NS Education Minister Jane Purves email address
G. Wayne Hines
> <remo...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >I thought it would be nice to pass this along. Are you fed up with the
> >janitors' strike and all the BS that has been going with it. Well, I am.
>
> Me too. Especially all the BS coming out of the union. Paying $14 an
> hour to clean bathrooms is a bit much.
In other words, just because they're doing a job many (most?)
people find distasteful, they should not be paid a wage that
would allow them to support themselves and/or their families.
$14 an hour is just over $29 thousand for the year, if they're
paid for 52 weeks. If they're not paid for 2 months during the
summer, that drops to $24 thousand.
> >in retaliation against Jane's uppity attitude toward education and its
> >employees, I am giving you all her email address so that you can forward your
> >own special comments just to her. Oh, by the way, you can call her office too
> >at 424-4236.
>
> I'm sure her secretary will deal with each one.
And some of the good ones may get posted along with other jokes
on the bulletin board.
This contract dispute has nothing to do with the education
minister. The labour minister could introduce legislation to
force the janitors back to work and send the dispute to
arbitration.
The workers have been out long enough now that the school board
could give them everything they wanted, and it likely would not
cost the board anything over the next 2 or 3 years because the
board has saved so much money by not having to pay the janitors
during the strike. The strikers will never regain the wages
they've lost through striking.
There have been suggestions the school board wants to contract
out the maintenance work to Sodexho-Marriott. Our tax dollars at
work, supporting a big U-S company.
gwh
--
# G. Wayne Hines Kentville, Nova Scotia, Canada
#
# w.d....@ns.sympatico.ca
#
# Windows: A rich man's poor excuse for an operating system
#
KP
>In other words, just because they're doing a job many (most?)
>people find distasteful, they should not be paid a wage that
>would allow them to support themselves and/or their families.
Not at all. They just shouldn't be paid twice the going rate for that
kind of work because they happen to work for the government. Would you
pay twice what everyone else bid to mow your grass because the high
bidder happene to be in a union? This is our money that is being
frittered away on a sweet union deal. It's time for reality to set it.
>There have been suggestions the school board wants to contract
>out the maintenance work to Sodexho-Marriott. Our tax dollars at
>work, supporting a big U-S company.
I have absolutely no problem with our tax dollars being spent wisely,
regardless of where those dollars are going.
HA
> >There have been suggestions the school board wants to contract
> >out the maintenance work to Sodexho-Marriott. Our tax dollars at
> >work, supporting a big U-S company.
>
> I have absolutely no problem with our tax dollars being spent wisely,
> regardless of where those dollars are going.
You are the type who doesnt care much about how we get sold out to
the lowest bidder all the time either. One of the principle reasons
why there is such an income gap and growing poverty cycle in this
country.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Competition breeds poverty. Cooperation builds nations. Trust fools
and evil men to tell you otherwise."
My Opinion
to the lowest bidder either. Why should we (the taxpayer) pay more than
the 'going rate'? If other people are prepared to do the same job for less
(tax) dollars then what's the problem? Haligonians are still employed, the
job gets done, and we have some dollars left over for other services.
If people don't like which side of the poverty gap they're on, then they
should do something about it. I have no sympathy with people that believe
they should get more than the market rate for a job just because they
chose not to get the qualifications or work-experiency necessary to get
the big bucks.
JF.
"HA" <man_nor...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3AF44A...@NOSPAMyahoo.com...
G. Wayne Hines
wrote:
> I also am the type who doesn't care about how much work is given
> to the lowest bidder either. Why should we (the taxpayer) pay more than
> the 'going rate'? If other people are prepared to do the same job for less
> (tax) dollars then what's the problem? Haligonians are still employed, the
> job gets done, and we have some dollars left over for other services.
Sounds good in theory, but...
Say the school board is paying a million dollars a year using
its own employees, at $14/hour, to clean and maintain schools.
That million dollars is spent in the Halifax area to buy goods
and services for the employees.
