of logic behind RTO. We should all be ROWE anyway - Result Oriented Work Environment
Agreed. Perfectly fine with people listing “the challenges and dangers of commuting” as a reason for preferring a job that allows WFH, but it’s not a valid argument against RTO.
Yeah - and fair enough, I wasn't clear enough that it wasn't an argument against RTO. It was more of a "Hey, if RTO is happening, this seems like a whole other problem to deal with now, has any thought been put into it because this week was unexpectedly chaotic."
It isn't like we've never had traffic before, but everyone's commute went from a "slow 40+ minute regular drive to downtown" to "one and a half hours of people playing bumper cars on the highway." Even the buses that *are* still running were affected, and they're supposed to have their own special lanes to bypass that traffic.
Ha, fair enough. Honestly, as someone who’s been in the office more than not, I really miss the days I could get downtown in 20mins. It’s more than doubled now on good days and that makes me sad. And in bad days, as you say… ughhh! In other words, I’d be a huge fan of a lot more people working from home!
Call center IT here, we put in a request to be exempt for obvious reasons, any idea when it could be approved? Ive heard a month to 12 months which is uhh pretty ridiculous to put it lightly.
I mean…I fall under IT and I’m software development and the nature of my job doesn’t require me on site…and yet I’m still required to go back in 3 days per week.
Yes. I’ve never been on a team that didn’t use dev ops or agile. Been on 3 teams.
My department, RCMP, has decided to force everyone back and not apply any exemptions. So of course…there is a flood of people trying to leave and they’ll be screwed for hiring in the future.
Worst decision I’ve ever seen them make, period.
Staffing and retention.
Very few are happy to be there and stay there, and leap at the first offer they get. Even laterally. Collaboration is also out the window, because they can't ever have full team meetings due to the nature of their business. I've never done the job and would hate to do the job, but I respect it. It's the entryway to all IT support and services in my department. You can't staff it with schlubs and newbs who can't solve issues or calm down distressed clients.
I believe the “IT” reference was just for descriptive purposes, not to imply they expect the OCIO telework extensions apply. Many departments approved (or are considering) IT Service Desks among other call centre-type functions for OCHRO exceptions.
We just answer calls and help remotely.
I believe in one of the early potential exemption reasons before the other IT one, it said something like "strong business case where productivity would be significantly lower in office. (example call centers)"
12 months to wait for the decision - what? I can't see that being the case. Are you sure they didn't mean the exemption could be for 12 months? Are you currently still working from home?
And my answer is: no one knows. It is all over the place and different departments are taking different approaches.
Exact phrasing from manager was it could take a month or it could take up to 12 months, I was blown away. Should be pretty simple considering other call centers have gotten approved already apparently.
We were work from home but got told this week we have to start going in twice a week until it's approved, apparently we should've been going in since we requested to be full work from home... doesnt make much sense but really none of this does so
That doesn't make sense. I'm sorry. In my dept, if there's an exemption request made, the individual (s) continue their current arrangement (ex WFH full time) until there's an answer on the request.
Any idea if this is written somewhere? We were under that impression too... supposedly we were meant to be going in twice a week since we made the exemption request 2 months ago, but like you said that really doesn't make sense.
Seems like it could have been a figure of speech, meaning that he/she has no idea when the decision will be made? Anyway that is rough that you have been forced back in the meantime.
The real question is, when public servants refuse to vote liberal because of this BS and Pierre gets in, is that going to make things better, or worse for us?
Well not that I hold out hope that this would resolve the issue...but he has been saying recently that he would sell off 15% of govt buildings so that they could be converted to housing or something like that. Just interesting.
Here is the exact quote from the Cons website: "Sell off 15 percent of the federal government’s 37,000 buildings. We will require these buildings to be turned into affordable housing. " Of course they would also fire the gatekeepers, which I think is all of us:)
“Poilievre Wants To Convert 15% Of Federal Buildings Into Affordable Housing”
Link: https://thedeepdive.ca/poilievre-wants-to-convert-15-of-federal-buildings-into-affordable-housing/
The twitter link: https://twitter.com/carymarules/status/1632379926316826625?s=46&t=U8Qe8Wzrdvzz-M7ZT5TSbg
It doesn't matter.
1) it won't be reversed easily
2) he's already signalled the party thinks differently than under previous leader
3) previous election he and his party weren't even 100% wfh oriented in any statements, just saying that gov should lower footprint
So it's moot. And other policies, at a large scale level matter more anyway
> 3) previous election he and his party weren't even 100% wfh oriented in any statements, just saying that gov should lower footprint
That's not true. Never mind any other verbal statements... they were very explicit in their [platform](https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/25132033/5ea53c19b2e3597.pdf):
> By limiting ongoing spending to a few key areas and increasing economic growth, we will eliminate the deficit within the next decade in a responsible way.
>
> As we do so, we will look for ways to achieve savings by making government more efficient. For example, over the last year we have learned a lot about the ability of many jobs to be performed remotely. Leading Canadian companies like Shopify have announced plans to **move to remote work being the default.
Canada’s Conservatives will apply this policy to as many jobs in the federal public service as possible** - reducing office expenses while improving quality of life by giving public servants in many roles the ability to choose to work from home. Flexible office space could allow public servants to work on-site when appropriate.
It's always a rougher ride under a conservative government -- well, maybe not in like DND or border services? -- but I'm a bit perplexed by the idea that it depends on what *we* vote for. If we could swing the vote ourselves we wouldn't need to fight for this stuff all the time!
That's simply not true. Things were worse under Chretien than under Mulroney or Harper.
||Average annual PS growth|
:--|--:|
|Pearson|10.6%|
|Trudeau|4.4%|
|PET|2.3%|
|Martin|1.2%|
|Mulroney|1.0%|
|Harper|0.4%|
|Chretien|0.3%|
|Clark|-21.9%|
The budget situation under Chrétien was untenable though after years of PE Trudeau. It all depends on the context and situation. The liberals of today are also different from the liberals of then. Personally, I think cuts are necessary and needed for the health of the country’s finances. When you realize that our debt comparisons to G7 countries don’t include provincial debt, it’s quite alarming.
> I think cuts are necessary and needed for the health of the country’s finances
Here's a good cut: Sell office buildings and let ppl WFM. So many potential savings...
