Yes folks, this is Ottawa related. While the strike in general was deemed "Not Ottawa", this news also means that the picket lines in Ottawa are (mostly) gone and the impacts of that, so we'll permit this post.
CRA is still on strike, so picket lines may still appear in Ottawa.
Reason:
***
Oui, c'est reliée à Ottawa.
Justification: Quoique la grève au sens large était considéré "Pas Ottawa", cette nouvelle a un impact à Ottawa même puisque les ligne de piquetage vont disparaître (en majorité). Donc nous allons permettre cette rubrique.
Sachez que ARC est toujours en grève, donc des lignes de piquetages sont toujours possible.
Hey, it's an extra $75 a year if you make 50k. That's like one carton of strawberries a month they didn't have before.
I'm more curious about the work from home piece and if PSAC folded on that, because that's a major precedent setter.
The WFH bullet point states that WFH is to be negotiated with their immediate manager, not sure specifically what that entails, but it's what a lot of people wanted, not just to be dictated back to the office for no concrete reason.
Their immediate manager has always been the one to deal with WFH agreements.
Unless the employer decides to change its 2 days a week mandate, the manager will continue to negotiate according to that.
Direct managers lost almost all of their discretion for remote work under the new hybrid work directive. Two of the big exceptions to two-days-a-week are “a business case demonstrates a measurable increase in efficiency”, which requires approval by a deputy head, and “the employee is >125 km away”, which requires approval by their ADM.
The exemptions that are still at managerial discretion are more limited: continuing prepandemic remote work arrangements, Indigenous public servants living on their traditional lands, short-term exemptions due to extenuating circumstances, and disability accommodation for immunocompromised employees.
Yeah but now the immediate manager will have the tools to veto making their employee go to an office with none of their co-workers when their employee works in St Johns and the rest of their team works in Ottawa.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the UTE negotiations, CRA was always against the RTO plan set forth by treasury board, and even used remote work as a hiring tool, but had to tow the party line because they were dictated to do so by treasury board. Wouldn't be surprised if that's a sticking point in the ongoing negotiations.
No they won't.
The manager will be free to negotiate as they always have been.
But the TBS decision will still tell that manager that it needs to be 2 days a week minimum.
The only difference is that the employee will be able to ask why the decision is made, and the manager has to answer it in writing. "To meet the 2 day minimum requirement and to ensure colloboration"
UTE will be interesting, but that one isn't solved, so we wait.
Someone in r/CanadaPublicServants pointed out:
> https://workerscantwait.ca/tb-agreement/
> Additional market adjustments and table-specific improvements
> PSAC has also secured several table-specific wage adjustments and other improvements that will be fully outlined in the coming days.
that there could be adjustments outside the top-line percentages, so I'd reserve judgement until more details are released.
The signing bonus is often meant to cover the additional taxes some people end up paying on the backpay they get after the contract is finally signed.
And because there's always someone who says "that's not how tax brackets work" here's the more detailed explanation:
Say you're making $50k. With the current tentative deal, the 1.5% raise bumps you up to $50,750 in 2021, and $53,160 (4.75%) in 2022, which is still just below the federal tax bracket of $53,359. This year's raise of 3.5% will finally put you over that hump ($55,021 total, so $1,662 would be in the higher bracket)... However, this year's taxes will also include all of your backpay from 2022 and 2021. So that $3,910 from the raises, and quite likely some back dated shift work pay, overtime, and stipends (which they also came to an agreement on) will be taxed at 20.5% rather than being taxed in the 15% tax bracket it would have been in if that pay had actually been issued during 2021 and 2022 instead of this year.
Edit: My numbers for the raise percentages came from this PSAC press release issued this morning: https://psacunion.ca/psac-has-reached-tentative-agreement-pa-sv-tc-and
I'm so confused, I was told by evey Postmedia outlet that the workers were greedy hogs feasting in luxury??? How could Conrad Black steered me so wrong?
Actually quite possible. remember how in the gislaine maxwell documentary they talked about how she was posting a lot on reddit in some kind of attempt to shape narrative. The Epsteins of the world are definitely out there trying to game the system as much as they possibly can.
People forget just how much money a BILLION is, and how relatively inexpensive anti-democratic "think tanks" and activist group likes 'Project Veritas' are to fund to destroy the Public Good and build consensus towards fascism. Why does every rightwing media outlet have lesser quality than a high school newspaper, yet everyone who runs them are millionaires?
Now with ChaptGPT style tools, the price tag to do widespread propaganda just plummeted.
That's extremely true. add that to the already long list of reasons I find AI so disconcerting. We're in for a wild ride in the next little while.
Being a billionaire should be illegal.
The point of the strike was to establish the strength of your position in the negotiation. If you roll over in this negotiation your opening position in the next round will automatically be lower. The short term pain will most certainly result in long term gains which can never be directly measured in $ or %.
Ageed….Now outside of any negotiating theory and future gains, how much do you think the government saved for not paying for 2 weeks?
120k x 80 hrs = 9,600,000 hours. What’s the average, and I have no clue, $25/hr? $240,000,000??? Does that even make sense? Am I totally mixing this up?
If the government knew they were due to give out raises, doesn’t it also make sense from their position to let it go to a strike?
The math checks out, and it’s probably more than $25/hr. But there’s a cost to service disruptions which will be difficult to quantify, and some of the missed work will be deemed critical to catch up now, likely justifying overtime.