Along comes the big U-S company, and gets a contract to do the
work for $900,000. It pays its sla, uh, employees 500 thousand
dollars at $6/hour and takes the other 400 thousand south of the
border. The 100 thousand dollar "saving" to the school board is
not used for other services, because it didn't really exist
unless there was a budgeted expense for it. That effectively
takes half a million dollars out of the local economy, causing
job losses or reduced wages for area workers and reduced income
for area businesses.
> If people don't like which side of the poverty gap they're on, then they
> should do something about it. I have no sympathy with people that believe
> they should get more than the market rate for a job just because they
> chose not to get the qualifications or work-experiency necessary to get
> the big bucks.
Did you ever think that perhaps the people getting the big bucks
are the ones who are being paid too much? And the ones doing
jobs that most people don't even want to think about are being
paid too little?
David Skene
show auditable trails of where the money is spent and how much profit is
made.
Let's look at each part below, though, as there may be other facts to
consider.
"G. Wayne Hines" <w.d....@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:HU4cdQdxQ4gO-pn2-VhTQ6chMWvCz@localhost...
...
> Say the school board ... its own employees, at $14/hour, to clean...
> That million dollars is spent in the Halifax area to buy goods
> and services for the employees.
>
> ...big U-S company, ...gets a contract .. work for $900,000.
>...pays ...employees 500 thousand dollars at $6/hour
>...takes 400 thousand south of the border.
> The 100 thousand dollar "saving" to the school board is
> not used for other services, because it didn't really exist
So, since "profit" is usually controlled to a maximum for any government
contracts that will likely be difficult. The same labour force is available
and they will have to pay wages at whatever is the "going rate". It's
actually probably EASIER to get bigger pay raises in such a scenario. When
privatized, the company MUST meet its contractual commitments. They can't
afford to have strikes or, subject to the contract, they may even be liable
for the costs of alternative services. Maybe this scenario would actually be
a BETTER solution for the poor people who are currently being forced to
strike?
Now, from an even more likely business point of view, IF indeed there was
really $400,000 to take south of the border, then that means some local
businessperson will be just as smart and relaize the true cost of the work
and could take on the same job for $550,000 or $600,000 or whatever and
SIGNIFICANTLY undercut the big US company.
>...effectively
> takes half a million dollars out of the local economy, causing
> job losses or reduced wages for area workers and reduced income
> for area businesses.
See above. If the argument holds that there was a half million dollars
"extra" then NOTHING is taken out of the local economy as the cost of the
job bid would also decrease.
> > If people don't like which side of the poverty gap they're on, then they
> > should do something about it.
...
> Did you ever think that perhaps the people getting the big bucks
> are the ones who are being paid too much? And the ones doing
> jobs that most people don't even want to think about are being
> paid too little?
I think his point was that people are always eligible to vote with their
feet.
As with any job, even big paying ones, when things get too far out of whack
with what "the going rate" is, people will move elsewhere and companies are
forced to pay more to attract the required skills.
David Skene
"Yazzi Wauntwon II" <yesIw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3af442bd...@news1.sympatico.ca...
> Go ahead. Contract the work out to some out-of-province mega company.
> Will a large company not have its own employees? When the unemployment
> rate goes up, and the UIC and welfare payments go up, where will the
> savings come from in that?
Out of province employees will be too far away to clean locally.
Employees already working for the mega-company locally will already be busy
working full time.
Just as the existing cleaning with the school board who must already be busy
full time there is no reason to expect any different at the "mega-employer".
One can reasonably assume that if it takes x (whatever x is) employees to do
a job, it's the same no matter which company signes the pay cheque. Now, a
new company may have better tools or more efficient processes, but I don't
believe that's the point you were making.
> Or will the present janitors get hired by this big US company? And
> won't they still have a union, demanding that its employees get paid a
> wage they can live on?
Any reason to assume that WON'T happen?
If not, what's the argument? This would seem to favour privatization.
> But the government will be happy. They can point at how the work was
> contracted out and claim that they took the lowest bid, without having
> to take the responsibility for that lowest bid, even when it's at or
> about the same level as they're arguing over now. Instead of paying
> $12/hr (or whatever the current rate is) for a janitor, now they'll
> pay $12/hr, plus the company's overhead, plus the cost of the
> bureaucracy to administer that contract.
