PM approves $7400.00 for refreshments

[Topaz]

We all knew what the Tories are like on spending and here is an example that Harper does too. He approved $7400.00 for refreshments for the PCO. Why can't these people buy their own? They make good money from the taxpayers, is it too much trouble? I like to know from the Tories on this board, what exactly they think about the spending habits about the Tories and what are they going to do about it? http://beta.ca.news.yahoo.com/prime-minister-personally-approves-7-400-hospitality-tab.html

[Keepitsimple]

It's good to see that all of this information is in the public domain.....but we should be careful how we analyze the findings. The cost of coffee, tea, bottled juice and pastries for 600 public servants was a little under $11.00 per person. That sounds reasonable and appropriate to me.

The Statistics Canada event, in fact, was similar in scale to the $47,158 budgeted by the Privy Council Office for the Sept. 13 town hall, intended for some 600 public servants.

A spokesman for the Privy Council Office said the town hall came in under budget, at $42,077, partly because hospitality costs amounted to only $6,520 for "coffee, tea, bottled juice and pastries."

[Shakeyhands]

The cost of coffee, tea, bottled juice and pastries for 600 public servants was a little under $11.00 per person. That sounds reasonable and appropriate to me.

Surely they could cover this themselves then. We're not talking private sector here, this is our money.

[GostHacked]

Surely they could cover this themselves then. We're not talking private sector here, this is our money.

I agree with this sentiment. I get a lot of perks working for the company that I do, like my Win 7/ Server 08 training last week. All expenses paid and the course paid for as well. The government is trusted to use the taxpayer money wisely. But we know how that game plays out. The taxpayer always loses in the end.

[The_Squid]

Talk about petty.... let's not worry about $11/person for refreshments in a meeting.

It's pretty standard procedure to provide this in any meeting. And often, hotels won't let you bring in outside food. They will charge you if you didn't pay for coffee, etc and people brought their own. Silly, yes... but that's the practice.

Let's concentrate on true taxpayer ripoffs...

[Keepitsimple]

I agree with this sentiment. I get a lot of perks working for the company that I do, like my Win 7/ Server 08 training last week. All expenses paid and the course paid for as well. The government is trusted to use the taxpayer money wisely. But we know how that game plays out. The taxpayer always loses in the end.

That's being penny-wise, pound foolish. You might disagree with their lucrative pension plan and their jobs for life......or maybe have a quarrel with Unions in general.....but these 600 people are public servants and are employees of the government. Surely they deserve Timbits and coffee when they are locked away at a Town Hall gatehering for a whole day.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Talk about petty.... let's not worry about $11/person for refreshments in a meeting.

It's pretty standard procedure to provide this in any meeting. And often, hotels won't let you bring in outside food. They will charge you if you didn't pay for coffee, etc and people brought their own. Silly, yes... but that's the practice.

Let's concentrate on true taxpayer ripoffs...

Nonsense! Lets focus on spending, period. Don't bother to tag this with "tax payer ripoff", don't paint it one way or the other. Just think about how many times your boss bought you lunch last year. Now if it was your paycheck buying lunch, would you approve or not?

The real issue here is spending, nothing more and nothing less.

[The_Squid]

Nonsense! Lets focus on spending, period. Don't bother to tag this with "tax payer ripoff", don't paint it one way or the other. Just think about how many times your boss bought you lunch last year. Now if it was your paycheck buying lunch, would you approve or not?

The real issue here is spending, nothing more and nothing less.

There is no issue here.... it's partisan bickering. It's as if coffee at a meeting is some sort of perk of a government job... and that this is something that is never done before or in other sectors... give me a break...

Almost every meeting that I attended of any size (I hate meetings, btw), coffee and refreshments was provided. Usually this was with the private sector. Government employees have a harder time funding refreshments for a meeting, unless you are up there in the "chain of command".

Edited December 6, 2010 by The_Squid

[M.Dancer]

The cost of coffee, tea, bottled juice and pastries for 600 public servants was a little under $11.00 per person. That sounds reasonable and appropriate to me.

Is that $11.00 per person, per year?

[Argus]

I agree with this sentiment. I get a lot of perks working for the company that I do, like my Win 7/ Server 08 training last week. All expenses paid and the course paid for as well.

