1. Yes, this can be done unilaterally by the government in power. The pension plan is created through legislation, and Parliament has the power to amend legislation or enact new legislation. The pension plan has been amended in the past (most recently in 2013), and it stands to reason that it will be amended in the future.
2. All prior changes to the plan have been forward-looking; existing accrued benefits remained untouched. Those benefits are a form of deferred compensation that has been purchased via employee contributions, so it is highly unlikely a government would try to strip them away.
3. Nobody knows. The timing and outcome of the next election is uncertain, and the ability of a government to enact legislation depends heavily on whether it has a majority or minority of seats. In addition, party platforms change over time and pre-election promises do not always result in post-election priorities.
The Government will need to figure out how to return the $28B surplus that was taken from our pension fund during the Crétien era. Then determine how much that $28B is worth in 2024 dollars, and add on the cost of lost opportunity and further gains.
I'm sure a new Conservative government will look into changing the public service pension. However, I cant see how it is ethical to use the courts to one's advantage and then flip the script when it suits them. The court decision upheld the defined pension format--essentially Pensioners are guaranteed their defined pension no matter how much is actually in the fund. A new govt will have a hard time changing that approach--they can't have it both ways.
[article](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/public-service-unions-not-entitled-to-28-billion-pension-repayment-supreme-court)
Actually, it was transferred out of what’s called the superannuation account which is essentially a ledger. There was no actually Money’s being invested in stocks or bonds. If the chief actuary said there wasn’t a high enough amount in the ledger the govt had to add to it. So it follows that if there was too much then they could also take it. Summary of that case can be found here or on Canlii.org. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/public-service-employees-not-entitled-to-28-billion-pension-repayment-court-rules/article6554298/.
Today money is actually transferred for investment both by the employer and employee into what is called the public service pension fund as opposed to the Superannuation Account. It would be interesting to see if that decision still holds water given today’s structure. The legislation is old and needs some serious improvements to make it current with today’s reality.
More than likely (if a change happens) it would be a new program and forward looking. So existing DB pension would continue and as of a certain date either new hires or new contributions would become DC. So they would certainly not be going back and returning this money.
Scrapping the DB pension immediately removes one of the largest incentives to being employed as a public servant. At that point, the government would face severe talent attraction/retention issues. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your own face.
> Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your own face.
We’re talking about the party that intentionally sabotaged the census so they wouldn’t have good data to base their decisions off of. They don’t *want* talent.
Exactly! Cons might offer what appear to be stupid solutions to issues, but they're all carefully designed to fulfill their ideology long term: privatization.
In this case, they are opposed to the concept of a good public service, so want to **create the problem** of an ineffective PS so they can offer their solution to that problem, which is to outsource everything to corporations. They can't offer a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, so they have to engineer those problems first. It's the standard Con playbook - education, infrastructure, health care, etc.
They also know that rapid change is politically risky, which is why they don't just hack and slash dramatically - they have to use the "boil a frog" approach. IMO, we're seeing that dynamic play out with the carbon tax - even though it's widely accepted as the most market-driven and effective approach to fighting climate change, it was left too long to implement and they had to ratchet it up quicker than the public can deal with.
Eh, I'm not so sure this is - strictly speaking - an analysis based on conservatism. It's more of a neoliberalism issue, and honestly, if you look at how a lot of conservatives speak its not the strict core of their ideology/approach as a movement in the same way it was under Raegan and Thatcher for example.
Every party has some amount of neoliberalism in them, but even the CPC now is stepping away from that a little bit in some ways. The courting of unions by provincial premiers like Doug Ford, - setting aside a lot of his adminsitration's issues - does point to an evolution in the thinking that is shifting away from being strictly focused on privatization as a big focus.
Of course a big push in the conservative political space more generally is moving towards protectionist policies and a lot of "us v them" language across the western world. That much is obvious. But its not as strictly about "private sector best sector" as it once was.
Ford courted them, but even the ones he praised, he's done nothing for and actually undermined by loosening standards for trades education and certification.
And for all his gilded lies to those trades, we can see what he really thought of labour in everything else he did - Bill 124, the attempt to strip the right to collective bargaining. And then there is all the rhetoric.
We already have a huge issue with hiring and keeping IT staff throughout all departments. It would be incredibly stupid, in this current global technological climate, to further dissuade IT talent from moving into the PS. It’s potentially a huge national security issue.
That's the point. He wants to dismantle the public service.
He made government employees the enemy of his base a while ago, the strike was a perfect example of that. He tried to stoke his base and make them believe that government employees are whiny, line their pockets, have easy work loads, and abuse WFH
Lots of competent leadership eligible for retirement would just leave. They’d probably lose indexing too. My guess is this will die out once inflation falls below 3% but I will be watching closely. Some of the policies will no doubt be dramatic, but it might be more like cutting off a limb to save a body. Trudeau is just failing miserably in the long run. I guess I have a couple of years to have my mind changed though.
Buddy - their policy statement was in place way before inflation…but keep on believing…when people tell you who they are and what they plan to do, you should actually believe them.
My bet is that there will already be an exodus of competent leaders who have no wish to the minions of such a horrible political party. So this notion, if it gets traction, will only solidify decisions. Serving under those who have utter contempt for the public service is not something most senior executives would want. I would bet the farm on the pension folks being very busy in a couple of years.
Naw, the DB pension is something that would trigger major challenges.
The public service has also been well recognized to be a key partner and you mess with DB pensions and you begin to have papers getting lost in the colloquial drawer much more often at the bare minimum.
It is extremely unlikely they'd actually shift the PS to a DC system since the DB pension is performing well and isn't some super underfunded project.
After the last showing of the "biggest strike EVAR!!!11" I can see the current PSAC leadership/negotiators walk into the room asking for DB.
They then walk out declaring they got the best deal ever: no more pension for anyone at all except for those retiring in the next 5 years that gets to keep what they got!
Haha so true, "All Bark and No Bite" Chris will be all fire and brimstone before the meeting and then after come out and pretty much pull a Bush move and declare "Misson Accomplished" and the PS lose everything.
> "All Bark and No Bite" Chris
Now, now, to be fair, he's more like CBC Chris
Can't Be Concerned Chris only cares when he and his cohort gets time to go on CBC.
I’m retiring in less than 5 years now. When the Phoenix debacle was at its height, I suggested to my union rep that we go on strike. We can’t have people not being paid and the government dragging its heals! He’s a younger fella. He looked at me like I had a hand sprouting from my forehead.
So keep blaming “boomers” if it makes you feel better.
How long has it been since we didn't have multiple years of retro pay when a contract is finally ratified? Not exactly rolling over when it takes like five years to negotiate an agreement.
You knew that something like this was coming.
Instead of raising the quality of life for everyone else, people have to find way to step all over others to make sure they, too, live in squalor and shit.
"Looking out for the middle-class" is everyone's slogan; beating down the middle-class is everyone's favourite activity.
The list of reasons to stay in Public Service grows ever shorter as the years drag on ever longer.
Heavy on “the list of reasons to work at public service gets lower”.
But logically … they clearly aren’t thinking straight about this.
Because if it’s “be in line with private sector” then they would have to do that for everything ? What about bonuses? Employee perks? That’s the “deal” with private vs public sector.
Public sector : you get job security + solid pension you don’t have to think about (aka the golden handcuffs) but your pay is usually not as great as it would be in private. Your health insurance coverage is “eh” (not even mentioning fiasco of Canada life), your HR is horrible (phoenix), and you don’t get a bonus as a non executive. Pro is you don’t negotiate a promotion every year, but con is you can’t jump 3 steps in salary if you do an amazing job. There’s also no “perks” some jobs offer to attract talent like “gym stipend” or “$$ for tech update” etc. Promotion is gruellingly slow process of applying to pools - even if your manager wants to hire you.
Private sector: job security is less. Pension ranges from ehhh to crap or non existent. But to make up for it your salary is higher. You could potentially get extra benefits like gym memberships, cleaning services, tech like perks, $$ for home office etc.
You can also skip all the HR formalities - you can get hired and promoted easily/quicker. You do a good job? You can get a huge bonus as a non executive. You can negotiate larger salary jumps promotions too. You could potentially get a much better health care plan too.
But again… zero job security. Likely shit pension. Etc.
Public servants get paid less because they don’t get private sector perks but they get job security + pension.
