...

rs should form a political party and run for Vancouver.

while financially that may be sound I would have to disagree with that idea. Public health care, imo, is one of the things that defines Canada and its values.

To privatize health care could further the disparity between socioeconomic classes. It may also invite a ridiculous HMO system like the USA, what regular joe could afford medical bills in the $10 000 range?

While we may not use our medical everyday, other people need it. When we see doctors we should never have to worry about if we can afford the visit or not, physical health is a basic human need it shouldn't have a price tag attached to it.

even though the economy turned for better in the last 11 years for most bc citizens, the cost of living raised up signifigantly with it. I bet alot of people feel just as poor with less wage back in the 90's but cheaper COL compared to today with higher wages/more jobs but a signifigant increase to COL.

Water is wet.
See, I can state the obvious too.

More effecient in what sense?

Pure profit? Maybe, due to a company not having any level of individual responsibility. Stock scammers make pure profit too, but at a huge personal cost.

Customer service? Ever try to get a Telus rep on the phone? What about returning something to a boutique? Now try to import a shipment from China. Do your paperwork correctly, and it's highly effecient.

Are you telling me that BC Ferries is worse than the private ferry from Seattle that will refuse to sail if there aren't enough cars? Or Air Canada who will fly you to Nunavut, even if you're the only one on the plane.

Gov't isn't considered "efficient" because they're not focused on profit. Their focus is on providing services to the people of the country. As such, it's not uncommon for them to run a deficit. This is why we pay taxes.

Regardless, define efficient, and maybe we'll have something to talk about.

Actually, I don't think that workers should receive automatic raises without it being tied to performance. I also don't think that workers should lose money (via inflation) for doing the same job at the same efficiency that they normally or usually do, which is one of many problems that non-unionized workers face.

To be honest, I was quite happy working at Starbucks where I would receive bi-annual reviews and could receive up to a 6% annual raise. I think, however, that when a job is difficult to judge objectively it makes it more difficult. For a production or factory worker, someone in retail sales, it's quite easy to judge how well an employee is performing. A teacher, however, who has a dud or awesome class will have a skewed performance rating. A government agent who has several cases and is evaluated based on the number of cases cleared would end up giving people the short shrift rather than dealing with them in the best way.

Sometimes straight evaluation is not the best method of evaluation.

Well, that all depends on the market and other factors; it's a similar choice between renting a house and owning a house, they each have their advantages and disadvantages.

So when people have trained to be paramedics or nurses or firefighters for several years, worked for half a decade or more, have found their calling and passion but are getting axed or having their benefits cut (often to the tune of "We're offering more pay than the market should use and only cutting SOME benefits"), should they not protest?

Paramedics are a perfect case in point. Underpaid, constantly on call, often on overtime--yet the government won't authorize for more hiring or better on-call privileges, despite the fact that they would quite possibly save money for doing that.


Strikes are a method of showing people there is an issue without resorting to violence.
And that social safety net is quickly fraying. Our reliance on the social safety net while steadily filing away at the cords is astonishing.

^you're absolutely right that people with skills that are non-transferable are at a severe disadvantage, but isn't that their choice?

i know you are using firefighters and paramedics as examples because from an emotional standpoint, they are the "good guys" and should be taken care of.

but it comes down to the age old debate of employee rights versus employer rights.

Let me ask you this. Is being employed a right or a privilege?

Exactly.

There are a lot of people who have massive animosity towards the "Evil unions", classify their employees as "lazy, overpaid, underacheiving" (I can see it in Haakaboy's post) and I think it comes down to jealousy.

The "I don't get automatic wage adjustments and benefit increases, so they can't either" *stamp feet* *stamp feet* syndrome.

I work for a private company with unionized field staff. Our field staff get much higher wages and benefits far beyond that of non-unionized workers in the same field.
Because of this our labour cost is much higher, but that's OK because it also means that we attract only the very best workers. So my company actually PROMOTES this to our customers, we sell ourselves on the fact that we provide superior quality and service to them.

Yes sometimes we loose jobs because our prices may be higher than a company who pays their workers $20 an hour instead of the $50+benefits we pay ours, but that's ok.

In my company there is no US (management) vs THEM (employees) mentality like in a lot of other places, there's a lot of cooperation and it has made us very successful.

