TimG Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 You get what the market dictates.Public servant union pay scales have little connection to what the "market" dictates and overpays (especially once benefits are included) people doing a wide range of jobs. The exceptions are likely the high level managers and other jobs which require special skills which are needed by the private sector. In these cases the government probably underpays. In any case, the question what is a fair salary varies from job to job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 Public servant union pay scales have little connection to what the "market" dictates and overpays (especially once benefits are included) people doing a wide range of jobs. The exceptions are likely the high level managers and other jobs which require special skills which are needed by the private sector. In these cases the government probably underpays. In any case, the question what is a fair salary varies from job to job. I agree fully. The determination of a "fair" salary has nothing to do with comparing it to your job and your salary. That is the mistake some seem to have in here. I would like it listed on the List how many O/T hours are associated with that compensation. It is a readily available piece of info pertinent to evaluate the "fairness" of it all. I imagine though that would lessen the division......so no go I'll bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) I agree fully. The determination of a "fair" salary has nothing to do with comparing it to your job and your salary. That is the mistake some seem to have in here. I would like it listed on the List how many O/T hours are associated with that compensation. It is a readily available piece of info pertinent to evaluate the "fairness" of it all. I imagine though that would lessen the division......so no go I'll bet.I agree that a breakdown of base, benefits, overtime and bonuses would make the numbers more useful but I think it is important to release the numbers. For example, the OPP has a lot of members on this list which will make it very hard for them to claim that they are underpaid. I would like to see wage scales release for all union agreements and the number of members earning within each bracket (the names are not that important). For example, it should be easy for someone to look up the range of wages + benefits received by someone working as a janitor in a school. Edited March 29, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 I agree that a breakdown of base, benefits, overtime and bonuses would make the numbers more useful but I think it is important to release the numbers. For example, the OPP has a lot of members on this list which will make it very hard for them to claim that they are underpaid. I think those other stats are neccessary. Given the example of the OPP.....how many of all force is on this list.....and of the list is it all OT? It's important as not all members have access to this OT....due to outdated union agreement rules.....family committments, etc. Should those officers who "can't" gorge at the trough suffer through rollbacks, salary stagnation, etc.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I agree fully. The determination of a "fair" salary has nothing to do with comparing it to your job and your salary. Police in Ontario make double what police in England make. A small town cop in norther Ontario makes about one third more than a cop on the NYPD gets. A cop in Windsor makes more than the police chief across the river in Detroit. Average police salary, not counting benefits or overtime is approaching $90k. Think about that for a minute. We're paying cops, thousands of them, $100k a year? Same goes for firefighters. These costs are getting out of control. We're cutting back on the numbers of police and closing firehalls, lowering our police and fire protection in order to pay extravagant salaries to people who mostly have high school diplomas and in jobs which don't require huge salaries to draw more than enough qualified applicants. We have extortionate laws which require various companies to hire police officers at $60-$70hr - which, by the way, you can get a lawyer for - to direct traffic at construction sites or walk around fairgrounds. No, they can't hire security guards, they have to pay these huge fees for cops. It's pretty cushy for the cop, because on top of that he can take the next day off (paid) sick at work so he doesn't feel overworked. Firefighters? Cushiest job in the public service. Most of the time they're sitting around watching TV, or playing video games or sleeping. Most calls are now health related (90%) so that involves riding the truck to where there's been a heart attack or someone's fallen down the stairs, or on occasion, when there's been a car crash. Ever seen one of these scenes? Most of the firefighters on-scene are just standing around and talking, waiting to go back to the fire hall. They work 24 hr shifts, which is not a big stressor given they can sleep in their beds when tired. They then get the next 48 hrs off. Needless to say, on top of their salaries a lot of firefighters also have second jobs since they have so much time on their hands. Neither job is among Canada's most dangerous. The jobs which are dangerous tend to not pay very well, like taxi driver. University professors? Okay, I was wrong. This is even more cushy than firefighters. You take a few classes, but you have lots of time free to do your own thing. TAs do most of the teaching and marking. You're too important for