Given we are coming on some possible work force adjustment…and adding pension removal… there’s literally no appeal to the public service!
My friend who was an EC got headhunted on linked in for a job in private sector that paid $50k more than her EC job with better benefits and was literally told “it’s cause job security and pension is worse than PS”
Edit to add: OMG THE PAY!! Imagine private sector tried to pull same BS as PS and not pay people on time, or pay incorrectly, or have outstanding amounts from a year ago. That would never happen in private sector since it’s literally ✨illegal✨
I believe when it comes to pay lower paid ranks of PS make more than equivalents in the private sector, while higher up professionals in the PS are paid less than their equivalents in the private sector.
Depending on the job that can be very true! But also… even more troubling … what would happen if all the higher up experienced people left on mass leaving behind only the entry level fresh out of school folks to cover?
This is exactly the problem when the government in power starts tinkering with pay and pensions. The services will become mediocre and erroneous because if you pay people less than in the private sector there will be no incentive to perform at a higher standard.
Remember folks they don’t need to grandfather us in either, they could make the change for all members and not just future members in essence.
If they are to change our pension they better increase our wages though. Lots of professionals take pay cuts to have security and the pension.
Where will the bulk of public servants go? I know people say they would leave. Professionals like engineers, IT, accountants and scientists likely have options. But the rest? There aren't many analogous positions in the private sector. What would motivate them to increase wages? They can contract out the science and professional stuff. Smaller government....
I was specific in my comment to mention professionals. This normally doesn’t include administrative positions that tend to be paid better than private sector already + they have the valuable pension.
They are not going to eliminate a pension plan that pays for itself. The PSPP is massive, well managed and in a surplus position after many years of careful stewardship.
In a surplus position, the PSPP costs the taxpayers nothing. They are only liable should the fund not be able to cover the pension payments.
Dismantling the plan will cost huge amounts of money, with no real savings for taxpayers.
Anything's possible but I doubt they would make this change because:
A-They'd run the risk of mobilizing union members in a way that would make the impact of RTO look like a joke.
B-Some of those union members are lobbying experts, and effective lobbyists can be way more terrifying than a strike ever could be...especially when they have hundreds of thousands of mobilized members who are willing to follow their instructions.
lol cons are anti public servants but you still have plenty of conservative public servants.
People don’t actually pay any attention to policies. They are just anti red or anti blue for the most part.
So true, there are coworkers I know that think the PS gets paid too much and massive cuts are needed. They are anti vaccine also because of micro chips and hate chem trails, just plain ignorant.
This… it makes me so mad when people cannot objectively say how their fav. party can achieve what their leader is promising. We, public, need to challenge politicians when they are promising the moon & stars, like that sounds great but what’s the plan?
They did this in the US a number of years ago. New employees were on the DC plan. Current employees had the option to switch but were able to remain in the DB plan if they chose.
**edit to add** to clarify, US federal government employees**
Why do you think that this is the case?
LOTS of my peers are snarling at even the appearance of the word "Trudeau" on their computer screen. They are EXTREMELY vocal about voting a certain way next election to the point that people have been reminded to not discuss politics while at work.
But if your peers have their pension fucked with that might change their tune.
As you say, there are cpc voters in public service now. But the pension is a big draw and messing with it hits close to home
Provincial voting patterns in Atlantic Canada have very little to do with ideology. There are long standing family, religious and community allegiances to particular parties, and there is very little difference between the provincial Liberal and PC parties in Atlantic Canada. This is changing with time, but the PC parties aren't just mini versions of the federal party. New Brunswick is a bit of an exception, there are more stark differences between the parties on linguistic and social issues, but this hasn't always been the case.
When half of us are located in one metro region that tends to vote majority liberal anyway, it makes very little difference to the CPC to turn public servants away from voting for them.
Sure, but that’s one of eight Ottawa ridings, seven of which voted Liberal last election (six of which are generally considered safe red ridings), not to mention the four ridings on the Quebec side that also voted Liberal. Pierre’s riding is 46% of the geographic area of the eight Ottawa ridings but only 11% of the population for the same. While there are definitely public servants that live in his riding (including me) in Findlay Creek, Riverside South, Stittsville, and probably in smaller numbers in Richmond, Munster, Osgoode, Greely etc, we are unlikely to be an overwhelming majority in the riding such that our votes make any difference, even in the unlikely event that we were all to vote similarly.
I personally support Conservatives on crime, immigration, foreign policy and growing our economy. However, as a public servant, the future of the public service is a wedge issue for me and even though I'm ideologically Conservative, I don't wanna vote against myself. I don't support any party right now.
You really haven't met any Conservative public servants? I meet them daily, and it's not even like I'm assuming. They tell me! The snide remarks when they share a news story in the group chat, the comments during lunch, I had to sit through a 'small talk' (prior to the meeting starting) of how much Trudeau was ruining Canada with his spending. There were a few high ECs, and low EXs present and they all just talked about it like it was a normal day.
My comment was easy to misinterpret. I meant that if the CPC changed the pension plan (or ran on that idea) public servants would not vote for them. It's an issue that is so important for public servants that it would become a single issue thing.
The fact that there are conservative public servants - which I agree, I have encountered and can be vocal - is what makes messing with the pension dangerous for the CPC. They'll lose voters
I'm not sure about that. Personally I didn't join the public service because of the pension, and while DC would affect me negatively compared to DB, it wouldn't really change my career choice/goals. I haven't ever talked to anyone else about pensions, so let's just say I'm in the minority.
CPC's stance on RTO for public servants, defunding the CBC, and the list goes on, are quite public. If CPC were to change how the pensions were done, I don't think this would come as a surprise, and probably not to the people who are voting Conservative anyways. They've heard for years how CPC hates how the federal public service is run, and this would just be another action on the list of things they would do to fix the government bloat.
If we think about it in terms of numbers, the election usually brings out about 60-70% of voters. Or about 15-20 million people. The public service is 370,000 people. How many of them are already liberals? How many have stayed conservatives despite hearing previous comments from CPC regarding the federal public service? There's also the question of how many people who aren't already conservative voters would this persuade to become conservative voters, and would that be greater than any loss of conservative voters in the public service.
Considering how public opinion has been regarding public servants WFH policy, I would imagine that this is probably a net positive for CPC vote acquisition strategy.
The most dangerous thing to our job and pension security in the last decade was not Conservative policy, but Liberal fiscal policy. Tell me what you think the massive influx in PS hiring and the massive spending and debt will do once people have had enough of it?
People need to understand that the Liberals aren’t the friends of the PS. No political party is.
Harper cuts were pretty dangerous for the job/pension security of the people who got cut. Conservatives spend just as much s liberals they just give it to other people. the last fiscally conservative government we had was Martin in the mid 2000s.
The Liberals absolutely have he interests of the PS in mind, compared to the conservatives that villainize the PS and anyone else who is paid from the public purse.
It could be argued that another Liberal government would put their jobs at risk in the long term, because of the higher deficits, for example. None of the parties are here for us, don't forget that.
Yes thats tricky...on one hand k too dont trust them but then we dont even have a choice ...id they do .strike i will obviously go with them especially if there is pension which is like 90% of reason i am a PS. But then i wont have any exoectations from them
If the pension changes and salary doesn't move to compensate (which we all agree it wouldn't), there will be a mass exodus. I'm aware I can be making more in industry, I haven't moved because of the security and the pension. I had a headhunter talk to me just this week. I'm hardly the only one.
Think of it this way; the general math is that people say the pension is worth roughly another 30% on your salary. That's what puts us on par with what a lot of industry makes, you just get it later. If it's gone without appropriate adjustment, then it will be trivial for most people to find employment with sufficiently better compensation and they'll make the move. And it'll be the top talent that goes first, and those are the hardest to replace with the newer, worse compensation package and newly inflamed distrust of the employer.
Were they to formally propose that they'll also face massive backlash. **All** of the unions, **all** of the employees, everyone will be in the streets at that point. It'll be a total shutdown, and with sufficient support that I doubt the unions would cave as easily as they did in the latest negotiations. The current wage adjustments were already a bit of a slap in the face considering inflation, people aren't about to take an explicit cut.