But...and here is the key...government will be doing the job of governing
and business will be doing what it does best. By the way, there HAVE been
examples of government contracting out where the cost went down overall and
service went up. How? Well...you have to factor in all the other things.
Take home pay overall may even have gone up for long time workers. Maybe the
people draw their early retirement pension AS WELL as go work at the new
company too. Governments have people who write pay cheques, order supplies,
process paper, etc. You may well find THOSE are the costs that go down when
you contract out the basic service, not the end cost of the employee pay
cheque who is cleaning.
> Of course, with the loss of responsibility goes the loss of control.
> As the employer, the government will be able to demand that the
> company do what it wishes, and the company will be able to say one or
> more of a) it's not in the contract; b) it's against regulations / the
> law / company policy, take us to court if you really want it; or c) we
> can't because we have an agreement (binding in law) with the union.
> (Companies, unlike the government, can't just change the law when it's
> convenient.)
One could probably assume that you only get to play that "it's not in my
contract" once in business. The next time the job is bid you may have a hard
time winning it if it was really felt that was part of the job. Also, it
will probably be in the next contract, just to make sure.
> And as the lowest bidder, when the company cuts costs (and corners) to
> get that lowest bid, we (or our children) get to deal with the kind of
> job they do, and the government can't do anything about it because
> they are stuck in a contract they can't get out of for however many
> years.
As above, there have been instances where contracting out saves costs and
service goes up. Moving away from the government theme, Bill Gates of
Microsoft has made MORE money for Microsoft and contracting out all but the
core services. Bill Gates has made a lot of money and can't be all wrong.
For reference his book Business at the Speed of Thought discusses this
concept.
David Skene
> On Sat, 5 May 2001 14:15:53 -0300, "My Opinion"
> <opi...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
>
> > I also am the type who doesn't care about how much work is given
> > to the lowest bidder either. Why should we (the taxpayer) pay more than
> > the 'going rate'?
>
> don't see prices coming down any, though.
I think his point was that if one group gets paid $14/hr and 90% of the
people doing the same job elsewhere in Halifax get $12/hr then that is the
going rate.
On the other hand if the group in question is getting $14/hr and 90% of the
people doing the same job in Halifax get $16/hr than is "the going rate".
Isn't that the same argument used when someone's union is able to negotiate
a raise - because that's what everyone else is getting?
David Skene
...
> Since when does an arm's length contract force the contractor to be
> audited, and even if it did, what would the government do about it?
> Demand they give back part of the profits they made?
Yes... the audits probably also would probably take place each year. Maybe
the second year you would get less than you planned if you made too much.
This is VERY common in government contracting. Government can have the
bidding company certify that the government is getting the preferred rate
for all services and to certify what the profit rate is. Contracts are
subject to audit to ensure conformance.
> Most companies build notwithstanding clauses into their contracts. But
> if you find one that doesn't, I'm sure there are many unions around
> who would be only too happy to represent its employees in such an
> arrangement. "We want a huge raise, or we're going on strike for 6
> months." Could the employees afford to do that? Probably not. (How
> long has the current strike been dragging on?) Could the company
> afford to take the chance, knowing they would have to pay for costs of
> alternative services? Why even worry about it. Build in a
> notwithstanding "strike, natural disaster, etc., etc." clause.
You may notice the current employer is having to resort to an alternate
contract to keep things clean?
Why would there be a difference with a different name of the pay cheque?
As far as I can see it's only the little guy that loses in all this.
Those workers will NEVER be able to recover what has been lost.
It makes no sense why they couldn't be allowed to work while "negotiations"
go on, no matter how long.
Obviously, however, this is at least what the majority want so at least the
majority are in agreement with the end result.
KP
>I'm not sure where you get the "twice the going rate" information but
>I do know that the striking workers are earning a only decent wage and
>decent benefits. I can't begrudge this as we hear so often. How can it
>be so bad that someone makes a reasonable wage to provide a decent
>life? I just can't understand why this seems offensive - it is not as
>if it has some detrimental effect on your lifestyle.
