Politics: Tim Hudak's Plan for Ontario if he becomes Premier

[sno man]

Yep I've seen the recent polls but I still think a majority will be very very difficult for them. But anything is possible.

60K from the LCBO would be an easy sell in theory, in the sense that it gets him close to the 100K .. but really none of these will be lost jobs.


I know folks who work for the government ... e-health related .. yes I know ... believe it or not (coming from the private sector, IT) the experience so far is there is real work being done, with stringent timelines just like the private sector.


So I think any sizable cuts will drastically impact the city of Toronto (just like Ottawa is feeling the pain right now) as many of these jobs are located in downtown Toronto.

They are 60k "government" jobs off the provincial roll. That they would be (basically) instantly replaced be the private sector plays into the Hudak narrative of corporations stepping up to fill these jobs. It still ignores the actual profit lost, and further cuts required to cover that loss. And yes Toronto will continue to be 'punished' for being too social, and nearly Con free.

 

[Electrify]

 

[sno man]

back at ya... (not mine, btw)

 

[tiffer24]

I have my qualms with Hudak but one (subjective) example comes to mind that relates to ksun's post. The parents of one of my girlfriend's friends both work for the WSIB. A new secretary position opened up recently that pays $55,000 a year plus benefits. A secretary position isn't worth 55 k a year in any industry but hey I guess these aren't "abstract" jobs we're dealing with. It's not that these people shouldn't be unemployed for possessing said padded government job, but many salaries tend to be excessive and unjustified for the job itself.

So a secretary (or do you mean EA) should earn, what? A one year unpaid internship to start and if they survive that, maybe $16,000 for the following year without benefits and then a 10% pay cut in the third year? Everyone always has an opinion about exactly what everyone else should be paid...

 

[TheKingEast]

What should a secretary make?

 

[picard102]

I guess it depends on what skill level you think is required to be a secretary. More than someone bagging groceries?

 

[howl]

I have my qualms with Hudak but one (subjective) example comes to mind that relates to ksun's post. The parents of one of my girlfriend's friends both work for the WSIB. A new secretary position opened up recently that pays $55,000 a year plus benefits. A secretary position isn't worth 55 k a year in any industry but hey I guess these aren't "abstract" jobs we're dealing with. It's not that these people shouldn't be unemployed for possessing said padded government job, but many salaries tend to be excessive and unjustified for the job itself.

Jobs and salaries are competitive. The salary is based in what it takes to get someone qualified to fill the position and keep them there. That often means convincing someone to leave their current job by giving them slightly more money than the competition is willing to pay. It's like a big auction.

Also, secretarial work is a lot more complicated now than it was back in the 1950's, which is what most people picture when they think of a secretary. A good secretary is the cornerstone of any office, and often the whole intra-office dynamic is controlled by him or her. If the secretary in the office I work in quit it would be a much bigger blow to the office than if any one of the other employees quit. Even if the boss quit we could trundle on until a replacement was found, but if the secretary quit who would help us reset our passwords when when we forgot them?

 

[howl]

back at ya... (not mine, btw)
View attachment 26329

What I don't like about the whole 1 million jobs things is that it sounds like were selling ourselves into slavery. Instead of working together to create our own jobs and our own economy stability, we would be selling ourselves to the highest bidder (or maybe the lowest bidder?). What sort of services would we need to provide to bring 1 million new jobs to Ontario? I'm wondering if many of these jobs will be casino worker jobs.

 

[sno man]

What I don't like about the whole 1 million jobs things is that it sounds like were selling ourselves into slavery. Instead of working together to create our own jobs and our own economy stability, we would be selling ourselves to the highest bidder (or maybe the lowest bidder?). What sort of services would we need to provide to bring 1 million new jobs to Ontario? I'm wondering if many of these jobs will be casino worker jobs.

What I don't like about the whole 1 million jobs thing is that it's Reagan era trickle down economics. Why Hudak thinks it will work when he does it, when it has never actually worked anywhere, ever, is the real mystery. Giving more cash to corporations won't work at all, they are sitting on more cash now that at any time, and they are not creating jobs at any kind of pace to have a million new jobs in two terms. Throwing yet more cash at them won't change that in any way. When part one of his plan doesn't work, he will double down and re-visit "right to work" and try to shred all unions and remove workers rights legislation to "free up" corporations from the evil unions and red tape to create jobs. (spoiler) That hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried either.

 

[tiffer24]

I guess it depends on what skill level you think is required to be a secretary. More than someone bagging groceries?

Probably more than cleaning toilets too, but it's not about what skill level I think is required to be a secretary. There are always defined job descriptions, right?

 

[AlbertHWagstaff]

What I don't like about the whole 1 million jobs thing is that it's Reagan era trickle down economics. Why Hudak thinks it will work when he does it, when it has never actually worked anywhere, ever, is the real mystery. Giving more cash to corporations won't work at all, they are sitting on more cash now that at any time, and they are not creating jobs at any kind of pace to have a million new jobs in two terms. Throwing yet more cash at them won't change that in any way. When part one of his plan doesn't work, he will double down and re-visit "right to work" and try to shred all unions and remove workers rights legislation to "free up" corporations from the evil unions and red tape to create jobs. (spoiler) That hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried either.

