Canada’s high-cost public service

Posted on May 5, 2010 in Governance Debates

Source: — Authors:

National – FP Comment
Posted: May 04, 2010.   By Herbert Grubel

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) in 2008 published a study that compared the incomes of employees in the public and private sectors in Canada.

The results of this study have not been given the attention they deserve at the present time when governments are searching for ways to eliminate large deficits:  If the incomes of public sector workers were equal to those in the private sector, fiscal deficits of governments would be lowered by at least $19-billion.

The CFIB’s comparisons involve only occupations that have the same responsibilities in both sectors, such as office clerks, accountants, administrative officers and human resource specialists. Excluded are professors, urban transit drivers, firefighters, elected government officials and senior government employees such as deputy ministers who are not found in the private sector. The data are also adjusted for age to account for the fact the public-sector employees on average are older than those in the private sector.

To justify any reduction in public-sector compensation, it is essential to understand that the existing gap is due entirely to the higher levels of unionization of the public sector and to the disproportionate power the public-sector unions have in raising the incomes of their members.

What explains this power of public-sector unions?  The answer is that public-sector workers produce services that are free to the public and that face no competition from the private sector. At the same time, politicians face direct and grave consequences if strikes inconvenience the public while the consequences of covering higher labour costs through increased taxes are relatively minor, especially in a world of economic growth and automatically rising tax revenues.

The merit of policies to reduce public-sector incomes must also take into consideration that public-sector incomes are unfair and inconsistent with Canada’s effort to ensure “equal pay for equal work.” Office clerks, accountants and others in occupations compared in this study should be paid the same whether they work in the public or private sector.

The blame for the existing income differences falls fully on politicians who gave public-sector employees the right to strike without making any provisions to prevent the observed, inefficient and unfair outcome. Unions and their members simply and understandably have been taking advantage of the opportunities offered them by the politicians.

What measures would help reduce the existing fiscal deficits and restore equity in the compensation of public- and private-sector workers? The most obvious measure would be the elimination of public-sector unions, which would probably appeal to the vast majority of Canadians who are not members of unions.

A second-best policy would permit public-sector unions to exist but deprive them of the right to strike for higher compensation. Under these conditions, the main function of the unions would be to represent individual workers whoe have grievances against management. The existence of such an institution would improve the quality of the work environment and raise productivity.

The elimination of public-sector unions’ right to strike should be accompanied by the adoption of a formula that ties annual increases in public-sector wages and compensation to those in the private sector. To eliminate the existing gap, the public-sector increases should be a fraction, say 50%, of private-sector increases, until the levels in the two sectors are equalized.

Politicians would be reluctant to accept such proposals because they would face fierce opposition from unionized workers in both sectors, endangering their electoral prospects.  However, the effectiveness of such union opposition can be blunted significantly and can even raise electoral prospects if the vast majority of non-unionized Canadians are made aware of the consequences of not doing so:  unjustifiable income advantages for a privileged group and higher deficits or taxes for the rest.
Financial Post

— Herbert Grubel is professor of economics (emeritus) at Simon Fraser University and a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

< >

Tags: , ,

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 5th, 2010 at 11:55 am and is filed under Governance Debates. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Leave a Reply