[js97]

The last thing we want to be doing is making this problem worse by eliminating the fair wage policy or slashing wages for the lowest income earners in the civil service. Especially when the benefits of doing so are so small. Rob Ford's most optimistic prediction is that selling off the garbage system will save $20 million per year, or about 0.2% of the city budget. How much effect is a 0.2% tax cut really going to have?

20 Million can pay for all those kids that have to fork out 1-2 dollars to use our PUBLICLY FUNDED swiming pools. 1-2 dollars, 5 times a week is a deterrent for children under 14, especially those in the low income homes.

If you ask anyone in the city, would they rather give children free access to swimming pools but contract garbage out, or vice versa, I think it's a pretty easy choice.

It's not just about saving money. Garbage workers have shown a penchant to strike and disrupt the lives of Torontonians. They had their chance to work out a reasonable deal but decided to go the militant route.

Unions have the right to strike, city has the right to contract out.

They had many chances to 'work' with the city and one of the most union friendly Mayors.

If you're going to be unreasonable, be prepared to deal with reality.

 

[archanfel]

As I've noted this is not just about manufacturing. The part of society that has seen an major erosion in wages over the last few years are workers without a university education. This is not only manufacturing, but retail and low end services sector as well. Also in this demographic group are some public sector workers, such as garbage workers, transit drivers, and cleaners. These public sector workers have seen less or no decrease in wages and total employment, and this has been important in preventing the problem from getting worse.

It is a problem, and a big one that can be seen clearly in Toronto. In 1975 66% of Torontonians lived in middle income neighbourhoods (areas no more than 20% richer or poorer than the average). Today only 29% of people live in such neighbourhoods. In 1975 only 1% of people lived in neighbourhoods that were 40% or more below average income, today 13% of the city does. The growing gap between rich and poor is creating troubled neighbourhoods across the city.

The last thing we want to be doing is making this problem worse by eliminating the fair wage policy or slashing wages for the lowest income earners in the civil service. Especially when the benefits of doing so are so small. Rob Ford's most optimistic prediction is that selling off the garbage system will save $20 million per year, or about 0.2% of the city budget. How much effect is a 0.2% tax cut really going to have?

So don't drag manufacture workers and other private sector employees into this argument. They don't benefit from public waste, why use them as an excuse? They don't care whether they are in the same demographic group as public employees making 6 figure salaries.

So we wasted all those money just so that some politician can boast that we have more people living in the middle income neighbourhoods? And you are now telling the entire city that 0.2% tax reduction is too small, so they shouldn't get it? Well, the people of Toronto said we want that 0.2% tax reduction loud and clear.

I am sorry, there are a lot of argument for having unions, but making politicians look good is not a valid one.

 

[jeff316]

Well, the people of Toronto said we want that 0.2% tax reduction loud and clear.

They did? When? I don't think anyone promised tax reductions, even Ford, no?

So we wasted all those money just so that some politician can boast that we have more people living in the middle income neighbourhoods?...I am sorry, there are a lot of argument for having unions, but making politicians look good is not a valid one.

SimonP brought that stat up as an example of how the gap is growing. It has nothing to do with politicians boasting one thing or another. It's just an illustration of how there is an increasing polarization of incomes in Toronto.

So don't drag manufacture workers and other private sector employees into this argument. They don't benefit from public waste, why use them as an excuse? They don't care whether they are in the same demographic group as public employees making 6 figure salaries.

They may not care, but it definitely affects them. It also indirectly influences what other lines of work/professions get paid - even you and I.

Privatizing, contracting out, or reducing public sector wages changes how governments and corporations compete in the market for employees.

In the end, picking up garbage is picking up garbage. The only way to significantly reduce costs is in how much you pay the workers. Privatizing or contracting-out reduces costs for the public because private corporations pay garbage workers less than governments would.

The people who work in manufacturing often have the same type of education, skills and employment background as many of the public sector workers we’re talking about, like maintenance, garbage, physical works, etc. (There is some variation in job-specific training, but by and large they're the same class of job.) The point being, they’re all competing for the same type of semi-skilled manual labour-based jobs.

And that’s why the plight of manufacturing workers is related to that of the public garbage workers employed by the city. As soon as you lower the highest bar, all of the other bars get lowered with it. When this happens, it sends signals to the market about what labour is worth.

