So I'm watching the news and if I have this right one of the things the union wants is the ability to bank 18 sick days per year which can be paid out on retirement? Ok, let's start with 18 sick days. Who the hell gets 18 sick days these days? Secondly, these are SICK days! Days you take in case you are actually sick. Since when did sick days suddenly turn into a vacation entitlement? These union assholes just don't get it. It is these types of benefits that are making many employee programs so expensive that it puts the company into bankruptcy. Let's face it, you can train a chimp to pick up garbage. Since when should these highschool drop outs be entitled to gold plated pensions on the public nickel? Privatize, privatize, privatize.
Garbage Strike - Give Me a Break
- Thread starter Thunderballs
- Start date
According to one of the weekend papers, many people get sick days (some get 20). Guess what, they're ALL IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR. Guess who is paying for all these "sick" daysThunderballs said:
.How the fuck can the TTC be an essential service, but garbage collection not? I say we inundate the Department of Health with phone calls, until this gets resolved. I just thank god my kids are out of diapers and I have nothing really stinky to throw out.
Sick banks...
I know of quite a few public sector jobs that allow employees to 'bank' sick time. Problem is the employees believe that they have 'earned' these days and if they don't use them they figure they should get something for them. If the practice of 'banking' is taken away then guess what happens - the employee figures if they don't use them they lose them so now they are 'sick' 18 days a year...
I know of quite a few public sector jobs that allow employees to 'bank' sick time. Problem is the employees believe that they have 'earned' these days and if they don't use them they figure they should get something for them. If the practice of 'banking' is taken away then guess what happens - the employee figures if they don't use them they lose them so now they are 'sick' 18 days a year...
Miller's misstep
SUN MEDIA
Last Updated: 29th January 2009, 5:09am
Toronto city councillors are taking a raise of $2,348.58 this year, even though most of them wanted to vote against it yesterday.
As of Jan. 1, councillors will earn $99,153.60 -- up from $96,805.02 -- after an automatic 2.42% cost-of-living salary adjustment. Toronto Mayor David Miller's salary increased from $163,040.02 to $166,985.
Veteran Councillor Case Ootes brought a motion forward at yesterday's council meeting to freeze the salaries of the mayor and councillors as a "symbolic" gesture during these tough economic times.
"The money itself is not a huge amount in the context of the city's budget and expenditures, but in terms of setting a symbolic example, I think it's extremely important," he told the Sun earlier.
But Ootes' motion was referred to the mayor's Executive Committee, where he said it will "die" by a technical council procedure that requires two-thirds of councillors present at the meeting to support waiving an automatic referral of motions to its relevant committee that have not gone through a committee before.
Although a majority of councillors voted to debate and ultimately vote on the salary freeze -- 22-19 -- it wasn't a large enough majority to keep the freeze from being referred to the Executive Committee, none of whose members voted to debate the freeze yesterday.
"It'll die at executive. It's finished as far as this council is concerned, and that's unfortunate. We could have set an example for our citizens that we're showing restraint," Ootes said.
But councillor Joe Mihevc, who is against the salary freeze and voted to kill it yesterday, said councillors are not "bottom feeders" of the public purse and work very hard for the money they make.
"Symbolism is worth something," he said, noting he thinks it should be left to individual councillors to make whatever statements they want with their salaries, "whether they give more to charity, whether they give the money back to the city, what they do with that money.
"I don't think we should be forcing all councillors to undertake what some councillors want to do as their symbolic action."
Others think the only way to make a statement is for council to do it as a whole. Individual actions, they say, aren't nearly as powerful.
LEADERSHIP
Indeed, many of those who supported the freeze told Sun columnist Sue-Ann Levy they would not give up their pay increase if the motion fails.
By denying the debate on his salary freeze motion yesterday, Ootes accused Miller of failing to lead.
"To not even allow a debate on the council floor, I think, shows a lack of leadership and shows that he's more concerned with protecting his NDP caucus than he is with looking after the people of Toronto," Ootes said.
Miller has said he will give his $3,944.98 increase back to the city.
SUN MEDIA
Last Updated: 29th January 2009, 5:09am
Toronto city councillors are taking a raise of $2,348.58 this year, even though most of them wanted to vote against it yesterday.
As of Jan. 1, councillors will earn $99,153.60 -- up from $96,805.02 -- after an automatic 2.42% cost-of-living salary adjustment. Toronto Mayor David Miller's salary increased from $163,040.02 to $166,985.
Veteran Councillor Case Ootes brought a motion forward at yesterday's council meeting to freeze the salaries of the mayor and councillors as a "symbolic" gesture during these tough economic times.
"The money itself is not a huge amount in the context of the city's budget and expenditures, but in terms of setting a symbolic example, I think it's extremely important," he told the Sun earlier.