that. You have poetry to write and trade papers to read, and experiments to perform. And you get a full year off every seven years, as a paid sabbatical. These and lots of other jobs, like teaching, have tons of people who want to do them. There is no need to pay such rich salaries, nor any evidence those rich salaries result in a higher quality of output. I mean, how do you even measure the output of teachers and professors? No matter how many of their students fail that doesn't impact their jobs. If crime rises or there's more fires all that means is people tell you to hire more cops and firefighters. I haven't seen a listing for other cities, but for Ottawa's sunshine list, 70% of those on it were 'first responders', meaning high school guys in polyester uniforms. Seventy percent of the top paid people in all of government, at the school board, municipal, or provincial level, including hospitals are first responders! There's something stupid about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) I agree that a breakdown of base, benefits, overtime and bonuses would make the numbers more useful but I think it is important to release the numbers. For example, the OPP has a lot of members on this list which will make it very hard for them to claim that they are underpaid. It doesn't matter what they claim. Police and firefighter wages are decided by arbitration, and the arbitration system is broken. It basically looks at whatever police service is making the most, and compares it to the ones under consideration, then bumps up the one under consideration to match the highest wages. How much work they do is not relevant. The ability of the particular town or city to pay that much is not relevant either. Only what other cops on other forces make. Municipalities have been begging the Ontario government to do something about the mandatory arbitration for years but the Liberals have turned a deaf ear. Not surprising given the way the unions are helping them get re-elected. Every year, 1,500 municipal leaders meet at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference. And every year they beg the province to help them contain the runaway compensation of first responders. Russ Powers, president of AMO said, “When it comes to wage and benefit increases, police and fire are in a class of their own . . . and it is not sustainable.” http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/08/30/contain_runaway_compensation_of_ontarios_first_responders.html Edited March 30, 2015 by Scotty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) $100K still means something. Yeah, like I said, $100,000 in 1996 when the list started means $145,000 today. That would make the list 83% smaller. Edited March 30, 2015 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Firefighters? Cushiest job in the public service. When I think of cushy jobs, I know the first thing that comes to mind is a job where you get to see children become accident victims or burn alive, all while having the luxury of hauling heavy equipment around in blazing temperatures. Super cushy. Sign me up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Yeah, like I said, $100,000 in 1996 when the list started means $145,000 today. That would make the list 83% smaller. How many people would like to earn $100K these days that have no opportunity to do so ? Also, the point about over capacity is apt I think. And overtime too. If we were more efficient with these resources we could do a lot more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Why do you keep defaulting to politicians? I have taken some care here to specifically compare deputy ministers in charge of health, education, finance and treasury, people with decades of experience in their area of expertise and considerable knowledge and education. I have not compared a police chief to a minister of defense but to the chief of defense staff. I have compared city administrators to the Clerk of the Privy Council. Yet you keep defaulting to only politicians... ?Myopia? Well I did concede the point to you on the Prof's and the sabaticals so theres that. Part of what I disagree with is once we have an election, a whole new bunch of people are now elected as sitting members in Parlaiment. (assumption is they all get replaced-yes I know it doesnt always happen but hang on ) One of those is Named Minister of X . With relatively no comparison experience to the sitting CEO of the outisde agency private or otherwise. Yes, Flaherty (RIP) seems to have known his stuff when he served, some other members have background in the Ministry they are appointed to. b But Ambrose certainly didnt. I just found 'some' of the comparisons not worthy is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I asked my dentist what he thought was a fair charge to his patients. He answered me; "If I charge half of what people are ready to pay when they phone me because they have a bad toothache I would be a multi-millionaire." I think he is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 How many people would like to earn $100K these days that have no opportunity to do so ? Also, the point about over capacity is apt I think. And overtime too. If we were more efficient with these resources we could do a lot more. What makes you think we're not being efficient with these resources? Also what does it matter how many people would like to earn $100k and don't? The fact is inflation means many more people ARE earning over $100k. We can see that from the sunshine list. It keeps growing when you don't account for