Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Government or Business

0 helpful
31 replies

by oz_media

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I was talking with a freind last night about a recent hospital workers strike, where they were legislated back to work with a 15% pay cut over two years or would be facing jail time if they stayed on strike.

Well I don't support the government in this one and juding by the other citizens here, I don't think ANYONE supoprts the governments decision ( all the other goverment workers walked out the next day in protest of the legislation).
Nobody REALLY supports the strike to begin with but legislating them to work is wrong without some form of arbitration hearing.

I also had a letter printed that I sent to the editor of Vanouver's Province newspaper about the idiots who thought it was supportive to drive by a hospital at 2AM and honk their horns repeatedly in support of the strikers, don't they realize people are sick and trying to get rest in what is supposed to be a quiet zone??? What a bunch of morons, and these peolpe are operating motor vehicles!

But with all this, I got to thinking about the government and public services like road repair, transit service etc. Now the hospital employees are saying that this isn't the way to run a business but it's NOT a business it's a government service. This then got me thinking of al the people here on TR who think their government is hired like a company to work in their best interests.

So talking with my history professor (former professor from Cal.State)neighbour and he also agreed, NO GOVERNMENT IN HISTORY HAS EVER BEEN RUN LIKE A BUSINESS!! It cannot be run like a business and shouldn't be run like a business.

To begin,
Q) What private business investor would actually take an interest in a government service and see it as a business venture?

A) Not a single SANE person on the planet.

Q) What government service, transpotation, police, fire, medical, electrical etc. is actually a profitable business?

A) None of them

Now in BC our former 'Government operated' bus service was bought out by an Alberta based company. In the ONE year that they have been running the service, they have managed to claim 4 cents per litre on all gas sold in the province. (Government kick back) They get a percentage of the road taxes (government kickback). They are currently planning a new extension to the local Skytrain system, they have also convinced the government to hand over 100 million in order to properly plan and BEGIN the project and bus fare has nearly doubled.

So the idea of a government being a business, or people thinking they HIRE poiticians to work in their best interests is absolutely ABSURD and nonsensical. It is not feasible, it is not logical and it is most definitely not possible to run a government the same way you run a business.

So the next time you see someone comparing a government decision or action to what a company would do, or saying it makes logical business sense, think twice IT'S NOT A COMPANY and couldn't be one if it chose to. Not unless you paid three or four times the amount of taxes that you already do.

31 replies

by maxwell edison

.
Government should be in the "business" of governing, and business should be in the "business" of business. (Regardless of what that particular business happens to be.)

Like oil and water, the two just don't mix.

Didn't the USSR used to jail people who refused to work?

by oz_media

Great example, perhaps we could model oursleves and our governments after the USSR!

Try again.

by maxwell edison

.
My point was than no government should "jail" anyone for refusing to work. Fire them, perhaps, but "jail" them, never.

(For some reason I believe you try to overlook my point.)

by maxwell edison

.
You indicated in your original message that these folks "would be facing jail time if they stayed on strike".

Thus, my comment.

The reference was to show the similarities between that particular Canadian threat and what the USSR used to do.

The USA wouldn't "jail" them, just fire them. (As Reagan did to the air traffic controllers.)

Jailing striking workers is a very heavy-handed tactic.

by oz_media

We can fire the entire provinces staff of skilled doctors , nurse and other various hospital workers and hire new ones. Perhaps from Monster.ca? Gee it should only take a year or so to restaff the hospitals with idiots so we can watch the sick die.
As for the bus drivers, liquor sore employees, and all the other government employees, we don't need them either, hell we could just call for marshall law and everyman for himself.

Jailing strikers was taken at arms length by the unions who support them. ALL the other government employees from all the other unions also went on protests and walkouts due to the governments (provincial governments) stand. They told workers not to worry and just stay on the picket lines, it was a hasty and vey wrong comment for the government to make and one they would probably like to forget saying.

Well as I said, we don't all stand behind the governments decisions here, even the government employees walked out in support of PEOPLE over the government. Governments are sicj institutions run by the worst people, at least I can see it and don't feel obligated to support idiocy. ILke I said about the Iraq war, out government didn't jump in line because they knew we'd all laugh and go to the beach as opposed to supporting such a scare tactic to fight in defense of our families. What a crock, nobody in their right mind would buy such tripe, well perhaps not NOBODY.

by road-dog

Once again, the issue isn't really labor or fair market prices for services. It goes much deeper than that.

