Tremendous Budget Savings In Middle Management

[Hitman21]

The Ford administration will go through the ranks of city management with a “fine tooth comb” in its push to cut costs, says the Mayor’s brother and vice-chair of the budget committee.

The 2013 budget process will not get underway for another month or two, but city councillors who will be poring over balance sheets are already thinking about how to squeeze savings out of the city’s $9.4-billion operation.

Councillor Doug Ford predicts there is a “tremendous amount of savings” to be found in middle management.

“We have a whole binder of every manager in the city and an organizational chart. That’s how the budget chief found that one manager reports into another manager, into another manager. There’s just layer after layer,” he said.

“We’re going to go through it with a fine tooth comb,” he said, adding that the goal is to institute more efficient practices and reduce the number of supervisors without, he stressed, jeopardizing customer service.

“Our first preference is through attrition.”
Related

‘Back off’ budget cuts: Giorgio Mammoliti

Toronto City Council reverses $19M of Rob Ford’s cuts

Four arrested after Toronto budget-cuts protest turns violent

The drive does not necessarily mean layoffs, said budget committee member Councillor Peter Milczyn, since a chunk of the workforce is older and savings could be found through retirement, but he confirmed the administration wants to start “restricting and reducing the size of our management component.”

“We have dealt with the major union contracts, and in terms of efficiencies, we will be looking at management levels, in terms of we don’t have one person supervising two people, or two people supervising five people,” said Mike Del Grande, the budget chief. “I would imagine a lot of [the savings] would come through attrition.”

Mayor Rob Ford has made no secret about the fact that he thinks the city bureaucracy is bloated. Last year, the municipality offered employees a buyout package and eventually issued pink slips to slim its ranks. In all, 2,338.5 positions were set to disappear as part of the 2012 budget, about half of which had been vacant.

In city divisions alone, 714 employees faced layoff, 48 of whom were supervisors. (The numbers may have changed slightly because council reversed some proposed cuts.)

An official in the Mayor’s office doesn’t consider it to be about targeting a specific group, rather “restructuring” the way in which some departments work, which could cut down the number of managers.

Of the 32,852 active employees of the Toronto public service, 990 are in a managerial position, or higher, a city spokesperson reported. Supervisors are in a different job category.

“There might be another offer of buyouts,” said Councillor Milczyn. “Actual layoffs, I wouldn’t say no at this point, but I don’t know that will happen.”

Mr. Del Grande said he is interested in setting some benchmarks when it comes to the number of employees under every supervisor, and review pay scales on the managerial side so as to attract more talent.

Richard Majkot, executive director of COTAPSA, the association that represents managers at the City of Toronto, said this year’s budget deleted about 220 management positions, some of which were vacant.

“There may be some councillors who are speculating, there may be some councillors who are hoping management will take another hit. There has been no indication to us or discussion about a further reduction,” said Mr. Majkot.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/24/tremendous-budget-savings-can-be-found-in-middle-management-says-councillor-doug-ford/


Doug Ford says that by cutting middle managers the city can save a lot of money and this is where the gravy train is

I believe that the city has too many middle managers and cutting them would help with the budget, this is the gravy train Rob Ford was referring to

Do you agree that that there are budget savings in middle management?

[no_username]

What the city of Toronto needs to do is to outsource to China and India. Send all administrative work, politicians and anything that doesn't physically need to be in Toronto over there. Salaries are so low, and benefits, pension plans don't exist, etc. Think of the savings!

[webdoctors]

What the city of Toronto needs to do is to outsource to China and India. Send all administrative work, politicians and anything that doesn't physically need to be in Toronto over there. Salaries are so low, and benefits, pension plans don't exist, etc. Think of the savings!

You;ve got my vote!

[Syne]

Yes, for the love of Rob won't anyone PLEASE think of the SAVINGS!?

[nauru]

What the city of Toronto needs to do is to outsource to China and India. Send all administrative work, politicians and anything that doesn't physically need to be in Toronto over there. Salaries are so low, and benefits, pension plans don't exist, etc. Think of the savings!