But Ootes' motion was referred to the mayor's Executive Committee, where he said it will "die" by a technical council procedure that requires two-thirds of councillors present at the meeting to support waiving an automatic referral of motions to its relevant committee that have not gone through a committee before.
Although a majority of councillors voted to debate and ultimately vote on the salary freeze -- 22-19 -- it wasn't a large enough majority to keep the freeze from being referred to the Executive Committee, none of whose members voted to debate the freeze yesterday.
"It'll die at executive. It's finished as far as this council is concerned, and that's unfortunate. We could have set an example for our citizens that we're showing restraint," Ootes said.
But councillor Joe Mihevc, who is against the salary freeze and voted to kill it yesterday, said councillors are not "bottom feeders" of the public purse and work very hard for the money they make.
"Symbolism is worth something," he said, noting he thinks it should be left to individual councillors to make whatever statements they want with their salaries, "whether they give more to charity, whether they give the money back to the city, what they do with that money.
"I don't think we should be forcing all councillors to undertake what some councillors want to do as their symbolic action."
Others think the only way to make a statement is for council to do it as a whole. Individual actions, they say, aren't nearly as powerful.
LEADERSHIP
Indeed, many of those who supported the freeze told Sun columnist Sue-Ann Levy they would not give up their pay increase if the motion fails.
By denying the debate on his salary freeze motion yesterday, Ootes accused Miller of failing to lead.
"To not even allow a debate on the council floor, I think, shows a lack of leadership and shows that he's more concerned with protecting his NDP caucus than he is with looking after the people of Toronto," Ootes said.
Miller has said he will give his $3,944.98 increase back to the city.
Another misstep
City freezing non-union salaries
Donovan Vincent
John Spears
Toronto Star city hall bureau
Toronto City Council has passed a wage freeze that cancels cost-of-living increases and performance bonuses for non-union employees this year, a decision criticized by some councillors as "embarrassing," "hypocritical" and "unfair.''
The new policy, which passed on a 24-17 vote, will see cost-of-living allowances set at zero this year and 1 per cent next year for all non-union employees.
In addition, performance bonuses for non-union workers who have reached their top pay will be cancelled this year and next, but those still progressing through their salary grades will get an increase of up to 3 per cent – if they meet performance goals.
Richard Majkot, executive director of the non-union employees' staff association, was bitter after the vote.
"It's become evident to us that the mayor doesn't have any regard for the non-union employees," Majkot said in an interview.
"He's going to be looking to the non-union employees when he needs them – for example, in the event of a work disruption. And yet he treats them this way," he said.
The city is currently in closed-door negotiations with many of its unionized employees.
Majkot said Miller isn't treating non-union staff fairly.
"One moment he talks about high-performing, productive, efficient public service, and the next moment he takes advantage of the most vulnerable group in the city by freezing their salaries," he said.
He said the executive of the association will meet to discuss what to do next.
None of this affects councillors, who hung onto their cost of living increase after the executive committee voted earlier this month to keep it for now and study the issue.
This morning, in fact, council voted down a proposal from Councillor Suzan Hall (Ward 1, Etobicoke North) to reconsider the 2.42 per cent wage increase that councilors received Jan. 1.
Hall said a wage freeze for councillors is an issue of fairness: "If we're prepared to do it to our staff, we should do it to ourselves," Hall said.
But her attempt to put the issue on the floor of council was defeated, without debate, by a 17-18 vote. It would have required a two-thirds majority to be put on the agenda.
Before the meeting, an association "briefing note" suggested that neither union nor non-union employees receive cost of living increases in 2009 and 2010. But it urged that employees still be eligible for merit pay increases.
Mayor David Miller, who spearheaded the pay freeze, defended it on the grounds that given the battered economy the city needs to find ways to be "fiscally responsible.'' The move is expected to save about $20 million.
"It's balanced, fair and responsible to our employees and the people we represent,'' Miller said.
But critics on council argued any freeze should also apply to unionized workers, but it likely won't.
City freezing non-union salaries
Donovan Vincent
John Spears
Toronto Star city hall bureau
Toronto City Council has passed a wage freeze that cancels cost-of-living increases and performance bonuses for non-union employees this year, a decision criticized by some councillors as "embarrassing," "hypocritical" and "unfair.''
The new policy, which passed on a 24-17 vote, will see cost-of-living allowances set at zero this year and 1 per cent next year for all non-union employees.
In addition, performance bonuses for non-union workers who have reached their top pay will be cancelled this year and next, but those still progressing through their salary grades will get an increase of up to 3 per cent – if they meet performance goals.
Richard Majkot, executive director of the non-union employees' staff association, was bitter after the vote.
