Mass resignations

[Bluenose]

just doing this to see what people think:

Nova Scotia Canada, nurses and health care workers have had the rights to strike and negotiate for contracts talen away be the government. The government passed a bill stating that they can impose settlements with out the unions having any recourse to the courts.

As of June 28 2000 nurses and 2900 allied health personel have started to sign resignation papers leading to a mass resignation and also with the possibility of over 4000 other nurses resigning. should they resign?

 

[Mischka]

Do you have any background or a link on this? I'm not acquainted with this particular situation. It strikes me as similar to a subsection of labor relations in the U.S., though. The railways and airways are considered vital industries, and there are substantial restrictions - though not an absolute bar - on the unions' ability to strike. If negotiations and mediations have reached an impasse in forging a new contract between management and a union, Congress can choose to intervene and legislate a contract, with both sides legally bound to honor that agreement, no matter what it says. Perhaps that is what is happening in this case? Congressionally mandated contracts are rare, and only happen when both sides flatly refuse to reach a compromise.

If the Canadian government's action is limited to one settlement agreement, then I can understand the need for the bill. If it is a unilateral move, independent of a particular management-labor dispute, then I support the nurse's right to resign. Taking away their only methods of self-help does not further the interests of the working force and can only hinder the industry itself.

 

[Guest]

Blue, I think Nurses have just as much right to strike as anyone, and they are doing it all over the U.S. right now. As a result, the hospitals are having to call in for travel nurses and paying a hefty price for it too. If your right to strike is taken away and you are unhappy with the situation at work, then what other choices are left but to resign. Pretty drastic, and unfortunately seems that its the only option left for them. If I were there, then I would start looking into travel nursing here, cause they are being paid some great money, and benefits. I do realize thats not always an option for some, but I think it sucks that the nurses are not able to strike for what they think they deserve. People have a distorted image of what a nurse does, they don't realise we have come so far from the bedpan carrrying , pill pushing nurses of many years ago. We are the ones watching you for 12 hours, knowing you so well that if the color of your skin changes we are on it. We code you when your heart stops, most Doctors get there after the fact. We are totally responsible for your well being for the full 12 hours we are on shift. And that responsibility weighs heavily on me and most nurses I know. Ok gonna stop here or I will never shut up, lol. But in answer to your question, yes I think they should resign if they feel thats their only alternative. May be the only way to get the governments attention.

 

[Bluenose]

well they are not as aposed to the thought of the ability to strike being taken away from them as to the right to negotiated. The government stated that they did this because if it went to binding arbitration then it would be to expensive for the province.

At this point we are the lowest paid nurses in Canada.

 

[Bluenose]

Well right at the present time it seems to be the only recourse left to them.

And the government is talking about extending this bill to cover all civil servants and public employees in Nova Scotia

 

[registered "^^"]

hmmmmmmmmm

hmmm mass exodus to travel nursing in the usa......go where the money is blue..........nurses are actually more important then the doctors.......doctors put you in the hospital......nurses get you out................and do not charge $100.00 to stick their head in the door and say how are you........hang in there blue

 

[Bluenose]

well I plan on hanging in for a little while anyway and everyone knows if the nurses all resign there is no longer a health care system here, so the government is going to have to give.

 

[Simply Me]

Wondering how in the heck I was an unregistered guest up there. Anyway Blue, best of luck to you and if all else fails, who knows, we may run into each other during our travel nursing.

 

[Texan]

just a thought

Is it right for any group of "government" employees to ever strike Government employees are paid from taxpayer money. When a tax increase is passed, everyone in the represented tax base gets to vote on the increase. When government employees strike for a pay increase, the money MUST come from somewhere. The only place the extra money can come from is the taxpayers. This basically means that a strike for higher pay or benefits by government employees is a vote to increase taxes WITHOUT allowing all the taxpayers to vote. This isn't democratic. It is allowing a small group to DICTATE to the larger group, how much they MUST pay to the government. This is wrong.

Just a thought.

 

[Thomas Paine]

Re: just a thought

...This basically means that a strike for higher pay or benefits by government employees is a vote to increase taxes WITHOUT allowing all the taxpayers to vote. This isn't democratic. It is allowing a small group to DICTATE to the larger group, how much they MUST pay to the government.

