Snow Removal is a Core Service right?

[Boges]

I think a lot of the money governments take from us is essentially flushed down the toilet. Meaning it's spent on things that really doesn't benefit the public in any way, shape or form.

Why does that hospital CEO need to be a millionaire? Does that make Healthcare better? Does allowing a teacher to bank his/her sick days make children smarter? Do we really need unionized employees to sell us alcohol at a government owned kiosk? Why are we paying money, we don't have, on Daycare for 4 year olds?

ETC! ETC! ETC!

But when I think of services we need from a government, I think of stuff like Snow Removal on Public Roads.

So why this?

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/04/29/ontarios-winter-roads-are-less-safe-since-privatization-auditor.html

Ontario saved millions but put lives in jeopardy by contracting out highway snow clearing and other winter road maintenance with poor oversight, Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk says in a damning new report.

“In the past, highways were cleared much faster,” the auditor told reporters Wednesday, noting that “preliminary results show an increase in the number of deaths on Ontario highways in 2013 where snow, slush or ice was a factor.”

It’s taking twice as long to clear highways to bare pavement after storms than it did five years ago under a new system of “performance-based” contracts with specified service levels and no more on-the-road supervision by Ministry of Transportation staff.

And before anyone says. SEE PRIVATIZATION DOESN'T WORK!!!! It does when you automatically take the lowest bidder. Money can still be saved if you actually ensure the private operator actually does what THEY'RE PAID TO DO!!!!

This has more to do with Public Safety than whatever Cops do nowadays with crime rate plummeting, yet costs rising.

It's not sexy and a vote winner to actually do your job to make roads safe. Much better to ban things like smoking on patios or pandering to teacher's unions by paying for daycare for 4 year olds.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Boges

[overthere]

If the snow is not being removed according to the contract, then the management and enforcement of the contract is a performance issue by the civil servants tasked with that duty.

If the contract scope itself is inadequate, the responsibility for changing that is also with the bureaucrats.

[Mighty AC]

If an auditor finds a problem and bureaucrats then fix the problem does the system work?

[eyeball]

Why does that hospital CEO need to be a millionaire?

Because millions is what it takes to attract CEO's these days or so we're told.

A million seems pretty cheap compared to most CEO's.

Edited April 30, 2015 by eyeball

[Boges]

Because millions is what it takes to attract CEO's these days or so we're told.

A million seems pretty cheap compared to most CEO's.

And they do an excellent job keeping Healthcare Costs in control don't they?

Edited April 30, 2015 by Boges

[eyeball]

Private sector CEO's do seem to do a better job of keeping their employees wages much lower relative to their own.

Maybe we should pay hospital CEO's more...about 150 times more I should think.

[Boges]

Private sector CEO's do seem to do a better job of keeping their employees wages much lower relative to their own.

Maybe we should pay hospital CEO's more...about 150 times more I should think.

Maybe. Of course the funding model in a private sector business and a public sector one is completely different.

It's also not the point of this thread.

Ontario is dangerously cutting costs on core services while wasting it on things that don't matter nearly as much.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Boges

[eyeball]

Maybe you need to pay the politicians more. So you can attract better ones.

[Boges]

Maybe you need to pay the politicians more. So you can attract better ones.

Pay everyone more. That's the answer to everything I guess.

You need to pay public servants more and more to attract people that waste more and more while the wage of a private sector employee stagnates. What can they do to fix that exactly? Certainly taking more money from the taxpayer doesn't help that situation does it?

I thought it was public service? It's like when the Head of a Charity makes in the high six figures. Sure he's supposed to make the charity money. But do I want to give money so that a guy can afford a BMW? I see it the same with Hospital CEO. But what do I know, I just have to pay my taxes like a good citizen.

And now, I'm supposed to believe they don't even have enough money to pay to clear snow from the road.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Boges

[eyeball]

Pay everyone more. That's the answer to everything I guess.

I definitely think paying ordinary workers more would help everyone.

You need to pay public servants more and more to attract people that waste more and more while the wage of a private sector employee stagnates. What can they do to fix that exactly? Certainly taking more money from the taxpayer doesn't help that situation does it?

Not from ordinary workers, no. I'd take it from companies that seem to have so much money they can afford to pay their CEO's up to 15000 times what the people actually producing stuff make.

I thought it was public service? It's like when the Head of a Charity makes in the high six figures. Sure he's supposed to make the charity money. But do I want to give money so that a guy can afford a BMW? I see it the same with Hospital CEO. But what do I know, I just have to pay my taxes like a good citizen.

