[TOareaFan]

I agree that the result of published "Sunshine Lists" is as you describe above, but that is a failing of the people who receive the information to understand its context and use it properly. More information is always good. It's just that "we" (i.e. the electorate) are stupid meat puppets who howl on cue when the Toronto Sun tells us to.

It is not just the Sun...it is all the media. I don't know if it is lazy journalism or just manipulative (likely it is bits of both in varying degrees dependant on the media) but it preys on a lazy populace and ends up with this blame game. My local paper has a story today about the Metrolinx funding strategy and there are already people saying things like "just fund transit by cutting everyone on the sunshine list by $10k a year"....really?

The Sunshine list is a mean spirited document that I know does not achieve the result of a well educated/informed public....I know this because it actually achieves nothing.

I do agree with the notion that more information is good....but I think all information has a context and the Sunshine list fails to find its context.

 

[TrickyRicky]

The CEO and top official pay is a distraction from the real issue which is overall labour cost creep. As many have pointed out there is nothing wrong theoretically with this creep if viewed in isolation. The trouble is when you contextualize public sector pay in the broader economy it becomes evident that a de-coupling is occuring. Even the public sector unions know and acknowledge this. That is why they are accepting pay freezes while focusing on benefits. Benefits cost just as much but they just don't feel as bad to the average Joe who made $45,000 10 years ago and still makes $45,000 this year while his public sector peer gets annual pay increases based on an economic model designed in the 1960's.

I extend this de-coupling argument to many crown corporations as well.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I am definitely defining "value" and "performance" by one's ability to generate profit. The government is, fundamentally, a business. That business is operated based on taxpayer's money. I want this business to operate successfully and be financially responsible for their operations. The success of their operation is contingent on the performance of their parts. Each division in this business needs to generate a "profit." In the same vein as we allocate money to research & development, we do it with the anticipation of this R&D investment translating into future revenues for all of us, thereby resulting in a "profit."

Look at the balance sheet of any business. In the vast majority, human resources will be the #1 expense. You can reduce equipment, downsize facilities, eliminate assets, etc. but that will never match the available cost savings from re-allocating human resource dollars. While I am not advocating laying off half the government staff, why not look into more efficient use of human resources? The government has spent countless dollars hiring consultants from Deloitte, KPMG, PWC, etc. to run cost savings reports but how many of these reports get implemented? Hardly any...why? Because it's too much work. It actually requires restructuring. It would actually require individuals to change job positions. Take on more responsibility. All of these are met with internal resistance. Even if it's implemented, it's up to the individuals to accept the change in direction. It is indeed a frustrating conundrum.

Now let's take a look at efficiencies of public vs. private. As mentioned, private sector is innately concerned about value and performance as it relates to profit. Privatization is not the answer to every situation but it can give the public options. Options to choose. This is capitalism. It's in their best interest to maximize efficiency. Small and medium sized businesses simply can not sustain any "fat". They may do so for other personal or business reasons but if we're talking about profit-and-loss (P&Ls), you can't keep showing deficits year after year and there's only so many tax credits you can get back to cover for it. The bottom line is simply that, the bottom line. This government "business" keeps showing losses year after year. If you had the choice, would you invest in this business?

The governments job is to provide services. The business here to make money. The government does not necessarily make money or lose it either.

It is not just the Sun...it is all the media. I don't know if it is lazy journalism or just manipulative (likely it is bits of both in varying degrees dependant on the media) but it preys on a lazy populace and ends up with this blame game. My local paper has a story today about the Metrolinx funding strategy and there are already people saying things like "just fund transit by cutting everyone on the sunshine list by $10k a year"....really?

The Sunshine list is a mean spirited document that I know does not achieve the result of a well educated/informed public....I know this because it actually achieves nothing.

I do agree with the notion that more information is good....but I think all information has a context and the Sunshine list fails to find its context.

People love humiliation and floggings.

 

[TOareaFan]

The CEO and top official pay is a distraction from the real issue which is overall labour cost creep. As many have pointed out there is nothing wrong theoretically with this creep if viewed in isolation. The trouble is when you contextualize public sector pay in the broader economy it becomes evident that a de-coupling is occuring. Even the public sector unions know and acknowledge this. That is why they are accepting pay freezes while focusing on benefits. Benefits cost just as much but they just don't feel as bad to the average Joe who made $45,000 10 years ago and still makes $45,000 this year while his public sector peer gets annual pay increases based on an economic model designed in the 1960's.

I extend this de-coupling argument to many crown corporations as well.

The bold part is part of the issue.....I don't know too many (well, if I am truthful, I don't know any) people in the private sector who are making exactly the same today as they were 10 years ago in the same job with the same duties.