That's just not true. As you said, the money has to come from somewhere, but it doesn't necessarily follow that any increase in spending in one area leads directly to an increase in taxes. Governments have budgets and the funding of government activities and programs is a function of managing those budgets.

In other words, if one group of government employees succeeds in obtaining higher wages, the extra money comes from the budget. If not already provided for, that money can be found by drawing on surpluses, reducing or eliminating other expenses or finding new, non-tax sources of revenue before raising taxes.

I would argue that this is wholly democratic because taxpayers fund the government in toto and elect executives and representatives to manage it.

 

[Texan]

Re: Re: just a thought

That's just not true. As you said, the money has to come from somewhere, but it doesn't necessarily follow that any increase in spending in one area leads directly to an increase in taxes. Governments have budgets and the funding of government activities and programs is a function of managing those budgets.

In other words, if one group of government employees succeeds in obtaining higher wages, the extra money comes from the budget. If not already provided for, that money can be found by drawing on surpluses, reducing or eliminating other expenses or finding new, non-tax sources of revenue before raising taxes.

I would argue that this is wholly democratic because taxpayers fund the government in toto and elect executives and representatives to manage it.

I think it is your logic that is flawed. When you say the money can come from the "budget", don’t you understand what a budget is? The government can not manufacture money, at least not without serious consequences to the overall economy. To expect a government to do more with less, when it increasingly requires more to do less, is a blatantly ridiculous expectation.

Also, just a little logic should tell you that if one "group" of government employees strikes to get the increase in pay they want, then of course, the next group of government employees that feels underpaid will do exactly the same thing. Thus multiplying the problem.

I am extremely interested in what kind of "new non-tax sources of revenue" you have in mind. Government could increase fees for essential services (in a country like Canada, where they provide essential medical services), but that is exactly the same thing as an increased tax imposed by the will (read strike) of one group, on the whole taxed population. Other than taxation, in any of its forms, government has no way of funding its activities.

Think through the practical consequences of your last statement. A group of people strike to get the additional spending by government that they want. Elected officials are not permitted to raise taxes because the general population will not vote for the new taxes. Therefore, the only option left to the elected officials it to either cut the pay of some other group of government employees (unless they strike to prevent it), OR to borrow the needed money against the future willingness of the general population to vote for a tax increase. This is deficit spending, and it is what destroys economies by putting governments in competition with private business, industry and individuals for the available capital.

The increase in tax revenues provided by economic growth is the only thing that has saved the economies of the developed nations. Even if those increases could be assumed to be continual, it is not justifiable for one small group of government employees to FORCE taxpayers, through their elected officials, to spend tax revenues, according to the wishes of just the small group. That is not democratic. That is blackmail.

 

[Weird Harold]

Just a counter-thought

Is it right for any group of "government" employees to ever strike Government employees are paid from taxpayer money. When a tax increase is passed, everyone in the represented tax base gets to vote on the increase. When government employees strike for a pay increase, the money MUST come from somewhere.

Is it fair for government employees to see continuously eroding pay and benefits relative to the private sector because the "taxpayers" don't believe they deserve a raise?

 

[Texan]

Re: Just a counter-thought

Is it fair for government employees to see continuously eroding pay and benefits relative to the private sector because the "taxpayers" don't believe they deserve a raise?

WH.... notice, I did not use the word "fair" in my post. I used the words "right" and "justifiable". But I don't want to nit-pick.

Actually, WH, it IS fair. In a free market based society, government should have to compete for the available "talent" pool. If an individual can do better for himself in the private sector, he should weigh his/her reasons for employment, and make the change if they see fit.

Taxpayers SHOULD get what they are willing to pay for. If the quality of the services they receive is not what they expect, then it is the decision of taxpayers as to whether or not to raise the necessary money to improve the quality of the government provided service.

My arguent is, that no small group has the right to force a tax increase on the whole taxable population. A person may use the words "my job", but in truth, the job is not the employee's, but rather the employer's. In the case of government jobs, the employer is the people who pay the salaries via their tax payments. There is no such thing as the "government's money". The money belongs to the people, the government is the steward of the people in the management of their money.

