# Civilians complaining about Police/Emergency Services' Pay



## BadEnoughDudeRescueRonny

It seems that any time the yearly salary of a police officer is brought up, most people seem to complain that "police are grossly overpaid for what they do". I have a serious bone to pick with this issue. It's so evident that the general public is simply unaware of just how risky and demanding police work is. Heck, I'm just a civilian and I see how demanding police work is, just from having talked to many members of various police services, ranging from Constables up to Inspectors. 

Whenever I bring up the fact that police constables are entitled to their salaries, the quickest replies always cite those one or two constables that acted inappropriately in some way or that the police "sit around" and hence, are not entitled to their salaries. You'd think that people would wise up to the fact that a job where you deal with dangerous and life-threatening situations every day deserves a fitting salary.  

It just really strikes a nerve with me with how ignorant the general populace is to the realities of policing, be it intentional or not. Anyone that has a job where they're subjected to long, hazardous hours is entitled to good pay, IMO. 

The same applies to ALL emergency services jobs. I also recall there also being a bit of an uproar about Paramedics and Firefighters also being "overpaid". I think the root of this problem is sensationalistic journalism and pure ignorance on the general public's behalf. I doubt the average citizen could get through a single police/EMS/fire-rescue shift. I also feel that those working in corrections are entitled to every cent that they earn and then some. 

It's just a downright piss-off that the general public is so blind as to how dangerous, demanding and grueling these jobs are and even more of a piss-off that the general populace is so blind as to how necessary these jobs are. The general populace takes Emergency and Correctional services for granted, and despite the fact that these services are absolutely essential, are quick to trash talk them in any way possible. It's downright disgusting. They don't seem to realize that the next time they're in a crisis, it's going to be emergency services personnel that save them. Civilians are quick to bad-mouth emergency services, but even quicker to rely upon them for most anything. 

Just my  :2c: .


----------



## mariomike

That was a very nice post.
I don't regret a minute of it, and I appreciate the material things the city made possible for me and my family.  
I only regret that so many old comrades have passed away.


----------



## aesop081

BadEnoughDude said:
			
		

> It's just a downright piss-off that the general public is so blind as to how dangerous, demanding and grueling these jobs are



Part of that, i think, is the nature of the job being done. The day-to-day job is often done out of the public eye and poorly publicized (both by ineffective PR departments and the joys of mainstream media sensationalism). The public does not "see" the service being performed and thus does not understand why it costs so much. All they see is EMS on strike or RCMP officers tasering a guy at the airport. They see a post-game riot and, month afterwards, still no charges.

I will be the first one to point out the colossal stupidity of the public in general but that is only part of the problem.


----------



## BadEnoughDudeRescueRonny

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Part of that, i think, is the nature of the job being done. The day-to-day job is often done out of the public eye and poorly publicized (both by ineffective PR departments and the joys of mainstream media sensationalism). The public does not "see" the service being performed and thus does not understand why it costs so much. All they see is EMS on strike or RCMP officers tasering a guy at the airport. They see a post-game riot and, month afterwards, still no charges.
> 
> I will be the first one to point out the colossal stupidity of the public in general but that is only part of the problem.



You're absolutely correct. Poor, selective or sensationalistic media coverage of the emergency and correctional services completely skews any public perception of what they actually do. The various forms of media are only concerned with cases that can generate outrage, and gain viewership/readers. I've noticed that the media thrives on cases where there's a certain degree of ambiguity. That is, cases where it'd be rather easy for the media to omit or embellish certain details about a case in order to get as much public response as possible. The RCMP airport tasering case is a prime example of the media skewing and omitting facts due to the fact that the case can appear ambiguous to anyone who wasn't actually there as the event happened, making it a prime target for media "spin". 

I'm not saying that it's some sort of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory that the media constantly paints emergency and corrective services in a negative light, but their besmirching of these services' is consistent and frequent and completely unwarranted. It's completely sickening that the media would even consider making negative-spin stories about emergency and corrective services, given how essential they are. You'd think that services that save lives and keep order in society would be given a positive spin by the media, not constantly attacked. The end result of this is that the public adopts gross misconceptions about these services and perceives them as being less legitimate or effective. In my opinion, this then generates a mindset amongst the general public that emergency and corrective services are overcompensated. Overall, it's yet another case of the media tarnishing any service that is visible and who deals with controversial issues. 

Just my  :2c: .


----------



## Fishbone Jones

BadEnoughDude said:
			
		

> You're absolutely correct. Poor, selective or sensationalistic media coverage of the emergency and correctional services completely skews any public perception of what they actually do. The various forms of media are only concerned with cases that can generate outrage, and gain viewership/readers. I've noticed that the media thrives on cases where there's a certain degree of ambiguity. That is, cases where it'd be rather easy for the media to omit or embellish certain details about a case in order to get as much public response as possible. The RCMP airport tasering case is a prime example of the media skewing and omitting facts due to the fact that the case can appear ambiguous to anyone who wasn't actually there as the event happened, making it a prime target for media "spin".
> 
> I'm not saying that it's some sort of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory that the media constantly paints emergency and corrective services in a negative light, but their besmirching of these services' is consistent and frequent and completely unwarranted. It's completely sickening that the media would even consider making negative-spin stories about emergency and corrective services, given how essential they are. You'd think that services that save lives and keep order in society would be given a positive spin by the media, not constantly attacked. The end result of this is that the public adopts gross misconceptions about these services and perceives them as being less legitimate or effective. In my opinion, this then generates a mindset amongst the general public that emergency and corrective services are overcompensated. Overall, it's yet another case of the media tarnishing any service that is visible and who deals with controversial issues.
> 
> Just my  :2c: .



So you don't think the city hired lawyer made valid points?


----------



## BadEnoughDudeRescueRonny

recceguy said:
			
		

> So you don't think the city hired lawyer made valid points?



Special Prosecutor Richard Peck or Justice the Honourable Thomas R. Braidwood, QC? 


.....Or did I miss the point completely  ?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Meh. I just explain it this way, "I don't get paid for what I do, I get paid for what I MIGHT have to do."


----------



## Fishbone Jones

BadEnoughDude said:
			
		

> Special Prosecutor Richard Peck or Justice the Honourable Thomas R. Braidwood, QC?
> 
> 
> .....Or did I miss the point completely  ?



The city hired lawyer, Glenn Christie, that was brought in to negotiate on behalf of the City of Windsor.
http://www.windsorstar.com/business/Cops+need+share+hard+times+city+lawyer+says/5410901/story.html
http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Police+contract+intrigue/5417839/story.html


----------



## Teflon

Would you really want the kind of police you would have if you paid them minimum wage?

I certainly wouldn't


----------



## Edward Campbell

Teflon said:
			
		

> Would you really want the kind of police you would have if you paid them minimum wage?
> 
> I certainly wouldn't




It is interesting that, in a book that should be read by people interested in counter-insurgency, The Long Long War: Counterinsurgency In Malaya And Vietnam, MGen Richard Clutterbuck, PhD, made the point that paying policemen a good, solid wage was *vital* to establishing and maintaining effective, fair and honest "law and order" and, thereby, gaining (and keeping) the confidence of the population. It is the same in Canada, today, as it was in Malaya in the 1950s: if you want public safety you need to pay the police.


----------



## Container

I would hardly call getting off at 7am and being in court for 9:30 and waiting all day to be called to testify and then being required back at the office at 6 to work another 12hours "Gravy". They are paid alot to do so....because its brutal.

Thats courts fault. Not the police officer. Furthermore, during recession and joblessness there is a general increase in calls for service. So while there is less money in the budget there is more police work to be done. And you watch. It wont be the new crew cut recruits who dont know their asses from a hole in the ground that leave. It'll be all of windsors experience. You get enough "new guys" on the road and it doesnt matter because they dont know what the hell they are doing.

I agree. Gotta save money- times are tough. Axe the public servants at city hall and have people file there own work. When your assistants have assistants and temps theres your problem. Id also like to see what the cost of Mr. Christies services will be by the end of the arbitration. The only guys with better gravy than cops are the lawyers. By the time his staff gets paid and himself, and the slow working new cops who can't get on top of their work are finished the money will be burnt +more. 

*edit*

and three percent over the last 2 years alsmost just amounts to a "cost of living" increase doesn't it?


----------



## mariomike

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Part of that, i think, is the nature of the job being done. The day-to-day job is often done out of the public eye and poorly publicized (both by ineffective PR departments and the joys of mainstream media sensationalism).



Good point. Much of the "people helping people" occurs privately, inside people's homes. That's where you have to be your own PR department. It can be just as dramatic as the street trauma shown on the TV news.


----------



## bcbarman

The biggest beef I have is the lack of knowlege that the normal civillan has, and the horrible spin that the media takes.  Privacy laws prevent us from saying anything untill well after the courts do their thing, and at that point it's well forgotten.  As a Peace officer, I would love to pass a full ban on talking to the media about anything, and lets see how many papers get printed with inaccurate info, then get sued for libel by the victims later.

We get paid well because its damn dangerous to do what we do, and I still have to feed my family.  Bribes and kickbacks happen when you can't feed the kids, but the criminal is happy to.


----------



## mariomike

bcbarman said:
			
		

> As a Peace officer, I would love to pass a full ban on talking to the media about anything, and lets see how many papers get printed with inaccurate info, then get sued for libel by the victims later.



Where I used to work, media inquiries are referred to the Media Relations office or Duty Officer.

However, paramedics are encouraged to respond to the media at the scene of emergency responses, or at receiving hospitals, to provide timely information about what they do.
Paramedics may discuss the general facts of their own job within their personal areas of experience or expertise.
Under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, they must not provide any information that could serve to identify any patient. They may not discuss specifics as to what they did to assess, treat and care for the patient. They may discuss the general severity of the patient’s condition., the general nature of the call, number of patients etc. 
They must not use their position, status or uniform to express their personal opinion on any given policy matter.
There is an S.O.P. on the subject that goes into more detail.


----------



## cn

There is no media conspiracy to "sensationalize" when an officer / firefighter / or medic messes up on the job.  It's just the plain fact that someone doing the job they are supposed to do isn't news, when they do something outside of their normal job description is.

The unfortunate thing is they make a bigger deal when a mistake is made, than when an individual goes above and beyond their job description.  The public is more interested in villains than heroes.  

Bad PR? Maybe... Trying to sell ads? Always.  My 2.


----------



## Zoomie

bcbarman said:
			
		

> We get paid well because its damn dangerous to do what we do, and I still have to feed my family.


Why can't LEO's be on salary?  It's the overtime that strikes a nerve for me.  Getting $100/hr to work on holidays is a bit extreme.

I understand that an argument against salary is all the court-time and paper work time - is this indicative of an undermanned police force?


----------



## Bass ackwards

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Why can't LEO's be on salary?  It's the overtime that strikes a nerve for me.  Getting $100/hr to work on holidays is a bit extreme.
> 
> I understand that an argument against salary is all the court-time and paper work time - is this indicative of an undermanned police force?



Zoomie, imagine you're a supervisor and you need X number of constables to patrol a certain area for the night shift. You're on a 12 hour shift schedule. 
It's summertime, a long-weekend and we'll throw in a full moon just for the hell of it. 
That's peak vacation time, so you're already short a few guys right there. Plus maybe you've got a few people off for injuries, away on courses, etc, etc.
Now someone calls in sick. You're below your minimum manpower requirement. 

How do you get someone to come out to cover that/those vacancies if there's no incentive for them to do so ?

If there's a way to get around that without opening a huge can of worms, it's beyond me.


----------



## Container

Why would anyone do a job where you dont get compensated and are called out every second night? Canada has the lowest police officer to citizen ratio of pretty much everywhere- I'd suspect the other emergency services would be similar. if you had more police officers, sure, you'd have less OT paid out. But if we have a hard time getting people into uniforms with the incentives we have now how the hell are we going to do it when they dont get paid for the ridiculous amounts of overtime required of them? I dont see anything wrong with being paid 1.5X for the 4 hours on top of my shift I have to do and 2x for the work Im called in on my days off for.

Some other services have some ridiculous rates- But their cities agreed to it for whatever reason. 

The issue with the media isnt that they report only the bad stuff. Its that they report baseless accusations that are inevitably thrown out of court and the cops is found not guilty and they never print a retraction and the damage is already done. Completely without any sort of responsibility or accountability. Its the vast majority of the police "news" you see. I think everyone here is smart enough to see how there is money and revenge to be had on these types of jobs and the amount of false accusations is staggering.


----------



## mariomike

"EMS workers top list of overtime paid by City of Toronto":
http://www.680news.com/news/local/article/281525--ems-workers-top-list-of-overtime-paid-by-city-of-toronto
"Coun. Denzil Minnan-Wong told the Toronto Sun EMS workers are the most likely to work around the clock, building up hefty overtime cheques."

Nothing new about that. There was always plenty of O.T.


----------



## mariomike

BadEnoughDude said:
			
		

> The same applies to ALL emergency services jobs. I also recall there also being a bit of an uproar about Paramedics and Firefighters also being "overpaid".



As an after thought on the topic, I should like to add that our wages and benefits, and equally important health and safety improvements, were not achieved over-night. 
The unions representing Toronto police, fire and ambulance have been negotiating for their members, and pensioners, with the city for almost a century.  
For example, Ambulance has been in the Toronto Civic Employees Union TCEU  ( outside workers ) since 1917. The Toronto Police Union ( now Association ) was chartered in 1918. The Firefighters also unionized in 1918.


----------



## lethalLemon

BC Ambulance Service employees are apparently severely undercut, especially the ones that are posted to the Surrey area with all the crazy and dangerous stuff that goes on there.


----------



## mariomike

In yesterday's Sun, Joe Warmington had this to say on the subject, "No one cares as much about the amount of tax they pay or how much police, fire and ambulance personnel earn on days like these.":
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/19/hwy-403-miracle-helped-by-a-lot-of-expert-work

Nice to read some of the comments too.


----------



## Scott

I've had a few victims seek me out at the station after bad calls. They've almost always offered hugs and kind thanks.

I have never been paid better.


----------



## CountDC

Interesting as I was just reading an article on this yesterday.  Of course some people went on about the overtime some have been collecting.  Myself I have no problems with it even if there is a few that are playing the overtime shuffle.  I like to believe most are being fair and honest with the overtime.  Growing up my neighbour was with the Halifax Police and we hardly saw him around as he worked so much.  In the 90's I got to know a couple officers through a friend and I have no doubt that most officers are worth every penny.

One question that did come up and I am not sure about is the retention bonus.  The way it was explained was that Toronto was having a problem in that after a certain point their officers were leaving to take jobs in the surrounding area that were viewed as better.  In order to stop this they started to offer a retention bonus.  Sounded good to me.  The issue though is because Toronto got it other police services such as Ottawa that did not have this problem started to get a retention bonus.  Don't blame the officers for taking it but do wonder why it was even put on the table when there wasn't a need for it.


----------



## mariomike

Scott said:
			
		

> I've had a few victims seek me out at the station after bad calls. They've almost always offered hugs and kind thanks.
> 
> I have never been paid better.



Reminds me of a quote from one of my favorite movies, "He not only took on the beast but pulled from its clutches, assisted by a more famous and brilliant firefighter, me, a kicking and screaming civilian who will probably wind up suing us for breaking her fingernails."


----------



## Scott

Yeah, I wasn't going for a Backdraft type moment there...

Honestly, it made me happy to have done the job. Still does. You need something to keep coming back after you've had a truly bad one.


----------



## mariomike

CountDC said:
			
		

> One question that did come up and I am not sure about is the retention bonus.  The way it was explained was that Toronto was having a problem in that after a certain point their officers were leaving to take jobs in the surrounding area that were viewed as better.  In order to stop this they started to offer a retention bonus.  Sounded good to me.  The issue though is because Toronto got it other police services such as Ottawa that did not have this problem started to get a retention bonus.  Don't blame the officers for taking it but do wonder why it was even put on the table when there wasn't a need for it.



I read that 13 Ontario municipalities now pay it. It has to do with parity under the arbitration system, as I understand it.

This goes into some detail of the arbitration system from the Ontario Emergency Services Steering Committee (ESSC) point of view:
https://www.pao.ca/library/Ability%20to%20Pay%20Position%20Paper%202011.pdf

This caught my eye:
"Looking at these years, the cumulative wage increases for police, fire and paramedics
have clearly exceeded the other cumulative increases. Consider that the emergency
services exceeded these comparators between 2005 and 2010 as follows:
· CPI by 77% (Police), 89% (Fire) and 110% (EMS);
· Average public sector increases by 19% (Police), 27% (Fire) and 41% (EMS);
· ONA Nurses by approximately 6% (Police), 13% (Fire) and 25% (EMS);
· Teachers by approximately 33% (Police), 42% (Fire) and 58% (EMS);
· OPSEU (OPS) by 43% (Police), 53% (Fire) and 70% (EMS); 
· CUPE by 11.5% (Police), 19% (Fire) and 32% (EMS)
A similar trend exists with respect to benefit increases within the emergency services sector."


----------



## bcbarman

Gonna make this a double edged sword.  Below are the calls that were called in to Chatam, On police department last year.  Remember, every call has to be checked out.  If there was less nonsense calls, there would be less need for officers to respond, less need to have as many on the road, and less need to pay OT.  

