Vancouver Forum: Legislated end to Paramedics Labour Dispute?

Why did the government legislate them back to work?
Why didn't the government either continue barganing OR have some sort of mediation or binding arbitration??? Why such a heavy handed approach to dealing with people who when you really need them, you really need them?

Match.com - Everyone knows someone who met on Match.com. Now it’s your turn. Search Now!

Oh, That's right.... Give yourselves something like a 30% raise, give your deputy ministers a similar raise, and THEN don't reach an agreement with your Paramedics, let them have their strike for like 7 months, and then smack them upside the head and force them back to work with probably a 0% or near 0% raise, and only let that "agreement" last until April 2010, so we can go through another labour dispute then too!!!

I heard they're getting 3% of the 7% they're asking for. Sad day. I've heard of several paramedics talking of leaving to go drive trucks for an extra $5/hr, because all they need is the class 1 DL.

Goat Boy©, on 07 November 2009 - 11:37 AM, said:

I know a lot of paramedics - they aren't pleased. These guys were getting screwed from both sides. On this one, seriously, Campbell deserves a kick in the nuts.

Only signed a one year deal with the 3%, not that bad. Could have been a lot worse.

I think most people would agree at 3% for one year isn't bad, the teacher's last contract was 5% for 3 years.

This post has been edited by Nat: 07 November 2009 - 03:39 PM

I heard they were about to vote on an offer when they were ram rodded back to work. Any truth to that?

How much does a paramedic earn? Anyone have a link to their collective agreement?

Goat Boy©, on 07 November 2009 - 03:13 PM, said:

Aren't they like the lowest paid in the country and make less than all other emergency personnel?

Just privatize paramedic services, and let the free market decide proper wages.

jaggermeister, on 07 November 2009 - 05:06 PM, said:

Then you'll have a bunch of paramedics working for $10.00/hour without benefits. I know what happens when the "free market" decides the wages.

RealWoman, on 07 November 2009 - 05:04 PM, said:

Wasn't my point. If they're going to be forced back to work, 3% is better than 1%, and probably really close to what they would have ended up getting anyways. And a 1 year deal gives them the opportunity to renegotiate next year when hopefully government budgets can be in better shape.

Given the circumstances, I'd say it worked out OK. Better than I was expecting.

RealWoman, on 07 November 2009 - 05:04 PM, said:

They wanted pay equity with the police and firemen.

Hmmm... This much I found.

Quote

Quote

Wow no wonder cops wanna work overtime

and a huge difference between Calgary and Edmonton ? anybody?

I'm one of the paramedics that got legislated back and even I don't understand it. Being on strike was kind of weird because we were all still working. Actually I was working more because the court said I had to work overtime or I could go to jail (most interesting letter I ever received). Only strike action was that we were wearing t-shirts and some trucks had stickers up. The public really wasn't affected at all so I don't see what the big rush to legislate us was for. I guess Mr. Campbell wanted us to take the stickers down for the olympics.

Should I be paid the same as police and fire men? I went to the same school as them, for the same amount of time. I go to the same calls. I do have different responsibilities, namely for the medical care of the sick and injured. And I have different dangers I face. I think it would be hard for any of you to make that judgement until you have been out on the street with us to really see what goes on.

I'd personally just like my wage to be a bit closer to theirs. 3% on my full wage of $20.17 is about 60 cents an hour. The police start about 6 dollars an hour higher than us at $26.12/hr.

If I made $20.17 all the time, it wouldn't be so bad. But the real problem is that for the first 5 years of my career I work for less than minimum wage once you average out my wage over all the hours I work. The lowest wage for me is $2/hr (on call) the highest is $20/hr (while actually with a patient). How they get away with that illegal wage is beyond me. However this month for example I will do about 70-100 hours at $2/hour. Most months have been about like that for the past 4 years I have been working.

Some people complain that I knew that going in. And that's true I did. And I chose to serve the people of BC anyways. And I'm personally going to keep doing this no matter what it pays because I love doing it. But I have noticed more and more people leaving because of money. We need to get these wages higher to keep the caliber of people high. As a taxpayer of BC, if I have a medical emergency, I want the ambulance crew that comes to help me to be highly trained and well educated. It could mean the difference between whether I make it or not. I hope most of you want that as well. If you privatize it, you will inevitably lower the bar. You wouldn't privatize your police force or your fire department would you? Ambulance service is one thing we as tax payers shouldn't skimp on.

This post has been edited by texv: 12 November 2009 - 12:41 AM

And yes, we were in the middle of voting on the offer. Kevin Falcon didn't want to wait to see the result of the vote (a difference of a few days). Apparently the first time in Canadian history that has ever been done.