The "work or jail" scenario is an assault on personal freedoms and a usurpment of each and every affected worker's self determination.

The government is ordering these workers under threat of force to perform services and denying them the ability to opt out of their career field if it does not provide what they feel is fair compensation for their efforts.

It is a typical socialist solution to a free market problem. If the workers will not work for what's offered, then let them choose other employment. The patients will demand services and pay the increased cost or go without. Prices will find their new level as demand for services and the worker's marketability find a balance.

by oz_media

NOBODY has to work if they don't want to. Yes, they can elect to just find a new career but some of these people have been at it for mny years and a career change would rattle their cage too much. Some people find it quite hadr to make a life change like that, others welcome it.

The strike was a little more complicated that I had first outlined though.

The Hospital Employees Union (HEU) was told by the government that it was having wages reduced and hours of work increased to equal the annual net salary of it's workers. THis savings in employee wages was to be forwarded to the HEu to provide better facilities and equipment in order to reduce the workload on its workers and increase patient care abilities.

Currently they get 36 Hours per week but it is being increased to 37.5 hours per week.

The HEU has been asked to NEGOTIATE on several occasions over the past year but have firmly refused to meet with the province and support their half of the issues on behalf of the employees (which is EXACTLY what the HEU is for in the first place, negotiating with the provincial government.

They refused to meet on several occasions, last year it was simly an idea of cutting back workers PAID vacation time from 9 WEEKS!!! to 6 weeks.

How many peple here get 9 weeks of paid vacation??

Now you have to understand, these people are BARELY making $30,000 yr to begin with, what the hell are you going to do for 9 weeks? It's not like you have excess money to enjoy it if your pay barely covers expenses.

They refused to meet on the vacation reduction issue and have also refused any negotiations with the government. Now a Employers Union is SUPPOSED to meet with the government for such issues to negotiate the best deal for the staff members, they failed at their job and refused to represent the employees as promised.

Now, after many turned down negotiation offers the government is gettnig pissed off that they can't sit down and iron out an amicable deal with these guys who refuse to do their job ad represent the workers.

The government then asked to negotiate a deal where the vacation time stays the same, 9 paid weeks, and there is a reduction in wages of 17% over the course of two years, not for doctors and surgeons, but interns, nurses, janitorial staff, food and beverage services etc. To this, the HEU simply went on the defense and walked out.

When they were asked to return to work and have a sit down period to shelf things for a few weeks and consider the offer or rebut with another proposal, they simply went on strike. Now the HEU is at fault for not negotiating as they are supposed to by contract with the hospital employees. THe HEU flat out refused to meet with the provincial government, so the provincial government passed Bill 37 and forced them to return to work.

The HEU told its employees not to return to work, so the government reminded employees that failure to comply with a legislated bill could and would be unlawful and they may servce time for staying out of work.

So this is something the PG has been working to resolve for some time now with now resolve and no possibility of negotiating with the unions negotiators.

So as much as the government is wrong for the cut backs (sorta) and legislating them back to work, the HEU is equally at fault for failing to represent the workers as outlined ni the unions contrac. Tese workers pay more than the wage cutback would ever equal in union dues each month, if this union isn't doing its job, why pay dues, the saving would easily outweigh the wage cutbacks.? They are simply taking money from you because they can.

by hal 9000

It is a stupid move as well.

If you where to really jail every one of the striking workers who would there be left to do their jobs?

Then you would also have increases in the jail system costs as it costs far more to jail a person that put them on welfare but at least I suppose you would create some form of job security for the prison warders as if they went out on strike they would end up on the inside with the people who they are currently guarding, now that would be incentive enough not to get into that position.

