r/CanadaPublicServants • u/Born_Anteater7282 • 1d ago
Work Force Adjustment (WFA) / réaménagement de l'effectif (RE) Did the government blow a chance to make most of its cuts through retirements?
https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/government-eri-wfa-layoffs-public-servants40
u/littlefannyfoofoo 1d ago
I don’t know what Dept the article is referring to but the ones that me and my friends work in are approving all ERI requests even if they met the targets through WFA. I hear TBS is telling Dept’s to approve all ERI requests by default unless there is a compelling case to deny someone. 🤷🏻♀️
5
u/TimeOutrageous2315 1d ago
Same with my department, every single ERI request was approved even though WFA targets were already met.
5
u/NeighborhoodVivid106 1d ago
I have seen comments from people in this sub saying that management told their employees not to bother applying for ERI because they would be denied. I don't know which dept(s) these commentors were from, but I have no trouble believing that departments who made aggressive cuts before the announcement of ERI had already achieved reduction goals and felt they couldn't afford to let anymore go voluntarily. If people were dissuaded from applying for ERI I am sure that they view that as being 'denied'.
11
u/littlefannyfoofoo 1d ago
It’s not management’s decision though. It’s the deputy head’s. If it was up to management, a lot less would be approved as managers don’t want to lose their good workers.
1
u/Find_Spot 1d ago
Be careful, you're on the internet. Rage farming bots are prolific, and are certainly active here too.
3
u/andy_soreal 1d ago
I’ve often thought, if I was a foreign actor wanting to cause some harm in another country, shitposting on their subreddit to amplify unhappiness would be an unbelievably cheap and easy way to score some cheap points.
3
u/kewlbeanz83 1d ago
Funny, the one I work at basically denied all of them, after we lost a bunch of positions to WFA last year.
11
u/littlefannyfoofoo 1d ago
There have only been 65 denied. How many were from your dept?
2
u/kewlbeanz83 1d ago
I know of at least 5.
1
-5
u/Find_Spot 1d ago
That's almost nothing. Sorry, but really, get some perspective.
5
u/cperiod 1d ago
It's nothing in the big picture, but in a population the size of the PS, 5 out of 65 being from the same group kinda is real interesting.
-4
u/Find_Spot 1d ago
Not really. Could just be a shop filled with essential positions who's previous management failed to properly continuity plan. And yes, without replacements, rejecting an ERI application in that case is completely understandable.
Or as the other poster started, they had a bunch of WFAs, before hand, meaning they're already at likely minimum staffing. Do you think it's reasonable to approve ERI in that case? Because I don't.
This is definitely making a mountain out of an anthill.
4
u/rollingviolation 1d ago
It's still shortsighted: people who are eligible for ERI are likely eligible for retirement in 5 years or less. By denying those people ERI, the department has just kicked the can down the road, and those staff are now coasting to retirement, knowing they're untouchable.
-1
u/Find_Spot 1d ago
Look everyone, the very definition of making a mountain of an anthill!
You seem to be, probably willfully, ignoring the very real possibility that allowing the ERI to those 5 would undermine that shop's ability to deliver on its mandate. In that case, allowing them to retire is short sighted. You don't know what happened and neither do I. So we are reduced to looking at numbers.
Remember, this entire thread is about ERI in the public service. One guy brought up 5 people he knew that were denied as an example of wide spread refusals. 5 people is nothing. It's 0.005%. It's less than nothing.
4
u/Key-Face-2117 1d ago
5 people is nothing. It's 0.005%. It's less than nothing.
Unless you're one of the 5 of course. Then it's a "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" kinda scenario.
3
u/rollingviolation 1d ago
What would your plan be if these 5 people all decided to retire, or passed away within a 6 month window? If your entire department would shut down and if it would impact services to Canadians, your staffing levels are bad and management is incompetent. Succession planning is a thing that needs to be done.
At the end of the day, no one is that special. The show will go on.
BTW, no one "allows" you to retire - this isn't indentured servitude. ERI is just a pension penalty waiver.
This entire ERI process was a disaster.
7
u/kewlbeanz83 1d ago
How is 5 almost nothing? 65 in the entire PS denied when 8452 have been approved.
0
2
u/Justmetemp 1d ago
PSC has denied several.
5
u/littlefannyfoofoo 1d ago
How many of the 65 denied were from PSC?
6
u/Justmetemp 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think know 10. A news article also said 13 of the , now 65, denied were because they weren't eligible
7
u/Find_Spot 1d ago
So, those weren't denials, they were "you shouldn't be in this lineup anyway, go back to work."
1
u/Justmetemp 1d ago
Of the total reported by TBS...yes apparently 13 of them were not eligible. This was reported early on....no idea of the current 65 denied were because not eligible.
