Hundreds of workers at cybersecurity agency vote to strike(cbc.ca)
cbc.ca
Hundreds of workers at cybersecurity agency vote to strike
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cse-cybersecurity-strike-1.5926825
48 comments
It's crazy to think what is basically a branch of the NSA (sorry Echelon member states) has the will and means to go on strike. Those kinds of tendencies would likely disqualify you from the job here.
Is there any job which should not be allowed to strike? It seems this is a disagreement over money which compared to national security may not quite balance.
Many government positions do not give you a right to strike.
The idea of striking is to force the company to raise prices or cut management salary and give more to workers, so it's a type of political battle over the economic surplus created by the firm. That makes sense in, say, a factory or business where there is a surplus to be fought over.
But Government agencies have no surpluses, they run deficits and they have management salaries set by law, so things are pretty much take it or leave it.
On the other hand, workers in these companies benefit from a host of legal protections and legally encoded pay scales so the usual method is to sue that some worker protection was being violated or that a promotion to a higher pay bracket was unfairly withheld. Private sector workers tend not to have these types of regulated interactions with employers and so for them striking is a more appropriate option.
Where you see government unions more is in local government, so say teachers can threaten to go on strike unless the city council raises taxes or cuts some other program to divert more to them. That obviously has disadvantages as it means the less unionized budgets get less funding and its hard for smaller departments to defend their budgets vis-a-vis departments with more union members. Federal government workers, OTOH, which must be funded by Congress and signed by the Executive, are in a different boat as they have less power to threaten Congress than a local government. In either case, the unions are not striking against the management of the agency, so it is not a typical strike. They are striking against the funding authority, so it's not the classical case of a class struggle over the producer surplus. Rather, it's a struggle between workers and taxpayers, not workers and management. The private sector equivalent would be a firm refusing to produce goods if consumers didn't buy them. If that firm was a monopoly. And consumers were legally forced to buy the goods via taxes. Not at all the same thing!
In terms of is there a right to strike, well anyone can quit or refuse to work whenever they want. And they can even organize their coworkers to quit en masse. That's not in dispute. The dispute is whether the company can fire them for not working. Saying that a worker has a "right" to strike is a very oblique way of saying that a company does not have a right to fire a worker that doesn't show up to work.
Now, it's not at all clear why the government, especially critical agencies in the government that provide security for the nation, shouldn't have this right.
Imagine if a fireman said they wouldn't put out a fire unless you paid him more. Wouldn't a normal person respond by saying "Why did you agree to take the job? Why not quit and let someone else, who is willing to do the job, do it? Why hold me hostage?" Or a policeman going on strike and refusing to respond to a call until the citizens of the town voted to increase police pay. Well the money that pays government workers is money from citizens, not some economic profit created by the production process, so demanding more of this money and preventing the agencies from operating until more is voted by the legislature is a pretty unpopular stance except in the most pro-union sliver of the electorate.
The idea of striking is to force the company to raise prices or cut management salary and give more to workers, so it's a type of political battle over the economic surplus created by the firm. That makes sense in, say, a factory or business where there is a surplus to be fought over.
But Government agencies have no surpluses, they run deficits and they have management salaries set by law, so things are pretty much take it or leave it.
On the other hand, workers in these companies benefit from a host of legal protections and legally encoded pay scales so the usual method is to sue that some worker protection was being violated or that a promotion to a higher pay bracket was unfairly withheld. Private sector workers tend not to have these types of regulated interactions with employers and so for them striking is a more appropriate option.
Where you see government unions more is in local government, so say teachers can threaten to go on strike unless the city council raises taxes or cuts some other program to divert more to them. That obviously has disadvantages as it means the less unionized budgets get less funding and its hard for smaller departments to defend their budgets vis-a-vis departments with more union members. Federal government workers, OTOH, which must be funded by Congress and signed by the Executive, are in a different boat as they have less power to threaten Congress than a local government. In either case, the unions are not striking against the management of the agency, so it is not a typical strike. They are striking against the funding authority, so it's not the classical case of a class struggle over the producer surplus. Rather, it's a struggle between workers and taxpayers, not workers and management. The private sector equivalent would be a firm refusing to produce goods if consumers didn't buy them. If that firm was a monopoly. And consumers were legally forced to buy the goods via taxes. Not at all the same thing!
