BC health care workers vote to strike

[gordon_as]

Q : why does the BCGEU get 4% + goodies , but the HEU goes backwards.

A: Leverage.

The government can twist a health care workers arm further and harder then they can a sheriff or a liquor store employee. If HEU goes on strike they will quickly legislate them back to work. If BCGEU goes on strike the govt. has less options.

I can just hear it now..... Bob : What do you think we should give the BCGEU ?
Fred : hmm , 4 % should shut them up.
Bob : What about the HEU ?
Fred : Screw them they get nothing. what are they gonna do ?

[grammafreddy]

BCGEU has voted in favor of a contract.
Quite a sweet deal too. imo

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/go ... story.html

This is where your link took me ... and when it first loaded, the date very clearly said 2002, not 2012.

The deal, which followed a marathon bargaining session that ended Sept. 27, expires on March 31, 2004.

[Jeckle]

Thanks Jenny, it's nice to have support. Nobody I know wants a strike. My father in law just found out he needs heart surgery, these things affect us all.
I'm sorry about your mom, I hope she recovered. None of my business, just sending a *hug*

[Jeckle]

This is where your link took me ... and when it first loaded, the date very clearly said 2002, not 2012.

The deal, which followed a marathon bargaining session that ended Sept. 27, expires on March 31, 2004.

Wierd. I was on todays VS website when I read it

[oneh2obabe]

This is where your link took me ... and when it first loaded, the date very clearly said 2002, not 2012.

The deal, which followed a marathon bargaining session that ended Sept. 27, expires on March 31, 2004.

Mine clearly shows Nov 5, 2012. Looks like a typo - should be 2014, not 2004.

[Jeckle]

Yup, a quick google search shows many stories same as my link.
I'll email that they need a correction.

[dorito]

So are you saying that if we pay them more the nurses will be less burnt out? Paying them more will somehow magically fix the 12-hour shifts? Paying them more will lighten their work load?

Are you also saying that if we pay the cleaning staff more they will clean better? The superbugs will respect them more and stay out of our hospitals because the staff gets paid more dollars? The more dollars in wages and better perks and pensions will somehow train the cleaning staff better and provide more of what they need to keep the hospitals more germ-free?

I don't suppose it would have occurred to you that perhaps your contract was just a little too sweet before? Too many sick days and holiday days, too many benefits you got for nothing, too many perks, too much money?

I very rarely have needed to access health care in the hospitals but when I do, I sure hope the ones looking after my care are alert and paying attention to little details and I sure don't see how they can be after working a 12-hour shift especially if it has been a busy shift for them. They are tired and just want to go home. IMO they should not be required to work anything beyond an 8-hour shift but here we are requiring them to work 12's and then add additional overtime to that or another 12 hour shift without adequate rest time between shifts.

Correct me if I am wrong ... the unions here with this strike action involve more than just hospital nurses - right?

And it isn't just wages we're talking, either - right?

Wouldn't it be better to train more people to do this work so that the workers now don't have to work 12-hour shifts and so there are more bodies to do the work required? Wouldn't more workers do the job better when staff is not so pressured to do more than what they truly can get done in a shift? Wouldn't more mattresses get sanitized, more toilets get cleaned, more corners get scrubbed, more operating equipment get sterilized?

Wouldn't it make more sense to add to the numbers of nurses and care-givers so that patients get more than a 5-minute assessment and a more thorough treatment plan? Wouldn't it be better to have adequate nurses and doctors staffing an adequate number of operating rooms and hospital beds so that wait times were not so long? Wouldn't it be an improvement if old folks homes were staffed in such a way that our seniors had consistent good care instead of being strapped into their beds and wheelchairs and "parked" because staff was too busy and rushed to look after them properly?

And wouldn't it be smarter to open up more seats in the universities and teaching hospitals so that more Canadians can be trained to do these jobs?

Trimming bureaucratic numbers at the top would add more bucks to the system for front-line delivery of care to the people. That part of the system is broken and highly inflated with big-buck salaries, benefits and pensions. That money would do more good on the front line and needs to be assessed and re-evaluated for efficiencies and effectiveness.

