The sunshine list

[Michael Hardner]

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?

No, I think this trend goes back to the 20th century.

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.

Well, you're right in that I haven't done a detailed look at things like employment levels, service levels, years of service. However, the people who are discussing these things are NOT the usual suspects (right-wing radio jocks and so on), so that makes me sit up and take notice. Secondly, all levels of government as well as the labour blocs conspire to NOT give us details on costs. You have to do a bit of research to get this kind of information; I suspect that that phenomenon happens naturally, as it constitutes self-reporting on fiscal performance.

If these things were happening due to better/more service to individuals, I suspect that governments would be falling over themselves to tell us that.

In the meantime, the very level-headed David Soknacki was the one who brought this to my attention last year:

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/08/18/cost_of_fire_police_unsustainable_amo_president_says.html

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?

The Sunshine List on its own tells us nothing. All it does is ignite the discussion, similarly to how the contractor expensing a tea & bagel ignited a discussion about eHealth in Ontario. Those discussions are necessarily dumb and in fact they never go anywhere productive. What happened to eHealth ?

My point is that there is such a thing as excessive costs, expenses that need to be looked at, and the time is now for reasonable people to discuss these things rather than the hot-button pushers.

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.

It's got nothing to do with "other peoples wages", nor "fairness"... It's got to do with market value, economic factors, and value for services. I'm not the one here who is gearing up for the Harris-era "privatization" discussion, far from it. I want to go further. If we're going to have a large and well-paid civil service, then let's at least agree on why.

[Shady]

No different than the CEO of McDonald's making >>> $1M off the backs of students.

There's a big difference. One is public and one is private. One involves tax money, and one involves none.

[Michael Hardner]

There's a big difference. One is public and one is private. One involves tax money, and one involves none.

It's a difference, and - yes - maybe a big difference. But at the heart of it, the government needs to make sure the whole economy works, including the flows of private money, investment and so on. The economy is managed to ensure the well-being of the people, not the other way around. We can't forget that.

[Shady]

It's a difference, and - yes - maybe a big difference. But at the heart of it, the government needs to make sure the whole economy works, including the flows of private money, investment and so on. The economy is managed to ensure the well-being of the people, not the other way around. We can't forget that.

What works is completely subjective. It's the governments job to ensure a good business climate, but that's about it. I don't believe in a command and control economy that the government "manages." They can't even manage their own affairs let alone a complex free market economy.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Shady

[Michael Hardner]

What works is completely subjective.

To a point, sure... but certain policies last a long time because they work. When they go away, they need to improve on what they replace.

It's the governments job to ensure a good business climate, but that's about it.

Which is why we should all be bringing slavery back as soon as possible.

[guyser]

The racket continues here in London. The presdient of UWO gets paid $400,000+ a year.

How does one reconcile the fact that big oil gets inordinate support in the form of tax dollars who in turn pay themselves huge salaries at the top versus the Pres of UoW?

[Shady]

How does one reconcile the fact that big oil gets inordinate support in the form of tax dollars who in turn pay themselves huge salaries at the top versus the Pres of UoW?

Example?

[guyser]

Example?

Alberta.

Anyone of them. Please, dont be cute, you know exactly what I am referencing.

[Michael Hardner]

Please, dont be cute, you know exactly what I am referencing.

You should actually produce a cite if asked. If Shady concurs that executive salaries in this area are a problem then you can skip past that part.

[Shady]

Alberta.

Anyone of them. Please, dont be cute, you know exactly what I am referencing.

I don't know what you're referencing. Are you talking about tax grants? Tax credits? Something else? A company that gets a specfic tax credit, as to keep more of their own money, isn't tantamount to a public entity that exists completely on tax dollars. But again, I'm not really sure what you're referencing.

[guyser]

I don't know what you're referencing. Are you talking about tax grants? Tax credits? Something else? A company that gets a specfic tax credit, as to keep more of their own money, isn't tantamount to a public entity that exists completely on tax dollars. But again, I'm not really sure what you're referencing.

What public entity exists completely on tax money?

[guyser]

You should actually produce a cite if asked. If Shady concurs that executive salaries in this area are a problem then you can skip past that part.

[Shady]

What public entity exists completely on tax money?

Are you going to explain what you're referencing regarding Alberta?

[guyser]

Are you going to explain what you're referencing regarding Alberta?

Yea sure....but there was a two part question in your post so I wanted to clear that up before I answered, saves time.

Thanks in advance

[Bob Macadoo]

There's a big difference. One is public and one is private. One involves tax money, and one involves none.

....which concerns you more public dime or students backs? Seems your concern for students has waned. I find it funny that the expectation is for gov't to run like a business.....but wages must be low b/c "your money" is involved.......which is it......let it run or artificially interfere?