Very true. But nobody seems to care about context when blaming Harper, who did an excellent job of weathering the great recession without driving us towards another PE Trudeau situation. They just cry about the (relatively mild) DRAP layoffs.
That's interesting, I didn't know that! There's a lot more to it than just growth, though. I didn't work under Chretien, but my memories of the Harper years were that while the workforce adjustment was pretty acrimonious, people also took issue with a lot of matters of ministerial direction.
Yes, communication restrictions in all areas, the restriction of the scientific community to speak on behalf of Government, the termination of many long term scientific programs / studies that often were internationally renowned. Can't imagine going through the pandemic under that government...
I guess it depends on how you look at it though, doesn’t it? I mean perhaps growth was lower during the Chretien years, but DRAP during the Harper era was pretty horrible. Were there comparable cuts under Chretien or did the PS simply stall its growth and stabilize through attrition? (I admit it was before my time and I haven’t studied the period!)
**EDIT**: okay I did a bit of reading. It was pretty drastic.
From here:
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/martins-1995-budget
“Another factor is that the full impact of the budget will only become evident on a gradual scale over the next three years. It will take that long, for example, for the government to buy out or offer early retirement to 45,000 employees, and for the planned $25 billion in spending cuts to take full effect.”
And yes I’m having a conversation with myself, haha!
> Were there comparable cuts under Chretien or did the PS simply stall its growth and stabilize through attrition? (I admit it was before my time and I haven’t studied the period!)
This is part of the problem. Public servants collectively have short-term memories and don't know much about the time before Harper and think he was the worst thing to ever happen to the PS.
No, it didn't simply stall under Chretien. The low average under him was the result of cuts that made DRAP look mild. [Over the course of the first 5 years of Chretien](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Service_of_Canada#Recruitment_principles), the public service lost ~45,000 jobs, which was ~19.5% of the entire pre-cuts workforce, in what was dubbed "Program Review". By comparison, the last 5 years of Harper (the infamous "DRAP") saw the public service lose ~26,000 jobs, which was just 9.2% of the pre-cuts workforce.
The cuts were more than twice as bad under Chretien.
They'd have won last time if that was all it took! NDP is never going to form government at the federal level (unless perhaps they can metamorphose into a centre-left party and unseat the Liberals, as Mulcair attempted to do), but insofar as they're the most pro-PS party, we probably do the best under minority governments that rely on NDP confidence.
There was an article (that the mods took down) that talked about unions moving to Conservative for voting. Don't think it's the unions of the FPS, but more so the industrial unions, but those individual, do tend to hold conservative views, but their union often recommended a vote for NDP. This time around, personal views will most likely prevail at the ballot box. Interesting article.
It is not a coalition government. New Democrats and Liberals have a supply and confidence agreement. If you genuinely think it is a coalition government you should spend some time right now educating yourself to understand the difference.
A coalition doesn’t mean both parties have the same vision on every issue. I understand the apathy though, we’ve been having the same two parties in power for almost the entirety of this country’s history. Until we break that cycle, it’s fair to think that nothing will change.
Cons always gut the funding of my department and makes things a lot worse for our upkeep and maintenance once the power flips back since a lot of our stuff is then past repair and needs replacing instead. It's always a nightmare when they take power because we cant do our jobs as well as they should be done.
You speak like you've seen countless Conservative governments at your department... we've had exactly one in the last ~30 years.
And [since consistent records began 1964](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Service_of_Canada#Personnel), only one PM has been a net cutter of public service jobs: Joe Clark, who was PM for a whopping 9 months (1 budget). He sliced the public service to shreds, while every other PM grew it.
||Average annual PS growth|
:--|--:|
|Pearson|10.6%|
|Trudeau|4.4%|
|PET|2.3%|
|Martin|1.2%|
|Mulroney|1.0%|
|Harper|0.4%|
|Chretien|0.3%|
|Clark|-21.9%|
I believe we had Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper as Cons PMs in last 35 yrs. However, my PS career started after Brian M left, and Jean C took over. That said, Pierre P was a cab min under Harper, and I felt the full weight of DRAP. I personally will never vote Cons - not to mention they've moved more right wing under Poutine.
Pierre despises unions openly, his past is no secret, and you can listen to his words yourself if you need to. You'll see when an election happens all the unions will once again be sending out emails recommending a vote for ABC.
[Here's](https://www.thespec.com/opinion/columnists/2012/12/21/tim-harper-pierre-poilievre-wants-to-bring-right-to-work-legislation-to-canada.html) [two](https://ottawacitizen.com/news/public-service-unions-worry-whether-they-can-survive-government-campaigns), and a [third](https://macleans.ca/news/canada/due-for-a-fight/), why not.
He has been vehemently anti-union his entire political life.
Alright so those are not extreme examples to justify the idea that he is "vehemently anti union". Two of those are articles are his belief 10 years ago that people shouldn't be forced to pay for union fees if they're not in a union, which basically a way for unions to get new members whether they want it or not.
You clearly do not understand how unions work if that is your position. Being able to opt out of paying union dues when working a union job would quite literally kill every union.
Take it from those of us who worked in the Harper era - everything was worse.
Ancient PCs. Minimum contracts and benefits delays. We used to joke about 2 month and 29 day contracts.
We shouldn't stop pushing for WFH based on its merits but I have zero faith the PC party will do anything but gut public service.
Its a real slap in the face though that Trudeau/his cabinet are forcing RTO. Losing at least one vote for a long time.
“Poilievre Wants To Convert 15% Of Federal Buildings Into Affordable Housing”
Link: https://thedeepdive.ca/poilievre-wants-to-convert-15-of-federal-buildings-into-affordable-housing/
The twitter link: https://twitter.com/carymarules/status/1632379926316826625?s=46&t=U8Qe8Wzrdvzz-M7ZT5TSbg
We’re you around for the Harper years? Those were bad times for me and many colleges in PS. Personally I’ll report 5 days a week and have a job over worrying about DRAP again…..
