Poll - Are you a unionized employee?

But MizP I thought only the lazy/unmotivated were not rich?

I'm not sure how people think they are 'covering' others pensions.

Perhaps a brief lesson on pensions may be in order.

There are two kinds of pensions: Defined Benefit(DB) and Defined Contribution(DC). The most common pension nowadays is a DC. You put in x%, the employer puts in x% and when you retire, you get whatever the amount in your pension plan is. This is most common in smaller businesses and a lot of these plans allow for the employee to self-direct their contributions into different investments within the plan. These are also generally held by third part pension administrators and are regulated by provincial pension regulations ( i.e. how long an employer has before they have to deposit the pension contributions to the pension account). If you die, your pension money goes to your survivors.

Where there seems to be some resentment is in the DB plans. These are generally found in larger, unionized employees. The premise is you put in a certain amount, employer puts in a certain amount and when you retire you get x% times x number of years of service.

The big benefit with these plans is that the risk factor is much lower ( although if you self direct within a DC plan, you can make much more).

The biggest problem with these plans is that people are living longer, which means you need to payout more pension benefits. When you die in these plans, if you don't have a survivor benefit, any difference between the sum of what was contributed and investment income less amount paid out goes back into the combined pension pool. regulations also require a very high level asset level in the plan ( essentially if everyone retired within x years, you need to have $X in the plan assets)
In large firms, these are often self administered by the employer ( another negative), but as much as everyone would say farm them out, they'd also balk at losing the jobs that come with self administering the pensions.

In some cases the age of the employees and size of the pool of employees is enough to sustain the pensions ( Teachers), in other cases the size of the pool and average start age means the pension will ultimately self destruct ( Anglican Church).

In some unionized environments, decisions on DB pensions rest with a combined employee/employer committee. Remember a couple of years ago when the U of W was facing a huge pension shortfall? Guess who was responsible for that one? the UWFA! When they had contribution surpluses, the admin wanted a contribution holiday ( no contributions for set time frame). UWFA demanded the surpluses back. Guess who balked years later about paying the surpluses back? And of course the UW didn't reinvest the funds, so they were in trouble too.

In some cases employer pension contributions are adjusted up or down based on adjustments to other employee benefits. I worked in a place with a DB plan where the employee contributions doubled, and the employer contributions were reduced. Flip side was that it was the reverse situation in terms of health benefits.

Now as for taxpayer funding pensions? Some collective agreements provide for 100% employer funded DB plans. Now if the total cost remains the same ( i.e. the employee pays more for health premiums), I don't see a huge problem with that. It's when there is no employee buy in for pension or health benefits where I see a problem.

I think you can see the DB pensions getting fewer and fewer over the years. There are very few organizations that can support it.

I also don't agree with the taxpayer bailout pension fund crap. It's easy to blame it on the employer, but you have to realize that unless employer pays 100%, then there is probably a committee that includes employees that makes decisions regarding pensions. And if the pension is 100% employer, then talk to the union about why they chose a pension plan where you would have no say.

Jack Layton and his 'bail out GM pensions' is crap. If you bail out DB pensions , then you damn well better be prepared to compensate me if my DC pension suffers any type of market loss!

I also don't think that the employer should have to bear all the burden if the demographics change which causes pension situations to change. either decrease the pension payouts to active employees when they retire or employee and employer should both have to cover off the increased requirements.

(In case you haven't figured it out - I'm a big proponent of DC pensions in most cases!)

I guess a lot of people feel they are "covering" public workers pensions. That's only partially true in many cases, for instance CUPE pensions are 50/50 employer and employee contributions. Personally I feel that public employees are just an easy target for most people who constantly use the "I pay for them" mentality of why they should get no more than the lowest compensated private sector employee in a similar position.

I'd argue that a) they've earned what they get and b) maybe some peeps who feel that public employees are too richly compensated should try walking a mile in their shoes. They get little or no respect from much of the public and in many cases have seen dramatic increases in workload's due to cutbacks. I feel most deserve every dollar they get. The people whining that they don't get similar benefits from their private employer should maybe start questioning why not, and what they can do to get the same rather than judge those that fought for the benefits they receive.

