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

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 …