In terms of is there a right to strike, well anyone can quit or refuse to work whenever they want. And they can even organize their coworkers to quit en masse. That's not in dispute. The dispute is whether the company can fire them for not working. Saying that a worker has a "right" to strike is a very oblique way of saying that a company does not have a right to fire a worker that doesn't show up to work.
Now, it's not at all clear why the government, especially critical agencies in the government that provide security for the nation, shouldn't have this right.
Imagine if a fireman said they wouldn't put out a fire unless you paid him more. Wouldn't a normal person respond by saying "Why did you agree to take the job? Why not quit and let someone else, who is willing to do the job, do it? Why hold me hostage?" Or a policeman going on strike and refusing to respond to a call until the citizens of the town voted to increase police pay. Well the money that pays government workers is money from citizens, not some economic profit created by the production process, so demanding more of this money and preventing the agencies from operating until more is voted by the legislature is a pretty unpopular stance except in the most pro-union sliver of the electorate.
> Many government positions do not give you a right to strike.
That may be true in other countries. In Canada, our Federal government employees are part of a union that comprises 200,000 employees.
The rest of what you wrote is a very American perspective on public service, unions, and payroll structures that is almost entirely irrelevant to a discussion of Canadian government agencies.
As for your last paragraph, it's easy to imagine firefighters and police officers going on strike, because they do (at least here). So do our bus drivers and other critical employees; it's just done in a way that affects people, but with plans in place to reduce impacts to safety.
That may be true in other countries. In Canada, our Federal government employees are part of a union that comprises 200,000 employees.
The rest of what you wrote is a very American perspective on public service, unions, and payroll structures that is almost entirely irrelevant to a discussion of Canadian government agencies.
As for your last paragraph, it's easy to imagine firefighters and police officers going on strike, because they do (at least here). So do our bus drivers and other critical employees; it's just done in a way that affects people, but with plans in place to reduce impacts to safety.
According to Wikipedia the annual budget per employee at CSE calculates to be approximately USD$220,000/employee, which would be far less than the cost of hiring a typical NSA contractor[1]. This of course assumes that CSE doesn't have any other expenses (buying hardware, paying electricity bills)!
If CSE employees don't find the salary competitive now, you can almost be certain that 9/10 people working there in a few years time will be on much higher contractor rates.
[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-average-defense-depart... (these figures are extremely conservative as they're from 2015, not specific to high demand ICT jobs, and also without the scarcity in the job market that a TS/SCI clearance creates)
If CSE employees don't find the salary competitive now, you can almost be certain that 9/10 people working there in a few years time will be on much higher contractor rates.
[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-average-defense-depart... (these figures are extremely conservative as they're from 2015, not specific to high demand ICT jobs, and also without the scarcity in the job market that a TS/SCI clearance creates)
They do all over the world, France for example recently.
Except militaries. Also, firefighters and nurses seem to do fake strikes, protesting but doing their job anyway.
In some locations bus drivers go "on strike" by refusing to take fares for a set period of time. The service is provided, they are paid their usual salary, but magically it seems no one caught the bus that day when we look at the figures!
Work to rule is another way to do it. I personally find the concept hilarious.
Work to rule is another way to do it. I personally find the concept hilarious.
They do in the US as well with a few exceptions.
The Federal Service Labor Management Relations Act of 1978 makes it illegal for Federal govt employees to strike and does not provide any protections for state or local employees to strike:
"Government employees — state, local, and federal — do not have a right to strike under the federal law."(1)
For local government, it would depend on which state you are in. 8 states do provide some rights to their state and local employees to strike, 42 states do not.(1)
---
(1) See https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/20/20873867/w...
"Government employees — state, local, and federal — do not have a right to strike under the federal law."(1)
For local government, it would depend on which state you are in. 8 states do provide some rights to their state and local employees to strike, 42 states do not.(1)
---
(1) See https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/20/20873867/w...
Probably an unpopular opinion, but doesn't it exposes workers to OPSEC issues? I mean, if it is a strike, there must be a way to identify how is it being organized/ co-ordinated via some social media/ messaging apps leaving them wide open for other nation state actors to identify who-n-who of CSE. That is assuming CSE employees are not profiled actively before this.
