Working for Government is not a bad gig

http://www.winnipegsun.com/comment/editorial/2010/11/23/16271386.html


This is a problem that will have to be dealt with. Government offering their employees benefits that most of the public does not have. Added, the benefit is a liability that taxpayers have to shoulder .

Is this good use of taxpayer money, paying for this benefit ? Who allowed it to happen ? What about double dipping and "retired' public servants retuning as consultants ?

Is it Fair ?

Probaby every defined benefit pension plan in the country is in the same situation. And its due to the market conditions over the past 3 years.

The big difference is that public pensions are massively generous, with handsome benefits (70% of preretirement income and full indexing) While private plans struggle to make up unfunded liabilities, government has the solution...tax the sh1t out of us.

Maybe the real question should be what happened to generous private company pensions? It wasn't always accepted by society that employees would be on their own when planning for their retirements. It used to be the norm rather than the exception that one would have a good company pension to rely on.

grumpyrom wrote:Maybe the real question should be what happened to generous private company pensions? It wasn't always accepted by society that employees would be on their own when planning for their retirements. It used to be the norm rather than the exception that one would have a good company pension to rely on.

The "norm" according to who? We've been encouraged for decades to prepare for our own retirements. Hell, even the government has provided us with tax incentives called RRSP's. I've been contributing since my mid 20's, in addition to participation in employer sponsored pension plans.

Remember, only a small percentage of Canadians have the benefit of an employer sponsored pension plan.

grumpyrom wrote:Maybe the real question should be what happened to generous private company pensions? It wasn't always accepted by society that employees would be on their own when planning for their retirements. It used to be the norm rather than the exception that one would have a good company pension to rely on.

Good point Grumpy. Somehow government has taken what was once a private benefit package and suited it for themselves , with the benefit that the benefit package is never at risk .

The reality is , private companies have had to adapt to changing conditions and cannot support benefits packages

Government does not need to adapt.( or so it seems )

I would not argue that the MPs or other elected officials pension plans should be reviewed.

I mean what's the typical length of "service" a politician will serve in a position?
I know you have the odd/rare 30-years...but typically isn't it about 8 years? So why should they get a big full pension for 8 years of service?

I don't know who wrote that article (I know their name is there, but I don't know who they are)...but they are getting some serious misinformation.

The thing about public-sector jobs...is that their income is (typically) lower than their private counterparts (if one exists)...and still not of any major salary. The writer claimed there were over 40k people making over $100k/year. So what? What positions are they in? What are their responsibilities? What are their years of service?

Most people working in the public sector did not join for a high salary, they joined for a steady paycheque, job security, and a good pension. And considering most public sector jobs have their salaries posted to the public...you can know what each of them is making depending on how long they have worked there.

Another thing to consider, is that many private corporations that DO have pension plans, have developed them based upon US standards (since many of them are owned by American companies). And in the US, people qualify for their FULL pensions after 25 years of service...and that includes the public sector of the US as well.

Did you know that MOST public service workers don't qualify for their full pension till they hit 30 years?

And if you looked at the paystub for a public-sector employee, you'd see a HUGE chunk of their cheque is taken each month for their benefits and pension. Meaning they typically live cheque-to-cheque until they retire.

Pension plans are loosely based on the premise that 35 years of service should yield about 70% of pre-retirement income, or at least that was the idea until the markets went to crap.

I agree that politicians should not get these generous pensions, after all, they are elected for a term (4 years) wtihout prejudice for any subsequent terms. The do not contribute to their plans, as all workers do. I'm all for providing them with a "severance payout" when get booted out of office, but it should be based on how long they were there. I know, I know, the argument will be raised that its tough to get good people into public office unless we pay them adequately, but how is that working for us now?