Just my opinion

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Re: Just a counter-thought

WH.... notice, I did not use the word "fair" in my post. I used the words "right" and "justifiable". But I don't want to nit-pick.

Actually, WH, it IS fair. In a free market based society, government should have to compete for the available "talent" pool. If an individual can do better for himself in the private sector, he should weigh his/her reasons for employment, and make the change if they see fit.

Ok, I guess all those private armies, school systems, air traffic controls systems, police forces, fire departments, and such just aren't hiring then.

Sometimes it takes a strike, or threat of a strike to make the voters realize how badly they need those people. There are just some jobs that only the government employs, and require an emotional and monetary investment to qualify for. So your contention is that people who invest in the qualifications to follow a calling in government service should abandon their life's work every time the public decides it doesn't want to pay market rates?

 

[Texan]

Re: Re: Re: Just a counter-thought

Ok, I guess all those private armies, school systems, air traffic controls systems, police forces, fire departments, and such just aren't hiring then.

Sometimes it takes a strike, or threat of a strike to make the voters realize how badly they need those people. There are just some jobs that only the government employs, and require an emotional and monetary investment to qualify for. So your contention is that people who invest in the qualifications to follow a calling in government service should abandon their life's work every time the public decides it doesn't want to pay market rates?

Yep.... WH.... that's about it. If a person decides to go into a professional field where his/her employment will necessarily be by a government agency, then he/she has already made a decision to subjugate their monetary requirements to the will of the people. Before his death, my father spent 30 years in, and retired from the U.S. Department of Justice. This was also his view.

WH... do you agree that there is absolutely no such thing as a "threat of a strike", without the periodic "actual strike"? I think government employees should be able to form unions and collectively bargain. I just think it should be illegal for a union of government employees to strike. In fact, it IS illegal for many government employees to strike. (air traffic controllers among them)

I believe that government should ONLY provide esential services to the public. AND, I believe that no person or group in an essential service should have the legal right to blackmail the taxpayers by striking.

Let me ask a question. Should the military be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain? Should the military be allowed to threaten a strike right before a battle or conflict?

Back to the original topic of this thread. Nurses in Canada have no real competition from the private sector. If nurses decide to strike or resign in mass, then who do the "people" have to replace them with? What about the poor patient who is waiting for critical care, when the nurses decide their paychecks are more important, at that moment, than his health, or maybe even his life?

I believe that on an individual basis, each person should be permitted to make whatever career decisions they want to make. But as a group, they have the power to cripple the very people who are paying their salaries, from their own hard-earned wages.

 

[Bluenose]

Everyone has the freedom to do what they want. I agree that essential people should not strike, but what this government did was take away a unions right to negoiate a settlement because the knew that if it went to arbitration that they would lose. And 95% of the people up here, including the people that had cancer and other surgeries cancelled stand behind the nurses and allied health people.

We work our asses off for peanuts, and if you feel that way Texan , just come to Canada and see what kind of care you get, it is the best in the world, but yet we are some of the lowest paid.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a counter-thought

WH... do you agree that there is absolutely no such thing as a "threat of a strike", without the periodic "actual strike"? I think government employees should be able to form unions and collectively bargain. I just think it should be illegal for a union of government employees to strike. In fact, it IS illegal for many government employees to strike. (air traffic controllers among them)

A "threat of a strike" can be effective without an "actual strike" and an "actual strike" doesn't have to mean a total work stoppage. If the "threat of strike" is credible -- ie the workers are willing to strike (or resign en masse) -- then that is often sufficient.

Air Traffic controller are forbidden to strike by the terms of the contract their collective bargaining association negotiated.


Why should government employees be denied the right to strike if private sector employees are gauranteed the right to strike by law? However, there are some facets of both private sector and government employment where strikes are and properly should be limited by law.

Let me ask a question. Should the military be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain? Should the military be allowed to threaten a strike right before a battle or conflict?

Yes, they should have the right to unionize and strike before an offensive battle or conflict. I don't think a strike before a defensive battle or conflict is an option.

It will never happen though, because most military careerists wouldn't join a union, preferring to join lobbying associations like the Air Force Sergeants Association, and a strike would have little effect on budgetary decisions that are programmed for years in advance.

