Lack of staff

[mr.bandaid]

Probably am. Not too sure there was so much said during that time. If I am wrong I apologies, I have enjoyed our back and forth. Whether it be teachers or health care workers, we all have a very narrow, biased opinion of where the best bang for your buck goes. I for one though am very happy that the teachers won that court appeal, it will have far reaching repercussions for a lot of negotiations coming in the future. Too late for me but I am hoping for the best for the young ones following in my footsteps.
It is obvious to me that this government has let down the people of Ashcroft as it is for Enderby, Armstrong and a number of other communities in this province that have no local emergency care.

[flamingfingers]

Why on earth woudl someone opt for "paying into" a sick day plan instead of getting the money up front every pay check? It's just spin to say that you "pay into" these funds. Do they show as a deduction on your paycheck? Why give the company the cash to accumulate interest on for sick days when you could do that yourself and make far more money on the unused sick time than you ever would the way you had it. Especially as the Union traded away your ability to only cash in 50% of banked sick days. That was terrible financial barganining on your Unions part.

'Collective Agreements' cover considerably more than simply wages. There are issues that are very important to the membership outside of 'wages'... like Health and Safety Issues: members may press for an increase in hours for First Aid attendants or specific courses to upgrade certain skills, i.e. more training on use of computer systems - this is a cost issue to the employer.

Members may want to increase the amount of maternity leave or include a certain amount of paternity leave - also a cost issue to management.

They also may want to up travel mileage and costs to use their own vehicle on company business - a cost item.

And, of course, all members want more take home pay.

These are only a VERY few of the issues that are brought forward by members.

Now, some items, particularly those with regard to Health and Safety will probably receive support from management - maybe they will agree to bear full costs or they may determine that cost sharing is appropriate.

Have a look at the MANITOBA GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES’ MASTER AGREEMENT

http://www.gov.mb.ca/csc/labour/pubs/pd ... _14_19.pdf

There are 66 articles, 6 appendices, 14 MOUs plus 10 other items that COULD be opened for negotiation; however, thankfully very few articles are earmarked for negotiations - some from management and some from the negotiating committee.

'Items that have a $$ value' are costed out by both management and the negotiating committee. And here is where the 'get and give' or the 'give and get' takes place. Some excellent ideas crop up on both sides of the table and some issues are solved by a collective 'well, why don't we just agree to do that instead of this'. Management IS constrained as to how much they can afford - an issue that is not unrecognized by the team across the table. Management has to decide what it can spend to settle the contract. The team across the table has to decide what the membership can live with and not go on strike - which NOBODY wants!!

Now, when cost/benefit figure reaches the mutual sweet spot, which means that neither side ever gets everything they want, management goes to their boards/directors for ratification and the members get to vote (ratify) their 'package' which usually includes the most important issues they have brought forth, and the projected wage increase, possibly 0.5%, 1.5% and 3% over a 3-year contract.

AND with regard to members getting cash up front, saving money and investing it - they are just average people who blow whatever they get and live paycheck to paycheck (obvious from the number of oilworkers in Alberta/BC who are not able to pay off their mortgages and keep their toys). They are definitely not financial wizards!! That is why they agree to use a portion of the settlement for sick days.

As far as me not getting paid out for my total sick time - sure, it personally sucked, but some of those $$ were negotiated into an enhanced pension plan for me and some of those other $$ went to helping my colleagues pay for other improvements to their COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT.

[goatboy]

We'll, let's just agree to disagree.

I think it would be more transparent then if the Union negotiated a personal use fund for each employee, like vacation pay, consisting of x amount of dollars per pay period that is the employees to use as they see fit. This pool of money is theirs to keep if they do not use it for sick time. That better reflects the reality of your "sick day" policy. However, I'm not sure how that would go over with the taxpayers that fund this policy and am guessing that is why both sides have decided to just call it "sick days"

[Smurf]

I think you will find that the sick pay is regarded at least partially as an insurance policy against long term disability. Similar to a life insurance policy that has a partial payback in the end. It is not a perfect solution but as FF has said it is the point where the two parties feel it is reasonable. All you have to do is talk to someone who has had a long term disability or sickness to realize the value of it. It was never meant to pay you high dividends, just peace of mind. It is especially good for younger people who have families, mortgages, etc and have not had the time to build up the funds to cover such problems. Although I never really used it I agreed with it 100% as I knew my family was protected if something happened. I also had the highest life insurance I could get until my family was on their own and then it changed to what my wife would require.