Lets turn the onus on the citizens, you messed your bed, we are the ones that have to clean it

_courtesy of Blue line forum_
10. During a snow emergency in early February, a woman called police to complain that snowplows were cleaning her street and making too much noise.

9. A 17-year-old called police to seek advice. He wanted to know if he could disown his mother because she wouldn’t give him money.

8. A man called police about a roll of carpet on his front lawn. 

7. A woman called 911 after being denied entry to a local nightclub. She forgot her identification and wanted an officer to attend to verify her name and prove to security staff that she was of legal drinking age. When she was told police don’t do that, she argued that they should.

6. A man called 911 to request an ambulance for a friend. Before the call ended, a man was heard in the background saying, "Don’t worry, I’ll get rid of the dope." Police were dispatched to the location but were unable to find any drugs.

5. A man called police when he saw a "small lion" cross the road in front of him. He was also quick to point out that he had not smoked any drugs — "that day."

4. A woman called police to have a man removed from her residence. She no longer wanted his company after they were sharing a sofa to sleep on. She wanted the other end but he wouldn’t switch.

3. A man called 911 to report that his vehicle was just stolen from his driveway. He provided a description and the direction of travel. Officers scoured the area but were unable to locate it until they attended his house and found it right where he left it. It turned out the man saw a vehicle just like his drive by his house and jumped to the conclusion his had been stolen.

2. Police responded to a 911 call when screaming was heard in the background. The investigation revealed that a couple were arguing because the man wanted to play Xbox while the woman wanted to play Nintendo Wii. The breaking point came when the man opened a new pack of cigarettes while another package was already open.

1. A woman called 911 because her cats ate her Whopper.


----------



## mariomike

> If there was less nonsense calls, there would be less need for officers to respond, less need to have as many on the road, and less need to pay OT.



HTA violations also account for OT. 
Traffic court on a scheduled day off pays a minimum of four hours, at time and a half. 
Traffic court before a scheduled shift pays three hours, at time and a half.


----------



## bcbarman

Ahhh, Court.  now that right there is the reason for a LOT of LEO's overtime.  10 hrs of paperwork and prep for one DUI with criminal charges, and that's if the officer is good at doing them! 

If the laws were more streamlined for the prosecution side, we would have less paperwork, details, ineffective justice and usless appeals and could just keep the population safe.  Every hour spent doing paperwork because "there was once a charter of rights and freedoms violation" is another hour we are not doing our job to keep the country safe.

my :2c:


----------



## mariomike

Line of Duty injuries - including PTSD - to Police Officers, Firefighters and Paramedics also decrease the car count and increase OT. 

They have to be temporarily or permanently accommodated into comparable or suitable jobs with the city. 
Their pre-injury rate of pay must be maintained, and they receive all wage and benefit increases negotiated / arbitrated. 
ie: There is no red-circling.


There has been recent discussion in other threads of "Retirement Gratuity".  If interested, 
"Upon termination of employment with the City of Toronto there shall be paid to every employee who has been in the employ
of the City for an aggregate period of at least ten (10) years; 

At least 10 yrs. & less than 15 yrs:         Three (3) calendar months
At least 15 yrs. & less than 20 yrs           Four (4) calendar months
At least 20 yrs. & less than 25 yrs           Five (5) calendar months
At least 25 years                                     Six (6) calendar months


----------



## mariomike

National Post
Aug 29, 2012 

"Sick day benefits for police, firefighters too expensive, Dalton McGuinty says: 

TORONTO — Ontario municipalities must ask themselves if they can afford to continue allowing police and firefighters to bank unused sick days during these tough economic times, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Wednesday.":
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/29/sick-day-benefits-for-police-firefighters-too-expensive-dalton-mcguinty-says/

Even if TPS negotiates an end to the sick bank gratuity when the contract expires at the end of 2014, it will take at least 30 years after the date of ratification to phase out. 

Or, until the last member hired prior to that date decides to retire. 

Same with TFS. They are still without a contract.

The City of Toronto ended it for paramedics hired after 31 July, 2009. ( The date their contract was ratified. )

But, it remains as is for anyone who hired on prior to that date. 

They were grand-parented, and remain on the original plan.

My guess is that the same agreement would likely apply to police officers and firefighters.

"TORONTO, Aug. 29, 2012 /CNW/ - Statement by Dave McFadden, President of the Police Association of Ontario in response to remarks made by Premier Dalton McGuinty with regard to bankable sick day benefits for police.":
http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1027997/cost-of-professional-policing-in-ontario-stable-and-accountable-for-20-years


----------



## Eaglelord17

I love how McGuinty wants to start to cut benefits from the Police, Teachers, EMS etc. to lower the amount of money spent, well he refuses to lower the amount of money he and his fellow MPP's make. Within his time in office he increased the amount MPP's make by over 25% 

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/toronto/story.html?id=c0819f8e-9cc1-4f8d-a532-31106ff6fb33&p=1   

*(I know it only says he is defending it but this is a article from around 2006) 

This article has the current pay rates well the previous one had the old on there.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/03/07/toronto-dalton-mcguinty-wage-freeze.html

It is one thing to call for a pay freeze especially after increasing your income by 25% over the last 5 years, but another all together to try to remove the benefits for people who do important work and potentially put there lives into dangerous situations on a daily basis.
Cut your own pay McGuinty as it was you and your party which lead Ontario into this financial situation not the police or anyone else.
Just my  :2c:


----------



## mariomike

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> It is one thing to call for a pay freeze especially after increasing your income by 25% over the last 5 years, but another all together to try to remove the benefits for people who do important work and potentially put there lives into dangerous situations on a daily basis.



From what I read in the papers, I think our emergency services provide good value.

For example, ten years ago T-EMS put 67 ambulances in service every morning. 

Now it has fallen to 60. 

Even though there has been a 24.9 per cent increase in call volume during that time.

TFS currently has 128 emergency response vehicles. In 1998, they had 133.

Their call volume has increased by 29 per cent.

Ref: Sun June 09, 2012

As the police association pointed out yesterday, "The cost of policing takes up the same percentage of budgets now as it did 20 years ago."


----------



## Jarnhamar

Banking sick days doesn't seem right to me.


----------



## PMedMoe

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Banking sick days doesn't seem right to me.



I agree.  If you're sick, you use the days.  How can one bank days for a _potential_ future illness?

But of course, what's really being debated here is sick days "entitlement".....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Banking sick days doesn't seem right to me.



Yea,...that's pretty easy to say when you have a job that your employer will still pay you until you get better......not so much when you don't.


----------



## dapaterson

Banking sick days isn't the issue.  Paying them out on retirement is.


----------



## Journeyman

I suspect that as economic times worsen, unions are going to get less and less sympathy. 

Yes, the MPPs should demonstrate leadership by accepting some cuts -- financial and/or perks. Sick days could still be banked, for use as required for legitimate ailment/injury, but not paid out as a simple cash-grab. Newly-hired TO paramedics apparently lost this perk, yet their world still turns. For those who consistently use each and every sick day, while co-workers in exact same circumstances do not....well, in the Army that's called malingering.

Sorry unions, welcome to the 21st Century.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Sorry unions, welcome to the 21st Century.



Really?
See  here
[It's a long read, sorry]


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Yea,...that's pretty easy to say when you have a job that your employer will still pay you until you get better......not so much when you don't.



But how does that justify saving your sick days until retirement then getting some kind of cash/buy out for them?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

You did read dapaterson's post and you are capable of separating issues, right??


----------



## Journeyman

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Really?
> See  here
> [It's a long read, sorry]



Yes I read the english portion of the message cited, in following that
 :trainwreck:

While it was announced/implemented abysmally, it reaffirms that we are _all_ taking hits to try and re-establish fiscal responsibility. Banking sick days, as a source of extra income, is irresponsible by the government and dishonest by both parties.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> You did read dapaterson's post and you are capable of separating issues, right??



Judging by the tone of your post I suppose I'm not, I'll re-read it.

Edit: Yup just read it again. I don't think sick days should be banked, that doesn't seem right to me. On the other hand if someone requires significant sick time or recovery time then they should get it.  I guess it's semantics.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Journeyman said:
			
		

> While it was announced/implemented abysmally, it reaffirms that we are _all_ taking hits to try and re-establish fiscal responsibility.




Give me a break........yea, that's 29 pages [and counting] of " glad we're doing our part" I read there.




			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Banking sick days, as a source of extra income, is irresponsible by the government and dishonest by both parties.



Agreed.  But, as was noted, that is a separate issue from just banking sick days.


----------



## Journeyman

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Give me a break........yea, that's 29 pages [and counting] of " glad we're doing our part" I read there.


No, that was 29+ pages of  " :crybaby:   I'm going to have to kill my kittens and puppies because I can't afford to feed them~!"



> Agreed.  But, as was noted, that is a separate issue from just banking sick days.



Which is why I said:


			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Sick days could still be banked, for use as required for legitimate ailment/injury...



Obviously, we're not going to agree here.   Enjoy


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Actually we DO agree,.............except for your line " Sorry unions, welcome to the 21st Century", as it would seem unless the military formed a Union while I was sleeping last night then we should be welcoming every worker to this brave new world.


I did get my back up about the 'blanket' bashing of accumulating sick days from those who, from day one of employment, would have been paid until the injuries/illness healed,.....glass houses et al.


----------



## rifleman17

BadEnoughDude said:
			
		

> You're absolutely correct. Poor, selective or sensationalistic media coverage of the emergency and correctional services completely skews any public perception of what they actually do. The various forms of media are only concerned with cases that can generate outrage, and gain viewership/readers. I've noticed that the media thrives on cases where there's a certain degree of ambiguity. That is, cases where it'd be rather easy for the media to omit or embellish certain details about a case in order to get as much public response as possible. The RCMP airport tasering case is a prime example of the media skewing and omitting facts due to the fact that the case can appear ambiguous to anyone who wasn't actually there as the event happened, making it a prime target for media "spin".
> 
> I'm not saying that it's some sort of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory that the media constantly paints emergency and corrective services in a negative light, but their besmirching of these services' is consistent and frequent and completely unwarranted. It's completely sickening that the media would even consider making negative-spin stories about emergency and corrective services, given how essential they are. You'd think that services that save lives and keep order in society would be given a positive spin by the media, not constantly attacked. The end result of this is that the public adopts gross misconceptions about these services and perceives them as being less legitimate or effective. In my opinion, this then generates a mindset amongst the general public that emergency and corrective services are overcompensated. Overall, it's yet another case of the media tarnishing any service that is visible and who deals with controversial issues.
> 
> Just my  :2c: .



The only thing the media cares about is selling news papers and gaining higher viewership on television.  It's all about making money.  If they have to paint the cops as the bad guys in order to achieve that, they don't care.

'Journalistic integrity' seems to be a concept that's quoted only at *their* own convenience.


----------



## MeatheadMick

Police get paid relatively well to do things that most people would not want to do...

Kim Kardashian gets paid much more... for doing what exactly?

The world ain't fair


----------



## George Wallace

MPMick said:
			
		

> Police get paid relatively well to do things that most people would not want to do...
> 
> Kim Kardashian gets paid much more... for doing what exactly?
> 
> The world ain't fair



Had you (your Mom) made a sex tape of you that went viral, you may not be in that condition.


----------



## MeatheadMick

?? Not sure if I'm tracking GW lol


----------



## George Wallace

MPMick said:
			
		

> ?? Not sure if I'm tracking GW lol



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Kardashian


----------



## GAP

Ohhhh.....shyte....my eyes are burning...............

That is more, much more than I ever wanted to know about Kim Kardashian...........


----------



## MeatheadMick

I know I wouldn't be as rich as her if there was a sex tape of me floating around.. absolutely not even close.

But yeah... Cops deserve good salaries lol


----------



## mariomike

Today's National Post reports that Emergency Services are under strength. 

"The report from EMS chief Paul Raftis acknowledges that despite a nearly 30% rise in emergency patient transport volumes over the past decade, the paramedic workforce has remained static, leading to a progressive erosion in response times.":
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/19/emergency-response-times-are-improving-in-toronto-but-theyre-still-well-below-standards/

Councillor Maria Augimeri is quoted as saying, “We are short of people on the street, and that’s where it counts.”

On Tuesday it was reported, "City on track to post $115M surplus for 2012":
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/225443--city-on-track-to-post-115m-surplus-for-2012

Hopefully, some of that surplus can be used towards putting "people on the street".


----------



## mariomike

29 October 2012

"Arbitrator raps City of Toronto for not hiring firefighters: 
 http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/arbitrator-raps-city-of-toronto-for-not-hiring-firefighters.html

Despite “extreme fiscal pressures,” an arbitrator has found the City of Toronto breached its collective agreement with its firefighters when it elected not to initiate a recruit class for the department in 2011.

The issue at hand, the decision not to initiate a recruit class in May 2011, came at a time when the city was under severe financial pressures given recently elected Mayor Rob Ford’s campaign against the infamous gravy train. The city, last week’s decision notes, argued it was under “the most extreme fiscal pressures it had ever faced.”

Toronto (City) v Toronto Professional Firefighters’ Association Local 3888.

Article 49.01:  A recruit class would be initiated when vacancies in the present work force created by death, retirement, resignation or discharge reaches (sic) forty (40).

End quote.

TFS posted operational firefighting jobs in August. Candidates are writing aptitude tests starting Friday.


----------



## ArmyRick

Stepping back from the small potatoes and looking at the larger picture. I see this as a matter of "How much money do we spend on government services be it municipal/provincial or federal".

I would reccomend we start at the top at all LEVELS before we ask anybody to reduce pay or step down. Start with those governing, members of parliament, councilors, mayors, prime minister, premiers, etc, etc. They take the first hit.

Next, we need to remove a large chunk of beauracracy at ALL levels (and yeah, we in the CF/DND are guilty of it too). I think too many people are in jobs that could simply be eliminated, reduced or amalgamated with other jobs. 

Then we start rating all government services from most essential to least. Then you have a viable hit list to go after. Obviously, least important government services take bigger hits.

After cuts/slashes/reductions/efficencies are made, then it becomes department heads responsibility to monitor their departments and ensure people are being reasonable and honest about what they are taking home beyond base pay level.

A couple of problems with this. 

Everbody always justifies their own existence no matter how redundant they may be. For this too work, it will take some hard decisions to be made.

Next, Greed. One of the worst things to infect the human brain. When people get greedy and take more and more of what they don't need (especially money), things get ugly. Combine justification with greed and you get a nasty combination.

Canadian Tax payers have a valid complaint. I would not say its the police making too much, but as I said, the problem must be viewed holistically.


----------



## mariomike

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Canadian Tax payers have a valid complaint. I would not say its the police making too much, but as I said, the problem must be viewed holistically.



The Emergency Services Steering Committee (ESSC) position paper, "Escalating Emergency Services Labour Costs and the Ontario Taxpayers’ Ability to Pay”, recommended that the government “consider not only comparisons to other emergency services workers within the community and other areas, but also comparisons to other unionized and non-unionized employees in the same community”.


----------



## The_Falcon

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Stepping back from the small potatoes and looking at the larger picture. I see this as a matter of "How much money do we spend on government services be it municipal/provincial or federal".
> 
> I would reccomend we start at the top at all LEVELS before we ask anybody to reduce pay or step down. Start with those governing, members of parliament, councilors, mayors, prime minister, premiers, etc, etc. They take the first hit.
> 
> Next, we need to remove a large chunk of beauracracy at ALL levels (and yeah, we in the CF/DND are guilty of it too). I think too many people are in jobs that could simply be eliminated, reduced or amalgamated with other jobs.
> 
> Then we start rating all government services from most essential to least. Then you have a viable hit list to go after. Obviously, least important government services take bigger hits.
> 
> After cuts/slashes/reductions/efficencies are made, then it becomes department heads responsibility to monitor their departments and ensure people are being reasonable and honest about what they are taking home beyond base pay level.
> 
> A couple of problems with this.
> 
> Everbody always justifies their own existence no matter how redundant they may be. For this too work, it will take some hard decisions to be made.
> 
> Next, Greed. One of the worst things to infect the human brain. When people get greedy and take more and more of what they don't need (especially money), things get ugly. Combine justification with greed and you get a nasty combination.
> 
> Canadian Tax payers have a valid complaint. I would not say its the police making too much, but as I said, the problem must be viewed holistically.



Why that sounds pretty rational, but you highlighted some of the reason why that would be difficult to implement.  But you forgot about the whiny professional grant getters, liberal arts etc etc. who will scream blue bloody murder that, their $20 Million or what arts funding grant (as an example) is way more vital to the life blood of the city/province/country, than the $100 Million in infrastructure repair that are needed (look at the budget hysterics in Toronto for the last 2 years as an example).  They are more than happy to just put paint and bondo over the rust, and think thats all that is required.


----------



## mariomike

Before prorogation, there was a bill in the Ontario Legislature for an "Ability to Pay Act".

If a city proved it did not have the ability to pay an arbitrated increase, they would not have to.