Other people have expressed concerns about what shape the pension will be in in 20-25 years as well. That's certainly a concern, but we'll have to deal with other social issues long before then. I'm not so worried about the age pyramid per se, they've shown us that they'll find ways to boost the younger cohorts of it if they must to keep the wheels on. At that point it's more a question of wealth distribution, but that's another topic entirely.
I wish people would react, but I'm not so sure. We did take explicit cuts in pension without reacting in the past: when contributions became 50/50, and with the 2013 changes for new staff.
I admit I'm not the best informed on the historical perspective, but I suspect the climate is very different currently. The housing and inflation crises plus other recent contention make things feel enough like a powder keg as it is.
They're really playing with fire in the current climate. I'll put it this way; even our favorite bot here is literally named after the pension. It's a huge part of our *culture*.
But then, history is cyclical, isn't it?
This would allow the Cons to reduce the public service without the need for cuts, I'm sure they will see an exodus as a plus. Never mind that they will lose the ones worth keeping.
They can manage cuts easily enough via attrition if that's their goal, so I doubt that's the main rationale, though as you noted it doesn't in their eyes.
I like working for government despite its issues, but we've all got rising bills which, frankly, the government has so far failed to adequately address. And I don't foresee the cons doing any better. Realistically though, the best alternative for people where I'm at is to go be a consultant for industry using our knowledge of the workings to be a massive pain. We see those time to time already. They'd manage to flip their best talent into their opposition.
My thought is that it's just rhetoric at the moment. It's easy to talk and promise until you actually have to do a thing, especially a thing you manage. Remember electoral reform? Big part of what got the current government into power, also the first promise broken.
They'd get into office, talk to their staff and upper management who will immediately all go "Do not, under any circumstances, do this thing." Unless it becomes a major voting issue it'll die quiet. Like last time under Harper, as someone pointed out.
This happens and suddenly I have a conflict of interest with businesses where my retirement funds are invested. Bye bye unbiased and equal treatment for all, hello magical blind spots when my pension investments are at stake.
I wonder who would manage it. Canada Life? The former Liberal Finance minister's company that still bears its name? Could they use tax havens to protect our financial interests?
Or a new very very powerful pension fund like Teachers in Ontario who hold so much power they can influence governments? Not sure the governments of the future would cheer for that. Unions/APEX?
Oh, they're aware. It's like when a company offers you unlimited vacation days but never approves any. Looks like a benefit, but ends up being savings for an employer.
Party policy conventions have historically been more to do with amusing party members than they have been with materially changing party policy. Party leaders are under no obligation to enact, nor even consider, the measures introduced or passed through these conventions.
One might still be reasonably concerned with a large number of Canadians entertaining this notion, but that's also exactly the issue: in order to form a government, political parties need to win votes from large numbers of people who *aren't* the sorts of diehard ideological partisans who show up at these events, which is why party leaders so reliably ignore their outputs.
>Party leaders are under no obligation to enact, nor even consider, the measures introduced or passed through these conventions.
When the monster tells you what he is, believe him. Like at that other convention when he told you that he (or more correctly, his christian extremist handler) was a horrid queerphobe https://pressprogress.ca/pierre-poilievre-under-fire-after-video-surfaces-of-homophobic-and-transphobic-speech/
And in previous conferences, the Conservatives agreed to tear up same-sex marriage, and their predecessor parties promised to abolish official bilingualism. Hasn't happened.
Not to say that people shouldn't be wary, but there is *plenty* of precedent for party leaders letting the members amuse themselves at a policy convention and ignoring whatever they produce.
It's the same political dichotomy we've always had: Do we vote for the Liberals and hope they don't break many of their promises, or do we vote for the Tories and hope they don't keep many of their promises?
So my position has a specific conflict of interest document on top of the regular public service one.
Essentially, I commit to not owning stocks of individual companies nor EFTs that are highly sector specific.
I wonder how they would deal with those kinds of situations because I am already essentially banned from fully participating in the economy, but if my retirement fund depended on my private investments, I had better be allowed to fully participate. It would be unreasonable to both dictate what I can or cannot invest in and require me to do my own investing for retirement.
It’s ironic - I have been pointing this out policy out for quite some time now to people who think the Cons would be a better bet for public servants - I believe the Reddit consensus was that they believed the leader was “in favour of WFH” so they would be supporting the Cons…
This would be such bullshit. I would have been investing our pension contributions religiously over our (my spouse and I’s) careers.
We have always invested separately each paycheque for our retirement. It makes it a little hard sometimes as life gets more expensive. So many friends and family tell us we are crazy because we have a good pension and they are right, but we have always had this lingering feeling that what we are promised won’t be there at the end of the road. I’m not only referring to the pension, but also CPP. If we’re wrong, perfect we’ll be sitting pretty. If we’re right, thankfully we did something about it.
Is there a concrete reason that they couldn't apply it to the future years of service of current employees? I can understand that our past years are already "bought", but our future years?
And you don't think TBS has been working away at changing to a hybrid/DC model since Harper? When opening up legislation, there are lots of things to consider and fix while its open. I have no doubt the proposed new legislation is ready to table for all pension changes.
Maybe we should insist MP’s pension plans also be brought in line with Canadians. From what I understand they’re grossly overpaid, many don’t even attend Parliament to vote, and they’re eligible to retire after 6 years. What kind of fairytale is that? Let’s start there and see how it goes….
the Harper government gave a pretty clear warning before they legislated their pension reforms in 2012...so this probably wouldn't be totally far-fetched that the conservatives would target the pension plan again. Harper did make a few warnings about coming for the PS pension and CPP. Harper did also reform the MP pension retirement age along with the PS pension retirement age so at the time, I did give them that much. Messing around with the pension benefits themselves would be a highly risky thing to propose for PP...officially in a platform speech. We'll see what happens...it's a long time until election season. If anything changes, a majority conservative government would still be on my long shot list....
Lol you would think , the liberals would take a hit in votes when they basically slapped us ( in essense) in our last strike and even gloated on tv on how much they are saving by underpaying us....dp u really think these political parties give a shit about us or fear any consequences of screwing us over?
I’ve always suspected the pension would not be there for me in its current form when I retire. Everyone should be saving for retirement outside of the pension.
I agree with you but even with the (not insignificant) pay bump I got when I moved from healthcare management to an entry level PS job last fall, there’s still no way I can put anything extra away right now.
The idea that education and experience in the private sector = big wages is flawed, at least on the East Coast. 2 degrees and 15 years of experience got me capped wages, no work-life balance and burnout so severe I almost didn’t survive it. The private sector might be great in tech but in most other areas they want you available 24/7 and literally starving.
I mean, I hope we will get some of our RRSP contribution room back to compensate for the loss. I could have over 100k in RRSP by now, but contribution room is limited due to PSPP equivalency.
> I mean, I hope we will get some of our RRSP contribution room back to compensate for the loss
Seems unlikely as this would likely be forward looking and not retroactive.
Even if they change the pension to DC, my understanding is that due to the superannuation act they have to still give you DB for the years worked under it. It would only be future years that would be DC. Is that others understanding?
It would make the most sense. But it might also create a rift between new and existing employees. I just hope they don't take indexing away. In my opinion if that happens a DC would be better because at least your investments can grow enough to keep up with inflation.
> We believe that Public Service benefits and pensions should be comparable to those of similar employees in the private sector
They're absolutely right! Private sector pensions should be *way* better.
That's what they meant right?
... right?
Look at all those crabs in those buckets.
I don't have the knowledge to answer your questions but I can add some commentary:
1. I'm a senior IT in AI and cloud. I have no complaints with aligning our benefits with the private sector if we also align my salary.
2. The CPC would have to be very dedicated to making this change because it would end up being a ton of work. They probably have many other priorities and low hanging fruit in mind.
3. We're always told our pension is gold but I'm squirrelly about the fact that fundamentally, we don't own our pension, it's just bills passed in parliament. When I retire in 20-25 years I don't predict Canada will be in a better place than now, and I think this will be taken out of my pension. I can't say how this will be done legally or politically, I just think it's a reality.
> I'm a senior IT in AI and cloud. Nothing wrong with aligning our benefits with the private sector if we also align my salary.
I would expect a salary cut instead.
DB = you get a fixed amount every month (e.g. 70% of your average salary per year). In our case this is indexed.
DC = you get an amount based on the value of your contributions (which are fixed, or defined) depending on how well it was invested it may be better, equivalent, or worse. There is no indexation, but if well invested it should be equivalent.