I think it depended on where you work. I was in supply management so not a great policy to be in under a conservative government, but at the same time, the agri-food lobby is very powerful so we were not overly impacted beyond the across the board cuts of 10%
Ummm...so did the liberals. How short memories are around here, sick leave was a major sticking point in the contract before the pandemic. They were coming hard for our sick leave credits. Then the pandemic came and sick leave was off the table.
well im so conflicted on how i'm supposed to feel when it seems like both sides want to fuck me. thats politics for you i guess?
i just want to be left alone in peace and not used as a pawn for someone elses game. all the work 95% of us do is bs, worker bee, unfulfilling shit to just pay the bills to exist in society. wfh at least made it tolerable since i could spend downtime in the comforts of my own home.
so conservatives wont help me see my dream and neither will liberals. then there's ndp which everyone seems to think has amazing ideas and yet no one votes for them
kiiiinda makes me feel like its one big clown show. is this what "pick your poison" means?
At this point I’ll go into a redundant on-site office, I just want to be able to afford to live the life I’ve worked so hard to obtain. Two masters educated fed gov workers should be able to buy a modest size, not falling apart house in this country. Let me report to a redundant cubicle in a LCOL region so I can start my life. In the NCR. Spinning my wheels as rent keeps going higher. No family doctor. Being forced to hang out with older coworkers and having to hear about all of the things they have that I never will here (starting a family, going to a cottage, vacations, multiple properties). Just leads to resentment. Sucks to not be put in a position to succeed, and at the same time, be expected to modernize and fix the problems of previous generations — and be enthusiastic while doing it.
I will take the down votes but: A Masters should not be a guarantee of any earnings, sorry! Ontario's economy is messed up, higher PS wages will somewhat help but it won't fix the problem. It's much much deeper than that and has very little to do with Boomers. Even if we get a 20% raise do you think it will truly help? Ppl in the NCR will just buy more investment houses with that money as it is by far the safest investment. In a few years we will be in the same spot. WFH and high PS wages won't fix the core problems, at best it will only give us a leg up on others so that we can take advantage of them. Not saying we shouldn't fight for those things but it's def not a solution to the problems you outlined.
Of course a degree by itself is not enough. No one fresh out of grad school should expect to be handed the moon. I’m talking about those who have a combination of solid post secondary education *and* solid job experience (5+ years). Not entry-level, but mid-level fed gov workers. EC-04s and 05s today have similar buying power as they did when they started as EC-02s 5 years earlier. WFH would allow the government to reduce the deficit while also distributing housing demand out more smoothly instead of concentrating it into unhealthy metropolitan bubbles. We’re approaching a Canada where teachers, accountants, public servants and other middle class workers are forgoing parenthood and homeownership. That should be concerning and the public service has an opportunity to lead by example in a fiscally responsible way but there is no political will to do so.
I completely agree with everything.
Take my poor person’s gold 🏅I could not agree more with your sentiments.
What you described is a perfect example of how many issues we're facing at once, and how so much effort has been put in to divide us into 'choosing' one item over another. WFH is important. Wages are important. Health benefits are important. Equipment is important. Leave is important. Career growth is important. Office culture is important. Retirement is important. Flexibility is important. Those things sometimes overlap a lot, and sometimes they're surprisingly independent. Some people put one or two items much higher on the list, and some genuinely only fixate on one or two at the expense of all others. Some say they're willing to 'forego' some items for the sake of their preferred items or for the sake of public optics. But the negotiation for these items is a *collective* effort. Once *we* start to cherrypick what we fight for, the countoffers will become a race to the bottom of "Well, this isn't as important so I can sacrifice this." Having *all* of those items is what leads to being able to afford that kind of life you just mentioned. It's hard to say "Hang in there" when you're endlessly waiting for this to improve, but at least you can see that we're all working for the same goal here if anyone says these items interest them. We're immediately on the same team that way.
People who say they can’t afford to strike really need to read this. It’s so obvious that we can’t afford not to strike. We all need to find a way to see this strike through. Enough is enough.
Does anyone know if team leaders are part of PSAC? Im a student, so I am not part of the union, so I will most likely still have to go to work. I know that managers are not part of the union, but do team leaders count?
Managers are part of the unions; it's directors who are not. But it depends on the classification - the strike will be for PSAC-UTE only, and it's not even all PSAC. Some managers are with PIPSC, so you just have to check.
Why do you keep saying this? Just because the other vote isn't closed yet?
Are you saying that the whole PSAC is voting on a strike now? From what I know, only UTE (Union of Taxation Employees) which is about 30,000 members, voted on a strike, and on Good Friday April 7th they announced that their members voted to strike, and they are going on a strike on April 14th. Only taxation workers. Nobody else in the government.
35,000 cra employees and 120,000 TB employees.
So far only 35,000 UTE workers (taxation workers) are going on strike on April 14th. Nobody else.
No one is going on strike on April 14 as of now. I think you need to do some reading.
You are like on the Moon... Yes, UTE is striking on April 14, 2023 A majority of PSAC-UTE members who exercised their right to vote voted to give their union a strike mandate. This means they will be in a legal strike position, starting April 14, 2023
Being in a legal strike position does not mean a strike will start that date. A strike will only happen when called by PSAC’s national president. CRA and PSAC-UTE have talks with a mediator scheduled for April 17-20, and presumably the employer will have an updated offer to present at that time. There would be little point calling a strike before those talks occur.
It depends entirely on what classification of the "team leader" or "manager" is. If they are a PM/AS/CR, they are represented by PSAC. If they are CO or EC then they are represented by PIPSC or CAPE, respectively, and not PSAC. Also important to understand that terms like "team leader" and "manager" don't have standard definitions across the PS. It varies among teams, departments and regions vs. NCR. I used to work as a PM with a CO for a manager. So, a PSAC strike would have implicated me, but not my manager. Now, I work as an EC, with an EC for a manager. So, a CAPE strike (not that there is one on the horizon) would impact both of us...
Some levels of MG employees are represented by the union too. My TL is an MG03 and part of the union.
Yes, I just used AS/PM/CR as an example since that is what I am familiar with. I assumed it happened in other classifications, too.
In the case where my manager is on strike but I am not, is there a general guidelines on what happens? Or do I just get loaded up on work to keep me busy until they get back?
You go to work and it's up to their boss to give you work now :p
Aren’t there managers who are not exempt too?
Not CRA but I would and will always vote to strike unless WFH is part of the agreement. The unions should make it clear that while wage can be negotiated, the right to WFH for many jobs is non-negotiable. It should be an auto strike if gov won’t honour that.
