Mot,
I have never argued that public sector employees make more than private sector employees. I have argued that they are more than fairly compensated for what they do and that they don't deserve large raises beyond the rate of inflation without an equal increase in productivity. I am fairly sure that your employer doesn't give you a raise out of the generosity of his heart, or he/she would not be in business very long. It's quite likely that your productivity improved sufficiently and that your company was profitable enough to be able to afford you a 4-5% raise. What's more you have to keep in that most public servants are on a pay grid, that get's them automatic increments every year. What we are debating here is the inflation of the whole grid. So we are not talking about someone who want get any increase at all (unless you are at the very top of the grid).
We can't compare public sector to private sector employees because there is no direct comparison to be made when the public sector holds a monopoly on certain segments (transit, health care, police, etc.). So we can only compare from public sector to public sector.
Here is the pay scale for the Toronto Police Service:
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/careers/salaryandbenefits.php
Here is the Canadian Forces pay scale:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dppd/engraph/dppd_coverpage_e.asp?sidesection=3&sidecat=28&docid=1
Note that a police cadet makes approximately around a 3rd year private (see pay scale in para 7). That's a fully trained person who is available for deployment. I would argue that the private is being paid a wage that is commisserate with his education, training and workplace responsibilities. And note that the same pay applies to our Military Police personnel who I would argue have duties that far outstrip that of the average TO street beat cop. Are we saying that Toronto is so tough to police that our police services deserve pay and benefits well above what our military personnel (who we reserve for truly dangerous work) get paid. A first class police constable makes more than a CF Lieutenant, and that's a military officer who leads a platoon of 40 guys, or flies an aircraft, or manages the combat systems on a ship, etc.
The cost of living argument doesn't wash either, most cops aren't cadets, they are more than likely in the 50k - 70k range. That's more than a fair and livable wage for Toronto. If that argument is to be used, what about Vancouver or Montreal. Yet they aren't demanding to be the highest paid in the country. And what you have the city do in a situation where each police department in the country feels that it should have a clause that says they should be the highest paid in the country. This is the unions attempting to start a bidding war for cops.
And all those numbers are without overtime, which cops get a ton of, thanks to the generous amounts of time of that they get, and thanks to union friendly policies like requiring a bored police officer to stand around during road construction while making time and a half. Apparently the rest of Canada can do road and construction work without a police officer on-site, so why can't we?
I have said that is the wrong statement for a society to make. Toronto is a safe city, the crime stats show it. Our cops should be paid a fair wage that accounts for their workload, productivity, duties, responsibilites, level of education/training background, up to the limits of what the taxpayers can afford. They don't need to be the highest paid in the country, just because they are from the largest city in the country. You are free to disagree with me if you like.
http://www3.ttc.ca/Jobs/jobopps_operators1.jsp
As for the TTC, I say 53k a year (26.58 hourly after 30 months....likely their training and probationary period) is plenty to drive a bus. I would actually argue that its unfair that a subway operator makes as much as a bus driver, when the former has much more responsibility. But that's how unions work. They don't feel the need to pay people according to what they do. Either way, that wage incidentally is only a little below what most of Toronto's police officers make. Are you now going to argue that driving a bus is as dangerous as taking on drug dealers and breaking up bar fights?
Your employer can decide to pay you 5% a year more, because he/she runs a tight ship, had a good year and your productivity improved. The TTC on the other hand is a public utility that the government and society at large wishes the public would use more. To encourage ridership, fares have to be low. Given that wages are the largest portion of the TTC's operating expense, surprisingly more so than fuel, or maintenance, the unions demands for wage increases can be directly attributed to the rise of fares. I would argue that this is not in the public's interest. You seem to feel that fares increasing well above the rate of inflation is okay.
