Fair wage policy

[kettal]

The Toronto fair wage office ensures that all contractors performing city contracted work will pay their workers a set wage.

http://www.toronto.ca/fairwage/index.htm

At the bottom of that page, you will find the minimum fair wage schedules. For example: armed security guards are at $14.50 ; High rise window cleaners $18.54 ; construction labourers $28.68

Should this policy be revoked, to require contractors to only meet provincial minimum wage?

 

[cacruden]

The policy is stupid, why should the government pay more than private for the same work (i.e. market wages).

 

[afransen]

The policy was designed to placate unions by making it hard for private contractors to outbid them. They are trying to protect their monopoly on the provision of government services.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Instead of a "fair" wage policy - the city should have a policy that is strongly against exploitative practices and blacklist any firm that violates labour laws, which is more of a problem IMO.

AoD

 

[Hipster Duck]

I agree with AoD. Bad labour practices are a dime a dozen in the GTA and a real problem compared to wage rates. Of course, the reason why this issue doesn't get more attention is because the least empowered/vocal segments of society are the ones who are exposed to these kinds of practices.

 

[kettal]

The policy is stupid, why should the government pay more than private for the same work (i.e. market wages).

So here comes the obvious question. If these workers are underpaid in a city contract, and then their families coinsequentially have to use welfare and/or subsidized housing, what has the city budget gained?

 

[kEiThZ]

So here comes the obvious question. If these workers are underpaid in a city contract, and then their families coinsequentially have to use welfare and/or subsidized housing, what has the city budget gained?

That statement assumes a lot of things. It assumes that the civic employee is the sole earner for that family, that the individual gets paid so little that they end up in poverty, that we only outsource jobs which are that low paying, and most importantly that the individual and his family are resident in Toronto. Ironically, I've found that the better paid the city's employees are the less likely they are to live in the city. That's anecdotal, but I suspect it to be the general truth. I'd love to see stats on this.

Anyway, a lot of stuff has to line-up for your scenario. And moreover, if your scenario is the concern, then should the city hire for every position that might potentially be low paid by a contractor? Or why not take it a step further and have virtually anybody who risks low pay, work for the government? Why only extend your concern to potential government employees. Shouldn't everybody in a menial job get a crack at what municipal employees make so that they don't end up on welfare? Extreme socialism is just as bad as unbridled capitalism. Nobody would suggest we outsource every job. And nobody should suggest that we avoid any outsourcing where someone might risk getting paid less (or rather more in line with market values for their work).

 

[kEiThZ]

Instead of a "fair" wage policy - the city should have a policy that is strongly against exploitative practices and blacklist any firm that violates labour laws, which is more of a problem IMO.

AoD

+1

I hate that anybody who's opposed to the Fair Wage policy is painted as having a desire to run a sweatshop. People should make a fair wage. And that usually means the market wage. The definition of fair wages under Miller has meant that some civic employees or contracted municipal employees are vastly overpaid, and the costs of their wages are passed on to home and business owners who make no where near as much. How is that fair?

 

[afransen]

Indeed. "Fair" is inevitably doublespeak for grossly overpaid relative to market rates.

 

[Glen]

Instead of a "fair" wage policy - the city should have a policy that is strongly against exploitative practices and blacklist any firm that violates labour laws, which is more of a problem IMO.

AoD

The very fact that the policy ignores these issues should put to rest any arguments of the its true intentions.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The very fact that the policy ignores these issues should put to rest any arguments of the its true intentions.

Not quite - if you read into the policy, it does have requirements that aren't related to wage rates itself:

http://www.toronto.ca/fairwage/policy.htm

AoD

 

[Glen]

Not quite - if you read into the policy, it does have requirements that aren't related to wage rates itself:

http://www.toronto.ca/fairwage/policy.htm

AoD

Lets have a look. My remarks in quotes.

A4. Intent of Fair Wage Policy

1. To produce stable labour relations with minimal disruption ( to prevent cost savings that would encourage outsourcing )
2. To compromise between the wage differentials of organized and unorganized labour ( to prevent cost savings that would encourage outsourcing )
3. To create a level playing field in competitions for City work ( to prevent cost savings that would encourage outsourcing )
4. To protect the public ( to protect politicians from having to outsource )
5. To enhance the reputation of the City for ethical and fair business dealings ( to counter the general impression of the city running sweatshops? )

 

[kettal]

Indeed. "Fair" is inevitably doublespeak for grossly overpaid relative to market rates.

$14 per hour for an armed security guard is grossly overpaid?

 

[kettal]

That statement assumes a lot of things. It assumes that the civic employee is the sole earner for that family, that the individual gets paid so little that they end up in poverty, that we only outsource jobs which are that low paying, and most importantly that the individual and his family are resident in Toronto. Ironically, I've found that the better paid the city's employees are the less likely they are to live in the city. That's anecdotal, but I suspect it to be the general truth. I'd love to see stats on this.

Anyway, a lot of stuff has to line-up for your scenario. And moreover, if your scenario is the concern, then should the city hire for every position that might potentially be low paid by a contractor? Or why not take it a step further and have virtually anybody who risks low pay, work for the government? Why only extend your concern to potential government employees. Shouldn't everybody in a menial job get a crack at what municipal employees make so that they don't end up on welfare? Extreme socialism is just as bad as unbridled capitalism. Nobody would suggest we outsource every job. And nobody should suggest that we avoid any outsourcing where someone might risk getting paid less (or rather more in line with market values for their work).

Personally, I'm still undecided on this issue.

I much prefer strong labour laws instead of strong unions, and the policy kind of negates the need for a union. If I can make a union style wage without having to be involved in union nonsense, I'd do it, and I'd think the public will be better off for it compared to having a unionized workforce.

 

[afransen]

I imagine $14 is market for security work (if not more for an actually qualified security professional). A fair wage policy is only necessary if the wage imposed is above market. Therefore, "fair wage" is doublespeak for "overpaid".