Junglab
New Member
Indeed, and I positively relish the idea of going at their stats with a weed-whacker.
As has been shown, this is not at all out of the normal range of city salaries
Indeed, but this has to be considered in light of the overall employment context. The only departments in which significant growth has occurred are provincially mandated services (including housing and social services) and Transit. With respect to the former, Toronto is charged with administering some of these provincially mandated programs, which inevitably requires staff on a management-leyel pay scale. As for the TTC, as has been stated previously, certain operators have been working overtime significantly above the average level for most employees, given that the service is seriously understaffed. This results in higher stated salaries... which result NOT from an increase in the number of $100,000 base salaries, but from insufficient staff to meet demand. Likewise, certain departments (urban planning is one of these) have experienced wage inflation NOT because the city is chock full of cash, or wants to spend your hard-earned money (the typical tax-and-spend arguement lobbed by the Sun), but because work there is so time consuming and undesirable that positions simply cannot be filled at lower pay-scales. I would also add that the easiest workers to fire tend to be seasonal and part-time workers (who are not unionized) - as these are let go due to funding erestraints, the remainder of the (usually unionized) staff might well argue in contract negotiations that the resulting deterioration in working environments deserves higher levels of compensation
In a related arguement, some have argued that the city's budget has increased by some $1.2 billion since Miller's first term began - the implication being that spending is wildly out of control, and that this is due to Mayor Miller's policies. What these statistics fail to appreciate is that the largest growth areas in the budget are 1) provincially mandated services (which the city has no control over, and which are rising MUCH faster than the rate of inflation, and 2) the TTC (which is, despite the growth in funding, nonetheless STILL operating at service levels insufficient to meet demand)
This may indeed be the case, and frankly I can't say I like it. However, the problem (as I see it) originated during Mayor Lastman's tenure, when the provincial government sent the then dispute between the city and the public service (as manifested by the famous garbage strike) to binding arbitration, and then basically imposed the union's demands on the city wholesale. As contracts set a precedent, other unions fought for, and won, similar concessions from the city.
Moreover, as I have previously stated, it's not like Mayor Miller's sympathies are likely to tend towards sympathy with your (or the Sun's arguement). His political leanings are, and always have been, quite clear on the matter of labour relations. Indeed, one could argue that compared to the messy Lastman years, the labour peace in this city has since then been rather refreshing.
A number of (admittedly city-initiated) reports indicate that the savings which could be derived from contracting out are likely to be minimal at best, and perhaps even neutral or negative. While I and others might look at these findings with some skepticism, I am fairly certain that the savings trumpeted by the Sun and others are vastly over-stated... even assuming that the city rescinds it's "90%" rule (which is highly doubtful, as the resulting hue and cry would put all previous bargaining stancs to shame). The city already contracts out a fair amount of services - especially in the transportation sector. In other departments, it has long been city policy to maintain an in-house staff to minimize the control a private partner mighyt have over contract negotiation. While I might agree that the pendulum has swung a tad too far towards that in-house staff in certain departments, I certainly don't buy the arguement that this issue is the definitive one w/r/t the current budgetary crisis.
Finally, comparing ANY statistics to the overall city budget of $7.8 billion is patently wrong-headed - the city only has direct control of approx. $1.4 billion - a good deal of the rest is either provincially mandated, or regulated by provincial legislation (i.e. safe staffing levels, etc.). Thus, if the city is contracting out $444 million on a core budget of $1.4 billion, then close to 30% of this number is represented by services performed by the private sector. Although I admittedly can't be sure as to whether the following statistic is valid either, as I don't know what proportion of provincially mandated/regulated services are ammenable to contracting out, I can certainly state that the appropriate number is NOT $7.8 billion - and thus, the proportion of contracted services (as a function of contractable services) is greater than the stated 5%.
This is the most ridiculous arguement I have yet heard in this debate, and, barring a run on frontal lobotomies at council, will likely remain so. It is patently a political ploy to get Miller to "wear" both the "tax-and-spend" and "failed socialist" mantles - to box him into a corner. It is a ploy and nothing more. No union will sit down and take it, and Miller, positively, will not institute it. If you beleive otherwise, something is truly off-kilter in your brain somewhere.
Another red herring. These contracts are signed and in force. Were this summer coincident with contraqcts coming up for renewal, I would certainly agree that cost pressures be taken into account in those negotiations. however, they are not. Re-openning contracts (some of which were based on binding arbitration imposed by the province itsefl) is a recipe for labour disaster. Moreover, it is possible that unions would have certain legal rights that they might be able to exercise anyways, limiting the utility of this route.
As for council's raise to themsleves - I've said it before and will say it again. It is pathetic that we would force councilors to accept a pay far below the regional average, when we ourselves seek and often obtain raises in our own lines of work. Councillors' pay had been forzen for quite a few years prior to this raise, which STILL only brings their pay to the average - NOT the fat-cat levels everyone seems to think them to be. And the statistic I have seen for the impact of this raise is $385,000 - a whoping 0.07% of our current budget deficit.
In sum, the Sun and others have proposed cost saving measures which either 10 are paltry and wholely symbolic in their impact on a budget deficit of $575 million; 2) are completely at odds with Mayor Miller's sympathies, which were widely apparent at election time and either accepted and dismissed by the voting public at two such occasions; or 3) politically motivated. their contribution to this arguement has been less than unhelpful - it has been deceptive and demeaning.
