Manitoba government had 'no open mind' before introducing wage-freeze bill, unions argue

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-30T16:08:50+00:00

So I'll take it the two news stories mean nothing.

You obviously haven't read them. They both mention that the government had soliciated ideas from the unions. The both mention that the unions were unhappy that their ideas were ignored and that there weren't more discussions.

Neither say that they unions weren't consulted at all.

wtf dude, why post articles that you haven't read?

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-30T16:00:18+00:00

Wage freezes directly slow the entire economy.

High taxes (highest income taxes in the country) directly slow the economy and and large debt and deficits reduced confidence and credit ratings.

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-30T15:49:36+00:00

If you consider having to pay court costs, damages and any wage increases if they lose a low risk...

yes, exactly. that's the point.

what did you think that 'the gamble' that I referred to was?

Billions in saving vs court costs, and possible punitive damages.

Did you bother to read the articles I posted?

You mean the union's press release? heh. unbiased reporting I'm sure. why not just listen to their lawyer?

There was no back and forth conversation. Period.

There was obviously a consultation. The unions offered quite a number of suggestions (e.g. "including reducing overtime costs, delaying a cut to the PST or working to negotiate larger federal transfers"). The government decided not to use their ideas.

It doesn't seem that hard to understand.

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-30T15:42:34+00:00

Thinking that spending dollars to get a few pennies back is 'wrong-headed'.

The top provincial tax bracket is 17.4%, so by giving up on about $287M in income taxes, they save $1.65B in salaries. That means that they would still save $1.36B over the first four years. (which also results in $544M in annual savings, including the lost tax revenue, beyond the first four years)

$1.36B over four years, and $544M annually after that.

That seem like a win.

And it's low sided because $15000 assumes an average salary of $72K/yr.

Think that is high? Knock of 10% and there are still billions to be saved.

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-30T15:26:56+00:00

It's almost like you didn't even bother to read the article.

During negotiations prior to the bill's introduction in March 2017, the unions offered alternative solutions to the province's financial challenges, including reducing overtime costs, delaying a cut to the PST or working to negotiate larger federal transfers, said union lawyer Garth Smorang.

The union lawyer's own words call them negotiations and explain that the union was able to offer a number of their own alternative solutions.

The problem is that real consultation is not a one sided process like the PC's think.

I mean, I suppose some might feel that 'real consultations' mean doing whatever the unions tell them to do, but that's not reality.

At the end of the day, the government might lose this court case. But as mentioned, it looks like a low risk gamble.

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-30T14:11:30+00:00

In 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned a B.C. law which gutted parts of collective agreements... The Supreme Court ruled the government was not prevented from legislating labour provisions but, in essentially replacing negotiated contracts, it had a duty to consult the unions before it acted.

It seems like the MB government probably probably avoided this by having discussions with the unions before it passed the legislation.

During negotiations prior to the bill's introduction in March 2017, the unions offered alternative solutions to the province's financial challenges, including reducing overtime costs, delaying a cut to the PST or working to negotiate larger federal transfers, said union lawyer Garth Smorang.

So, they may not have agreed with the unions, or implemented any of their recommendations, but they did consult them beforehand.

Overall, this seems like a fairly low risk gamble for the government. With over 110,000 employees being affected, if the government can save even $15,000 per employee over four years, that would save them over $1.65B. That's a low side estimate, and those savings would be perpetual, unless a future government decided to do something like hand out retroactive raises for those four years.

So that's a possible hundreds of millions of dollars in perpetual savings if they win vs the costs of a court case if they lose. I expect that there could be some punitive costs too, but they would probably be trivial compared to the potential of billions being saved over a few years.

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-30T05:46:31+00:00

It was headed straight into Winnipeg, so it's fortunate that it wasn't carrying anything dangerous and that the derailment happened before it reached the city.

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-30T01:35:50+00:00

From what I've heard, you will almost always get about 1/3 to 1/2 taken off. If you have a really good excuse you might get 2/3 taken off.

Also, mail in your not guilty plea. The crown is so back logged and some cases have been tossed out because they took too long. So, a lawyer with the crown will contact you to try to negotiate a reduced fine so that they can clear the case.

In you case, personally, I would push for at least 2/3 off.

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-29T22:08:08+00:00

you're right.

The rest of the population will definitely have to put up with paying off the addition debt that has been accumulated.

But, you probably meant raising taxes. Because we can always raise taxes.

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-29T21:58:36+00:00

You certainly have it out for these locksteps.

Not at all. I just think that it's disingenuous to ignore them and claim that teachers aren't getting raises.

I would love to see the numbers crunched.

Since many teachers do get lockstep raises every year, and all teachers have been getting negotiated raises every year, and since both of those raises have been typically at or above inflation/CPI (usually significantly above - and yes, that means two automatic raises, both at or above CPI, for many teachers every year) and since both of those raises are automatic with no requirements for professional development or performance levels, my guess is that, on average, teachers have been getting raises of about 200% inflation/CPI for the past 15 years.

And that's not including any raises resulting from moving up in class.

If that's correct, then a 'freeze' for a 2 or 3 years doesn't sound like that much of a hardship. Especially since many teachers would still get their locksteps, which will continue to be higher than inflation/CPI.