"Municipalities rally behind bill to fix Ontario’s ‘broken’ arbitration system":
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/27/municipalities-rally-behind-bill-to-fix-ontarios-broken-arbitration-system/

"That would make Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s anti-gravy platform a relevant point of consideration." 

Ability to pay would have been considered in arbitrations such as the recent one ( mentioned above ) involving TFS. "The issue at hand, the decision not to initiate a recruit class in May 2011, came at a time when the city was under severe financial pressures given recently elected Mayor Rob Ford’s campaign against the infamous gravy train. The city, last week’s decision notes, argued it was under “the most extreme fiscal pressures it had ever faced.”


----------



## mariomike

TFS is taking some heat over chute times.

"Toronto Fire Fighters are too slow getting to work. It's going to take $33 million of your property tax dollars to let them off the hook.":
http://allsecondscount.ca/Why_All_Seconds_Count.html

http://facts-or-fear.com/Home_Page.html
"Of all the emergency calls that Toronto Fire responds to, only 1% are actually fires."


----------



## The_Falcon

mariomike said:
			
		

> TFS is taking some heat over chute times.
> 
> "Toronto Fire Fighters are too slow getting to work. It's going to take $33 million of your property tax dollars to let them off the hook.":
> http://allsecondscount.ca/Why_All_Seconds_Count.html
> 
> http://facts-or-fear.com/Home_Page.html
> "Of all the emergency calls that Toronto Fire responds to, only 1% are actually fires."



Those stats just kill me, especially when you see how many calls are medical, and then you here about all the issues TEMS is facing, responding to medical calls.


----------



## mariomike

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Those stats just kill me, especially when you see how many calls are medical, and then you here about all the issues TEMS is facing, responding to medical calls.



There have been studies, such as this one, regarding Firefighter First Response ( FFR ) to emergency medical calls in Toronto:
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10903120903349754
"The model predicts that FFR lights-and-siren responses in the sample could be reduced by 83%..."

TPS tweeted this last Friday ( no info on the Incident Type ): 
http://twitter.com/Sgt6920/status/287272053025943552/photo/1/large


----------



## mariomike

A professor from the Royal Military College of Canada on the subject of, "Toronto and the Cost of Emergency Services":
http://theagenda.tvo.org/blog/agenda-blogs/toronto-and-cost-emergency-services


----------



## mariomike

From yesterday's National Post.

"The thin red line: Increasingly idle fire stations a tempting target for cash-strapped cities":
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/09/the-thin-red-line-increasingly-idle-fire-stations-a-tempting-target-for-cash-strapped-cities/


----------



## mariomike

Reader's comments and poll ( about a 50-50 split ) in today's Sun. 

"Toronto firefighters land 'high' pay hike in arbitrated contract
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/06/27/toronto-firefighters-land-high-pay-hike-in-arbitrated-contract


----------



## X Royal

mariomike said:
			
		

> From what I read in the papers, I think our emergency services provide good value.
> 
> For example, ten years ago T-EMS put 67 ambulances in service every morning.
> 
> Now it has fallen to 60.
> 
> Even though there has been a 24.9 per cent increase in call volume during that time.
> 
> TFS currently has 128 emergency response vehicles. In 1998, they had 133.
> 
> Their call volume has increased by 29 per cent.


My guess would be that the majority of calls now would be of a more serious nature now.
Since 1998 the patient transfer industry has greatly risen freeing up the emergency ambulance services  respond to the serious calls as opposed to some of the routine transfers where a stretcher is the main requirement.


----------



## mariomike

X Royal said:
			
		

> My guess would be that the majority of calls now would be of a more serious nature now.
> Since 1998 the patient transfer industry has greatly risen freeing up the emergency ambulance services  respond to the serious calls as opposed to some of the routine transfers where a stretcher is the main requirement.



That is true. ( For sure in Ontario because of provincial legislation. Not sure what the patient transfer legislation is, if any, in the other provinces. )

In spite of that, in Toronto at least, emergency response time actually got worse. 

In 1996, T-EMS responded to emergency calls in 8.59 minutes or less 84 per cent of the time. By 2012, they were making that standard less than 62 per cent of the time.


----------



## X Royal

mariomike said:
			
		

> in Toronto at least, emergency response time actually got worse.
> 
> In 1996, T-EMS responded to emergency calls in 8.59 minutes or less 84 per cent of the time. By 2012, they were making that standard less than 62 per cent of the time.


I'm sure lengthy off load times at hospitals play a big part in the slower responses.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

mariomike said:
			
		

> In spite of that, in Toronto at least, emergency response time actually got worse.
> 
> In 1996, T-EMS responded to emergency calls in 8.59 minutes or less 84 per cent of the time. By 2012, they were making that standard less than 62 per cent of the time.





			
				X Royal said:
			
		

> I'm sure lengthy off load times at hospitals play a big part in the slower responses.



A 2011 budget briefing note helps explain the reason for response times deterioration. (Hi-lights are mine).


----------



## mariomike

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> A 2011 budget briefing note helps explain the reason for response times deterioration. (Hi-lights are mine).





			
				X Royal said:
			
		

> I'm sure lengthy off load times at hospitals play a big part in the slower responses.



Regarding Off-Load Delay ( OLD ). From the 2013 T-EMS Operating Budget to The City of Toronto page 14.
http://www.toronto.ca/budget2013/pdf/op13_an_ems.pdf

"Improved Hospital Offload Delay: EMS continued to realize measurable decreases in the impacts of Hospital Offload Delay through the Dedicated Offload Nurse Program, ongoing negotiations with Toronto hospitals and site-specific reporting to improve their offload times. The average offload time in 2011 was 48.5 minutes (against the standard of 30 minutes) and is projected to remain stable by the end of 2012. These efforts have contributed to improved/shortened wait times from an average of 70 minutes in 2008 to an estimated average of 48 minutes in 2012. Negotiated with the province to expand and continue the Dedicated Offload Nurse Program in 2013." 

The POMAX Report was released to The City of Toronto this week.
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/13135525/1343983969/name/Pomax%20backgroundfile-59902.pdf

Fortunately, it recommended not to amalgamate TFS and T-EMS.

It also recommended against a "Fire-Medic" model. These are common in American cities.

It did however recommend the City increase T-EMS response capacity by 223,451 staffed vehicle hours to meet demand. 

"There has been a 28% increase in emergency call demand for paramedics over the last ten years. This call volume trend continues to increase at a rate greater than the city’s population growth and will likely continue to increase by 2 to 4 % annually."   

Hiring will help reduce Paramedic overtime.

In today's Globe and Mail:

"Left-winger David Miller couldn’t do it. Right-winger Rob Ford can’t either. Municipal governments of every stripe are struggling to control the relentless rise in the cost of policing and fire fighting. They are failing. The recent labour agreement between the City of Toronto and its firefighters helps explain why."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/contract-ruling-adds-fuel-to-the-fire/article12898294/

"Wages are only part of the problem. The city is paying out millions in death benefits for firefighters who die of cancers that are presumed to have been caused by their work. Provincial legislation that took effect in 2007 says that eight types of cancer – including brain, bladder, kidney, colon/rectum and esophagus – are presumed to be work-related for firefighters. Benefits are handed out without any need to prove they were caused by toxins encountered in the line of duty."

"The city notes in its most recent budget that the presumptive-claims legislation, which extended retroactively to 1960, imposed $100-million in costs on municipalities."

Regarding future municipal budget planning, the proposed presumptive PTSD legislation for Ontario Police Officers, Firefighters and Paramedics also says, "Time limits do not apply".


----------



## The_Falcon

More fuel for the fire  ;D

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/a-nation-of-100000-firefighters/article13647608/



> Everyone loves firefighters. They save lives. They are strong and competent. They look good on calendars. People are always happy when they show up.
> 
> But municipalities do not love firefighters. Across Canada, towns and cities are getting hosed by the skyrocketing costs of their fire departments. Thanks to arbitration settlements, your firefighters are the best paid (and possibly the most underworked) guys in town. Firefighters have been getting raises that are twice as high what other public sector workers have been getting, at a time when municipalities are strapped for funds and raises are just a memory for most of us.
> 
> Here in Toronto, firefighters recently won a 14-per-cent wage increase over five years, which means that by next year, a first-class firefighter will be making $90,000. But it’s the small towns that are hit worst. Tiny Owen Sound, Ont. (population 32,092), has 29 full-time fire professionals. Last year, 25 of them made more than $100,000. The median full-time income of people who live in Owen Sound is less than half that.
> 
> For smaller cities, the fire department is typically the largest item in the budget. It accounts for upward of a quarter of their costs. But municipalities are powerless to control firefighters’ salaries, because negotiations with the union almost always wind up in arbitration. And arbitrators aren’t obliged to give much weight to a town’s ability to pay. Instead, they simply match the settlements that everybody else got, including police. So the costs spiral ever upward, and towns are forced to cut back on libraries and roads. As Toronto city manager Joe Pennachetti told the Toronto Sun: “We feel like we’re banging our heads against the wall.”
> 
> There’s no good reason for salaries to go up so much, argues John Saunders, a consultant with Hicks Morley who advises dozens of municipalities. Firefighting is an extremely desirable job, and vacancies are scarce because people rarely quit. Last year, for example, there were more than 500 applicants for 20 firefighting jobs in the Ontario communities of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo. In Cambridge, a first-class firefighter earns up to $99,397 a year, plus benefits and overtime. Yet despite the high demand for their jobs, firefighters get “retention” payments for not quitting.
> 
> Working conditions are pretty sweet too. Thanks to modern safety standards, there are very few fires left to fight. These days, most fire department calls are medical. To prove that they’re still needed, fire departments have been adding defibrillators and Jaws of Life, and frantically expanding their repertoires to respond to even minor non-fire emergencies. Still, there’s an awful lot of what we shall euphemistically call “down time,” which firemen fill by preparing meals, sleeping, watching television, polishing the trucks and rewinding the hoses.
> 
> It’s long past time to roll back firefighting costs, as cities across the United States have been forced to do. But in Canada, costs continue to escalate as unions demand even better benefits, shorter work weeks and highly desirable 24-hour shifts. Firefighters love 24-hour shifts because it gives them plenty of time off for their other jobs. Theoretically, they’re required to work seven or eight of these shifts in a 28-day period, but workers with plenty of seniority can wind up working just five or six shifts, according to Mr. Saunders. Some critics refer to the 24-hour arrangement as “a well-paid part-time job.” (As for how it’s possible to work 24 hours in a row, the answer is “down time.”)
> 
> Not even the smallest effort to control costs goes unchallenged. In Windsor, the union grieved a decision to pull a fire truck out of service in 2008, saying that the administration had promised to leave it in service until the new contract was settled, which still hasn’t happened. The arbitrator sided with the union and told the city to cough up $381,000 in theoretically lost overtime – $1,328 for each member of the fire department. Meanwhile, in Toronto, the firefighters’ union continues its endless war against Emergency Medical Services, claiming that a decision to stop dispatching million-dollar pumpers to lower-level 911 calls puts lives at risk. A consultants’ report said that a merger of fire and EMS could save the city significant money – but the tribal warfare is so bitter that it will never happen.
> 
> I have nothing against firefighters, personally. But times have changed. We can’t go on like this. I could write the same column about the police. You guys are supposed to protect us. But we can’t afford you any more


----------



## mariomike

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> More fuel for the fire  ;D
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/a-nation-of-100000-firefighters/article13647608/



MARGARET WENTE
"A nation of $100,000 firefighters"

According to their official website, "Toronto Professional Firefighters Association ( TPFFA ) Fighting Back":

"Myth: Toronto Fire Fighters make more money than a ( sic ) Toronto paramedics.

Fact: If you look at the 2010 Ontario Public Sector Salary disclosure list for the year 2010 you will see 9.5% of Toronto Fire Service staff made the list. Toronto EMS had 20% of their staff make the list."

http://www.torontofirefighters.org/OSS/images/fightingback/mythsvsfacts.php


----------



## The_Falcon

mariomike said:
			
		

> MARGARET WENTE
> "A nation of $100,000 firefighters"
> 
> According to their official website, "Toronto Professional Firefighters Association ( TPFFA ) Fighting Back":
> 
> "Myth: Toronto Fire Fighters make more money than a ( sic ) Toronto paramedics.
> 
> Fact: If you look at the 2010 Ontario Public Sector Salary disclosure list for the year 2010 you will see 9.5% of Toronto Fire Service staff made the list. Toronto EMS had 20% of their staff make the list."
> 
> http://www.torontofirefighters.org/OSS/images/fightingback/mythsvsfacts.php



Inflammatory percentages without the actual numbers, since I believe T-EMS has smaller amount of staff, their percentages would tend to skew higher.  I pulled up that particular sunshine list 20 paramedics (mostly level 3s with the odd level 2 and level 1) made the list, 15 FF's made the list, the rest would obviously be senior staff for both orgs.  Even still the comparison isn't even.  Paramedic's don't get to sleep half their shift, they will take naps/rest between calls if they are able to, but that would be a luxury during the shift.  FF's working 24hrs, not a chance they are awake all 24hrs.

Now last years is a different story 177 paramedics made the list, and only a handful of firefighters did.  The top end of wage of Level 3 medic is $42/hr, which is still less than what a 1st Class FF makes, as base pay.  So to me that spells overtime, which is on par with what many medics have told the news, they are understaffed, and overtime is a given.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> FF's working 24hrs, not a chance they are awake all 24hrs.



Mostly no,......but does it happen??......I happen to know it does.


----------



## mariomike

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Inflammatory percentages without the actual numbers, since I believe T-EMS has smaller amount of staff, their percentages would tend to skew higher.



That true. TFS has 3,100 versus T-EMS 851 Paramedics. 

For T-EMS you also have to factor in Shift Bonus, Stat Holiday pay, Meal Allowance, Wash up / Lock up time, A/R rates, Special Ops and FTO premiums etc. It adds up. 

"Fact: If you look at the 2010 Ontario Public Sector Salary disclosure list for the year 2010..."

I did look at the 2010 Ontario Public Sector Salary disclosure list for the year 2010.

It showed a T-EMS Supervisor - just one rank above Paramedic -pulled in $223,936.56. Not including Taxable Benefits of $724.65.

Their union could have also posted that.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Paramedic's don't get to sleep half their shift, they will take naps/rest between calls if they are able to, but that would be a luxury during the shift.  FF's working 24hrs, not a chance they are awake all 24hrs.



"The ( TFS ) chief responded that firefighters get six hours of rest time during the shift, while remaining available to respond to calls."
http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/35819/work-schedules-of-firefighters-probed/

If the City of Toronto were to permit their Paramedics to work 24-hour tours ( 10 X 24-hours every six weeks ) they would be open to liability if an inquest were to determine a Paramedic's lack of sleep lead to the death of a patient or a member of the public. 

August 1, 2013:

"Delegates adopted two important resolutions, including one that will result in an analysis of EMS in Canada to establish a strategy to maintain and enhance fire-based EMS, which is under increasing attack from paramedic associations and other groups."
http://www.iaff.org/canada/updates/policy_halifax.htm

In spite of the 'City of Toronto/Pomax report' released in June, their union shows no signs of giving up on Fire-based EMS.


----------



## The_Falcon

mariomike said:
			
		

> In spite of the 'City of Toronto/Pomax report' released in June, their union shows no signs of giving up on Fire-based EMS.



Of course, it's easier to camouflage the inefficiency and waste of sending huge expensive fire trucks plus associated personnel to medical calls, if they absorb the EMS service and can thus include EMS stats into their own.


----------



## mariomike

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Of course, it's easier to camouflage the inefficiency and waste of sending huge expensive fire trucks plus associated personnel to medical calls, if they absorb the EMS service and can thus include EMS stats into their own.



Maybe end up like NYC.

"On this site you will read about how The New York City Fire Department took over and wrecked the New York City Emergency Medical Service."
http://fdnyemswebsite.com/


----------



## Thompson_JM

mariomike said:
			
		

> Maybe end up like NYC.
> 
> "On this site you will read about how The New York City Fire Department took over and wrecked the New York City Emergency Medical Service."
> http://fdnyemswebsite.com/



This.... 1000 times this... While I have nothing against the bucketheads, amalgamating EMS *into* fire is a horrible idea. Firefighters are not Paramedics, and Paramedics are not firefighters... Putting them under the same umbrella is not going to fix anything or save money? Explain to me how a fire chief can truly understand the issues faced by overworked understaffed EMS crews... It just screams "recipe for disaster" Honestly, when people talk about cutting costs these days, they seem to slag police a lot... I honestly wonder why it has taken so long to finally take a critical look at the cost of a fire department. 

I'm willing to bet taking one big red truck off the road would probably free up enough money to put two ambulances and PCP's in em, back onto the road...  

Of the two, which do you think (in an Urban center like Hamilton or Toronto) would end up with more calls for service in the end? my money is on the Amb.


