Public Sector Salary Disclosure

Recommended reading, economic debates, predictions and opinions.
pmj
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2436
Joined: 27 Feb 2005 18:15
Location: Ottawa

Re: Public Sector Salary Disclosure

Post by pmj » 04 Apr 2017 17:07

I also find this distasteful. Salaries and offices / positions would be sufficient. Probably the threshold should be increased.

About the only real value to date is learning that several suspended police officers are on the list. Police officers make $100k without overtime and special duty work :shock:?
Peter

Patrick Hutber: Improvement means deterioration

User avatar
AltaRed
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
Posts: 18623
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 20:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

Re: Public Sector Salary Disclosure

Post by AltaRed » 04 Apr 2017 17:22

Perhaps there should be no disclosure of anyone's compensation, e.g MPs, MPPs. officers/executives of publicly traded corporations? Where do you draw the line? My take is the threshold is too low (just judging by the number of people being disclosed).
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom

User avatar
ghariton
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
Posts: 11914
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 18:59
Location: Ottawa

Re: Public Sector Salary Disclosure

Post by ghariton » 04 Apr 2017 18:10

If you want to know what a federal government employee is making, you can get a pretty good idea by looking at this. It only gives ranges, but the ranges are usually pretty tight. The person's title and type of job, plus some very elementary knowledge of the public service, is a good indicator of which range to look at.

I recall that, back in the 1960s, the federal public estimates published the salary and expenses (mostly travel) of any federal employee making more than $10,000 a year or spending more than $2,000.

George
The plural of anecdote is NOT data.

OnlyMyOpinion
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
Posts: 665
Joined: 24 Jan 2014 23:17

Re: Public Sector Salary Disclosure

Post by OnlyMyOpinion » 04 Apr 2017 18:33

AltaRed wrote:
04 Apr 2017 15:45
... I see no reason why 'high paid' folks on the public teat shouldn't be disclosed. They are technically serving at the bequest of the taxpayer and it seems only fair that anyone potentially 'free riding' should technically feel some heat along the way. Hence names are necessary. If one doesn't want their name published, don't work in the public sector.
:thumbsup: The granularity is justified when tax dollars are paying the bill. Nothing distasteful about it. I know some people on the list and it has never been an issue from an 'interpersonal' perspective.

User avatar
Koogie
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 1442
Joined: 09 Mar 2012 16:44

Re: Public Sector Salary Disclosure

Post by Koogie » 04 Apr 2017 19:08

OnlyMyOpinion wrote:
04 Apr 2017 18:33
:thumbsup: The granularity is justified when tax dollars are paying the bill. Nothing distasteful about it. I know some people on the list and it has never been an issue from an 'interpersonal' perspective.
+1 we have family members on the list and my best friend is actually on the list. He thinks it is great because he identifies more as a taxpayer than as a member of the union he is forced to be in and he hates the waste he sees every day. A little outside scrutiny serves the public interest.

Wish there was a federal version.
Buy very little, sell even less.

User avatar
patriot1
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 4126
Joined: 28 Feb 2005 03:53

Re: Public Sector Salary Disclosure

Post by patriot1 » 04 Apr 2017 19:38

pmj wrote:
04 Apr 2017 17:07
Police officers make $100k without overtime and special duty work :shock:?
The $100,000 figure represents total pay — salary plus any bonuses or overtime — but not benefits. Taxable benefits are reported on a separate line.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/s ... -1.4037987

SQRT
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 1952
Joined: 01 Nov 2012 11:33
Location: Alberta/Ontario/Arizona

Re: Public Sector Salary Disclosure

Post by SQRT » 04 Apr 2017 20:20

As a senior exec, my name and all details of my comp was disclosed. I wasn't happy about it but it was a small price to pay. I think the disclosure actually tended to increase comp over time.

ig17
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2474
Joined: 21 Feb 2005 20:54

