PUBLIC UNIONS
The Editor,
Re. "Are public-sector unions the problem in government finances?" (Face to Face, The Tri-City News, March 25).
It has been calculated that if incomes of public sector workers were equal to those in the private sector, fiscal deficits of federal and provincial governments would be lowered by at least $19 billion.
Face to Face columnist Jim Nelson, in his piece headlined "The working man isn't the problem," would like to have us believe that all Canadian working people are treated equally. If Mr. Nelson were more truthful in his analysis, he would have better defined the Canadian working man as being represented by the private sector and public sector.
So let's be more specific and identify some of the key concerns with respect to the public sector in the city where I live, Coquitlam:
A recent advertisement for a Labourer 2 - Parks position (i.e. cutting and trimming lawns, etc.) stated a starting wage of $24.92 per hour plus a percentage in lieu of benefits. While this was a seasonal position, a similar full-time position translates into an annualized cost to you, the taxpayer, in excess of $55,000 per year.
The 2009 audited financial statements for the city of Coquitlam identified total city employee salaries and benefits have gone from less than $50 million in 2005 to approximately $66 million in 2009, an increase of 33% over those four years. This is the result of not only individual salary and benefit increases of 17 to 18% over this period but an increase in the number of employees far exceeding the growth in population and an increase in inflation during the same four-year period.
So, are public sector unions the problem in government finances? I think the facts speak for themselves but just as much as unions are a problem, so are the politicians who have failed in their responsibility to manage the taxpayers' money.
Taxpayers have every right to be up in arms.
Murray Clare, Coquitlam
METRO MAYORS
The Editor,
Re. "Metro pay is too high" (Letters, The Tri-City News, March 25).
Thank you to B. Cox and H. Pritchard for their letters. I couldn't agree more.
Is there any other job in the private sector that pays an employee hundreds of dollars to attend meetings on top of a regular salary? Travel and meal allowances, of course, but $322 per meeting? Isn't going to meetings part of the job description for a mayor?
Is there any job in the private sector where you can decide exactly how much of a raise you deserve and then get it? Can you do this without the consent of your employer? As taxpayers, we are the employer. Did anyone ask you?
We all get to pay our utility bills in the next few days and, not too far in the future, we will be paying our property taxes. Someone has to pay for these outrageous expenses incurred by city hall.
A while back, when the city had its garbage police patrolling our neighbourhoods in the middle of the night, I asked why the garbage containers owned by the city were not secured to keep out bears. I was told the city could not afford it and as a taxpayer I would be paying for the updating. As individual homeowners, we would be fined if our garbage did not have a critter guard ($75 per can) or if we did not build a secure shed to house it in. The city, however, was exempt.
Why did city council think we could afford a hefty pay raise for councillors and the mayor, plus pay up to $966 per day to the mayor for attending meetings but we could not pay to protect wildlife?
Where would you rather have spent your tax dollars? And again, were you asked?
If you agree with the actions of city hall, so be it. If you don't, please write to your local paper and/or to the mayor. It is time we all had our say. It is our money.
If there is a candidate come election time that can see how unfair and unjust this situation is, he or she will surely get my vote.
D. Pederson,
Port Coquitlam