"It's become evident to us that the mayor doesn't have any regard for the non-union employees," Majkot said in an interview.
"He's going to be looking to the non-union employees when he needs them – for example, in the event of a work disruption. And yet he treats them this way," he said.
The city is currently in closed-door negotiations with many of its unionized employees.
Majkot said Miller isn't treating non-union staff fairly.
"One moment he talks about high-performing, productive, efficient public service, and the next moment he takes advantage of the most vulnerable group in the city by freezing their salaries," he said.
He said the executive of the association will meet to discuss what to do next.
None of this affects councillors, who hung onto their cost of living increase after the executive committee voted earlier this month to keep it for now and study the issue.
This morning, in fact, council voted down a proposal from Councillor Suzan Hall (Ward 1, Etobicoke North) to reconsider the 2.42 per cent wage increase that councilors received Jan. 1.
Hall said a wage freeze for councillors is an issue of fairness: "If we're prepared to do it to our staff, we should do it to ourselves," Hall said.
But her attempt to put the issue on the floor of council was defeated, without debate, by a 17-18 vote. It would have required a two-thirds majority to be put on the agenda.
Before the meeting, an association "briefing note" suggested that neither union nor non-union employees receive cost of living increases in 2009 and 2010. But it urged that employees still be eligible for merit pay increases.
Mayor David Miller, who spearheaded the pay freeze, defended it on the grounds that given the battered economy the city needs to find ways to be "fiscally responsible.'' The move is expected to save about $20 million.
"It's balanced, fair and responsible to our employees and the people we represent,'' Miller said.
But critics on council argued any freeze should also apply to unionized workers, but it likely won't.
I can see why the union wants to "bank" sick days though. It's a huge retirement bonus for their members. If the average worker retires after 25 years, and actually uses 8 sick days each year that would leave 10 days to bank each year.
After 25 years that's 250 days, or the equivalent of about 1 years pay at retirement. Sweet deal if you can get it.
After 25 years that's 250 days, or the equivalent of about 1 years pay at retirement. Sweet deal if you can get it.
I just drove by a union setup and they had blocked off the road.
I have to laugh. Banking sick days in the midst of the Great Recession. Must be nice. If I get sick, what do I get? A day off from hobbying and little sympathy.
But guess what? The public lets them get away with it.
I have to laugh. Banking sick days in the midst of the Great Recession. Must be nice. If I get sick, what do I get? A day off from hobbying and little sympathy.
But guess what? The public lets them get away with it.
They only get a percentage of there sick days if the bank 300 they don't get paid for 300 days. Didn't miller/police/fire get a raise this year? I get 24 sick days a year
And I bet you take every last one of those sick days as do your brothers and sisters.buckwheat1 said:
I don't understand why people don't just dump their garbage at City Hall.
The unions got Miller elected so this will be interesting. Wonder what they have jointly planned.
hey Train how ya doing? NO I have over 300 days and counting Iagree to dump garbage at city hall. Miller won by over 30000 votes I think more then unionized employees voted for him. I have heard Tory might run against him.
This entire strike is about the ability to bank sick days???
Nowhere in the private sector can you bank sick days (as far as I am aware).
I worked for a MASSIVE corporation - we got 5 sick days a year noncumulative. If you were off for more than 2 days, you needed a note from a dr. Use more than 5 sick days, you were into your vacation time.
Anyway, I don't support the union on this. I would think that the city should strike a deal with them of sorts where all new hires get 5 sick days a year noncumulative. The rest of you fine, you can bank your sick days till you retire, but from now on - no.
As to the councillor's salary - 100k a year for that job is too low frankly. Whether you like them or not is not relevant, it is a high end job and should be better paid. Mind you, they can be on this committee, or that committee and probably pull that up by 20 grand a year. Still, I would have no problem paying a City of Toronto Councillor 160 or 180 a year.
Nowhere in the private sector can you bank sick days (as far as I am aware).
I worked for a MASSIVE corporation - we got 5 sick days a year noncumulative. If you were off for more than 2 days, you needed a note from a dr. Use more than 5 sick days, you were into your vacation time.
Anyway, I don't support the union on this. I would think that the city should strike a deal with them of sorts where all new hires get 5 sick days a year noncumulative. The rest of you fine, you can bank your sick days till you retire, but from now on - no.
As to the councillor's salary - 100k a year for that job is too low frankly. Whether you like them or not is not relevant, it is a high end job and should be better paid. Mind you, they can be on this committee, or that committee and probably pull that up by 20 grand a year. Still, I would have no problem paying a City of Toronto Councillor 160 or 180 a year.
FORGET about Harris, he destroyed Ontario CUT CUT CUT and look where it left us 5.6 billion in the hole in GOOD economic times