CC is a perfect example. $17/hr to litterally put up with the public's crap and other bodily fluids (not to mention their attitudes) and some people feel he doesn't DESERVE a pension after putting up with that for 35 years.

If it is a 50%/50% match, I don't see the issue. Because you work for the government, you shouldn't be entitled to the same type of benefits as in the private sector?

Now if it is 100% employer funded, that's a different story.

Livio Ciaralli wrote:CC, why should I cover your pension ?

Uhm, my pension is part of my compensation. Do you think you shouldn't cover my compensation either? Dont want to pay into health care? If you believe in a private system ok, I will go down that road but if you're for public health care then.........So you think I'm not entitled to my compensation? Why even pay me my hourly wage? Maybe Doctors, nurses, nurses aide should be volunteers? hmmm

grumpyrom wrote:The bozo running the snowplow is working for a private contractor and earning equal to or less pay than you but without any benefits. The city did the stupidest thing imaginable when they contracted out snow clearing. Now they get to pay more than they were in the past for less service, while elimininating good middle class jobs, and creating more wealth for a half dozen heavy construction contractors.

The snow clearing contracts come up every 5 years. Every one of the major contractors have 1 zone each currently, NONE of them have enough equipment to realistically do anyone else's zone. They all know this, and so when the tender's come up they all throw a ludicrously high bid at the zone's they don't have figuring they wont get it anyways and if they do then it's worth buying/leasing the additional equipment. Since they know they are in no danger of being undercut on their own zone's either they throw an extra 15- 25% pure profit on their own zone and everyone is happy.

Contracting out snow clearing was the stupidest most short sighted thing the city ever did, and now that all the equipment has been sold the capital costs alone are too high to get back in the game. New loaders and graders are upwards of $250k each, I'd love to see the uproar if the city spent $15-20million on capital expenditures to get back in the game. Instead we spend a few million a year more than we have to which all goes into pure profit for a handfull of individuals.

Before you had less total cost creating maybe a couple hundred good paying jobs that went back into the local community. Now we pay more, have replaced those jobs with $15-17/hr operator jobs and made a few millionaires wealthier. I wonder which is better for the community in the long run?

This is a classic example of outsourcing costing more in the long run.

Sorry, off on a tangent again.

Thanks for the work CC, it's much appreciated.

And the fact that CUPE employees direct the show has nothing to do with it heh . Works and Operations is the most disorganized group when it comes to getting the job done . Hiding behind union rules and protection . By the way Walmart pay better then the city hence their lot is always clean , while the city is taking the day off to go vote .

Pav, works and operations does almost nothing during a plow. The most they do is have an inspector drive around and check the work done by the private contractor's and inform them of in defficiencies such as missed bus stops etc. I've experienced it first hand so I'm very familiar with what goes on during a plow. My issue is not with the quality of work done by the private contractors, it's with the fact that we are now spending more for their services than it cost when CUPE member's were doing it. We collectively get no extra benefit as a community for the extra money spent other than padding the bank accounts of some already wealthy owners. I personally would rather see those extra tax dollars spent go back into the hands of the workers performing the work and keep something resembling a middle class in our city, than send those extra tax dollars into a half dozen contractors bank accounts. Creating additional wealth with tax dollars for a few individuals does nothing to help our local economy IMHO. Having a few hundred decently compensated individuals who can afford to buy more goods and services from local enterprises does. Ever wonder why the city never releases figures on what they were spending on snow clearing and garbage collection before privatizing and after? You figure if it was a huge cost savings any politician with half a brain would be all over that information at election time.

brodbeck wrote at length about how much money the city was saving by privatizing garbage pick up. brodbeck included statistics to support his position. The savings were significant. And there does not appear to be a reduction in the quality of garbage pick-up services.

I wonder why snow removal would have the opposite result. It seems quite odd that private operators would be more expensive. I wonder if there are any statistics available to compare city snow removal costs versus private costs.

One other thing to consider is that without the city contracts, many operators would not be able to afford their machines as there isn't that much other business around this town.

It's kinda' like...work for the city or don't work at all.

I don't think the operators have the city by the nards, it's the other way around imo.