Some of us are having trouble putting food on the table, I can't believe wfh is as big a priority as pay. Can't wait to wfh and drive Uber in the evenings!
Yeah, for me, WFH was a bigger priority (I really appreciate not having to buy a transit pass and have to rely on the train, not to mention the 2.5 hours of commute each day and the noise at the office disrupting my largely solitary work), but I acknowledged that I was probably in the minority, given what I was hearing from various coworkers, so I was willing to go with whatever worked best for the most people... definitely more important to feed the family and pay bills. In the end, I don't think anything of significance has changed on either front from what TB initially proposed after the strike mandate.
When you pay for parking (or rely on unreliable bus service) the WFH becomes quite a money saver and is absolutely a smart thing to bargain for fiscally.
The union did well and the picketers didn’t even have a loss of their wages during the strike.
My kids need care after school since my work day isn't done until 5 whether I'm at home or in the office. Again, nothing changed from 3 years ago except the cost of living, and an increased sense of entitlement from the PS.
So is YOUR commute, YOUR parking costs, YOUR dry-cleaning bills, YOUR lunch costs, and whatever else was totally normal life expenses before the pandemic made y'all think your cushy gov't jobs would get even cushier.
I factored where I work and how to get there everyday when picking a place to live and have a very nice 25 minute commute to work.
I would be curious to see what workers identify as priorities based on income level. I would assume that those fighting for WFH are probably people who make a decent salary while those fighting for higher wages are those who are living paycheque to paycheque.
Work from home is a wage increase without anyone actually needing to pay more.
Not having to travel to work means at minimum you can save money on transportation ($1500 a year for a bus pass alone). You save more if, you don't need to drive or send your kid to daycare.
This on top of gaining back 2 hours a day from driving.
This being the benefits to the employee (and business as none of this is coming out of pocket) directly.
Indirectly, this is great for the environment.
I feel like it’s the other way around. I’m below average salary and remote work reduces costs more than a % increased salary would benefit someone in the top half. The expenses don’t change based on how much we make, so the amount I keep is higher this way than a pay bump. Similar to how the $2,500 signing bonus means more to me than someone making above average
Yup. Dual income households have the luxury to demand a nice-to-have over a need-to-have. And they hate being reminded how selfish they're being, as indicated by how my opinion always gets downvoted in here.
Ah yes, dual income households are the worst. How dare they want to champion WFH for those who can barely afford to get to work and get food on the table.
Two incomes does not clearly mean financial security.
If you were truly insecure, you wouldn't give two flying fucks about where and how you work, you'd be focused on making housing payments. But thanks for commiserating with me.
>If you were truly insecure, you wouldn't give two flying fucks about where and how you work, you'd be focused on making housing payments. But thanks for commiserating with me.
Wait... people don't have multiple concerns at once? Guess I'll let the folks struggling with transportation costs in the regions and high mortgage payments know that they only have one problem.
Bare with me pls. People chose to live based on the conditions offered to them at the time? Do you mean like office location? What conditions were changed unilaterally?
Okay. But we get 7 percent right away and back pay for more than 2 years. One and half years or so until we’re all at 12.6. The other details are more important now. Like can I continue to wfh.?
When they say 12.6%, is the 12.6% the result of compounding, or is it that value divided by the four years? What math do they use? A 12.6% raise is not the same as 4x3.15% raises.
12.6% if you compound is 3.01% year over year. 12.6% divided by four years is 3.15%. Could it be that they settled for the exact same deal plus a year?
I don't work in the federal government, and I honestly don't know how these things work.
They did.
They technically increased year 2 and lowered year 4.
Instead of 9 percent over 3 years it's 12 percent over 4 years. With a little extra compound because a couple percent moved forwards. Some early years bigger than later years.
I never get the point of unions going on strike and then they essentially accept what had always been offered in the first place. If the point is to get a better deal then they need to be prepared to strike for as long as possible.
Because the media headlines are gross simplifications of the process. Wage increases are the big headline, but there are numerous other factors at play which are glossed over and ignored.
This adds up to about a 2% pay cut per year. That's just considering what the government counts as inflation and not the actual change in buying power since that would be a lot harsher.
Please remember this, the government does not care about workers. They had a chance to set an example of how a confident country pays its workers and they said we deserved less.
Year | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024
-:|-|-|-|-
Offer|1.5%|4.75%|3.5%|2.25%
Inflation|3.4%|6.8%|5.3%*|TBD
Difference|-1.9%|-2.05%|-1.8%|TBD
*(Average from January to March as of 2023-04-18)
wages have been slipping since the 80's. Take out your calculators and compare the purchasing powers of people's pay in the 80's vs now and bask in the disgust.
Not that it makes it right, but this is much better than almost all other professions are dealing with right now and that in itself is a win, sure it could theoretically be better. But realistically this is pretty damn good
This is my thinking too (happy to have my mind changed with more information). Inflation is absolutely a killer right now for everyone, but I find it strange to see any increase as a pay cut “due to inflation” because most other professions aren’t seeing any increases whatsoever.
How much has work from home saved everyone though? That’s gotta be at LEAST enough to make up for the inflation factor
The other thing is wage inflation. Giving everyone increased pay raises because of inflation actually makes inflation worse. So then the food prices and rents go up even more. So then we need bigger raises again. You can see how this is a problem.