There cannot be direct comparisons but that sort of "they have it better on my money" assumption is part of the issue with the sunshine lists.

Instead of looking at a broad list of people who earn above an arbitrary threshold perhaps we should be taking a closer look at things like this.....

http://www.thestar.com/business/201..._gets_pension_topup_of_up_to_165_million.html

As i understand things (and please correct me if I am wrong) the changes to the OMERs pension system were to put less reliance on variable (performance based) earnings and more reliance on salary when calculating an employee's pension. I think the change was meant to reflect that pensions should be there to replace income that someone relied upon while working and that since salary is the fixed portion of someone's income that is what they should be relying on and that perfromance bonuses were, well, bonus. So pension formulas should be structured to replace relied upon income.

I don't think the pension adjustment was meant to just push an additional $1.65 million responsibility onto taxpayers via the hydro utility making whole on the change...is he the only employee that received such an adjustment? If so why? If not, how many? etc etc etc.

At the end of the day, this might be the sort of adjustment that was needed to keep a desirable employee and that the "market" forced that decision onto Toronto Hydro.....but that is the sort of intelligent discussion around the issue of public service...the "what kind of employees do we want, what is the market cost for them and are we willing to pay that...or do we compromise our standards in the interest of having a lower cost public service". All the sunshine list does is say "gee, we have a bunch of people who earn over $100k"...and I don't know what that adds to our knowledge base.

 

[js97]

"just fund transit by cutting everyone on the sunshine list by $10k a year"....really?

HOw is that any different than a tax? Maybe the province should be clawing back 3-5% of salaries of all public sector employees by that amount (for those that make over 100k.

I wonder what the revenue stream would be.

 

[CDL.TO]

I wonder what the revenue stream would be.

So with 71,478 people on the list, if we assumed they all earned the minimum salary of $100,000, a 5% cut would be a minimum of $357,390,000. Huh. Higher than I would have guessed. Of course, the province gets a fair chunk of those salaries back in the form of taxes.

 

[TOareaFan]

HOw is that any different than a tax? Maybe the province should be clawing back 3-5% of salaries of all public sector employees by that amount (for those that make over 100k.

I wonder what the revenue stream would be.

For one thing, they don't all work for the province.....for another, does it seem at all right to pick one segment of the workforce and say "you should pay for transit improvements with a salary reduction".

 

[js97]

For one thing, they don't all work for the province.....for another, does it seem at all right to pick one segment of the workforce and say "you should pay for transit improvements with a salary reduction".

That's no different than the marginal tax rate, or a gas tax. Unless you implement a 'head tax' one segment or another will be paying for it.

And they don't have to work directly for the province, they're being paid by general tax dollars that everyone pools in.

Their pension is also something to consider.
Work for 25 yrs, get paid for 40. That's pretty generous from my perspective. Keep in mind the average salary in ontario is closer to 45k.

 

[js97]

So with 71,478 people on the list, if we assumed they all earned the minimum salary of $100,000, a 5% cut would be a minimum of $357,390,000. Huh. Higher than I would have guessed. Of course, the province gets a fair chunk of those salaries back in the form of taxes.

THat's more than I thought too, and considering you only end up on this list if you make mroe than 100k, that dollar is probably closer to 400M. That's more than enough to continuously build transit.

 

[RC8]

I am definitely defining "value" and "performance" by one's ability to generate profit. The government is, fundamentally, a business. That business is operated based on taxpayer's money. I want this business to operate successfully and be financially responsible for their operations. The success of their operation is contingent on the performance of their parts. Each division in this business needs to generate a "profit." In the same vein as we allocate money to research & development, we do it with the anticipation of this R&D investment translating into future revenues for all of us, thereby resulting in a "profit."

I don't know if you actually mean that or if you just got caught in the argument, but this is clearly not the case. Governments are not businesses, but institutional tools that allow us to shape our society as we wish, and for whatever reason. Promoting economic growth is only a very tiny part of what governments do in the western world (and elsewhere).

 

[Dan416]

THat's more than I thought too, and considering you only end up on this list if you make mroe than 100k, that dollar is probably closer to 400M. That's more than enough to continuously build transit.

Hmmm I'm kinda liking this idea

 

[RC8]

Extend it to the rest of the population and then we are talking.

 

[Johnny Au]

I wonder how many professional athletes would make it to the sunshine list?

 

[js97]

I wonder how many professional athletes would make it to the sunshine list?

Hey, don't pay the exorbenant amount of money for their tickets or watch their games. They're not not forcing you to pay for their benefits.

Toronto Lynx (are they still around?) Toronto Rock and Argonauts all have very affordable ticket prices, and with the exception of handful none are well paid.

Not sure how you can compare pro athletes to government bureaucrats.