Re: Public Sector Salary Disclosure

Post by ig17 » 04 Apr 2017 20:28

SQRT wrote:
04 Apr 2017 10:44
ig17 wrote:
03 Apr 2017 21:30
SQRT wrote:
03 Apr 2017 10:54
Might be time to raise the threshold for disclosure?
Why? 100K is still a ton of money. Plenty of highly skilled, highly educated people make less than that in the private sector.
Because the volume of disclosure swamps the usefulness of such. The initial intent of the disclosure was to disclose (like companies do) the pay of the senior people. When the disclosure catches so many people it loses its impact, IMHO.
I think the opposite is true: the disclosure is having a greater impact than it used to. It shows how trees grow to the skies in the public sector. Unionized workers get an automatic promotion from band to band based purely on their seniority, regardless of performance. Band pay ranges compound like a clockwork in spite of budget deficits and prevailing market rates. Thanks to the power of compounding and automatic promotions, we ended up in a situation where tens of thousands of middle-level, non-managerial employees make in excess of 100K.

Contrast this to the private sector. No one gets an automatic promotion just because they worked X years in the same place. You can start and finish your career in the same band if your performance doesn't merit a promotion. Companies adjust the pay ranges to keep pace with the prevailing market rates in the same industry, not CPI. Companies can and do freeze the pay ranges in the tough market conditions.

pmj
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2436
Joined: 27 Feb 2005 18:15
Location: Ottawa

Re: Public Sector Salary Disclosure

Post by pmj » 04 Apr 2017 22:25

patriot1 wrote:
04 Apr 2017 19:38
pmj wrote:
04 Apr 2017 17:07
Police officers make $100k without overtime and special duty work :shock:?
The $100,000 figure represents total pay — salary plus any bonuses or overtime — but not benefits. Taxable benefits are reported on a separate line.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/s ... -1.4037987
I assumed that suspended officers wouldn't be doing any overtime or special duty ....
Peter

Patrick Hutber: Improvement means deterioration

User avatar
ghariton
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
Posts: 11914
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 18:59
Location: Ottawa

Re: Public Sector Salary Disclosure

Post by ghariton » 04 Apr 2017 22:32

SQRT wrote:
04 Apr 2017 20:20
As a senior exec, my name and all details of my comp was disclosed. I wasn't happy about it but it was a small price to pay. I think the disclosure actually tended to increase comp over time.
I was very interested in corporate governance about a dozen years ago. Around that time, there was a push from government activists (and maybe some stock market regulations, I don't remember), to benchmark the compensation of senior executives of publicly traded firms. The fear of the activists was that executive compensation was rising too quickly, and that benchmarking would help control that, or at least slow it down. A follow-up study found that, if anything, benchmarking accelerated increases in compensation. Apparently no Board of Directors wanted to entertain the thought that the top management of their company was average. They all thought that the team they had was well above average, and so naturally deserved above average compensation. This led to an upward spiral.

George
The plural of anecdote is NOT data.

User avatar
Flaccidsteele
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2367
Joined: 06 Mar 2014 12:52
Location: Retired Gen Xer somewhere on the planet earth

Re: Public Sector Salary Disclosure

Post by Flaccidsteele » 04 Apr 2017 23:18

Have a few friends on the list. Judges, lawyers and law enforcement. They all make $150k+. It seems like a good wage. Interesting to see how their pay increases year over year.
Retired @ 40 after reading Munger/Buffett. I avoided a fragile retirement by avoiding conventional volatility management (diversification, re-balancing and asset-allocation). "Put 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund...the long-term results will be superior" - Warren Buffett

ig17
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2474
Joined: 21 Feb 2005 20:54

Re: Public Sector Salary Disclosure

Post by ig17 » 04 Apr 2017 23:42

Flaccidsteele wrote:
04 Apr 2017 23:18
Interesting to see how their pay increases year over year.
The magic of compounding...

