1  2  3  4  Next

Actually it's kind of like the things I see in the workplace (mine and elsewhere) every single day, N.Say. Most of us don't have unions though.

The patients are the ultimate victims of the BC strike. Who they are the victim of is the question. I've been following the national reports on this, mostly through CBC and on a couple of poster boards. I've heard that $15.00/hour for mopping floors is exorbitant. Excuse me? You can't live decently in Winnipeg for $15.00/hour, nevermind Vancouver. I've heard that union members get 9 weeks of holidays a year. No mention that they have to be there 25+ years to get that, of course. If I worked anyplace for 25 years and got less than 10 weeks a year, I'd be pissed off.

Campbell and his government are an example of those that would have us all working for nothing so that they can have all they ever wanted. The union agreeing to the wage cut in exchange for some dubious job security is a major loss. They should have stayed out.

   

I was in BC one month ago and I was told by a Hospital worker that they had a signed contract with the government and the government tore it up. Then the government announced massive layoffs and that it would be contracting out services to a US company. They announced that there was a shortage of skilled workers in BC and that they would be bringing in a US company to do the infrastructure work for the olympics and they would also be importing skilled labor ( no doubt from Mexico at 10 cents on the dollar). The only way that they could make this happen is if they had the cooperation of Paulie and his gang in Ottawa. Gordon Campbell is the same kind of right wing creep that his father was. This opening of the borders to labor was one of the things that Paulie was supposed to sell out err, ahh, I mean, negotiate with Bushwacker when he was in Rome, err, ahh, I mean, Washington.

   

I was pretty disappointed that the union caved too! They gave a 15% pay cut (11% pay cut + 4% increase in hours) in return for ONLY cutting 600 jobs in the next year. WOO HOO... good job, union leaders. And this after getting their existing contract torn up by the Campbell Government last year (or was it the year before?). </P> On a side note: BC Ferries, now that it's private, is getting new ferries built. Oh, and what do you know. They're contracting out overseas. I heard they've requested bids from various companies, none of which are Canadian. THanks Gordo.

   

[QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita]On a side note: BC Ferries, now that it's private, is getting new ferries built. Oh, and what do you know. They're contracting out overseas. I heard they've requested bids from various companies, none of which are Canadian. THanks Gordo.[/QUOTE] The small towns are going to disappear also because the ferry corp will have to cut costs somewhere. They'll probably do it partially through some cuts to service so it will be harder to get around in the islands.

   

That sounds a lot like the suffering small towns on the prairies have gone through since CN was privatised, N Say. The grain elevators are disappearing because the trains don't stop so farmers have to haul further and further. That destroys the roads because of increased truck traffic.

While they are in the larger towns they do some shopping, so the businesses dry up and blow away. Towns that used to support several small businesses now have signs that say "no services" right under the town name. After a while even that sign disappears...not even a town.

   

It's funny how deregulating public sector work is always met with abrupt panicking and accusations of "FACIST REGIME" <br /> <br />We have seen two tier systems work better, and I mean BETTER all accross the world. Deregulating by no means is something to charge into. But careful consideration, and evolving is important if we are to maintain even the most basic services to BC, and to all Canada.

   

Civiltech:'We have seen two tier systems work better, and I mean BETTER all accross the world.' <br /> <br />Welcome to vive, care to give examples to support your above quote?

   

Yes, I'd like to be aware of documented examples where off-loading of a public service to the private sector has in the mid or long-term resulted in better (as safe or safer) service at a reduced overall cost to the public. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />

   

Denmark. <br /> <br />Australia. <br /> <br />United Kingdom. (Ok, this one may be a stretch, but they are miles ahead of us in my humble opinion!) <br /> <br />My understanding is that most countries accross the world have some form of two tier systems. This is not necessarily a good thing when you look at third world countries where the publice vs. private is totally off kilter and merely favours those in power. My above post is merely stating that when people first hear privatization they freak out. We all immediately look to our neighbours to the south and think "oh my god, is that what we are headed for?" I am one of them, and am continually watching diligently as I hope all of us are. I don't want a system anything like the US. In fact it could be argued that Clinton was attempting to model federal (and trying with each state) to evolve towards our system. (sort of...thats a very crude statement though eh?) However, we should not simply dismiss the idea of privatization, but look to see if it can help with our current issues in the system. This goes for many other forms of government privatization. almost ten years ago, snow plowing and salting the roads was privatized in Ontario. All heck broke loose re: public safety, etc. However, the province saved huge amounts of money, smaller work forces performed the same job as the huge juggernaught gov't could for the same salaries (and more in many instances) and public safety was paramount. All that happened was the taxpayer got some relief.... <br /> <br />Now, I am not trying to compare ploughing roads to Health Care. However, I am not so quick to dismiss the concept of privatization. Test models in our health care system, debate in the legislature (which I admit the NDP are quite good at not leaving any stone unturned...we need this!!) This is what we need. <br /> <br />I've noticed quite a left of center slant to this site which didn't hit me when I first visited. So, now that I've painted a big target on me, let me have it! Am I totally out to lunch here? <br /> <br />Regards, <br /> <br />civilT.