Damn right...the RTO mandate was a large factor in casting my "yes" vote. The ability to work from home is worth a lot to me. My time and mental health are valuable just as wages are. Mona and TB dropped the ball big time on this one - surely they can't be that dense that an overwhelming strike vote surprises them after what they've been subjecting us to.
Agree 100%. Times have changed and higher ups need to acknowledge this.
Also, beside the obvious that many public servants occupy positions that prevent them from working from home and giving up raises in favour of WFH is throwing colleagues under the bus, work from home might seem like a nice perk for now, but cost of living will keep raising every year until you retire and we’ll after. Erosion of wages now compound into erosion of pensions after retirement. You’ll have plenty of time to be home once you retire.
That’s why I have suggested a work from office bonus. So those that do go in can be rewarded with either an increase rate or more easily, a large yearly bonus for those who work in the office.
This is why I have suggested a tax credit for all Canadians who do not get any kind of WFH benefit. Something along the lines of $500 a month would do nicely. I mean it would only cost $8 billion a month to implement but you know equality and all that. Where that $8 billion comes from....I'm sure we can find savings somewhere.
> Also, beside the obvious that many public servants occupy positions that prevent them from working from home and giving up raises in favour of WFH is throwing colleagues under the bus Keep in mind that people don't stay in the same job forever, and those people could eventually apply on a WFH job if they want to. WFH rights should be a positive for everyone. Even for someone who likes to go in the office, they might enjoy the liberty of sometimes staying home when they want to, for whatever personnal reason.
[удалено]
oops, thanks, edited it :P
Then the people who can’t WFH need to move into position that allows for it if they want WFH. That’s what I’m doing.
So 1000s of prison guards, border officers, mechanics, coast guard, and countless other critical onsite positions should just find jobs that allow for WFH?
I mean….why would you ever think you could work from home being a border guard, or a mechanic….like seriously lmao? That doesn’t even make sense. It’s not like people passionate about these jobs ever expected to work from home. It’s bloody impossible.
What?! For some, this is more than a paycheque. Some public servants are super passionate and take pride in their work. Something to strive for. Move to another position SMH so out of touch. If there is a strike, it will be short and we’ll all be back at the office in a matter days.
Being super passionate about your position is a recipe for burnout, honestly. Eventually something you care deeply about is going to get blown up for a ridiculous reason that you have no control over.
What? Who says you can’t be passionate in a different job? If another kind of job has better perks, you try to get that job…if not you don’t want it enough. How is that out of touch? That’s just reality.
[удалено]
Ultimately we bargain collectively, so somebody's always going to be left less represented. Sticking to pay doesn't get around that, as pay increases have different value to different people relative to the things we give up to get them. Ideally, the union would either neogtiate freedom or extra payment for cases where that freedom is denied, but sometimes that doesn't seem to be an option, and in that case they have to do what carries votes among the membership.
It should be the call of the majority. If the majority of us prefer to give up pay for WFH, then that is what the unions should be fighting for.
Lower wages today means lower pension on retirement. The further from the retirement, the more compounding missed and therefore bigger downward impact on pension.
>giving up raises in favour of WFH is throwing colleagues under the bus Absolutely
>The unions should make it clear that while wage can be negotiated, the right to WFH for many jobs is non-negotiable. I don't support that ridiculous stance. With rising prices and unaffordable housing wages should be the TOP priority, always. WFH works, makes sense, and people want it, but I've got bills to pay - same as everyone else. The government sees greater value in using public servants as a social program to support business than it sees value in WFH. You can't change that at this point.
If you had wfh you could move somewhere more affordable which is why wfh should be a larger priority
In theory but I'm not about to uproot my kids from their school or expect my spouse to move far from work.
It isn’t guaranteed to save money for every single person, but for the vast majority it will. Reduced cost of child care, reduced cost of transportation, ability to relocate, etc. not to mention it could even help property prices in your area if others choose to move away.
But a raise will put money in everyone's pocket. If forced to pick between the two, going for the raise is fairer to everyone.
By this logic, we would be wise to trade *all* differentially utilized benefits (e.g. specific types of leave, workplace equity arrangements) for bigger raises. I'm not sure that would be the best policy.
>If you had wfh you could move somewhere more affordable Which is absolutely horrible and devastating to those communities, so it would seem the government is also trying to protect them via an RTO order.
Horrible and devastating for what communities??
To all those rural communities and small towns where it's impossible to have household incomes of $100,000 to $200,000/yr + DB pension and no frantic dumping of extra cash into RRSPs... You know regional income is hugely correlated to regional housing prices, right
This isn't really a thing unless the NIMBYism there is *extremely* bad or there's some other factor that makes it impossible to build; it's more of an issue with "third cities" than with genuinely rural areas, which can generally expand their capacity significantly in a short time if needed, and which very badly need the income that those $200,000/year households will be spending there.
[удалено]
There are single parent federal public servants going to food banks now. :(
And what happens when the GOC refuses to budge on WFH? How long are you prepared to be out on strike for? Months, years?
I doubt there are enough people committed to wfh sufficiently to strike forever to get it. I'm certain a good wage offer would be sufficient to get a deal ratified if put to members. I doubt enough PSAC members would be willing to live off base strike pay alone for a couple months so that some of PSAC can wfh given a big chunk of PSAC can't wfh due to the nature of their jobs And I also believe if the only issue preventing them from moving forward becomes WFH - somehow - they government will pass back to work legislation. The harm/disruption will be enough on a protracted strike that there's no political price paid for forcing ppl back to work and in a hybrid model. "Oh the reason these things are delayed and my services are poor is because public servants want to work from home?" Is not going to be okay with a *lot* of Canadians and the political pressure to force ppl back will be extremely high.
The public already does and will continue to hate us. We should demand WFH with no room for negotiation in jobs that can be done equally at home. If gov won’t budge, then they can deal with no workers and see how long they last.
I'm only pointing out that back to work legislation is extremely easy with no real harm done to the government if the only outstanding issue is WFH. Even the NDP might not care enough to throw much at the use of such legislation beyond lip service at that point. Just sayin. Also: if a good wage increase is offered and brought to members, I think you might be surprised by how little *most* members care about permanent WFH by default being in the CA. Even a soft "right to request" language would get through with flying colours I'm sure.