----------



## The_Falcon

Tommy said:
			
		

> This.... 1000 times this... While I have nothing against the bucketheads, amalgamating EMS *into* fire is a horrible idea. Firefighters are not Paramedics, and Paramedics are not firefighters... Putting them under the same umbrella is not going to fix anything or save money? Explain to me how a fire chief can truly understand the issues faced by overworked understaffed EMS crews... It just screams "recipe for disaster" Honestly, when people talk about cutting costs these days, they seem to slag police a lot... *I honestly wonder why it has taken so long to finally take a critical look at the cost of a fire department.*



The bolded part, my thoughts, because they (broadly over multiple jurisdictions) have for years run very effective PR campaigns, that both make the public love, and scare the crap out of them.  All animals are naturally afraid of fire, so subtling hinting that if you look for savings in the FD, you will conversely put your home/business at risk of burning to the ground, makes for effective tactics.  The flip side is because they have been so damn effective, we as a society have pretty tough building/fire codes that make the risk of fires relatively small.  Schools are a prime example, fire drills are repeated endlessly, building materials are mostly fire retardent, and their sprinklers every where, when was the last time you ever heard of school burning (outside of deliberate arson)??  



> I'm willing to bet taking one big red truck off the road would probably free up enough money to put two ambulances and PCP's in em, back onto the road...



I think that has been discussed previously..



> Of the two, which do you think (in an Urban center like Hamilton or Toronto) would end up with more calls for service in the end? my money is on the Amb.



Toronto (and other jurisdictions) own stats betray them, over half their calls are to respond to medical calls.  And using some really weird logic, FF's and their reps argue that this strong arguement FOR amalgamation, and/or increasing resources.  To more rationale people it means a) trying to justify ones exsistence and b) resources should be focus on EMS, since they have 2 years MINIMUM of training and education, FF's an 80 first aid course, and oh yeah paramedics can actually transport.

In my perfect little world FF's would make around the 50-60k base pay mark, and work normal shifts like everyone else.  They would also focus solely on rescue operations (auto extrications, plucking people out of ravines and rivers), and fire operations.  I would also institute some type of tiered bonus/allowance scheme, based on the risk/hazard level one faced at such calls.  Something small like car fire or dumpster fire, would obviously be on the low end, a huge multiple alarm blaze at chemical plant, would garner the top level.  FF's wouldn't be dispatched to medical calls  either, the cost savings would be used to staff more ambulances and/or single ACP response vehicles.


----------



## Scott

I do not disagree that pay is out of line, and getting worse. I have done the job (forestry, oilfield, training), albeit not affiliated with the IAFF, and have run with some of the muni boys - they could stand a haircut, IMO. I base this on knowledge of call volume, training requirements, shift rotations, etc.

Amalgamation of services: depends on the municipality. Saying it absolutely will not work is ludicrous. Saying it absolutely will is the same. It IS working just fine in some areas of the country that are not Toronto.

My full time, IAFF, buckethead buddies HATE when I refer to their new favourite film as a study on how to shut up and accept the pay you currently get, because it could be so, so, SO much worse.


----------



## Scott

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> In my perfect little world FF's would make around the 50-60k base pay mark, and work normal shifts like everyone else.  They would also focus solely on rescue operations (auto extrications, plucking people out of ravines and rivers), and fire operations.  I would also institute some type of tiered bonus/allowance scheme, based on the risk/hazard level one faced at such calls.  Something small like car fire or dumpster fire, would obviously be on the low end, a huge multiple alarm blaze at chemical plant, would garner the top level.  FF's wouldn't be dispatched to medical calls  either, the cost savings would be used to staff more ambulances and/or single ACP response vehicles.



Careful. I was almost killed at a car fire. We did everything right.


----------



## The_Falcon

Scott said:
			
		

> Careful. I was almost killed at a car fire. We did everything right.



I was trying to use examples from an outsiders perspective, since its all hypothetical pondering anyways.  Since I think I am fairly rational and logical, the hazard/risk allowance scheme I would favour would be based on hard data (historical call data, injuries suffered at different calls, long term effects of attending different calls) and the experiences/input of those who have BTDT. 



			
				Scott said:
			
		

> My full time, IAFF, buckethead buddies HATE when I refer to their new favourite film as a study on how to shut up and accept the pay you currently get, because it could be so, so, SO much worse.



Film?? What film?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Tommy said:
			
		

> .... I'm willing to bet taking one big red truck off the road would probably free up enough money to put two ambulances and PCP's in em, back onto the road...
> 
> Of the two, which do you think (in an Urban center like Hamilton or Toronto) would end up with more calls for service in the end? my money is on the Amb.


Maybe, but taking enough red trucks off the road = closing stations = increases in house insurance rates in areas losing fire coverage.  That's why "big red" pulls a fair bit of political weight in many provincial capitals (where the rules are made), and why they would be able to twist arms at the municipal level.


----------



## Scott

Burn. It's on iTunes. 20 bucks with some of that going to the Leary Firefighter Fund specifically for Detroit.

Seriously, it's an awesome film and hits home on some very valid issues. Likely to be spun to suit whatever purpose, I think it's a valid example of just how good some folks have it up here. I am sure someone employed FT in fire might disagree but whatever. Best scenes for me: whenever they show duct tape holding shit on the fire trucks or boots together...



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Maybe, but taking enough red trucks off the road = closing stations = increases in house insurance rates in areas losing fire coverage.  That's why "big red" pulls a fair bit of political weight in many provincial capitals (where the rules are made), and why they would be able to twist arms at the municipal level.



Ding, ding, ding. I have actually participated in exercises meant to prove rural water supply rates that resulted in lower premiums for residents. Of course we had one douchebag, before learning of the insurance savings, pissing and moaning about the expenditure on fuel :


----------



## Thompson_JM

I would not want to see any large scale cutback of fire services... Lord knows I appreciate the concept of "Paid for what we may have to do" 

More Amb's are needed, but it has to be a multi-faceted approach incorporating other elements of the health care system as well. My EMS buddies tell me the two biggest issues they face are probably Offload delay, and non-emergency frequent fliers. (Which are also intertwined... go figure... lol) 

I can only speak from what I see and hear in the Hamilton area, and right now it's pretty much as adversarial as it gets.  Probably safe to say that we cant really compare American systems to Canadian ones, nor even interprovincial as the standards seem to vary from place to place.  

When I say it is a terrible idea, I am (to clarify) only speaking from the viewpoint of Ontario, and large urban centers within it (Hamilton, Halton, Peel, GTA, etc...)  

At least Hamilton has a new EMS chief. Hopefully one who is more concerned with providing good service and keeping morale out of the toilet, and less concerned with trying to look frugal on paper off the backs of everyone else.


----------



## HTFUAlberta

You got it Tommy!

A lot of the taxpayer base would be surprised to know that any fire service cuts would translate into higher insurance premiums for their properties based on service reviews. You can cut services but your premiums will start to go up (even $100 per year per property would be a huge sum when combined). If that's what councils want that's their god given (or voter given) right. They just have to explain to the voters/taxpayers why they're getting less services and higher premiums. 

Where I am a red seal trades person can get a higher wage easily compared to anybody in emergency services. That being said I could up to the patch and double my income doing less work than I do now. Money is not everything to a lot of people and sometimes the pay is knowing you helped out and made a difference. Heck I was a firefighter for FREE for four years.... Like 80% of the other firefighters in this country!

IMHO EMS has gotten sucked into the healthcare cluster #€%} and it won't change anytime soon. With the demographic time bomb here to stay it'll get worse. EMS doesn't go hot to a lot of calls anymore like they used to (I don't mind helping a 90 lb grandmother who's fallen And can't get up at all but I do mind doing it in an old folks home where they aren't allowed to because of corporate policy).

Uh-oh that's the grumpy EMS side of me coming out so I must digress.....

HTFU


----------



## Towards_the_gap

I should go live in Mrs Wente's town because I make half of what she claims in the article.


----------



## Scott

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> I should go live in Mrs Wente's town because I make half of what she claims in the article.



Another reason that chatter about this, and the way service is delivered, has to be on a case by case basis.


----------



## mariomike

In today's paper on the subject, for anyone interested.

"Wage increases of police, firefighters and paramedics are outstripping cost of living, rate of inflation and average of other public sector workers."

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/08/30/contain_runaway_compensation_of_ontarios_first_responders.html


----------



## The_Falcon

I read through the arbitrator`s decision re: Toronto Fire`s last contract, and it`s outstanding the mental leaps of logic that employed.  To boil it down, TFS was awarded their increases based on what the police had obtained.  Why the police? Just because, that's why.  It's always been done like that..... :facepalm:  Other than getting to drive through red lights and such on the way emergencies, there is NO, similarities between either occupation..... So friggin retarded....


----------



## x_para76

Is part of the problem the fact that a new hire with the FD or PD gets to their top pay in approximately 4 years? That equates to a pretty serious pay raise in a relatively short period of time. I know for my wife who is an RN it took her 10 years to reach top pay for her occupation. Would that in any way solve some of the problem with budgeting for police and fire?


----------



## mariomike

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I read through the arbitrator`s decision re: Toronto Fire`s last contract, and it`s outstanding the mental leaps of logic that employed.  To boil it down, TFS was awarded their increases based on what the police had obtained.  Why the police? Just because, that's why.  It's always been done like that..... :facepalm:  Other than getting to drive through red lights and such on the way emergencies, there is NO, similarities between either occupation..... So friggin retarded....



As I understand it, police and fire wages have had some form of parity since the 1950s. But, firefighters were required to work much longer hours than police back then. 

Edit to add

"Police deserve higher pay than firefighters, report says	

Sept. 3, 2013, Toronto – A consultant’s analysis of the roles of firefighters and police officers for the City of London, Ont., says first-class police officers have more complex decision-making responsibilities than first-class firefighters and should be paid two pay grades higher."
http://www.firefightingincanada.com/content/view/16568/213/



			
				X_para76 said:
			
		

> Is part of the problem the fact that a new hire with the FD or PD gets to their top pay in approximately 4 years?



Same at T-EMS. ( But, all three professions can apply for promotion to higher grades. )


----------



## The_Falcon

X_para76 said:
			
		

> Is part of the problem the fact that a new hire with the FD or PD gets to their top pay in approximately 4 years? That equates to a pretty serious pay raise in a relatively short period of time. I know for my wife who is an RN it took her 10 years to reach top pay for her occupation. Would that in any way solve some of the problem with budgeting for police and fire?


Possibly one factor, however the problem is (at least on the police side of the equation), how quickly officer can move up the ranks is codified in law (http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_100268_e.htm), give how much foot dragging has been going on regarding changing arbitration laws, I doubt they would ever get around to amending this.


----------



## mariomike

This should be interesting at the end of this month when the annual Sunshine List is released.

February 26, 2015 

Toronto police to publicly report paid-duty earnings to Sunshine List
http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/1297918/toronto-police-to-publicly-report-paid-duty-earnings-to-sunshine-list/

"What Toronto police officers really earn, including the amount of money paid for off-duty work, will be publicly reported for the first time this year."

"Toronto’s police union consulted a lawyer on the issue, but appears to have lost the ability to keep paid-duty earnings secret."


----------



## Tibbson

Sadly most will only look at the number and not the total hours it took to earn that amount.  I know plenty of civilian officers who earn huge amounts each year but they have to forgo vacation time and work plenty of overtime to make that amount.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Security costs big money, if people don't want to pay for it than they can expect a reduced level of security.  Fact is Police, EMS, Firefighters and even Military all cost a lot of money, especially if you want to attract the right people for the job and keep them there.  The people, through the government, are free to lower salaries if they wish through collective bargaining, legislation, etc... but they can expect a reduced level of service if they do so.

The old saying, "don't piss in the stream and get mad when all the fish die", applies perfectly to this situation.

Any country with a competent and professional police force pays them very well.  The less they are paid, the more ineffective they become.  A security void will open up and that void will be filled by private security firms who inevitably end up being more expensive in the long run than if the country simply paid for a better trained police force.  A case in point of this would be a country like South Africa, where rich people pay big money to private security firms to protect their property, yet the national police force is chronically underfunded.  

At the end of the day, if we cut funding to police forces, the only ones who will be able to have security will be those who can afford it and the average joe/jill will suffer as a result.  Sounds very Un-Canadian to me.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Sadly most will only look at the number and not the total hours it took to earn that amount.  I know plenty of civilian officers who earn huge amounts each year but they have to forgo vacation time and work plenty of overtime to make that amount.



I have no doubt you are correct there SL, but the question then should not be "Why is so and so earning so much", for which the answer is easy, because he worked one and a half time the hours of the other police officers during the year, but rather (and its a question for management/politicians) "why do 20% of the police officers work 140% of regular hours every year? Hire some more officers so we can cut on overtime !!!"


----------



## mariomike

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Hire some more officers so we can cut on overtime !!!"



The Emergency Services unions in Toronto have campaigned for increased staffing levels since I joined. But, ultimately, the decision is up to City Hall, and sometimes the arbitrators.


----------



## Tibbson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I have no doubt you are correct there SL, but the question then should not be "Why is so and so earning so much", for which the answer is easy, because he worked one and a half time the hours of the other police officers during the year, but rather (and its a question for management/politicians) "why do 20% of the police officers work 140% of regular hours every year? Hire some more officers so we can cut on overtime !!!"



Your point is perfectly valid as well but that won't stop people from saying "Look how many are on the list (or how much they make) and they still want a raise or budget increase."  Many won't look beyond the numbers as to the root causes.


----------



## mariomike

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Many won't look beyond the numbers as to the root causes.



Supply versus demand for service and response times. How long should a caller be willing to wait? I have heard it said that it may be cheaper to pay the OT than hire new recruits.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I have no doubt you are correct there SL, but the question then should not be "Why is so and so earning so much", for which the answer is easy, because he worked one and a half time the hours of the other police officers during the year, but rather (and its a question for management/politicians) "why do 20% of the police officers work 140% of regular hours every year? Hire some more officers so we can cut on overtime !!!"



Because its cheaper to pay a trained officer time and a half then to pay more officers training, benefits and regular time.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I can agree with that fact at first, but not in the long run. And if the fact that hiring and training an influx of new recruits costs more today even if it leads you to a better situation in the end, stops you from acting, don't ever claim that you know how to manage. Every private company knows that you have to invest first, before any profits start to roll in. If you are unwilling to make the investment now and spend money, don't expect any return.

In the long run, after a "burst" increase in training increasing your number of officers, you will reach a steady state that will see much less overtime required and savings as a result (and a lot less medical leave for over-stress, or burnout, or injuries caused by mistakes resulting from fatigue and general tiredness).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

The manager who overspends today will not be around to be the manager when those benefits start to surface, so they place short term bandaids on things..............see past GM's of the Toronto Maple Leafs as a shining example. ;D

Having said that, not every private company knows everything.......see Target Canada.
Wise spending and spending are two very different things.


----------



## mariomike

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I know plenty of civilian officers who earn huge amounts each year but they have to forgo vacation time and work plenty of overtime to make that amount.



That may also explain why there were so few from the job in the militia ( at least when I was in ). It became increasingly difficult to ( financially ) justify to myself refusal of 12-hour voluntary OT shifts ( although some OT was mandated ) to attend parade nights and weekend exercises.

Although it never happened during my career, after I retired, there were occasional ( unofficial ) mass refusals to work voluntary OT.

( Mayor ) Ford urges paramedics to work overtime
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/09/ford-urges-paramedics-to-work-overtime


----------



## Alberta Bound

The major problem with the "sunshine list" in Ontario is it doesn't breakdown the money. So you can't tell who from the Ministry of Health got a bonus of $, or in the Legislature who got $ for only 8 months work, or which OPP member worked a bunch of OT in an isolated spot waiting for a position to be filled and which City Cop worked a ton of paid duties.


----------



## mariomike

Alberta Bound said:
			
		

> The major problem with the "sunshine list" in Ontario is it doesn't breakdown the money. So you can't tell who from the Ministry of Health got a bonus of $, or in the Legislature who got $ for only 8 months work, or which OPP member worked a bunch of OT in an isolated spot waiting for a position to be filled and which City Cop worked a ton of paid duties.



I don't believe OPP members are shown on the Sunshine List. It does however identify municipal police officers ( and others ) by name and amount paid.

2015 will be the first time Paid Duty will be included with salary.


----------



## Alberta Bound

OPP is under the Community Safety and Corrections Ministry. Their Commissioner Chris Lewis made $215,000 in 2013.


----------



## mariomike

Alberta Bound said:
			
		

> OPP is under the Community Safety and Corrections Ministry. Their Commissioner Chris Lewis made $215,000 in 2013.



Thanks.


----------



## Alberta Bound

Some OT in policing can't be stopped with extra resources. There will always be continuing duty for investigations, court time, stat holidays, callouts in small non 24 hr locations. Usually the more specialized a member or smaller the Detachment - Unit the more likely there is OT. 

But OT to fill regular shifts is a chronic issue because most Govts realise that running a shift short 1 body 24/7 saves $ 600,000. Even when we bring in members on OT ( and we don't for every missing body all the time) is going to be cheaper in the long run. Even if we filled every operational hour with an OT member it would never be worse than breaking even on the cost of a member. 

There is always going to have to be a balance. Unfortunately right now in many Detachments that is not happening. Crime stats may say there is less crime (most of that is changes in how crime is reported and counted vs a reduction in actual calls for service) but policing is busier than ever. 