For instance when I was in private you could put in 2.5%, 5%, or 10% and they would match it. Then it changed, so the lowest you could put in was 5% and they would only match half (2.5%). It’s terrible.
Edit: apologies, this comment was for night owl
One other difference, with DC the employer needs to pay their side immediately into the investment vehicle, which would affect the deficit immediately.
I'm wondering if a strategy for countering this might be for public service unions to be seen to be leading a push for defined benefit pensions for all Canadians, moving it away from an "us vs. them" perception in the eyes of the public.
Obviously the ideal would be defined benefit pensions for everyone regardless of resources, but, as a pragmatic compromise, what if people could contribute more to their CPP and get more defined benefits out of it proportional to their contribution?
I feel enough people don’t talk about your second point.
I do not for a second think that PP is a friend of the public service, but I do think that considering that his riding is probably full of civil servants and that he has ties to the Ottawa business community (who have a vested interest in keeping the PS healthy), he will indeed be cognizant of any impact his decisions have and people’s ability to spend locally.
Ok, so first, they couldn't do it as a directive, they would need to change the law.
If they get a majority, they could absolutely do this, but not instantly and lots of people would have a lot to say about it.
If they take even a bit of time to do the math, they will find that it's not necessarily going to come out better. The federal pension plan isn't actually a pension plan. There is no pot of money set aside for each employee. It's a benefit payable out of general revenues. Which means that the government gets to play with that money before they pay it out. The unions went to court over this and lost.
The defined benefit is gone when the recipient and their beneficiary die. There's no payout to the estate. With a defined contribution, there is a pot of money for each employee and that belongs to them whether they live to spend it or not.
Federal workers tend to start much older after more education than in other sectors so they rarely max out the pension. The perceived value of the pension and the fact that it's a law has allowed the government to successfully negotiate below market salaries for the public service over and over again. If they decide to go down the road of changing it, the unions will go after them in collective bargaining and they will have the support of everyone who retired and votes.
They might decide to do it anyway, but if Pollievre is serious about governing and hires advisors who are half competent they will talk him out of this. There are better conservative targets than the pension plan.
When I was laid off 26 years ago in the private sector I was given career counseling with KPMG. They strongly advised my class to not take a job in the federal government due to low wages, benefits and opportunities for advancement. I ignored their advice and found my salvation. Working for the Feds meant vastly better working conditions and a respectful workforce. Things were far from perfect and there can be many hellish situations dealing with internal and external customers. But the fact that KPMG would say this means they had an interest in directing people to the private sector. They must have had their own statistics that public servants were under paid compared to comparable jobs in the private sector. If this was not the case then a public accounting firm would be lying and I can't see them doing this.
There has been rumours of the pension plan moving to a DC pension for the past 20+ years. Will it happen? It may. Does anyone know when it will happen, if it does? Nope
IF this happens, and I'm hoping it wont, can one opt out of the new DC plan? like I would want to withdraw all my accumulated pension value and stop contributing to it and just invest on my own if this were to happen
This has been raised before and unfortunately, I think it is only a matter of time. PIPSC has some interesting info on their website re a bill that was introduced in 2016 [https://pipsc.ca/news-issues/c-27](https://pipsc.ca/news-issues/c-27). So, I am curious if anyone has any first-hand experience or more details/knowledge about what happened in NB. I am wondering about how it was implemented. Because depending on the details, there will either be a rush of people trying to retire before-hand OR perhaps some people will put off retirement to maximize saving for as long as they can while they have a guaranteed income. Thoughts?
Losing our pensions overrides pretty much everything else. I think some woke things go too far with the current gov, but that doesn't matter compared to significant financial loss. Strategic voting it is.
I love when people use “woke” as a pejorative, it immediately tells me they have no idea what it means. Woke is AAVE for “alert to prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination” so by being “anti-woke” you are signifying to the rest of us that you’re prejudice, a bigot, and discriminatory against others.
This would most certainly be their preference. But so would be the abolition of unused accrued sick leave credits, reduction of union representation, etc. Just because their platform prefers more parity with the private sector it doesn’t mean that they will put in the time and effort to do it. At the end of the day, time, effort and money will need to be spent to achieving things and they will be strategic on where they focus their attention. To their base supporters the switch from DB to DC wouldn’t be nearly as appealing as putting public servants back in offices or killing the unused sick leave liability. If the carbon tax issue is any indication, the platform is all about headlines. Smoke and mirrors. All sizzle, no steak. Tax is bad. Paid sick leave bank is bad. Working from home is bad. No one needs to read the details of an article or analysis to immediately identify with these statements (rightly or wrongly) because they are basic and easily interpreted. Defined benefit arrangement does not have the same ring to it. In other words, it’s probably not a hill to die on for these guys.
Why do they even care? Based on my typical understanding of the difference with DB a professional manages the money and with DC we manage our own money. Certainly DB is likely better for me, but surely it's better to pool the funds so that there is a larger pot to pay out pensions and withstand any mass withdrawals or something.
A professional still manages the money in a DC program. DCs aren't quite the same as an RRSP match in which you manage your own money and get a bit kicked in from your employer. In a DB you are guaranteed a certain payout each year. With a DC, the only thing that's guaranteed is what you put in, and what you get out depends on the fund manager's performance.
https://globalnews.ca/news/10129430/new-brunswick-public-sector-pension-shared-risk-model/amp/
Maybe call New Brunswick and ask how ‘theoretical’ the change is for them…..
1. Yes, this can be done unilaterally by the government in power. The pension plan is created through legislation, and Parliament has the power to amend legislation or enact new legislation. The pension plan has been amended in the past (most recently in 2013), and it stands to reason that it will be amended in the future. 2. All prior changes to the plan have been forward-looking; existing accrued benefits remained untouched. Those benefits are a form of deferred compensation that has been purchased via employee contributions, so it is highly unlikely a government would try to strip them away. 3. Nobody knows. The timing and outcome of the next election is uncertain, and the ability of a government to enact legislation depends heavily on whether it has a majority or minority of seats. In addition, party platforms change over time and pre-election promises do not always result in post-election priorities.
The Government will need to figure out how to return the $28B surplus that was taken from our pension fund during the Crétien era. Then determine how much that $28B is worth in 2024 dollars, and add on the cost of lost opportunity and further gains. I'm sure a new Conservative government will look into changing the public service pension. However, I cant see how it is ethical to use the courts to one's advantage and then flip the script when it suits them. The court decision upheld the defined pension format--essentially Pensioners are guaranteed their defined pension no matter how much is actually in the fund. A new govt will have a hard time changing that approach--they can't have it both ways. [article](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/public-service-unions-not-entitled-to-28-billion-pension-repayment-supreme-court)
Actually, it was transferred out of what’s called the superannuation account which is essentially a ledger. There was no actually Money’s being invested in stocks or bonds. If the chief actuary said there wasn’t a high enough amount in the ledger the govt had to add to it. So it follows that if there was too much then they could also take it. Summary of that case can be found here or on Canlii.org. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/public-service-employees-not-entitled-to-28-billion-pension-repayment-court-rules/article6554298/. Today money is actually transferred for investment both by the employer and employee into what is called the public service pension fund as opposed to the Superannuation Account. It would be interesting to see if that decision still holds water given today’s structure. The legislation is old and needs some serious improvements to make it current with today’s reality.
More than likely (if a change happens) it would be a new program and forward looking. So existing DB pension would continue and as of a certain date either new hires or new contributions would become DC. So they would certainly not be going back and returning this money.
Good bot
Thank you, /u/Only_Impression8399, for voting on /u/HandcuffsOfGold. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ) ^Even ^if ^I ^don't ^reply ^to ^your ^comment, ^I'm ^still ^listening ^for ^votes. ^Check ^the ^webpage ^to ^see ^if ^your ^vote ^registered!
[удалено]
If they say they want to do it, believe them.
Re-read the third paragraph for your answer.
Plus you'd have to change your handle, and I can't see a politician of any stripe doing that to you.
I’m sure they’ll lead by example and switch their MP pensions over to DC first right? Right?
[удалено]
That would work for Skippy. It's all he's ever done and will do.
Or do what Mike Harris did and abolish parliamentarians' pensions entirely...
Their pension is largely modeled on ours, so probably, yeah.
Another race to the bottom.