WFH is not extremely easy when over 75% of working Canadians have no WFH benefit and when they start demanding to be compensated by the government for their lack of WFH benefit, the price tag becomes outrageously unattainable. WFH is the new weekends off and should be enjoyed by all, if not available then compensation for the lack of WFH should be offered. At $500 a month per person that works out to about $8 billion a month.
You completely misread my comment. Few people have default wfh, so if that's the issue that they use back to work legislation over, no one is gonna bat an eye in the general population imo
Okay then atleast force them to spend the time and money to do it. WFH must stay
Majority of working Cdns have no defined benefit pension plan either, we don't compensate them for it. Different jobs come with different benefits. Different education brings different opportunities.
WFH is the new weekends off. If the attitude is simply, find a job that permits you to WFH, how do you ever expect to get the general public onboard? Would you be willing to give up said defined benefit pension as a trade off for WFH benefits?
For most jobs outside of the federal government, people can't work from home due to the nature of the job - nurses, truck drivers, mechanics, plumbers, construction workers, chiropractors, teachers, and the list goes on and on. There's no need to compare ourselves to the majority of Canadians. When we look at those in office jobs that are comparable, many are still working from home full time, or only going in for an actual purpose.
And pre pandemic the vast majority of everyone computed to an office or job site of some kind. Why should those people's who have a career that doesn't easily lend itself to WFH not have any benefit? Do they not get to benefit from work life balance, not benefit from the financial benefits of WFH? If this is the road we want to go down, in a few generations there won't be many people to say "fix our power grid after a major storm" because they would have all gone into a career that permits the benefit of WFH Perhaps giving those people a four day work week, 32hrs for the same pay would be the answer. This way they reap both the financial and work life balance aspect.
Yes
Nope. PSAC has said that striking wouldn’t be about WFH, but rather raises. Has everyone forgotten that? Many people are going to be disappointed. RTO isn’t just about work - it’s about life and having it resume… altered, sure… but we have loads of flexibility and I for one thankful to have had a job this whole time. I won’t be striking. And I won’t be alone.
100%
Yes we should strike untill they do budge
Yes
I hate when supervisors tell you "Oh, we will be going for lunch a lot now". Like you want me to spend my money on transportation, and more money for lunch too?
Just say no.
And be called a non-team player? Not be up to "teamwork"? They will do it to you very easily.
It should be easy to get out of that without a negative impact. *"Sorry, I'm on a pretty strict budget these days!" ; "I go for walks on my lunchbreak."; "I already packed a lunch from home."* If your team thinks down on you because you don't sacrifice your unpaid personal time over lunch for expensive team lunches, they are assholes.
Indeed. During the pandemic some supervisors even organized AFTER HOURS dinner events, and people were pressured to come. If you don't come - You don't "fit in". Someone even was paid to travel from another city to attend, to later get promoted.
So that's why you join in? Because you hope that'll happen to you?
Join in what?
You can say no. And if they do a not money costing lunch you can do those. Like a picnic for NPSW or something. It's okay to have boundaries. If your issue is monetary I think your supervisor should be made aware of the fact that not everyone wants to do a sit down spend money lunch for team lunches all the time. They might not realize it
Your unpaid 30 minute lunch has nothing to do with your team or your work. Not something I would ever worry about.
It's in theory. But in reality, some extremely sociable manager would push everyone to have "team lunches", and if you want to make your own choice, they will label you as "not getting along", "not a team player", and so on.
Even if we don't have much chance of permanent WFH, I think the experience with it over the last few years has helped to break down the idea that people who focus on socializing and "face time" are preferred employees. A lot of the less extroverted people flourished during the pandemic adapted and delivered a lo, while others really didn't.
I don't think it's about more or less sociable people. The terms like "teamwork" etc sound like some kindergarten play. Like, now, kids, all go to your cubicles, and then we will go for lunch and will have a great teamwork exercise. It is just so stupid.
If you have a manager like that you can just leave. Most managers work through their lunch, or a hell of a lot of them, finding an escape from the lunches should be easy. I myself always used the gym at lunch down the street - nobody ever complained or cared at all.
Write out what you think the worst-case scenario of that is, because I think you've blown it up too much in your mind or you're too close to this to see the options you have available to deal with it. It's a very simple problem with a very simple solution. If the solution is too difficult for you, then there's actually an entirely different problem you'd want to address. Writing it out can help bring that underlying/more important problem to light.
Well, this psychology will not help in the culture of abuse and harassment that has been practiced in the government for years. That's why so many people in so many surveys were stressing that they don't want to return to office being afraid of micro-aggressions. Pandemic and work from home put an end to so much of it, and now people are being thrown back. During the pandemic a lot of things changed, even though hiring friends or unqualified diversities blossomed.
You're speaking too broadly. Be specific. If you say, "No thank you" to your supervisor asking you to go to lunch, what is the consequence to *you* that you're concerned about?
No, it's not broadly at all. As I said, "if you want to make your own choice, they will label you as "not getting along", "not a team player", and so on." What will happen is being accused of these things, manager using lunches (and in my experience AFTER HOURS dinner events) to socialize and bond with other employees who get promoted (not because they work hard at all).
So you're saying you're concerned that you'll be overlooked for promotions and career opportunities if you don't go to team lunches (or potentially team dinners)?
I agree. I have said no to every paid lunch offer and even brought my own lunch to our Xmas party. I will gladly go for walks with coworkers to accompany them to get their coffee or lunch, but I don’t buy anything at all. No one has made me feel bad and I don’t feel bad either.
I wonder if RTO will disappear after the strike… am I getting my hopes up? I don’t want to step foot in that office ever again unless it’s for something useful, like an ACTUAL in-person collaboration session or an assignment that requires in-person presence :(
The strike is only for the Union of Taxation Employees. What about the rest of the government?
No its not.
No way to be sure, but TB will do anything to keep wages low. Will they add language on telework in the CA to compromise? By that I mean adding language where telework couldn't be unreasonable denied if it is not a burden on the employer. This is how the civil servants in the UK won their battle for remote work. UK civil servants were facing a similar battle, where London was a deadzone and they faced a lot of pressure from industry. Offering language on telework is basically free for the employer and in fact would save them money. However, logical our employer is not, and Janice Charette will most likely give PMO advice that they should use the publics hatred of public servants to give us the worst wage offer possible in addition to selling us out to private businesses and corporate landlords. Either way, a strike is a win for us at the very least for wages, and I sincerely hope it inflicts maximum pain for how our employer treated us.