Also civilianization has killed us. Instead of paying a police officer to work in Non front line duties in certain circumstances we have civilianized those jobs so we could leverage the lower pay and benefits of support staff. Sounds good, right.  Save $10,000 here, $20,000 there. But when that police officer is unable to do front line work in the short, medium and long periods what do we do with them now that all those jobs are filled by clerks. I don't know many long term operational members (uniformed front line types) who aren't broken at some point in their careers. Now there is no place (funded) to put them for the 6, 12, however many months till they can return to full duty or transition out. Instead they occupy funding for the front line taking away spots on Detachments and Units instead of being productive in some role. 

Food for thought.


----------



## Alberta Bound

MM, I know how you feel. It is hard to some times to compare an offer of an OT shift VS reserve pay.
 I volunteered to go with a bunch of cadets for an 8 day visit to Wainwright awhile back. During it a Reg Force Mbr made a comment about CIC and our lack of worthiness and he couldn't believe that I was a Capt and getting paid $200 a day to be there. 
Neither could I after his comment, as I had taken leave from the day job and turned down some OT shifts totalling about $3000 to be there. 

I could have worked the OT and taken the boss on a nice holiday instead. 

It tests your dedication. Oh well.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I thought that you chaps were not allowed to dip your toes in the pond, even as CIC, AB.  When did that change?


----------



## Alberta Bound

Some time ago they let us into CIC and then eventually PRes. I went back into the CIC in 2006 while in northern MB after leaving in 1987. Too old to start fresh in the PRes. Only restrictions are MPs and Rangers as far as I have heard. I enjoy helping the kids and in the small towns there are limited options.


----------



## noneck

Rules changed in Feb of 2007, myself and JH lobbied for 7 years to have the rules changed. Gen Hillier saw the sense in it and made the change.


----------



## The_Falcon

If you are willing to dig through police service board minutes, I believe it was at meeting last Feb-Apr (can't remember when) that board asked the Chief to provide them details on how many more officers would be included on the sunshine list if paid duties were factored in. The result was 75% of TPS would be on the list. 

The issue people/politicians are having with paid duties is 1)The police service either is the sole approver of certain kinds of event permits, or they are at least partially involved in the decision process, which creates a conflict of interest, when they also say if you want your permit approved you WILL use X amount of officers. 

2) A good chunk of paid duties involve municipal works projects, and the issue is the source of the money. While the construction company are paying for the paid duties (and often it is something they are told they must do), the company is being paid by the city (ie tax dollars) to do the work.


----------



## mariomike

Regarding Paid Duty:

I worked a lot of Paid Duty during my career. It never showed up on the Sunshine List, because the money did not come out of the City Treasury. At least not directly. Community/street events and festivals, CNE and the Air Show, Indy, Caribana, Pride, Canada Day celebrations, Taste the Danforth, Santa Claus Parade, lots of sporting events and marathons, World Youth Day, SARS concert ( 500,000 people showed up ), rock concerts, film shoots, meetings and conventions etc. There were lots of things where they wanted a dedicated crew on standby. All heck could be breaking loose on the 9-1-1 system, but they never called you for any of it if you were on P.D.

The people doing the hiring could go cheap and hire a private company, but we were the sole ambulance service provider within the City of Toronto that was licensed to transport patients in an emergency situation to a hospital (under the Ambulance Act of Ontario).


----------



## The_Falcon

mariomike said:
			
		

> Regarding Paid Duty:
> 
> I worked a lot of Paid Duty during my career. It never showed up on the Sunshine List, because the money did not come out of the City Treasury. At least not directly. Community/street events and festivals, CNE and the Air Show, Indy, Caribana, Pride, Canada Day celebrations, Taste the Danforth, Santa Claus Parade, lots of sporting events and marathons, World Youth Day, SARS concert ( 500,000 people showed up ), rock concerts, film shoots, meetings and conventions etc. There were lots of things where they wanted a dedicated crew on standby. All heck could be breaking loose on the 9-1-1 system, but they never called you for any of it if you were on P.D.
> 
> The people doing the hiring could go cheap and hire a private company, but we were the sole ambulance service provider within the City of Toronto that was licensed to transport patients in an emergency situation to a hospital (under the Ambulance Act of Ontario).



Regarding who is actually paying for TPS paid duty, the city requested that TPS start tracking and requiring all requests for paid duty to indicate whether or not the request was working on a city paid  project. TPS also changed how they handle paid duties, they now issue (separate) T4's for it since the service collects and distributes the funds to the officers, instead of them getting paid on the spot by whoever requested them. 

The fun you can have reading board meeting minutes.


----------



## mariomike

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> The fun you can have reading board meeting minutes.



Did you read about this one?  ;D

Only one paid-duty cop needed at Grade 8 graduation after all, police tell school

Under fire for the number of off-duty cops it says are needed at community events, Toronto police backpedal on demand for two armed officers at ceremony for 55 kids.
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2014/05/22/only_one_paidduty_cop_needed_at_grade_8_graduation_after_all_police_tell_school.html


----------



## The_Falcon

I say meh,  if someone is voluntarily asking for paid-duty, that's on them, whatever the cost. I take umbrage when people are TOLD they MUST have paid-duty officers, whether it's for an event or construction or whatever


----------



## Tibbson

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I say meh,  if someone is voluntarily asking for paid-duty, that's on them, whatever the cost. I take umbrage when people are TOLD they MUST have paid-duty officers, whether it's for an event or construction or whatever



I look at it as more of an officer safety issue actually and not TPS telling them they must have paid duty officers at all.  Obviously the school requested a paid duty presence and if TPS requires their officers to work in pairs then so be it.  Would someone be able to tell mariomike that he was needed for a paid duty but they only needed the ambulance driver because the event organizer had their own first aid staff to handle the hands on care?  

Yes it was "only" 55 8th graders but it was also potentially 110 parents, school staff, other assorted family members and visitors.  Others are more familiar with Toronto then I am so they know the school neighborhood better then I do but if someone from the community wanted to cause a problem (or engage in an active shooter incident) I'd say that two paid duty officers would be more effective then just one.  Not to say they could handle things single handedly but with two you have a better chance to triage the situation and call for backup.  

One officer to direct traffic, perhaps.  Other then that I'd think it prudent to have partners.


----------



## The_Falcon

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I look at it as more of an officer safety issue actually and not TPS telling them they must have paid duty officers at all.  Obviously the school requested a paid duty presence and if TPS requires their officers to work in pairs then so be it.  Would someone be able to tell mariomike that he was needed for a paid duty but they only needed the ambulance driver because the event organizer had their own first aid staff to handle the hands on care?
> 
> Yes it was "only" 55 8th graders but it was also potentially 110 parents, school staff, other assorted family members and visitors.  Others are more familiar with Toronto then I am so they know the school neighborhood better then I do but if someone from the community wanted to cause a problem (or engage in an active shooter incident) I'd say that two paid duty officers would be more effective then just one.  Not to say they could handle things single handedly but with two you have a better chance to triage the situation and call for backup.
> 
> One officer to direct traffic, perhaps.  Other then that I'd think it prudent to have partners.



I don't have an issue with what the school was quoted, if you read the article you will see, this is something they have to taken upon themselves to have (paid duties). If you have the money and you want paid duties, go for it, I say. 

What I (and others) have an issue with is for example a work crew is hired by the city to repair something in the road or the road itself. When that company goes to get the necessary permits they are told they must have paid duties on site, and the real contentious issue is this "policy" is inconsistently applied through out the city, some road crews will have paid duties others in different parts won't.  When this was in the news a year or two ago, people were trying to seek clarification and it just became a game of pass the buck:  TPS "We don't set the rules XYZ Dept does" XYZ "Don't know what TPS is talking about, you need to speak with ABC Dept" ABC" you were told the wrong information by XYZ, you need to talk with TPS".


----------



## mariomike

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Would someone be able to tell mariomike that he was needed for a paid duty but they only needed the ambulance driver because the event organizer had their own first aid staff to handle the hands on care?



Never work without your partner. 

Things we took into consideration for Paid Duties were, the size of the event/how many people, time of year and type of weather, how many hours or days it would run, what lighting was available for night-time hours, indoor or outdoor, alcohol, demographics, what incidents have occurred in the past, was it a sporting event etc.

The police had their own event planners who worked in conjunction with ours.



			
				Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Others are more familiar with Toronto then I am so they know the school neighborhood better then I do but if someone from the community wanted to cause a problem (or engage in an active shooter incident) I'd say that two paid duty officers would be more effective then just one.



It's an old working class neighbourhood that has seen better days. Probably a bit rougher than most. Not much through traffic. Lots of kids playing ball in the streets. I would say its outstanding feature is the hilly terrain. 



			
				Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> One officer to direct traffic, perhaps.  Other then that I'd think it prudent to have partners.



That sounds sensible. Ultimately, it's the decision of the service provider: "The number of police officers, supervisors, vehicles and hours required for the performance of a paid duty shall be assessed by the Service, based on the nature of the event."
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/paidduty/tps_784.pdf


----------



## mariomike

Alberta Bound said:
			
		

> I don't know many long term operational members (uniformed front line types) who aren't broken at some point in their careers.



Sooner or later, it always happens to some friend in the department. Maybe even yourself. As time went by, it meant a great deal to know that we and our families would be taken care of by the City in the event anything happened.


----------



## mariomike

Saw this in another forum,



> Although police don't generally call themselves civilians, in my mind if you are not subject to unlimited liability (police are not...) you are a civilian.



This was our departmental SOP about our right to refuse unsafe work. I am sure that would include police.



> Paramedics are reminded of their responsibility under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 43, (1) and (2).2 These sections exclude paramedics from the right to refuse work where the circumstances are inherent in their work and/or if the work refusal would directly endanger the health and safety of another person.


----------



## mariomike

Saw this in a forum comparing military "Unlimited liability" and emergency services "right to refuse".



> even though the death penalty was still in force when I joined it hadn't been used since WW2.





> If a soldier today just decided to refuse to fight, I don't see to many cases where the end result is much worse than what a police officer could get. A soldier doesn't have a police union to protect him



One American was executed for cowardice during WW2. No Canadians were.

I read this about the right to refuse unsafe work and Unlimited Liability at an American bomber station during the war,

"Aircrew are heard openly saying that they do not intend to fly to Berlin again or do any difficult sorties. This is not considered a disgrace or dishonorable."

That was an American bomber station. Likewise, although less frequent, Canadian Bomber Command aircrew could and did sometimes refuse to fly.

No death penalty or jail time.

And, that was during the war when the draft / conscription was in effect.


----------



## OldSolduer

mariomike said:


> Saw this in a forum comparing military "Unlimited liability" and emergency services "right to refuse".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One American was executed for cowardice during WW2. No Canadians were.
> 
> I read this about the right to refuse unsafe work and Unlimited Liability at an American bomber station during the war,
> 
> "Aircrew are heard openly saying that they do not intend to fly to Berlin again or do any difficult sorties. This is not considered a disgrace or dishonorable."
> 
> That was an American bomber station. Likewise, although less frequent, Canadian Bomber Command aircrew could and did sometimes refuse to fly.
> 
> No death penalty or jail time.
> 
> And, that was during the war when the draft / conscription was in effect.


Actually certain RCAF senior leadership had a term for those who refused to fly more missions after they had been in and out of missions for months. I can't for the life of me remember what it was....but it was not complimentary.


----------



## mariomike

OldSolduer said:


> Actually certain RCAF senior leadership had a term for those who refused to fly more missions after they had been in and out of missions for months. I can't for the life of me remember what it was....but it was not complimentary.


LMF

Lack of Moral Fibre

Stamped in big red letters on the jacket cover of your personnel file.


----------



## Pelorus

“There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.”

Joseph Heller, Catch-22


----------



## daftandbarmy

OldSolduer said:


> Actually certain RCAF senior leadership had a term for those who refused to fly more missions after they had been in and out of missions for months. I can't for the life of me remember what it was....but it was not complimentary.



Let me guess..... is it 'Stiff competition for promotion'?


----------



## PL90

They complain because they're ignorant about the risks associated with those jobs. They'd stop complaining if they were forced to deal with some guy whose high on drugs and brandishing a gun, threatening to shoot anyone who comes near him.

IMHO, the more risks there is, the higher the pay should be.


----------



## Eaglelord17

PL90 said:


> They complain because they're ignorant about the risks associated with those jobs. They'd stop complaining if they were forced to deal with some guy whose high on drugs and brandishing a gun, threatening to shoot anyone who comes near him.
> 
> IMHO, the more risks there is, the higher the pay should be.


Your absolutely right, which is why they would receive a pay deduction and many trades and labour jobs would receive a pay raise from those funds. Not only is most blue collar jobs more dangerous and lower paid, your odds of having long term injuries and developing health issues from those jobs is significantly greater as well.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

PL90 said:


> They complain because they're ignorant about the risks associated with those jobs. They'd stop complaining if they were forced to deal with some guy whose high on drugs and brandishing a gun, threatening to shoot anyone who comes near him.
> 
> IMHO, the more risks there is, the higher the pay should be.


So convenience store clerks should obviously be at the top of the pay chain....


----------



## lenaitch

Eaglelord17 said:


> Your absolutely right, which is why they would receive a pay deduction and many trades and labour jobs would receive a pay raise from those funds. Not only is most blue collar jobs more dangerous and lower paid, your odds of having long term injuries and developing health issues from those jobs is significantly greater as well.


What "they"?  Emergency services?  If so, it would only be possible for "trades and labour" to get the raise if they were paid from the public purse.  

The issue of mental health in emergency service is significant.  I've not heard it being an issue in professions where the physical industry statistics are higher.


----------



## Eaglelord17

lenaitch said:


> What "they"?  Emergency services?  If so, it would only be possible for "trades and labour" to get the raise if they were paid from the public purse.
> 
> The issue of mental health in emergency service is significant.  I've not heard it being an issue in professions where the physical industry statistics are higher.


Seeing as they pay the public purse, you could just reduce the taxes 'trades and labour' pay (which could be funded by a reduction in public service pay, thereby requiring less taxes). Anything is possible if you put your mind to it.

My response was more a tongue in cheek reply if its based on the danger level though. I would like to see the public sectors pay reigned in, but more by tying it as a average multiplier to the average Canadian income than anything else.


----------



## mariomike

Eaglelord17 said:


> I would like to see the public sectors pay reigned in, but more by tying it as a average multiplier to the average Canadian income than anything else.


Rather than cannibalizing gains made by other working people. Perhaps the question should be, instead of `I don't have it, so they shouldn't either,' to `they have it – why don't I?' 

It's not a race to the bottom.


----------



## Eaglelord17

mariomike said:


> Rather than cannibalizing gains made by other working people. Perhaps the question should be, instead of `I don't have it, so they shouldn't either,' to `they have it – why don't I?' It's not a race to the bottom.


And its not a race to the top off the backs of those paying your wages either. I am for a fair wage, benefits, and pension. What that means is they should be tied more to averages than anything else as you can't get more fair than that. If you disagree with that being fair, please explain to me why? The only reason I could see is if you believe you could get a better deal otherwise. 

Considering the fact that the Private sector has to compete globally, not just locally (and even then only from their workforces, you can't have a competing workforce for the same jobs) like the Public sector, it isn't a option to demand significantly more, they just close you down and ship the job off elsewhere.

To put in perspective how unfair the way we currently do things are, generally government employees receive about 2% wage increases every year. Private sector is a fraction of that. What this means is based on the same amount of money coming in from the private sectors taxes we either have to reduce services (which we are seeing in most the public service, part of the reason why our health care system is in shambles is due to this), or increase taxes to make up for the increase in cost as the private sector income didn't increase proportionately to the amount of money now required. 

Now that private sector person who isn't keeping up inflation to begin with, has been hit with a double whammy of having higher taxes to pay with a diminishing return off their take home. This creep has been going on for decades, and it doesn't seem like much at first but now it has resulted in most similar private sector and public sector jobs not even being comparable in terms of wage, benefit, working conditions, and pension.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Eaglelord17 said:


> To put in perspective how unfair the way we currently do things are, generally government employees receive about 2% wage increases every year.











						Ontario correctional workers get 7.5% wage increase
					

An arbitrator has awarded a four-year contract to Ontario’s correctional workers.




					torontosun.com
				




It took an arbitrator to get us 7.5% over 4 years retro to 2018........by far the best raise I've gotten in over 20 years.   Maybe somebody somewhere is averaging your 2% but I sure don't know them.


----------



## Good2Golf

Eaglelord17 said:


> And its not a race to the top off the backs of those paying your wages either. I am for a fair wage, benefits, and pension. What that means is they should be tied more to averages than anything else as you can't get more fair than that. If you disagree with that being fair, please explain to me why? The only reason I could see is if you believe you could get a better deal otherwise.
> 
> Considering the fact that the Private sector has to compete globally, not just locally (and even then only from their workforces, you can't have a competing workforce for the same jobs) like the Public sector, it isn't a option to demand significantly more, they just close you down and ship the job off elsewhere.
> 
> To put in perspective how unfair the way we currently do things are, generally government employees receive about 2% wage increases every year. Private sector is a fraction of that. What this means is based on the same amount of money coming in from the private sectors taxes we either have to reduce services (which we are seeing in most the public service, part of the reason why our health care system is in shambles is due to this), or increase taxes to make up for the increase in cost as the private sector income didn't increase proportionately to the amount of money now required.
> 
> Now that private sector person who isn't keeping up inflation to begin with, has been hit with a double whammy of having higher taxes to pay with a diminishing return off their take home. This creep has been going on for decades, and it doesn't seem like much at first but now it has resulted in most similar private sector and public sector jobs not even being comparable in terms of wage, benefit, working conditions, and pension.