The US Military has "gone on strike" several times in my lifetime, although the news called it "race riots," and "unrest in the military." There is a very effective form of "strike" already available to the Military called "work to rule" when the regualtions are followed precisely and literally.

Back to the original topic of this thread. Nurses in Canada have no real competition from the private sector. If nurses decide to strike or resign in mass, then who do the "people" have to replace them with? What about the poor patient who is waiting for critical care, when the nurses decide their paychecks are more important, at that moment, than his health, or maybe even his life?

Maybe to his representative in the government?

When working conditions become intolerable because the votes are worth more to those making decisions than providing adeqquate funding for essential services, should those being stiffed by the government swallow their pride and suffer in silence, or bring the politicians' perfidy to light by striking?

I believe that on an individual basis, each person should be permitted to make whatever career decisions they want to make. But as a group, they have the power to cripple the very people who are paying their salaries, from their own hard-earned wages.

The nurses in Canada are simply a collection of individuals who have had enough, to the point where they are willing to give up their jobs and, en masse, go in search of better pay and working conditions. If they have no competition from the private sector, neither do they have the option of going to the private sector in Canada. What option do they have other than bringing their grievance to the voters by striking?

Long haul truckers and railroad workers have an equal or greater ability to paralyze the country and economy, holding taxpayers and consumers alike hostage to their demands. Long Haul truckers have in the past gone on strike over government regulations and taxes (as well as over pay and benefits from their employers). This hasn't occurred in the US -- Yet -- but it easily could.

You wouldn't know it from my stand on this issue, but I'm actually against unions and the power of extortion they hold (and use) over the economy and essential services. However, unions filled an urgent need in the past, and occasionally they fill an urgent need in the present.

Just how bad must pay and working conditions be for people who have dedicated their lives to healing to even consider resigning en masse and leaving the country to find jobs? This is not a case of greed, it is a case of trying to get politicians off their ass to resolve intolerable conditions.

 

[lavender]

 

[p_p_man]

I've just woken up and read this thread...

...and all it did was make me angry. Texan your posts are written from a rarified atmosphere of someone who, I imagine, has worked hard for what he's got and is justifiably proud of it. But they also show the hard "I'm alright Jack up yours", that is so prevalent to the philosophy of the Republican party.

You tend to give your posts weight by the well turned phrase and the well constructed sentence and a surface appearance of having a reasonable argument...BUT:

So Governments don't have budgets? That is, if you think about it a massive piece of misinformation you've slipped in there in answer to Weird Harold. Of course they have budgets. Otherwise they could never plan for any future changes. Or do you think that every time there's a major change in the status quo that the Government has to wait until the next round of Budgetry Talks to resolve the situation?. A sort of "Sorry we can't help your tornado destroyed area just yet (or burnt out inner city from the recent riots or an increase in nurses pay) because we didn't budget for it and we don't use the budget system anyway. But if you'd like to wait until next year...". Come on Texan you must see the ludricousness of that happening...

So Government employess shouldn't be allowed to strike. That was the thinking of the employer class of over 60 years ago (at least in the UK - maybe it's different in the US). It's the right of every working person to withdraw their labour if they want. Otherwise there are too many cards stacked against them. Or do you wish to see employees accept changes in their circumstances without question and with no discussion, even if it means that the employee can see a slowly eroding pay-packet, a steady drop in living standards, and a massive drop in morale and enthusiasm for a job they would normally enjoy doing. After all many workers choose jobs like the nursing profession not because there's any money in it but because they feel drawn to the profession for other reasons. Nurses are known world wide for their dedication to the job and to deny them the right to strike in the face of overwhelming Government (or State opposition) to reasonable pay demands is treating them with contempt that they certainly do not deserve.

Unfortuanately Governments tend to treat public service employees (especially nurses) as if they were not worth the money spent on them in the first place.

I can't really see your point of bringing your father's service in the US Department of Justice and his view on the matter in hand has to do with anything, unless it is to underline the fact that he never went on strike and never believed in strike action. Depending on what level in the Department of Justice he was working I shouldn't think he, for one moment, gave back any pay rise because they were gained by the threat of strike action. But if it helps my views are my own and I held them even during my 20 years service as a member of my country's Diplomatic Service.