JTF, all the city snow clearing contractors are heavy construction companies. They already have the equipment from their primary summer operations (which also happen to be primarily working for the city). The snow clearing is a bonus, something to do with the equipment over the winter instead of letting most of it sit. Considering there is only a handfull that can handle doing the work in the tenders, yes they have the city by the nards as you put it. They are in zero danger of having the contracts pulled or going unawarded as there is no one else to do the work.

Look at the size of the private heavy construction contractor's before the city started contracting out roads and snow clearing and after. They have all boomed. All we've managed to do is concentrate the wealth into the hands of a few individuals. Before those fund's were spread across thousand's of good paying jobs, now they are concentrated in the hands of a few.

It all depends on your priorities I guess. In my personal opinion I'd rather pay 5% more taxes and know that my money is going to providing good, middle income jobs for many than pay 5% less and see my tax dollars being primarily concentrated in the hands of a few millionaires. The first way of doing things costs more on the surface, but creates a better quality of life for many more people overall. The other saves us all a bit, but at a greater overall cost once you factor in all the problems associated with growing income disparity.

I'd rather my tax dollars didn't go towards making the problem worse, even if it mean's paying slightly more.

Grumpyrom, people aren't ( myself ) whining, we are discussing.

A 50/50 split with employee /employer is fine.. My point is that there are alot of private companies who have nothing in place. The government being one of the largest employers in this province has us the "employers" paying the 50% portion.

You can argue all you want thsat people who work for government should be properly compensated, which is fine, I am merelt pointing out that people in the private sector don't enjoy same said benefits /compensation./protections.

Casual, in his first year of work is making 17 bucks an hour with a ton of benefits. After 35 years of wrok, not only will his wage probably double and he will enjoy all the "perks' working for government, he will also have a Million dollar ( more when indexed to cost of living ) gauranteed no matter what.

Privates , just look around on your drive by and ask yourself, how is that Plumbing companies pension plan, or that electrical companies plan. I can almost guarantee you the 1000 employees who work at Kitchen Craft inhaling sawdust and fumes all day long, starting at 10 bucks an hour, after 35 years will not have enjoyed the same conditions as even the lowliest of government workers.

So you ask me if its fair, sorry, I don;'t think it is, now I will go pour myself a glass of whine .

By the way Casual, i met a person from the peg who lives in a 400K home by Lake Chapala, nicel;y retired with hubby, who basically had a tough life working at the leg as some assistant . Both retired early, together they pull in about 100k in pension......so life is good....for them. ( and we "priivates" pay for that lifestyle )

Is that fair or is this a sign that government unions have evolved to a point where they are to powerful and get what they want ( since politicians seem to spend money like its their own - bedsides they feed at the same trough )

If government employees get a perk, then that perk should be extended throughout the workforce, you think we can afford that ?

First of all Liv, I work for a private company and enjoy a 100% employer paid DB pension plan so it's not like they don't exist in the private world.

Secondly, perhaps the employees of private companies that don't enjoy those benefits should do something about it rather than complain about people who do receive them. Maybe the employees at KitchenCraft have the ability COLLECTIVELY to do something about their crappy working conditions. Wether they decide to or not is up to them.

Thirdly, of course CC's wages will double over 35 yrs or do you expect his real world take home pay to drop every year as he sits a $17/hr for the next 35 yrs? What are these other "perks" he enjoys? A decent benefits plan and sick days? Why shouldn't he get these as part of his compensation plan? I receive them and am not a public employee, why shouldn't he if they are part of his total compensation?

Finally, should we be comparing all public employees to the absolute lowest toal compensation available in the private sector, to the highest or to something in the middle? Seems like many people seem to think that because some people in the private sector enjoy no benefits and crap wages that the same should be true for public sector employees. Why is that?

Maybe we should be asking if it would be more fair to legislate 50/50 pension plans for all workers rather than wonder if it's fair that some people were able to negotiate for them while others are not.

I

I agree Grumpyrom, I think it should be legislated if one sector namely government enjoys same perk.

As for your Pension plan, it could go south as witnessed in the US. And without taxpayers bailing it out, you would be screwed.

As for benefits and compensation, I have no problem with that in the private world. i do have a problem when government employees bargain for that ( and agreed to by politicians to curry favor, or one of their own gets elected to push for that compensation ).

