Mayor Miller - wage freeze

[fuji]

The staff foreman at TTC make up to $98 000. And you call the union workers a leech on your taxes

That sure sounds like a leech on my taxes to me. If you are distinguishing between "worker" and "supervisor" I am not: All the city employees at every level are over-paid leeches.

They ALL need a minumum of a 30% pay cut and in many cases a 50% pay cut. Many should be fired too because it looks like they are lazy fucks and that 2/3rds as many people could get that job done if they actually worked.

The same story is told at the provincial and federal levels and so when you add that all up and given just how many tax dollars go towards salaries we are talking about giving EVERY Canadian tax payer something like a 40% cut in the taxes that they are owing.

That is a LOT of your money and my money that these gas bags are burning through.

What would you do if you got 40% of your taxes back???

 

[buckwheat1]

well it isn't going to happen your in a dream world, I'd like you to go do there job. yes some may be lazy but there are lazy people in every profession look at the leafs, I have worked with lazy people and you have too. If you believe they are over paid you should sign up and get your share

 

[fuji]

I have worked with lazy people and you have too.

Yes, I have worked with a lazy guy here where I work today. He got fired, though, and no longer works here. There is one guy I suspect might be lazy here still, and others suspect too that he is lazy, and I do not expect him to last another four months.

If you believe they are over paid you should sign up and get your share

No, I'm interested in having a career, not in getting welfare from the public tit.

What we should do is elect a hardball politician to fire the lot of them, transfer the jobs to an outsourced firm, and have the outsourced firm offer them their jobs back at half the pay.

 

[buckwheat1]

come onto chat

 

[tboy]

well it isn't going to happen your in a dream world, I'd like you to go do there job. yes some may be lazy but there are lazy people in every profession look at the leafs, I have worked with lazy people and you have too. If you believe they are over paid you should sign up and get your share

As fuji pointed out: in the private sector the only lazy people that remain employed are ones that have an "in" and are most likely family of the owners/managers. Everyone else would/will get canned if they don't do their job.

Unlike the unions where you just about have to kill someone before you are fired. Take that bus driver that was flaming drunk on a route. I bet he not only didn't lose his job, I bet the union paid for his "treatment" and he will most likely be back on the job in a month.

 

[buckwheat1]

I bet the TTC pays for his treatmnet. He'll be back on the job but probably as a TTC collector.

 

[GOLEAFSGO67]

Miller

..hmpphhh...Nuff said!!

 

[blackmoon69]

..hmpphhh...Nuff said!!

agree to that.

 

[good to go]

That sure sounds like a leech on my taxes to me. If you are distinguishing between "worker" and "supervisor" I am not: All the city employees at every level are over-paid leeches.

They ALL need a minumum of a 30% pay cut and in many cases a 50% pay cut. Many should be fired too because it looks like they are lazy fucks and that 2/3rds as many people could get that job done if they actually worked.

The same story is told at the provincial and federal levels and so when you add that all up and given just how many tax dollars go towards salaries we are talking about giving EVERY Canadian tax payer something like a 40% cut in the taxes that they are owing.

That is a LOT of your money and my money that these gas bags are burning through.

What would you do if you got 40% of your taxes back???

If i got 40% of my taxes back i would sure whore around alot more.

 

[escortsxxx]

bosses shouuld lower wages

If i got 40% of my taxes back i would sure whore around alot more.

Actually, while I think its important for the politicans to lower their wages in bad times as a symbolic gesture, say 2 to 10% , and they should not give them selves pay incresses when their staff gets less, I ve worked with both the private and public sector and I find that overall the public sector attracts people interested in public service and not in for the bucks, like teachers, nurses and doctors fireman etc with the expection of police (who are way undereducted and overpayed thugs currently; with many exceptions but since rapists and drug dealers fill their ranks and can not be removed it has tainted the whole force) and they tend to do a better job than the private sector. Any large company has workers playing on their computer all day, taking long lunches, pretending to work etc. If they do poorly and they are above the peon level, their staff get blamed and lay off a bunch of workers while they, themseleves, get a bonus. If I worked secretly for ANY company above the size of a 100 employees I bet I could find HUGE lazyness and waste of resources. After all, shareholders have no rights other than to sell their stock, and have no clue as what is going on in their compnaies. Anyway this does not apply to small firms which actually have to be good to survive, the large ones, like Walmart can just live off their size - it took years for starbucks to start closing down its opperations for example.