   

[QUOTE BY= Reverend Blair] Actually it's kind of like the things I see in the workplace (mine and elsewhere) every single day, N.Say. Most of us don't have unions though. <br /> <br />The patients are the ultimate victims of the BC strike. Who they are the victim of is the question. I've been following the national reports on this, mostly through CBC and on a couple of poster boards. I've heard that $15.00/hour for mopping floors is exorbitant. Excuse me? You can't live decently in Winnipeg for $15.00/hour, nevermind Vancouver. I've heard that union members get 9 weeks of holidays a year. No mention that they have to be there 25+ years to get that, of course. If I worked anyplace for 25 years and got less than 10 weeks a year, I'd be pissed off. <br /> <br />Campbell and his government are an example of those that would have us all working for nothing so that they can have all they ever wanted. The union agreeing to the wage cut in exchange for some dubious job security is a major loss. They should have stayed out. [/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />This may be hard to stomach....but the world does not owe you a living. Nobody owes you 10 weeks of vacation. And if you don't like making 15/hour mopping floors and (only gettting 9 weeks of vacation after 25 years<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> ), why don't you find another profession? <br /> <br />Campbell has had to make some tough choices with an administration handed to him on the verge of bankrupcy. He isn't acting like a "Liberal." He is in damage control mode trying to bring the province back from the brink! Some of his moves would make Mike Harris blush, but tough times call for tough measures....it will not always be that way....simply put...if there is no money in the coffers, there is no money to spend! <br /> <br /> <br />Oh boy....I can feel the bullseye being painted on my forhead right now!! <br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'> <br /> <br />(All in good fun here I hope!) <br /> <br />Civilt

   

I know that what you term two tier systems (and I off-loading of public services to the private sector) exist both here and in other nations. <br /> <br />I was seeking an example, or examples, of situations where this off-loading of services has resulted in service (and safety) gains and reduced costs. <br /> <br />My understanding is that in most of cases the costs for the privatized service remain the same or become greater and the service (or safety levels) decrease. <br /> <br />The main difference is that most of the expenditures end up in fewer pockets, with the worker getting the short end of the stick. <br /> <br />Placing public services, particularly those involving public safety, in 'for profit' hands seems to me a sure recipe for disaster. The only people who benefit are the government employers, who are able to wash their hands of the annoyance associated with having to deal with employees and pawn accountability off elsewhere, perhaps with increased costs, and the private sector entity paid to provide the service. <br /> <br />In all truth, the public sector could perform quite a number of jobs more efficiently than the private however is prevented from doing so for political reasons. <br /> <br />I guess the issue re: B.C. is similar to many in the private sector, in that when it comes time to pay for management screw-ups it's always the workers who take the brunt.

   

