Foreign Service - Strike?

[orly]

Similar meaning closely related and identical to mean the same in every detail.

You have a very poor understanding of unions and collective bargaining.

Within government there may be different unions to bargain different collective agreements but the wage/benefit compensation packages should all be the same. You cannot have a 2 tiered wage structure. This is why the government will not budge on its stand against unions. They are committed to driving down wages to meet what they consider is paid in the private sector. No one ever stops to consider that maybe those in the private sector are getting paid far too little. If one union makes a gain then all unions can use that bargaining chip. That's why larger unions have failed to secure a decent collective agreement since the Harper majority government.

You interpret the data to meet your confirmation bias. The total numbers may reflect closing of VO's, changes in policy and the number of applications submitted. Not to mention the quality of those applications. A poorly submitted application can add months to the process.

I think it's you having the issue. The Federal government has employees in a wide range of occupations and unions. They do different jobs and have different responsibilities. PAFSOs own piece on the matter makes it completely clear. The salient point here is that there is no "government workers union" which is why there are different wage levels. PAFSO is merely complaining that other unions did a better job getting/got a better deal and they're now griping that the government doesn't instantly cave in and up them to the same level - even when they are different occupations, different departments, different workers. As mentioned there is no single union doing the bargaining therefore there is no automatic right to wage increases for the sake of parity.

You mentioned earlier that "work loads may not have changed in your mind they have in the real world" and then gave your own example of the Manila office. There is no interpretation that meets your clear bias. The Manila office processed less cases in 2012 than it did in 2011. It did it slower as I showed. The data is clear.

You then speculated about hypothetical situations regarding such vagueness as "application quality". The fact is approval rates are high overall. Often north of 90% in Family Class applications. If application quality was a reason for slower processing you'd expect a fall in the approval percentage. That isn't the case. What is clearly shown in the governments own data is that average waiting times are rising significantly.

Even analyzing the fastest 20% of applications which you would expect to be fully and accurately completed we can see the quoted completion time went from 3 months (2011) to 5 months (2012). In other words the processing times simply lagged and added significant time to the case.

In London you can see a similar trend in the "fastest" aka "complete and accurate" applications. In 2011 - 2 months. In 2012 - 5 months. Pick other visa offices, even those handling mere hundreds of applications per year and there's a good chance you'll see similar data. What does this show? It shows that even if you have a routine case with no complicating circumstances and you've completed your application correctly you will wait longer for the processing you have paid for.

The application process isn't significantly different. Many of the forms have version numbers. My application was sent in late 2012 and some of the forms are 2012 versions. Others are 2011. Some are as far back at 2008. Things like medical examinations and police checks are nothing new.

These extra delays and time limit slips cause extra stress on families who are separated. They interfere with relationships and can, as in my case, cause direct loss of income. PAFSO is not interested in the slightest about these issues. They are interested in their own pay packet and nothing more. To hell with the people they heap extra pain on. No one is saying the government is covered in glory here. The point is they're all, government and worker, showing themselves as inept and incapable. Not exactly worthy of a pay rise in my view.

If you disagree feel free to place your own detailed analysis on the record for everyone to read. I eagerly await it.

 

[CanadianJeepGuy]

I think it's you having the issue. The Federal government has employees in a wide range of occupations and unions. They do different jobs and have different responsibilities. PAFSOs own piece on the matter makes it completely clear. The salient point here is that there is no "government workers union" which is why there are different wage levels. PAFSO is merely complaining that other unions did a better job getting/got a better deal and they're now griping that the government doesn't instantly cave in and up them to the same level - even when they are different occupations, different departments, different workers. As mentioned there is no single union doing the bargaining therefore there is no automatic right to wage increases for the sake of parity.

You mentioned earlier that "work loads may not have changed in your mind they have in the real world" and then gave your own example of the Manila office. There is no interpretation that meets your clear bias. The Manila office processed less cases in 2012 than it did in 2011. It did it slower as I showed. The data is clear.

You then speculated about hypothetical situations regarding such vagueness as "application quality". The fact is approval rates are high overall. Often north of 90% in Family Class applications. If application quality was a reason for slower processing you'd expect a fall in the approval percentage. That isn't the case. What is clearly shown in the governments own data is that average waiting times are rising significantly.