I was employed by government for a short term (I never say I "worked" there, I was just employed) and based on my experience, I find things completely opposite to Ages comments. I was incredibly well paid for what I did, as were others. I had far less responsibility than private sector jobs. I do find that the whole compensation thing in public sector is skewed as the higher end jobs are not paid enough, thereby not attracting the best qualified and the lower level jobs are paid well in excess of private sector equivalents. Seniority and tenure are weighted far too high in consideration for promotion and increases, etc, and the goals for the jobs are not clearly defined and enforced.

AGEsAces wrote:. The writer claimed there were over 40k people making over $100k/year. So what? What positions are they in? What are their responsibilities? What are their years of service?

Yes, years of service are not considered at all. If you look at the various compensation disclosure documents, there are many policemen, professors, doctors, lawyers, judges,and teachers that are above the 100k mark - it's quite probable that they add up to several 1000 individuals.

Freman you are right, they are well paid. See, that was their argument back in the 80"s after Trudeau slashed and burned. "WE" must be paid as well as private sector jobs, with all the perks. Those days are gone. GM and IBM no longer set the bar for how employees are treated and what benefits they would get.

But Ages really, fdo they live paycheque to paycheque. Somehow i find that hard to believe considering most of their dental and eye ware costs are covered for themselves and their dependents. They have a stable job. They can get mortgages based on that stability . They are not at risk of getting laid off, and if they were, they have more opportunity to move to another department since the6y are government employees.

In the end, i would say, if i was working for a private company, i would want government type pension plans and benefits packages.

As for military pensions, these guys ( and public service employees ) have it pretty good. Most can retire at age 50 with a full pension, take all their training paid for by taxpayers and transfer it to the private sector which affects employment for others and since they can undercut , it affects private sector companies to some extent.

I think, if they get a million dollar pension, then they should not be able to work in their field or somehow, have all their training paid back to government. ( I know its a radical sentiment, but really, its not a fair playing field )

Did you know that MOST public service workers don't qualify for their full pension till they hit 30 years?


And is this unreasonable ?


Considering at the time this was set, most people were working at age 20. So by age 50, you retire with a full pension. I think thats pretty reasonable.You know many private sector employees who can retire with a ...say...30 Thousand dollar yearly pay package ?

eViL tRoLl wrote:

AGEsAces wrote:. The writer claimed there were over 40k people making over $100k/year. So what? What positions are they in? What are their responsibilities? What are their years of service?

Yes, years of service are not considered at all. If you look at the various compensation disclosure documents, there are many policemen, professors, doctors, lawyers, judges,and teachers that are above the 100k mark - it's quite probable that they add up to several 1000 individuals.

Name a police officer outside a chief of police (or maybe deputy chief) who is making more than $100k/year?
I don't know if professors count as "public sector", and I don't know if doctors are counted in the story...from the description of jobs complained about...it would seem not...same with lawyers & judges.
I'd also dare you to find a teacher who is making more than $100k/year.


Here's some data straight from the RCMP website:
Salary

When you successfully complete the Cadet Training Program and have been offered employment, you will be engaged (hired) as a Regular Member Constable at an annual salary of $47,393. Normally, within 36 months of service, your annual salary will have increased incrementally to $76,792 ($77,944, effective January 1, 2011).Benefits

Vacation:

• 0-5 years: 15 days
  
• 5-10 years: 20 days
  
• 10-22 years: 25 days
  
• 23+ years: 30 days
  

Pension Plan:

• 20 years service: retirement with penalty
  
• 25 years service: full pension
  
• 35 years service: maximum pension
  

Other Benefits:

• Member Assistance Program
  
• Medical and Dental Plan
  
• Family Health Plan
  
• Group Life Insurance (optional)
  
• Supplied uniform
  
• Clothing allowance (plain clothes duties)
  

This does not apply to the Civilian members, their scales are a little less than, and their pension qualifications for years of service are different.
And...after 20 years of service...the salaries are STILL not above $100k

Cops regularly earn $100k+ due to overtime. One of the highest paid worker-bees for the city last year was a police officer. He/she "worked" mucho overtime...