About a decade ago we had the same thing here with the electrical workers employed by the State they where all fired and replaced with "Qualified" electricians all of who had no high voltage experience as they had previously only worked on home/business installations so they messed the whole system up so much that we have not as yet recovered from that one act of stupidity. Now they are talking about needing to increase electricity charges to pay for the necessary maintenance that has been left out ever since the original electricians where fired, now they only repair whats broken and even if there is a fault and they can not find the reason they just reset the trip switches and cross their fingers and hope for the best sometime it actually works but most times they eventually find out what the original fault was as they fry the system and it then requires far more time and money to repair that if they had of fixed it in the first place. In the first year of the new guys working only 32 of them killed themselves through doing what they considered as safe with what they where used to in the low voltage side of things but deadly when the high voltage is being worked upon. I can remember one case at a power station where the new contractors doing some routine maintenance measured the voltage across the main bus bars and managed to melt down the whole system. There was nothing ever done against them because the Government had two very nice copper covered statues that used to be their workers and the power station was off line for only 5 months while they repaired the damage. Actually if you wanted to do the damage you couldn't have picked a better thing to do. No more suicide bombers just some unqualified electricians doing their job could bring the whole place to its knees without a second thought. But at least now they are admitting that the power grid is a potential terrorist target so at least some good has come from it.

Now if you where to transfer that idea over the the hospital system it really doesn't bear thinking about does it? You could have the guy who last week was only qualified to lance boils doing "Brain Surgery" this week really fills you with confidence doesn't it?

Col

Col

by voldar

I think you are righ when saying "no government should "jail" anyone for refusing to work", but, you never know what the "job policy" they had, if the "strike conditions" were met.
Put yourself in the business man position, and what would you do when you loose some millions in a few days because of some of your "workers"? I don't want to underestimate the needs of the strikers, or to say they are not entitled to do that, just wanted to show that when you don't have all facts, you'll never know what really happend.
And for what I consider for myself, goverment IS a business man, the only thing is that it is the worst I ever saw (explanations exist though - every 4 years the management team changes, no "continuity" in the development field, luck of communication within the entire "area" and so on).
That's my point.
Vlad

by oz_media

As I said before, there isn't a sane business man on the face of the earth that would see value in providing a government run service. The government doesn't make money, they lose it and spend it hand over fist.

My example of th ebus system is just one, you can apply the same to ANY one of the government servcies and employees. They are public services, not a way to make profit or run a business, the government cannot operate as a business or it would be quicjly overthrown.

Which public service do you think would be the best private business venture?
Fire department?
Hospital care?
Police Department?
Welfare system?

I'd hate to think you see any of these services as a good business investment. Therefore how can they OPERATE as a business does? They simply can't. They don't show a profit, they cost enourmous amount of money to fund, the employees are ALL union workers with job protection and fair wages, what part of this is a business? The same frame of mind, concepts, and financial rules DO not and CAN not apply to a government.

A government has it's hand held out for ONE reason only, everyone else has their hands held out to the government.

Now if we decided not to pay taxes or let the government take our money everytwo weeks, we would see death, destruction, crie rates and poverty soar through the roof. That is if you still had a roof after yoru house burned down.

There's a scary thought, how much would a fire department charge to put your house fire out if it was a private company? What ever the hell they chose to I suppose.

by voldar

You are very right. When I meant business I was thinking of providing services. No mater what kind of services.
As someone said, it's hard to live with it, but harder to live without it!
And for what I think, well, government can be "managed" as a business too, as long as there is someone "able to do" that, someone willing to do it the right way.
The problem with "gov" is not the lack of funds, lack of professionals, but the lack of communication between different branches, lack of perspective in some (a lot of them) cases.
If gov whould not be, well, simple rules I don't think would exist, or we are not yet able to see something else than what the ancient greeks saw some 2000 years ago.
I am going far from the subject of your discussion, I know, and I appologize for this, but well, I was out for some time, I hope you'll forgive me :P.
Nice to be back Oz .. really nice!

by thechas

Business and Government are built on different models. And, need to stay that way.

At their basics, the role of a business is to provide a return on the investment of the people backing the business by providing an acceptable product or service at the lowest possible cost.

Government on the other hand is charged with providing services as deemed necessary to improve the welfare of the population.

Governments need the flexibility to spend the most money when revenue (taxes) are at their lowest (recession).

A business on the other hand, needs to reduce spending when their revenue drops.

We have had a significant shift in Government employment policies over my lifetime.

When I was young, government jobs were where the lowest skilled people went to work.
Government jobs, (not welfare) were the social safety net.

Now, politicians are demanding that government be run like a business. Some even forcing government agencies to out-source tasks to private companies.

