TELEGRAPH-JOURNAL: New Brunswick workers – not government employees – feeling pandemic’s economic pain

By: Paige MacPherson

If you or someone you know has lost their job or taken a pay cut as a result of the COVID-19 shutdown, you aren’t alone. But one segment of society – government employees – have been immune to the widespread economic pain in New Brunswick and across Canada, according to a new policy brief by SecondStreet.org.

When it quickly comes time for taxpayers to pay the piper, collective debt and debt interest payments will be higher because of it. SecondStreet.org found, through Freedom of Information requests filed with the federal and provincial governments and 13 municipalities, that in almost every case, governments have not reduced employee pay due to COVID-19. SecondStreet.org asked for data specifically on the last pay reductions negotiated with various government employee bargaining units. That would not include politicians or political staff.

In many cases governments had never curbed employee pay as far back as the data was made available. In New Brunswick, the data dated back to the 1970s, and there have been no pay reductions over the last 50 years. Outside of government, many job creators have had to go beyond wage reductions, cutting jobs altogether. Irving Oil laid off 173 people in New Brunswick this past July, with most of those jobs in Saint John. That same week, Organigram Inc., a cannabis company based in Moncton, cut 220 jobs. In another hit to Moncton, UPS laid off 168 people at its call centre. Contrast that with Moncton’s municipal government, which indicated to SecondStreet.org that it has never, for any reason, reduced employee pay. It’s not unheard of for governments to roll back wages. It’s just exceedingly uncommon. Across the bridge in Prince Edward Island, the government told SecondStreet.org that it reduced employee pay most recently in 1994.

This isn’t exclusively a matter of fairness. Governments have already seen their revenues hit significantly. Prior to the COVID-19 economic shutdown, New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs and Finance Minister Ernie Steeves had set the province on a laudable path of debt reduction.
The pandemic shifted political focus away from balanced budgets everywhere. But the painful smack of COVID-19’s economic shutdown makes New Brunswick’s fiscal situation more urgent.

Even during the pandemic, New Brunswick felt the weight of its government’s debt – which, at close to $14 billion, is the largest in the Maritimes. Auditor General Kim MacPherson said it meant New Brunswick had limited flexibility when responding to the pandemic. As Canada’s federal debt nears $1 trillion for the first time, reliance on Ottawa is precarious. There too, the government must look at options to reduce costs.

At the federal level, the government has allowed 76,804 employees to take months off work during the pandemic, fully paid. This has cost taxpayers an estimated $623 million. Conversely, other Canadians who were not working collected the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), a maximum of $2,000 per month. Incredibly, the federal government even negotiated a pay increase for its employees who belong to the largest bureaucrat union – the Public Service Alliance of Canada. The gap between government employees and other workers was wide before the pandemic. A Fraser Institute report released in January showed that government employees enjoy an average 11.9 per cent wage premium over their counterparts in the private sector, after controlling for socioeconomic factors.

Government employees in New Brunswick were also six to seven times less likely than their private-sector counterparts to lose their jobs (pre-COVID). The pandemic, followed by a fall election, has blurred the importance of reducing the province’s debt. But it is still critical. Bringing government employee pay in line with counterparts elsewhere in the province is a viable policy option the New Brunswick government could explore. It could help address the government’s sizeable debt while minimizing the impact on services like libraries and hospitals.

The typical refrain from government employee unions is that contracts can’t be opened up. But countless workers across Canada, outside of government, agreed to open up their own contracts due to COVID-19 because otherwise their employers would be forced to make layoffs.

No one rejoices in pay reductions, but while workers and business owners across New Brunswick have had to make challenging decisions, it’s hard to see why government employees should be immune to reality.

Paige MacPherson is a contributor to SecondStreet.org and a policy and communications professional based in Halifax.

This column ran in The Telegraph Journal September 14th, 2020. To view article – click here.

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.