Two people go to work. They have the same new job: both clerks at local liquor stores.
One walks into a B.C. government liquor store, puts on an apron and starts ringing through customers. At the end of the day, the clerk checks his pay stub -- $14.95 per hour, plus 26 per cent in benefits -- $18.84 per hour in total. He smiles, knowing as he climbs the seniority ladder, his pay will top out at $22.62 per hour, $28.50 with benefits.
The other walks into a privately-owned beer and wine store, puts on a similar apron and starts ringing through similar customers. At the end of the day, the clerk checks his pay stub -- $10.25 per hour, plus four per cent in lieu of vacation time, $10.66 per hour in total. He sighs, knowing his take-home is even smaller as he has to fork over some of to taxes for the government to help cover the cost of employing the other clerk.
This inequality plays out throughout government. Is the lifeguard at the municipal pool, making $20.45 per hour plus 12 per cent in lieu of benefits, really worth twice the pay of the lifeguard at the nearby privately-owned waterslides? Do public school teachers making an average of $70,000 a year plus almost $15,000 in benefits really deserve 20 per cent more than an independent school teacher?
The vast majority of taxpayers say no. A recent Angus Reid poll released by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation found that three out of four British Columbians think it is unfair that government workers get pay and benefits packages 30 per cent higher than people doing the same jobs in the private sector.
More than three-quarters of B.C. citizens agreed that taxpayers cannot afford to pay more to government employees, despite the demands like that of the B.C. Teachers Federation to increase their pay by twice the rate of inflation, or the B.C. Government and Service Employees' Union recent withdrawal from contract negotiations.
This should be a clear message to every politician at every level of government. The public is feeling overtaxed and strapped for cash and wants its leaders to contain costs, even if it means taking a tough stance on negotiations.
Unfortunately, the public-private pay gap is widening. In Canada, the average government employee makes $1,023 per week, up 35 per cent from 2001. But the average private sector employee only makes $777 per week, an increase of less than 30 per cent since 2001.
Cost containment tools like net zero and a Compensation Equity Act are vital to reversing this trend of governments overpaying for labour with tax dollars.
The B.C. government's "net zero mandate," which required any raise for a public sector employee to be offset by savings in another part of the contract, has been the single most effective tool used to control B.C. spending. Net zero, which saved B.C. taxpayers $3 billion this year, should be extended indefinitely.
A Compensation Equity Act, supported by 73 per cent of poll respondents, is the next logical step. The Act, recently suggested by the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of B.C., would use a market-based model to reform compensation packages for government workers and move new hires from the ultra-expensive defined-benefit pension plan to more sustainable Pooled Retirement Savings Plans.
It could also create a cadre of skilled negotiators to grind down senior executive pay in government and Crown corporations, and deal with thorny issues like the bonuses British Columbians have seen handed out to TransLink, BC Hydro and Community Living BC bosses.
When two people do the same job, and one is paid as much as two-and-a-half times more than the other, something must change. Taxpayers cannot afford to go on overpaying for government labour.
Originally published in the Financial Post.
Follow Jordan Bateman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jordanbateman
Jordan Bateman: Show Us the Money, Christy!
Jordan Bateman: B.C. Voters Can Send City Hall a Message: Less Taxes, Control Spending
Jordan Bateman: B.C. Carbon Tax Should Go Up in Smoke
Here is a primer on how it really works, Jordan:
The employer makes an offer which the union considers. The union makes its own offer which the employer considers. Thus begins a process of give and take.
If the lifeguards or liquor store employees get so much money, the union has given something of equal or greater value in return. Poor Jordan Bateman. Your ideological bias has obviously prevented you from investigating and finding out what that quid pro quo might have been, so we don’t know.
If as poor Jordan Bateman suggests, the employer did give all the wages and benefits that poor Jordan Bateman so jealously envies, then his beef should be with the employer, not the employee.
Only an intellectually dishonest person or one as lazy as poor Jordan Bateman would pull such a poorly researched article out of his a$$ without doing the bare minimum of research. It’s just that it’s a lot easier to blame the working man for the sins of the corporation, isn’t it, poor Jordan Bateman. Otherwise, no one would carry such drivel, would they?
I would suggest to Jason maybe he should consider that the goverment be used as an example of how a responsible employer treats employees and how orginized labour can create a better life for everyone.
There is a major difference between a corporation and a government. They have different shareholders and different objectives. Corporations are not bound by a social conscious in the same way that governments are. Corporate inventories are selected as a means of generating profit by providing private wants. Government's inventory is more responsive to public needs so, for example, its inventory of highways differs from a corporations inventory of automobiles or jam tarts. Thus, the economics are different.
Let us use you and your organization as an example to ask whether your pay should be reduced or whether your organization should exist at all. For example, your pay scale seems to be in line with the salary of teachers so should we assume that your tasks carry the same responsibilities or are you being overpaid? Your organization has as its objective 'to advocate the common interest of taxpayers' yet, you denigrade the efforts of a large number of taxpayers just because they are public employees. It must be asked, therefore, whether it is not your own interests that are being espoused by you. In other words, what's in it for you Jordy boy?
Having been a lifeguard myself for a few years in my high school days, I know what the difference is between a city pool and a condo pool. There is a reason they get paid nothing in a private pool: there are very few people to watch. Some days no one even uses the pool. Where as, in a public swimming pool you could have hundreds, on a public beach you could have thousands. Many of the public lifeguards are also instructors, they must continually update their skills to remain current, etc. In this case you do want to have the very best working for you. I don't want someone getting paid minimum wage to be entrusted with saving my kids life. I don't want them falling asleep because they had to work 2 other jobs to make ends meet. I want the best trained people in the field working to make sure my kid is safe.
Obviously, it's necessary to ensure maximum wealth transfer to the 1%. That's what government is for after all.
Fortunately, the majority of people disagree with these fools.
In you example the private sector employee is getting minimum wage and their vacation allowance as cash. I suppose these clerks should work 52 weeks a year until their use to the company is gone and then be replaced with another body, so that a raise won't have to be given. Not giving benefits to your employees to help with their medical costs is not something i think we should be encouraging either. Especially for lower income workers who would most need that help with medication costs or dental costs as in your article.
One other thing. The higher wage and better benefits will attract the better workers. The government clerk will most likely be better skilled and serve their customers better than the high turnover minimum wage job. And 14.95/hr is far from living the easy life.
Another point. The public sector worker also pays taxes out of his 14.95/hr (more than the minumum wage earner as a metter of fact) so that rhetoric about the private sector person paying taxes is pure flamebait.
Lets leave the class warfare and greed south of the border and try to raise all people up. We should be asking why is the shop clerk getting payed only minimum wage and no benefits. Not tearing down the people who get it.
this is because British Columbians think that private sector workers are getting a bad deal.