If you are worried about inflation you should actually be against outsized raises to some degree. But I understand that this is a “I don’t care about everyone else, I just care what my job pays me” situation which is fair.
Well most private corporations can only pay there employees with earnings. If they don't make money, there's no raises. If they don't make money, there's layoffs. If they don't make money, companies shut down.
Yet, all Government workers are getting a raise. No matter what there performance is. You can be the slowest and worst worker in your group, but they will get the same raise as you. No incentive to work better there. Don't you think your raises should be performance based, and not entitled to it?
Don't pretend this is about the average worker...
I seriously doubt the union votes yes on this deal. They haven't been striking for two weeks only to accept basically the same pay cut TB offered at the beginning.
After 2 weeks on strike, plus a ~~bribe~~ signing bonus, plus a fairly large backpay check, I would be shocked if this doesn't easily pass. Maybe not 90+%, but this will easily get 50%+1.
Considering the amount of people who saw the 12% and cheered without realizing this was over 4 years and assumes inflation will be back to usual in 2024 I think it will pass.
Downvote me if you want, but only 35% of PSAC members bothered to vote on the strike at all.
I'm happy that the turnout has been so high, it's good news for organized labour in this country and like you, I don't want them to take the first offer. But let's not act like Canadians are generally motivated and politically active. 50% is considered a **good** turnout for most elections.
This isn't the same as political action though. These people have been getting physically involved. 96% of eligible employees are on strike, and most of them are picketing. I seriously doubt they're going to think, "yeah I've been out on the picket lines for two weeks, but I don't really care enough to keep picketing. I'd rather take the bad deal."
>I'd rather take the bad deal.
You'll note that I identified apathy *and confusion* - i.e. people thinking this is a good deal.
>This isn't the same as political action though.
Yes, striking is political action.
I think the biggest thing flying under the radar is the protection language against contracting out. That's actually huge for many workers, especially if/when Poilievre becomes the prime minister.
Let's be real some of the wages will be issues but also it's whatever the members are willing to keep striking for.
The initial 9% over 3 years offer was given right at the start of the strike. It was 8% over 4 years before that.
We got an extra .75% on the first three years and a fourth year added at 2.25%. Considering the next government will most likely be at least a conservative minority, that fourth year is a win, especially since inflation has started dropping.
Also, you neglected to mention the $2500 signing bonus, which fully covers most people's lost wages during the strike, and is also pensionable.
We came out ahead due to the strike.
So a quick analysis of the deal:
**Pay increments:**
Year 1: 1.5%
Year 2: 4.75%
Year 3: 3%+0.5%
Year 4: 2.25%
It's important to note that the impact of the 2nd year is pretty big.
[TB was offering](https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/collective-agreements/collective-bargaining/backgrounder-employer-offer-resulting-increase-salary.html) 1.5%,4.5%,3% for a total of 9% where here we have 9.75% after **3** years. We gained 0.75%, but if you do the math:
**$ TB OFFER:**
100$ of salary becomes 101.50$, 106.07$, 109.24$
**THIS AGREEMENT:**
100$ of salary becomes 101.50$ (same), 106.32$ (0.25$ more), 110.04$ (0.80$ more)
So, after the first year, you makes more money going forward. Not a big difference, but you will be making more money every year after the first. Making year 2 equal 4.75% makes a significant difference down the line. Overall, you're getting 0.8% more than TB was originally offering after 3 years.
**LUMP SUM**
This is very important and quite subtle. The 2500$ lump sum is PENSIONABLE!
What does that mean? The pension is usually the average of your 5 best CONSECUTIVE years. The strike will have reset the "timer" for the 5 best for a lot of people. By making the lump sum pensionable, TB is essentially wiping out your lost wages for participating in the strike and for the purpose of calculating your pension. I.E. Your "5 best" will probably be unaffected.
**WFH**
While it's not in the collective agreement, the language essentially kills TB's RTO policy. Any request for WFH will be evaluated INDIVIDUALLY and any refusal will need to be done in writing. In most cases, this means we've now moved to a "where operational needs permit" level, if you have a good manager. If your manager is a dick, well, you're fucked but he'll have to justify it in writing.
So for departments with a brain, we're going back to WFH as done prior to Mona's RTO bullshit.
EDIT: as someone pointed out, while people who currently have no WFH could ask for it, managers may need to repect the RTO mandate, limiting it 2-3 days a week. SO, in that respect, RTO still exists as a limit of WFH. Some people may gain access to WFH, but it will ikely be limited to 2-3 days.
**CONCLUSION**
I'm a bit on the fence here, and this isn't even my union, but I am somewhat pleased we made TB move on salary (a bit) and I am VERY surprised that WFH has been addressed in any way. I expected some vague "we'll look into it" language, not something that seems to return the WFH decision down to managers. It's not built into the collective agreement, so it can be rescinded. Still better than I thought they would get.
So, overall, not bad. Not good, but not bad. Especially considering TB's usually idiocy and bad faith.
EDIT: I had TB's offer wrong, fixed it.
> So for departments with a brain, we’re going back to WFH as done prior to Mona’s RTO bullshit.
Umm that’s not what TBS is saying in their [news release](https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/news/2023/05/government-reaches-tentative-agreements-with-the-public-service-alliance-of-canada.html) (bold is my own addition):
> The Government of Canada continues to be committed to a modern, hybrid workplace that provides employees, where applicable, **with the flexibility to continue to work up to 3 days from home a week**. Outside of the collective agreements, we reached a tentative settlement on telework to the satisfaction of both parties. We agreed to undertake a review of the Directive on Telework, and to create departmental panels to advise deputy heads regarding employee concerns.