And so you think it's wrong that a small group of workers can hold the country to ransome and force the Government to increase taxes by going on strike? For a start forget the increase in taxes argument, we've already dealt with that, but holding the country to ransome?

Do you honestly think that by going on strike the nurses are going to bring down the whole of Canadian society like some crumbling edifice. I think you know, as I do, those hackneyed and well used phrases are regular ammunition use by politicians
who have run out of fair and reasonable opposition to a proposal, as is the other phrase you used that people enter a profession knowing the terms of service they are going to get. Of course they do but they're not entering a time-warp. As soon as they cross the front door on their first day that profession has already advanced and changed another step. If their terms of service include regular pay rises in line with the rise in the cost of living then fair enough, I don't think even the nurses can complain unless the Government changes the ground rules. But if their terms of service say that pay rises should take place annually as part of the Public Service Pay Round Talks then of course they should be able to strike if they wish, and if their terms of service say that once they enter the profession they shall receive no increase in pay from that day forth unless it's given by the Government of the day as an expression of goodwill then most of them would go somewhere else for work.

In this case the Government has changed the ground rules and if I was Canadian and "over there" I would probably be on the picket line with them.

One quick tale before I finish. When I was serving in the UK's Diplomatic Service our Canadian colleagues were going through much the same argument as the nurses are now. A change in terms of service. In the end their union negotiated an overtime payment plan in lieu of a set pay rise. Clever Union...Stupid Government. The Government just hadn't realised how much extra work they were asking their officers to do without pay and it was only after they began paying out overtime far in excess of any pay deal that could have negotiated did they realise their mistake.

Governments rarely act out of consideration for their emplyees.

 

[Texan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a counter-thought

I wasn't going to go point by point through WH's post, but then lavender spoke up...and well..... it's late, but here goes...

A "threat of a strike" can be effective without an "actual strike" and an "actual strike" doesn't have to mean a total work stoppage. If the "threat of strike" is credible -- ie the workers are willing to strike (or resign en masse) -- then that is often sufficient.

I asked the question: "do you agree that there is no such thing as a threat to strike without the occasional real strike? The ONLY way to convince anyone that you are willing to stike is to actually strike. If you prove your willigness to strike, then it may not be necessary the next time, but without proof of willingness, the threat of strike is NON-EXISTANT

Air Traffic controller are forbidden to strike by the terms of the contract their collective bargaining association negotiated.

ATC gave up it's legal right to strike as a "pre-condition" to collective bargaining after Reagan fired their sorry asses!

Why should government employees be denied the right to strike if private sector employees are gauranteed the right to strike by law? However, there are some facets of both private sector and government employment where strikes are and properly should be limited by law.

I'll repeat myself. Government should not be providing anything except essential services to the public. In fact, if a service is being provided by government, I think it should automatically be considered an essential service. In any essential service, private or public, I do not believe that collective bargaining should include the right to strike.

Yes, they should have the right to unionize and strike before an offensive battle or conflict. I don't think a strike before a defensive battle or conflict is an option.

Any nation who's military has the right to strike under any circumstances is doomed to destruction. Not because there is a likelyhood they will strike at the wrong time, but because there is no functional military discipline system that can afford to allow the collective will of the soldiers to overrule the will of the people as expressed by its government. When the military has the right to collective bargaining or organizing into unions, then it is no longer subject to civilian governmental control. I think your opinion here is just plain ........

It will never happen though, because most military careerists wouldn't join a union, preferring to join lobbying associations like the Air Force Sergeants Association, and a strike would have little effect on budgetary decisions that are programmed for years in advance.

The US Military has "gone on strike" several times in my lifetime, although the news called it "race riots," and "unrest in the military." There is a very effective form of "strike" already available to the Military called "work to rule" when the regualtions are followed precisely and literally.

I typed a response, then deleted it. I'll be more kind. I am almost as old as you are. I lived on three military bases growing up (as a federal employee dependent in a foreign country). I graduated from a military base high school in Puerto Rico. The military I became familiar with in the 60's and 70's was not capable of "race riots" or "unrest in the military". I've never heard of what you are refering to.