User avatar
FinEcon
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 1204
Joined: 03 Aug 2005 13:41

Re: Public Sector Salary Disclosure

Post by FinEcon » 05 Apr 2017 11:27

AltaRed wrote:
04 Apr 2017 17:22
Perhaps there should be no disclosure of anyone's compensation, e.g MPs, MPPs. officers/executives of publicly traded corporations? Where do you draw the line? My take is the threshold is too low (just judging by the number of people being disclosed).
There should definitely be disclosure but the problem, in my view, is the context free implications that a hard dollar amount naturally gives rise to. What should be useful information is a lot less useful when you can't factor in overtime hours and fail to provide corresponding education and experience data.

Does it make sense to name a RN with 20+ years of experience working significant OT hours over the course of a calendar year making well in excess of $100k? Same goes for police, firemen, or any other hourly rate with significant OT opportunity.

Lumping together all this data stinks up the pool. What we should be doing is turning the focus toward executive and senior management salaries and then provide significant context on the employee, education, position, compensation and responsibilities. Up the cap to some useful number like $150k or $175k and get rid of hourly employees where OT is a big part of hurdling the threshold.

In my view $100k is not a high income, especially in a major center where most of these jobs are located.
What the human being is best at doing is interpreting all new information so that their prior conclusions remain intact

-- Warren Buffett

OnlyMyOpinion
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
Posts: 665
Joined: 24 Jan 2014 23:17

Re: Public Sector Salary Disclosure

Post by OnlyMyOpinion » 05 Apr 2017 15:38

... Whereas I thought numbers reflecting the impact of OT were useful. They might highlight sectors where staffing was an issue and/or where some abuse was occurring which would otherwise not be addressed. Wasn't there news a few years ago pointing out the number of LCBO workers making over $100k because of their extensive abuse use of overtime?

User avatar
Flaccidsteele
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2367
Joined: 06 Mar 2014 12:52
Location: Retired Gen Xer somewhere on the planet earth

Re: Public Sector Salary Disclosure

Post by Flaccidsteele » 06 Apr 2017 01:49

FinEcon wrote:
05 Apr 2017 11:27
In my view $100k is not a high income, especially in a major center where most of these jobs are located.
$100k for an individual is higher than the median household income in most Canadian major centers. What's your definition of a "high income"?

I have no issues with the $100k reporting cut-off. It still seems relevant today.

It's pretty clear that a government job is better than an equivalent private sector job. I don't think many people outside of government would disagree.
Retired @ 40 after reading Munger/Buffett. I avoided a fragile retirement by avoiding conventional volatility management (diversification, re-balancing and asset-allocation). "Put 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund...the long-term results will be superior" - Warren Buffett

User avatar
Mordko
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
Posts: 168
Joined: 24 Jan 2016 09:26

Re: Public Sector Salary Disclosure

Post by Mordko » 06 Apr 2017 07:24

^ Very much depends on perspective and how you define "better". Assume you are talking "benefits" rather than "job satisfaction".

Davis
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
Posts: 149
Joined: 15 Nov 2014 07:24

Re: Public Sector Salary Disclosure

Post by Davis » 06 Apr 2017 09:02

I'm outside of government, having retired on my success in the stock market. When I left government for consulting, I got a big pay increase. When I returned to government, I took a big pay cut. One of my struggles in middle management was losing people to higher paying jobs in the private sector. It's true that the pension is good, but people coming from the private sector were shocked to see 8% of their salary being deducted at source to pay the employee's share. The experience will vary by government, but it is clear that the Government of Ontario lost a lot of good people by freezing management salaries for five years.

(The freeze was ended this year when they realized that one-quarter of first-level managers were earning less than their staff, and that the number would soon rise to one-third -- it was darn tough to recruit managers in that situation, and it screwed up the sort of normal career progression a large employer has to provide.)
My path to financial freedom is described at adifferentpathblog.WordPress.com

LordMelbury
Newcomer
Newcomer
Posts: 3
Joined: 11 Apr 2017 12:25

Re: Public Sector Salary Disclosure

Post by LordMelbury » 11 Apr 2017 23:26

The list is a bit of a joke in medical circles. All the high earners aren't on it because they are fee for service and have corporations. It gives a completely false idea of who the top earners are. They should publish all or none.

Post Reply