Sure maybe, but then again, from the article:
The Public Service Alliance of Canada represents 2,400 employees working in cryptography, applied mathematics, advanced language analysis and cybersecurity at the Communications Security Establishment (CSE).
I think some of those 2,400 union dues paying members might have taken steps to make sure they were doing things in a way that is reasonably secure... I do wonder how many other unions have that many folks able to help out.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada represents 2,400 employees working in cryptography, applied mathematics, advanced language analysis and cybersecurity at the Communications Security Establishment (CSE).
I think some of those 2,400 union dues paying members might have taken steps to make sure they were doing things in a way that is reasonably secure... I do wonder how many other unions have that many folks able to help out.
They have over 100 employees listed on LinkedIn. I am not sure employment there is all that secret.
The people who need to stay secret are likely paid enough. Most of the standard workers don't need to be secret. You can find them in presentations online, and other places.
Yes, it seems that from a logically consistent point of view, anyone in the military (including military intelligence) striking should probably be accurately classified as treason.
People in the military aren't "free", by the rules of the military, in the way that private citizens are - the military is a dictatorship, and disobeying is, under their rules, a crime.
I, too, was surprised that this is a thing that can happen.
People in the military aren't "free", by the rules of the military, in the way that private citizens are - the military is a dictatorship, and disobeying is, under their rules, a crime.
I, too, was surprised that this is a thing that can happen.
I've been both a uniformed soldier and a contractor, never an agency civilian but work with plenty of them, and they are not "in the military" in the sense you mean here. They work for the military, as do I as a contractor, but we're not subject to UCMJ. If you're subject to UCMJ, then yes, your freedoms are severely curtailed and you do not enjoy the benefits of the Constitution afforded to civilians. You can be detained against your will by your commander. You are absolutely not allowed freedom of speech or freedom of movement. You can't quit the job. You can be fired for being fat. None of that applies to civilians, even DoD and IC agency civilians. If a civilian doesn't do what their manager asks, they can be fired. If a soldier doesn't do what their commander asks, they can be arrested. Huge difference between working for the military and being "in" the military.
CSE is solidly civilian.
Interesting. Military intelligence outside of the military? That's... unexpected.
The CIA and NSA are also civilian.
the NSA is "civilian" in name only, to get around that pesky constitution that the government hates soo much.
the NSA is a division of the DoD, it is based on a Military Base, and it has many military officers in high ranking positions
if it acts like a duck, talks likes a Duck, calling it s something else does not make it anything other than a duck, this NSA for all practical purpose is part of the military.
They say it is military when they need it to be, and civilian when they need it to be based on what oversight and regulations, and constitutional limits they are trying to get around at any given time
the NSA is a division of the DoD, it is based on a Military Base, and it has many military officers in high ranking positions
if it acts like a duck, talks likes a Duck, calling it s something else does not make it anything other than a duck, this NSA for all practical purpose is part of the military.
They say it is military when they need it to be, and civilian when they need it to be based on what oversight and regulations, and constitutional limits they are trying to get around at any given time
Its still civilian in the way that matters for this discussion in that its not a crime for an NSA employee to disobey an order.
Edward Snowden would like to have a word with you
Are you purposefully misunderstanding?
Did Snowden "not follow an order" or did he do something explicitly already illegal according to civilian law.
Also note that if captured he's not going to face a court martial, he's going to face the normal civilian legal system.
Did Snowden "not follow an order" or did he do something explicitly already illegal according to civilian law.
Also note that if captured he's not going to face a court martial, he's going to face the normal civilian legal system.
The head of the NSA is a general in the US army.
[deleted]
Good on them. The way that people working in the public sector get thanks for their “service” instead of being paid competitively is grossly unfair.
This is not the case in Canada, though I can't comment on other countries. Firstly, we pay our technology professionals rather well compared to the majority of the private sector (i.e banks, but not startup world). Secondly, there's an enormous safety net, including defined benefits pensions.