Privatizing or contracting out effectively removes the private sector’s toughest competitor from the market. It changes everything. (For example, think of the TV market without Sony. Or the car market without the Japanese automakers - would Ford be going all "as reliable as Toyota" on us without that competition? Did the Big Three increase in quality when their Japanese competitors were small and insignificant?) Private sector corporations no longer have to compete with governments by providing as attractive compensation, as comprehensive benefits, as ideal working conditions, etc. This suppresses these factors all across the market for garbage workers, manufacturing workers, etc.

And the effect isn’t limited to only this specific pool of workers. The markets for other skills or professions also take notice of this new valuation of labour. (E.g. if unskilled physical labour is worth x, then semi-skilled labour is worth x+1, and college-educated professions are worth x+2, trades are worth x+3, etc. If the new standard for x becomes x-0.5, then everyone's pay equation changes, slowly, over time.) The effects are wide-ranging, and influence how both employers and employees compete in the market.

Now, you may have other priorities. You may not care about the impact of contracting out on other workers. You may be willing to weather the indirect impact this has on your wages. And that’s completely fine, it’s your prerogative.

Your assertion that privatization of public workers has no impact on manufacturing workers, however, is simply wrong.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Contracting out garbage at this point would purely be a populist move - the public is looking for some kind of positive resolution to the strike last summer. If I was mayor, I'd be tempted to do it.

The larger picture, though, where middle-income earners blame other middle income earners for bad economic times, high taxes, etc. is worrisome. Especially when the real income disparity is found in executive compensation, which has risen to ridiculous levels in the past few decades.

 

[archanfel]

They did? When? I don't think anyone promised tax reductions, even Ford, no?



SimonP brought that stat up as an example of how the gap is growing. It has nothing to do with politicians boasting one thing or another. It's just an illustration of how there is an increasing polarization of incomes in Toronto.



They may not care, but it definitely affects them. It also indirectly influences what other lines of work/professions get paid - even you and I.

Privatizing, contracting out, or reducing public sector wages changes how governments and corporations compete in the market for employees.

In the end, picking up garbage is picking up garbage. The only way to significantly reduce costs is in how much you pay the workers. Privatizing or contracting-out reduces costs for the public because private corporations pay garbage workers less than governments would.

The people who work in manufacturing often have the same type of education, skills and employment background as many of the public sector workers we’re talking about, like maintenance, garbage, physical works, etc. (There is some variation in job-specific training, but by and large they're the same class of job.) The point being, they’re all competing for the same type of semi-skilled manual labour-based jobs.

And that’s why the plight of manufacturing workers is related to that of the public garbage workers employed by the city. As soon as you lower the highest bar, all of the other bars get lowered with it. When this happens, it sends signals to the market about what labour is worth.

Privatizing or contracting out effectively removes the private sector’s toughest competitor from the market. It changes everything. (For example, think of the TV market without Sony. Or the car market without the Japanese automakers - would Ford be going all "as reliable as Toyota" on us without that competition? Did the Big Three increase in quality when their Japanese competitors were small and insignificant?) Private sector corporations no longer have to compete with governments by providing as attractive compensation, as comprehensive benefits, as ideal working conditions, etc. This suppresses these factors all across the market for garbage workers, manufacturing workers, etc.

And the effect isn’t limited to only this specific pool of workers. The markets for other skills or professions also take notice of this new valuation of labour. (E.g. if unskilled physical labour is worth x, then semi-skilled labour is worth x+1, and college-educated professions are worth x+2, trades are worth x+3, etc. If the new standard for x becomes x-0.5, then everyone's pay equation changes, slowly, over time.) The effects are wide-ranging, and influence how both employers and employees compete in the market.

Now, you may have other priorities. You may not care about the impact of contracting out on other workers. You may be willing to weather the indirect impact this has on your wages. And that’s completely fine, it’s your prerogative.

Your assertion that privatization of public workers has no impact on manufacturing workers, however, is simply wrong.

Ford did promise tax cuts and the vehicle tax is likely to be gone soon.

Last time I checked, Sony was a private company, so were the Japanese car markers. Therefore, your example showed that without the public sector, private companies do compete with each other just fine.

And your argument with X, X+1, etc... doesn't make any sense. Labour cost is determined by supply and demand. Nobody said college educated professionals have to earn a fix amount more than unskilled labours. Plus, if you have a particular skill that is in demand, it's very possible for you to earn more than a college educated professional.

