The Ball Government went one step further. It agreed to pay
out of an empty till, this fiscal year, severance which had been negotiated in previous
collective agreements — estimated to cost $250 million. It seems that the Minister of Finance did his
very best to support an assertion made in The Finance Minister’s Lucky Rabbit’s Foot that “an election looms and the government has a sale on
collective agreements”.
 |
| NAPE President Jerry Earle |
Undoubtedly, the NAPE leadership thinks the deal is a coup
when, with the expense of less energy, they likely could have won a coup d’etat.
Had they been wiser, they might have demanded that the Government repudiate at
least some of the Muskrat Falls debt and place sensible brakes on irresponsible
spending habits for the balance of their mandate. Admittedly, the idea is rather
fanciful.
However, in failing to encourage “rightsizing” of the public
service, NAPE has chosen to cross a metaphorical Rubicon. It has decided that the
fiscal crisis should not be solved on their backs. Yet, attrition won’t allow
savings in sufficient measure to ever achieve budget balance. On the contrary
it risks causing a “lumpy” public service in consequence of a misalignment of
human resources. Neither does the Agreement afford the cancellation of entire
programs, a measure essential if a $2.5 billion reduction in expenditures is
ever to get underway.
___________________________________________________
Related:
Mary Shortall's La La Land ___________________________________________________
Undoubtedly, NAPE takes the position that it is the
responsibility of the Government to represent the public interest and that of the
Unions to represent the interests of their membership. (As expected, other public sector unions and
associations will likely join them by completing similar agreements.)
In “normal” times, who would disagree? But — and I keep saying
it — these are not “normal” times. Those on the public payroll comprise a large
percentage of the total working population. Their disproportionate engagement in
any fiscal “solution” is inescapable.
Obviously, the Unions don’t see it that way. They are not
concerned about their vulnerability or if the “lucky rabbit’s foot” of this (or
another) Finance Minister comes up short.
It might be well to remember that this issue isn’t just about the
jobs of public servants. For years, public sector unions (and the government) failed
to give priority to their pension plans. In this context, what is the government’s $2.685 billion IOU worth — payments on which, together with a
commitment to match employee contributions of $42 million annually, is supposed
to run for 30 years?
In 2015 — when the scheme was hatched — unfunded pension and
employee benefits accounted for 74% of the province’s “net” debt. The plan
works only if the government obtains sufficient revenues — requiring access to
the debt markets year after year, which is doubtful.
For this reason, I see the NAPE deal as a dereliction of duty
— for both parties.
The solvency of the government is inextricably tied to the
pension arrangements of all public servants. Any endangerment of those post-retirement
benefits should be regarded as intolerable to our society, as well as to them —
unless, like many Sears workers, they are content to face the prospect of becoming
Walmart greeters. I somehow doubt that is the aspiration of those who have
punched in a career spanning 25–30 years.
NAPE gives no thought even to the near future. Evidently they
think that there will be no struggle with the bondholders for priority over the
province’s assets. Else they think Justin will favour a place with just seven
Parliamentary Seats over every other national constituency or priority.
Perhaps there’s something here I’m not getting.
On a different level, I think that the collective agreement represents
a pivotal moment in the political and economic life of the province. Why? Quite
possibly it was the very last — even if insufficient — turning point that might
have caused a reversal of our descent into fiscal insolvency.
As the saga of the last decade unfolded, NL experienced the
high point of its economic fortune. Some think that it hit the low point too. Persistent
deficits at the level of CRAZY have cemented the prospect of going broke.
Of course, there were earlier turning points. One occurred
with the crash of oil revenues — which didn’t even make the Tories blink.
Another followed the election of the Ball Liberal Government and the disclosure
that Nalcor — possibly with Tory knowledge — hid the truth about the size of
the cost overruns, the price of Muskrat having doubled.
Ball could have cancelled Muskrat. He could have put a stop to
the deficit practices of the Tories. But he didn’t do either. NAPE and the
others applauded.
It seems NL society — including its unions — have decided
that they would rather take a chance and let the ‘ship of state’ wash onto the
rocks in the hope of easy rescue rather than lose their cherished positions.
What surely seems a simple metric — the idea that pain for a minority is preferable to
pain for everyone — isn’t so simple at all.
It is in the nature of democracies to employ uncertain metrics,
including what constitutes winning. A commentator recently made this observation: "for more one hundred years Newfoundlanders having been trying to master the art of standing on a slippery slope." Perhaps we also forgot what it means to fall.
We have a small amount of time left, including for rhetoric. We might use it to herald a single achievement.
We have a small amount of time left, including for rhetoric. We might use it to herald a single achievement.
We
have passed our last turning point. Now we have reached the point of no return.
