Skip to main content

Is the attack on public sector workers justified?

Dwight Duncan has justified the government's proposal to remove collective bargaining rights in the broader public sector by suggesting that the private sector has had it much worse. Earlier, I looked at wage settlements as likely the best test to determine if this was true (it wasn't).

But one could argue that jobs are also a key measure.

So, has the loss of jobs been much worse in the private sector than in the public sector?

This turns partly on the start date chosen. So let's look at it from a variety of start dates.

If we start at the pre-precession high in private sector employment in Ontario, the start date would be September 2008, when private sector employment was 4.433 million, according to Stats Can.  As of September 2012 private sector employment sat at 4.414 million, a decline of about 0.6%. Over the same period  the public sector has grown slightly, increasing from 1.302 million to 1.332 million.

From this measure, the public sector has done better but there is not a whole lot in it.

If examined from the public sector high, the start month is April 2011. Public sector employment has declined since then from 1.362 million to 1.332 million, a loss of 30,000 jobs, a 2.2% decline.  Over the same period, private sector employment has increased from 4.351 million to 4.405 million, an increase of 54,000 jobs, a 1.2% increase.

From this perspective the public sector has done worse than the private sector by a fair margin.

So while there are some differences between public and private sector employment, overall there is little evidence to back up Duncan's claim, either by looking at wage settlements or employment in the public and private sectors. Indeed, private sector jobs are now increasing, while public sector jobs are now decreasing.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ford Plans to Cut Health Care Worker Benefits by $250 million

Attack on health care worker benefits: The Ontario Ford government has specifically targeted in the Budget health care worker compensation  through cuts in premium payments (e.g. shift payments), overtime, and sick leave. "Improving" scheduling is also part of the plan.  The stated goalis to cut $250 million annually through such changes by 2021-22.

This is squarely aimed at hourly paid employees. Managers don't get overtime and premium payments, and they are not likely to be targeted by attendance management programs or scheduling "improvements". 

With about half a million hourly paid employees working in health care a $250 million cut would mean about a cut of about $500 per employee per year.  

The Ford government claims in the Budget that this will have "no impact on patient care or front-line staff."

In fact, a $500 cut may be low -- as it will be especially hard to harvest such amounts from contracted, for-profit corporations (e.g. in home care).  T…

Are health care administrative expenses out of control in Ontario?

The Progressive Conservative government has justified its health restructuring plans with the claim that administrative expenses are much higher in Ontario than in Canada. 
When introducing the reforms, health minister Christine Elliott claimed, “Over the last five years, Ontario has spent 30% more than the Canadian average in administrative expenses on its health care system.”  
Elliott did not indicate her source of information. Presumably, however, the Progressive Conservatives are referring to the CIHI simplified and user friendly “Your Health System” graphs. Those graphs show “administrative expenses” in Ontario at 5.8% in Ontario while it is 4.5% in Canada.  
This CIHI measure is actually fairly narrowly defined. It is the percentage of “the legal entity’s” total expenses associated with the administrative, finance, human resources and communications functional centres.
However “the legal entity” used for this estimate is [1] only for certain types of health care providers, and [2] …

PC Government Plans Many More Health Care Cuts

The Financial Accountability Office (FAO) Budget and Economic review has identified planned government spending savings that come via [1] announced program changes (program cuts like the government’s cut to OHIP+), [2] announced efficiency targets (identified areas where the government hopes it will find savings without service cuts), and [3] cuts that have not yet been announced by the government.
While the government has identified some spending cuts of type 1 or 2 above, the government’s spending plan needs billions of dollars in extra, unidentifiedand unannounced cuts to meet its savings targets according to the FAO (type 3 cuts, as above). For health care, this amounts to $5.2 billion in unidentified and unannounced cost savings needed for the government’s health spending plan to work in 2023-24.  Even though the cuts identified to date have been major and painful, $5.2 billion is many times more than the cuts announced and implemented to date. [1]
The unidentified and unannounced …