Even analyzing the fastest 20% of applications which you would expect to be fully and accurately completed we can see the quoted completion time went from 3 months (2011) to 5 months (2012). In other words the processing times simply lagged and added significant time to the case.

In London you can see a similar trend in the "fastest" aka "complete and accurate" applications. In 2011 - 2 months. In 2012 - 5 months. Pick other visa offices, even those handling mere hundreds of applications per year and there's a good chance you'll see similar data. What does this show? It shows that even if you have a routine case with no complicating circumstances and you've completed your application correctly you will wait longer for the processing you have paid for.

The application process isn't significantly different. Many of the forms have version numbers. My application was sent in late 2012 and some of the forms are 2012 versions. Others are 2011. Some are as far back at 2008. Things like medical examinations and police checks are nothing new.

These extra delays and time limit slips cause extra stress on families who are separated. They interfere with relationships and can, as in my case, cause direct loss of income. PAFSO is not interested in the slightest about these issues. They are interested in their own pay packet and nothing more. To hell with the people they heap extra pain on. No one is saying the government is covered in glory here. The point is they're all, government and worker, showing themselves as inept and incapable. Not exactly worthy of a pay rise in my view.

If you disagree feel free to place your own detailed analysis on the record for everyone to read. I eagerly await it.

Your interpretation of the data takes no other factors into consideration. Between 2011 and 2012 VO's closed in Japan and Korea. These applications were now diverted to Manila slowing the processing times. Other offices were closed also amalgamating services into one central office. Were staffing levels increased to accommodate this? Doubtful.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/notices/notice-office2.asp

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/notices/notice-office.asp

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/notices/notice-tehran.asp

You also have a shift in policy and implementation. Pilot projects launched, forms redone etc.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/notices/notice-modernization.asp

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/notices/notice-newform.asp

Once again you arrive at your conclusion based on your confirmation bias that PAFSO workers have intentionally slowed the process and thus are overpaid for the services they provide regardless that they provide this service in some of the most dangerous and unstable environments in the world. They are separated from friends and family. Spouses cannot work and accommodations that may be less than what you would get in government housing here. Why should an accountant in one department get paid more than another in any other department? It's all the same government (hence all the same employer) providing services. If one department is able to negotiate a better deal than another then that establishes a new benchmark for the next collective agreement.

Your opinion is nothing more than a myopic view of what labour value is and how it should be applied. Your "facts" do not take into account all the mitigating circumstances that have slowed the processing of applications. I can understand your frustrations with your application being affected by this job action but the only party to blame is the government.

 

[waiting1234]

I feel those interested in voicing their opinion can participate by showing support to PAFSO's announcement. Tweet and email the minister to consider the PAFSO suggestion.

As for equal pay etc. In every other organization that is not Gov't we get paid based on how we negotiate. This is a very similar situation. I work in an engineering firm where others who probably do less than me get paid more. I have no voice to strike. All I can do is try and negotiate. No reason Gov't employees should be held to a different salary standard

 

[CanadianJeepGuy]

I feel those interested in voicing their opinion can participate by showing support to PAFSO's announcement. Tweet and email the minister to consider the PAFSO suggestion.

As for equal pay etc. In every other organization that is not Gov't we get paid based on how we negotiate. This is a very similar situation. I work in an engineering firm where others who probably do less than me get paid more. I have no voice to strike. All I can do is try and negotiate. No reason Gov't employees should be held to a different salary standard

Why is the private sector the benchmark? They are profit driven and intentionally drive wages down. Unless you are upper management then you get the bucks.
In my job I work harder than my supervisors and the inside workers. I have more risk and responsibility as well. I get paid the same as my peers who contribute to the operation equally within the tasks they are assigned to.

In the private sector many people get underpaid save for the top management who make excessive incomes. In government wages are more evenly distributed so the disparity between what I make and my immediate supervisor makes is very little.