So yeah, that's why I don't have quite the same animosity towards unions as most people and I get pissed off when people stereotype all unions as being "evil".

Supply and demand. Too much supply for any position = underpaid. You feel underpaid then look for another job and when enough people do it will force the government to offer higher wages. The market will judge how well someone should compensated for their jobs.

woah, first of all, i have worked in 2 different union camps (1 private and 1 public) and I am definitely not "jealous" of people who work in unions.

I would much rather have the ability to find another job, or change careers than be locked down into a small defined role and hide behind a union.

second, my point is that if you do not like what your employer is offering you, then either don't take the job, or find another one.

is that really such a hard concept?

People have problems with unions protecting lazy, overpaid and underachieving employees. You have any idea how hard it is to dismiss an incompetent teacher?

Here is an example from the New York school district and I can imagine it would be similar in a lot of different districts.

http://commongood.org/i/burden/question-6.gif

What makes you think your company can't attract the very best workers if they hire non-unionized workers? Your company attracts the very best workers because it offers high wages and benefits and has very little to do with unions.

This is a polarizing topic that could go on for pages and pages without changing anyone's opinion and I don't have the stamina Taylor192 does for these debates so at this point let's just say I'll agree to disagree. :)

Basically the argument breaks down like this:

People who are in a union, or have family members in a union: Pro union

Everyone else: Anti union

Supply and demand. You learn this in Economics 100.

You may think that $12/hr is bad, there are a TON of people willing to work for less.

People get paid what they're worth. If Starbucks employees get paid too little, nobody would work there.

It's fine and dandy to say "raise the minimum wage". Then you have problems with employers hiring LESS people, and existing workers taking up their jobs.

There is no clear-cut solution to wages, simply saying "omg they get paid so little, raise it" doesn't do help.

I only get offended at unions when they do stupid stuff like:

1. Defend workers who rightfully got dismissed.
2. Defend unproductive/slacking workers.
3. Deny younger workers from participating in the workforce due to seniority.
4. Ostracizing workers who choose not to join a union.

BCTF fills all of these categories. It's really, really hard to fire a teacher unless they do stupid shit like touch little girls.

This is true when it comes to jobs which are not essential needs. It seems fairly foolish, however, to lay off half your firefighters because there hasn't been that many major fires lately.

One of the people on the board in the snow thread mentioned that because of the lack of snow last year, his building manager cancelled the snow removal contract that had previously existed in order to save money. If and when the snow comes back, and the manager decides it's too big of a job for him to do, he'll have to hire back the snow removers--more than likely at a higher cost than before because of "market demand".

Some things will never be "profitable". I don't know about you but I'd rather have too many 911 operators on duty so that at peak call volumes, I've still got 10-15% too many JUST in case they're needed.

I mean, who wants a busy signal when they call 911?
It might be that cut-and-dry with some people, but not all of us. Believe me, having been through the education system and as a person who's involved with teaching, I know the horrors of having an incompetent teacher and the effects it can have on a student. I also know the difficulties of firing someone (even without a union) when they prove to be incompetent. I am by no means purely pro-union, nor am I necessarily anti-union either.

One of the biggest issues is reactionary knee-jerks; "penny-wise, pound-foolish" as they say. When I look at the financial breakdown of how the BC Place Roof will pay itself off, I find myself less displeased, but my gut reaction is still a wave of nausea and annoyance thinking of the machines and man-hours the money could put into hospitals or other social programs. In the end, though, it comes down to an analysis of cost:benefit, and sadly that most often means that things that are not as easily tangibly measurable end up facing cuts.


I don't think $12/hr is bad, exactly; I think that's a minimum livable wage. And yes, there are a ton of people willing to work for less, and in fact many people do. As an ESL teacher, I see quite a number of my students working away for $8 or less per hour, only because they want to get a permanent resident card and "have the chance to make more money like real Canadians do" (I shit you not, word for word).

And I agree, Starbucks pays well for the work. Nor did I mention raising the minimum wage explicitly. I have to say that anyone who started working at and is still now after several years working at a minimum wage job really needs to do some serious self-evaluation. I completely agree that entitlement is one of the biggest issues that faces the workforce nowadays--union or otherwise.