Is there some reason you can't pay for your own pastries and refreshments?

You will all be pleased to know I'm now a shop steward. FYI I spent 4 hrs at an event last month and was told to bill the union $39 for dinner. Pretty good, given all I had was a burger and some chips.

Why do you people think public servants should wear sacklothes anyway?

Edited December 6, 2010 by Argus

[Moonlight Graham]

Nonsense! Lets focus on spending, period. Don't bother to tag this with "tax payer ripoff", don't paint it one way or the other. Just think about how many times your boss bought you lunch last year. Now if it was your paycheck buying lunch, would you approve or not?

The real issue here is spending, nothing more and nothing less.

agreed. It doesn't matter if its 7 thousand or 7 million, every penny should be scrutinized.

[Michael Hardner]

agreed. It doesn't matter if its 7 thousand or 7 million, every penny should be scrutinized.

In principle, this makes sense. It would make more sense if the public had any attention span at all for the billions that are misspent, and not the pennies.

Ontario's eHealth "scandal" was about the worst example here. Some faceless entity spends hundreds of millions, missing targets and generally appearing to be useless, noticed only when some plebe submits an expense form for her bagel.

It's embarrassing.

[fellowtraveller]

We're not talking private sector here,

do you think the shareholders of private sector companies are either consulted or outraged if the employees of the corporation get a muffin and coffee at a meeting?

Get a grip.

[Sir Bandelot]

do you think the shareholders of private sector companies are either consulted or outraged if the employees of the corporation get a muffin and coffee at a meeting?

Get a grip.

Maybe, if it Tim Hortons

[GostHacked]

Is there some reason you can't pay for your own pastries and refreshments?

I work for a private company. The money invested in me for the course comes from the profits of the company and the budget allocated towards my required training. Since it is required training, they foot the bill, all of it. It is an investment in me so I can be of more value to the company.

You will all be pleased to know I'm now a shop steward. FYI I spent 4 hrs at an event last month and was told to bill the union $39 for dinner. Pretty good, given all I had was a burger and some chips.

And that is all payed for by all the members of the union via dues. The union members might be upset about it, but that is their problem. And that might be similar to the government because as a shop steward you are elected by the union members to that position. So the union is paying for all your expenses.

Why do you people think public servants should wear sacklothes anyway?

I want substance over image. I want a politician who does what he says he is going to do. And again the difference here is that the government works for all Canadians, you and me included. We both pay for this.

There is a huge difference here and I am surprised some just don't get it.

But what I do find odd, is that millions perhaps billions go to private companies for bailouts and we end up getting our knickers all bunched up because of a few thousand dollars. However as some has mentioned, it is the principal of it all that we need to scrutinize all expenses. If you let them get away with this .. then what else will you let them get away with?

If it's only 11 bucks .. I am sure they can cover it with their wages which are already recockulously high.

[Sir Bandelot]

But what I do find odd, is that millions perhaps billions go to private companies for bailouts and we end up getting our knickers all bunched up because of a few thousand dollars. However as some has mentioned, it is the principal of it all that we need to scrutinize all expenses. If you let them get away with this .. then what else will you let them get away with?

If it's only 11 bucks .. I am sure they can cover it with their wages which are already recockulously high.

I don't think their wages are extremely high in all cases, but I suspect there is a lot of "fat" that could be trimmed from the civil servants. So while we need to demand they use due diligence, it is also a matter of how much effort goes into something to achieve savings, vs. the amount that gets saved. This is less than a drop in the bucket. If it distracts our attention from the more important issues than it's not helpful to even argue about it.

On the other hand, one might say that even civil servants are human beings (yes, it's true) and like everyone else they need to feel appreciated once in a while. So I am not against some minor perks like free coffee and donuts, as long as it's only once in a while. My view is that people with good morale will do better jobs than people who are demoralized and hate their jobs. So in the end a little bit of moeny spent on staff appreciation can go a long way. No need to be niggardly about this. Or can I not say that word around here

[GostHacked]

I don't think their wages are extremely high in all cases, but I suspect there is a lot of "fat" that could be trimmed from the civil servants. So while we need to demand they use due diligence, it is also a matter of how much effort goes into something to achieve savings, vs. the amount that gets saved. This is less than a drop in the bucket. If it distracts our attention from the more important issues than it's not helpful to even argue about it.