Civiltech, <br /> <br />I don't have a problem with people looking into private care. In my eyes, it's a waste of time, though. Theoretically, public delivery of any service can cut out a middle man's profits. Thus, public delivery, in theory, is always more cost-efficient than for-profit delivery. <br /> <br />However, there is the issue of the extravagant bureaucracy (which, in analogy, is the same as the middleman's profits in terms of cost-effectiveness). If we were to focus our energy on providing suitable public-delivery care rather than immediatly panicking when our system begins to fail and buying into this private-care craze, we would be better off in the long run. Ultimately, a public system has more POTENTIAL to be cost-effective, so we should work hard to realize that potential. <br /> <br />As for Gordo's savage cuts, I think it's a lot easier to be nonchalant about them when you happen to live in the city. Where I come from, they close 2 or 3 schools in the district every year. They've been forced to switch to a 4-day school week to cut costs, even without running a pilot program to find out how it would affect students. And many government workers have been laid off. I could go on and on listing all the cuts he's made in my community, but that's not relevant as you've already acknowledged them. <br /> <br />What is important is that those cuts weren't necessary. Why is it that the first thing Gordo did when he got into office was to cut taxes for the wealthiest British Columbians? And why is it that suddenly everyone's forgotten that the NDP, under Ujal Dosanj (don't get me wrong, I don't like the guy) balanced the budget in their final year in office. And what about the fact that after all of Gordo's tax cuts to 'revitalise the economy' and all that privatisation, he still hasn't managed to balance a budget? Think about it. He can't even balance a budget when he's making billions selling off assets like BC Hydro, BC Ferries, and BC Rail. BC Hydro makes a lot of money. Selling it off undermines our future ability to balance budgets. And it also binds us to continue selling power to the US under NAFTA. Oh, and remember all those tax cuts? Well about a year after Gordo cut taxes, he realized that he couldn't balance a budget without those taxes, so he just re-enacted them. <br /> <br />What bothers me most about Gordo is the corruption. I mean, I can understand if someone truly believes that right-wing economics (reagonomics) work. I don't agree with them, but I understand their reasoning. <br /> <br />But that's not Gordo. He's already been in a number of fiascos, any one of which would have cost an NDP leader his position. <br /> <br />What I don't understand is how people can support Gordo after all he's done. After he enacted privacy laws that make it impossible to find out anything about the BC Rail deal - how much we got, what we gave up, how long we gave it up for. How can we judge a government who refuses to show us what it's doing with our resources and money? <br /> <br />Especially when we start making the connections between him and other scandals. Why do the RCMP keep raiding the legislative offices? Why does Gordo's government have so many employees tied in with organized crime? Why did Christy Clark just resign a few weeks ahead of an investigation into her connection to underhanded family dealings (involving her husband and brother, I believe)? <br /> <br />The real problem with Gordo's government is that they've cost British Columbians a lot and they haven't really given us much in return. And their prediction that our economy would turn around as a result of tax cuts didn't come to light. The economy turned aroud a bit, but if you look at the numbers, it's all from the all-time-high oil prices bringing in huge revenues in the Northeast. <br /> <br />So yes, Gordo did make some tough choices - he chose to tear up legally binding contracts. He chose to take away the right of teaching assistants under the claim that teaching assistants comprise an essential service. He used this same argument about the HEU employees he forced back to work, the only difference being that he was supporting contracting out (privatising) their jobs with the justification that they aren't an essential service. And when they went on strike, it pretty much shut the hospitals down. So much for the essential service argument. <br /> <br />In my opinion, there's something fundamentally wrong with taking away someone's right to negotiate a contract. Collective bargaining is credited with such things as... the 12 hour workday (and later the 8 hour workday), the abolition of child labour, labour safety standards, equal opportunity employment, etc etc. And now Gordo is attacking this very process. <br /> <br />Oh ya.. Civiltech, welcome to the forum!!! I hope I didn't dissuade your participation with my response. Just remember that my opinion isn't worth any more than yours. And hopefully you'll have a good response <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> (By the way, does your name suggest some connection to civil engineering?)

   

Unfortunately public sector, though it rules out profit, also rules out the competitive spirit. I just left the public sector and returned to the private dejected with the way things are run. <br />When you give one body a monopoly, it tends to get spoiled, and though may preach fiscal management, has long ago lost touch with what that really means. Throwing more money at a chronic problem isn't an answer always. Very often it's a band-aid solution. I would dare say that the health care system also suffers from this issue. Well, here in Ontario at least. And we spend more now on Health Care then ever before!!! Over 22 Billion when the Progressive Conservatives left office last year. <br /> <br />It is quite possible that a two tiered system is not the best way to go in Canada. I am willing to accept that AFTER I see some research and action by the Gov't of Canada, or more importantly, the respective provinces. I do not accept the Royal Commission of Roy Romanov at it's face value. As a staunch NDP, and previous leader of a provincial party, it wasn't a big surprise his answer would be "throw more money at it, Canada has to make a choice between going down a scary road, or holding dear it's present system with more money!!!" <br />Funny that the NDP can be so progressive when it comes to social issues such as Gay rights, homelesness, international peacekeeping, human rights, etc., but when it comes to fiscal responsibility, budgeting, and evolving with new needs it seems to get the jitters. I dare say I could charge the Conservatives with the exact opposite! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> There has to be the best of both worlds. And no, I don't mean fence sitting like the Liberals! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> (Any other political party I should take a cheap shot at?) <br /> <br />I listed a few countries with 2 tier that have excelled. Denmark is a shining example where there is a private sector to help take the strain from the public sector, but does not impede it. AS a Conservative I am not looking for a pure Private Sector. It would be stupid for anyone to consider removing our current system. It is something we all hold dear, and can better in the future. But evolving with different needs for different times is not something to panic about. <br /> <br />And calling a gov't fascist is simply rhetoric, and takes away from any meaningfull debate. That bothers me, and just doesn't make sense. Its like running for the NDP in Alberta, (or the Conservatives in New Brunswick!) <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <br /> <br />(Yes, to answer your question I'm a Civil and have the student loans to prove it! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> ) <br /> <br />