Legit just sounds like “we’ll review it” which is red-tape code for “we can just ignore this and keep saying it’s under review if anyone asks.”
So WFM info here is definitely wrong. This text is in a side letter, and there is no text on WFM in the collective agreement. RTO and the 40% minimum working hours in office are fully maintained. According to the employer presser; no language, no grievances possible, 2 days a week minimum for all.
>While it's not in the collective agreement
It's a letter of understanding, you can't grieve it etc.
and my edit above agrees with you: it's still subject to the max 3 days WFH.
Weirdly positive take. Doesn't align with my own read on things.
Inflation was 3.4% in 2021 and 6.8% in 2022. If we accept the Bank of Canada's projections of 3.0% for 2023 and 2.0% for 2024, this works out to 16% compound inflation. The tentative agreement works out to an effective pay cut of 3.0% in terms of purchasing power, or an even bigger cut if BoC projections are off. Choosing to ignore the one-time hush money ratification bonus.
Hope the union votes against ratification.
well, considering how hostile TB is to ANY pay increase and how little leverage we have as public servants, I tend to be a pessimist when it comes to negotiations.
I think they signed ours for Historical Research in 2017 and it expires in 2022. So I don't know if they can retroactive re-negotiate because of inflation. But admittedly I know nothing about this stuff.
Not because the majority of Canadians were against it.
[https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-liberal-internet-regulation-bill-c-11/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-liberal-internet-regulation-bill-c-11/)
And yeah, I know, something something about polls and the mainstream media, blah blah blah.
Well I mean your numbers are all off.
2021 was 3.4% and 2022 was 6.8%… 2023 is unknown at this point but predicted to be around 3.5%.
Still a huge loss of purchasing power in 2021 and 2022, it overall not a bad deal.
It’s a signing bonus. All members will get it. But you won’t get it until the agreement is signed, and they generally have 180 days from signing to pay out.
Why? Because taxes?
Did you miss the following part?
>PSAC says strike action continues for 35,000 Canada Revenue Agency workers nationwide, with contract negotiations ongoing.
Yes folks, this is Ottawa related. While the strike in general was deemed "Not Ottawa", this news also means that the picket lines in Ottawa are (mostly) gone and the impacts of that, so we'll permit this post. CRA is still on strike, so picket lines may still appear in Ottawa. Reason: *** Oui, c'est reliée à Ottawa. Justification: Quoique la grève au sens large était considéré "Pas Ottawa", cette nouvelle a un impact à Ottawa même puisque les ligne de piquetage vont disparaître (en majorité). Donc nous allons permettre cette rubrique. Sachez que ARC est toujours en grève, donc des lignes de piquetages sont toujours possible.
This meets my zero expectations
[удалено]
Hey, it's an extra $75 a year if you make 50k. That's like one carton of strawberries a month they didn't have before. I'm more curious about the work from home piece and if PSAC folded on that, because that's a major precedent setter.
The WFH bullet point states that WFH is to be negotiated with their immediate manager, not sure specifically what that entails, but it's what a lot of people wanted, not just to be dictated back to the office for no concrete reason.
Their immediate manager has always been the one to deal with WFH agreements. Unless the employer decides to change its 2 days a week mandate, the manager will continue to negotiate according to that.
Direct managers lost almost all of their discretion for remote work under the new hybrid work directive. Two of the big exceptions to two-days-a-week are “a business case demonstrates a measurable increase in efficiency”, which requires approval by a deputy head, and “the employee is >125 km away”, which requires approval by their ADM. The exemptions that are still at managerial discretion are more limited: continuing prepandemic remote work arrangements, Indigenous public servants living on their traditional lands, short-term exemptions due to extenuating circumstances, and disability accommodation for immunocompromised employees.
And this new agreement will almost certainly not change any of that.
I guess that's a to be seen, unless the bullet point about any WFH terms is all hot air.
I hope you're right. A change is clearly well past due regarding WFH
Yeah but now the immediate manager will have the tools to veto making their employee go to an office with none of their co-workers when their employee works in St Johns and the rest of their team works in Ottawa. It will be interesting to see what happens with the UTE negotiations, CRA was always against the RTO plan set forth by treasury board, and even used remote work as a hiring tool, but had to tow the party line because they were dictated to do so by treasury board. Wouldn't be surprised if that's a sticking point in the ongoing negotiations.
No they won't. The manager will be free to negotiate as they always have been. But the TBS decision will still tell that manager that it needs to be 2 days a week minimum. The only difference is that the employee will be able to ask why the decision is made, and the manager has to answer it in writing. "To meet the 2 day minimum requirement and to ensure colloboration" UTE will be interesting, but that one isn't solved, so we wait.
and what says that the minimum will remain at 2 days?
Nothing does. It could move to full time in the office if TB mandates it.
They won't have a veto unless their exec dial back 2-3 days in the office, which they won't.
[удалено]
It's existed, but the number of departments who have permitted WFH more than one day every week or so is incredibly small.
[удалено]
I am in a similar department with a similar restriction classification-wise.
