Skip to main content

Attack on free collective bargaining political, not fiscal


In December, it was predicted that outgoing finance minister Dwight Duncan would   reduce his deficit forecast just before his departure (for Bay Street).  Duncan had somehow estimated in his fall economic statement that the 2012-3 deficit would be  $14.4 billion, i.e. higher than the 2011-12 deficit  -- and even higher than the 2010-11 deficit!

Sure enough, Duncan lopped another $2.5 billion off the deficit in January.

In 2010, the McGuinty / Duncan government started its campaign for a wage freeze in the provincial public sector, citing the state of the public books.  At that time they had estimated deficits totaling $74.2 billion from 2009/10-2012/3.

Deficit (in billions of dollars)
2009–10
2010–11
2011–12
2012–13
Total
2010 Budget
21.3
19.7
17.3
15.9
74.2
2013 January
19.3
14
13
11.9
58.2
Reduction in Deficit
2
5.7
4.3
4.0
16.0

However, these proved unrealistic -- the actual deficits are now put at $16 billion less.  (This is a change from $13.5 billion less as of the 2012 fall economic statement.)

Despite the decline in the deficits, by the summer of 2012 the government increased their demands on broader public sector workers.  A wage freeze would no longer do -- now it had to be a wage freeze plus significant financial concessions (e.g. cuts to sick leave and retirement pay-outs).  The government claimed that their plan would save $8.8 billion over three years -- i.e. much less than what they had already paired from the deficits since they started their wage freeze campaign in 2010.

The government was quite prepared to attack free collective bargaining to get the concessions they desired, despite the fact that  major unions opened bargaining with a proposal for a wage freeze -- a freeze which would have accounted for much of the government's savings goal.

So the long and the short of it is this: in the summer of 2012 the government increased their concession demands even though their fiscal situation was much better than they predicted when they started their wage freeze campaign in 2010. Moreover, most of the savings they were aiming for were already conceded by the unions. Worse, despite this, the government moved from free collective bargaining to legislative compulsion to achieve their plans.

It may not have made much fiscal sense, but the attack on free collective bargaining did respond to the heckling from employers and the Progressive Conservatives.

The attack on free collective bargaining by the McGuinty / Duncan government was political, not fiscal.

Nevertheless, as they slink from the public stage, McGunty and Duncan may not think the attack was so opportune now.

Footnote: Part of the year end savings recorded by the Finance Ministry in the January statement was a reduction in health care spending of $308.6 million. 


Photo: Dwight Duncan, Ontario Chamber of Commerce

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More spending on new hospitals and new beds? Nope

Hospital funding:  There is something off about the provincial government's Budget claims on hospital capital funding (funding to build and renovate hospital beds and facilities).    For what it is worth (which is not that much, given the long time frame the government cites), the province claims it will increase hospital capital spending over the next 10 years from $11 billion to $20 billion – or on average to about $2 billion per year.   But, this is just a notional increase from the previous announcement of future hospital capital spending.  Moreover, even if we did take this as a serious promise and not just a wisp of smoke, the government's own reports shows they have actually funded hospital infrastructure about $3 billion a year over the 2011/12-2015/16 period. So this “increase” is really a decrease from past actual spending. Even last year's (2016-17) hospital capital funding increase was reported in this Budget at $2.3 billion - i.e. about ...

Ford government fails to respond to 72% increase in COVID inpatient days, deepening the capacity crisis

COVID infections continue to drive up hospital costs and inpatient hospitalizations in Ontario. For the most recent fiscal year (April 1, 2022- March 31, 2023) hospital stays related to COVID cost $1.221 billion, according to new CIHI data.   This is about 4% of total hospital spending, creating a very significant new cost pressure beyond the usual pressures of population growth, aging, inflation, and rising utilization.   Costs for COVID related hospitalizations increased 22.2% in Ontario in 2022/23 from the previous fiscal year, rising from $999 million to $1.221 billion.  That rise is particularly notable as the OMICRON spike of late 2021 and early 2022 had passed by the the 2022/23 fiscal year.   The $222 million increase in COVID hospitalization costs came in the same year as the Ford government cut special COVID funding and, in fact, cut total hospital funding by $156 million.     In total, there were 60,653 COVID hospitalizations...

The hospital crisis: No capacity, no plan, no end

While Canada has achieved universal public healthcare coverage, that does not mean conservative forces have given up trying to erode that coverage and expand corporate care where it does not currently exist. The battle has become particularly intense in Ontario under the Ford Progressive Conservative government, which is implementing serious cuts to the level of care and moving to bring in for-profit mini-hospitals. Inadequate Staffing.   Less and less of hospital spending is on staff.   Employee compensation as a share of hospital expenditures has consistently shrunk in Ontario. This is not some immutable law of hospital development.  It is in stark contrast with the rest of Canada, where compensation has become a larger share and now accounts for 67.1%. Hospitals in provinces other than Ontario now have 18 percent more staff per capita than hospitals in Ontario. Overall, if Ontario had the same staffing capacity as the other provinces and territories, there would be another...