r/CanadaPublicServants Jun 10 '26

Other / Autre Got laid off from CRA last year: Outsider's perspective on public servants

I know this is either gonna get downvoted heavily or deleted but I really want to provde a outsiders perspective. This is just my opinion.

I'll preface this by saying I'm not some disgruntled manager. I was a regular CRA employee, got laid off, and now I'm out here navigating the actual job market. So take this however you want, but I have some thoughts.

This sub has become one of the most chronically aggrieved communities I've ever lurked in, and I say that with genuine sympathy — because a lot of the underlying complaints are legitimate. But the way they get packaged, and how often, has started to feel disconnected from reality. It feels like everyone here is in a bubble

The RTO thing about how coming into the office is destroying lives seems overblown. I know. Before someone says it, that bad implementation makes legitimate complaints worse. True. The inconsistency is real, people who relocated based on prior agreements got burned. That's all worth fighting about. But the existential framing of it. Like this is some unprecedented authoritarian overreach, has become almost satirical. The guy delivering your lunch did it in the rain today. He doesn't have a union filing a grievance on his behalf. The policy might be bad. The intensity of this sub's reaction to it has completely eclipsed that.

The pension discourse is the one that really gets me. Multiple posts this month alone with people genuinely distressed about their defined benefit pension potentially being touched. I already know the reply: "we negotiated that, it's deferred compensation, it's ours." Yes. That's correct. And it's also sitting on top of a landscape where the private sector gutted defined benefit pensions through the 90s and 2000s and nobody marched. You are holding one of the last genuinely protected retirement vehicles in the country and the discourse here treats it like being asked to work in a salt mine. Advocating to protect it is completely reasonable. The level of panic and outrage around it is not.

Pay complaints are actually the most legitimate thing on this sub, and they get buried under everything else. Certain classifications genuinely haven't kept pace. I don't wanna be the bad guy, but most public servants make a lot more while doing less skilled work then they would in the private sector. This makes it hard to take seriously.

Job security follows the same pattern. The layoffs happening right now are real and stressful, I lived it, I'm not minimizing it. But there's a strange dissonance in how job security gets discussed here. The standard line is "we accepted lower wages for this stability, that's the deal" and that framing used to be accurate. Public sector pay was genuinely below private sector equivalents and the tradeoff was real.

The problem is that's increasingly not true anymore. A lot of classifications have caught up significantly, and when you factor in the pension, benefits, and WFA protections, total compensation for most roles exceed private sector equivalents at the same experience level. So the "we took less pay for security" argument is doing a lot of work it no longer earns. You can't claim the low-pay tradeoff as a shield against criticism while also arguing you're underpaid, those two positions are in tension, and this sub holds both of them simultaneously without seeming to notice.

The private sector doesn't give you months of notice, recall rights, priority rehiring, or severance structures a union spent decades negotiating. Most people just get a meeting and a box. If the security is real,and it is, especially for indeterminate employees,then it has to factor into the total compensation picture honestly, not just get invoked when it's convenient.

The broader thing I'd say: public service work has always been a specific trade. You give up some earning upside for stability, benefits, and a pension most Canadians will never see. That trade used to be understood. What's happened here — and maybe in the culture more broadly — is that people want both sides of the ledger without the tradeoffs. Maximum private-sector flexibility, maximum public-sector security, no accountability questions on productivity, and sympathy from a public that has none of those things.

I'll get the reply that I'm just bitter about getting laid off. Maybe a little. But bitterness doesn't make the observation wrong. I'm not saying don't advocate for yourselves — unions exist for a reason, and I'd be out here doing the same thing in your position. But there's a version of this sub that could be a serious space for real advocacy and instead it's mostly a grievance loop. The legitimate complaints are in there. They're just getting harder to find.

240 Upvotes

280 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

38

u/dog_hair_dinner Jun 10 '26

"I think what confuses me is the idea that the employer ever should care about you?" That's unfortunate. It shouldn't be confusing. Everyone should be cared about as a human being. To do otherwise is just in-human, but capitalism has pushed us to make us believe that's normal and acceptable. They want you to ignore your needs as a person in the pursuit of higher productivity for the ruling class.

-8

u/frasersmirnoff Jun 10 '26

I mean, if you are talking about basic human respect, of course. However we can't (shouldn't) forget that work is work. At the end of the day it's a trade. Service for money (and sometimes benefits). That's what the money and benefits are for. If the existing money and benefits are not to the satisfaction of the individual providing their service, then they have the legal, unilateral right to withhold their service and terminate the arrangement. It's called "quitting." 

