Interior Health privatizing laundry services

[fluffy]

Exactly. I'm making a lot more than 20% above what I was making 20 years ago.

[pepsilover]

it will end up being worse for tax payers i think because , when this company needs to maintain new trucks and washing equipment who will pay for it ? us , when one the drivers of the trucks kills a motorist gets sued who is going to pay? us , when the carbon from the trucks starts costing the company who pays for that ? us .

Not to mention the people who lose their jobs and end up having to be on Unemployment and Welfare. All that money is taxpayer money. People are always better when they are working and contributing to society. Taking away jobs, telling us it's a 'good deal' is as old as the hills. Some actually buy it. Not me.

[maryjane48]

Govt budgets and cost of operating organizations run by govt go up every year as well. And in most cases way more than 1.5%/year, so we're getting a deal.

wheres your proof this is true? i provided a link to where what i said is true . wheres your link to a article stating the yearly increases will be more than that?

[fluffy]

wheres your proof this is true? i provided a link to where what i said is true . wheres your link to a article stating the yearly increases will be more than that?

Are you trying to say that prices don't go up from year to year?

[Even Steven]

wheres your proof this is true?

Our ever increasing taxes to support our ever increasing budgets. It's also called "common knowledge", if you need a link to that, I feel sorry for you.

May be if the union said "Hey, we'll cap our demands at 1.5% per year and keep the costs under control for 20 years" and be bound by a contract to do so, this whole outsourcing thing wasn't needed. But they don't want to do it because it's not enough for them. Greedy can't stop being greedy.

[fluffy]

A google search on things like the Consumer Price Index and the Canada Inflation Rate will show you that a 1.5% annual increase is pretty much a maintenance level, it lets the business keep up with rising prices, but it's not enough to get ahead of it.

[maryjane48]

A google search on things like the Consumer Price Index and the Canada Inflation Rate will show you that a 1.5% annual increase is pretty much a maintenance level, it lets the business keep up with rising prices, but it's not enough to get ahead of it.

how do you know ? can you post a link to what they are going to make on profits ?

[maryjane48]

Our ever increasing taxes to support our ever increasing budgets. It's also called "common knowledge", if you need a link to that, I feel sorry for you.

May be if the union said "Hey, we'll cap our demands at 1.5% per year and keep the costs under control for 20 years" and be bound by a contract to do so, this whole outsourcing thing wasn't needed. But they don't want to do it because it's not enough for them. Greedy can't stop being greedy


lol hardly .your position is this company is doing this out of goodness of thier hearts ? and the 1.5 percent a year is just one sentance out of contracct that hasnt been made public yet . who knows what it all says .

[gordon_as]

My 7 year old asked me for her $ 6.50 allowance today. I told her she had to clean up her room. She told me that she had taken a hard look at the numbers , and had raised her allowance to $ 35 million dollars.
I paid her brother $11 and he cleaned up her room.
WooHoo !!!!! I just saved $ 35 million dollars.

[gordon_as]

May be if the union said "Hey, we'll cap our demands at 1.5% per year and keep the costs under control for 20 years" and be bound by a contract to do so, this whole outsourcing thing wasn't needed. But they don't want to do it because it's not enough for them. Greedy can't stop being greedy

We will cap our demands at 1.5% , lol , we only get 1.0%

By IHA's own numbers , this contract is already costing substantially more in the first year than the In house model was .
I did not even believe your posts citing these numbers , because I couldn't believe that IHA would be stupid enough to release them. Apparently they are. I am thinking that someone f'd up , and might want to start pursuing other employment opportunities.

[maryjane48]

i forgot use the quote but i never wrote that lol

[dontrump]

when you look at the job loss and total fallout from this deal it hardly seems like a smart move .35M over 20 years divided by employees is not a big saving if any at all.
when you look at the overall IH waste yearly its really a drop in the bucket
The liberal left wing nut ball TRUDEAU,s big US trip just cost us a several million dollars for a week of partying and *bleep* kissing
Maybe it(wasted millions) should have subsidized the Canadian work force instead

[Hassel99]

I am not against privatization but locking in for 20 years seems pretty stupid. I get the bidders need some certainty before major capital expenditures but 20 year terms is way too long.

[Donald G]

Unread postby gordon_as » Mar 6th, 2016, 6:51 pm

By IHA's own numbers , this contract is already costing substantially more in the first year than the In house model was .
I did not even believe your posts citing these numbers , because I couldn't believe that IHA would be stupid enough to release them. Apparently they are. I am thinking that someone f'd up , and might want to start pursuing other employment opportunities

.

I would say that that depends on whether all of the costs for last year have been included and whether all of the estimated costs for this year have been included. The sins of omission can usually give almost any "total" desired. It is the nature of opportunistic accounting by IH or the Union ... or any person who wants to make one side or the other look bad or good.

[gordon_as]

I would say that that depends on whether all of the costs for last year have been included and whether all of the estimated costs for this year have been included. The sins of omission can usually give almost any "total" desired. It is the nature of opportunistic accounting by IH or the Union ... or any person who wants to make one side or the other look bad or good.

ALL of the numbers have come from IHA. The fact that we can also use them to point out that this IS costing more money already seems to bother you.

Go ahead Donald G , I challenge you to show me how or where IHA is saying that the contractor will be doing this for less than the in house service is costing.

Stick to the numbers provided by IHA , don't waste any of your ( or my ) time going off on one of your usual " it always costs less , that is why everyone is doing it " rants.