Paying more in wages and benefits and pensions to existing staff is not going to fix anything. Staff will be just as exhausted, just as poorly trained and wait times to get appointments and necessary surgeries will be just as long.

Many of the issues you brought up here are being fought by unions. They aren't just all about wage increases and benefits. BCNU has successfully fought for increased staffing levels, ensuring the employer has to fill vacant shifts of vacationing/sick nurses etc. As for 12 hour shifts, they are exhausting, and I personally dislike them and usually try to work 8's instead. However, many, many nurses do like them, so they are around to stay. It's also more cost effective for the employer and the "taxpayers" to fill nursing shift with 12 hours instead of 8. Then you only need 2 nurses (with benefit/pension) to fill a 24 hour period instead of 3.

And really, there are SO MANY threads about the cost of livng in Kelowna, sucky wages, sunshine tax etc. Then you have a group of people who worked damned hard (housekeeping, food services, laundry, care aids, nurses etc.) and make a decent wage and they are dogged for it. They make TOO MUCH, have it TOO GOOD. They are trying to make ends meet just like everyone else, but happen to make a few dollars an hour more and have some decent benefits and still can't win on these forums. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Can't win on the Castanet forums.

[dorito]

I suspect your union dues are far greater than your 25% contribution to your group benefit package would be. Maybe you should look at how much that is costing you? The people at the top of your union(s) get monster salaries and benefit packages, too, which you are paying for (and indirectly, so are the private sector workers because they pay your wages which pay your union leaders).

Not even in the same ballpark. My union dues were roughly $950 total for the year in 2011. If I were to pay for 25% of my benefits, that would be roughly $2500 per year. (Although I am unclear whether the 25% of the "benefits" is just MSP, extended health and dental....or everything. LTD, AD+D, WCB, employer contributed pension plus the above.)

If it were just MSP, extended health and dental, 25% would be about $1500/year. Still not in the same ballpark as union dues. this "25%" would aslo penalize larger families, as my MSP, extended health and dental is for a family of 4. Much higher amount than a single person, or a couple.

[Smurf]

grammafreddy wrote:

LOL, Catz. I am not angry - but I am amused right now.

So, answer the question then ...

When you worked in the public sector, how did government get the money to pay you? Where did it come from?

But maybe you can't

?

The money to pay public sector workers comes from taxes they charge you to provide the services you recieve such as education, health service, police services, fire services, roads, and to pay the employees that provide those services. No one is denying or arguing where the money comes from.

grammafreddy wrote:

LOL - I am not *bleep*, either. And I am using logic.

Can you answer the question?

Its a toughy for public employees to answer, I admit.

SuperStore is not a public sector employer. They are private enterprise and their money comes from people spending their money in their store buying their products. That's capitalism.

Then the government charges the SS employees income tax on the wages SS paid their employees and then the government used that tax money to pay Catz and every other public sector employee no matter which branch of government they work in - highways, health, forests, etc.

You are correct. Government money comes from people spending the money they earn private and public in the way of taxes for the services the government supplies. Just because you don't always step up to a cash register to pay for those services doesn't mean they come for free. You pay for them just like you do in a store or to your plumber. It is the same capitalistic system. You get a service you pay for it. Just because they are not a profit making business doesn't mean they are not in the business of selling us services.

grammafreddy wrote:

It is new money because it comes from sources outside of government. It has been generated from the private sector.

What would happen if those sources outside of government did not exist? Where would public sector paycheques come from then?

So is it new money if the government pays ABC company to clear the roads in the winter or is it recycled money or is it just the same old money used over and over to buy things whether it is bought by the people, the government or whomever.

[steven lloyd]

Public services are just that. They are critical services provided to the public by government (in some cases more effectively than the private sector could) and are services paid for by tax dollars. We can argue about whether a service is critical or not but that is not the topic of this thread. Paying for service is not the same thing as debt (unless you’re going into debt to do it and then that’s a function of government mismanagement). Paying people a fair and reasonable wage for doing very difficult and demanding work is not the reason governments are facing the financial pressures they are today - and all the ignorance-based erroneous union-bashing rhetoric to the contrary will not change that fact.