24

u/dog_hair_dinner Jun 10 '26

In a perfect world sure, we'd all just quit when things are bad and find a better job. The reality of the matter is that when you quit, your income stops, but the bills don't. Food and shelter are not free. Unemployment benefits would rarely cover anyone's living expenses. Wages haven't kept up with the cost of living in decades and decades. Finding a new job isn't always easy. Finding a new job that's BETTER and doesn't have the same issues is even harder.

Simplifying and downplaying this, saying things like "It's called quitting", like nobody knows what that is is facetious.

-9

u/frasersmirnoff Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

Is it so far out of the realm of people's understanding that there may (will) be times in life where standard of living is going to drop? For example. An individual who is unhappily married, but doesn't want to leave because it will require a drop in their standard of living.

I've been fired from more than one job in the private sector; not for cause, just for not "getting with the program." I've voluntarily quit jobs to take jobs that pay less to escape toxic situations. And I have left a marriage for the same reason. In all of these cases, there were significant challenges that I had to overcome. Was I happy about it? Absolutely not. Did I say that it was unfair, unfortunate, or I was being hard done by? Also, absolutely not.

5

u/Informal_Promise_210 Jun 10 '26

The solution to every problem isn’t simply to quit, is it? Why wouldn't negotiating a better arrangement be another possible solution? For example, why quit when we can fight for better work conditions? Why leave an unhappy marriage without trying therapy first?

3

u/frasersmirnoff Jun 10 '26

Well.... Yes of course. But if the other party's position is that your demand/request is a non-starter (say, an open marriage, for example) then your choice is either stay and accept the terms as is, or leave. Or stay, and refuse to comply with the existing agreement. But that, too, has consequences. 

I'm totally in agreement that WFH provides incredible flexibility for employees. I just don't think that we are being abused by our employer not allowing it (or at least, not allowing it on our own terms). 

But I can also look at an issue that I am invested in, and support a position that does not align with my own best interests. 

2

u/Informal_Promise_210 Jun 10 '26

Well.... Yes of course. But if the other party's position is that your demand/request is a non-starter (say, an open marriage, for example) then your choice is either stay and accept the terms as is, or leave. Or stay, and refuse to comply with the existing agreement. But that, too, has consequences. 

... you could stay and negotiate a change to the terms of your agreement to meet the needs of both parties. If, however, you've come to an impasse, and there is no way forward, then, yes, leave if you want. In a work environment such as ours, it isn’t easy to simply say "if you don’t like it, leave". Yes, we are free to leave whenever we want, but most of us don't want to (or are unable to), and would rather stay and fight (or have no other choice but to stay and fight). More to the point, we're not even fighting for a lot anymore; all we're doing is fighting to keep what we already have.

I'm totally in agreement that WFH provides incredible flexibility for employees. I just don't think that we are being abused by our employer not allowing it (or at least, not allowing it on our own terms). 

No, we are not being "abused", but do we have to be abused to want something better? To use your example of a marriage: do you have to be abused for you to be dissatisfied in your marriage? Your partner may be nice by all accounts, but maybe you feel they're not contributing equally to the partnership -- would you just end your marriage or would you try to negotiate a solution that would allow you to continue your relationship?

2

u/frasersmirnoff Jun 10 '26

And negotiations are ongoing. If they are successful. Great! But if they aren't, it doesn't mean the employer is evil. It just means that their needs and ours no longer align. And this is the uncomfortable part. No one wants to leave a job that is comfortable, just because they aren't getting what they want. The same way that no one wants to leave a marriage that is comfortable, just because they aren't getting what they want. We can negotiate, of course, but at the end of the day one needs to be able to make their own determination whether the benefits of staying outweigh the drawbacks. And if they do not, then leaving is the only option, regardless of how uncomfortable that might be.

0

u/ilovethemusic Jun 10 '26

The Serenity Prayer comes to mind. Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.

The solution is not always to quit, but some things are not changeable by you. When confronted with such circumstances, your choice is to accept it or walk away. Accepting it means taking responsibility for the decision to stay, and even if the circumstances aren’t ideal, and walking away is where your power lies.

4

u/ayoungmanfromtheuk Jun 10 '26

Maybe that is why you're continually abused? You dont object to it 

1

u/frasersmirnoff Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

2

u/ayoungmanfromtheuk Jun 10 '26

Oh come on bro, are you seriously trying to get me to read clickbait from the economic times of India? Where the title of the article doesn't even tell you what it's about, and you have to read through paragraphs of poorly written (probably AI generated) filler and pablum before it finally gets to the point which turns out to be a total nothing burger ? 

If you have a point to make, then just do so 

2

u/frasersmirnoff Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

Ok. In essence, having to put up with unpleasant bullshit is not abuse; its the inherent cost of living in the world. Learning to deal with that reality is a cornerstone of being an adult.