[Crazy]

Finding the cheapest labour possible is a major part of neoliberalism. If they could somehow outsource garbage collection to slave labour, they would do it.

And they would tout the savings to the taxpayer, too -- never mind that some of those same taxpayers lost their jobs to slave labour.

 

[BurlOak]

And they would tout the savings to the taxpayer, too -- never mind that some of those same taxpayers lost their jobs to slave labour.

I wonder what salary everyone should get. If nobody is allowed to make less than the average, then everyone needs to make the same. Regardless of education, work effort, risk, etc., we should just have a "salary" of $50,000 per person (for everyone) and do away with money. It worked on Star Trek.

 

[atodaso]

It's funny to my oft'times wacky side that we value the Chinese origins of our politicians (eg. Olivia Chow, Adrienne Clarkson, Ted Hsu, etc..), but have disdain for the Chinese origins of our products.

That is all, carry on...

How is that funny or odd in any way? Chinese Canadians, and the vast number of Chinese people living in China, have nothing to do with the corrupt practices and policies of China's conservative bureaucrats and powerful business lobbyists, and the relatively small number of unscrupulous opportunistic criminals who would sell poison as baby food.

 

[TOperson]

I wonder what salary everyone should get. If nobody is allowed to make less than the average, then everyone needs to make the same. Regardless of education, work effort, risk, etc., we should just have a "salary" of $50,000 per person (for everyone) and do away with money. It worked on Star Trek.

There are guaranteed minimum income initiatives around the world. The idea is to keep people out of poverty.

 

[FromTheHammer]

How does outsourcing garbage equate to neoliberalism?
GFL is a Canadian company and employs Torontonians just as the city did.
Only difference is better service(except for chows mom) and no outrageous salaries and strikes.

City is not in the business of being an employer. Tell that to the 35,000 or so people the city employs. Part of a Cities (sic) job is to provide services at the lowest cost? how about best value? to its citizens. This can mean that if a particular service is cheaper and better performed by private companies (that's a pretty big "if") that is the best choice for taxpayers but if city employees (either unionized or not) can provide the best value, then that is better for both the taxpayer and the city employees.

Here's some interesting reading for those who believe that privatization is the answer to all government ills http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2009/Ohemeng.pdf

Some more interesting reading about how a public/private "split model" for garbage collection has been successful in Hamilton, while allowing the city to retain a trained waste collection force and capital http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres...0/Apr18EDRMS_n159454_v1_8_1__PW04113a__2_.pdf

 

[dforthandbview]

So, I wonder if Ray Heard is still convinced that Ford will be brought in for questioning in the coming days.

 

[NYCBoy2305]

Poverty -- Latest Thoughts...

...

https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4299112-the-issue-is-not-poor-children-but-family-poverty/

 

[spider]

Arguments presented here lately seem to assume that City employees live in the City (which makes them taxpayers) and GFL's employees live outside the City somewhere and don't pay tax in Toronto.
Does anyone have reliable figures that support or refute this assumption?

 

[TOperson]

Arguments presented here lately seem to assume that City employees live in the City (which makes them taxpayers) and GFL's employees live outside the City somewhere and don't pay tax in Toronto.
Does anyone have reliable figures that support or refute this assumption?

Maybe someone does, but it's safe to assume that the proportion of City and GFL employees residing in and out of Toronto is roughly the same as for any other employer. In the end it makes no difference because you can't tell people where to live as a condition of their employment.

 

[cgwalnut]

Arguments presented here lately seem to assume that City employees live in the City (which makes them taxpayers) and GFL's employees live outside the City somewhere and don't pay tax in Toronto.
Does anyone have reliable figures that support or refute this assumption?

Maybe I missed it... but, I don't recall reading, or assuming, that.
Perhaps my statement that less taxes are collected from GFL employees was misinterpreted. They pay less taxes because thay make less money (and therefore contribute less to the economy and, generally, are in need of more social services)... no matter where they live.
I do believe that GFL, the company, is headquartered outside of the city and therefore the corporation doesn't pay taxes (property, business or whatever - I'm no chartered accountant like Del Grande!) that benefit Toronto directly.