You may not feel that anyone is suffering from all the increments being thrown around, but I would guess the 2000+ households on the waiting list for subsidized housing might disagree (
http://www.housingconnections.ca/Information/Information.asp ). Personally, I would rather spend more on social housing so that people aren't waiting five years for a bachelor apartment or ten years for a house (
http://www.settlement.org/sys/faqs_detail.asp?faq_id=4000084 ). Or perhaps you feel that the 12 000+ children (
http://www.toronto.ca/children/facts_figs.htm ) and their harried parents waiting for a subsidized daycare spot in this city aren't worth more than a little bit of extra spending cash for transit workers and cops.
Again, I am not arguing that they don't deserve raises or that they should be paid less. All I am saying is that some of their demands are unwarranted unless they have the productivity numbers to show otherwise and that these raises will result in a disproportionate burden on the taxpayer, many of whom can't afford significant tax increases, more so since the city is mandated to slowly shift the tax burden to residential ratepayers.
There is an opportunity cost to every dollar. When it goes to the pocket of a civic employee somebody else loses. I am with the poor, the kids and transit riders on this one.
With regards to downtown development, acres of condos do not constitute development to me. A city needs a healthy mix of commercial, industrial, residential, recreational and green space. While the decade long commercial development drought has ended, I doubt the recovery will be strong or sustained, given our current economic situation. This issue has particular challenges for Toronto which has some of the highest commercial/industrial tax rates and the lowest residential tax rates. The city will face severe revenue challenges as the tax base shifts to a more residential mix (with a concomitant increase in demand for services). Charging the highest commercial tax rate while your neighbour charges one of the lowest, will lead to businesses moving away. I can already see that at the edge of the 416 where huge business parks are located just outside.
WRT to your arguments regarding corporate welfare....are you serioulsy arguing the Harper tax cut??? What about the $100 billion dollar tax cut Paul Martin gave as finance minister. The Liberals advertised it as the biggest tax cut in Canadian history (
http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2000/update01-1e.html ). In fact, it was Liberal policy (and Martin as finance minister in particular) that saw the corporate tax rate fall faster than the personal income tax rate. Harper's tax cuts look light a tax scratch in comparison. Cutting the corporate tax rate from 28% to 21%, is much more than reducing it from 21% to 18.5%. And note that Dion is promising a bigger corporate tax cut than Harper (
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/p...=9a34a015-fdeb-4186-ad59-5d11387372bf&k=78310). The Conservatives are simply following through on Liberal promises, which included a policy to keep reducing the corporate tax rate. To the extent that Harper cut taxes, he did it more to appease his base and check off a promise. Nobody can seriously argue that there was much heart behind it, particularly when you compare to the Chretien/Martin years.
You can keep trying to apply your American political template to Canada, but it doesn't translate that easily. We don't have a two party duopoly. The Liberals run on the left and govern on the right. Anyone who has lived in Canada long enough to vote knows that. That's why the NDP is still around. If the Liberals were a true leftist party the NDP would have been obliterated decades ago.
As for your attmepts to paint me as some hate-filled arch neo-con...fill your boots. The only time I have ever voted Conservative was for John Tory...and more because he was a hometown boy. I am more of a centrist, sadly the demise of the old PC party leaves me with fewer options. But I do believe in fiscal responsibility as a cornerstone of governance. And I would like to see my tax dollars used to help people, not give well paid civic employees over the top increments.
Mark my words, the City spending away like a drunken sailor (or in a fashion that would embarrass a drunken sailor) will eventually drive the public right into the arms of a Mike Harris type...at the municipal level. Having lived through those dark days, I would rather avoid provoking the public into that kind of a rancour again. You may feel like the public will tolerate 4% or 5% raises during an economic downturn. But remember that the NDP gave out less than that to teachers and health care workers in the early 90's and pissed off the public enough to usher in a 7 year long neo-con revolution. Heck, even the 416 voted in members of the Harris government.
So be careful what you wish for.....
ps. I don't want to hijack a thread about new mayors. This is my last post on this. I have thrown out my view into the ether that I would prefer a less union friendly mayor. If you wish to keep debating, let's take it to the "Unions!" thread in the Toronto Issues section.