If you argument is that since garbage workers are earning less, they would consume less, thus we would need less manufacture, at least that would make some sense. Alternative, you argument could be that if garbage collection employs less people, they might compete with manufacture workers more. However, the effects will be very minimum and very uncertain giving the chaotic nature of any market. There's also no guarantee that private contractors will hire less people unless there are massive waste going on with public unions. I highly doubt a manufacture workers is willing to pay more taxes to bribe public union workers to not enter private sector job market. You are free to do a survey.

 

[jeff316]

Ford did promise tax cuts and the vehicle tax is likely to be gone soon.

Yes the vehicle tax. I thought it was implied that we were talking about property tax, which no one pledge to cut.

Last time I checked, Sony was a private company, so were the Japanese car markers. Therefore, your example showed that without the public sector, private companies do compete with each other just fine.

I'm not sure if you misunderstood but in the hiring process the government is just another competitor in a labour market. The point is market actors send price signals that influence all other actors in the market.

And your argument with X, X+1, etc... doesn't make any sense. Labour cost is determined by supply and demand. Nobody said college educated professionals have to earn a fix amount more than unskilled labours. Plus, if you have a particular skill that is in demand, it's very possible for you to earn more than a college educated professional.

The "x+" was an illustrative example - obviously labour costs aren't fixed in that manner, however, labour costs are determined by much more than supply and demand: training, experience, education, skill sets, professional designations, time spent preparing for the job, and other factors. The pricing of many of these factors is based, in large part, on the costs of other forms of labour. If you think that minimum wage or the going rate for manual unskilled labour or the general bachelor's educated white collar worker's pay or upper management executive pay rates don't influence don't influence what you make, well...there's not much I can say.

I highly doubt a manufacture workers is willing to pay more taxes to bribe public union workers to not enter private sector job market. You are free to do a survey.

That statement does not make a lot of sense.

What people like Simon are saying is that garbage workers are hired from a pool of workers that go well beyond the garbage profession. This pool of people have had their bargaining power eroded, their wages reduced, and their employment prospects severely limited over the past twenty years.

Turning well paid union jobs into decent-to-poorly paid non-union jobs affects anyone and everyone in this group, from truck drivers to manufacturing workers to sales clerks to municipal garbage workers to the guys who mow lawns, just making it worse for them in the long-run.

Whether these people understand that (likely), and are willing to do anything about that (somewhat unlikely), is not something that Simon or anyone else is arguing either way.

 

[SlickFranky]

I remember when I was young. I would make impassioned arguments all day long, about things I didn't really understand (but thought I did). Oversimplifying, making broad extrapolations...those were the days. Good times. Although sitting back and watching others make the same mistakes is pretty great too.

 

[tkip]

I'm a union person and I believe the labour movement still has relevence but something needs to be done to reign in the city unions. It's beyond obvious that they simply hold too much power over the city. At some point you can't keep pointing to unions and their special status jobs as holding a special place in society that can drain the public purse without checks and balances. And unions create a self entitlement atmosphere.

 

[archanfel]

Yes the vehicle tax. I thought it was implied that we were talking about property tax, which no one pledge to cut.

I'm not sure if you misunderstood but in the hiring process the government is just another competitor in a labour market. The point is market actors send price signals that influence all other actors in the market.

The "x+" was an illustrative example - obviously labour costs aren't fixed in that manner, however, labour costs are determined by much more than supply and demand: training, experience, education, skill sets, professional designations, time spent preparing for the job, and other factors. The pricing of many of these factors is based, in large part, on the costs of other forms of labour. If you think that minimum wage or the going rate for manual unskilled labour or the general bachelor's educated white collar worker's pay or upper management executive pay rates don't influence don't influence what you make, well...there's not much I can say.

That statement does not make a lot of sense.

What people like Simon are saying is that garbage workers are hired from a pool of workers that go well beyond the garbage profession. This pool of people have had their bargaining power eroded, their wages reduced, and their employment prospects severely limited over the past twenty years.

Turning well paid union jobs into decent-to-poorly paid non-union jobs affects anyone and everyone in this group, from truck drivers to manufacturing workers to sales clerks to municipal garbage workers to the guys who mow lawns, just making it worse for them in the long-run.

Whether these people understand that (likely), and are willing to do anything about that (somewhat unlikely), is not something that Simon or anyone else is arguing either way.