Howzzat? We all pay for those wages via our taxes. Money out of my
pocket, and yours. All we hear is screaming about how the schools are
underfunded. Ever think that overpaying for things like cleaning might
have something to do with that?
>Methinks the little sheepie provincial officials want to follow the
>example of the corporate puppets in Ottawa.
The school board is not a part of the provincial government. That's
why making Purves the center of this dispute is misguided.
KP
>are the ones who are being paid too much? And the ones doing
>jobs that most people don't even want to think about are being
>paid too little?
Actually in most government jobs the opposite is true. Government
overpays for unskilled labor like cleaning staff compared to market,
and underpays professional staff. The result is that you have
economists, nurses, and technicians being paid virtually the same as
cleaners and ditch-diggers. That as much as anything explains why the
quality of government work is often so poor since all the skilled
people tend to leave in favor of greener pastures.
Having said that, there are more and more exceptions to that occurring
lately. The feds have been boosting salaries in the upper ranks the
last few years (a surplus will let you do that) and some agencies like
the school board tend to pay their people very well -- in the school
board's case, too well given the poor job they do. Generally though in
the municipal and provincial ranks the salary compression I outlined
still holds true.
G. Wayne Hines
> Well...Pretty much any company that contracts for governments also has to
> show auditable trails of where the money is spent and how much profit is
> made.
I think you're confusing government contracts awarded to
companies to provide goods and/or services with government
grants or loans to companies and government grants to other
agencies.
> > Say the school board ... its own employees, at $14/hour, to clean...
> > That million dollars is spent in the Halifax area to buy goods
> > and services for the employees.
> >
> > ...big U-S company, ...gets a contract .. work for $900,000.
> >...pays ...employees 500 thousand dollars at $6/hour
> >...takes 400 thousand south of the border.
> > The 100 thousand dollar "saving" to the school board is
> > not used for other services, because it didn't really exist
>
> So, since "profit" is usually controlled to a maximum for any government
> contracts that will likely be difficult. The same labour force is available
> and they will have to pay wages at whatever is the "going rate". It's
> actually probably EASIER to get bigger pay raises in such a scenario. When
> privatized, the company MUST meet its contractual commitments. They can't
> afford to have strikes or, subject to the contract, they may even be liable
> for the costs of alternative services. Maybe this scenario would actually be
> a BETTER solution for the poor people who are currently being forced to
> strike?
Check out what happened when the Annapolis Valley school board
awarded a contract to DRL Transit of Newfoundland. The drivers
didn't get through the first school year before they voted to
join a union.
Someone has already posted concerning labour stoppages. There
was a bus drivers strike here a number of years ago. The company
did not hire replacement drivers. I can't recall if there was a
penalty clause in the contract other than the company did not
get paid for the services that were not provided during the
strike.
> Now, from an even more likely business point of view, IF indeed there was
> really $400,000 to take south of the border, then that means some local
> businessperson will be just as smart and relaize the true cost of the work
> and could take on the same job for $550,000 or $600,000 or whatever and
> SIGNIFICANTLY undercut the big US company.
This may happen eventually. The big company would likely obtain
a contract for several years, possibly with an option to adjust
its price upward in line with inflation. When the contract came
up for renewal, it would be possible for a local company to take
over the work. However, the big companies have deep pockets and
sharp pencils.
>
> I think his point was that people are always eligible to vote with their
> feet.
> As with any job, even big paying ones, when things get too far out of whack
> with what "the going rate" is, people will move elsewhere and companies are
> forced to pay more to attract the required skills.
Only if the unemployment rate is so low that there are not
enough people available who are willing to work below the going
rate just to get a job.
G. Wayne Hines
> Here's an idea. Instead of having our school board and schools being held
> hostage by yet another arm of the NSGEU. Why not throw the whole lot out,
> and have individual schools contract out their own maintenance work.
> Just having that bunch in there, performing what are fairly straightforward
> and simple duties, guaranties that we are paying way too much.