 

[tboy]

Actually, while I think its important for the politicans to lower their wages in bad times as a symbolic gesture, say 2 to 10% , and they should not give them selves pay incresses when their staff gets less, I ve worked with both the private and public sector and I find that overall the public sector attracts people interested in public service and not in for the bucks, like teachers, nurses and doctors fireman etc with the expection of police (who are way undereducted and overpayed thugs currently; with many exceptions but since rapists and drug dealers fill their ranks and can not be removed it has tainted the whole force) and they tend to do a better job than the private sector. Any large company has workers playing on their computer all day, taking long lunches, pretending to work etc. If they do poorly and they are above the peon level, their staff get blamed and lay off a bunch of workers while they, themseleves, get a bonus. If I worked secretly for ANY company above the size of a 100 employees I bet I could find HUGE lazyness and waste of resources. After all, shareholders have no rights other than to sell their stock, and have no clue as what is going on in their compnaies. Anyway this does not apply to small firms which actually have to be good to survive, the large ones, like Walmart can just live off their size - it took years for starbucks to start closing down its opperations for example.

It is comments like this that make me come to the defence of the police when they are bashed here on terb.

I don't know what companies you've worked for but of all the large corporations I've worked for if anyone (and I DO mean anyone) isn't pulling their weight, they don't last long.

Large or Small companies cannot afford to carry dead weight like they used to.

Now, something you may not understand, is if a manager has done a good job of hiring subordinates, explained their duties properly, and trained them well, he should be able to take a 4 hr nap everyday just to meet his dept. goals. If he wants to excell, then he'll be working just as hard as the peons.

 

[buckwheat1]

lol!!!! take a nap that would be nice - sorry not here

 

[tboy]

lol!!!! take a nap that would be nice - sorry not here

I worked for a cabinet shop and when we went to site, the boss would make sure everyone knew what needed to be done, then grab a pile of shipping blankets and fall asleep under the pool table. (he was past retirement age so it was understandable).

I've also worked for companies where the GM felt the need to have his finger in everything and it was the most inefficient company I ever worked for. For eg: we needed his signature on all purchases, even $5.00 ones.

 

[alexmst]

Mar 30, 2009 04:30 AM

Paul Moloney
CITY HALL BUREAU

Despite urging civic employees to accept a pay freeze in 2009, Toronto Mayor David Miller won't ask his fellow politicians on city council to do the same.

Last week, Miller proposed that non-union staff get no pay hike in 2009 and a 1 per cent cost-of-living increase in 2010. In the wake of that announcement, opposition councillors demanded politicians give up their pay hike as well.

In a letter to councillors, Miller said restraint is needed because transit and welfare costs are rising, and use of city facilities will increase as the recession continues.

"We must also lead by example and show restraint wherever possible," he said in the letter.

Miller said last week councillors have already demonstrated restraint by paying themselves less than some of their counterparts in other GTA municipalities.

Miller last year announced he was forgoing his own 2.42 per cent cost-of-living increase for 2009, leaving his salary at $163,040, which he said was to set an example and encourage unionized civic workers to restrain wage demands.

But Miller said it was up to the 44 councillors to make individual decisions, noting "each member of council can choose to take the steps I have taken for 2009."

In January, they received their 2.42 per cent raise, linked to inflation, bringing their 2009 pay to $99,153.60. Some councillors have given up the pay hike.

Miller, in an email response to the Star's questions, said councillors' pay is not out of line.

"Councillors led by example three years ago, when they imposed salaries significantly lower than those of comparable councils in the GTA," he said. "They also agreed to accept an annual salary increase significantly lower than those our employees received."

Unionized employees have received increases of about 3 per cent every year.

A move by some councillors in January to cancel the increase failed to gain traction among their colleagues. It was sent off to council's executive committee, where it won't be debated until next month.

 

[buckwheat1]

as they say "It's Miller time" I'd give up my 2.5% too if I was making $160000