BC health care workers vote to strike

[grammafreddy]

Just a little perspective from one of "them". (me)
I make less per hour now than I did when I started almost 11 years ago.
We lost 15% of our wages back in 2003, and last contract we lost holiday days. Why do we have to keep going backwards?
Now they want us to pay for 25% of our benefits?
That is a huge loss, I doubt anyone would be happy to sign on to that.

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?

[keith1612]

man i would be overjoyed with benefits at a small 25% of the cost.
i have to pay 100% of mine and i guess 75% of someone else's it appears

[grammafreddy]

man i would be overjoyed with benefits at a small 25% of the cost.
i have to pay 100% of mine and i guess 75% of someone else's it appears

Actually, it looks like you (and I) are paying 100% of someone else's - and more than just this one someone else, too.

[normaM]

Good point GF. No one pays for my benefits but me, let them strike

[greylady]

Just a note: "Benefits" are bought and paid for by the (union/association) worker who takes a lesser amount in a pay packet to "pay" for the benefits you seem to think the "employer" takes out of HIS pocket!!

Now hear this: The worker's 'union (or association or collective or whatever) may negotiate a 'package' that is 3% and agreed to by the employer. The (union) membership decides that they want 1% of the 'package' to go into sick leave; 1% to go into a retirement fund and 1% added to their paycheque. Ergo... 'benefits' are paid for BY THE EMPLOYEE. No cost to the employer. BECAUSE they have agreed to the 3% that keeps them above their bottom line. Kapish?

Been there. Negotiated that.

[keith1612]

Just a note: "Benefits" are bought and paid for by the (union/association) worker who takes a lesser amount in a pay packet to "pay" for the benefits you seem to think the "employer" takes out of HIS pocket!!

Now hear this: The worker's 'union (or association or collective or whatever) may negotiate a 'package' that is 3% and agreed to by the employer. The (union) membership decides that they want 1% of the 'package' to go into sick leave; 1% to go into a retirement fund and 1% added to their paycheque. Ergo... 'benefits' are paid for BY THE EMPLOYEE. No cost to the employer. BECAUSE they have agreed to the 3% that keeps them above their bottom line. Kapish?

Been there. Negotiated that.

no matter how you change the words its all the same.
taxpayers are paying the bill.
nothing is paid for by the employee.
want to save the taxpayers of BC money, dont ask and ask for more.

[Logitack]

it is laughable when the finger pointing is directed at the lowest rung of the totem pole when it comes to government compensation. where were you all in your outrage at the compensation package of the MLAs golden handshake, the CEOs of crown corporations, the upper managers of the same crown corps, the DMs of the various ministries...

and for you "business" tycoons, stop bitching because you are too cheap or too stupid to take care of your retirement years or give benefits that are meaningful... to yourself!

[keith1612]

it is laughable when the finger pointing is directed at the lowest rung of the totem pole when it comes to government compensation. where were you all in your outrage at the compensation package of the MLAs golden handshake, the CEOs of crown corporations, the upper managers of the same crown corps, the DMs of the various ministries...

and for you "business" tycoons, stop bitching because you are too cheap or too stupid to take care of your retirement years or give benefits that are meaningful... to yourself!

yes i guess you have a point, because they are the smallest pigs at the trough its ok.

[grammafreddy]

Just a note: "Benefits" are bought and paid for by the (union/association) worker who takes a lesser amount in a pay packet to "pay" for the benefits you seem to think the "employer" takes out of HIS pocket!!

Now hear this: The worker's 'union (or association or collective or whatever) may negotiate a 'package' that is 3% and agreed to by the employer. The (union) membership decides that they want 1% of the 'package' to go into sick leave; 1% to go into a retirement fund and 1% added to their paycheque. Ergo... 'benefits' are paid for BY THE EMPLOYEE. No cost to the employer. BECAUSE they have agreed to the 3% that keeps them above their bottom line. Kapish?

Been there. Negotiated that.

Where does the employee's pay come from when they are a public employee and the employer is the government?

Am working on this "kapish?" thing.

[grammafreddy]

Good point GF. No one pays for my benefits but me, let them strike

Actually, it was keith1612's excellent point, not mine.

[Captain Awesome]

I really hate when people pull out their "I pay your salary/benefits/whatever" cards.

[grammafreddy]

Just a note: "Benefits" are bought and paid for by the (union/association) worker who takes a lesser amount in a pay packet to "pay" for the benefits you seem to think the "employer" takes out of HIS pocket!!

Now hear this: The worker's 'union (or association or collective or whatever) may negotiate a 'package' that is 3% and agreed to by the employer. The (union) membership decides that they want 1% of the 'package' to go into sick leave; 1% to go into a retirement fund and 1% added to their paycheque. Ergo... 'benefits' are paid for BY THE EMPLOYEE. No cost to the employer. BECAUSE they have agreed to the 3% that keeps them above their bottom line. Kapish?

Been there. Negotiated that.

No, I don't "kapish".

What is this 3%? A 3% increase? An increase of what? An increase on their pay package? Whose pay package? Who pays that pay package? The employer? Whose bottom line? Who establishes what a bottom line is?

If the employer pays that 3% increase to the employee, how can you say there is no cost to the employer? The way I read what you are saying, there is a 3% increase that the employer is paying to the employee, although that increase may be split into different directions.

And, in the case of public employees, that employer is the government and they get their money to pay their employees from the taxpayer, so the taxpayer is paying for these wages and benefits and days off and holidays.

[SmokeOnTheWater]

If I have to go to the hospital for an operation or if I'm having a baby or if I'm in an accident and am injured and have to stay at the hospital for weeks, who pays for that ?
Will everyone be upset at me because YOU are paying for it ?
Hmmm ....

[keith1612]

I really hate when people pull out their "I pay your salary/benefits/whatever" cards.

and its incorrect?
who pays government employee's wages?

[keith1612]

If I have to go to the hospital for an operation or if I'm having a baby or if I'm in an accident and am injured and have to stay at the hospital for weeks, who pays for that ?
Will everyone be upset at me because YOU are paying for it.
Hmmm ....

i might be if you started demanding a private room and a free phone etc.