Years ago I was going to work for CSIS (Canadian Secret Intelligence Service. Their offer was 90% of my base salary, a 25% bonus pool, and benefits that clearly brought my total compensation well above my situation. I have friends who have made that decision - they're paid quite competitively, the published Sunshine List illustrates this.
Years ago I was going to work for CSIS (Canadian Secret Intelligence Service. Their offer was 90% of my base salary, a 25% bonus pool, and benefits that clearly brought my total compensation well above my situation. I have friends who have made that decision - they're paid quite competitively, the published Sunshine List illustrates this.
You go into the public sector to serve, and you get mediocre pay and tremendous stability and generous, long-lasting benefits in exchange. Nobody's twisting your arm. Feel free to live in a dumpster in SV and make $400k building the next generation of dystopian garbage if you prefer.
>"For example, things that we saw this past July, there was an attempt to hack Canadian COVID-19 research. These are the workers that stopped that."
They link to two unrelated stories directly after. In a search about it, I see claims that Russians tried to steal Canadian research, not disrupt it.
If that helpful research data were shared, and if the electricity infrastructure they imply is under attack were taken offline, then they'd reduce the attack surface. Which would reduce the cost of defensive measures.
I wonder how much that's brought up in these negotiations.
They link to two unrelated stories directly after. In a search about it, I see claims that Russians tried to steal Canadian research, not disrupt it.
If that helpful research data were shared, and if the electricity infrastructure they imply is under attack were taken offline, then they'd reduce the attack surface. Which would reduce the cost of defensive measures.
I wonder how much that's brought up in these negotiations.
>At issue is a change to the market allowance — a wage supplement negotiated to close pay gaps with workers doing similar work in the private sector. It's a benefit often used to attract employees into highly technical jobs in the public service
So... quit and work in the private sector then?
So... quit and work in the private sector then?
As a Canadian, I would much prefer our government pays comparable private sector salaries.
In India, they ramped up salaries after years of delayed pay commissions. Now cyber security guys in Government (even on contractual terms) are paid better than their private counterparts on average. For instance a malware reverse engineer might be paid around INR 600,000 (just starting out) - INR 40,00,000 (technical managers) on average in private sector. In Government, they vary between INR 10,00,000 - INR 50,00,000 per year along with a lot of extra perks. The downside is that positions are few, the hiring process is painfully slow and involves a lot of bureaucracy.
There is a woeful lack of cyber security acumen in government to actually amp up their hiring practices and strategy.
There is a woeful lack of cyber security acumen in government to actually amp up their hiring practices and strategy.
They will when people are all leaving for better pay elsewhere.
They don’t in the US, so I doubt it.
And who will do necessary work for the government, to keep the societies that make the FAANG profits possible running? Having a bit of a private/public pay gap is understandable, but when it gets to the current 2-5x it gets a bit much.
They’ll pay better when they cant hire people at the current salary?
Sounds like they weren't doing a very good job, otherwise they could have just used the information they gathered to blackmail whatever Canada's version of congress is into giving them more money like their counterpart US spy agencies do.
Odds are that these people are way smarter than you and obviously have taken a course that allows them to not compromise their ethics, and hopefully serves to create a stronger workforce and a more secure world.
I'm not sure forced attendance in an ethics course has as much of an effect as you would like it to.
Reading comprehension is important; in this case the word course relates to the path these folks took in their career.
And yes, mandatory ethics courses are an important part of helping people to understand the difference between unethical and ethical behaviour, especially if they can't or didn't learn that on their own. It's why ethics training is both offered and required in many professional roles.
And yes, mandatory ethics courses are an important part of helping people to understand the difference between unethical and ethical behaviour, especially if they can't or didn't learn that on their own. It's why ethics training is both offered and required in many professional roles.
> compromise their ethics
They're spying or supporting those doing spying, right?
They're spying or supporting those doing spying, right?
Maybe they're even smart enough to understand sarcasm.
Smart people don't use force to get paid. They usually obtain a pay rise through offering a better product,not through extortion scams (public sector workers striking).
They are allowed to bargain, or negotiate what ever you want to call it, this is a fair tool. A major problem is that these agencies aren't paying what top talent requires. So people are underpaid and also, other people that could do really important work go else where and use their intelligence on advertising.
> ethics
Debatable.
Debatable.