This has resulted in higher pay and benefits for government jobs to attract the same caliber of worker that private business needs.

If you take the concept of running government as a business to the extreme, programs would be funded based on the short term revenue that they produce.

Chas

by oz_media

Nicely said Chas.

I must comment on one thing though just because it's an open door.

"...government jobs were where the lowest skilled people went to work."

Uh yup. Still is if you look at GWB. LOL

Damn talking about leaving it open for me, who could possibly blame me for that one!

by deadly ernest

The hardest point is defining what is gov't services as you mention transportation, police, fire, medical, electrical, etc; most people add in education, gas, sewerage, water, roads and phones. yet over the years different countries have had most of these as profitable businesses. Here in Australia (some of these vary from state to state) we have profitable, and well run, private enterprise transport, health, education, gas, electrical and telephone services.

The important thing, as another posted said, businesses operate business and govts should govern. What is critical here is defining the border line and knowing that governing does not mean operating. If it can run at a profit then it should be business not gov't, possibly have some gov't regulations but that is all.

Back in the 1970's none of our hospitals, with a very few exceptions in capital cities, were gov't owned. The vast majority were owned by the local communities that funded and built them. The federal gov' paid the hospitals direct for services rendered under federal health schemes, private citizens paid direct or their health care funds paid direct. The federal gov't also had some grant schemes to assist hospitals in capital expansion, usually based on a dollar for dollar basis where they matched community raised funds. The hopsital service across the country was of a very high standard and well managed. The state gov't regulated and checked that the hospitals worked properly.

In the 1980's the state govts 'nationalised' the hospitals (ie they stole billions of dollars of assets) and they are now state run gov't hospitals and the quality of service has been steadily gowing down hill since, and the state gov't no longer regulates the hospitals properly as they can not run and watchdog at the same time.

We have had some services state run in some states and been terrible, and private in others and been good. there are no hard and fast rules on most things that people see as gov't activities.

In my opinion the state/federal gov't should only be involved in delivering services like: police, military, fire, air traffic control, customs, and quarrantine. the rest can, and should, be businesses with gov't regulations and watchdogs.

by thechas

Oz,

Without knowing the specifics of the situation, (from both sides) it's difficult to judge the situation.

On the limited information, it sounds somewhat similar to Ronald Reagan and the PATCO strike.

The shame in these situations, is that workers need to form unions and strike to get treated decently, and earn a living wage.

Chas

by oz_media

Failing to predict the interest in the subject I decided to leave it simple. Here's some more information that I had posted:

Not so simple, and they don't HAVE to work.
NOBODY has to work if they don't want to. Yes, they can elect to just find a new career but some of these people have been at it for mny years and a career change would rattle their cage too much. Some people find it quite hadr to make a life change like that, others welcome it.

The strike was a little more complicated that I had first outlined though.

The Hospital Employees Union (HEU) was told by the government that it was having wages reduced and hours of work increased to equal the annual net salary of it's workers. THis savings in employee wages was to be forwarded to the HEu to provide better facilities and equipment in order to reduce the workload on its workers and increase patient care abilities.

Currently they get 36 Hours per week but it is being increased to 37.5 hours per week.

The HEU has been asked to NEGOTIATE on several occasions over the past year but have firmly refused to meet with the province and support their half of the issues on behalf of the employees (which is EXACTLY what the HEU is for in the first place, negotiating with the provincial government.

They refused to meet on several occasions, last year it was simly an idea of cutting back workers PAID vacation time from 9 WEEKS!!! to 6 weeks.

How many peple here get 9 weeks of paid vacation??

Now you have to understand, these people are BARELY making $30,000 yr to begin with, what the hell are you going to do for 9 weeks? It's not like you have excess money to enjoy it if your pay barely covers expenses.

They refused to meet on the vacation reduction issue and have also refused any negotiations with the government. Now a Employers Union is SUPPOSED to meet with the government for such issues to negotiate the best deal for the staff members, they failed at their job and refused to represent the employees as promised.

Now, after many turned down negotiation offers the government is gettnig pissed off that they can't sit down and iron out an amicable deal with these guys who refuse to do their job ad represent the workers.