inflation. If you want to compare apples to apples, then you need a base year value. When you've determined base year, then you can look at how many people are on the list between years. We'll get an idea of the true growth in spending, controlling for the inflation of the dollar. $100k in 1996 is now $145k. Look at it this way, the median (50% above, 50% below) family employment income in 2000 was $48,600 in 2012 $66,650. Persons not in families (that is not married nor single with children) was $21,200 in 2000 and $28,590 in 2012. Wages inflate. You can't compare 2000 dollars to 2012 dollars and in the case of the Sunshine List you can't compare the number of people on the list from one year to the next if the cut-off for the list remains constant at $100,000. Why? Because $100,000 when the list was created was worth A LOT more than it is today. Far fewer people were making that much. Taken to it's most extreme ends, imagine if the Sunshine List was still $100,000 in 2050. What do you expect it would look like? It would be huge. That doesn't mean we're spending more because all of this is relative to inflation. Put simply, you can't make the claim that people make too much or that the list is even growing until you control for inflation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 What makes you think we're not being efficient with these resources? The comment about how firefighter resources are spent rang true to me. And policemen ? Nobody has any idea how these things are managed in Toronto, except that crime is going down all the time and police costs are going up. The general increase in labour costs doesn't seem to be abating. We aren't given easy access to service level statistics, so I suppose it's possible that service is getting much much better but I doubt that. Also what does it matter how many people would like to earn $100k and don't? Because it's a significant wage, and people should realize that. The fact is inflation means many more people ARE earning over $100k. Yes, that is obvious. Put simply, you can't make the claim that people make too much or that the list is even growing until you control for inflation. Labour costs are not growing proportional to inflation as I understand the issue, they are growing in real terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Labour costs are not growing proportional to inflation as I understand the issue, they are growing in real terms. What does real terms denote? Less or more than inflation. If your wages are not keeping up with inflation I feel bad for you letting your employer cut your salary every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) What does real terms denote? Less or more than inflation. If your wages are not keeping up with inflation I feel bad for you letting your employer cut your salary every year.What an ignorant comment that illustrates why public service unions are a cancer. Most people in the private sector have wages that are determined via market competition. If wages get too high the company goes out of business no matter how much the employer may want to pay more. Not so with public servants who arrogantly claim they should never see their wages cut. Public service salaries should be tied to the economy - not inflation. If the economy does not grow public servant should not see any raises even if that means a wage cut after inflation. Edited March 30, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 What an ignorant comment that illustrates why public service unions are a cancer. Most people in the private sector have wages that are determined via market competition. If wages get too high the company goes out of business no matter how much the employer may want to pay more. Not so with public servants who arrogantly claim they should never see their wages cut. Public service salaries should be tied to the economy - not inflation. If the economy does not grow public servant should not see any raises even if that means a wage cut after inflation. Did you just assume I am a public servant because I advocated for wages a person negotiates for should follow inflation? An employee should be happy with whatever scraps the employer bestows? That sir is not competition. Your ignorant comment shows what is wrong in the suppressed private sector. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Did you just assume I am a public servant because I advocated for wages a person negotiates for should follow inflation?Nothing implied you personally were a public servant. I was commenting on public service unions and how they expect to be protected from market realities by confiscating money from people who do face market realities. An employee should be happy with whatever scraps the employer bestows?Who said I was talking about employees? A lot of people run small businesses and face the market everyday. They do not have any "sugar daddy" who will increase their wages. They can only make what the market is willing to pay and it is often brutal. Even when you do have employees you have many companies that close their doors because the can't make enough money. Is no job better that than a job with declining wages? These are questions the people working in the real world have to answer. Yet coddled public servants expect ever increasing wage and benefit packages paid for by these people. Edited March 30, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 What an ignorant comment that illustrates why public service unions are a cancer. Nonsense. You can't blame high public sector wages on unions. They're the