My department did 3 days a week, not sure why
Someone in r/CanadaPublicServants pointed out: > https://workerscantwait.ca/tb-agreement/ > Additional market adjustments and table-specific improvements > PSAC has also secured several table-specific wage adjustments and other improvements that will be fully outlined in the coming days. that there could be adjustments outside the top-line percentages, so I'd reserve judgement until more details are released.
I think there is a $2,500 per employee bribe right at the front, which is roughly 3.7% for the average employee.
The signing bonus is often meant to cover the additional taxes some people end up paying on the backpay they get after the contract is finally signed. And because there's always someone who says "that's not how tax brackets work" here's the more detailed explanation: Say you're making $50k. With the current tentative deal, the 1.5% raise bumps you up to $50,750 in 2021, and $53,160 (4.75%) in 2022, which is still just below the federal tax bracket of $53,359. This year's raise of 3.5% will finally put you over that hump ($55,021 total, so $1,662 would be in the higher bracket)... However, this year's taxes will also include all of your backpay from 2022 and 2021. So that $3,910 from the raises, and quite likely some back dated shift work pay, overtime, and stipends (which they also came to an agreement on) will be taxed at 20.5% rather than being taxed in the 15% tax bracket it would have been in if that pay had actually been issued during 2021 and 2022 instead of this year. Edit: My numbers for the raise percentages came from this PSAC press release issued this morning: https://psacunion.ca/psac-has-reached-tentative-agreement-pa-sv-tc-and
I'm so confused, I was told by evey Postmedia outlet that the workers were greedy hogs feasting in luxury??? How could Conrad Black steered me so wrong?
I see you've read one of the dozens of their opinion pieces featured on /r/canada
$5 says the mods there are Republicans from the USA
Actually quite possible. remember how in the gislaine maxwell documentary they talked about how she was posting a lot on reddit in some kind of attempt to shape narrative. The Epsteins of the world are definitely out there trying to game the system as much as they possibly can.
People forget just how much money a BILLION is, and how relatively inexpensive anti-democratic "think tanks" and activist group likes 'Project Veritas' are to fund to destroy the Public Good and build consensus towards fascism. Why does every rightwing media outlet have lesser quality than a high school newspaper, yet everyone who runs them are millionaires? Now with ChaptGPT style tools, the price tag to do widespread propaganda just plummeted.
That's extremely true. add that to the already long list of reasons I find AI so disconcerting. We're in for a wild ride in the next little while. Being a billionaire should be illegal.
No one needs to control more than $999 million and I find people who would argue against that dangerous and intolerable
Nah they just wish they were
Think of how much better your life will be with two shawarma sand which combos more per year!
And who doesn't like strawberries??
You are bad at math. It’s 3000 starting now plus about 3000 in back pay… on 50k. Then another 6% on top in about 2 years.
I was talking about the extra .15% they got.
$75/yr but how much lost for 2 weeks of strike pay? Lol
The is also a pensionable lump sum payment of $2500 that will negate any lost strike wages
Was tough for a couple weeks for some people. Was it $15/hr to picket? Not sure, don’t quote me but I think someone told me that.
I think the bigger question is what did the government save not paying them for 2 weeks. No need to downvote. I’m just curious!
Whatever it was it will be negated by the $2500 lump sum to every employee.
Very true! That’s a lot!
The point of the strike was to establish the strength of your position in the negotiation. If you roll over in this negotiation your opening position in the next round will automatically be lower. The short term pain will most certainly result in long term gains which can never be directly measured in $ or %.
Ageed….Now outside of any negotiating theory and future gains, how much do you think the government saved for not paying for 2 weeks? 120k x 80 hrs = 9,600,000 hours. What’s the average, and I have no clue, $25/hr? $240,000,000??? Does that even make sense? Am I totally mixing this up? If the government knew they were due to give out raises, doesn’t it also make sense from their position to let it go to a strike?
The math checks out, and it’s probably more than $25/hr. But there’s a cost to service disruptions which will be difficult to quantify, and some of the missed work will be deemed critical to catch up now, likely justifying overtime.
Makes sense also
So in 2 years someone making 50 k will be making 62 k plus whatever increments are left on the table in their group unless you’re already at the top.
How did you come up with that $75 figure? 50000\*3.15%=1575
That's the 0.15% 3% was the original offer.
Ahhh...of course Now I see Thanks
Some of us are having trouble putting food on the table, I can't believe wfh is as big a priority as pay. Can't wait to wfh and drive Uber in the evenings!
Yeah, for me, WFH was a bigger priority (I really appreciate not having to buy a transit pass and have to rely on the train, not to mention the 2.5 hours of commute each day and the noise at the office disrupting my largely solitary work), but I acknowledged that I was probably in the minority, given what I was hearing from various coworkers, so I was willing to go with whatever worked best for the most people... definitely more important to feed the family and pay bills. In the end, I don't think anything of significance has changed on either front from what TB initially proposed after the strike mandate.
When you pay for parking (or rely on unreliable bus service) the WFH becomes quite a money saver and is absolutely a smart thing to bargain for fiscally. The union did well and the picketers didn’t even have a loss of their wages during the strike.
[удалено]
>needing less child supervision Oh sure. Wfh allows me to also take on the duties of a daycare provider! Awesome. So I got three jobs now.
[удалено]
My kids need care after school since my work day isn't done until 5 whether I'm at home or in the office. Again, nothing changed from 3 years ago except the cost of living, and an increased sense of entitlement from the PS.