The government then asked to negotiate a deal where the vacation time stays the same, 9 paid weeks, and there is a reduction in wages of 17% over the course of two years, not for doctors and surgeons, but interns, nurses, janitorial staff, food and beverage services etc. To this, the HEU simply went on the defense and walked out.

When they were asked to return to work and have a sit down period to shelf things for a few weeks and consider the offer or rebut with another proposal, they simply went on strike. Now the HEU is at fault for not negotiating as they are supposed to by contract with the hospital employees. THe HEU flat out refused to meet with the provincial government, so the provincial government passed Bill 37 and forced them to return to work.

The HEU told its employees not to return to work, so the government reminded employees that failure to comply with a legislated bill could and would be unlawful and they may servce time for staying out of work.

So this is something the PG has been working to resolve for some time now with now resolve and no possibility of negotiating with the unions negotiators.

So as much as the government is wrong for the cut backs (sorta) and legislating them back to work, the HEU is equally at fault for failing to represent the workers as outlined ni the unions contrac. Tese workers pay more than the wage cutback would ever equal in union dues each month, if this union isn't doing its job, why pay dues, the saving would easily outweigh the wage cutbacks.? They are simply taking money from you because they can

Hopefully this offers a little more information for you.

by thechas

Well Oz,

Even though I do not agree with the Government's decision, in the face of the lack of response from the union, I have to agree that the Government was within it's rights as an employer.

Refusing to attend a negotiation session is clearly not the same as ending negotiations because of lack of compromise.

I think the workers should be taking out their anger at the union and not the hospital.

Chas

by hal 9000

I think that the Police make a profit by handing out traffic tickets all day to motorists who break the traffic laws. But let some one break into your house while your out and you'll wait nearly 3 hours for the police to attend and then another several days depending on just what damage was done to get the forensic guys on site. But if you fired shots you'll get the Police there within a few minutes. On the other side if your shot in the process by the person breaking in you'll have to wait hours for the police to arrive after all they have to make sure that they aren't in an danger before they turn up don't they?

Col

by oz_media

Hit that one on the nose Colin, police will turn up instantly when it's convenient and safe to do so, other than that you need to take a number and have a seat.

If we privatized such an essential service though, we'd see the wild west all over again. I know I have hired many seemingly timid and professional security staff. As soon as they clip on the radio and clip on the tie, the chest is filled with air and the arms go out wide as they prance around like a peacock in heat waitnig to 'get busy' with some bouncing. I usually give them a week or two to mellow out, with some nice warnings about conduct and then they are gone. I can't afford lawsuits where people are unneccessarily beat up on the way out the door. Nor do I condone such methods of removing people or stopping situations. The idea of GOOD security is presence. By having a large staff present and by handling situations professionally, you almost NEVER see a problem that isn't quicly and quietly resolved.

You don't need BIG goons, bouncers are for biker bars, you don't need timid people either, just an imposing force is usually enough to cease any problems before they begin.

Now pricatize the police and you've got these same morons carrying guns and feeling like they have a licence to kill.

That's just a scary thought, unless I can be a cop too.

by oz_media

Always good to hear from you Vlad, you handle objection and rebuttal very well.

As for leaving the topic, that's what we do here and I welcome your input anytime.

by hal 9000

Was the union instructed by its members not to negotiate with the Government on this issue?

If that's the case then they are doing what their members want and representing them the way that they want to be represented.

But the idea of jail time is just Ludicrous as it solves nothing. There is no possibility of replacing the jailed staff unless of course they are going to confine them in the hospitals and force them to work without pay. Even then I think I'd prefer to stay sick and away from the hospitals as they defiantly wouldn't be a healthy place to be in.

But I'm betting that at the same time that the Government what ever it is decided to reduce the conditions for these people as a way of saving a bit of money gave themselves a pay rise as well because that are overworked. Now am I right?

Col

by wordworker

I feel the same pain, Oz. Commonwealth of Kentucky's new Einstein governor *cuts* education programs (so friends of mine lose their teaching positions, other friends don't get to take the classes they signed up for at the local junior college), the state legislature can't pass a budget, yet politicians get raises and benefits that the rest of us po' folk will never see.

But the point I wanted to make is -- business or government -- it's still PEOPLE making these stupid, greedy, self-serving decisions. At least as far as government is concerned, we can vote the boneheads out of office. Though we frequently leave them in office - witness Massachusetts reelecting fat-head Kennedy over and over despite what he did to that girl at Chappaquiddick.