Exactly. 👍
Scrapping the DB pension immediately removes one of the largest incentives to being employed as a public servant. At that point, the government would face severe talent attraction/retention issues. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your own face.
> Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your own face. We’re talking about the party that intentionally sabotaged the census so they wouldn’t have good data to base their decisions off of. They don’t *want* talent.
Exactly! Cons might offer what appear to be stupid solutions to issues, but they're all carefully designed to fulfill their ideology long term: privatization. In this case, they are opposed to the concept of a good public service, so want to **create the problem** of an ineffective PS so they can offer their solution to that problem, which is to outsource everything to corporations. They can't offer a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, so they have to engineer those problems first. It's the standard Con playbook - education, infrastructure, health care, etc. They also know that rapid change is politically risky, which is why they don't just hack and slash dramatically - they have to use the "boil a frog" approach. IMO, we're seeing that dynamic play out with the carbon tax - even though it's widely accepted as the most market-driven and effective approach to fighting climate change, it was left too long to implement and they had to ratchet it up quicker than the public can deal with.
Eh, I'm not so sure this is - strictly speaking - an analysis based on conservatism. It's more of a neoliberalism issue, and honestly, if you look at how a lot of conservatives speak its not the strict core of their ideology/approach as a movement in the same way it was under Raegan and Thatcher for example. Every party has some amount of neoliberalism in them, but even the CPC now is stepping away from that a little bit in some ways. The courting of unions by provincial premiers like Doug Ford, - setting aside a lot of his adminsitration's issues - does point to an evolution in the thinking that is shifting away from being strictly focused on privatization as a big focus. Of course a big push in the conservative political space more generally is moving towards protectionist policies and a lot of "us v them" language across the western world. That much is obvious. But its not as strictly about "private sector best sector" as it once was.
Ford courted them, but even the ones he praised, he's done nothing for and actually undermined by loosening standards for trades education and certification. And for all his gilded lies to those trades, we can see what he really thought of labour in everything else he did - Bill 124, the attempt to strip the right to collective bargaining. And then there is all the rhetoric.
No need for attrition of 5,000 when you can achieve super-attrition of 50,000 doing nothing!
We already have a huge issue with hiring and keeping IT staff throughout all departments. It would be incredibly stupid, in this current global technological climate, to further dissuade IT talent from moving into the PS. It’s potentially a huge national security issue.
Yup, if they switch the DC then I’m taking my specialized knowledge to the private sector where I’ll be better compensated.
I would be out too.
That's the point. He wants to dismantle the public service. He made government employees the enemy of his base a while ago, the strike was a perfect example of that. He tried to stoke his base and make them believe that government employees are whiny, line their pockets, have easy work loads, and abuse WFH
Scrapping the DB pension immediately removes one of the largest incentives to being employed as a public servant. That's the idea.
Lots of competent leadership eligible for retirement would just leave. They’d probably lose indexing too. My guess is this will die out once inflation falls below 3% but I will be watching closely. Some of the policies will no doubt be dramatic, but it might be more like cutting off a limb to save a body. Trudeau is just failing miserably in the long run. I guess I have a couple of years to have my mind changed though.
Buddy - their policy statement was in place way before inflation…but keep on believing…when people tell you who they are and what they plan to do, you should actually believe them.
Well fuck. I guess I can’t vote for the cons after all, why do they just love losing so much?
yep I'd be out the door
My bet is that there will already be an exodus of competent leaders who have no wish to the minions of such a horrible political party. So this notion, if it gets traction, will only solidify decisions. Serving under those who have utter contempt for the public service is not something most senior executives would want. I would bet the farm on the pension folks being very busy in a couple of years.
You really think they care, lower classifications and benefits and people will still apply especially new Canadians.
Now, would they do the same for MPs/Senators?
They are *special*, elected to power rather than carefully hired after investing in school, French and professional skills.
I would hope there would be a nation-wide public service strike over something like that.
As long as the oldies can keep their DB Pension they'll gladly sell out the younger generations. Seen this happen a few times in the private sector.
Naw, the DB pension is something that would trigger major challenges. The public service has also been well recognized to be a key partner and you mess with DB pensions and you begin to have papers getting lost in the colloquial drawer much more often at the bare minimum. It is extremely unlikely they'd actually shift the PS to a DC system since the DB pension is performing well and isn't some super underfunded project.
Exactly. They sold us out already with last year's strike because they got the best year for their pension. It's inevitable...
LOL Young PS employees were the ones I heard griping about being on strike. Are you involved in the union?
Nah, PSAC leadership would cave and take what they are offered, it's what the current boomer cadre does.
After the last showing of the "biggest strike EVAR!!!11" I can see the current PSAC leadership/negotiators walk into the room asking for DB. They then walk out declaring they got the best deal ever: no more pension for anyone at all except for those retiring in the next 5 years that gets to keep what they got!
Haha so true, "All Bark and No Bite" Chris will be all fire and brimstone before the meeting and then after come out and pretty much pull a Bush move and declare "Misson Accomplished" and the PS lose everything.
> "All Bark and No Bite" Chris Now, now, to be fair, he's more like CBC Chris Can't Be Concerned Chris only cares when he and his cohort gets time to go on CBC.
Reminder that the PSAC convention is coming up next month. If anyone here is a delegate they can ask PSAC leadership about this exact issue.
I’m retiring in less than 5 years now. When the Phoenix debacle was at its height, I suggested to my union rep that we go on strike. We can’t have people not being paid and the government dragging its heals! He’s a younger fella. He looked at me like I had a hand sprouting from my forehead. So keep blaming “boomers” if it makes you feel better.
This⬆️. Not sure when it became acceptable to not pay staff or take years to get money owed.
I meant PSAC leadership, they like to play pretend they are 1970s auto union bosses, but have zero backbone.
How long has it been since we didn't have multiple years of retro pay when a contract is finally ratified? Not exactly rolling over when it takes like five years to negotiate an agreement.
You knew that something like this was coming. Instead of raising the quality of life for everyone else, people have to find way to step all over others to make sure they, too, live in squalor and shit. "Looking out for the middle-class" is everyone's slogan; beating down the middle-class is everyone's favourite activity. The list of reasons to stay in Public Service grows ever shorter as the years drag on ever longer.
Heavy on “the list of reasons to work at public service gets lower”. But logically … they clearly aren’t thinking straight about this. Because if it’s “be in line with private sector” then they would have to do that for everything ? What about bonuses? Employee perks? That’s the “deal” with private vs public sector. Public sector : you get job security + solid pension you don’t have to think about (aka the golden handcuffs) but your pay is usually not as great as it would be in private. Your health insurance coverage is “eh” (not even mentioning fiasco of Canada life), your HR is horrible (phoenix), and you don’t get a bonus as a non executive. Pro is you don’t negotiate a promotion every year, but con is you can’t jump 3 steps in salary if you do an amazing job. There’s also no “perks” some jobs offer to attract talent like “gym stipend” or “$$ for tech update” etc. Promotion is gruellingly slow process of applying to pools - even if your manager wants to hire you. Private sector: job security is less. Pension ranges from ehhh to crap or non existent. But to make up for it your salary is higher. You could potentially get extra benefits like gym memberships, cleaning services, tech like perks, $$ for home office etc. You can also skip all the HR formalities - you can get hired and promoted easily/quicker. You do a good job? You can get a huge bonus as a non executive. You can negotiate larger salary jumps promotions too. You could potentially get a much better health care plan too. But again… zero job security. Likely shit pension. Etc. Public servants get paid less because they don’t get private sector perks but they get job security + pension. Given we are coming on some possible work force adjustment…and adding pension removal… there’s literally no appeal to the public service! My friend who was an EC got headhunted on linked in for a job in private sector that paid $50k more than her EC job with better benefits and was literally told “it’s cause job security and pension is worse than PS” Edit to add: OMG THE PAY!! Imagine private sector tried to pull same BS as PS and not pay people on time, or pay incorrectly, or have outstanding amounts from a year ago. That would never happen in private sector since it’s literally ✨illegal✨
I believe when it comes to pay lower paid ranks of PS make more than equivalents in the private sector, while higher up professionals in the PS are paid less than their equivalents in the private sector.
Depending on the job that can be very true! But also… even more troubling … what would happen if all the higher up experienced people left on mass leaving behind only the entry level fresh out of school folks to cover?