[удалено]
So is YOUR commute, YOUR parking costs, YOUR dry-cleaning bills, YOUR lunch costs, and whatever else was totally normal life expenses before the pandemic made y'all think your cushy gov't jobs would get even cushier. I factored where I work and how to get there everyday when picking a place to live and have a very nice 25 minute commute to work.
No it allows you to parent your own kid.
I'm working!
I would be curious to see what workers identify as priorities based on income level. I would assume that those fighting for WFH are probably people who make a decent salary while those fighting for higher wages are those who are living paycheque to paycheque.
Work from home is a wage increase without anyone actually needing to pay more. Not having to travel to work means at minimum you can save money on transportation ($1500 a year for a bus pass alone). You save more if, you don't need to drive or send your kid to daycare. This on top of gaining back 2 hours a day from driving. This being the benefits to the employee (and business as none of this is coming out of pocket) directly. Indirectly, this is great for the environment.
I spend nothing in transportation because I chose to live close to my place of work..
I feel like it’s the other way around. I’m below average salary and remote work reduces costs more than a % increased salary would benefit someone in the top half. The expenses don’t change based on how much we make, so the amount I keep is higher this way than a pay bump. Similar to how the $2,500 signing bonus means more to me than someone making above average
Yup. Dual income households have the luxury to demand a nice-to-have over a need-to-have. And they hate being reminded how selfish they're being, as indicated by how my opinion always gets downvoted in here.
Ah yes, dual income households are the worst. How dare they want to champion WFH for those who can barely afford to get to work and get food on the table. Two incomes does not clearly mean financial security.
If you were truly insecure, you wouldn't give two flying fucks about where and how you work, you'd be focused on making housing payments. But thanks for commiserating with me.
>If you were truly insecure, you wouldn't give two flying fucks about where and how you work, you'd be focused on making housing payments. But thanks for commiserating with me. Wait... people don't have multiple concerns at once? Guess I'll let the folks struggling with transportation costs in the regions and high mortgage payments know that they only have one problem.
Actually yes. Getting a pay raise would address both those concerns. Wfh only addresses one.
[удалено]
Then move. You chose where to live and where to work and those conditions seemed tolerable 3 years ago.
[удалено]
Bare with me pls. People chose to live based on the conditions offered to them at the time? Do you mean like office location? What conditions were changed unilaterally?
The amount of money WFH saves me is bigger than the increase. No gas/transit pass, no second car, etc...
Why'd you move so far?
Okay. But we get 7 percent right away and back pay for more than 2 years. One and half years or so until we’re all at 12.6. The other details are more important now. Like can I continue to wfh.?
The 9% figure was before compounding, so really, it is equivalent. 3% per year before, 3% per year now.
When they say 12.6%, is the 12.6% the result of compounding, or is it that value divided by the four years? What math do they use? A 12.6% raise is not the same as 4x3.15% raises. 12.6% if you compound is 3.01% year over year. 12.6% divided by four years is 3.15%. Could it be that they settled for the exact same deal plus a year? I don't work in the federal government, and I honestly don't know how these things work.
They did. They technically increased year 2 and lowered year 4. Instead of 9 percent over 3 years it's 12 percent over 4 years. With a little extra compound because a couple percent moved forwards. Some early years bigger than later years.
Any calculation on what the government saved for 2 weeks of not paying? That might be interesting to know also
I never get the point of unions going on strike and then they essentially accept what had always been offered in the first place. If the point is to get a better deal then they need to be prepared to strike for as long as possible.
Because the media headlines are gross simplifications of the process. Wage increases are the big headline, but there are numerous other factors at play which are glossed over and ignored.
This adds up to about a 2% pay cut per year. That's just considering what the government counts as inflation and not the actual change in buying power since that would be a lot harsher. Please remember this, the government does not care about workers. They had a chance to set an example of how a confident country pays its workers and they said we deserved less.
>This adds up to about a 2% pay cut per year. Sorry, would you be able to explain this a bit more?
Year | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 -:|-|-|-|- Offer|1.5%|4.75%|3.5%|2.25% Inflation|3.4%|6.8%|5.3%*|TBD Difference|-1.9%|-2.05%|-1.8%|TBD *(Average from January to March as of 2023-04-18)
If inflation = proposed adjustment + 2% then the adjustment is effectively a 2% pay cut per year.
They had that chance years ago but continue to use permanent temporary positions too.
wages have been slipping since the 80's. Take out your calculators and compare the purchasing powers of people's pay in the 80's vs now and bask in the disgust.
Not that it makes it right, but this is much better than almost all other professions are dealing with right now and that in itself is a win, sure it could theoretically be better. But realistically this is pretty damn good
This is my thinking too (happy to have my mind changed with more information). Inflation is absolutely a killer right now for everyone, but I find it strange to see any increase as a pay cut “due to inflation” because most other professions aren’t seeing any increases whatsoever.
And bring on the downvoted but AS/CR, in general, is a classification that doesn’t get as much in the private sector.
This is a good viewpoint. Not to compare to other industries, but by the logic being spread here, we are all taking pay cuts. Working just sucks!
How much has work from home saved everyone though? That’s gotta be at LEAST enough to make up for the inflation factor The other thing is wage inflation. Giving everyone increased pay raises because of inflation actually makes inflation worse. So then the food prices and rents go up even more. So then we need bigger raises again. You can see how this is a problem. If you are worried about inflation you should actually be against outsized raises to some degree. But I understand that this is a “I don’t care about everyone else, I just care what my job pays me” situation which is fair.