I don;'t begrudge people's salariesor benefits. I do expect governments to address the issue that they have leapfrogged over privates in those areas.

Legislate is and you will have a massive problem on your hands. Same can't be said when government does it. You just pay more taxes to cover it.

Actually, thanks to the fact that we have decent laws in this country regarding minimum pension plan funding the likelyhood of it going south is minimal. Personally I'd like to see those laws strengthened further. IMHO it is criminal to leave people out to dry after decades working for their employer due to plans being underfunded for decades to prop up "shareholder value". That's what caused the majority of those funds to collapse in the US, like I said thankfully we have laws against that in this country. Personally I'd like to see every single executive responsible for underfunding those plans held accountable for bailing them out rather than taxpayers.

I agree, those funds ought to have been fully protected. On the other hand the whole financial system in the US is run like a casino and many of those responsible for investing pension funds where caught trusting the "respected' professionals giving them guidance. No one will pay for the failures we witnessed. in fact, they are enjoying a massive influx of capital all mortgaged to the taxpayer. Its a colossal nightmare, a massive ponzi scheme with one bag-holder, the taxpayer. I for one don't beleive we've seen the worse of it.

As for your pension, not knowing who you work for, you are still at risk since your company can be bought up, it can go bankrupt, it could lose its ability to fund the plan even at its minimum. You still don't have the same level of protection a government funded pension plan has. ( the government would have to be declared broke for that to fail ). And if you are in the financial market sector, one can argue at the worse point in the near collapse, if it wasn't for taxpayers coming to the rescue, you'd be SOL and so would your pension plan.

grumpy old man wrote:brodbeck wrote at length about how much money the city was saving by privatizing garbage pick up. brodbeck included statistics to support his position. The savings were significant. And there does not appear to be a reduction in the quality of garbage pick-up services.

1. Was Brodbecks article written before or after the city agreed to using automated pickup containers.
2. Does anyone know who actually paid for those new containers?
3. Does the city have a no layoff policy if a job is out-sourced?
4. I wonder how much money the city really saved annually if the above were all taken into account.

Good questions Outsider, and yes those items should be factored when calculating "savings"

I think most of the staff went to Parks and Rec and most of the equipment was sold off. Going forward, there would be savings on operating and maintaining the equipment, and since i don't believe that the City could mandate wages and benefits to a private in ordrer to obtain a contract, there would be some savings a bean counter can manipulate to suit their numbers.

But lets be clear here, the City workers did shoot themselves in the foot. When a picker could get paid 16 hours for an 8 hour shift based on number of truckloads rather than actual hours worked, the numbers weren't really accurate. ( I was told about this formula by a drunken employee of the department who at end of the convo said, I shoudnnn be saying this )

Livio Ciaralli wrote:Grumpyrom, people aren't ( myself ) whining, we are discussing.

A 50/50 split with employee /employer is fine.. My point is that there are alot of private companies who have nothing in place.

I don't agree with that.

I believe there are a lot of companies that don't have DB plans. When you have companies like Timmies offering pensions, the suggestion that companies like kitchen craft wouldn't have a pension is laughable.

Is a 100% employer funded DB pension acceptable? Maybe, depends on how the rest of the benefits are structured. But if you have no ownership or buy-in into the pension plan, don't complain or ask for taxpayer bailouts of your 100% ER funded DB pension if it goes south ( like the CAW did).

1) Don't know. Not sure how it is relevant since they did not exist previously there is nothing against which to measure.
2) Don't know. See 1) above.
3) Don't know.
4) Don't know.

But brodbeck had statistics supporting his story that the city was saving a tidy amount of coin. He had proof. He supported his assertions. I guess what I'm saying is he backed up his claims.

don't complain or ask for taxpayer bailouts of your 100% ER funded DB pension if it goes south ( like the CAW did)


To late, most pension funds in the States were bailed out by taxpayers in one way or another.And since government employees are in fact protected, why shouldn't Employer funded funds be protected. After all, isn't what you want to protect in fact the employees.Level the playing field so to speak, exactly the same argument government unions used when they began pounding the table to achieve "private " sector pay parity and benefits etc.