Somewhere down below, Andrew Carnegie is pleased as punch that labour conditions are heading back to the late 19th century.

 

[TOareaFan]

Jobs and salaries are competitive. The salary is based in what it takes to get someone qualified to fill the position and keep them there. That often means convincing someone to leave their current job by giving them slightly more money than the competition is willing to pay. It's like a big auction.

You have described quite well how wages and compensation are determined in the world not governed by collectively bargained contracts. It is not how it is done when there is a collective agreement. Jobs of various and different requirements are banded together and assigned grades/categories and the wage ranges are set.

To the person that suggested a secretary would earn $16k outside of government....that is also wrong....that would be below minimum wage for a full time position...but to suggest that (using the example cited) a secretarial/admin wage needs to be set at $55k to get a qualified person to fill the position is ludicrous.

Where I work, we have a lot of entry level clerical positions and we fill them and people seem to stay in them for a decent length of time (eventually some move up into other positions and others move on to other companies but there is no inordinate turnover in those positions)....we also have a very active HR department that annually surveys the market to make sure that all of our positions are compensated in line with market conditions...as much as we don't like overpaying we also do not fancy the idea of paying a wage that leads to turnover and instibility.....our entry level positions (and department secretarial work falls into that category here) pay between $27,500 and $30,000.

I am not anti-union (never been in one but I do understand they are part of our system and, perhaps, in some situations necessary)....but we must understand that one of the effects of a collective bargaining situation is that some jobs end up being paid more than they are in the non-union sector because of the process. If, as cited above, we are paying $55k for secretarial/admin positions then, yes, we are paying above market....and perhaps considerably so.

 

[ksun]

Either way, I'd remind you (and Tim Hudak) that these aren't just abstract "jobs," they are human beings supporting families.

following such logic, we should just give each unemployed man and woman a government job. They all have families to support I suppose. Then unemployment creases to be a problem for any country... just give them government jobs, problem solved instantly!

on the serious side, while you care about those who need to support families, why don't you care about whether taxpayers' money are responsibility spent? Taxpayers have families to support too. Should they pay tens of thousands just so some public servants can surf the internet every day? Is that fair? The broad public sector in Ontario has about 1.3M employees. Cutting 100k is about 8%, sounds a bit too little if I am to be the judge.

A job should not exist if the person takes more than it contributes to the economy, and this is the case for many of our public sector jobs.

 

[nfitz]

Where I work, we have a lot of entry level clerical positions and we fill them and people seem to stay in them for a decent length of time (eventually some move up into other positions and others move on to other companies but there is no inordinate turnover in those positions)....we also have a very active HR department that annually surveys the market to make sure that all of our positions are compensated in line with market conditions...as much as we don't like overpaying we also do not fancy the idea of paying a wage that leads to turnover and instibility.....our entry level positions (and department secretarial work falls into that category here) pay between $27,500 and $30,000.

That sounds about right. But what about a very senior secretary who has been there 30 years, is pretty much running the place administratively, and has staff reporting to them. $55K doesn't seem unreasonable ...

following such logic, we should just give each unemployed man and woman a government job. They all have families to support I suppose. Then unemployment creases to be a problem for any country... just give them government jobs, problem solved instantly!

By your logic, the jobs are unnecessary.

The reduction in jobs would have real impacts. Do we really want to relive the Harris cuts again, and what that did to society? Everything has been cut to the bone in the last 20 years. So bigger class sizes. Some savings won't actually help the bottom line. Privatizing LCBO for example, won't decrease the number of employees much ... and would not save government any money on the operational budget.

 

[TOareaFan]

That sounds about right. But what about a very senior secretary who has been there 30 years, is pretty much running the place administratively, and has staff reporting to them. $55K doesn't seem unreasonable ...

It is really hard from the example given to tell if the $55k job spoken of is a pure secretarial position (a title, I should say I have not heard in the private sector for a while) or more like the one you describe. From my experience what you are describing is more of an office manager position and, yes, $55k seems more in line with what that would garner around here.

The main point is that in any unionized environment the wage a job pays is not, as was stated, a reflection of the market and what is needed to attract and retain an employee...it is just a reflection of the wages within the collective agreement and how the jobs are banded/grouped/scaled.

The reduction in jobs would have real impacts. Do we really want to relive the Harris cuts again, and what that did to society? Everything has been cut to the bone in the last 20 years.

Has everything been cut to the bone? I read something the other day (wish I could remember where) that 100k cuts to the public sector represents an unwinding of 1/3 of the public sector jobs added in the past decade or so.

So bigger class sizes. Some savings won't actually help the bottom line.

I (again) think I read that increasing the average class size by 2 or 3 students would account for about $200million a year saving...so about 10% of the total savings projected by the PC party from the total 100k positions.

Privatizing LCBO for example, won't decrease the number of employees much ... and would not save government any money on the operational budget.

Until this thread in the past day, I have not read anywhere that part of the 100k jobs was any planned privatization of the LCBO.....in the context of "cutting to reduce the deficit" this would indeed be a token move and not adding anything to the exercise of reducing the cost of government. I would view any move to reach the 100k target by selling the LCBO as a backing off from the position and not in keeping with the goal (that's not to say I am against privatization of the LCBO...just that I, personally, would not count it against the 100k jobs).