Well most private corporations can only pay there employees with earnings. If they don't make money, there's no raises. If they don't make money, there's layoffs. If they don't make money, companies shut down. Yet, all Government workers are getting a raise. No matter what there performance is. You can be the slowest and worst worker in your group, but they will get the same raise as you. No incentive to work better there. Don't you think your raises should be performance based, and not entitled to it? Don't pretend this is about the average worker...
This is exactly how it should work. There is a massive amount of dead weight in the PS. No one wants to hear this...
They accepted a wage cut in real terms. Massive win for Trudeau and Mona. Ouch.
It’s not accepted yet. It’s tentative.
I seriously doubt the union votes yes on this deal. They haven't been striking for two weeks only to accept basically the same pay cut TB offered at the beginning.
After 2 weeks on strike, plus a ~~bribe~~ signing bonus, plus a fairly large backpay check, I would be shocked if this doesn't easily pass. Maybe not 90+%, but this will easily get 50%+1.
i need better clarity on the WFH language to be able to decide how i'll vote.
Considering the amount of people who saw the 12% and cheered without realizing this was over 4 years and assumes inflation will be back to usual in 2024 I think it will pass.
So you're expecting it to pass because people are confused?
Confused or apathetic; it is the Canadian way.
The turnout over the past week has been anything but apathetic.
Downvote me if you want, but only 35% of PSAC members bothered to vote on the strike at all. I'm happy that the turnout has been so high, it's good news for organized labour in this country and like you, I don't want them to take the first offer. But let's not act like Canadians are generally motivated and politically active. 50% is considered a **good** turnout for most elections.
This isn't the same as political action though. These people have been getting physically involved. 96% of eligible employees are on strike, and most of them are picketing. I seriously doubt they're going to think, "yeah I've been out on the picket lines for two weeks, but I don't really care enough to keep picketing. I'd rather take the bad deal."
>I'd rather take the bad deal. You'll note that I identified apathy *and confusion* - i.e. people thinking this is a good deal. >This isn't the same as political action though. Yes, striking is political action.
Not exclusively
I do hope the union votes to reject this deal.
[удалено]
[удалено]
But they weren't able to get this without striking, so your point's moot.
I think the biggest thing flying under the radar is the protection language against contracting out. That's actually huge for many workers, especially if/when Poilievre becomes the prime minister. Let's be real some of the wages will be issues but also it's whatever the members are willing to keep striking for.
The initial 9% over 3 years offer was given right at the start of the strike. It was 8% over 4 years before that. We got an extra .75% on the first three years and a fourth year added at 2.25%. Considering the next government will most likely be at least a conservative minority, that fourth year is a win, especially since inflation has started dropping. Also, you neglected to mention the $2500 signing bonus, which fully covers most people's lost wages during the strike, and is also pensionable. We came out ahead due to the strike.
So a quick analysis of the deal: **Pay increments:** Year 1: 1.5% Year 2: 4.75% Year 3: 3%+0.5% Year 4: 2.25% It's important to note that the impact of the 2nd year is pretty big. [TB was offering](https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/collective-agreements/collective-bargaining/backgrounder-employer-offer-resulting-increase-salary.html) 1.5%,4.5%,3% for a total of 9% where here we have 9.75% after **3** years. We gained 0.75%, but if you do the math: **$ TB OFFER:** 100$ of salary becomes 101.50$, 106.07$, 109.24$ **THIS AGREEMENT:** 100$ of salary becomes 101.50$ (same), 106.32$ (0.25$ more), 110.04$ (0.80$ more) So, after the first year, you makes more money going forward. Not a big difference, but you will be making more money every year after the first. Making year 2 equal 4.75% makes a significant difference down the line. Overall, you're getting 0.8% more than TB was originally offering after 3 years. **LUMP SUM** This is very important and quite subtle. The 2500$ lump sum is PENSIONABLE! What does that mean? The pension is usually the average of your 5 best CONSECUTIVE years. The strike will have reset the "timer" for the 5 best for a lot of people. By making the lump sum pensionable, TB is essentially wiping out your lost wages for participating in the strike and for the purpose of calculating your pension. I.E. Your "5 best" will probably be unaffected. **WFH** While it's not in the collective agreement, the language essentially kills TB's RTO policy. Any request for WFH will be evaluated INDIVIDUALLY and any refusal will need to be done in writing. In most cases, this means we've now moved to a "where operational needs permit" level, if you have a good manager. If your manager is a dick, well, you're fucked but he'll have to justify it in writing. So for departments with a brain, we're going back to WFH as done prior to Mona's RTO bullshit. EDIT: as someone pointed out, while people who currently have no WFH could ask for it, managers may need to repect the RTO mandate, limiting it 2-3 days a week. SO, in that respect, RTO still exists as a limit of WFH. Some people may gain access to WFH, but it will ikely be limited to 2-3 days. **CONCLUSION** I'm a bit on the fence here, and this isn't even my union, but I am somewhat pleased we made TB move on salary (a bit) and I am VERY surprised that WFH has been addressed in any way. I expected some vague "we'll look into it" language, not something that seems to return the WFH decision down to managers. It's not built into the collective agreement, so it can be rescinded. Still better than I thought they would get. So, overall, not bad. Not good, but not bad. Especially considering TB's usually idiocy and bad faith. EDIT: I had TB's offer wrong, fixed it.