>
> It's not just the wages, but the usual assortment of other costs,
> hidden or otherwise. Benefits, absenteeism ect.
I don't think they're being "held hostage" by the NSGEU or any
other union. I think the school board is aiming at tossing out
its own workers and contracting out the work for all schools.
Having its own employees to do certain jobs gives the board some
control over costs. The board would effectively lose some of
that control through contracting out. If the board is not
careful when specifying the duties under the contract with the
private company, it could face higher costs through having to
hire additional labour to perform duties not covered by the
contract.
Just because someone is working for the government or a school
board is no reason that person should be treated like a second
class citizen and not be eligible to fairly standard benefits,
such as medical/dental plans, pension, paid holidays, etc.
I often think unions have, for the most part, outlived their
usefulness. Then I see agencies like school boards and municipal
governments try to treat their employees like slaves, and
realize perhaps they still serve a useful purpose in some
instances.
David Skene
"G. Wayne Hines" <w.d....@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message > I think
you're confusing government contracts awarded to
> companies to provide goods and/or services with government
> grants or loans to companies and government grants to other
> agencies.
Actually, I was not thnking of government grants or loans to companies and
government grants to other agencies.
Perhaps the correct solution, if there is doubt is see if a government
contracting officer is reading and have them reply.
> Check out what happened when the Annapolis Valley school board
> awarded a contract to DRL Transit of Newfoundland. The drivers
> didn't get through the first school year before they voted to
> join a union.
All I said was it CAN work, I didn't say it HAD to work.
As with anything, the individual companies and people involved will make or
break anything.
> Someone has already posted concerning labour stoppages. There
> was a bus drivers strike here a number of years ago. The company
> did not hire replacement drivers. I can't recall if there was a
> penalty clause in the contract other than the company did not
> get paid for the services that were not provided during the
> strike.
Okay. So?
> This may happen eventually. The big company would likely obtain
> a contract for several years, possibly with an option to adjust
> its price upward in line with inflation. When the contract came
> up for renewal, it would be possible for a local company to take
> over the work. However, the big companies have deep pockets and
> sharp pencils.
No company ever likes to lose money - not even local ones who will be in a
better position to bid.
> Only if the unemployment rate is so low that there are not
> enough people available who are willing to work below the going
> rate just to get a job.
Which was the person's main point in the beginning. The "gong rate" will
reflect the difficulty in getting skilled people.
Employment rate is all relative when it comes to that factor.
David Skene
...
> ... I think the school board is aiming at tossing out
> its own workers and contracting out the work for all schools.
> Having its own employees to do certain jobs gives the board some
> control over costs. The board would effectively lose some of
> that control through contracting out. If the board is not
> careful when specifying the duties under the contract with the
> private company, it could face higher costs through having to
> hire additional labour to perform duties not covered by the
> contract.
This seems to suggest they are aiming at doing someone where they lose
control and would face more problems.
I suspect the only reason they would contract out is if they gain overall.
> Just because someone is working for the government or a school
> board is no reason that person should be treated like a second
> class citizen and not be eligible to fairly standard benefits,
> such as medical/dental plans, pension, paid holidays, etc.
Who was suggetsing anyojne should be treated any worse or any better?
However, you seem to have just made the point why it would be preferable for
those poor people to work for a company rather than the school board. Then
they wouldn't be able to be treated as you indicate they are now.
> I often think unions have, for the most part, outlived their
> usefulness. Then I see agencies like school boards and municipal
> governments try to treat their employees like slaves, and
> realize perhaps they still serve a useful purpose in some
> instances.
Which is why government should govern and should contract out required
services.
Mike Mulle
government has been extremely harsh and unmoving in its negotiations with
its employees. Contract negotiations are protracted to a point where
nerves are frayed and anger abounds, only to sign agreements that could
have been concluded in the first week or two. On top of this, when the
government finally does sign, they expect and generally get, a much more
subdued (cowed) workforce who are so timid of losing their jobs they will
do anything asked of them just to avoid drawing attention to themselves.