Apparently he blamed H1N1. Which I don't understand because there are actually fewer ambulances out there now since we don't have to work all the overtime that the court required us to work during the strike. So his answer to H1N1 was to lower the number of ambulances?

This post has been edited by texv: 12 November 2009 - 01:28 AM

texv, on 12 November 2009 - 01:24 AM, said:

The Liberals have done a lot of "firsts" than end up being reverted back, because they fail to even understand their own government.

Superchecker, on 07 November 2009 - 10:34 AM, said:

Who cares? FEMA will eventually kill us off. Sad, but else to beleive in?

The Liberals legislateed them back to work for the Olympics, and it will be reverted back but will cost more than negotiating a proper contract. If they were true leaders they would stop being impulsive and actually plan ahead, but the rumoir is that Campbell will retire, therefore his "dictating" is strictly for "at the moment" and let someone else deal with the problem afterwards.

Berry Sweet, on 12 November 2009 - 01:34 AM, said:

I'm not worried about "FEMA."

Wires, on 12 November 2009 - 01:47 AM, said:

That's the problem. They don't plan ahead. They implement nothing more than short sighted goals and targets. There is no long term goal for real sustainability.

Of course, this is to be expected when a governing body essentially caters to the rich. Take the money and run. The Olympics are nothing more than a two week party for the elite. When all is said and done, a very select few will have made their fortunes, and the rest of the working poor can pay for it for years to come.

texv, on 12 November 2009 - 12:39 AM, said:

The difference to me as a taxpayer is that the police are out all day, looking for things to do. Speed traps, homeless people to assault, beat cops, traffic cops, crowds to pepper spray....

Can you elaborate further as to the actual workload on an average day?

texv, on 12 November 2009 - 12:39 AM, said:

That is sad.....I imagine nobody is seeing much of that these days with staff shortages though no..?

When the government takes away the rights of one group, it means they can away your rights.

I am a little offended by their slogan. "On strike to save lives." No, you are on strike to take in more cash. You are probably worth every penny, but you are not on strike to save lives.

Soiled Midget Negligee, on 12 November 2009 - 10:34 AM, said:

One of the things they say they are striking over is more money for more paramedics so they don't have to have such ridiculous overtime requirements.

Soiled Midget Negligee, on 12 November 2009 - 10:34 AM, said:

See retaining quality workers for "to save lives". There's more to it than just wages btw.

Goat, I know people affected by this who work in dispatch - there is no such thing as sitting around waiting to be called out. The medics in Vancouver are incredibly busy all the time. Why shouldn't they make as much as those in Calgary and Edmonton given that Vancouver has a higher cost of living.

Goat Boy©, on 12 November 2009 - 10:45 AM, said:

During the last strike, they worked extra OT and got it settled a lot faster. I have no idea wtf they were doing trying to not work overtime during this one. Maybe to make a point about how many of them work huge amounts of OT.

RealWoman, on 12 November 2009 - 10:50 AM, said:

I find that strange in that the firefighters who have arguably the same workload sit around the hall F'ing the dog.

Goat Boy©, on 12 November 2009 - 10:57 AM, said:

Firefighters in my area have taken up to doing dispatch work as well.

razzmatazz, on 12 November 2009 - 01:56 AM, said:

It's all about modern day oney laundering. They want it to look like they save money but the jobs (duties required) never go away, so, instead they just shuffle money between departments and lay people off, while at the same time look for contractors who set their own wages (and are considerably higher) and waste money by giving it to people who do nothing but get paid to make proposals.

If I had the power I wouldnt have refused any reasonable offer from the Fire Fighters and paramedics!!!


I would have decrease the pigs salary though! And the teachers! (God I had such a shitty teachers in high school)



I would also find someone with a half working brain and put him in charge of planing shits for municipalities!

Why build an entire bridge when you can solve the pedestrians problem with a bunch of traffic lights and 2 buckets of paint? Yah like people are gonna walk extra 100' to use a bridge

X Y Z, on 12 November 2009 - 07:47 PM, said:

I think that teachers are deserving of the peanuts that they get, if not more. My beef with it is that they really need to find a way to get rid of the petrified teacher fossils before 65. There are so many energetic young teachers waiting to get in and replace the beating hearts currently there.

Goat Boy©, on 12 November 2009 - 07:51 PM, said:

Ironically the "petrified" people of the system (both education and health care) are the ones who are offered retirement and then asked back as contractors. Basically they are screwing it up for the younger generations. They had their spiel of time and feel they have rights to retire (which they do) but when it comes to a generation below them they don't want them to have the same luxuries. it's blatantly sad and seriously gross.