Rob Ford's Toronto

[Marko]

As a paramedic - you probably would consider yourself essential - no?

 

[Electrify]

I'm not a big fan of union intransigence when it is clear that some compromises and concessions need to be made, but perhaps these provisions exist to protect people who have worked 25-30 years at a job, who have taken on the responsibilities of a family and a house to raise it in, from being dismissed as unskilled and unnecessary by kids who fancy they should be given the keys to the kingdom by virtue of their fresh commerce/finance degrees. It's a strange time we live in, where the emissaries from the "real world" like to go around telling everyone to get a job while simultaneously calling in the name of efficiency for the elimination of all those jobs that once supported a healthy working and middle class.

It would also be nice if some of those people (both private and public) who have been working for a long time could retire, so that people of my generation could find a decent job rather than occupy a park or work minimum wage. Granted I blame outsourcing and acceptance of neo-liberalism more than anything else, but since we are waging a war between demographics, felt I ought to chime in.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Nobody gets a 1 dollar shift premium, or a 2 dollar shift premium on weekends in the real world. Also, their benefits are above and beyond anything you'd find in the private sector. Wages and benefits should reflect what the market is paying, not what the seemingly bottomless public funds can bear.

Also, while I don't think the police deserved such a luxurious raise, they are dealing with a much more dangerous and trying job environment than CUPE members. Let's not compare the risks of garbage workers to the dangers of dealing with drug dealers and murderers.

Why don't you want to compare the risks of the police vs. non-police municipal employees? Are you afraid you would discover that policiing is not as dangerous as many other jobs done by municipal employees? Because that's what you'd find. On a relative basis, the police deserve to be treated worse than they have been (in addition to having their many criminal conspiracies disbanded and prosecuted and generally getting their egos slapped down to size) and other municipal employees deserve to be treated better.

EDIT - I just wrote something really caustic that *may* have been over the top. Suffice it to say that misperceived entitlement, while an issue for municipal workers, is not an issue unique to municipal workers.

 

[jn_12]

Hey, I agree with most of what has been said, but sometimes the benefits I refer to in the public sector unions are just above and beyond what is found anywhere else. Public servants both federally and provincially don't have these kinds of perks. Recently a friend of mine linked me to an article about BC teachers demanding added clauses to their contracts. The kicker was a demand for 5 paid days of absence when a FRIEND dies. That's just getting ridiculous.

Those in public sector unions have this sense of entitlement because they believe the public sector is a bottomless pit of funds. It 'can't' go bankrupt if they demand too much. Then again, we only have to look at Southern Europe to see what a bloated public sector with enviable benefits achieves. Enough is enough, if they want equality then by all means pay and give what the market will bear.

You might want to look into the perks and benefits employees of Google (and other companies that are considered top notch to work for) receive. They're far greater than anything any public servant is requesting.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

It would also be nice if some of those people (both private and public) who have been working for a long time could retire, so that people of my generation could find a decent job rather than occupy a park or work minimum wage. Granted I blame outsourcing and acceptance of neo-liberalism more than anything else, but since we are waging a war between demographics, felt I ought to chime in.

Must you be so selfish? That 2nd cottage isn't going to pay for itself.

 

[freshcutgrass]

The kicker was a demand for 5 paid days of absence when a FRIEND dies. That's just getting ridiculous.

Is it it "ridiculous" though? Your argument is that if it didn't exist before, is reason for it never to exist, which is of course faulty logic (and possibly factually incorrect as well). The reasoning behind why a "friend" should be included along with "family" is quite sound. As is the reasoning why a person is best not in the workplace during the initial bereavement process.

Those in public sector unions have this sense of entitlement because they believe the public sector is a bottomless pit of funds.

First of all, it seems to me that your constant accusations of "entitlement' thrown at everybody else, is just a simple textbook case of projection of your own sense of entitlement.

Secondly, I don't think that the "public unions" are thinking any differently than anyone else. I have found that people like yourself (who are obsessed with unions and public sector employees) take the idea that it's "their" money too personally, and develop the delusional notion that these people wake up every morning and consciously spend their time figuring out ways of screwing you out of your money. If anything, it is the other way around.

Then again, we only have to look at Southern Europe to see what a bloated public sector with enviable benefits achieves.

This is more faulty logic. The "slippery slope" fallacy is just a scare tactic. The problem of Greece is based on corruption and faulty policies...not because the working class demanded one too many "ridiculous" benefits from their employer.

 

[jje1000]

Surprised? This should put to rest any nagging reminder of Ford being honest about his promises or that gravy is flowing everywhere.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ffs-after-buyouts-miss-target/article2232066/

Toronto city manager confirms layoffs after buyouts miss target
ELIZABETH CHURCH
Globe and Mail Update

The prospect of labour strife continues to rise at city hall, with Toronto’s top bureaucrat confirming that layoffs are coming after a buyout program expected to cut 700 jobs will only remove 230 employees from the payroll.