As for Timmies Kitchen craft, the fact that they are different only demonstrates the position employees in the private sector are faced with. ( as far as Timmies go, they have a much larger market cap than Kitchen Craft, but perhaps not necessarily ads large as Kitchen Crafts parent, Master brands, which, possibly separates the companies under their umbrella to keep costs down.)

I'm not sure if I would even consider Kitchen Craft a company of any significance at a national level. They can dissapear and no one would notice except the employees ( FYI, KC managed to escape by a sliver due to the housing market implosion in the States )

Besides, what kind of pension plan do you think a Standard Aero and Kitchen Craft offers and do you really think its as bullet proof as a government pension plan. Laughable indeed.

grumpyrom wrote:Pav, works and operations does almost nothing during a plow. The most they do is have an inspector drive around and check the work done by the private contractor's and inform them of in defficiencies such as missed bus stops etc. I've experienced it first hand so I'm very familiar with what goes on during a plow. My issue is not with the quality of work done by the private contractors, it's with the fact that we are now spending more for their services than it cost when CUPE member's were doing it. We collectively get no extra benefit as a community for the extra money spent other than padding the bank accounts of some already wealthy owners. I personally would rather see those extra tax dollars spent go back into the hands of the workers performing the work and keep something resembling a middle class in our city, than send those extra tax dollars into a half dozen contractors bank accounts. Creating additional wealth with tax dollars for a few individuals does nothing to help our local economy IMHO. Having a few hundred decently compensated individuals who can afford to buy more goods and services from local enterprises does. Ever wonder why the city never releases figures on what they were spending on snow clearing and garbage collection before privatizing and after? You figure if it was a huge cost savings any politician with half a brain would be all over that information at election time.

Just so you know I was one of those wealthy owners and gee it sure was a fight to stay above water when there was no snow as you are only paid when there is work unlike the City employee who works no matter what , Part of the reason I got out of it was not enough work to make it pay well 3 winters out of 5 . Have you any idea what it cost to operate a front end loader .

Part of the reason I got out of it was not enough work to make it
pay well 3 winters out of 5 . Have you any idea what it cost to operate
a front end loader .


And therein is the difference. The entrepreneur assumes all the risks and costs regardless. Personally I should be suing the City for potential asbestos exposure in my 18 years of servicing them.As a matter of fact, they owe my a pension as an arms length "employee".

Yeah, good point. I understand many of the snow removal contractors are small one-man owner-operated companies. I also understand a significant number of snow-removal contractors are landscaping companies that otherwise park their equipment in the winter.

I don't imagine too many people are getting rich clearing snow. But I imagine those companies that have added city snow-removal to their portfolio have benefited by keeping much of their equipment earning income over a longer period of time.

Anyone in the heavy equipment industry know what people that operate that equipment earn working for private companies?

13 bucks an hour - cash is what one was making operating a front end loader during the winter. Long hours. Sommers he works in construction road building.

S&J rents out a backhoe ( nice unit ) with operator at 75 an hour. Seems pretty weak when you consider the backhoe costs over 100K. So he needs to keep very busy.

Had a private guy with a new Cat D something or other come out at about the same rate. Thats Man, dozer, dump truck and trailer for unit.

Pav and Liv both had contracts for one of the snow clearing zone's with the City and neither could make a go of it? Am I reading something wrong here? Considering there's only like 6 zone's and they're all cleared by one of the major heavy construction companies I'm really confused. Maybe your having a tough time making a living clearing a few private lots over the winter with 1 or 2 backhoes, but there's no way your not making serious cash if you have one of the zones.

GOM, on average your looking at most operators earning ~$15-18/hr. Most equipment rents out as Liv mentions above, backhoes around $75/hr, loaders and graders closer to $100 usually. Fuel consumption on most machines runs around 25-35 litres/hr. On a new machine maintenance is generally low or nil, older machines obviously are going to cost you anywhere from a $1k-$2k/month in running costs. New machines generally lease around $5k/month, cost ~$250k to buy outright, older machines anywhere from $30k for an older backhoe to $80-90k for a decent newer machine.

So basically your looking at $30-50/running hr in gross profit per machine less running costs and capital costs. It's not terribly difficult to make $15-20/hr net profits per machine for every hour they're running.