Maybe to his representative in the government?

I have no idea what that sentence means.

When working conditions become intolerable because the votes are worth more to those making decisions than providing adeqquate funding for essential services, should those being stiffed by the government swallow their pride and suffer in silence, or bring the politicians' perfidy to light by striking?

That is a very narrow view of the options available to the, so called "stiffed" government employees. There is nothing wrong with most government employees collectively bargaining up to the point of threat of strike. There is nothing wrong with most government employees doing what they can to sway public opinion through many methods, including the media and protesting. If, as you say, the votes are more valuable to the elected officials, then public opinion will dictate the outcome.

The nurses in Canada are simply a collection of individuals who have had enough, to the point where they are willing to give up their jobs and, en masse, go in search of better pay and working conditions. If they have no competition from the private sector, neither do they have the option of going to the private sector in Canada. What option do they have other than bringing their grievance to the voters by striking?

Striking is NOT a method of bringing their grievance to the voters! Protesting, or using available media coverage is a method for that. Striking is a method of blackmailing the voters through their elected officials. Striking is not a viable collective bargaining tool for any group of employees whose job duties are critical to the people who pay their wages. Striking is extortion. For some groups of employees and their union leaders, it should be a criminal offense.

Long haul truckers and railroad workers have an equal or greater ability to paralyze the country and economy, holding taxpayers and consumers alike hostage to their demands. Long Haul truckers have in the past gone on strike over government regulations and taxes (as well as over pay and benefits from their employers). This hasn't occurred in the US -- Yet -- but it easily could.

The definition of "essential services" is a tough call. There are credible arguments for a broad or a narrow definition of essential. Truck drivers and rail workers are basically replacable. I know that won't set will with one person on this board, but I'm not talking about as individuals, but rather relative to their skill set. Transportation workers have always found that they do not have enough economic clout in the short term to make striking a powerful tool in it'self. However, their ability to "blockaid" roadways, as has been done in France recently, should be considered a criminal offense and punished accordingly.

You wouldn't know it from my stand on this issue, but I'm actually against unions and the power of extortion they hold (and use) over the economy and essential services. However, unions filled an urgent need in the past, and occasionally they fill an urgent need in the present.

This is the only statement in your whole post with which I find complete agreement.

Just how bad must pay and working conditions be for people who have dedicated their lives to healing to even consider resigning en masse and leaving the country to find jobs? This is not a case of greed, it is a case of trying to get politicians off their ass to resolve intolerable conditions.

I do not doubt that they have legitimate reasons for complaint. I could not care less if Canada decides to raise taxes or charge more for some other essential service to pay for salary increases for nurses. I am only making the point that no small group of essential government employees should have the right to strike to extort money from the taxpayers. Let them resign, and if there is a public outcry, you can bet the politicians will do what is necessary to raise their pay and keep them. Let them protest, and write letters "en mass" to every media outlet that will publish them. Let them do what they want to do as individuals, but to let them strike is not "fair" , "just", or "right". I'm finished with this thread..... I had no desire to even do this.

 

[p_p_man]

You'll have to re-post that Texan...

...I can't differentiate between Weird Harold's remarks and yours you've got an extra bold html inserted somewhere...

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a counter-thought

I am only making the point that no small group of essential government employees should have the right to strike to extort money from the taxpayers. Let them resign, and if there is a public outcry, you can bet the politicians will do what is necessary to raise their pay and keep them. Let them protest, and write letters "en mass" to every media outlet that will publish them. Let them do what they want to do as individuals, but to let them strike is not "fair" , "just", or "right". I'm finished with this thread..... I had no desire to even do this.

Before you go...

I typed a response, then deleted it. I'll be more kind. I am almost as old as you are. I lived on three military bases growing up (as a federal employee dependent in a foreign country). I graduated from a military base high school in Puerto Rico. The military I became familiar with in the 60's and 70's was not capable of "race riots" or "unrest in the military". I've never heard of what you are refering to.

I believe it was Lowry AFB in 1969 when a group of black activist took over the mess hall on base protesting discrimnation against blacks in the AF. Within a couple months of that incident, black sailors rioted on an aircraft carrier over similar complaints.