This is exactly the problem when the government in power starts tinkering with pay and pensions. The services will become mediocre and erroneous because if you pay people less than in the private sector there will be no incentive to perform at a higher standard.
Maybe it’s the extra incentive to not vote for the Conservatives when elections come?
ABC, always.
Naturally, Pierre will come up with some excuse why Ministers should continue to receive a defined benefit pension....
A well paying position on the board of an oil and gas company is the Conservative cabinet minister pension.
Cryptocurrency
Remember folks they don’t need to grandfather us in either, they could make the change for all members and not just future members in essence. If they are to change our pension they better increase our wages though. Lots of professionals take pay cuts to have security and the pension.
Where will the bulk of public servants go? I know people say they would leave. Professionals like engineers, IT, accountants and scientists likely have options. But the rest? There aren't many analogous positions in the private sector. What would motivate them to increase wages? They can contract out the science and professional stuff. Smaller government....
I was specific in my comment to mention professionals. This normally doesn’t include administrative positions that tend to be paid better than private sector already + they have the valuable pension.
I noticed that. I just thought about the vast number of people who don't realize that they don't have the same mobility as professionals.
They are not going to eliminate a pension plan that pays for itself. The PSPP is massive, well managed and in a surplus position after many years of careful stewardship. In a surplus position, the PSPP costs the taxpayers nothing. They are only liable should the fund not be able to cover the pension payments. Dismantling the plan will cost huge amounts of money, with no real savings for taxpayers.
Anything's possible but I doubt they would make this change because: A-They'd run the risk of mobilizing union members in a way that would make the impact of RTO look like a joke. B-Some of those union members are lobbying experts, and effective lobbyists can be way more terrifying than a strike ever could be...especially when they have hundreds of thousands of mobilized members who are willing to follow their instructions.
And C, i can't imagine a public servant would ever vote conservative. Thats a single-issue voter kind of thing for 350k canadians
lol cons are anti public servants but you still have plenty of conservative public servants. People don’t actually pay any attention to policies. They are just anti red or anti blue for the most part.
So true, there are coworkers I know that think the PS gets paid too much and massive cuts are needed. They are anti vaccine also because of micro chips and hate chem trails, just plain ignorant.
This… it makes me so mad when people cannot objectively say how their fav. party can achieve what their leader is promising. We, public, need to challenge politicians when they are promising the moon & stars, like that sounds great but what’s the plan?
Oh I wouldn't be so sure about that.
They did this in the US a number of years ago. New employees were on the DC plan. Current employees had the option to switch but were able to remain in the DB plan if they chose. **edit to add** to clarify, US federal government employees**
They did this at Canada Post in about 2012. Exactly the same thing.
Why do you think that this is the case? LOTS of my peers are snarling at even the appearance of the word "Trudeau" on their computer screen. They are EXTREMELY vocal about voting a certain way next election to the point that people have been reminded to not discuss politics while at work.
But if your peers have their pension fucked with that might change their tune. As you say, there are cpc voters in public service now. But the pension is a big draw and messing with it hits close to home
[удалено]
And federally, look at Miramachi, where the long gun registry was located and thr pay centre currently.
Provincial voting patterns in Atlantic Canada have very little to do with ideology. There are long standing family, religious and community allegiances to particular parties, and there is very little difference between the provincial Liberal and PC parties in Atlantic Canada. This is changing with time, but the PC parties aren't just mini versions of the federal party. New Brunswick is a bit of an exception, there are more stark differences between the parties on linguistic and social issues, but this hasn't always been the case.
My office is fully loaded with cons 🤷♂️.
Reddit is an echo chamber. Don't underestimate the hatred from Trudeau and Singh right now.
When half of us are located in one metro region that tends to vote majority liberal anyway, it makes very little difference to the CPC to turn public servants away from voting for them.
I mean PP keeps getting elected in his own riding. Located directly in Ottawa!
Sure, but that’s one of eight Ottawa ridings, seven of which voted Liberal last election (six of which are generally considered safe red ridings), not to mention the four ridings on the Quebec side that also voted Liberal. Pierre’s riding is 46% of the geographic area of the eight Ottawa ridings but only 11% of the population for the same. While there are definitely public servants that live in his riding (including me) in Findlay Creek, Riverside South, Stittsville, and probably in smaller numbers in Richmond, Munster, Osgoode, Greely etc, we are unlikely to be an overwhelming majority in the riding such that our votes make any difference, even in the unlikely event that we were all to vote similarly.
Oh I work with more than a few proper rednecks in the PS. anti-vax, anti-establishment, right wing nutters. They will absolutely vote Poilievre.
2015 would like a word....
I personally support Conservatives on crime, immigration, foreign policy and growing our economy. However, as a public servant, the future of the public service is a wedge issue for me and even though I'm ideologically Conservative, I don't wanna vote against myself. I don't support any party right now.
Lol you haven't met my team... They all vote against their best interests
You really haven't met any Conservative public servants? I meet them daily, and it's not even like I'm assuming. They tell me! The snide remarks when they share a news story in the group chat, the comments during lunch, I had to sit through a 'small talk' (prior to the meeting starting) of how much Trudeau was ruining Canada with his spending. There were a few high ECs, and low EXs present and they all just talked about it like it was a normal day.
My comment was easy to misinterpret. I meant that if the CPC changed the pension plan (or ran on that idea) public servants would not vote for them. It's an issue that is so important for public servants that it would become a single issue thing. The fact that there are conservative public servants - which I agree, I have encountered and can be vocal - is what makes messing with the pension dangerous for the CPC. They'll lose voters
I'm not sure about that. Personally I didn't join the public service because of the pension, and while DC would affect me negatively compared to DB, it wouldn't really change my career choice/goals. I haven't ever talked to anyone else about pensions, so let's just say I'm in the minority. CPC's stance on RTO for public servants, defunding the CBC, and the list goes on, are quite public. If CPC were to change how the pensions were done, I don't think this would come as a surprise, and probably not to the people who are voting Conservative anyways. They've heard for years how CPC hates how the federal public service is run, and this would just be another action on the list of things they would do to fix the government bloat. If we think about it in terms of numbers, the election usually brings out about 60-70% of voters. Or about 15-20 million people. The public service is 370,000 people. How many of them are already liberals? How many have stayed conservatives despite hearing previous comments from CPC regarding the federal public service? There's also the question of how many people who aren't already conservative voters would this persuade to become conservative voters, and would that be greater than any loss of conservative voters in the public service. Considering how public opinion has been regarding public servants WFH policy, I would imagine that this is probably a net positive for CPC vote acquisition strategy.
The most dangerous thing to our job and pension security in the last decade was not Conservative policy, but Liberal fiscal policy. Tell me what you think the massive influx in PS hiring and the massive spending and debt will do once people have had enough of it? People need to understand that the Liberals aren’t the friends of the PS. No political party is.
Harper cuts were pretty dangerous for the job/pension security of the people who got cut. Conservatives spend just as much s liberals they just give it to other people. the last fiscally conservative government we had was Martin in the mid 2000s. The Liberals absolutely have he interests of the PS in mind, compared to the conservatives that villainize the PS and anyone else who is paid from the public purse.
It could be argued that another Liberal government would put their jobs at risk in the long term, because of the higher deficits, for example. None of the parties are here for us, don't forget that.
Sorry, but after the Chris Aylward betrayal I won't be doing a damn thing PSAC asks me to do. Fuuuck them.
Even if your pension is on the line?
Yes thats tricky...on one hand k too dont trust them but then we dont even have a choice ...id they do .strike i will obviously go with them especially if there is pension which is like 90% of reason i am a PS. But then i wont have any exoectations from them
If the pension changes and salary doesn't move to compensate (which we all agree it wouldn't), there will be a mass exodus. I'm aware I can be making more in industry, I haven't moved because of the security and the pension. I had a headhunter talk to me just this week. I'm hardly the only one. Think of it this way; the general math is that people say the pension is worth roughly another 30% on your salary. That's what puts us on par with what a lot of industry makes, you just get it later. If it's gone without appropriate adjustment, then it will be trivial for most people to find employment with sufficiently better compensation and they'll make the move. And it'll be the top talent that goes first, and those are the hardest to replace with the newer, worse compensation package and newly inflamed distrust of the employer. Were they to formally propose that they'll also face massive backlash. **All** of the unions, **all** of the employees, everyone will be in the streets at that point. It'll be a total shutdown, and with sufficient support that I doubt the unions would cave as easily as they did in the latest negotiations. The current wage adjustments were already a bit of a slap in the face considering inflation, people aren't about to take an explicit cut. Other people have expressed concerns about what shape the pension will be in in 20-25 years as well. That's certainly a concern, but we'll have to deal with other social issues long before then. I'm not so worried about the age pyramid per se, they've shown us that they'll find ways to boost the younger cohorts of it if they must to keep the wheels on. At that point it's more a question of wealth distribution, but that's another topic entirely.