Livio Ciaralli wrote:Did you know that MOST public service workers don't qualify for their full pension till they hit 30 years?

And is this unreasonable ?

Considering at the time this was set, most people were working at age 20. So by age 50, you retire with a full pension. I think thats pretty reasonable.You know many private sector employees who can retire with a ...say...30 Thousand dollar yearly pay package ?

Unreasonable? Sure...since most people don't get these "real jobs" at age 20.
Most 20 year-olds are still working high turnover positions, walmart, mcdonalds, etc. Trying to figure out what to "do with their life".

The few, rare ones that get into a public sector job that young (outside of recruited positions like police, military) would probably have a friend or family member who help them "in".

so let's assume that they average starting age for people in a public sector job is 25.
30 years puts them at 55 for retirement.
In today's society, a majority of people are working to age 70...so that gives someone age 55 another 15 years worth of service, tax paying, experience to offer somewhere.

Is it a problem for them to go find that job in a private sector position?
Or move to a new public-sector position?

I would say "no". That company/sector is benefiting from the years of experience and training ALREADY done.
And ANY company management will tell you that the most expensive part of their business is training new personnel.
It's the reason RCMP, police services, military, etc. REQUIRE a minimum term of service after training completion. It's the reason companies which offer tuition reimbursement or free tuition REQUIRE terms of service or a full payback of tuition payments.

Even training a new administrative assistant takes a few MONTHS of OTJ before they are typically competent enough to run things smoothly.

So if someone puts in their 30 years, and decides they want to go for a "2nd career"...then by all means...no problem. Even if that career is in the same field...because the savings to wherever they go is worth the other costs involved.

Now...despite all that...there will ALWAYS be those who will abuse the system. And even if you change the system to try and catch them...all you will really do is hurt many of those who are trying to do things right, and get by reasonably well to provide for their families. And those who want to abuse the system will find another way to do it...and most likely to abuse it even worse to make up for what they perceive as a "loss" to them.

http://winnipeg.ca/isext/document_library/cityofwinnipegcompensationdisclosure.pdf

Start at page 41, I count well over 30 names and I didn't get past the B's

Name a police officer outside a chief of police (or maybe deputy chief) who is making more than $100k/year?

D Aessie
L Ainley
K Alexander
W Anastacio
J Anderlic
J Anderson
D Anning
W Antoniuk
A Atkins
D Atwell
A Aziz
K Bailey
J Baines
K Baldwin
C Baldwin
C Barker
M Barkley
D Barr
J Basic
N Bauer
C Beattie
C Belfiglio
R Bell
A Bell
R Bell
R Benoit
C Benzick
D Bessason
A Bettans
D Bevan
M Bilash
B Bilou


ahh frick to many to type and this is just Winnipeg

oo I guess I could have just linked and said what freeman said

grumpy old man wrote:Cops regularly earn $100k+ due to overtime. One of the highest paid worker-bees for the city last year was a police officer. He/she "worked" mucho overtime...

No...they DON'T regularly make more than $100k.

There are a select FEW who MIGHT make that much...and they are putting in the time to do so...because there is a shortage of officers available to cover the shifts required.

Let's put it this way...there are more than 4000 officers in the province of Manitoba alone...how many do you think made more than $100k last year?

Here's a clue...here are numbers from 2000 & 2005 (from statscan)...and there has been a wage freeze since 2008...so the numbers haven't changed much since:

Total
With wages and salaries 3575 4110
Median wages & Salaries $65,035 $70,545
Average wages & Salaries $56,694 $63,700
Standard error of average $639 $677
First line is # of officers in Manitoba, others are self explanatory.

And the number making more than $100k last year...is less than 1% of the officers in Manitoba.

LOL and there is even two sergeant and a superintendent who makes made more then the chief of police

Let's put it this way...there are more than 4000 officers in the province of Manitoba alone...how many do you think made more than $100k last year?