 

[waiting1234]

I don't know what the % of workers in Gov't is but I bet it is far less than private sector. So most of us in this country are subject to a process of working hard proving ourselves and awaiting raises by constantly talking to our managers but when and if denied, we keep quiet and carry on working. All of us do work that impacts others so Gov't workers are just as reliant on us as we are on them. Only we cant at any time drop our responsibilities. They are enjoying the fruits of my labor yet denying me my rights. They are paid less but if service is a measurement of what we pay, I am currently getting 0 for what I have paid them.

 

[CanadianJeepGuy]

I don't know what the % of workers in Gov't is but I bet it is far less than private sector. So most of us in this country are subject to a process of working hard proving ourselves and awaiting raises by constantly talking to our managers but when and if denied, we keep quiet and carry on working. All of us do work that impacts others so Gov't workers are just as reliant on us as we are on them. Only we cant at any time drop our responsibilities. They are enjoying the fruits of my labor yet denying me my rights. They are paid less but if service is a measurement of what we pay, I am currently getting 0 for what I have paid them.

Striking is a legal right for organized labour. Anyone can organize a union but private sector employers would rather keep the profits of your labour to themselves.

Another thing that comes up that bothers me is the impression that government employees do not work hard. I walk 10.2 km's a day in all weather. If you think that's easy then by all means come and join me.

 

[costaudjoe]

...They are enjoying the fruits of my labor yet denying me my rights.

What rights are being denied here?

 

[CanadianJeepGuy]

What rights are being denied here?

Either her right to immigrate or her right to have her spouse immigrate. Though no one is denying her that they are delaying it.

 

[costaudjoe]

Either her right to immigrate or her right to have her spouse immigrate. Though no one is denying her that they are delaying it.

Are those really rights? We might be confusing possibilities and rights. Possibilities are available to those who qualify. Rights are available to all (otherwise we run the risk of discrimination). We cannot possibly offer the right to emigrate to all (it is however a possibility for those who qualify). Nor can I expect to have the right for my spouse to immigrate if she is not qualified.

Bottom line, waiting1234 is upset because his,her possibility to emigrate, immigrate is being delayed. No rights are being denied here.

 

[CanadianJeepGuy]

Are those really rights? We might be confusing possibilities and rights. Possibilities are available to those who qualify. Rights are available to all (otherwise we run the risk of discrimination). We cannot possibly offer the right to emigrate to all (it is however a possibility for those who qualify). Nor can I expect to have the right for my spouse to immigrate if she is not qualified.

Bottom line, waiting1234 is upset because his,her possibility to emigrate, immigrate is being delayed. No rights are being denied here.

I would disagree about immigrating. As a Canadian citizen I have the right to marry who I please. If the state thought otherwise then there would be ban on marrying someone from certain countries. CIC can only deny immigration based on fraud.

I agree that she is having her rights delayed.

 

[waiting1234]

I meant a right to a service I have paid for. If there is an issue with the application then by all means reject it. But if it is paid for it should be processed and not left untouched because people have decided not to work.

AND it is my right as a canadian citizen to marry who I want and want her to be with me.

 

[waiting1234]

What CanadianJeepGuy said..

 

[CanadianJeepGuy]

I meant a right to a service I have paid for. If there is an issue with the application then by all means reject it. But if it is paid for it should be processed and not left untouched because people have decided not to work.

AND it is my right as a canadian citizen to marry who I want and want her to be with me.

I don't think you see that FSW's also have rights.

 

[waiting1234]

I do see that. By my stating my point I am not negating theirs

 

[costaudjoe]

I meant a right to a service I have paid for. If there is an issue with the application then by all means reject it. But if it is paid for it should be processed and not left untouched because people have decided not to work.

AND it is my right as a canadian citizen to marry who I want and want her to be with me.

There is some equivocation going on here. There are two meanings of "right" being used here. The first meaning is the ability to make a free choice. The second meaning is a legally protected right. For example, it is your right to go to university or not. It is by no means a legally protected right. In contrast a legally protected right would be, for instance, voting. More to the point, it is your choice/right to marry whoever you want. This is your choice/right that the government cannot have any say in. However it is not a legally protected right for this person to become a Canadian permanent resident. In this case you are not asking the Canadian government to approve your choice in marriage. In fact, you are asking them to validate that the person is qualified. Your legally protected rights are not being violated or imposed upon whatsoever and your choice in partner is inconsequential.