SUN NEWS COLUMN: Decades Since Government Employees Took Pay Cuts

Play Video

Over the past few months we’ve seen countless stories of businesses suffering due to COVID-19 and having no choice but to reduce employee pay or go under.

Reuters reported earlier this year that Chrysler employees would be taking pay reductions of up to 20 per cent. According to Bloomberg, Cineplex reduced pay for their full-time employees by up to 80 per cent and Postmedia has reported on several Canadian Football League teams cutting employee pay as well.

There have also been plenty of stories about news outlets taking pay cuts – for example, the Winnipeg Free Press reduced pay by 12 to 20 per cent for its staff while the paper’s publisher took a 50 per cent cut.

Curiously, though, we hadn’t seen any stories about government employees taking pay cuts.

That led us to ask the federal government, all 10 provincial governments and 13 major city governments – when was the last time you cut employee pay?

While we waited for the results to come in, we spoke with Rayna Oryniak, a worker in Canada’s energy sector in Calgary. She told us she received a pay cut earlier this year and it became next to impossible for her to make her student loan payments. The young professional also had to halt her retirement savings contributions.  The stress and anxiety were significant.

While stories like Rayna’s are common outside of government, we soon learned that pay cuts are almost non-existent inside government.

The federal government told SecondStreet.org there is “no data or any information that indicates that there has ever been a negotiated pay reduction” for federal employees.

Must be nice.

 The Quebec government told us the last time they cut employee pay was 1982. 

New Brunswick’s data goes back to the 1970s … no pay cuts since then.

Saskatchewan’s data goes back to 1998 … no pay cuts there either.

At the municipal level, one might expect Calgary would have some evidence of pay reductions. After all, the city has been through enormous economic pain since 2015 when oil prices plummeted and many businesses downsized or simply went under. 

Yet data provided by the City of Calgary dates back to 1974 and it shows no signs of any pay cuts.

Mississauga and Moncton told us they’ve never cut employee pay either.

Overall, we didn’t come across any pay cuts in government since COVID emerged (not counting politicians). Instances of pay cuts that we did find took place decades ago.

The closest example we found to a recent pay cut in government occurred in Manitoba, employees were required to take five days off unpaid.

Conversely, the federal government negotiated a new pay increase for its employees and even let 76,804 of them take several months off work – fully paid.

To be clear, no one should be cheering for government employees to receive a pay cut. They have household budgets like the rest of us.

But it’s hardly fair for governments to continue to take funds from struggling taxpayers and businesses, then use them to protect government employees from feeling the pinch a bit too.

A pay reduction for government employees could help governments avoid tax increases and get their debt under control without having to cut important services or lay off staff.

It’s hard to imagine the alternative – asking taxpayers like Rayna and thousands of other Canadians to pay more. 

Colin Craig is the President of SecondStreet.org, a start-up Canadian think tank.

This column was published in the August 31st print addition of Sun Newspapers (Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Calgary, and Edmonton).

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

You can help us continue to research and tell stories about this issue by making a donation or sharing this content with your friends. Be sure to sign up for our updates too!

Prevention – reduce demand in the first place

If Canadians lived healthier lives, we could reduce demand for emergency services, orthopaedic surgeries, primary care and more. 

For instance, if you visit the Canadian Cancer Society’s website, you’ll read that “about four in ten” cancer cases are preventable. The Heart and Stroke Foundation notes that “almost 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented through healthy behaviours.” A similar number of Diabetes cases are also preventable. 

Many joint replacements and visits to ERs and walk-in clinics could also be avoided through healthy living. 

To be sure, not all health problems can be avoided through healthy living – everyday the system treats Canadians with genetic conditions, helps those injured in unavoidable accidents and more.  

But there is an opportunity to reduce pressure on the health care system through Canadians shifting to healthier lifestyles – better diets, more exercise, etc. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this column. 

Partner with non-profits and for-profit clinics

European countries will partner with anyone who can help patients. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s a non-profit, a government entity or a private clinic. What matters is that patients receive quality treatment, in a timely manner and for a competitive price.  

In Canada, governments often delivery services using government-run hospitals instead of seeing if non-profit or private clinics could deliver the services more effectively. 

When governments have partnered with non-profit and private clinics, the results have often been quite good – Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia are just a few examples of where partnerships have worked well. 

Canada should pursue more of these partnerships to reduce wait times and increase the volume of services provided to patients.  

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see the links above. 

Make cross border care more accessible

In Canada, citizens pay high taxes each year and we’re promised universal health care services in return. The problem is, wait times are often extremely long in our health system – sometimes patients have to wait years to see a specialist or receive surgery. 

If patients don’t want to wait long periods, they often have to reach into their own pocket and pay for treatment outside the province or country. 

Throughout the European Union, we also find universal health care systems. But a key difference is that EU patients have the right to go to other EU countries, pay for surgery and then be reimbursed by their home government. Reimbursements cover up to what the patient’s home government would have spent to provide the treatment locally. 

If Canada copied this approach, a patient waiting a year to get their hip operation could instead receive treatment next week in one of thousands of surgical clinics throughout the developed world. 

Governments benefit too as the patient is now back on their feet and avoiding complications that sometimes come with long wait times – meaning the government doesn’t have to treat those complications on top of the initial health problem. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or this shorter video. 

Legalize access to non-government providers

Canada is the only country in the world that puts up barriers, or outright bans patients from paying for health services locally. 

For instance, a patient in Toronto cannot pay for a hip operation at a private clinic in Toronto. Their only option is to wait for the government to eventually provide treatment or leave the province and pay elsewhere. 

Countries with better-performing universal health care systems do not have such bans. They allow patients a choice – use the public system or pay privately for treatment. Sweden, France, Australia and more – they all allow choice. 

Why? One reason is that allowing choice means some patients will decide to pay privately. This takes pressure off the public system. For instance, in Sweden, 87% of patients use the public system, but 13% purchase private health insurance. 

Ultimately, more choice improves access for patients. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or watch this short clip on this topic. 

Shift to funding services for patients, not bureaucracies

In Canada, most hospitals receive a cheque from the government each year and are then asked to do their best to help patients. This approach is known as “block funding”. 

Under this model, a patient walking in the door represents a drain on the hospital’s budget. Over the course of a year, hospital administrators have to make sure the budget stretches out so services are rationed. This is why you might have to wait until next year or the year after for a hip operation, knee operation, etc. 

In better-performing universal health systems, they take the opposite approach – hospitals receive money from the government each time they help a patient. If a hospital completes a knee operation, it might receive, say, $10,000. If it completes a knee operation on another patient, it receives another $10,000. 

This model incentivizes hospitals to help more patients – to help more patients with knee operations, cataract surgery, etc. This approach also incentivizes hospitals to spend money on expenses that help patients (e.g. more doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.) rather than using the money on expenses that don’t help patients (e.g. more admin staff). 

To learn more about this policy option, please watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this post by MEI.