Interior Health privatizing laundry services

[Donald G]

To bob vernon ...

Would I be fair in saying that your comment leads to the eventual logical conclusion that I have the right to arbitrarily tell you where you will get your car serviced and what you will pay for that service, without giving you any comparative shopping option whatever??

The fact that the "option" that I select, on your behalf, is the one that provides me and my friends with an income that is paid for out of the taxpayer coffers aside ??

[gordon_as]

Tendered Business Contracts are not anti union.

No , they are not always , particularly when the contract is awarded to a company who already has unionised employees.

Let me be clear. I don't label you as a union basher because of your opinion that money could be saved by going private.
The continual posting of incorrect information put forth by a couple of people here in an attempt to convince others that the current model costs way more than it should , simply because union members are doing the work , is by definition union bashing , and will be identified as such.

[gordon_as]

To bob vernon ...

Would I be fair in saying that your comment leads to the eventual logical conclusion that I have the right to arbitrarily tell you where you will get your car serviced and what you will pay for that service, without giving you any comparative shopping option whatever??
?

Would I be fair in saying that that is almost exactly what the government is doing to the taxpayer by signing a contract with a third party , for profit company. There is one noticable difference. You mention that bob will be told how much that service is going to cost. Which is nice to know before you agree to have work done.

[twobits]

Again, this is nothing but a discussion based on supposition. There are no numbers. What I am interested in is best bang for the taxpayer buck. No different than anyone would do when hiring a company to provide any kind service for themselves. And for the record, that is not synonymous with non union. I can see a possible outcome where it is a unionized company being awarded the contract for laundry services. I have no problem with that.....there are countless examples of unionized businesses being extremely efficient. And efficiency actually provides the ability to pay higher wages and not just line the pockets of the people that make the capital investment. Fluffy has very clearly tried to point out to some of you that economies of scale may play a very large role here. What some of you here are failing to acknowledge or understand is that one "maximum super duty" machine that can do say a million pounds of laundry a week is cheaper to buy and has lower operational costs than 10 "super duty" machines that can do 100k pounds a week. Those efficiencies will be weighed in mind with things like transportation logistics, labour including pensions and benefits, and required level of service. And right now, we do not have A to compare to B.

And to Gordon_as, re your twice a month pension contribution......yes I do have a bit of a problem with your pension burden on the taxpayer. I know you contribute, and the Gov't also makes a contribution to your benefit each and every paycheque. So far I have no problem with the model. It is all good. What I have a problem with is that your pension, once you start collecting it, has no end. You can far outlive your contributions and those the Gov't made in your behalf and the taxpayer ends up picking up the shortfall. It is completely unsustainable and especially so considering life expectancies continue to increase every year. It is a pension model that actually discourages personal savings for retirement because you have a gov't guarantee of a pension cheque for as long as you breathe air. Why should it be an RRSP that never goes to a zero balance? And it case you have not been paying attention, it is these unfunded liabilities that are bankrupting Cities, States, and Countries all over the world. It is simply not sustainable.

So, yes....pensions will be a consideration in the overall cost of laundry service.

[gordon_as]

Again, this is nothing but a discussion based on supposition. There are no numbers. What I am interested in is best bang for the taxpayer buck. No different than anyone would do when hiring a company to provide any kind service for themselves. And for the record, that is not synonymous with non union. I can see a possible outcome where it is a unionized company being awarded the contract for laundry services. I have no problem with that.....there are countless examples of unionized businesses being extremely efficient. And efficiency actually provides the ability to pay higher wages and not just line the pockets of the people that make the capital investment. Fluffy has very clearly tried to point out to some of you that economies of scale may play a very large role here. What some of you here are failing to acknowledge or understand is that one "maximum super duty" machine that can do say a million pounds of laundry a week is cheaper to buy and has lower operational costs than 10 "super duty" machines that can do 100k pounds a week. Those efficiencies will be weighed in mind with things like transportation logistics, labour including pensions and benefits, and required level of service. And right now, we do not have A to compare to B.

And to Gordon_as, re your twice a month pension contribution......yes I do have a bit of a problem with your pension burden on the taxpayer. I know you contribute, and the Gov't also makes a contribution to your benefit each and every paycheque. So far I have no problem with the model. It is all good. What I have a problem with is that your pension, once you start collecting it, has no end. You can far outlive your contributions and those the Gov't made in your behalf and the taxpayer ends up picking up the shortfall. It is completely unsustainable and especially so considering life expectancies continue to increase every year. It is a pension model that actually discourages personal savings for retirement because you have a gov't guarantee of a pension cheque for as long as you breathe air. Why should it be an RRSP that never goes to a zero balance? And it case you have not been paying attention, it is these unfunded liabilities that are bankrupting Cities, States, and Countries all over the world. It is simply not sustainable.

So, yes....pensions will be a consideration in the overall cost of laundry service.

Would love to debate pensions and how they work with you , but for now , more importantly , the vast majority of people who are going to be out of a job are not in / on the pension plan. Thought I had already mentioned that.