While I want to disagree with you, unfortunately I can't. There are a fair number of teachers who are teaching but shouldn't be. On the other hand, there is no mechanic with which to control administrators (principals) who are incompetent or causing issues either.

The school near me recently underwent seismic upgrades (that actually finished about two months ago but were due to be done in August 2009--three cheers for accurate scheduling), and the administrator was asked for the number of rooms that should be left in the school. The way the upgrades are working it's often cheaper to demolish sections of schools rather than upgrade the entire building. Kind of makes sense.

Anyways, the principal counted the number of divisions her school had, and submitted that number.
Not accounting for Learning Assistance.
Not accounting for an Activity (music) room.
Not accounting for ESL.
Not accounting for the Special Needs program the school features.

Yet there is no way to control her. But she's not unionized.



Like I said. Inefficiencies everywhere.

Except it will never get to this point and if it does it is up to the voters to punish the politicians by not voting for them and vote for opposition. The providers of the essential servicse should have no right to hold the public hostage.

In that case the resident of the building should have the building manager removed for having such poor foresight.

It is not about being profitable, its about reducing unnecessary expenses.

How would you suggest I feed my family and pay the bills when I need healthcare, if I don't have medical coverage?

Using tax dollars to fund a government subsidized health care system is far from a poor economic decision during a recession, it empowers the struggling middle class by alleviating one of their greatest concerns. Those who would otherwise be left bankrupt, or dying in their homes as a consequence of health care costs expanding at several times higher than inflation are now protected. Now, those who are sick will not be left as economic burdens to the government and their families, instead they'll continue to contribute financially.

Also, as much as I despise Steven Harper and the Conservative party the Economic action plan was somewhat effective. Obviously it was tainted with Mr. Harper's, usual Conservative biases and self-serving narrow sightedness. Working in the trades though, myself and many of my friends would have lost our jobs had the EAP not financed projects. I work in residential construction, and over the course of three months during the worst of the recession nine out of ten jobs I did were for someone motivated by the $1500 tax rebate.

Yes, but then again, no.

I've worked in two different unions and while I can understand the benefits behind being in one, there are far too many inefficiencies that make people hate 'em. I was let go from one job after being off work for two months due to surgery. My boss and union rep both told me I only needed to contact them one week prior to my return to work and signed paperwork stating this was alright (standard union rules there states someone who is off work requires you to call in every day to give an update on your wellbeing). However, during those two months both my boss and union rep were transfered to another location and the people now doing those positions decided the signed form was null and void. My union decided to rule in favour of my new boss' decision and wouldn't even consider my appeal. this is in stark contrast of another employee actually causing physical damage to product and despite video and witnesses showing what he did, the company was still unable to fire him due to the huge amount of protection covering him (the rules at the time were three complaints per month before the union would take a look, which would then be considered null and void by the time the next month rolled around). So fucking stupid.

You guys are confusing different forms of efficiency. Some of what you're talking about are bad management decisions or what you perceive to be bad from your point of view. This is more of a personnel issue than businesses vs unions vs govt. Humans are imperfect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency

In English, it means maximizing value (tangible and intangible) for the money you spend (ie looking for opportunities to buy things on sale AND not making mistakes that waste money).

Generally, businesses and ppl are considered to be more efficient with money because they reap the rewards and suffer the consequences of their decisions. Govt's have the power to just tax if they screw up or spend unnecessarily for political gain, etc and leave the problem to someone else. Specifically, it depends on the individual person/business/govt, of course, so you can cherry pick any counter-example or anecdote you want, but that doesn't mean jack shit in the big picture.

BC Government suspends 15 per cent income tax reduction


VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - Two weeks after Gordon Campbell stepped down as the Premier of British Columbia, the BC Government's Executive Council has decided to suspend the 15 per cent reduction in personal income tax rates for the first $72,000 of personal income that was promised in Campbell's televised address last month.

Quoting the outgoing Premier in a statement released today, the Executive Council says, "in order to ensure the Executive Council has maximum flexibility to set government's economic and fiscal agenda, Cabinet has decided to suspend the planned tax reduction."

The tax reduction would have taken effect January 1 of next year, provided it received legislative approval. It would have become the second largest personal income tax relief measure in BC's history.

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...-tax-reduction