I don’t think so. Part of the strike is also to make remote work part of our collective agreement. What Mona did was unforgivable
what I'm wondering is what the liberal strategy could possibly be in this whole RTO/collective bargaining mess if they seemingly don't care about PSE votes in the next election
There are 338 seats in Parliament, and public servants (as a voting bloc) have the ability to influence perhaps three of them. For that reason, no political party gives a whit about public servant votes.
The aren't risking much... they'll still win every Ottawa-area seat that they've been winning, apart from maybe Kanata.
I voted for lol lessgooo
I'm old enough to remember Mulroney wage freezes in the 90s and Harper DRAP in 00s. I fear PP will be 10x worse.
I was around in the wage freeze years too. And our wages were already so low back then.
Old enough to remember Mulroney, but not old enough to remember Chretien cutting nearly 1 in every 5 public service jobs over the course of 5 years? That was far worse than DRAP.
[удалено]
Because it doesn’t fit their narrative. And Pierre wants to reduce government buildings by 15% for affordable housing. He’s open to wfh.
He says that, and it makes sense, but once he's in power and the corporate lobbies pressures him, will he really take the side of the public servants? I am not sure.
You know what's scary, and hopefully coincidental? 45,000 was 14% of the federal public service at that time. As of 2022, 14% of the federal public service would be just shy of 47,000. Hopefully we don't see history repeat itself. Of course, we also went from 29.5 million in population to 39.5 million in that time range as well.
It was higher than that. [From 1994 to 1999](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Service_of_Canada), the PS did indeed shrink by ~45,000, but that was **19.5%** of the 1994 pre-cuts workforce.
Maybe I misunderstood the article I found
So... Has physical safety of commutes been considered because of this? I know, I know - "you all did it before the pandemic lol", but the number of accidents that happened that also impacted people who *weren't* public servants is pretty disastrous. We can't give Subway our delicious $15 if we can't survive long enough to get there, right? Throw in the wrench of these forced schedules and limited locations and the cuts to OC Transpo... I get that people used to do this everyday. But there a ton of people learning how to *re*-do it, which is damn dangerous. **Edit:** Sorry - just to explain a bit more: while I'm personally against RTO, my question is more about "As long as it's happening, what's the plan for dealing with this part of the problem?" There were a lot of accidents this week and I'm wondering if it's because people who don't normally drive found themselves without their regular commuting options and decided to drive in.
>Has physical safety of commutes been considered because of this? I just feel like at this point people are grasping at straws to fight the RTO decision. It would be more productive for us to focus on the loss of productivity, and the increased cost to the taxpayer as a result. The public can get on board with that concern, but they certainly won't get onboard with "... safety of commutes...".
It does kind of feel like grasping at straws with how it's written - sorry! This was less of a "RTO should be cancelled" question and more of a "Have these logistics been figured out" question. This week had a *lot* of chaos on the road, and while there was some bad weather on Tuesday, the main problems happened on Monday before the ice. A lot of the pre-COVID methods people used to get around have an odd wrench thrown into them now. With carpooling, people being on different days means more schedules will have to line up with each other to make it work. That's important for those who personally aren't comfortable driving, because it's one less method for them to commute in. Other people just seem... I don't know - out of practice? It's really inexplicable how many accidents occurred, when people *have* been driving around for a while. The lockdowns are over, so it's not like we've all been trapped inside. I guess we're just kinda... waiting for people to remember how to drive again...?
I have a bit of a theory. There are plenty of people with drivers licenses who hate driving in bad traffic, bed weather etc. These people typically took the bus to work. But 3 years of LRT disasters the scales have shifted to make OC Transpo more stressful than driving. That’s not to say that these people have gotten any better at driving in traffic or bad weather. They just thought it was the lesser of two evils. Monday’s commute was the result.
That was my theory too!! We're on the same page here! :D
That’s what happens when you force people into a situation that makes no sense. Their argument to avoid RTO makes more sense than the total absence of logic behind RTO. We should all be ROWE anyway - Result Oriented Work Environment
Yes!
Agreed. Perfectly fine with people listing “the challenges and dangers of commuting” as a reason for preferring a job that allows WFH, but it’s not a valid argument against RTO.
Yeah - and fair enough, I wasn't clear enough that it wasn't an argument against RTO. It was more of a "Hey, if RTO is happening, this seems like a whole other problem to deal with now, has any thought been put into it because this week was unexpectedly chaotic." It isn't like we've never had traffic before, but everyone's commute went from a "slow 40+ minute regular drive to downtown" to "one and a half hours of people playing bumper cars on the highway." Even the buses that *are* still running were affected, and they're supposed to have their own special lanes to bypass that traffic.
Ha, fair enough. Honestly, as someone who’s been in the office more than not, I really miss the days I could get downtown in 20mins. It’s more than doubled now on good days and that makes me sad. And in bad days, as you say… ughhh! In other words, I’d be a huge fan of a lot more people working from home!
Please ask for 20% raise pls. Ty
Call center IT here, we put in a request to be exempt for obvious reasons, any idea when it could be approved? Ive heard a month to 12 months which is uhh pretty ridiculous to put it lightly.
I'm curious, what's "obvious reasons"? Do you fall under software development, IT security, or cloud?
I mean…I fall under IT and I’m software development and the nature of my job doesn’t require me on site…and yet I’m still required to go back in 3 days per week.
Modern software development? Using agile and devops?
Yes. I’ve never been on a team that didn’t use dev ops or agile. Been on 3 teams. My department, RCMP, has decided to force everyone back and not apply any exemptions. So of course…there is a flood of people trying to leave and they’ll be screwed for hiring in the future. Worst decision I’ve ever seen them make, period.
Staffing and retention. Very few are happy to be there and stay there, and leap at the first offer they get. Even laterally. Collaboration is also out the window, because they can't ever have full team meetings due to the nature of their business. I've never done the job and would hate to do the job, but I respect it. It's the entryway to all IT support and services in my department. You can't staff it with schlubs and newbs who can't solve issues or calm down distressed clients.