On the other hand, one might say that even civil servants are human beings (yes, it's true) and like everyone else they need to feel appreciated once in a while. So I am not against some minor perks like free coffee and donuts, as long as it's only once in a while. My view is that people with good morale will do better jobs than people who are demoralized and hate their jobs. So in the end a little bit of moeny spent on staff appreciation can go a long way. No need to be niggardly about this. Or can I not say that word around here

Good points, I'd like to reward the ones who do well for us. So sure perks for them.

[Topaz]

One question I have is why did this meeting take place at the Westin Hotel, when he could have got one within the Parliament Buildings? What no coffee and donuts there?

[Shakeyhands]

do you think the shareholders of private sector companies are either consulted or outraged if the employees of the corporation get a muffin and coffee at a meeting?

Get a grip.

That money would come out of their profits, not our tax dollars.

[The_Squid]

One question I have is why did this meeting take place at the Westin Hotel, when he could have got one within the Parliament Buildings? What no coffee and donuts there?

My guess would be that there are no rooms big enough to accomodate 600 people... I don't know though...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

One question I have is why did this meeting take place at the Westin Hotel, when he could have got one within the Parliament Buildings? What no coffee and donuts there?

This is the root of the problem. How many government facilities are there? Are they all booked up 24/7, 365 days a year? If the answer is no, then the reality is that funds were spent that need not have been. Five grand an hour! That is a crime.

[Bonam]

Umm have none of you ever been to a conference or large meeting or any sort? Refreshments being complimentary is standard.

[Shakeyhands]

Umm have none of you ever been to a conference or large meeting or any sort? Refreshments being complimentary is standard.

True, in some cases. I've been to plenty of meetings and conferences where we were responsible for our own refreshments, and thats with a company who has been reporting profits for years and years. However, in this case, we're talking about a time that our Government has massive deficits and we know that we're going to be told there are cut backs on even the most basic services.

The problem here isn't with a paltry 74 hundred dollars being spent on refreshments, but rather the idea that this is one area we're a cut back could be made without really affecting anyone. The civil servants I'm sure could go to a nearby coffee shop or something on their own.

[capricorn]

The civil servants I'm sure could go to a nearby coffee shop or something on their own.

In many cases, that's the simple solution. But in some situations, such as training sessions or structured lengthy meetings/presentations, breaking up a group brought together for specific purposes would be counter productive. These pre-planned gatherings usually have a set agenda. Letting attendees loose to leave the premises for a refreshment break throws everything off. Invariably, they won't all return at the same time and will have been distracted from the purpose of the gathering. The more effective method is to keep the group present for the duration and that would require them having their break together. Providing coffee, juice and a muffin is a small price to pay for the sake of efficiency and productivity.

[Argus]

I work for a private company. The money invested in me for the course comes from the profits of the company and the budget allocated towards my required training. Since it is required training, they foot the bill, all of it. It is an investment in me so I can be of more value to the company.

So you're saying it makes sense for private corporations and companies to be fair to their employees, even to treat them a little now and then, but that the government should treat its employees uh... like dirt? I just don't get the idea here at all. Decent employers try to make the workplace a reasonably pleasant experience in order to make employees happy. Happy employees use less sick leave, tend to stay on more, and are more productive. This is inarguable. Every business text I've ever read or heard of agrees. But some of you seem to believe the government ought to provide the most miserable workplace it can to its employees, make them as unhappy and bitter as it can. This is supposed to encourage public servants to work harder?

If it's only 11 bucks .. I am sure they can cover it with their wages which are already recockulously high.

You clearly are pretty ignorant about public service salaries. It's true that lower level employees, ie, clerks and such, are paid generally higher wages as compared to the private sector. However, as you rise within the government, the rate of remuneration begins to fall to the same level as in the private sector, and then begins to lag behind. The guy who runs my agency, for example, has 40,000 employees under him, a multi-billion dollar budget, and is responsible for all taxation and federal benefit programs across the country affecting every Canadian. He earns less than your average doctor or lawyer.