public's fault for electing spineless, self-serving cretins to office, like the current Liberal party in Ontario. The people of Ontario got together and said "We want a party that will spend us into bankruptcy and give their employers anything they want!" and that's what they got. Not the unions fault. They're just doing what they were designed to do in terms of advancing the interests of their members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Not the unions fault. They're just doing what they were designed to do in terms of advancing the interests of their members.Except they are extremely dishonest when it comes to advancing the interests of the members. If teachers want more money it "because its for the kids" ignoring the fact that if the teachers really cared about kids they would reduce their wage expectations so the government could hire more teachers. Similar self serving arguments are used by the police/firefighters/etc. I would have a lot more respect for them they were honest and admitted it all about lining their pockets at the expense of others. Edited March 30, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) The comment about how firefighter resources are spent rang true to me. And policemen ? Nobody has any idea how these things are managed in Toronto, except that crime is going down all the time and police costs are going up.Oh I have an answer to that. Look only so far as Police costs for construction projects/road repairs and the rules put in place to assuage the Cops. No one is able to tell me, nor can anyone be able to convince me that , and this is real life witnessed by me, a Cop is need to be on hand for a utility company to close a turn section of a road on a sidestreet in a low volume neighbourhood. There is nothing that justifies this. Now, make sure you allocate the funds you need to spend as a utility and the demands placed on you. Thats one cops for X number of hours, add in the cost of his car being there for X number of hours. The cop was leaing against a post when I left and was still leaning against reading his phone an hour later when I came back. Who paid the bill? The utility. Who did they pay? The City general fund gets it. Who pays the cop? The city. See a problem here ? The job demands some control, but it certainly does not demand a high priced cop and cop car to do it. At a quarter of the price would be too expensive. IIRC the going price for a cop is $80 PH + car (dont forget the minimum hours they charge for). Think someone would do this for $20 an hour? Edited March 31, 2015 by Guyser2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 The comment about how firefighter resources are spent rang true to me. And policemen ? Nobody has any idea how these things are managed in Toronto, except that crime is going down all the time and police costs are going up. The general increase in labour costs doesn't seem to be abating. We aren't given easy access to service level statistics, so I suppose it's possible that service is getting much much better but I doubt that. Because it's a significant wage, and people should realize that. Yes, that is obvious. Labour costs are not growing proportional to inflation as I understand the issue, they are growing in real terms. Do you not think that maybe policing costs are on the rise since we now have a fetish for spying on civilians and arming cops to the teeth with military surplus so they can go bust the skulls of protesters who are standing up for their rights? The tools are more expensive and we're hiring more because we're building a police state designed to protect the oligarchy. This has little to do with John Smith making more than $100k. You have no idea how many hours these people are working, namely what kind of overtime they're putting in to get there. More importantly, you don't know anything about how long they've been on the forces, considering the aging population is going to have more time on the job, more experience, and therefore command a higher wage. All of that is in addition to the fact that when we control for inflation that Sunshine List collapses by 83%. So what's the problem? Is it with the individuals on the Sunshine List or is it something else entirely? Use some critical thinking and ask more questions about this before you accept the tired old whinging about other people's wages being too high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 The racket continues here in London. The presdient of UWO gets paid $400,000+ a year. He applied for a sabbatical, but never took it, and was paid an additional $400,000 on top of his already paid salary. And we wonder why tutition continues to skyrocket. If it wasn't for said sunshine list, this type of disgusting activity would still be kept in the dark. http://www.lfpress.com/2015/03/27/sunshine-list-shows-london-schools-and-hospitals-have-top-public-salaries It must be nice to earn almost a million dollars in a year all on the public dime, and the backs of students. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 But let's blame Mike Harris!!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 But let's blame Mike Harris!!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ....for once no......Eves, McGuinty.....and now Wynne are to blame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 It must be nice to earn almost a million dollars in a year all on the public dime, and the backs of students. No different than the CEO of McDonald's making >>> $1M off the backs of students. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.