Sounds like you expect something for nothing, in this case free labour.

And now, I'm supposed to believe they don't even have enough money to pay to clear snow from the road.

Like I said, tax the shit out of those who can afford to pay individuals hundreds of millions of dollars. Of course if the companies were smart they'd pay their CEO's less and their workers more. Then they and you would have more taxpayers with more to lose and more to gain, by joining you in getting pissed off at slack-assed public servants...which should really blamed on lousy politicians at the top where the public buck actually stops.

[Big Guy]

Eyeball suggested that "Maybe you need to pay the politicians more".

I fully agree. I am active in municipal politics and the campaigns of a few candidates. In our part of the country, a councillor gets $30,000 a year (there are 8 of them) while the Mayor gets $55,000. It costs about $10,000 for a potential councillor and about $20,000 for a potential mayor to finance a campaign. Because of this pay scale we have only those who are independently wealthy or those on government pensions (usually retired teachers or public servants) who are able to run.

While the support staff - the managers - average well over $100,000 a year, these elected officials are the ones who make the final decisions and also decide where money will be spent. Our municipal budget is in the $400 million range and we pay our decision makers peanuts compared to their influence of where this $400 million is going.

There are successful business persons, younger professionals and other super capable people who would love to run for office (and I believe would do an exceptional job) but cannot afford to take the cut in pay for those 4 years.

When you pay peanuts then you get what you pay for.

[Ash74]

Eyeball suggested that "Maybe you need to pay the politicians more".

I fully agree. I am active in municipal politics and the campaigns of a few candidates. In our part of the country, a councillor gets $30,000 a year (there are 8 of them) while the Mayor gets $55,000. It costs about $10,000 for a potential councillor and about $20,000 for a potential mayor to finance a campaign. Because of this pay scale we have only those who are independently wealthy or those on government pensions (usually retired teachers or public servants) who are able to run.

While the support staff - the managers - average well over $100,000 a year, these elected officials are the ones who make the final decisions and also decide where money will be spent. Our municipal budget is in the $400 million range and we pay our decision makers peanuts compared to their influence of where this $400 million is going.

There are successful business persons, younger professionals and other super capable people who would love to run for office (and I believe would do an exceptional job) but cannot afford to take the cut in pay for those 4 years.

When you pay peanuts then you get what you pay for.

That is not really true.

Brampton had one of the highest paid mayors in the country and she was caught with expense account charges that make Duffy blush.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/03/26/bramptons_susan_fennell_highest_paid_mayor_in_canada.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/brampton-mayor-susan-fennell-s-spending-to-be-reviewed-by-police-1.2728742

Look how much some of the first nations chiefs get paid for their troubles.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/salary-tracker-explore-the-earnings-of-first-nations-chiefs-across-canada/article20070005/

Look at the issues on the Rez's with spending abuses

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/52-first-nations-could-lose-funding-for-failing-to-report-finances-1.2122557

Just because you promise a good salary does not mean you will get talent.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Ash74

[Ash74]

The Ontario Liberals have made a lot of use out of the Wakerton water scandal that killed seven people. We will never know how many have died because The Liberals have yet again failed to do the job that the people of Ontario elected them to do.

Is there any dept that the liberals have not made a disaster in at some point since McGuinty was elected?

[GostHacked]

Maybe. Of course the funding model in a private sector business and a public sector one is completely different.

It's also not the point of this thread.

Ontario is dangerously cutting costs on core services while wasting it on things that don't matter nearly as much.

However that private sector is being paid by the public sector.

[Big Guy]

To Ash74 - I believe that adequate and comfortable compensation will draw far better candidates. It is up to the voter to choose the best qualified from that enlarged pool. My point is that a great salary will open the competition to far more and diversified people.

[overthere]

To Ash74 - I believe that adequate and comfortable compensation will draw far better candidates. It is up to the voter to choose the best qualified from that enlarged pool. My point is that a great salary will open the competition to far more and diversified people.

It is not easy to find driven, hard working and extraordinarily competent people who are willing to take a huge cut in income and the relentless personal abuse of public life.

And those people certainly exist- I know several very rich business people who would make great managers of the public purse. And isn't that the basis of good government- getting and spending the taxpayers money in the best and most efficient ways?They may be able afford to work for nothing, but they refuse to submit to the daily personal humiliations that come with public life.