[Rwede]

Another greedy union looking to hold the sick people of the province hostage while they unrealistically demand more and more and more. Time to decertify all public sector employees and take the union out of our hospital rooms.

So what exactly are the 'greedy unions' demanding? Do you even know or are you just jumping to your usual right-wing conclusions?

I suppose you'd be happy with $12/hr care-aides and $10/hr housekeepers who feel unvalued not only by their employers but by you as well. Don't forget - YOU could be a patient one day, and when you are, I'll bet my bottom dollar you'll expect the best service. Remember the old saying 'you get what you pay for'?

So if I pay $1,000 an hour to a bed pan cleaner, will they cure cancer? Not likely. Will the bed pan be cleaner? Not likely.

The public sector pay package far exceeds the value brought to the employer (in this case, the taxpayer) and has for many years. It's time this pay package was brought into line with the market value for such service, and the gold-plated benefit plan is the first place to start.

[Smurf]

grammafreddy wrote:

I don't know what the dyed-in-the-wool Libertarians would call it, Steven. I am not one of them and I see value in having some publicly funded people and programs (health care being one of them but even that is getting stretched beyond reason in some cases these days).

My point with all of this is not to pick on government employees, but just to have them realize that their wages and benefits and pensions are generated from the private sector working person. When there are fewer of them or when they are not making as much money, then government has less with which to conduct its business - which includes paying their employees.

In my perfect world there is a very robust private sector because that helps to support all the government employees and the social programs people need and are accustomed to (with some exceptions ). But when the whole world takes a kicking in the private sector's tush, government revenues go down because they don't receive as much from taxing the private sectors' wages.

How can any government worker hate capitalism when they understand this simple concept of where their wages come from?

Sometimes I wonder why they are called government "jobs" when, really, they are government debt - the government owes that money to those people who work for them. And it owes that pension money to them long after an "employee" ceases to "work" for the government.

Something has to give. If not government wages, then what?

How can any private sector worker hate government and their workers when they realize all the services that are provided to them everyday by these workers. Our country could not function without these services.

Gramma if we look at government as a service providing business who charges taxes for the service product they supply and put that money in the bank, is that new money as you call it. It is obtained exactly the same as a capitalistic business. Service equals money. Then the spend that new money just exactly like the business to provide the customer new products like roads, hospitals, schools and to pay their employees just like the capitalistic business. Those employees then spend their checks at business's to buy food and cloths and produce more new money to pay more taxes to make more new money for the government to pay to more capitalistic business's to make more new money. Just because the government is not in busines to make profit doesn't mean it doesn't create profit in it's own way.

Yes it can go broke if it's income doesn't meet it's expenses just the same as any capitalistic business. What makes me mad is that people feel they own government employees just because they pay taxes (charges for government services) and yet have no problem with private sector employees whose salaries they also pay every time the buy something in the store. Why don't we scream about the money earned by Walmart employees and ask that they don't get anything so that things can be cheaper. The things that public employees supply are just as important to our everyday lives as the things we buy in stores. In fact in many cases like health care and education probably much more important. I realize it is impossible but wouldn't we be much better off, if instead of bringing down health workers salaries and benifits we brought up Walmart (or whatever companies) workers to a liveable wage instead of many working poor having to use food banks at the end month before their check comes in. One way or another we do pay in the end.

And yes I do realize that probably every government department needs to be looked at for more efficiencies. I just have trouble with people always screaming because they make a decent living wage. I believe we should be trying to help the lower income people to make more and not try to bring the people making a living wage down to their level. What is a job worth. If the floors in the mall were never cleaned would you go in it, I know I wouldn't. Then all the stores would close and all those people would be out of work. Should the cleaning person be paid a liveable salary for saving all those jobs. How do we trully judge how important a job is.