Throughout 1969 and 1970 there were several other incidents all over the world, and in all branches of the sevices that eventually resulted in the formation of an Equal Opportunity division in the various Judge advocates' offices and new regulations requiring special training for all department of defense employees on race relations.

I don't know whether the specifics of the incidents can be found on the web or not. They might turn up in a search for military race relations, history.

You still haven't answered why government employees should be any different from private sector employees with similar capacity to extort higher wages and concession from the government

How is resignation en masse any different from going on strike when all nurses in Canada are employed by the government? (other than being a total cessation of services instead of simply picketing and stopping non-essential services, which is the normal strike mode for nurses, firemen, and policemen.)

 

[Shylady]

I am not sure, I might have missed something, but I don't think the nurses in Canada are stiking over pay raises.

 

[Bluenose]

right

You are right Shylady, The nurses and allied health workers don't want to strike or resign. But when the government took away their right to fair negotiations and settlements they had no recourse.


And it sounds by me that if everyone thought like you then there wouldn'r be any civil servants or they would be making peanuts just so your damn taxes don't go up. Kinda makes me glad I live in Canada and not around people who think like that.

 

[Thomas Paine]

Re: Re: Re: just a thought

I think it is your logic that is flawed. When you say the money can come from the "budget", don’t you understand what a budget is? The government can not manufacture money, at least not without serious consequences to the overall economy. To expect a government to do more with less, when it increasingly requires more to do less, is a blatantly ridiculous expectation.

Also, just a little logic should tell you that if one "group" of government employees strikes to get the increase in pay they want, then of course, the next group of government employees that feels underpaid will do exactly the same thing. Thus multiplying the problem.

I am extremely interested in what kind of "new non-tax sources of revenue" you have in mind. Government could increase fees for essential services (in a country like Canada, where they provide essential medical services), but that is exactly the same thing as an increased tax imposed by the will (read strike) of one group, on the whole taxed population. Other than taxation, in any of its forms, government has no way of funding its activities.

Think through the practical consequences of your last statement. A group of people strike to get the additional spending by government that they want. Elected officials are not permitted to raise taxes because the general population will not vote for the new taxes. Therefore, the only option left to the elected officials it to either cut the pay of some other group of government employees (unless they strike to prevent it), OR to borrow the needed money against the future willingness of the general population to vote for a tax increase. This is deficit spending, and it is what destroys economies by putting governments in competition with private business, industry and individuals for the available capital.

The increase in tax revenues provided by economic growth is the only thing that has saved the economies of the developed nations. Even if those increases could be assumed to be continual, it is not justifiable for one small group of government employees to FORCE taxpayers, through their elected officials, to spend tax revenues, according to the wishes of just the small group. That is not democratic. That is blackmail.

Might I suggest reading what I actually wrote, not what you wish to read.

Yes, I know quite well what a budget is. I have managed many of them, in both private industry and in local government. I never said that a government can manufacture money, only that an increase in one of many expenditures does not necessarily lead to a tax increase. Governments do more with less all the time, my friend, where have you been?

Speaking of logic, I need a ladder to bridge the leap of same that is evident in your saying that one pay increase necessarily leads to every group of employees getting one too. Ever heard of collective bargaining agreements? Unionized government employees work under negotiated contract terms, which, in a governmental unit that is even close to being well-run, are staggered in timing to prevent just such a scenario as you describe.

For you to say that "other than taxation, government has no way of funding its activities" is just plain wrong. Admittedly, taxes are the bulk of funding, but not the entirety. Governments at various levels collect permit and useage fees, license fees, fines, rents, fees for service and other non-tax revenue that, while not the majority of the pot, are substantial nonetheless.

I don't know we got to the macro-economic discussion at the end of your remarks, but I strongly disagree with what you appear to be saying. Government employees do not "blackmail" taxpayers by seeking higher wages, anymore than private sector workers blackmail private employers by doing the same. Don't forget, a strike is ultimately part of a negotiation process, and it is the responsibility of government officials in this case to negotiate an affordable outcome. If they cannot, then they have to find the money. Again I offer that finding the money does not necessarily equate to a tax increase, which is all I said in the first place.