93009307 - business man accountant using calculator to calculating bugget money tax loan.

FINANCIAL POST COLUMN: Lightning strikes a greater risk for government employees than pay cuts

Since COVID-19 emerged in Canada we have seen countless stories in the news about struggling businesses having no choice but to cut employee pay. Cineplex, energy giant CenovusChrysler, teams throughout the Canadian Football League, the Winnipeg Free Press, the list goes on and on.

But one sector of our economy has been noticeably absent from such headlines: the government. This led SecondStreet.org, which I oversee, to ask the federal government, all 10 provincial governments and the administrations of 13 major cities: when was the last time you cut employee pay?

Results from our survey showed government employees in Canada are more likely to be hit by lightning than suffer a pay cut.

The federal government told us there is “no data or any information that indicates that there has ever been a negotiated pay reduction” for federal employees. In fact, the federal government negotiated a pay increase for employees during the height of the pandemic. It must be amazing to work for an organization that only ever raises pay (and will even add to a mountain of debt to do so).

Provincial governments provided similar responses. The Quebec government said the last time they cut employee pay was 1982. Just think, we’re coming up to the 40th anniversary of the province’s last pay cut. Some Quebec employees will have worked their entire careers without ever feeling the pinch.

Alberta’s last pay cut seems to have occurred in 1994 and Prince Edward Island told us its last one was in the same year. New Brunswick said its data go back to the 1970s and there have been no pay cuts over the last 50 years.

Ontario doesn’t track the data the same way other provinces do. It could only confirm there haven’t been any pay cuts over the past five years. Perhaps the government keeps the data this way because it doesn’t want to know the answer to embarrassing questions like this.

This same cut-free history typifies city halls across Canada. The City of Calgary provided data from 1974 to 2020 showing no pay cuts during that period. Edmonton provided data going back to 1985 — again, no pay cuts. Mississauga, Ont., told us it has never cut employee compensation and the City of Ottawa provided data going back to its amalgamation in 2001. No pay cuts there, either.

Overall, the data are clear. When times get tough, politicians of all political stripes almost always insulate government employees while the rest of us face the elements. It’s true that governments have negotiated wage freezes on occasion, meaning real wages have temporarily not kept up with inflation. But out in the real world the rest of us have faced that sort of thing but also actual cuts in the numbers that show up on our cheques or in our pay packets.

Two points about addressing this phenomenon:

First, change is possible. The 1994 pay cut in Alberta was actually a negotiated five per cent pay reduction. The government simply told the unions they would have to take a pay reduction or there would be layoffs. The government didn’t blink and the unions accepted the pay reduction. Grumpily, to be sure — but they signed.

Second, government employee unions and politicians sometimes claim pay cuts can’t occur right now as the unions have contracts in place. But countless workers outside government also had contracts in place and agreed to reopen them in order to negotiate pay reductions to save their jobs. If government employee unions won’t be reasonable about the unique challenge our nation is facing and agree to reopen their contracts, well, layoffs are certainly a more drastic option for saving money but they do work.

Governments across Canada are awash in red ink right now, a situation that is simply not sustainable. Compensation costs typically represent half a government’s budget (more in the case of school boards) so it is hard to see how politicians will tackle their budget shortfalls without wage and salary cuts.

For government employees, pay reductions would help save jobs. For everyday taxpayers, government pay reductions could help prevent tax increases. If we don’t see concessions from government employee unions, maybe it’s time for the rest of society to go on strike.

Colin Craig is president of SecondStreet.org.

This column was published by the Financial Post on September 10, 2020.

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.