500 to 800 minimum

"There are a select FEW who MIGHT make that much...and they are putting in the time to do so...because there is a shortage of officers available to cover the shifts required."

not really true... but you go ahead and believe that.

and WPS information:

Salary Level

The Winnipeg Police Service offers a competitive salary in comparison to other Canadian Police Services. Once an employee begins their career and training at the Police Academy, they start earning an annual salary of $43,057.59 as a Fourth Class Constable. As a Constable progresses through his or her career and providing they have met all standards, their salary increases as follow:
CONSTABLE YEARS OF SERVICE HOURLY BI-WEEKLY ANNUAL CONSTABLE YEARS OF SERVICE HOURLY BI-WEEKLY ANNUAL

4th Class	Starting	$20.70	$1,656.06	$43,057.59
4th Class	After 1 Year	$22.58	$1,806.61	$46,971.91
3rd Class	After 2 Years	$24.46	$1,957.16	$50,886.24
3rd Class	After 3 Years	$26.35	$2,107.71	$54,800.56
2nd Class	After 4 Years	$30.11	$2,408.82	$62,629.21
1st Class	After 5 Years	$37.64	$3,011.02	$78,286.52

*Above salary schedule is as of January 3, 2010. Note: Fourth Class Constables are on probation for a two year period.

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

The following briefly highlights the many benefits an employee receives once they become a member of the Winnipeg Police Service:

• Uniforms, uniform equipment and dry cleaning are provided.
  
• A clothing allowance when working in civilian clothes.
  
• Shift premiums when working the evening or night shift.
  
• Paid overtime at the rate of time and a half for the first four hours and double time for anytime thereafter a members regular shift.
  
• Vacation leave: (120 hours after one year, 160 hours after five years, 200 hours after 13 years and 240 hours after 21 years) of credited service.
  
• A Pension after 25 years of service. This pension may be taken at the age of 55 years or after 25 years of service, whichever occurs first.
  
• The City of Winnipeg pays half of the monthly contributions to this pension.
  
• A reduced Pension is available after 20 years of service or at age 50.
  
• 120 hours of sick leave per year, accumulative.
  
• Half of an insurance premium is paid for by the City of Winnipeg.
  
• Dental Plan coverage.
  
• Vision Care
  

Further details on these and additional benefits/options will be provided when an offer of employment is signed.

Here is the 2009 Winnipeg list:
http://www.winnipeg.ca/IsEXT/document_library/cityofwinnipegcompensationdisclosure.pdf

just by scrolling through it looks like Constables and Sergeants are highest in numbers, then regular city Managers and Directors, then firefighter Captains.

WRHA has a few nurses, doctors, managers:
http://media.winnipegfreepress.com/documents/2009-PSCDA-Audited.pdf

The province has judges, legal counsels, deputy minsters, doctors, executives ...
http://www.gov.mb.ca/finance/pdf/annualreports/pubacct_2_10.pdf

I couldn't find the list for school boards.

You're a stubborn bugger AA.

The lists posted here show many police officers earn mucho big bucks often.

No need to split hairs on principle...

yeah.. lets also ignore the 70+% raise in 5 years..

or the full month off in the starting year... oh.. so sorry that is 120 hours of "sick" leave... my bad. At least that sick leave expires at the end of the year.. oh wait.. it doesn't? you mean you can keep adding it up and never using it?

Gee... I wonder what that would do when you go to retire.

Deank wrote:yeah.. lets also ignore the 70+% raise in 5 years..

or the full month off in the starting year... oh.. so sorry that is 120 hours of "sick" leave... my bad. At least that sick leave expires at the end of the year.. oh wait.. it doesn't? you mean you can keep adding it up and never using it?

Gee... I wonder what that would do when you go to retire.

who got a 70% raise? that one is a bunch of bunk...have the payroll slips to prove it.

and sick leave does NOT rollover...nor does vacation days...that was canceled in 2008...so now it's "use it or lose it"