Do you have references to prove the inequity of the pay difference?  I’d be keen to see it. I’m in the private sector and receive progressive compensation that considers inflation...and it is more regular and immediate than the fits and starts of military remuneration.  Your assertion that equitable should mean equal doesn’t fly.  What are the metrics to which equality is measured? And then there’s the issue of ‘higher taxes’ for someone in the private sector than someone you argue is paid unfairly more as a public servant. What tax tables are using?  Last I checked, the higher the net income, the more the tax paid.  How is it the opposite as you state?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eaglelord17 said:


> (1)And its not a race to the top off the backs of those paying your wages either. I am for a fair wage, benefits, and pension. What that means is they should be tied more to averages than anything else as you can't get more fair than that. If you disagree with that being fair, please explain to me why? The only reason I could see is if you believe you could get a better deal otherwise.
> 
> Considering the fact that the Private sector has to compete globally, not just locally (and even then only from their workforces, you can't have a competing workforce for the same jobs) like the Public sector, it isn't a option to demand significantly more, they just close you down and ship the job off elsewhere.
> 
> To put in perspective how unfair the way we currently do things are, generally government employees receive about 2% wage increases every year. Private sector is a fraction of that. What this means is based on the same amount of money coming in from the private sectors taxes we either have to reduce services (which we are seeing in most the public service, part of the reason why our health care system is in shambles is due to this), or increase taxes to make up for the increase in cost as the private sector income didn't increase proportionately to the amount of money now required.
> 
> Now that private sector person who isn't keeping up inflation to begin with, has been hit with a double whammy of having higher taxes to pay with a diminishing return off their take home. This creep has been going on for decades, and it doesn't seem like much at first but now it has resulted in most similar private sector and public sector jobs not even being comparable in terms of wage, benefit, working conditions, and pension.


(1) Everyone pays taxes.  Essentially, a percentage of my pay goes back into gov coffers to pay my own salary.


----------



## mariomike

Eaglelord17 said:


> And its not a race to the top off the backs of those paying your wages either.


We used to run into the occasional, "I pay your salary" type. I never talked back to a taxpayer. But, I used to wonder why they didn't redirect their anger towards the banks, financiers and Wall Street rather than blue collar guys out there breaking their backs for them.


----------



## Furniture

Eaglelord17 said:


> And its not a race to the top off the backs of those paying your wages either. I am for a fair wage, benefits, and pension. What that means is they should be tied more to averages than anything else as you can't get more fair than that. If you disagree with that being fair, please explain to me why? The only reason I could see is if you believe you could get a better deal otherwise.
> 
> Considering the fact that the Private sector has to compete globally, not just locally (and even then only from their workforces, you can't have a competing workforce for the same jobs) like the Public sector, it isn't a option to demand significantly more, they just close you down and ship the job off elsewhere.
> 
> To put in perspective how unfair the way we currently do things are, generally government employees receive about 2% wage increases every year. Private sector is a fraction of that. What this means is based on the same amount of money coming in from the private sectors taxes we either have to reduce services (which we are seeing in most the public service, part of the reason why our health care system is in shambles is due to this), or increase taxes to make up for the increase in cost as the private sector income didn't increase proportionately to the amount of money now required.
> 
> Now that private sector person who isn't keeping up inflation to begin with, has been hit with a double whammy of having higher taxes to pay with a diminishing return off their take home. This creep has been going on for decades, and it doesn't seem like much at first but now it has resulted in most similar private sector and public sector jobs not even being comparable in terms of wage, benefit, working conditions, and pension.


Which public sector jobs pay more than private sector? Which public jobs pay less than private sector?

You keep speaking in generalities as if everyone in the public sector is massively overpaid for what they do, but when my brother released from the CAF as an electrician he immediately made 50% more that his previous Sgt pay.

This seems to be comng from place of personal frustration based on your pay and benefits as compared to the public service. Why not join the mob, or join the public service? Why not upgrade your skills rather than demand others make less?


----------



## Eaglelord17

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Ontario correctional workers get 7.5% wage increase
> 
> 
> An arbitrator has awarded a four-year contract to Ontario’s correctional workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> torontosun.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It took an arbitrator to get us 7.5% over 4 years retro to 2018........by far the best raise I've gotten in over 20 years.   Maybe somebody somewhere is averaging your 2% but I sure don't know them.


Military alone just got a 6.2% increase for 3 years, many other governmental organizations that is more or less the standard.


Good2Golf said:


> Do you have references to prove the inequity of the pay difference?  I’d be keen to see it. I’m in the private sector and receive progressive compensation that considers inflation...and it is more regular and immediate than the fits and starts of military remuneration.  Your assertion that equitable should mean equal doesn’t fly.  What are the metrics to which equality is measured? And then there’s the issue of ‘higher taxes’ for someone in the private sector than someone you argue is paid unfairly more as a public servant. What tax tables are using?  Last I checked, the higher the net income, the more the tax paid.  How is it the opposite as you state?


Well the metrics are the fact that historically the Public sector tended to pay less, but offered more security, better benefits, and a better pension. Fast forward to 2021 with decades of wage growth in the Public sector and wage stagnation/job exportation in the private sector the tables have turned and pretty much every public job is significantly better in terms of pay, benefits, security and pension.

We are losing services due to paying well above what we should for people. I truly believe we need to hire a group to go through, examine the government as a whole organization and much like the military try to cut the tail and bring more teeth. I can guarantee you the results would be we are paying way too much, employ too many people for many jobs, and there would be wildfire slashes made to whole departments. 

I never said private sector pays higher taxes than the public sector, I said when you aren't keeping up with inflation to begin with, and to keep paying the public sector we have to increase taxes (which is constantly happening, carbon tax being the most recent) the person who isn't keeping up in the the first place is feeling the effects of a tax increase disproportionately. 


Halifax Tar said:


> (1) Everyone pays taxes.  Essentially, a percentage of my pay goes back into gov coffers to pay my own salary.


Yes and basically it is like a self-licking ice cream cone. 


mariomike said:


> We used to run into the occasional, "I pay your salary" type. I never talked back to a taxpayer. But, I used to wonder why they didn't redirect their anger towards the banks, financiers and Wall Street rather than blue collar guys out there breaking their backs for them.


Believe it or not I am actually supportive of most police officers and government servants. But support doesn't translate into blind loyalty. I believe in general we need to make some serious cuts to the public sector or greatly increase taxes because the way we are fiscally mismanaging our government for the last few decades is unacceptable and is quickly bringing us down the path to Greece. Look at Newfoundland where the biggest expense on their budget is simply servicing their provincial debt. 

The longer it takes to rein it all in and manage it properly the worse it is going to be in the long run because the balanced cuts I am talking about won't even be considered if things get too much farther out of hand.


----------



## YZT580

Eaglelord17 said:


> Military alone just got a 6.2% increase for 3 years, many other governmental organizations that is more or less the standard.
> 
> Well the metrics are the fact that historically the Public sector tended to pay less, but offered more security, better benefits, and a better pension. Fast forward to 2021 with decades of wage growth in the Public sector and wage stagnation/job exportation in the private sector the tables have turned and pretty much every public job is significantly better in terms of pay, benefits, security and pension.
> 
> We are losing services due to paying well above what we should for people. I truly believe we need to hire a group to go through, examine the government as a whole organization and much like the military try to cut the tail and bring more teeth. I can guarantee you the results would be we are paying way too much, employ too many people for many jobs, and there would be wildfire slashes made to whole departments.
> 
> I never said private sector pays higher taxes than the public sector, I said when you aren't keeping up with inflation to begin with, and to keep paying the public sector we have to increase taxes (which is constantly happening, carbon tax being the most recent) the person who isn't keeping up in the the first place is feeling the effects of a tax increase disproportionately.
> 
> Yes and basically it is like a self-licking ice cream cone.
> 
> Believe it or not I am actually supportive of most police officers and government servants. But support doesn't translate into blind loyalty. I believe in general we need to make some serious cuts to the public sector or greatly increase taxes because the way we are fiscally mismanaging our government for the last few decades is unacceptable and is quickly bringing us down the path to Greece. Look at Newfoundland where the biggest expense on their budget is simply servicing their provincial debt.
> 
> The longer it takes to rein it all in and manage it properly the worse it is going to be in the long run because the balanced cuts I am talking about won't even be considered if things get too much farther out of hand.


If you were to simply  get the teachers' salaries under control you would probably accomplish all of this.  Their increases have been far above that of the average public servant; certainly correctional types and first responders.  I know that the nurses have not received anything close to cost of living recently nor have the other members of the union correctional services belong to.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eaglelord17 said:


> The longer it takes to rein it all in and manage it properly the worse it is going to be in the long run because the balanced cuts I am talking about won't even be considered if things get too much farther out of hand.



I'm pretty sure that COVID will provide the impetus to tug pretty hard on those reins:

Government’s workforce transformation playbook​Canadian workforce of the future survey—Government employee insights


Governments are looking to transform to meet the workforce challenges of a rapidly changing world—whether they’re ready or not. 









						Government’s workforce transformation playbook
					

Governments are looking to transform to meet the workforce challenges of a rapidly changing world—whether they’re ready or not.




					www.pwc.com


----------



## lenaitch

Eaglelord17 said:


> The longer it takes to rein it all in and manage it properly the worse it is going to be in the long run because the balanced cuts I am talking about won't even be considered if things get too much farther out of hand.


But how do we rein in the results of collective bargaining?


----------



## YZT580

lenaitch said:


> But how do we rein in the results of collective bargaining?


Someone has to have the guts to say no.


----------



## Kat Stevens

lenaitch said:


> But how do we rein in the results of collective bargaining?


We just tell them they're asking for more than we can give. They'll understand.


----------



## mariomike

YZT580 said:


> Someone has to have the guts to say no.


If negotiations toward a new collective agreement fail, there may be a strike.

If the union is barred from going on strike, a third-party arbitrator will be appointed to come up with an agreement that is binding on both sides.

The threat of arbitration is often enough to force municipalities to settle with the union at the bargaining table.


----------



## lenaitch

YZT580 said:


> Someone has to have the guts to say no.



Then you have to replace free collective bargaining with a system that is independent and fair to both sides.  Otherwise, you have a system where public section pay is doled out on the good graces of the government of the day, pretty much what the RCMP has been dealing with until recently.   If the parties are unsuccessful at the table, they can go to mediation or arbitration.  'Ability to pay' is much more difficult in the public section, particular in first responder services and there is a distinction between 'ability' and 'willingness' which most bureaucrats and politicians don't get.


----------



## Halifax Tar

I have no issue with teachers pay.  The kids and parents they put up with, no thank you.  

You couldn't pay me enough to do that job. 

The real trouble here isn't what the public service is making.  Its that our government has allowed, over generations, private companies to put profits over people.  Oshawa, or Sarnia Ont are a great examples.


----------



## Eaglelord17

lenaitch said:


> But how do we rein in the results of collective bargaining?


Collective bargaining doesn't mean you have carte blanche. If the will power is there major cuts can be made even if they strike. The way many people save at the moment it wouldn't take too long for them to come back to the table. Even if there is no change made to pay, if someone wanted to there could be tons of redundancies made in most departments and likely thousands of jobs cut without any real loss to the effectiveness of the system.

This is why I like the idea of pay based off a multiplier of the average Canadian income (right now about 53k) which would be fixed. Just as random examples a clerk might be .9 times average income, a cop might be 1.6 times average income, etc. Even if the multiplier gets locked in at the current wages it prevents any extreme growth. The idea being that you wouldn't have to ever negotiate pay again unless there is a significant difference in how much a job is worth (say skilled trades wages go up significantly, or some other jobs value goes down significantly). If the economy stagnates so do the governments wages, if its booming, so is the governments wages, if its suffering, so does the governments wages. No need to go years without contracts, no need to constantly fight over money (which is the biggest part of the whole thing), simply a fair system which neither side controls.


----------



## brihard

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Ontario correctional workers get 7.5% wage increase
> 
> 
> An arbitrator has awarded a four-year contract to Ontario’s correctional workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> torontosun.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It took an arbitrator to get us 7.5% over 4 years retro to 2018........by far the best raise I've gotten in over 20 years.   Maybe somebody somewhere is averaging your 2% but I sure don't know them.





Eaglelord17 said:


> Collective bargaining doesn't mean you have carte blanche. If the will power is there major cuts can be made even if they strike. The way many people save at the moment it wouldn't take too long for them to come back to the table. Even if there is no change made to pay, if someone wanted to there could be tons of redundancies made in most departments and likely thousands of jobs cut without any real loss to the effectiveness of the system.
> 
> This is why I like the idea of pay based off a multiplier of the average Canadian income (right now about 53k) which would be fixed. Just as random examples a clerk might be .9 times average income, a cop might be 1.6 times average income, etc. Even if the multiplier gets locked in at the current wages it prevents any extreme growth. The idea being that you wouldn't have to ever negotiate pay again unless there is a significant difference in how much a job is worth (say skilled trades wages go up significantly, or some other jobs value goes down significantly). If the economy stagnates so do the governments wages, if its booming, so is the governments wages, if its suffering, so does the governments wages. No need to go years without contracts, no need to constantly fight over money (which is the biggest part of the whole thing), simply a fair system which neither side controls.



Yeah, you've been trying to pitch that system for a couple years now. It completely ignores that that would be a major breach of Charter rights underlying collective bargaining. You can't just set a rate of pay and say 'this is locked in now'. The right to collectively bargain, with or without the accompanying right to strike, is derived directly from the right to freedom of association. What you're suggesting wouldn't stand a chance of surviving judicial challenge. To further complicate, you're also glossing over the federal/provincial/municipal breakdown, and that the same jobs can exist in areas with very different economic conditions and costs of living.


----------



## mariomike

Eaglelord17 said:


> Even if there is no change made to pay, if someone wanted to there could be tons of redundancies made in most departments and likely thousands of jobs cut without any real loss to the effectiveness of the system.


I could imagine some "stop the gravy train" type politician at City Hall pushing for a return to the two-platoon system. Like they had before there was a union.



> Collective bargaining doesn't mean you have carte blanche. If the will power is there major cuts can be made even if they strike.



Some unions do not have, and do not seek, the right to strike. It goes to binding arbitration.

Layoffs are always a possibility. But, I've never heard of one involving emergency services in Metro.


----------



## YZT580

Carte blanche depends upon the union, their control of the media, political influence and the impact that withdrawal of services has on the tax payer.  Teachers generally get more because of the size of their voting block and the impact that a work stoppage has.  Their strike puts dozens of others out of work to stay home.  Correctional people on the other hand have absolutely no pull politically nor do nurses really: they can't strike other than tokenism.


----------



## mariomike

YZT580 said:


> Carte blanche depends upon the union, their control of the media, political influence and the impact that withdrawal of services has on the tax payer.


When seconds count, I imagine pulling down the handle on a red fire alarm box and nobody shows up would also be pretty upsetting to most taxpayers.


----------



## YZT580

except they can't not show up.


----------



## lenaitch

Eaglelord17 said:


> Collective bargaining doesn't mean you have carte blanche. If the will power is there major cuts can be made even if they strike. The way many people save at the moment it wouldn't take too long for them to come back to the table. Even if there is no change made to pay, if someone wanted to there could be tons of redundancies made in most departments and likely thousands of jobs cut without any real loss to the effectiveness of the system.
> 
> This is why I like the idea of pay based off a multiplier of the average Canadian income (right now about 53k) which would be fixed. Just as random examples a clerk might be .9 times average income, a cop might be 1.6 times average income, etc. Even if the multiplier gets locked in at the current wages it prevents any extreme growth. The idea being that you wouldn't have to ever negotiate pay again unless there is a significant difference in how much a job is worth (say skilled trades wages go up significantly, or some other jobs value goes down significantly). If the economy stagnates so do the governments wages, if its booming, so is the governments wages, if its suffering, so does the governments wages. No need to go years without contracts, no need to constantly fight over money (which is the biggest part of the whole thing), simply a fair system which neither side controls.



Beyond being a non-starter in our legal framework, it would require a very 'command and control' economy; setting wages by legislative fiat.


YZT580 said:


> except they can't not show up.


But the powers-that-be can establish the numbers available who can.  Not directly related to pay packets, but that is another way to control payroll costs.


----------



## Eaglelord17

brihard said:


> Yeah, you've been trying to pitch that system for a couple years now. It completely ignores that that would be a major breach of Charter rights underlying collective bargaining. You can't just set a rate of pay and say 'this is locked in now'. The right to collectively bargain, with or without the accompanying right to strike, is derived directly from the right to freedom of association. What you're suggesting wouldn't stand a chance of surviving judicial challenge. To further complicate, you're also glossing over the federal/provincial/municipal breakdown, and that the same jobs can exist in areas with very different economic conditions and costs of living.