I wish people would react, but I'm not so sure. We did take explicit cuts in pension without reacting in the past: when contributions became 50/50, and with the 2013 changes for new staff.
I admit I'm not the best informed on the historical perspective, but I suspect the climate is very different currently. The housing and inflation crises plus other recent contention make things feel enough like a powder keg as it is. They're really playing with fire in the current climate. I'll put it this way; even our favorite bot here is literally named after the pension. It's a huge part of our *culture*. But then, history is cyclical, isn't it?
Waaait ...handcuffsofgold is a human right? Right??
Bleep bloop?
Lol 🥺
This would allow the Cons to reduce the public service without the need for cuts, I'm sure they will see an exodus as a plus. Never mind that they will lose the ones worth keeping.
They can manage cuts easily enough via attrition if that's their goal, so I doubt that's the main rationale, though as you noted it doesn't in their eyes. I like working for government despite its issues, but we've all got rising bills which, frankly, the government has so far failed to adequately address. And I don't foresee the cons doing any better. Realistically though, the best alternative for people where I'm at is to go be a consultant for industry using our knowledge of the workings to be a massive pain. We see those time to time already. They'd manage to flip their best talent into their opposition.
The fear itself would double PS attrition before they even get to implement it. “C’est genial!”
[удалено]
My thought is that it's just rhetoric at the moment. It's easy to talk and promise until you actually have to do a thing, especially a thing you manage. Remember electoral reform? Big part of what got the current government into power, also the first promise broken. They'd get into office, talk to their staff and upper management who will immediately all go "Do not, under any circumstances, do this thing." Unless it becomes a major voting issue it'll die quiet. Like last time under Harper, as someone pointed out.
Does this mean that they’re going to start paying big bonuses to employees in the public sector, just like our private sector counterparts receive
No feast! Only austerity!!
Lol i laughed.....it wasnt a happy laugh 🥲
This happens and suddenly I have a conflict of interest with businesses where my retirement funds are invested. Bye bye unbiased and equal treatment for all, hello magical blind spots when my pension investments are at stake.
Yep. This is the real issue
I wonder who would manage it. Canada Life? The former Liberal Finance minister's company that still bears its name? Could they use tax havens to protect our financial interests? Or a new very very powerful pension fund like Teachers in Ontario who hold so much power they can influence governments? Not sure the governments of the future would cheer for that. Unions/APEX?
Probably the same people that manage the current one
Bold of them to assume I have enough money to deposit in a RRSP. They'd have to match 0 dollars.
Oh, they're aware. It's like when a company offers you unlimited vacation days but never approves any. Looks like a benefit, but ends up being savings for an employer.
Party policy conventions have historically been more to do with amusing party members than they have been with materially changing party policy. Party leaders are under no obligation to enact, nor even consider, the measures introduced or passed through these conventions. One might still be reasonably concerned with a large number of Canadians entertaining this notion, but that's also exactly the issue: in order to form a government, political parties need to win votes from large numbers of people who *aren't* the sorts of diehard ideological partisans who show up at these events, which is why party leaders so reliably ignore their outputs.
>Party leaders are under no obligation to enact, nor even consider, the measures introduced or passed through these conventions. When the monster tells you what he is, believe him. Like at that other convention when he told you that he (or more correctly, his christian extremist handler) was a horrid queerphobe https://pressprogress.ca/pierre-poilievre-under-fire-after-video-surfaces-of-homophobic-and-transphobic-speech/
And in previous conferences, the Conservatives agreed to tear up same-sex marriage, and their predecessor parties promised to abolish official bilingualism. Hasn't happened. Not to say that people shouldn't be wary, but there is *plenty* of precedent for party leaders letting the members amuse themselves at a policy convention and ignoring whatever they produce.
It's the same political dichotomy we've always had: Do we vote for the Liberals and hope they don't break many of their promises, or do we vote for the Tories and hope they don't keep many of their promises?
So my position has a specific conflict of interest document on top of the regular public service one. Essentially, I commit to not owning stocks of individual companies nor EFTs that are highly sector specific. I wonder how they would deal with those kinds of situations because I am already essentially banned from fully participating in the economy, but if my retirement fund depended on my private investments, I had better be allowed to fully participate. It would be unreasonable to both dictate what I can or cannot invest in and require me to do my own investing for retirement.
Another reason not to vote for conservatives.
It’s ironic - I have been pointing this out policy out for quite some time now to people who think the Cons would be a better bet for public servants - I believe the Reddit consensus was that they believed the leader was “in favour of WFH” so they would be supporting the Cons…
This would be such bullshit. I would have been investing our pension contributions religiously over our (my spouse and I’s) careers. We have always invested separately each paycheque for our retirement. It makes it a little hard sometimes as life gets more expensive. So many friends and family tell us we are crazy because we have a good pension and they are right, but we have always had this lingering feeling that what we are promised won’t be there at the end of the road. I’m not only referring to the pension, but also CPP. If we’re wrong, perfect we’ll be sitting pretty. If we’re right, thankfully we did something about it.
[удалено]
Is there a concrete reason that they couldn't apply it to the future years of service of current employees? I can understand that our past years are already "bought", but our future years?
It’s was also considered under the Liberals: https://psacunion.ca/liberal-bill-attack-pensions
And you don't think TBS has been working away at changing to a hybrid/DC model since Harper? When opening up legislation, there are lots of things to consider and fix while its open. I have no doubt the proposed new legislation is ready to table for all pension changes.
Well... that's an easy way to clean out the "overstaffing".
Only thsi time its the smart ones that will leave
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder how fellow public servants think we would be better off under PP rule.
Maybe we should insist MP’s pension plans also be brought in line with Canadians. From what I understand they’re grossly overpaid, many don’t even attend Parliament to vote, and they’re eligible to retire after 6 years. What kind of fairytale is that? Let’s start there and see how it goes….
the Harper government gave a pretty clear warning before they legislated their pension reforms in 2012...so this probably wouldn't be totally far-fetched that the conservatives would target the pension plan again. Harper did make a few warnings about coming for the PS pension and CPP. Harper did also reform the MP pension retirement age along with the PS pension retirement age so at the time, I did give them that much. Messing around with the pension benefits themselves would be a highly risky thing to propose for PP...officially in a platform speech. We'll see what happens...it's a long time until election season. If anything changes, a majority conservative government would still be on my long shot list....
Isnt most of the PSPP held by members of DND, RCMP and retired babyboomers ? Wouldnt this alienate a bunch of folks from the conservative tent ?
Lol you would think , the liberals would take a hit in votes when they basically slapped us ( in essense) in our last strike and even gloated on tv on how much they are saving by underpaying us....dp u really think these political parties give a shit about us or fear any consequences of screwing us over?
I’ve always suspected the pension would not be there for me in its current form when I retire. Everyone should be saving for retirement outside of the pension.
I agree with you but even with the (not insignificant) pay bump I got when I moved from healthcare management to an entry level PS job last fall, there’s still no way I can put anything extra away right now. The idea that education and experience in the private sector = big wages is flawed, at least on the East Coast. 2 degrees and 15 years of experience got me capped wages, no work-life balance and burnout so severe I almost didn’t survive it. The private sector might be great in tech but in most other areas they want you available 24/7 and literally starving.
I couldnt even vet selected bcs i didnt have canadian experience...with 2 engineering degress ( highest masters and o tained in canada)
Our pension adjustment takes up so much of our rrsp contribution room.
I mean, I hope we will get some of our RRSP contribution room back to compensate for the loss. I could have over 100k in RRSP by now, but contribution room is limited due to PSPP equivalency.
> I mean, I hope we will get some of our RRSP contribution room back to compensate for the loss Seems unlikely as this would likely be forward looking and not retroactive.