 

[sno man]

Maybe I missed it... but, I don't recall reading, or assuming, that.
Perhaps my statement that less taxes are collected from GFL employees was misinterpreted. They pay less taxes because thay make less money (and therefore contribute less to the economy and, generally, are in need of more social services)... no matter where they live.
I do believe that GFL, the company, is headquartered outside of the city and therefore the corporation doesn't pay taxes (property, business or whatever - I'm no chartered accountant like Del Grande!) that benefit Toronto directly.

GFL's HQ is in Vaughn, they also have a biggish office in Pickering. They have a couple of waste transfer stations within Toronto, so there would be some property tax.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Arguments presented here lately seem to assume that City employees live in the City (which makes them taxpayers)

It does not.

As I said earlier (post # 35085) Since they're paid with taxes, the very fact that there is a difference between the gross and net amounts of tax dollars given to them, doesn't mean city workers have paid taxes. On the contrary, they've simply been given less tax dollars as earnings, but the public purse is still in the red. For example, if we hire another hundred city workers at $100k gross and $80 net, well, the public purse isn't ahead by those $20k of extra "tax", but is in fact in the hole for the $80k a head.

True taxes are gained through the private sector or in rare cases in the public sector where value or productivity is increased over the cost of those inputs, such as IMO at the LCBO or in medicine. Another example would be where a public sector funded doctor (not a true public servant, but an entrepreneur paid by gov't) can help maintain or increase economic productivity (and tax funds for the CRA) by keeping private sector workers (i.e. inputs) healthy and productive.

 

[casita]

In the end it makes no difference because you can't tell people where to live as a condition of their employment.

Not anymore.

But, back when I hired on with Metro Toronto ( in 1972 ) you had to live in Metro.

Not sure what the policy was in the Boroughs and the old City.

( For those too young to remember, Metro was what we now simply call Toronto. )

Since the firefighters went on the 24-hour tour, they could be commuting from almost anywhere.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Not anymore.

But, back when I hired on with Metro Toronto ( in 1972 ) you had to live in Metro.

Not sure what the policy was in the Boroughs and the old City.

( For those too young to remember, Metro was what we now simply call Toronto. )

Office jobs (IE. call centre) don't have to be in the City of Toronto, they could be outside the city. Very outside, like in the Far East.

From The Globe and Mail, at this link:

The starting salary for a call centre worker in the Philippines is between 12,000 and 15,000 pesos per month ($278 – $348). It may not sound like much but it’s more than a bank teller makes in Manila and is often enough to support a family in a country where the annual GDP per capita is about $2,000.

That's a lot less than what Rob Ford makes "returning every call" he gets about potholes, garbage not be removed, broken tree branches, etc..

 

[FromTheHammer]

It does not.

As I said earlier (post # 35085) Since they're paid with taxes, the very fact that there is a difference between the gross and net amounts of tax dollars given to them, doesn't mean city workers have paid taxes. On the contrary, they've simply been given less tax dollars as earnings, but the public purse is still in the red. For example, if we hire another hundred city workers at $100k gross and $80 net, well, the public purse isn't ahead by those $20k of extra "tax", but is in fact in the hole for the $80k a head.

True taxes are gained through the private sector or in rare cases in the public sector where value or productivity is increased over the cost of those inputs, such as IMO at the LCBO or in medicine. Another example would be where a public sector funded doctor (not a true public servant, but an entrepreneur paid by gov't) can help maintain or increase economic productivity (and tax funds for the CRA) by keeping private sector workers (i.e. inputs) healthy and productive.

Extending your simple example, the city can pay a civil servant $100k to perform a service, of which $20k is recovered through taxation. Or you can pay a private firm $95k to provide the same service. The firm pays it's employee $60k of which $12k is recovered through taxation. the firm shows $20k as overhead (not taxed) and $10k profit, taxed at a lower corporate rate, say half of the private rate, so you recover $1000 through taxation. So now the public purse is in the hole $82,000 instead of $80,000.

Ha - privatization costs more!