With business, we're stuck with whoever sucked up their way into the positions of power. I say sucked up and not earned. In so many companies, you work and work and you think you're in line for promotions and for decent paychecks. But it's like standing in line for one of those cool nightclubs. You're at the door, you think you're next, and then BAM! Somebody cuts in line in front of you and the doorman unhooks the little rope and lets someone who is "on the list" get in instead of you.

It sucks. People say "well life isn't fair," well, it's people who aren't fair, not life. It's people who make stupid and/or greedy decisions, not governments, not businesses.

I worked for a company that was sold for $80 million and the president took $30+ million for himself and gave NOTHING to the people who made the sale of the company possible. How do we make bad people like accountable? I don't know. Shooting them or beating them about the head with a stick are still illegal acts. So what can we do?

by oz_media

Your nightclub analogy was great, you see I have been on all sides of that situation.
I have ordered the bouncer to stop lettnig people in, unless they are guests. I have also been the guy in line who gets bumped. Best of all is that nowdays, I am the guy ON the list. So I can see all sides and agree with all sides too as I understand the system there.

As for teh government feeding themselves. Our provincial government ALL (EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM) accepted voulunteer paycut. They were asked to help reduce expenses and they did cut personal salaries, somereported wer quite oarge paycuts too. Our country balances it's budget each year, we have done for a while now. B.C. has had a surplus as well as a deficit but our budget is generally well controlled and within reason.

Our parlimentary staff in Victoria, walk, ride the bus or even ride bikes to work each day, it's not the hoity-toity 'we are running the province' mentality. Our PM makes F-all as do other cabinet members, in Canada politics is hardly a career choice and just a selected job for most. We've had former fishermen, former lumberjacks, truck drivers you name it in office. They soon return to fishing, driving or felling to actually see some money.

There was some concern a few years back that our Eastern politicians were overpaid but that's pretty much been taken care of now, and they earn a respectable but not insane income.

Like I've said so many times here, we don't place such importance on our politicians, they are just guys with a job, no different than a bus driver, surgeon, or fisherman. In fact we don't piss money away on many things that other countried deem important. Our hockey players are immensely overpaid in US dollars by a US company. Our football players on the other hand, pay their own travel expenses, practice in a field in Surrey (Vancouver's 'undesirable's' neighbourheed)and earn a LOT less than I do. The cheerleaders are volunteers too. If in Vancouver pubs you will often run into our hockey and football players drinking whatever draught is on sale, hanging out in sleezy strip bars and smoking dope in the alley, they are just dudes, not friggin' superstars.

Well I can't evebn remeber how I got to this point now, but I think it was related to overinflated salaries and how we don't really pay huge salaries to people in political positions here, nor do we think they deserve big salaries.

by voldar

it Oz. Although I am here (Canada) since short time (5 month), I begun to understand how things work here, and you are totally right.

by maxwell edison

.
If the government can put a person in jail for refusing to work, the problem is with the heavy-handed government willing to deny a person his or her civil liberties.

by oz_media

Well Colin, the workers are represented by the union heads and don't really say anything to them as to what is wanted. THe HEU union reps instruct it's members how to react, not the other way around as it should be. I have a few friends with husbands or wifes in teh HEU and they say they are NEVER asked for an opinion or rarely have a meeting to adderss such issues.

As for people going to jail, if you breach a government legislation in ANY country that I know of, you are breaking a LAW. The intent of the jail warning in this case ws to motivate the union reps to recommend that workers return to work. I think the issue here is the fact that the HEU is to blame. They refused to negotiate for the workers, they refused to negotiate as per the governments request, a couple of scheduled meetings were a no show by the HEU representatives etc.

They then told the workers to ignore the legislation to return to work. Their reasoning was that the GOvernment had not tried to amicably resolve the issue before the legislation was passed, ignoring the fact that they have refused to address the issue themselves for over a year.

I think the only people who would have faced any repercussions for breaching the legislation would be the union representatives themselves, not neccessarily the workers who are obligated to foolow union recommendations. No government, would place it's health care workers in jail.