“There will be layoffs,†city manager Joseph Pennachetti said Thursday morning. He would not give a target number, saying those details will come on November 28 when next year’s proposed budget is made public.

“We have a plan that you will see at the end of the month on that. It’s a combination of vacancies and layoffs. I can’t get more specific than that,†Mr. Pennachetti told reporters.

Although 1,140 eligible city staff applied for the program, Mr. Pennachetti said the low numbers approved for the voluntary separation program reflect the fact that more than one-third of the employees who applied for it work in legislated or cost-shared programs – jobs that could not be eliminated. As well, budget cutting efforts this summer aimed at reducing city programs did not go as deep as expected, requiring the city to maintain staffing levels in the areas that were spared.

“I was probably optimistic on the 700.†Mr. Pennachetti said about the target he released in September for the buyout program. Under that scenario the program was expected to cost the city $41-million this year and result in long-term annual savings of $59-million.

The program is now expected to cost about $13-million and result in $20-million in annual savings.

The news – and the prospect of layoffs – comes as the city and its unions are about to embark on a round of contract talks and talk of a lockout and a prolonged disruption of services is already being raised by labour leaders.

The city turned up the heat on those talks, announcing Thursday that it has filed a complaint of unfair labour practice against the local that represents about 22,000 inside workers with the Ontario Labour Relations Board. The city also has written to the Ministry of Labour requesting that a conciliator be appointed.

The city says it met with Local 79 on October 17, but the local was unwilling to begin bargaining. The local continues to be unwilling to start the process, according to the city. The local, which could not be reached for comment, is in the midst of a change in leadership.

“We waited over a month and Local 79 has not come to the table,†said Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, a member of the city’s employee and labour relations committee and part of Mayor Rob Ford’s inner circle. “We are frustrated by that quite frankly. We would like to start the bargaining process. This is a very serious matter.â€

The councillor said the labour board could order the union to the table.

 

[Dilla]

The reasoning behind why a "friend" should be included along with "family" is quite sound. As is the reasoning why a person is best not in the workplace during the initial bereavement process.

Er...what's to stop someone looking in the obituaries and saying, "yeah, i knew that guy. see ya next week."?

If someone close to you dies it would be unusual for an employer not to allow you some time off if you ask for it. But 5 paid days? What even constitutes a friend here? If I hear on Facebook that some dude i used to hang out with in high school died, do i get 5 days off?

I can't believe there's even one person who would try and defend this kind of crap.

 

[DanTheMan]

As a paramedic - you probably would consider yourself essential - no?

Absolutely, we have been lobbying for years but there has never been any political will to do it right. Binding arbitration like fire and police would be the only fair way to proceed but apparently that would cost too much for the whole 850 of us.

It's also interesting to note that the city rejected all voluntary separation applications from all medics even though they were touting this as the only way to avoid layoffs.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Er...what's to stop someone looking in the obituaries and saying, "yeah, i knew that guy. see ya next week."?

More faulty logic.

We don't not implement benefits based on the fact that someone may find a way to abuse it. Otherwise, there would none.

If someone close to you dies it would be unusual for an employer not to allow you some time off if you ask for it.

I'm sorry, but if you think employees are supposed to rely on the charitable nature of their employers as their means of securing required benefits or working conditions, than you must really be living in a fantasy world. Employment contracts aren't the norm for no reason.

 

[Urban Shocker]

It's a strange time we live in, where the emissaries from the "real world" like to go around telling everyone to get a job while simultaneously calling in the name of efficiency for the elimination of all those jobs that once supported a healthy working and middle class.

Indeed, and there's no finer example of that attitude - someone who twists themselves into contradictory knots - than Filip's comment, "I don't understand how they're going to get the support of the general public if they're protesting a clause that most people would kill to have."

 

[Filip]

However it's not a contradictory knot when most people KNOW and are REALISTIC that they'll never see that kind of perk in their present or future workplaces. Then it leads to resentment, and what will eventually destroy the unions in this country.

 

[EMP1729]

I don't get any "benefits" at my job (no health, dental, pension etc), therefore no one who works should get benefits either. It isn't fair.

I am underpaid too. Therefore no one else should be compensated more than I. It isn't fair.

Maybe, we can develop some system where everyone is compensated the same.

 

[GraphicMatt]

My favourite bit of cognitive dissonance is that the same people who tear down unions for being entitled and overpaid will jump to the defence of present-day CEO salaries.

 

[DanTheMan]

However it's not a contradictory knot when most people KNOW and are REALISTIC that they'll never see that kind of perk in their present or future workplaces. Then it leads to resentment, and what will eventually destroy the unions in this country.

Most people also KNOW and have a REALISTIC expectation that they will get some sort of lunch break in their work day. I have not had a lunch break in 3 of my last 4 12-14 hour shifts.
You see, so while you may one day land your finance/commerce job and get a nice end of year bonus like many people in your field do, but I don't resent that. Comparing a blue collar job to white collar isn't apples to apples. We have benefits that may seem excessive to you but are essential to us.