The unions have a legitimate concern. As the Bank of Canada and other central banks raised interest rates in response to post-pandemic inflation, many pension plans posted healthy returns. The Public Service Pension Fund was no different. According to PIPSC, the plan performed very well over the last several years, securing returns of 18.4 per cent in 2021 and 10.9 per cent in 2022.
“This isn’t just free money plucked from Santa’s sleigh. This is our members’ money, their deferred salaries. […] Federal workers contribute 50% of the money that goes into the pension fund, yet are receiving 0% of this added surplus.”
Moreover, the initial $1.9 billion transfer may be just the beginning. The actuarial report tabled by Anand in November projects that the pension surplus could exceed $9 billion by 2028. As PSAC warns, if the government continues to pocket these surpluses, up to $9.3 billion could be removed from the workers’ pension fund. According to the union, the federal government intends to suspend its pension contributions and remove $7.4 billion from the plan over these years.
The decision to withdraw surplus pension funds without worker consultation or input sets a dangerous precedent, potentially signalling to employers across the country that pension assets are theirs and theirs alone. As PSAC warns, “If the government can poach pension funds from its own employees, what’s to stop other employers from following suit and putting millions more at risk?”
This gets to the heart of the matter. Though workers and employers both make contributions, employers ultimately hold all the decision-making power over workers’ pension plans. If unions were able to influence these decisions, surplus funds would likely be used in more progressive ways, and would certainly benefit members more directly.
I think this is more complex, then an employer vs worker issue:
When the Govt originally made these pension investment “corporations”, the notion was: “go invest this money and build up enough that we can pay all the members out their defined benefit”, if something goes wrong the government will back the pension sort of “de-risking” the investment.
With that de-risking comes the other side of the coin, excess surpluses go to the government, the original agreement stipulated that, this is not a “the government is unilaterally taking money”, this is something in the original contract. i.e it’s not a surprise to anyone.
This gets to the heart of the matter. Though workers and employers both make contributions, employers ultimately hold all the decision-making power over workers’ pension plans.
This is true, but this is also a defined benefit pension: members know exactly how much they are getting from the pension at all times (with some assumptions about what their work history will be). They shouldn’t be expecting more, and (for the positive side they know they won’t be getting less). These kinds of pensions are rare, and everyone should want one.
As PSAC warns, “If the government can poach pension funds from its own employees, what’s to stop other employers from following suit and putting millions more at risk?”
I don’t think this argument holds much weight, this isn’t a flippant decision but something that was decided ages ago.
It also miss states that the money belonged to the employee’s or employer in the first place, it does not belong to either it’s more of a backup to gurantee future benefits
I think this is more complex, then an employer vs worker issue:
When the Govt originally made these pension investment “corporations”, the notion was: “go invest this money and build up enough that we can pay all the members out their defined benefit”, if something goes wrong the government will back the pension sort of “de-risking” the investment.
With that de-risking comes the other side of the coin, excess surpluses go to the government, the original agreement stipulated that, this is not a “the government is unilaterally taking money”, this is something in the original contract. i.e it’s not a surprise to anyone.
This is true, but this is also a defined benefit pension: members know exactly how much they are getting from the pension at all times (with some assumptions about what their work history will be). They shouldn’t be expecting more, and (for the positive side they know they won’t be getting less). These kinds of pensions are rare, and everyone should want one.
I don’t think this argument holds much weight, this isn’t a flippant decision but something that was decided ages ago.
It also miss states that the money belonged to the employee’s or employer in the first place, it does not belong to either it’s more of a backup to gurantee future benefits