[Shady]

....which concerns you more public dime or students backs? Seems your concern for students has waned. I find it funny that the expectation is for gov't to run like a business.....but wages must be low b/c "your money" is involved.......which is it......let it run or artificially interfere?

You're conflating two seperate issues. And no, my expectation isn't for government to run like a business. If it was attached to economic reality, most of the salaries being paid would be a lot lower. As a pro-big government advocate, you should be especially sensitive to wasteful spending, as it influences the public's confidence in the government being able to competently run these institutions.

[Bob Macadoo]

You're conflating two seperate issues. And no, my expectation isn't for government to run like a business. If it was attached to economic reality, most of the salaries being paid would be a lot lower. As a pro-big government advocate, you should be especially sensitive to wasteful spending, as it influences the public's confidence in the government being able to competently run these institutions.

Pro-big gov't is not quite apropos for me......I am however sensitive to wasteful spending. Sensitive doesn't mean ideological though. I wouldn't inject my arbitrary view as a requirement in wage schedule determination. Communist evaluation of worth is not required.....I'm sure you would agree.

[Shady]

Pro-big gov't is not quite apropos for me......I am however sensitive to wasteful spending. Sensitive doesn't mean ideological though. I wouldn't inject my arbitrary view as a requirement in wage schedule determination. Communist evaluation of worth is not required.....I'm sure you would agree.

And what does any of that have to do with the double pay of the Western president, costing close to 1 million dollars of tax money? What does that have to do with other salaries? What does that have to do with tuition rising? You're just playing a shell game.

[Bob Macadoo]

And what does any of that have to do with the double pay of the Western president, costing close to 1 million dollars of tax money? What does that have to do with other salaries? What does that have to do with tuition rising? You're just playing a shell game.

Only in that he had a negotiated contract that said he could take a sabbatical.......they evaluated the cost of having him MIA for a year and thought it cost more than a year of his salary. We could've left the Tax Payer's Party (in lieu of People's Party) to determine he should forgo that pay for the good of the Party.......is that what you want?

[cybercoma]

The Sunshine List on its own tells us nothing.

Then we agree.

My point is that there is such a thing as excessive costs, expenses that need to be looked at, and the time is now for reasonable people to discuss these things rather than the hot-button pushers.

Sort of a banal point, don't you think? Nobody's going to argue otherwise that there's no such thing as excessive costs and that expenses don't need to be looked at. Or are you saying the current costs are excessive? If so, how are you determining that?

[cybercoma]

I don't believe in a command and control economy that the government "manages."

Of course you do. You blame Obama for the US economy constantly.

[Michael Hardner]

Then we agree.

Sort of a banal point, don't you think?

Kind of ... in the same way "the emperor has no clothes" is banal.

Nobody's going to argue otherwise that there's no such thing as excessive costs and that expenses don't need to be looked at. Or are you saying the current costs are excessive? If so, how are you determining that?

I'm determining it from the article I linked. If they DO need to be looked at, then when ? And by whom ?

[Argus]

Kind of ... in the same way "the emperor has no clothes" is banal.

I'm determining it from the article I linked. If they DO need to be looked at, then when ? And by whom ?

Just how many people in any profession or job, public or private, get to take a year off with full pay every seven years like professors? Now we learn some CEOs at universities get the same thing, only for them it's every five years. What exactly is the logic behind this? What benefit does the university derive from it? And why do we pay university presidents more than we pay the prime minister of Canada? Why are universities being so generous with my money?

And don't tell me it's because of their spectacular skill set given the guy in charge of the University of Ottawa the last some years is Allan Rock.

[Bob Macadoo]

Just how many people in any profession or job, public or private, get to take a year off with full pay every seven years like professors? Now we learn some CEOs at universities get the same thing, only for them it's every five years. What exactly is the logic behind this? What benefit does the university derive from it?

It's a holdover from when we used to in this economy promote from within rather than parachute in untested management with the assumption that if he can fund raise for cancer as a CEO......he must be qualified to be a university president.

It was a contract term to entice your senior deans up but also allow them to keep their brain alive in focussing on their area of study.

It's useless now since we only care for universities to fund their own way with "charity economic specialists".

Edited March 31, 2015 by Bob Macadoo

[Argus]

It's a holdover from when we used to in this economy promote from within rather than parachute in untested management with the assumption that if he can fund raise for cancer as a CEO......he must be qualified to be a university president.

It was a contract term to entice your senior deans up but also allow them to keep their brain alive in focussing on their area of study.

It's useless now since we only care for universities to fund their own way with "charity economic specialists".

Given university professors don't do much teaching nowadays anyway it is indeed useless. And who says they need brains to do their jobs? Just let the TAs do everything, like normal.