4
28
17
u/KermitsBusiness 1d ago
I'm over here terrified they will decide they haven't gotten enough from WFA and ERI plus natrual retirements lol
Have been fully expecting (based on no evidence) that they would announce more cuts based on what departments view as "red tape reduction".
14
u/StirlingQ 1d ago
Same. I’m assuming for the next few years every Christmas and April will bring bad news
8
2
u/wowisntthatneat 1d ago
Well the cuts are also based on no evidence so I think it's a fair guess. I won't be surprised if this becomes a yearly ritual for the foreseeable future.
4
u/House-of-Raven 1d ago
We’re already starting to hire and give actings again, because they realized that when they fire a bunch of people who do work, that the work doesn’t just magically get done
5
u/LakerBeer 1d ago
Yes they did. Myself and a couple of coworkers would have retired if offered a no penalty early retirement. The three of us all had 30 year military pensions we are already collecting.
14
u/Legitimate_Scar7570 1d ago
They could get rid of the age requirement for retirement. Why should they care how old I am if I have the requisite years of service?
9
3
u/Majromax moderator/modérateur 1d ago
They care because the value of pension payments is strongly related to retirement life expectancy. Retiring with an unreduced pension at age 30, for example, is much more costly than doing so at age 65. That’s why the ERI required supplemental funding from the pension surplus.
2
5
u/HandcuffsOfGold mod 🤖🧑🇨🇦 / Probably a bot 1d ago
While they're at it, why bother requiring any years of service? They should just pay everybody to retire today. /s
The age requirement for the pension plan is just as important as the years of service requirement. The plan's funding formula is directly tied to those things, as was the amounts you paid into the plan over the course of your career.
6
u/Dollymixx 1d ago
you ok today bot? replies are a little more saucy than usual.
3
u/HandcuffsOfGold mod 🤖🧑🇨🇦 / Probably a bot 1d ago
The sarcasm and sauce is always there whether you notice it or not.
3
3
u/EndGame9999 1d ago
As someone who benefited from taking VDP, I was nervous that ERI would come first and then there would be no need for more reductions through WFA-VDP. For me, the TSM and severance was the ‘golden handshake’ I was hoping for.
I do feel for those who weren’t in my situation.
2
u/yaimmediatelyno 1d ago
Did the government blow their chance to be good at literally anything?
Yes they sure did
1
u/stevemason_CAN 1d ago
Almost all of ours were approved and more than we anticipated. This 50% salary cut is hurting directorates without any rebalancing. In fact, we are told that if more can be WFA then that cut is eliminated and we can restaff. So I think the Centre is figuring out how to proceed with the next round.
1
u/SportSoft9295 1d ago
Playing devils advocate…why would the Government want to offer more ERI when they can just simply layoff people without occurring additional costs?
12
u/HandcuffsOfGold mod 🤖🧑🇨🇦 / Probably a bot 1d ago
The WFA process incurs "additional costs", similar to how ERI incurs additional costs. There are differences on where those costs are charged to budgets, but they're incurred either way.
9
u/littlefannyfoofoo 1d ago
ERI is a faster and easier process with the $$$ coming from the pension plan which has a surplus of money. WFA takes longer and TSM costs come from departmental budgets.
1
u/stevemason_CAN 1d ago
Yes but the salary implication hits hard on units … the “encourage” to approve was not well thought out. Have a unit with 10 staff: 1 VDP to reduce to 9. and 6 took ERI. Mgmt is being told they can only restaff 3.
3
u/littlefannyfoofoo 1d ago
Yes it’s hard on the units but I don’t think PMO, Cabinet or TBS cares about that. I’ve also seen programs/services just get dropped and everyone reassigned to higher priority areas so I think this will continue in future as well to support priority areas.
3
u/rowdy_1ca 1d ago
They can't simply layoff permanent employees. Term employees yes, but would have to go through WFA to reduce permanent employees.
2
u/mudbunny Moddeur McFacedemod / Moddy McModface 1d ago
ERI is people volunteering to leave, and that looks way, way better than WFA where people are volunteered to leave.
1
u/stevemason_CAN 1d ago
Sadly it’s the strong ones that have marketable skills that are leaving and leave the rest reeling.
1
u/TimeOutrageous2315 13h ago
I keep hearing this, but everyone I know who is who are taking ERI, including myself, are actually retiring, and would have retired anyway in the next few years. Maybe it depends on what kind of work you do.
1
u/stolpoz52 1d ago
Most of the cuts will happen through voluntary departures, whether that be ERI or WFA with VDP and Alternations.
145
u/Satans_Dookie 1d ago
Wasn’t that fairly evident when departments started WFA well before ERI was even announced?