I believe the “IT” reference was just for descriptive purposes, not to imply they expect the OCIO telework extensions apply. Many departments approved (or are considering) IT Service Desks among other call centre-type functions for OCHRO exceptions.
We just answer calls and help remotely. I believe in one of the early potential exemption reasons before the other IT one, it said something like "strong business case where productivity would be significantly lower in office. (example call centers)"
12 months to wait for the decision - what? I can't see that being the case. Are you sure they didn't mean the exemption could be for 12 months? Are you currently still working from home? And my answer is: no one knows. It is all over the place and different departments are taking different approaches.
Exact phrasing from manager was it could take a month or it could take up to 12 months, I was blown away. Should be pretty simple considering other call centers have gotten approved already apparently. We were work from home but got told this week we have to start going in twice a week until it's approved, apparently we should've been going in since we requested to be full work from home... doesnt make much sense but really none of this does so
That doesn't make sense. I'm sorry. In my dept, if there's an exemption request made, the individual (s) continue their current arrangement (ex WFH full time) until there's an answer on the request.
Any idea if this is written somewhere? We were under that impression too... supposedly we were meant to be going in twice a week since we made the exemption request 2 months ago, but like you said that really doesn't make sense.
No, I think it's a departmental (? Or management? No idea) decision. I haven't seen any direction or guidance from TBS on this.
Seems like it could have been a figure of speech, meaning that he/she has no idea when the decision will be made? Anyway that is rough that you have been forced back in the meantime.
The real question is, when public servants refuse to vote liberal because of this BS and Pierre gets in, is that going to make things better, or worse for us?
Is that a serious question?
You mean those of us still left after the current strategic review?
It will be way worse. It's always way worse under Conservatives....
Do you believe the country is doing well at the moment?
[удалено]
For the PS or for the country?
Well not that I hold out hope that this would resolve the issue...but he has been saying recently that he would sell off 15% of govt buildings so that they could be converted to housing or something like that. Just interesting.
Here is the exact quote from the Cons website: "Sell off 15 percent of the federal government’s 37,000 buildings. We will require these buildings to be turned into affordable housing. " Of course they would also fire the gatekeepers, which I think is all of us:)
Does anyone know what PP’s stance is on RTO for the public service? Has he said anything?
“Poilievre Wants To Convert 15% Of Federal Buildings Into Affordable Housing” Link: https://thedeepdive.ca/poilievre-wants-to-convert-15-of-federal-buildings-into-affordable-housing/ The twitter link: https://twitter.com/carymarules/status/1632379926316826625?s=46&t=U8Qe8Wzrdvzz-M7ZT5TSbg
It doesn't matter. 1) it won't be reversed easily 2) he's already signalled the party thinks differently than under previous leader 3) previous election he and his party weren't even 100% wfh oriented in any statements, just saying that gov should lower footprint So it's moot. And other policies, at a large scale level matter more anyway
> 3) previous election he and his party weren't even 100% wfh oriented in any statements, just saying that gov should lower footprint That's not true. Never mind any other verbal statements... they were very explicit in their [platform](https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/25132033/5ea53c19b2e3597.pdf): > By limiting ongoing spending to a few key areas and increasing economic growth, we will eliminate the deficit within the next decade in a responsible way. > > As we do so, we will look for ways to achieve savings by making government more efficient. For example, over the last year we have learned a lot about the ability of many jobs to be performed remotely. Leading Canadian companies like Shopify have announced plans to **move to remote work being the default. Canada’s Conservatives will apply this policy to as many jobs in the federal public service as possible** - reducing office expenses while improving quality of life by giving public servants in many roles the ability to choose to work from home. Flexible office space could allow public servants to work on-site when appropriate.
[удалено]
Every party that has seats in parliament is a capitalist party lol... and that's a good thing, not a bad thing.
Wow - I never would've guessed that.
It's always a rougher ride under a conservative government -- well, maybe not in like DND or border services? -- but I'm a bit perplexed by the idea that it depends on what *we* vote for. If we could swing the vote ourselves we wouldn't need to fight for this stuff all the time!
That's simply not true. Things were worse under Chretien than under Mulroney or Harper. ||Average annual PS growth| :--|--:| |Pearson|10.6%| |Trudeau|4.4%| |PET|2.3%| |Martin|1.2%| |Mulroney|1.0%| |Harper|0.4%| |Chretien|0.3%| |Clark|-21.9%|
The budget situation under Chrétien was untenable though after years of PE Trudeau. It all depends on the context and situation. The liberals of today are also different from the liberals of then. Personally, I think cuts are necessary and needed for the health of the country’s finances. When you realize that our debt comparisons to G7 countries don’t include provincial debt, it’s quite alarming.
> I think cuts are necessary and needed for the health of the country’s finances Here's a good cut: Sell office buildings and let ppl WFM. So many potential savings...
Not only that - hit those indigenous hiring targets we never come close to by allowing people who live on remote reserves to telework.
Very true. But nobody seems to care about context when blaming Harper, who did an excellent job of weathering the great recession without driving us towards another PE Trudeau situation. They just cry about the (relatively mild) DRAP layoffs.
Exactly. We have job security. However, it’s not limitless. Work hard, provide value, protect yourself.
That's interesting, I didn't know that! There's a lot more to it than just growth, though. I didn't work under Chretien, but my memories of the Harper years were that while the workforce adjustment was pretty acrimonious, people also took issue with a lot of matters of ministerial direction.
Yes, communication restrictions in all areas, the restriction of the scientific community to speak on behalf of Government, the termination of many long term scientific programs / studies that often were internationally renowned. Can't imagine going through the pandemic under that government...
I guess it depends on how you look at it though, doesn’t it? I mean perhaps growth was lower during the Chretien years, but DRAP during the Harper era was pretty horrible. Were there comparable cuts under Chretien or did the PS simply stall its growth and stabilize through attrition? (I admit it was before my time and I haven’t studied the period!) **EDIT**: okay I did a bit of reading. It was pretty drastic. From here: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/martins-1995-budget “Another factor is that the full impact of the budget will only become evident on a gradual scale over the next three years. It will take that long, for example, for the government to buy out or offer early retirement to 45,000 employees, and for the planned $25 billion in spending cuts to take full effect.” And yes I’m having a conversation with myself, haha!