[Jeckle]

So if I pay $1,000 an hour to a bed pan cleaner, will they cure cancer? Not likely. Will the bed pan be cleaner? Not likely.

The public sector pay package far exceeds the value brought to the employer (in this case, the taxpayer) and has for many years. It's time this pay package was brought into line with the market value for such service, and the gold-plated benefit plan is the first place to start.

Dare I say that it's not the bed pan cleaners that are the drain on our healthcare system?
How often are computer systems replaced and/or changed? Is it necessary?
How often to they pay bloated prices for supplies because it's a government facility? Is it necessary?
How much did it cost to create PHSA to cover up privatization? Did that save us money? Will it in the future?
And, why has that stalled? Perhaps because it was a foolish idea that was rammed through and not working out?

I agree with the person that said we need a whole system overhaul....a massive overhaul. If they start at the top and streamline and still figure that we little (piggies..lol) guys cost the system too much, then I will agree to pay cuts in one form or another.

[LoneWolf_53]

I just have trouble with people always screaming because they make a decent living wage. I believe we should be trying to help the lower income people to make more and not try to bring the people making a living wage down to their level. What is a job worth.

Responding to just this snippet of your post, it's my belief that your personal bias is blinding you to the obvious.

Most importantly I believe you are wrong in regards to the first line. I don't believe that people are screaming because these government employees make a decent living wage, (I know I certainly don't) and that's where you've gotten yourself off track completely.

What people are concerned about is that these groups are in many cases, (teachers being a great example as their wages/benefits have been at the forefront for some time now) already in the upper earning percentile for the country yet they keep wanting more. That "more" if it were given, would come at detriment to those earning far less.

The flaw in your logic is also that if the WalMart employee, you used as an example, were to earn a much higher wage, just how much more do you think health care workers and teachers would be then asking for? Or are you under the mistaken notion that they'd suddenly wake up and say, oh no we're making enough, pay those guys more? It's already been proven over and over how far superior they feel that they are, so I don't believe for a moment that they'd be content in a system that saw earnings level out far more. Also if everyone winds up earning more, then naturally it would come with increased prices to goods and services, as neither government nor private enterprise would absord these increased costs of doing business, so in effect you would wind up back at square one, would you not?

At the end of the day, since all work needs to be done by someone, the fairest method would actually be to pay everyone the same for an eight hour work day, conceding that all jobs have value, and whatever an employee happens to be engaged in was their choice.

Why for example is a lawyer worth $400 an hour and a farm worker $12, when the lawyer never has to break a sweat, get dirty, or wear out his body in the course of his duties? If it wasn't for the farmer the lawyer wouldn't have food, ergo no life and ability to charge what he does.

In a perfect world everyone would be deemed equal, but we don't live in a perfect world, so you know that will never happen.

All we really have at our disposal, is the ability to yell loudly, when we note the scales swinging too far, in favor of the already well to do.

[Rwede]

Dare I say that it's not the bed pan cleaners that are the drain on our healthcare system?
How often are computer systems replaced and/or changed? Is it necessary?
How often to they pay bloated prices for supplies because it's a government facility? Is it necessary?
How much did it cost to create PHSA to cover up privatization? Did that save us money? Will it in the future?
And, why has that stalled? Perhaps because it was a foolish idea that was rammed through and not working out?

I agree with the person that said we need a whole system overhaul....a massive overhaul. If they start at the top and streamline and still figure that we little (piggies..lol) guys cost the system too much, then I will agree to pay cuts in one form or another.

Computer system workers - union.
Purchasing department - union.
PHSA workers - union. (interestingly, private healthcare ballooned under the 1990s NDP reign)

What do you know, all the people responsible for bloated costs are union members. These people are obviously low on the competency scale, as we've seen over and over again that the public sector unions attract the lowest graduates in the class, those that can't make it in the private sector. Yet, those in the public sector unions demand more and more for their lack of competency. That needs to change, as it's a huge burden on the taxpayers and the health care system delivers mediocre service for an inflated price as a result.