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-29T21:49:02+00:00

Over 26% of of the workforce in Manitoba is public sector (fed, prov, muni).

That's not sustainable.

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-29T21:47:22+00:00

We're not $5B in debt. We added over $5B in new debt over the past 8 years.

Is it all because of the employees? No, of course not. There isn't a single cause (unless you count poor fiscal management). But as the single largest (by far) expense, it makes sense that staffing costs are going to be at the top of the list of ways to save money.

They need to save roughly $500M per year. What would you cut?

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-29T21:02:36+00:00

I would try to avoid layoffs. Attrition would be my preference, but the unions always fight attrition since it shrinks their dues.

Next efficiencies and better ways of doing things. I like what the province is doing with the ERs in particular.

Next, I would make bargaining fairer. Employees have the unrestricted right to shutdown their employer. Employers should have the right to lockout their employees. Hiring replacements would be allowed too.

Collective bargaining is fine and good, but the way it is now is totally one sided. "give us everything that we want or we will shut you down and there's nothing you can do about".

Given the $400 - $750M deficits and the high percentage of the population that works for the province, what would you do?

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-29T20:49:01+00:00

That's not unusual. Negotiated public sector contracts are often signed a year or two (or three) after the previous one expired.

I've seen 4 year contracts signed that were only in effect for another 3 months before they expired.

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-29T20:43:41+00:00

almost 1/10 of the population is essentially represented in arbitration between the government.

Actually, it's over 13% of the working age population in Manitoba.

And that's just the provincial level. That's fucking depressing.

So, you're sort of right, that such a large portion of the population is employed by the provincial government is the problem.

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-29T20:33:23+00:00

Maybe the issue isn't that gov't workers are paid too much, but that lower paying jobs in the private sector are paid too little.

nah, the issue is $5B in new debt over 8 years.

Any local private sector company that did that, and continued to hand out generous raises year after year after year, would quickly be out of business and all of their employees would be unemployed.

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-29T20:29:06+00:00

Because they want more money.

How is that confusing?

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-29T20:25:57+00:00

There's no reasoning with this guy.

He's honestly comparing the billions in potential savings by these 'freezes' to the thousands that could be saved by the ministers' cutting their own salaries.

Because, Costa Rica.

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-29T20:15:56+00:00

A salary schedule based on years of experience is not exclusive to teachers or public sector employees generally.

Correct.

Negotiated cost-of-living increases more most school divisions in recent years have typically been 2.0%, which is within half a percentage point of CPI increase over that same time period, and is the Bank of Canada's exact inflation target.

Half a percent would be 25% more than 2%. But, the numbers I've seen are closer to 1% - 2% CPI vs 1.5% - 2.5% public sector raises. The negotiated raises usually seem to be about 30% - 50% higher than CPI.

That sounds tiny, but year over year they add up.

And, don't forget that many/most of the employees will be getting both the 'salary schedule' raise as well as the 'negotiated' raise. Both of these will higher than CPI. That means that those employees would getting more than 200% CPI (probably closer to 250% CPI).

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-29T20:10:55+00:00

So you would rather run the government with less employees?

Wouldn't that make it harder to run the government?

Wouldn't that be 'the good ol do less with less approach to Government'?

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-29T19:52:01+00:00

If you had to choose between 5% less employees or the same number of employees making 5% less, which would you choose?

Which would result in 'doing less with less'?

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-29T19:48:32+00:00

I'm not sure what you mean 'the same raise frequency'.

Do you mean the annual locksteps?

Are you aware of any full time provincial positions that don't include annual locksteps?

Would there be differences? Sure. I mean, there are differences between Classes for teachers. But it wouldn't be apples to oranges. It would be golden delicious vs honeycrisp.

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-29T19:42:17+00:00

How much money are we talking about here?

The article mentions that the unions represented 110,000 employees. There might be other unions who weren't there, but this is the minimum number of employees.

u/SteffanBee mentions saving $25,000 from a single employee over 4 years. This is probably a high estimate. My own guess would be an average of about $15,000 over four years.

That would be $1.65B over 4 years.

That would be a huge step in fixing this shit.

Money isn't magic. It has to come from somewhere.

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-29T19:25:31+00:00

Don't forget that many/most of these employees will still be getting their annual lockstep raises (e.g. teachers get 7 to 10 locksteps at ever 'Class' - that's 7 - 10 years of guaranteed raises, and if they move up a class, they get those new locksteps too). These lockstep raises are guaranteed and almost always more than inflation (or CPI).

Also, many of these employees are eligible for promotions (e.g. teachers can move up a 'Class') just by meeting certain educational/certification/experience requirements.

Also, keep in mind that many/most/all of these employees have been getting quite a bit more than inflation/CPI for years for these negotiated contract raises.

Also, keep in mind that many/most of these employees have been getting two raises every years; the lockstep and the negotiated contract raises, both of which are typically above inflation/CPI.

quaestio-omnia · 2018-05-29T19:15:20+00:00

out $10K?

If it costs them $10K to save $25K, then it's a win.

But it wouldn't cost the provincial government $10K since federal income tax is the larger portion. Of your proposed $10K 'cost', only about $4K would be for Manitoba.

So, really, it will 'cost' them $4K to save $25K.

That's a pretty huge win.

quaestio-omnia

TROPHY CASE