Its easy to say "if you don't like it, move on!" but anyone with a
measurable I.Q. knows this isn't so easy when talking about families,
mortgages, etc..
My Opinion
position here.
However, I am pleased to hear that this provincial government is driving a
firm bargain with it's employees. This province needs to get it's books in
order, and finally a government is prepared to make itself unpopular to do
so. I can't say I'm necessarily happy with the Hamm government -- I too have
to drive the decrepid highways and worry about whether there'll be enough
nurses / doctors / hospitals etc. -- but the bottom line is that Nova Scotia
has got to stop spending more than it receives. Approximately 43c of every
dollar at present is being spent just on interest charges and servicing the
debt, and continued reckless spending would only make this worse until the
province cannot function. It's time to ensure some short-term pain for the
lonter-term well being.
JF.
"Mike Mulle" <mmu...@bwr.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:3AF67EDD...@bwr.eastlink.ca...
> As a provincial employee its been my experience that this provincial
> government has been extremely harsh and unmoving in its negotiations with
> its employees.
<Snip>
My Opinion
> In this case a PSAC member based out of Sackville N.B.
>
> "Were sick and tired of them telling us what to do."
>
> Them being the bosses.
Thanks for giving me a laugh this evening.
JF.
rene macdonald
a great idea should read this article first. Although it is a Canadian Union of
Public Employees document you are more than welcome to check with the Edmonton
School Board for verification.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5202/failing.html
Rene MacDonald
Secretary
CUPE Local 955
Strait Regional School Board Non Teaching Employees
KP
>For all of you that think privatizing custodial staff in public schools is such
>a great idea should read this article first. Although it is a Canadian Union of
>Public Employees document you are more than welcome to check with the Edmonton
>School Board for verification.
>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5202/failing.html
Sounds like the school board really didn't have a clue as to how to
structure a contract. There's nothing special about what they do.
Zelgadis
<3affc9f7....@news1.sympatico.ca>:
>Well, in a culture which sees cutting cost as paramount, they probably
>got what they paid for.
>
>
Quite likely...after all (to use an analogy) if you're going to mount an
expedition to climb a Mt. are you going to buy the cheapest equiptment you can
find? Our Govt. probably would.(After all they wouldn't be using it)
--
"Ask not what your country can do for you...ask what your country can do
*to* you." - Tiekbane
Peggy Macphie
janitor in a school is getting paid more than others who do the same type of
work. It doesn't take a lot of skill to clean floors and scrub toilets. I've
been there. I wasn't underpaid. I was getting my 6 bucks an hour to so
something that anyone can do if they're willing to get their hands dirty. I
wanted more money - that's why I went to university, and with a degree I
still probably won't get paid as much as as the guy who cleaned the floors
when I went to J.L.
"My Opinion" <opi...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:xCWI6.234922$Z2.24...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
David Skene
> > > the lowest bidder all the time either. One of the principle reasons
> > > why there is such an income gap and growing poverty cycle in this
> > > country.
That was an interesting statement made to that person.
Without knowledge of what type of person they are or how much they care, an
assumption was made.
Now, actually, the reason for a gap would probably have far more to do with
supply and demand of the particular skill.
If that statement were true then all jobs would fall to the low end of
salary as generally no one wants to pay more than they have to for anything.
If software skills are in demand then educated and skilled software people
tend to get more.
If there is a shortage of doctors then doctors tend to get more than the low
end of the wage spectrum.
If there were a shortage of 10,000 janitors in Canada, then overall the
price to recruit and hire one would rise.
To get to that situation with janitors, though, would mean that people would
need to go out and find any other available work other than being a janitor.
THEN you might see the change you want.
Is this EVER likely to happen? I can't see it happening.
When there is a shortage of workers wages go up.
Canada has FAR too high of unemployment to get the wage increases desired.
Now if EVERYBODY (within 2-3 %) were working, then you would probably see
all wages rise.
David Skene
P.S. Having gotten onto the topic of a wage gap - the current issue, as I
understand it, has nothing to do with wages...
"David Skene" <dsk...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:2huN6.21$B65....@sapphire.mtt.net...