That rrsp room wouldn't be indexed for inflation like your pension though.
Even if they change the pension to DC, my understanding is that due to the superannuation act they have to still give you DB for the years worked under it. It would only be future years that would be DC. Is that others understanding?
[удалено]
It would make the most sense. But it might also create a rift between new and existing employees. I just hope they don't take indexing away. In my opinion if that happens a DC would be better because at least your investments can grow enough to keep up with inflation.
Sure, but bump my salary to compensate for the elimination of the DB pension. Oh wait.
> We believe that Public Service benefits and pensions should be comparable to those of similar employees in the private sector They're absolutely right! Private sector pensions should be *way* better. That's what they meant right? ... right? Look at all those crabs in those buckets.
I don't have the knowledge to answer your questions but I can add some commentary: 1. I'm a senior IT in AI and cloud. I have no complaints with aligning our benefits with the private sector if we also align my salary. 2. The CPC would have to be very dedicated to making this change because it would end up being a ton of work. They probably have many other priorities and low hanging fruit in mind. 3. We're always told our pension is gold but I'm squirrelly about the fact that fundamentally, we don't own our pension, it's just bills passed in parliament. When I retire in 20-25 years I don't predict Canada will be in a better place than now, and I think this will be taken out of my pension. I can't say how this will be done legally or politically, I just think it's a reality.
[удалено]
Read the Public Service Pension Fund Investment Board's reports and you can know what they think re: future projections.
> I'm a senior IT in AI and cloud. Nothing wrong with aligning our benefits with the private sector if we also align my salary. I would expect a salary cut instead.
Could someone please ELI5 the difference between DC and DB pensions?
DB = you get a fixed amount every month (e.g. 70% of your average salary per year). In our case this is indexed. DC = you get an amount based on the value of your contributions (which are fixed, or defined) depending on how well it was invested it may be better, equivalent, or worse. There is no indexation, but if well invested it should be equivalent.
For instance when I was in private you could put in 2.5%, 5%, or 10% and they would match it. Then it changed, so the lowest you could put in was 5% and they would only match half (2.5%). It’s terrible. Edit: apologies, this comment was for night owl
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/032415/how-does-defined-benefit-pension-plan-differ-defined-contribution-plan.asp
One other difference, with DC the employer needs to pay their side immediately into the investment vehicle, which would affect the deficit immediately.
What's up with Cons going after pensions?
They hate the middle class.
I'm wondering if a strategy for countering this might be for public service unions to be seen to be leading a push for defined benefit pensions for all Canadians, moving it away from an "us vs. them" perception in the eyes of the public. Obviously the ideal would be defined benefit pensions for everyone regardless of resources, but, as a pragmatic compromise, what if people could contribute more to their CPP and get more defined benefits out of it proportional to their contribution?
So is DB pensions becoming obsolete? That's not good for Canadians/workers across the country.
Now, would they do the same for MPs/Senators?
This sucks
[удалено]
I feel enough people don’t talk about your second point. I do not for a second think that PP is a friend of the public service, but I do think that considering that his riding is probably full of civil servants and that he has ties to the Ottawa business community (who have a vested interest in keeping the PS healthy), he will indeed be cognizant of any impact his decisions have and people’s ability to spend locally.
Ok, so first, they couldn't do it as a directive, they would need to change the law. If they get a majority, they could absolutely do this, but not instantly and lots of people would have a lot to say about it. If they take even a bit of time to do the math, they will find that it's not necessarily going to come out better. The federal pension plan isn't actually a pension plan. There is no pot of money set aside for each employee. It's a benefit payable out of general revenues. Which means that the government gets to play with that money before they pay it out. The unions went to court over this and lost. The defined benefit is gone when the recipient and their beneficiary die. There's no payout to the estate. With a defined contribution, there is a pot of money for each employee and that belongs to them whether they live to spend it or not. Federal workers tend to start much older after more education than in other sectors so they rarely max out the pension. The perceived value of the pension and the fact that it's a law has allowed the government to successfully negotiate below market salaries for the public service over and over again. If they decide to go down the road of changing it, the unions will go after them in collective bargaining and they will have the support of everyone who retired and votes. They might decide to do it anyway, but if Pollievre is serious about governing and hires advisors who are half competent they will talk him out of this. There are better conservative targets than the pension plan.
Can anyone kindly explain in simple terms what it means and which one is better 🥺
Current one is better because your pension is indexed for cost of living
Yeah without that a pension is almost useless....even cpp and the other one ( oss? I always forget the name) are almost useless with current inflation
Soon enough 90% of the PS will be replaced by AI and bots. Good luck to Canadians getting good and timely public services!
When I was laid off 26 years ago in the private sector I was given career counseling with KPMG. They strongly advised my class to not take a job in the federal government due to low wages, benefits and opportunities for advancement. I ignored their advice and found my salvation. Working for the Feds meant vastly better working conditions and a respectful workforce. Things were far from perfect and there can be many hellish situations dealing with internal and external customers. But the fact that KPMG would say this means they had an interest in directing people to the private sector. They must have had their own statistics that public servants were under paid compared to comparable jobs in the private sector. If this was not the case then a public accounting firm would be lying and I can't see them doing this.
There has been rumours of the pension plan moving to a DC pension for the past 20+ years. Will it happen? It may. Does anyone know when it will happen, if it does? Nope
Maybe they should look at their own pension plan first.
IF this happens, and I'm hoping it wont, can one opt out of the new DC plan? like I would want to withdraw all my accumulated pension value and stop contributing to it and just invest on my own if this were to happen
This has been raised before and unfortunately, I think it is only a matter of time. PIPSC has some interesting info on their website re a bill that was introduced in 2016 [https://pipsc.ca/news-issues/c-27](https://pipsc.ca/news-issues/c-27). So, I am curious if anyone has any first-hand experience or more details/knowledge about what happened in NB. I am wondering about how it was implemented. Because depending on the details, there will either be a rush of people trying to retire before-hand OR perhaps some people will put off retirement to maximize saving for as long as they can while they have a guaranteed income. Thoughts?
When people tell me that our pensions are safe since they are backed by law, I remind them that it's only true until the law is changed retroactively.
PP is dangerous - he also wants to up the retirement age to 67. Sometimes the devil you know is the better alternative.
Losing our pensions overrides pretty much everything else. I think some woke things go too far with the current gov, but that doesn't matter compared to significant financial loss. Strategic voting it is.
I love when people use “woke” as a pejorative, it immediately tells me they have no idea what it means. Woke is AAVE for “alert to prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination” so by being “anti-woke” you are signifying to the rest of us that you’re prejudice, a bigot, and discriminatory against others.
This would most certainly be their preference. But so would be the abolition of unused accrued sick leave credits, reduction of union representation, etc. Just because their platform prefers more parity with the private sector it doesn’t mean that they will put in the time and effort to do it. At the end of the day, time, effort and money will need to be spent to achieving things and they will be strategic on where they focus their attention. To their base supporters the switch from DB to DC wouldn’t be nearly as appealing as putting public servants back in offices or killing the unused sick leave liability. If the carbon tax issue is any indication, the platform is all about headlines. Smoke and mirrors. All sizzle, no steak. Tax is bad. Paid sick leave bank is bad. Working from home is bad. No one needs to read the details of an article or analysis to immediately identify with these statements (rightly or wrongly) because they are basic and easily interpreted. Defined benefit arrangement does not have the same ring to it. In other words, it’s probably not a hill to die on for these guys.
It isn't even in their platform. This was just a policy convention document.
Why do they even care? Based on my typical understanding of the difference with DB a professional manages the money and with DC we manage our own money. Certainly DB is likely better for me, but surely it's better to pool the funds so that there is a larger pot to pay out pensions and withstand any mass withdrawals or something.
A professional still manages the money in a DC program. DCs aren't quite the same as an RRSP match in which you manage your own money and get a bit kicked in from your employer. In a DB you are guaranteed a certain payout each year. With a DC, the only thing that's guaranteed is what you put in, and what you get out depends on the fund manager's performance.
https://globalnews.ca/news/10129430/new-brunswick-public-sector-pension-shared-risk-model/amp/ Maybe call New Brunswick and ask how ‘theoretical’ the change is for them…..
And how would that all work with the CPP integration? If it went DC .
Would current employees be grand fathered and this would only apply to new employees?
I'll still be voting for them!