[gordon_as]

Again, this is nothing but a discussion based on supposition. There are no numbers. What I am interested in is best bang for the taxpayer buck. No different than anyone would do when hiring a company to provide any kind service for themselves. And for the record, that is not synonymous with non union. I can see a possible outcome where it is a unionized company being awarded the contract for laundry services. I have no problem with that.....there are countless examples of unionized businesses being extremely efficient.

So far , you are doing good.

And efficiency actually provides the ability to pay higher wages and not just line the pockets of the people that make the capital investment.

Ability yes , probability not likely.

Fluffy has very clearly tried to point out to some of you that economies of scale may play a very large role here. What some of you here are failing to acknowledge or understand is that one "maximum super duty" machine that can do say a million pounds of laundry a week is cheaper to buy and has lower operational costs than 10 "super duty" machines that can do 100k pounds a week. Those efficiencies will be weighed in mind with things like transportation logistics, labour including pensions and benefits, and required level of service. And right now, we do not have A to compare to B.

.[/quote]

I am Well aware of what fluffy is talking about , and do plan on going into the pro's and con's. The short answer is that there is a finite amount of money to be saved using higher efficiency technology.

[fluffy]

The short answer is that there is a finite amount of money to be saved using higher efficiency technology.

True, but the extent of those finite savings is still a matter of speculation, as is the suggestion that contracting out will be more expensive than the current arrangement.

[flamingfingers]

And to Gordon_as, re your twice a month pension contribution......yes I do have a bit of a problem with your pension burden on the taxpayer. I know you contribute, and the Gov't also makes a contribution to your benefit each and every paycheque. So far I have no problem with the model. It is all good. What I have a problem with is that your pension, once you start collecting it, has no end. You can far outlive your contributions and those the Gov't made in your behalf and the taxpayer ends up picking up the shortfall.

Well then I guess the taxpayer does not 'pick up the tab' for people who 'outlive their pensions' and are forced to go on welfare with the taxpayer picking up the tab for not only welfare but medical, dental, etc? Plus their OAP and GIS?

Wow! Does the taxpayer ever save money with this plan!

[Donald G]

To flaming ...

That would sound like the view of a Shop Steward or person who has had access to (some would say was subjected to) the union view of pensions ??

[flamingfingers]

^^I know how union contracts work, DONALD. You are entitled to your 'view' however wrong it is.

[gordon_as]

Honestly , Donalds comments about my pension left me questioning my knowledge of my pension plan , and pension plans in general , which admittedly is next to nothing. I have always just assumed that pensions do not come with an expiry date. I pay into the pension plan and my employer kicks in their share , which was agreed upon by both parties during the same negotiations as wages were decided. My employer gets to hold on to my money and the money that they are contributing , and they invest that money. The returns , or lack of returns affect the amount in the fund that can be paid out to members of the plan after they retire , in amounts that reflect how the investments have performed. Thats my understanding of how it works. Am I wrong ? Is this not how all pension plans work ? Is my pension plan different from any other pension plan ? Not trying to be difficult here.

[fluffy]

That's pretty much it gordon_as. I pay into one through my union and it is administered by Manulife, it's not unusal to have pension plans underwritten by some monster financial conglomerate. One thing you might want to look into is whether or not your plan is "indexed", that is, do payments include yearly increases to offset inflation.

[gordon_as]

That's pretty much it gordon_as. I pay into one through my union and it is administered by Manulife, it's not unusal to have pension plans underwritten by some monster financial conglomerate. One thing you might want to look into is whether or not your plan is "indexed", that is, do payments include yearly increases to offset inflation.

But Donald say the reason he has a problem with my pension is because once I start collecting , it has no end and that I can outlive the contributions that were made to it by myself and my employer.. Isn't that how pensions work ?
I have just assumed that I am not going to get much of a pension anyways because I started paying in to it at such an advanced age , and will be paying into it for a relatively short period of time , say 15 years. Don't most large scale employers have very similar pension plans for their employees ?

Is donald upset because my plan is different , or better than everybody else's , or it it just because my employer ( a business ) gets its money from taxpayers ( the customers )?

[fluffy]

But Donald say the reason he has a problem with my pension is because once I start collecting , it has no end and that I can outlive the contributions that were made to it by myself and my employer.. Isn't that how pensions work ?

I think most pensions work like that gordon_as, it's not an individual account, it's pooled money and you get paid for life. Theoretically, successful investment strategies make sure there is enough money to cover all the pension payments to all members of the plan. Is this a union pension ? If so, the government's responsibility ends with the contributions they make on your behalf. They're not on the hook for more if your pension provider goes broke, other than the social support ff mentioned.

[gordon_as]

I have just assumed that I am not going to get much of a pension anyways because I started paying in to it at such an advanced age , and will be paying into it for a relatively short period of time , say 15 years. Don't most large scale employers have very similar pension plans for their employees ?

Is donald upset because my plan is different , or better than everybody else's , or it it just because my employer ( a business ) gets its money from taxpayers ( the customers )?

I was editing my previous post to add this at the same time as fluffy was posting