   

[QUOTE BY= Calumny] <br />I was seeking an example, or examples, of situations where this off-loading of services has resulted in service (and safety) gains and reduced costs. <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Picked up from a British Paper recommending some changes or evolution to their own system in response to Denmarks two tier system. (Wonder where we would be in the mix of things.....I know in 2000 the UN ranked us 30 for Health Care Services in the world....interesting to note that the US was ranked 36 I believe....not that much worse!) <br /> <br />The report: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Denmark.pdf

   

Well civiltech, you bring up some interesting points. Saying that running for the NDP in Alberta doesn't make sense is one that stands out for me. Do you think Albertan's deserve any less democracy than the rest of Canada? Choice is always the democratic way. Presently we have a huge democratic deficit, we have the majority of seats Conservative, with no accountability, no disclosure, the people aren't told where their money goes, but because we are considered to be a rich province we shouldn't care? Well we won't be rich for long if the government continues to spend money on their corporate agendas, there is always a bottom to the trough! The liberals hold 7 seats and are a very weak opposition, the NDP hold 2 and they hold the conservatives feet to the fire as much as they can with only 10 sitting days last time the Legislature sat, and Klein showed up for 4. How much work gets done in 10 days? I wonder how much would get done if we paid them by the day? <br /> <br />Saying the NDP are not fiscally responsible is b.s., Saskatchewan has been running a very responsible government, balancing it's budget before Alberta, and they had very few resources to work with; now that they are experiencing a diamond boom, I believe they will prosper and good for them. Romanow is a true Canadian, I have read much of his work and am impressed with his values and ability to get to the point. Throwing more money at a situation is a simplification of the issue, they underfunded for so long, that yes they need to reinvest. <br /> <br />Throwing money at health care is not the only answer, the system wasn't broke, so they made sure that it became broke, so that they could bring in the consultants and the corporate agenda to research how it could be fixed. The consultants and research costs money, were we consulting to see how to break it,and then here is the magic recipe for a fix? When they decided to farm out the laundry services, they cut jobs with benefits for the workers, consolidated the laundry in a corporate machine, now when we have a health epidemic we can't contain it in the hospital because we ship the germs out witht he laundry! The workers are now working for the corporation, earning less money, how did that help the situation? That is just one example. Blowing up a hospital when you have a bed shortage, selling a couple and then declare, 'oh my, what shall we do...oh wait here is a great company that can build us another!' Would you call that fiscally responsible? <br /> <br />As for Gordo, well Klein says he is more conserative than liberal and he should know, cause he was liberal before he saw the opportunities in the con party! There is very little difference between the liberals and the cons these days, they both serve one master, the corporation! The NDP has never waivered, they serve the people, first and foremost in every way, and they are so secure in their own sexuality that they aren't afraid to give equal rights to those that don't share their sexual persuasion. They aren't afraid to be pioneers, just as they weren't when they brought in Universal Healthcare in the first place the liberals and conseratives have been trying to crush it ever since, because they serve the middle man. <br /> <br />From what I see, federally and provincially the liberals and conseratives are following an agenda which serve corporate greed, lines the pockets of the few, denies workers basic fair working conditions and wages, promotes programs which further create poverty and health issues. Denying education funding and funding for youth programs has contributed to youth obesity in this country which will further impact the health system and our workforce for years to come. No they don't work for the people! <br /> <br />Our health care system is going to be overworked as these corporate greedies continue to make policy that overlooks the basics of society, including their disregard for our environment. The old saying, you don't shit where you live, hasn't reach them yet, but when we are all wallowing in it, they will declare, 'whatever will we do, we had no idea, should we throw money at it, no wait lets increase our military'?? So out of touch with reality and the real lives of the people their policies affect, only real people can make the changes.

   

1  2  3  4  Next