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

Health care funding falls, again

Real provincial government health care funding per-person has fallen again this year in Ontario, the third year in a row.  Since 2009 real funding per-person has fallen 2.6% -- $63 per person. 

Across Canada real per person funding is in its fourth consecutive year of increase. Since 2009, real provincial funding across Canada is up $89 -- 3.6%.
In fact the funding gap between Ontario and Canada as a whole has gown consistently for years (as set out below in current dollars).

Ontario funds health care less than any other province -- indeed, the province that funds health care the second least (B.C.) provides $185 more per person per year, 4.7% more.  
Provincial health care spending in the rest of Canada (excluding Ontario) is now  $574 higher per person annually than in Ontario. 

 Ontario has not always provided lower than average health care funding increases-- but that has been the general pattern since 2005.
Private expenditures on health care have exceeded Ontario government increases …

Ontario long-term care staffing falls far short of other provinces

CUPE and others are campaigning for a legislated minimum average of four worked hours of nursing and personal care per resident per day in long-term care (LTC) facilities.  New research indicates that not only is LTC underfunded in Ontario, it is also understaffed compared to the other provinces. 
LTC staffing falls short:  The latest data published by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (and based on a mandatory survey undertaken by Statistics Canada) indicates that staffing at long-term care (LTC) facilities falls far short of other provinces. 
Part of this is driven by a low level of provincial funding for LTC.





Ontario has 0.575 health care full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) per bed staffed and in operation.[1]  The rest of Canada reports 0.665 health care FTEs.[2] The rest of Canada has 15.7% more health care staff per bed staffed and in operation than Ontario.[3] 


No other province reports fewer LTC health care staff per resident (or per bed) than Ontario.[4]

Occupancy r…

Six more problems with Public Private Partnerships (P3s)

The Auditor General (AG) has again identified issues in her annual reportwhich reflect problems with Ontario health care capacity and privatization.   First, here are six key problems with the maintenance of the 16 privatized P3 ("public private partnership") hospitals in Ontario:
There are long-term ongoing disputes with privatized P3 contractors over the P3 agreements, including about what is covered by the P3  (or “AFP” as the government likes to call them) contract.The hospitals are required to pay higher than reasonable rates tothe P3 contractor for  maintenance work the contractor has deemed to be outside of the P3 contract. Hospitals are almost forced to use P3 contractors to do maintenance work the contractors deem outside of the P3 contract or face the prospect of transferring the risk associated with maintaining the related hospital assets from the private-sector company back to the hospitalP3 companies with poor perf…