Explain to me how it violates any rights? If you go into a union negotiation and agree 'x' job shall be paid 1.5 times average income in perpetuity then it was agreed by collective agreement. I also never said that there wouldn't be differences between different locations either. Maybe Vancouver pays 'x' job 1.7 times average income instead of 1.5. Maybe there is a PLD type system where if your inside 'x' location you get a addition to your multiplier, just as specialties and such would receive a addition to the multiplier. 

It is just a different way of looking at pay, which is a very fair way to do it.


----------



## mariomike

Recalling what our Mayor Lastman went through, I'm not sure negotiating with unions is as simple as it may seem.

“I knew it was time to stop that. We tried to take it away from them because they had us by the balls. We fought like hell but couldn’t get rid of it. You don’t know what we had to go through." “Try and fire them, you can’t.”


----------



## lenaitch

Eaglelord17 said:


> Explain to me how it violates any rights? If you go into a union negotiation and agree 'x' job shall be paid 1.5 times average income in perpetuity then it was agreed by collective agreement. I also never said that there wouldn't be differences between different locations either. Maybe Vancouver pays 'x' job 1.7 times average income instead of 1.5. Maybe there is a PLD type system where if your inside 'x' location you get a addition to your multiplier, just as specialties and such would receive a addition to the multiplier.
> 
> It is just a different way of looking at pay, which is a very fair way to do it.


This conflicts with what you have said previously.  Previous posts proposed a fixed pay rate per category based off of a statistical 'average income' whether or not anyone on the receiving end agreed to it.  I suppose a bargaining unit could agree that its members are paid a factor of some average base (some do - like police CAs, but it is limited to ranks above Cst. being paid at cst.+x%), but there is no guarantee that the members would vote for it - that is their right under labour law.  As well, no collective agreement exists in perpetuity.

This sounds like the position of Marxism which banned unions, simply because the system was so perfect they were unnecessary.


----------



## YZT580

The union doesn't want a long term settlement.  It would put them out of business and their executives would have to go back to work on the floor:  huge cut in pay.  Without the negotiation process, the union would be left with nothing to do but represent workers in management disputes and most of them are resolved at the local level by unpaid reps.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Wait what??   Have you ever done work in a Union??


----------



## brihard

YZT580 said:


> The union doesn't want a long term settlement.  It would put them out of business and their executives would have to go back to work on the floor:  huge cut in pay.  Without the negotiation process, the union would be left with nothing to do but represent workers in management disputes and most of them are resolved at the local level by unpaid reps.


...Yeah, that’s very much not in accordance with reality.

Out of any union executive, yes, a couple will be involved in collective bargaining, but most of that work is done by hired lawyers and negotiators. It’s not Sgt so-and-so who got elected to the union and who negotiated and locks down the deal. They work in concert with the professional negotiators.

Union executives have a ton on their plate. While it’s true that most disputes and minor and are resolved locally by union reps, there are always enough big ones that require higher intercession. There are always ongoing issues and initiatives within the employer that require higher level union involvement.

If you think union executives are idle when not at the bargaining table, I would suggest getting to know a few and learning more. The half dozen that I interact with regularly or semi regularly certainly don’t fit what you describe.


----------



## YZT580

brihard said:


> ...Yeah, that’s very much not in accordance with reality.
> 
> Out of any union executive, yes, a couple will be involved in collective bargaining, but most of that work is done by hired lawyers and negotiators. It’s not Sgt so-and-so who got elected to the union and who negotiated and locks down the deal. They work in concert with the professional negotiators.
> 
> Union executives have a ton on their plate. While it’s true that most disputes and minor and are resolved locally by union reps, there are always enough big ones that require higher intercession. There are always ongoing issues and initiatives within the employer that require higher level union involvement.
> 
> If you think union executives are idle when not at the bargaining table, I would suggest getting to know a few and learning more. The half dozen that I interact with regularly or semi regularly certainly don’t fit what you describe.


Carried a card for 32 years and yes, I know they are not idle and I know that they work hard but I also know that many situations that they end up being involved in could have been resolved at the local level except that they were pushed up the ladder in order to prove a point or achieve what they perceived was a larger goal.  I have also had my union group sold down the river so the larger union could gain a larger settlement for a smaller group.  I might also point out the sad demise of caterpillar in Canada because of union intransigence.  Most of the union members that I know and that I worked with would gladly have taken a COLA contract kept the union strictly as a shield between themselves and the owners (management)  just as you said above.  With that I totally agree.


----------



## brihard

YZT580 said:


> Carried a card for 32 years and yes, I know they are not idle and I know that they work hard but I also know that many situations that they end up being involved in could have been resolved at the local level except that they were pushed up the ladder in order to prove a point or achieve what they perceived was a larger goal.  I have also had my union group sold down the river so the larger union could gain a larger settlement for a smaller group.  I might also point out the sad demise of caterpillar in Canada because of union intransigence.  Most of the union members that I know and that I worked with would gladly have taken a COLA contract kept the union strictly as a shield between themselves and the owners (management)  just as you said above.  With that I totally agree.


Respectfully, carrying a card doesn’t man you have good eyes on the inner workings. I would suggest that just because work is not visible or apparent to you, doesn’t mean it’s not there getting done. I couldn’t tell you most of what a unit CO or Adjt do, and when I was a troop it was mostly invisible to me. But I know they had a ton on their plate.

your earlier post was plainly hyperbolic. That sucks that your union got subsumed into a larger one. I’m glad that mine is and will remain independent. It makes it easier to keep focused on the important stuff.


----------



## YZT580

Which is protecting the members and their jobs first and foremost.  I believe it was Dofasco that never unionized.  Instead they provided regular raises similar to what the Stelco folks got but they also maintained an active inter-action with their workers to ensure that grievances were resolved quickly and peacefully.  It was the preferred mill in which to work.  The entire union system is set up on a confrontational basis: it hasn't changed in that regards since the first union was formed.  Management seems to be able to gain raises without going on strike so why must the workers, who can least afford it, have to walk out?  but I digress, sorry.  I vote for long term settlements with cost of living factored in.


----------



## lenaitch

^^ Businesses like Dofasco, Honda Canada and I'm sure there are others are able to make it work but it requires a very collaborative management culture and constant attention to keep the unions away from the gate.  In the public sector environment - the topic of this thread - it is much more difficult because there are multiple layers of competing interests in the chain beyond the immediate management level.

Collective agreements are, in a sense, confrontational in that it sits in between management and labour and  sets  the framework (along with legislation) how they interact with each other on the range of topics it covers.  They are not just money, they cover topics such as various types of leave, benefits, often scheduling, overtime rules, and on and on.

My former association (union) represents close to 10,000 members and its full time staff, elected board and others, have to deal with managing benefits, member relations, employer relations, legal, etc.  Any collective agreement requires ongoing attention.  Sometimes it is simply a matter of different interpretations of the meaning of words used in a particular section of the agreement.

I am a fan of long-term agreements as they provide stability and predictability for both sides, but there there is a big gap between long-term and perpetual.


----------



## Eaglelord17

So it is acceptable for a union to be formed in perpetuity without any requirement for periodic ratification from their membership (most unions in Canada were voted in by people now long dead, some under very sketchy circumstances), yet the idea that a salary gets more or less fixed in perpetuity is absurd? You would still have to vote on it to have it accepted, and much like the union existing you would only need to do it once. You can still also negotiate to have the salary changed due to changing factors such as job markets changing as well, it wouldn't do away with collective agreements. They would still have to be done as per when they expire. 

I would also put politicians and their ilk on this system as well as then they would only be receiving what everyone else is.

Another way to possibly do it would be like how most jobs have for pensions. If they started on the previous system they can keep that, but if they are new hires they move into the new one (much like the I.E. 20 and I.E. 25 with the military or how I am on a defined contribution pension well the older co-workers are on defined benefit).

This doesn't remove collective agreements or bargaining, what it does do is keep everything level, and in my opinion allows unions to focus on what they should be focusing on, working conditions and the environment your in. The wage becomes out of the control of the government and the union, which is about as fair as it can be as neither side controls it.


----------



## Good2Golf

Eaglelord17 said:


> So it is acceptable for a union to be formed in perpetuity without any requirement for periodic ratification from their membership (most unions in Canada were voted in by people now long dead, some under very sketchy circumstances), yet the idea that a salary gets more or less fixed in perpetuity is absurd?


Did you actually read lenaitch’s post?  He said clearly that he favoured long-term agreements, NOT perpetual ones.  In no way did he preclude regular decision-points to ensure the spirit of the long-term agreement basis was still being met.


----------



## brihard

Eaglelord17 said:


> So it is acceptable for a union to be formed in perpetuity without any requirement for periodic ratification from their membership (most unions in Canada were voted in by people now long dead, some under very sketchy circumstances), yet the idea that a salary gets more or less fixed in perpetuity is absurd? You would still have to vote on it to have it accepted, and much like the union existing you would only need to do it once. You can still also negotiate to have the salary changed due to changing factors such as job markets changing as well, it wouldn't do away with collective agreements. They would still have to be done as per when they expire.
> 
> I would also put politicians and their ilk on this system as well as then they would only be receiving what everyone else is.
> 
> Another way to possibly do it would be like how most jobs have for pensions. If they started on the previous system they can keep that, but if they are new hires they move into the new one (much like the I.E. 20 and I.E. 25 with the military or how I am on a defined contribution pension well the older co-workers are on defined benefit).
> 
> This doesn't remove collective agreements or bargaining, what it does do is keep everything level, and in my opinion allows unions to focus on what they should be focusing on, working conditions and the environment your in. The wage becomes out of the control of the government and the union, which is about as fair as it can be as neither side controls it.


The legal mechanisms exist for employees to decertify or change unions if they wish.

Do you have any idea what goes into certifying and building a union? It’s a major, major process. If represented employees want to get the necessary majority together to make those changes, right on. But you seem to be teasing at the notion that a union, once established, shouldn’t automatically stay certified absent a successful decertification initiative by the represented employees. Frankly, that’s absurd. It would out a tremendous burden on the union, would increase union related expenses to the employees, and would disrupt collective bargaining and routine union representative work.

We get it, you’re uninformed in labour law and are committed to a half-baked idea here. But you’re not operating anything close to the realm of legal reality.


----------



## lenaitch

I suppose the big thing I'm missing is how something can be both perpetuity fixed and subject to periodic negotiation.


----------



## mariomike

Eaglelord17 said:


> So it is acceptable for a union to be formed in perpetuity without any requirement for periodic ratification from their membership (most unions in Canada were voted in by people now long dead,


In our town the police, fire and ambulance formed three separate unions on three separate dates in 1917 and 1918.

I don't recall any periodic ratifications during my time.


----------



## brihard

mariomike said:


> In our town the police, fire and ambulance formed three separate unions on three separate dates in 1917 and 1918.
> 
> I don't recall any periodic ratifications during my time.


Because it’s not a thing anywhere that I’ve ever heard of in Canadian labour relations.


----------



## Eaglelord17

brihard said:


> The legal mechanisms exist for employees to decertify or change unions if they wish.
> 
> Do you have any idea what goes into certifying and building a union? It’s a major, major process. If represented employees want to get the necessary majority together to make those changes, right on. But you seem to be teasing at the notion that a union, once established, shouldn’t automatically stay certified absent a successful decertification initiative by the represented employees. Frankly, that’s absurd. It would out a tremendous burden on the union, would increase union related expenses to the employees, and would disrupt collective bargaining and routine union representative work.
> 
> We get it, you’re uninformed in labour law and are committed to a half-baked idea here. But you’re not operating anything close to the realm of legal reality.



'Legal reality' is a subjective as that can be changed by the government at any point in time. I have never stated that my idea is fully developed, but it is a potential solution to the slow but steady growth of public sector wages well beyond what is happening in the private sector. This growth is eating into the effectiveness of government operations due to cuts having to be made to accommodate it, and results in one of three things. Loss of services, increases in taxes, or accumulation of public debt. Currently we have had all 3 happen in recent years without any of the covid spending, and it shall likely become significantly worse before it gets better longterm. 

This is a tangent but why is it a absurd idea that once in a while we should have to re-certify it? I personally like the Swiss model of government where the people have to vote every once in a while just to have taxes levied on them. It keeps the power where it belongs (the citizens or in this case the union members). Forced membership in a organization to have a job isn't right, but that is how our unions work. Freedom of association should work both ways and not require people to be part of unions to work a job. If you have no concerns about the legitimacy of the organization requiring a vote on the unions existence every say 10 years isn't unreasonable or arduous they run votes all the time. 



lenaitch said:


> I suppose the big thing I'm missing is how something can be both perpetuity fixed and subject to periodic negotiation.


The idea is the wages are tied to the Canadian average. Hypothetically there is a huge increase in wage for a specific job in the private sector, that average multiplier could be renegotiated to a higher rate. Pretty simple stuff. 



Good2Golf said:


> Did you actually read lenaitch’s post?  He said clearly that he favoured long-term agreements, NOT perpetual ones.  In no way did he preclude regular decision-points to ensure the spirit of the long-term agreement basis was still being met.



I get that, my point was that a union is a perpetual agreement, so why is it so unreasonable for them to agree to fixed wages that automatically account for incomes going up and down?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

You keep talking about how bigger the public sector raises are, take away the MP, MPP's Judges,teachers, and I think you'll find we lack quite far behind over the last 2 decades.  
GF is going to be making more at Costco as a customer rep then being a customer rep for the Ontario Govt makes once she hits the 5th year of her employment there.

CUTS??    I don't believe there are 'cuts'....when was the last time money to something actually went down?   When was the last time a Govt shrunk in size in Canada?   'Cuts" in Canada mean the EXTRA money every group is asking for is not going to be given.......  

School board says they need 4 billion next year instead of the 3.6 they got this year and get told only 3.8, ...."it's a cut!!"


----------



## brihard

You remain incorrect.

For one, nobody is forced to be a member of a union. Now, if you work under a collective agreement, you will likely have to pay union dues, but that is not the same as union membership. Freedom of association protects you from having to actually join. Unions are a corporate entity with bylaws and membership criteria. Generally there is a (frequently nominal) feee to join. Joining the union tends to give you voting and candidacy rights, and information undated the union sends to members. It is not necessary to be a union member to benefit from all of the provisions of a collective agreement. You are not a member of a union until you voluntarily sign up. You may simply need to pay dues because you benefit from their efforts on your behalf.

To claim that ‘legal reality’ can be changed by the government at any time is also not accurate, or at least not to a sufficient extent as to be relevant to the discussion. Much of this is not merely statutory, but arises out of the Charter right to freedom of association. While the Charter could hypothetically be amended (with such great difficulty that I doubt we’ll see it happen due to the political realities of constitutional law), or S.33 could be invoked for finite periods to upend S.2, the reality is that collective bargaining rights are a recognized consequence of a Charter right. This was examined at the SCC level, for instance, in the 2015 Mounted Police Association of Ontario v Canada case that ultimately allowed the Mounties to unionize. It was explicitly recognized that the right to form an association to advance collective interests and to meet an employer on more equal terms is a protected Charter right. So no, this cannot be simply changed. A statutory law to effectively dissolve and/or subject a union to re-ratification on a periodic basis would be an unjustifiable frustration of that right. It would be an illegal obstruction of the right to freedom of association.

For collective bargaining to be a meaningful exercise of free association, it has to be as i encumbered by unreasonable limitations as possible. Some limitations ARE reasonable. Parliamentary sovereignty, for instance, dictates as necessity that a union cannot collectively bargain a condition of employment that would require statutory change. PSAC, for instance cannot negotiate pensions as that would impose upon the employer a requirement to change the Public Service Superannuation Act, which the employer can’t doz The RCMP’s union can’t negotiate VAC benefits because that would require changes to the Pension Act and/or the RCMP Superannuation Act. Same deal; treasury board can’t legislate. But, outside of examples like that, an artificial constraint such as “compensation can only be negotiated as a multiple of an externally derived variable outside of the employer or bargaining agent’s control” would be a breach of our rights. When we negotiate collective agreements, we know what the dollar value of our pay for the length of the agreement will be. Any union even tabling an agreement for a vote that doesn’t offer that certainty would see such a contract angrily rejected and its executive voted out at the earliest opportunity.

There is a great deal of _law_ that you need to get up to speed on here if you want to be able to meaningfully discuss this. Wishing it away doesn’t work.


----------



## lenaitch

Eaglelord17 said:


> 'Legal reality' is a subjective as that can be changed by the government at any point in time. I have never stated that my idea is fully developed, but it is a potential solution to the slow but steady growth of public sector wages well beyond what is happening in the private sector. This growth is eating into the effectiveness of government operations due to cuts having to be made to accommodate it, and results in one of three things. Loss of services, increases in taxes, or accumulation of public debt. Currently we have had all 3 happen in recent years without any of the covid spending, and it shall likely become significantly worse before it gets better longterm.
> 
> This is a tangent but why is it a absurd idea that once in a while we should have to re-certify it? I personally like the Swiss model of government where the people have to vote every once in a while just to have taxes levied on them. It keeps the power where it belongs (the citizens or in this case the union members). Forced membership in a organization to have a job isn't right, but that is how our unions work. Freedom of association should work both ways and not require people to be part of unions to work a job. If you have no concerns about the legitimacy of the organization requiring a vote on the unions existence every say 10 years isn't unreasonable or arduous they run votes all the time.
> 
> 
> The idea is the wages are tied to the Canadian average. Hypothetically there is a huge increase in wage for a specific job in the private sector, that average multiplier could be renegotiated to a higher rate. Pretty simple stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> I get that, my point was that a union is a perpetual agreement, so why is it so unreasonable for them to agree to fixed wages that automatically account for incomes going up and down?