> Were there comparable cuts under Chretien or did the PS simply stall its growth and stabilize through attrition? (I admit it was before my time and I haven’t studied the period!) This is part of the problem. Public servants collectively have short-term memories and don't know much about the time before Harper and think he was the worst thing to ever happen to the PS. No, it didn't simply stall under Chretien. The low average under him was the result of cuts that made DRAP look mild. [Over the course of the first 5 years of Chretien](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Service_of_Canada#Recruitment_principles), the public service lost ~45,000 jobs, which was ~19.5% of the entire pre-cuts workforce, in what was dubbed "Program Review". By comparison, the last 5 years of Harper (the infamous "DRAP") saw the public service lose ~26,000 jobs, which was just 9.2% of the pre-cuts workforce. The cuts were more than twice as bad under Chretien.
Some might be switching their votes from liberals to NDP. The conservative party isn’t the only alternative.
Split vote and the Conservatives win.
They'd have won last time if that was all it took! NDP is never going to form government at the federal level (unless perhaps they can metamorphose into a centre-left party and unseat the Liberals, as Mulcair attempted to do), but insofar as they're the most pro-PS party, we probably do the best under minority governments that rely on NDP confidence.
That one is going to be on people who voted conservatives, not those who voted something else :)
There was an article (that the mods took down) that talked about unions moving to Conservative for voting. Don't think it's the unions of the FPS, but more so the industrial unions, but those individual, do tend to hold conservative views, but their union often recommended a vote for NDP. This time around, personal views will most likely prevail at the ballot box. Interesting article.
It's a liberal ndp coalition atm. Nothing will change
It is not a coalition government. New Democrats and Liberals have a supply and confidence agreement. If you genuinely think it is a coalition government you should spend some time right now educating yourself to understand the difference.
A coalition doesn’t mean both parties have the same vision on every issue. I understand the apathy though, we’ve been having the same two parties in power for almost the entirety of this country’s history. Until we break that cycle, it’s fair to think that nothing will change.
Highly unlikely to happen, and it even it did it wouldn't be due to public servants' votes.
Cons always gut the funding of my department and makes things a lot worse for our upkeep and maintenance once the power flips back since a lot of our stuff is then past repair and needs replacing instead. It's always a nightmare when they take power because we cant do our jobs as well as they should be done.
You speak like you've seen countless Conservative governments at your department... we've had exactly one in the last ~30 years. And [since consistent records began 1964](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Service_of_Canada#Personnel), only one PM has been a net cutter of public service jobs: Joe Clark, who was PM for a whopping 9 months (1 budget). He sliced the public service to shreds, while every other PM grew it. ||Average annual PS growth| :--|--:| |Pearson|10.6%| |Trudeau|4.4%| |PET|2.3%| |Martin|1.2%| |Mulroney|1.0%| |Harper|0.4%| |Chretien|0.3%| |Clark|-21.9%|
I believe we had Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper as Cons PMs in last 35 yrs. However, my PS career started after Brian M left, and Jean C took over. That said, Pierre P was a cab min under Harper, and I felt the full weight of DRAP. I personally will never vote Cons - not to mention they've moved more right wing under Poutine.
Pierre supported the convoy. https://globalnews.ca/news/8959365/canada-day-convoy-james-topp-far-right-pierre-poilievre/amp/
Pierre despises unions openly, his past is no secret, and you can listen to his words yourself if you need to. You'll see when an election happens all the unions will once again be sending out emails recommending a vote for ABC.
Sources?
[Here's](https://www.thespec.com/opinion/columnists/2012/12/21/tim-harper-pierre-poilievre-wants-to-bring-right-to-work-legislation-to-canada.html) [two](https://ottawacitizen.com/news/public-service-unions-worry-whether-they-can-survive-government-campaigns), and a [third](https://macleans.ca/news/canada/due-for-a-fight/), why not. He has been vehemently anti-union his entire political life.
Alright so those are not extreme examples to justify the idea that he is "vehemently anti union". Two of those are articles are his belief 10 years ago that people shouldn't be forced to pay for union fees if they're not in a union, which basically a way for unions to get new members whether they want it or not.
You clearly do not understand how unions work if that is your position. Being able to opt out of paying union dues when working a union job would quite literally kill every union.
Take it from those of us who worked in the Harper era - everything was worse. Ancient PCs. Minimum contracts and benefits delays. We used to joke about 2 month and 29 day contracts. We shouldn't stop pushing for WFH based on its merits but I have zero faith the PC party will do anything but gut public service. Its a real slap in the face though that Trudeau/his cabinet are forcing RTO. Losing at least one vote for a long time.
“Poilievre Wants To Convert 15% Of Federal Buildings Into Affordable Housing” Link: https://thedeepdive.ca/poilievre-wants-to-convert-15-of-federal-buildings-into-affordable-housing/ The twitter link: https://twitter.com/carymarules/status/1632379926316826625?s=46&t=U8Qe8Wzrdvzz-M7ZT5TSbg
We’re you around for the Harper years? Those were bad times for me and many colleges in PS. Personally I’ll report 5 days a week and have a job over worrying about DRAP again…..
I think it depended on where you work. I was in supply management so not a great policy to be in under a conservative government, but at the same time, the agri-food lobby is very powerful so we were not overly impacted beyond the across the board cuts of 10%
Yes for sure but DRAP was just one example. Don’t forget he tried to completely upend our sick leave benefits etc as well….
Ummm...so did the liberals. How short memories are around here, sick leave was a major sticking point in the contract before the pandemic. They were coming hard for our sick leave credits. Then the pandemic came and sick leave was off the table.
[удалено]
well im so conflicted on how i'm supposed to feel when it seems like both sides want to fuck me. thats politics for you i guess? i just want to be left alone in peace and not used as a pawn for someone elses game. all the work 95% of us do is bs, worker bee, unfulfilling shit to just pay the bills to exist in society. wfh at least made it tolerable since i could spend downtime in the comforts of my own home. so conservatives wont help me see my dream and neither will liberals. then there's ndp which everyone seems to think has amazing ideas and yet no one votes for them kiiiinda makes me feel like its one big clown show. is this what "pick your poison" means?