I am afraid that it's you who is not making sense. You can not quantitatively prove that not contracting out garbage helps private sector workers. You can not even prove that it would "Turning well paid union jobs into decent-to-poorly paid non-union jobs" since most private contractors are unionized anyway. You don't even know that Ford is cutting vehicle tax and slowing property tax increases (we will see about the land transfer tax) Yet you are sitting here using fake formulas to show the benefits to manufacture workers and claiming they simply may not understand those benefits. If I was a manufacture work, I would be pretty happy that I would save taxes and those "decent paid jobs" are finally open to me, screw my public sector comrades who were taxing me to death.

Therefore, the only conclusion can be drawn from your argument is you believe the city (aka the taxpayers) will save a lot of money since they don't have to pay "well paid union jobs" anymore. Well, good to know. You can go preach how bad it will be for manufacture workers all you want, let see how many people in Toronto believe you.

 

[shilly]

I work for the city. I bust my ass as a young employee so that I can justify the wage I'm paid.

That being said, contracting out Garbage will cause so many issues that really can't be quantified yet. I hope you realize that by contracting out garbage, which is unlikely, most of those employees will just be bumped out of the solid waste division and into other city departments, forcing thousands of displaced employees to collect EI. They don't lose their jobs at all because we are permanent city employees, and it would be a violation of the labour act.

I'm sure violating thousands of employees rights under the labour act would go swell when they take it to an arbitrator. So, that being said, why don't you look at it this way.

If we wait say, 10 years, most of the guys in the city will slowly retire, and the money that they have put into OMERS will carry their pension. By eliminating 1 out of 3 positions, you will cut the budget by a third. Thusly saving millions. It's easy, politically expedient and will shut most of the critics up/

 

[tkip]

It's funny. I was at work today chatting with a nurse and we talked about the importance of unions but also agreed that many have far much power and absolutely encourage a culture of laziness and entitlement. We both agree that unions need more checks and balances to counter them from becoming too powerful.

 

[archanfel]

I work for the city. I bust my ass as a young employee so that I can justify the wage I'm paid.

That being said, contracting out Garbage will cause so many issues that really can't be quantified yet. I hope you realize that by contracting out garbage, which is unlikely, most of those employees will just be bumped out of the solid waste division and into other city departments, forcing thousands of displaced employees to collect EI. They don't lose their jobs at all because we are permanent city employees, and it would be a violation of the labour act.

I'm sure violating thousands of employees rights under the labour act would go swell when they take it to an arbitrator. So, that being said, why don't you look at it this way.

If we wait say, 10 years, most of the guys in the city will slowly retire, and the money that they have put into OMERS will carry their pension. By eliminating 1 out of 3 positions, you will cut the budget by a third. Thusly saving millions. It's easy, politically expedient and will shut most of the critics up/

You think private sector employees don't bust their asses as young employees? If you can justify the wage you are paid, then you wouldn't have a problem competing with everybody else, would you?

As for the question of "permanent" employees, I suspect there will be some legal battles and maybe the only way to shed these people is via attrition. (I am not a legal expert, so somebody else would have to fill in the blank here) Still, you can't really shed them without contracting out the work, so it's a good start.

 

[fiendishlibrarian]

"If we wait say, 10 years, most of the guys in the city will slowly retire, and the money that they have put into OMERS will carry their pension. By eliminating 1 out of 3 positions, you will cut the budget by a third. Thusly saving millions. It's easy, politically expedient and will shut most of the critics up"

That's more or less the central tenet of Ford's plan, is it not?

 

[GraphicMatt]

He's shooting for 1 out of 2. But a lot of unionized jobs make that challenging. You can't cut the number of transit operators in half without cutting transit service in half, for example. And don't even think about eliminating police officer position.

The worry is that this kind of across-the-board attrition target will unfairly affect city departments like arts programs, the libraries, etc. They could lose a ton of staff positions to make up for places where cuts aren't really possible without major restructuring of service delivery.

 

[tkip]

I remember when I was young. I would make impassioned arguments all day long, about things I didn't really understand (but thought I did). Oversimplifying, making broad extrapolations...those were the days. Good times. Although sitting back and watching others make the same mistakes is pretty great too.

Oh, how true. When I was younger, much more naive and definitely more liberal minded, I talked out of my ass on more than one occasion and had zero understanding of how things actually worked in the real world.