NOTE: Again, this is NOT the doctors and surgeons but the interns, nurses aids, janitorial staff and food and beverage services (The latter two are both ousted and privatized now).

by oz_media

You ARE American aren't you!

I guarantee if you asked ANY of the workers about their civil liberties they would say "Who cares, they can't FORCE me to return to work!"

the issue her is that the government can legislate any essential services back to work.
Hospital workers are an essential service and MUST work. They can protest and the HEU can face the government with employee grievances, ask for more money, renegotiate contracts or whatever they choose BUT THEY MUST REMAIN AT WORK.

This keeps our hospitals running as a service to the people, and those who CHOSE to serve the people MUST serve the people.

This was all happening while my friend's father was in hospital (and not looking good) with Hep-C and HIV. He had a stroke the day the strike began, had taken a turn for the worst and was not looking as if he would recover. Yesterday I saw him and he had gained a few pounds and also started eating again by himself.

His only comments about the strike were, "at least the cars aren't honking their damn, horns anymore and I can finally get some rest"..."Yes the care has improved big time since I first got here."

So while we sit and argue about legislation and workers being forced to work, my friend's father (also a very good friend of mine) was laying in hospital without the needed care, he was still being cared for but on a skeleton shift system, not a full staff and was sufering because of it.

The government legislating HEU workers back to work has probably saved a friend's life, perhaps I see it a little differently because of that. To me it is people, not politics, which is exactly what it should be to our government AND the HEU. These people chose a career to HELP people, most hospital workers are low paid (ours in BC being the second highest paid in Canada)and do it strictly because they want to make a diference and HELP society, money is not a motivation to enter health care, unless you are a neurosurgeon or something, saving lives is the major factor here.

For people to ignore an offer, refuse to discuss alternatives, ignore a government legislation and let innocent people suffer because of it is ludicrous.

If this was a private hospital, and the workers demands weren't met, what could be done to get them to return to work? The hospital either meets the demands or fires everyone. I prefer the essential service system our government has in place, it keeps our ferries running, our busses operating, our mail delivery coming and most of all helps the sick become well again.

by voldar

now we have the whole storry. Regardless whatever anyone says, I think is no more a gov fault, but the HEu. So, well, I think in this case the gov did his best to solve the issue, but when there is no partner to solve with, things may always go down the direction you already posted in your first thread.
This is why I always wait to have the most data I can before taking a decision to blame/to cheer someone for his/her acts.

by oz_media

That is the argument around town. It's like the Dems. vs Repubs. Those with family in the HEU wil be supportive of the HEU NOT the government and vice versa.

I would say a good 80% of the HEU workers have no idea what's going on, as people here rarely pay too much attention to behind the scenes actions. In as much as I've said American's (lets make that 'many' Americans)are simply government conformists in that what everyone else says is often the way they go, as it is easier than trying to dig through the political BS to reach your own conclusions and ossibly get a different
result than what is commonly accepted.

THis same issue happens here too except not so much that these people are political conformists, nobody could give a toss about our government, but they will follow the masses in the unions. If JOE says the union is right, then I think it is too.

I have another friend in Van. who is very unaware of anything other than his own conclusions and has never read a single book or newspaper in his life. When having any discussions with him, the topics are simple and if he starts talking about politics or his union, you can hear it is an echo of what he has heard at work, not what he has learned.

Once people weigh the sides, it is easy to see that this is a union steward's problem, not the government's.

When I discussed the issue with the guy I just mentioned, his answer was (paraphrased) 'The government are a**holes, there's no way they can legislate them back to work in 24 hours,it proves they haven't read or even considered the HEU's demands.' I think it is a little more understandable than his actual statement this way, as his comments wer just incomplete assumptions based on heresay.

Thanks for joining in here, I can always appreciate your comments.

by oz_media

The news today aired a piece about Quadra Island (A small island just off the coast of Vancouver Island) and has private garbage collection service instead of government funded.

The guy that has been collecting for years ran into financial difficulty while trying to replace his trucka and has been dumping it on his land. Normally he would have to pay for each truck to cross the inlet to the Island landfills.

The stink is so bad that neighours nearly two miles from him are complaining, animals are everywhere and he just can't fund it.

I guess this is a PRIME example of how a government funded service cannot operate as a profitable or even self-sustaining business.

This discussion is closed to new replies.