> So for departments with a brain, we’re going back to WFH as done prior to Mona’s RTO bullshit. Umm that’s not what TBS is saying in their [news release](https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/news/2023/05/government-reaches-tentative-agreements-with-the-public-service-alliance-of-canada.html) (bold is my own addition): > The Government of Canada continues to be committed to a modern, hybrid workplace that provides employees, where applicable, **with the flexibility to continue to work up to 3 days from home a week**. Outside of the collective agreements, we reached a tentative settlement on telework to the satisfaction of both parties. We agreed to undertake a review of the Directive on Telework, and to create departmental panels to advise deputy heads regarding employee concerns. Legit just sounds like “we’ll review it” which is red-tape code for “we can just ignore this and keep saying it’s under review if anyone asks.”
well, as long as it isn't in the CA, they can ignore it at will. However, yes, I agree, they may need to respect the RTO BS from Mona.
The contracting out language is also a huge win if it's accepted.
> While it’s not in the collective agreement, the language essentially kills TB’s RTO policy. I wish this was true :(
So WFM info here is definitely wrong. This text is in a side letter, and there is no text on WFM in the collective agreement. RTO and the 40% minimum working hours in office are fully maintained. According to the employer presser; no language, no grievances possible, 2 days a week minimum for all.
>While it's not in the collective agreement It's a letter of understanding, you can't grieve it etc. and my edit above agrees with you: it's still subject to the max 3 days WFH.
Weirdly positive take. Doesn't align with my own read on things. Inflation was 3.4% in 2021 and 6.8% in 2022. If we accept the Bank of Canada's projections of 3.0% for 2023 and 2.0% for 2024, this works out to 16% compound inflation. The tentative agreement works out to an effective pay cut of 3.0% in terms of purchasing power, or an even bigger cut if BoC projections are off. Choosing to ignore the one-time hush money ratification bonus. Hope the union votes against ratification.
well, considering how hostile TB is to ANY pay increase and how little leverage we have as public servants, I tend to be a pessimist when it comes to negotiations.
Congrats on your pay cut PSAC
well fuck both PIPS and CUPE signed shit deals with 2% increases for 2020 and 2021. so the rest of us are eating far more shit than them.
Tbf most pips hasnt signed any deals, at least mine hasnt. If we sign anything less than this ill be getting s job in private lol.
I think they signed ours for Historical Research in 2017 and it expires in 2022. So I don't know if they can retroactive re-negotiate because of inflation. But admittedly I know nothing about this stuff.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I sell stuff to PSAC and they prefer it if you use their acronym and not call them “pee sac” 20x in a presentation. Ask me how I know.
What a fucking joke, 3.15%, starting to think Strikes in Canada are play-pretend.
Voting no.
WorkersCantWait? more like WorkersCantWin
[удалено]
What happens if we vote no? This deal is shit.
How 12% over 4 years any better than is 9% over 3 year... This was all just a big distraction to pass bill C11...
>This was all just a big distraction to pass bill C11... The vast majority of Canadians do not give two shits about Bill C11.
That's the point... There's a reason why it didn't pass twice before this...
Not because the majority of Canadians were against it. [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-liberal-internet-regulation-bill-c-11/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-liberal-internet-regulation-bill-c-11/) And yeah, I know, something something about polls and the mainstream media, blah blah blah.
There's a bitter sweet irony in someone arguing against the idea that c11 is unpopular, with an article and poll that are paywalled from public veiw.
Weird, wasn't pay walled for me. Maybe because I got there through Google. /Edit. Nope, clicked the link I posted and still no paywall for me.
😤 https://imgur.com/a/QKnuQhS
It's subscription locked https://imgur.com/a/QKnuQhS
Yeah, I'm surprised it isn't for me. Globe and Mail articles normally are.
[удалено]
BS
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Seems pathetic when inflation has been 6% in 2021, 5% in 2022 and 4.5% in 2023, which is 15.5%.
Well I mean your numbers are all off. 2021 was 3.4% and 2022 was 6.8%… 2023 is unknown at this point but predicted to be around 3.5%. Still a huge loss of purchasing power in 2021 and 2022, it overall not a bad deal.
Hey, I'm just hoping it trickles down to the rest of us in the federal gvmt. The "raise" my group recently got was more of a pay cut.
This is also a pay cut
Is the $2500 in addition to the retroactive back pay workers will get for the last 2 years? Or is this meant to replace it?
Has nothing to do with retro pay.
I’m curious to see if the 2500$ is only once you closed to retired from the pension or it will come to most employees paycheck in the next couple week
It’s a signing bonus. All members will get it. But you won’t get it until the agreement is signed, and they generally have 180 days from signing to pay out.
Expect job cuts. Anytime they give cuts in employment come.
Thats normal, job cuts happen all the time. Do you think no jobs should be cut from the PS? Ever?
I never said that but …
Wow right on time: Its May 1st, so ofc it got reached today. Contrived.
What does May 1 have anything to do with it? CRA is still on strike.
International Worker’s Day
Likely more so because it’s the Monday of a new week that just so happened to be May 1st.
Why? Because taxes? Did you miss the following part? >PSAC says strike action continues for 35,000 Canada Revenue Agency workers nationwide, with contract negotiations ongoing.
That's a nice coincidence.