To say that the idea is not fully formed is a  bit of an understatement.  You seem to be the only one that doesn't see the conflict between a proposal that would have public section wages "tied" to a statistical figure, then somehow view this as something that is negotiable.

Most, but I believe not all unions are 'closed  shops'.  The reason for this is non-members enjoy the negotiated fruits and services that the union has negotiated without contributing to support it; they are free-riders.  It might actually be a fun experiment for an individual employee to go before a professional negotiator at Treasury Board and negotiate their own package.  Maybe they'd come out ahead - who knows.  But then, under your system, all they would have to do is Google StatsCan.

Edit:  After reading Brihard's post, I defer.  Membership and mandatory dues are separate and I conflated the two.  Often, certainly in emergency services, non-membership sounds like a good idea until you need legal assistance.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Actually membership in a union is a requirement in some shops. For example where I work, it is mandatory to be part of the union as much as you may or may not want to be. Otherwise you can't work those jobs and therefore cannot have that job. It is not optional as it is written into the collective agreement that you cannot work those jobs without union membership. The only 'option' you have there is either not to be a part of the union and thereby be out of a job, or be a member and retain your job.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Just like having a haircut is a part of being in the military....no haircut no job.    I have to wear a uniform at my job,... no wear, no job.
Being "in" a Union doesn't mean you have to participate, like paying JR rank mess dues....


----------



## dapaterson

Lavigne v OPSEU. Being represented by a bargaining agent requires you to pay dues.  It does not require you to take out membership.

See also: Rand formula.


----------



## mariomike

Eaglelord17 said:


> Actually membership in a union is a requirement in some shops. For example where I work, it is mandatory to be part of the union as much as you may or may not want to be. Otherwise you can't work those jobs and therefore cannot have that job. It is not optional as it is written into the collective agreement that you cannot work those jobs without union membership. The only 'option' you have there is either not to be a part of the union and thereby be out of a job, or be a member and retain your job.


Our Local was founded in 1917. Maybe in olden times a man could go his own way. But, these days, you've got to play ball.  

Our old union hall had a bar. So, there was a social aspect to the meetings.


----------



## mariomike

Saw this in another thread,



Haggis said:


> While I disagree about the word "huge",  there's a whole other thread on this topic.



We used to run into the "I pay your salary" types. They would say something like, "I don't have it, so you shouldn't either." 

I didn't reply. But, why couldn't they look at it this way instead, "They have it – why don't I?" 

It's not a race to the bottom.


----------



## lenaitch

mariomike said:


> Saw this in another thread,
> 
> 
> 
> We used to run into the "I pay your salary" types. They would say something like, "I don't have it, so you shouldn't either."
> 
> I didn't reply. But, why couldn't they look at it this way instead, "They have it – why don't I?"
> 
> It's not a race to the bottom.


I used to work with a member who had this whole spiel worked out where he summarized his salary divided by the number of taxpayers, blah, blah that boiled down to an individual 'I pay your salary' contribution being a nickel, which he would pull out of pocket and give back.


----------



## mariomike

lenaitch said:


> I used to work with a member who had this whole spiel worked out where he summarized his salary divided by the number of taxpayers, blah, blah that boiled down to an individual 'I pay your salary' contribution being a nickel, which he would pull out of pocket and give back.



No one handled the, "I pay your salary" better than Jack Webb.


----------



## Halifax Tar

I had a friend not believe we payed income tax.  Had to show my pay statement to prove we did.


----------



## mariomike

Saw this in another thread,



Bluebulldog said:


> In ON Paramedics aren't "Essential services". ( Yes, I know how stupid that sounds, but in fact, they can strike.



I'm only familiar with one department, in one province.

In just shy of 37 years full-time service, I was never on strike.



> City of Toronto
> [17] The outside workers have the right strike. The paramedics, however, are governed by ASCBA and they are subject to an essential services agreement. The Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) resolves any dispute with respect to the number of essential paramedics, who must continue to work and provide services during any strike or lock out.
> 
> [18] mandatory interest arbitration, in-lieu of the right to strike and lock out, to resolve future disputes with respect to the terms and conditions of employment applicable to paramedics.





Bluebulldog said:


> the Ambulance Drivers



Before one can apply to become a "driver",


Successfully completed a MOHLTC-recognized course for Primary Care Paramedic provided by a College of Applied Arts and Technology or equivalent.
Successfully completed the Advanced Emergency Medical Care Assistant (AEMCA) examination or be AEMCA pending as specified in the Ontario Ambulance Act.
Must be able to achieve and maintain current certification in Symptom Relief and Defibrillation under the Ontario Base Hospital Group and meet cross-certification requirements with Sunnybrook Base Hospital.
Must produce proof of mandatory immunization and maintain all immunizations as required and specified by the Ontario Ambulance Act.
Must possess a Class F Ontario Driver’s License, or better, and meet all requirements for licence maintenance as set forth in the City of Toronto’s Fleet policy and be able to qualify for the City’s equipment operating permits.
Must not be convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude for which a pardon has not been granted.
Must meet all requirements for employment as a Paramedic in Ontario as per the Ambulance Act.
Must not have had Driver’s License suspended for three years prior to application, and not have more than three demerit points issued against his/her Ontario driver’s licence.
Ability to pass oral, written and physical examinations pertaining to procedures used in emergency patient care as set by the Division.
Thoroughly familiar with the Highway Traffic Act and Municipal Traffic By-laws.
Must be physically capable of performing required duties.
Must be available to work rotating shift/weekend/night/overtime/on call duty in all environmental conditions.
Must be familiar with the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the regulations that apply to this work.
Proficiency in a second language, would be an asset.
Relevant work experience (i.e. paramedic, RN, MD, military, policing, any medical field), would be an asset.
Relevant volunteer experience (i.e. crisis, community involvement, mental health, shelters, etc.), would be an asset.
All City of Toronto employees are required to be fully vaccinated as a condition of hire in accordance with the City’s Mandatory Vaccination Policy.
Then comes the written evaluation, interviews, medical, physical testing...



Bluebulldog said:


> I've been a Volunteer FF, in Ottawa,



Congratulations.

I worked for a career department. ie: Full-time only. No part-time, volunteer, reserve or auxiliary members. It's a career, not a hobby.

If you plan on becoing a full-time firefighter, last year, according to the Sunshine List, the highest paid firefighter in our town made $193,197.21 .



mariomike said:


> One of our paramedics made $241,119 last year according to the Sunshine List.
> 
> Then you get into the supervisors, managers, deputy chiefs and the chief.


----------



## Bluebulldog

mariomike said:


> I worked for a career department. ie: Full-time only. No part-time, volunteer, reserve or auxiliary members. It's a career, not a hobby.



Mike,

I'm not interested in a pi$$ing contest. 

Your statements about Paramedics are true. But City of Toronto standards outside of the MOH requirements don't necessarily reflect all services. I know one person, last year. ( 9 months career college, preceptorship, and then hired). 

As far as Fire? Ottawa has the largest hybrid dept. in the world. Covering an area larger than 5 other major Canadian cities combined. All Volunteers are NFPA 1001, 1002, and Haz Mat cert. ( Yes, I'm aware lots of other rural services are just a show up kind of organization). 

I don't think I'd want FT, my other gig working Federally is pretty lucrative. Although your statement about Career Dept vs volunteer......same goes for RegF vs PRes? Literally the exact same situation.


----------



## Bluebulldog

mariomike said:


> I'm only familiar with one department, in one province.
> 
> In just shy of 37 years full-time service, I was never on strike.



Under the ASCBA, an ambulance service has to identify the number of paramedics who are "essential", but it does not prevent strike / lock out, only ensures that a specific number of personnel available for calls. ( How that differs from a normal compliment of staff seems odd).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Bluebulldog said:


> Under the ASCBA, an ambulance service has to identify the number of paramedics who are "essential", but it does not prevent strike / lock out, only ensures that a specific number of personnel available for calls. ( How that differs from a normal compliment of staff seems odd).



It's a whole stupid agreement they would have negotiated beforehand, "essential service".

100% stupid from the getgo.....the 2 Corrections "strikes"  I was involved in really just meant we did the same job at half the staffing /cost to the Govt. So we basically paid for our own raises.

I tried to do my part to fight the stupidity by using an analogy that went like "This is like the Ford workers going on strike and telling Henry that we're going to build the same number of cars but at half the cost to you,....take that Mr. Ford."

Deaf ears.....


----------



## Bluebulldog

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I tried to do my part to fight the stupidity by using an analogy that went like "This is like the Ford workers going on strike and telling Henry that we're going to build the same number of cars but at half the cost to you,....take that Mr. Ford."



Brilliant!!


----------



## mariomike

Saw this in another thread,



Bluebulldog said:


> Not to digress in the thread too much.
> 
> PCP is a baseline for Paramedics, and currently it can be obtained with less than a year of career college, and a couple of months preceptorship. There also isn't a governing body for PCPs in ON. So if you somehow manage to get in, and you're lousy, it takes a lot to get you out. ACP...different story.



Our "farm teams" were Humber and Centenial colleges. Both were / are two- year, four-semester diploma programs.








						Paramedic - Humber College
					





					healthsciences.humber.ca
				








						Centennial College - Paramedic
					

Centennial College's Paramedic program takes pride in its exceptional standards, high-quality graduates and high employment rates.  You'll s




					www.centennialcollege.ca
				




University of Toronto offers a four-year degree program.





						Paramedicine | UTSC Calendar
					






					utsc.calendar.utoronto.ca
				






Bluebulldog said:


> IMHO, Paramedics get a crummy shake in ON ( I can only speak for my own province / experience).



I can only speak for my own province / department also. 



Bluebulldog said:


> Bluebulldog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under the ASCBA, an ambulance service has to identify the number of paramedics who are "essential", but it does not prevent strike / lock out, only ensures that a specific number of personnel available for calls. ( How that differs from a normal compliment of staff seems odd).
Click to expand...


You may know better than I do - no sarcasm intended. 

I just know I was never on strike, and used this as a legal reference,


			https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2019/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-130591.pdf#:~:text=The%20outside%20workers%20have%20the%20right%20strike.%20The,provide%20services%20during%20any%20strike%20or%20lock%20out.
		



Bluebulldog said:


> As most services have PCPs start on a call-in / casual basis, often for up to 10 years. During that time, they have no benefits, and no sick days. Full time? Yes, absolutely, but the journey to get there often chews up decent folks, and spits them out.



I was full-time from Day One. There were no part-timers.

Permanent 40-hour / week schedule, station and partner from Day One.

Full benefits from Day One.

Was never "on call". 

18 sick days a year. From Day one. It is not "use them or lose them" .  You bank and accumalate them year after year. When you retire they are paid to you as a "gratuity". 

I received a nine month sick bank _gratuity_ when I retired. 

Was a "probie" for 12 months. Some were on probation for 18 months. But, that does not affect any of the above. It just means they can let you go during that 12 / 18 month period. 

The union would send a rep to hold your hand, but that was about it. 

There was a Resiendency Requirement when I joined. But, that ended years ago.

Brihard said,


> Particularly when the impacts of operational trauma are added to the picture, I don’t think it’s fair to undersell the risks paramedics face. I wouldn’t want their job.



They have a lot of support now. PTSD cases get transfered to a "suitable job".  

Most importantly,



> Employees who are placed in a permanent alternate position, due to an occupational injury/illness (as defined by the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board), will be subject to the normal assessment period and will receive the wage rate of the position to which they are assigned. If the pre-injury rate of pay is higher than the relocated position rate, then the pre-injury rate is to be maintained. It is understood that the pre-injury rate is subject to all wage increases negotiated.





lenaitch said:


> My neighbour is a city firefighter for a department that uses 24-hour shifts, so, what, 7 days a month?



Something like that. 24-hour tours work out to 42 hours per week. 
Not sure if they get lieu time or over - time to compensate, or if that's just the way it is?  🤷‍♂️ 

We worked 20 twelve-hour shifts every six weeks.

Mine was 0700-1900 

Mon, Tues, Weds, Thurs, Fri.
Mon, Tues, Wed,
Thurs, Fri

Repeat.


----------



## Bluebulldog

Mike,

I suspect that Toronto is the exception, rather than the rule. 

My ex was Renfrew, and I can attest that everything I've said re. casual PT, and benefits is still true. Incidentally she waited 10 years, on rotational basis, call ins, no benefits, nor sick days, before she got full time. Now, their FT staff have unlimited sick days....

I have spoken with other services nearby, and it's much the same story ( Lanark, and Frontenac). 

Similarly, a friend of mine joined Renfrew in 2021, after a 9 month program at Willis College ( Career college), 3 months preceptorship, and then hired on. ( Yes, the provincial exam had to be passed. ).


----------



## lenaitch

Bluebulldog said:


> Mike,
> 
> I'm not interested in a pi$$ing contest.
> 
> Your statements about Paramedics are true. But City of Toronto standards outside of the MOH requirements don't necessarily reflect all services. I know one person, last year. ( 9 months career college, preceptorship, and then hired).
> 
> As far as Fire? Ottawa has the largest hybrid dept. in the world. Covering an area larger than 5 other major Canadian cities combined. All Volunteers are NFPA 1001, 1002, and Haz Mat cert. *( Yes, I'm aware lots of other rural services are just a show up kind of organization)*.
> 
> I don't think I'd want FT, my other gig working Federally is pretty lucrative. Although your statement about Career Dept vs volunteer......same goes for RegF vs PRes? Literally the exact same situation.


That's going to be changing effective this year:.  Certifications inbound:






						Law Document English View
					

Welcome to the new e-Laws. It’s now easier than ever to find Ontario laws. We welcome your feedback.




					www.ontario.ca


----------



## Bluebulldog

lenaitch said:


> That's going to be changing effective this year:. Certifications inbound:



I saw that somewhere earlier as well. 

I think it's either going to be disastrous to rural municipalities in the terms of training costs. OR, the one term of reference used, was that an uncertified individual can perform work under a certified one. ( This kind of already existed as the FF I, and FF II, classifications. 

But definitely a move in the right direction.  A lot of rural Fire Services tend to have a high cowboy factor.


----------



## lenaitch

Bluebulldog said:


> I saw that somewhere earlier as well.
> 
> I think it's either going to be disastrous to rural municipalities in the terms of training costs. OR, the one term of reference used, was that an uncertified individual can perform work under a certified one. ( This kind of already existed as the FF I, and FF II, classifications.
> 
> But definitely a move in the right direction.  A lot of rural Fire Services tend to have a high cowboy factor.


Not sure either.  There are some concerns that some members may just walk away.  Remains to be seen.  The government closed the Ontario Fire College and has started establishing 'regional training centres' hosted by professional full-time services around the province, so that may help.  There will no doubt be an online component as well, if they don't screw it up and it can work in some pretty low bandwidth areas and allow the members time to complete - maybe paid time - it might work.


----------



## mariomike

Bluebulldog said:


> Mike,
> 
> I suspect that Toronto is the exception, rather than the rule.



I suspect it may have something to do with the funding formula.


----------



## CICOPS

Like the CF, nobody wants to pay for Fire, Police or EMS until they or someone they care about needs their services.  Then it is "Why does it take so long for....".  No pleasing some people.


----------



## stoker dave

mariomike said:


> 18 sick days a year. From Day one. It is not "use them or lose them" .  You bank and accumalate them year after year. When you retire they are paid to you as a "gratuity".
> 
> I received a nine month sick bank _gratuity_ when I retired.


Just to provide perspective (and in no way to denigrate the time off to which you are entitled as part of your employment) but that kind of thing is unheard of in private industry.  

Where I work (and I think is pretty standard in my industry of engineering, consulting and construction), new hires get three weeks of 'comprehensive leave'.  That is your sick leave, doctor appointments, trips to the dentist and vacation combined.  Never get sick?  You have three weeks of vacation.  Prone to coming down with colds, the flu, hangovers and headaches?  You get zero vacation.   Carry-over from year to year cannot be more than the annual entitlement.  If you are seriously ill or injured, short and long term disability policies kick in.  

The allotment increases by one week for every five years with the company to a maximum of six weeks.


----------



## mariomike

CICOPS said:


> Like the CF, nobody wants to pay for Fire, Police or EMS until they or someone they care about needs their services.  Then it is "Why does it take so long for....".  No pleasing some people.



The three services work together as a team.

For example, paramedics are not firefighters, but sometimes wear bunker gear and SCBA.

They are not police, but sometimes wear ballistic armour.

Other specialties include,

Public Safety Unit , Emergency Task Force , Rescue Task Force, CBRNE, Marine, HUSAR, Emergency Response Unit, Emergency Support Unit, Haz-Mat, Rescue Technicians, water and ice rescue, Multi-patient buses, Mobile Respiratory Treatment Units, etc.


----------