I would also be in favour of this plan, you've got my vote.

[BornRuff]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/24/tremendous-budget-savings-can-be-found-in-middle-management-says-councillor-doug-ford/


Doug Ford says that by cutting middle managers the city can save a lot of money and this is where the gravy train is

I believe that the city has too many middle managers and cutting them would help with the budget, this is the gravy train Rob Ford was referring to

Do you agree that that there are budget savings in middle management?

Putting this into the context of what has come of pretty much anything that Doug Ford has ever said, this wont go very far.

Like all the cuts that the mayor has suggested so far, there is clearly some amount of money that can be saved, but the amount that can be saved without affecting service is much smaller than they would have you believe.

Their continued insistence on using attrition is pretty dumb too. A good business seeks to retain the good employees and flush out the bad. Attrition is probably going to have the opposite effect.

[Hitman21]

Putting this into the context of what has come of pretty much anything that Doug Ford has ever said, this wont go very far.

Like all the cuts that the mayor has suggested so far, there is clearly some amount of money that can be saved, but the amount that can be saved without affecting service is much smaller than they would have you believe.

Their continued insistence on using attrition is pretty dumb too. A good business seeks to retain the good employees and flush out the bad. Attrition is probably going to have the opposite effect.

The problem is that there are too many managers and they cost a lot of money and many aren't needed, shouldn't they be cut? Whats your solution to fixing the problem if this wont work?

They should be fired though not offered packages and the city is not a business.

[Engi-Nir]

What the city of Toronto needs to do is to outsource to China and India. Send all administrative work, politicians and anything that doesn't physically need to be in Toronto over there. Salaries are so low, and benefits, pension plans don't exist, etc. Think of the savings!

And they should send you to china/india, so Canada is free of one more idiot.

[BornRuff]

The problem is that there are too many managers and they cost a lot of money and many aren't needed, shouldn't they be cut? Whats your solution to fixing the problem if this wont work?

They should be fired though not offered packages and the city is not a business.

Lol, I thought the appeal of Ford was that he was going to run the city like a business?

If this isn't feasible, my ability to provide alternative cost cutting options wont change the fact that this option still isn't going to cut as much money as you seem to think.

The city, like any employer, will have to pay severance to any employee the fire without cause. Layoff like this are considered firing someone without cause.

[Hitman21]

Lol, I thought the appeal of Ford was that he was going to run the city like a business?

If this isn't feasible, my ability to provide alternative cost cutting options wont change the fact that this option still isn't going to cut as much money as you seem to think.

The city, like any employer, will have to pay severance to any employee the fire without cause. Layoff like this are considered firing someone without cause.

The city is not a business, just look at how horribly run it is with wasted resources like the middle managers and paying above market rates.

The problem with severance is that these guys are paid for by the taxpayer and they cost too much money for the taxpayer, its not right that the taxpayer has to pay for a severance especially since many of these guys are wasting taxpayers money.

[BornRuff]

The city is not a business, just look at how horribly run it is with wasted resources like the middle managers and paying above market rates.

The problem with severance is that these guys are paid for by the taxpayer and they cost too much money for the taxpayer, its not right that the taxpayer has to pay for a severance especially since many of these guys are wasting taxpayers money.

I think we have gone down this road before.

If you don't accept that public employees are human being who actually serve an important purpose, then we wont get anywhere.

[DearSummer]

The city, like any employer, will have to pay severance to any employee the fire without cause. Layoff like this are considered firing someone without cause.

Yes, there are legal requirements for severance pay. It's one week's pay per year of service.

However, look at what Toronto Hydro did. They offered employees up to 2 years of wages and benefits in their severance packages. :facepalm: As far as I am concerned, that is a gross mismanagement of tax dollars.

[flashy_mcflash]

Doug Ford says

This is where you can stop reading.

[BornRuff]

Yes, there are legal requirements for severance pay. It's one week's pay per year of service.

However, look at what Toronto Hydro did. They offered employees up to 2 years of wages and benefits in their severance packages. :facepalm: As far as I am concerned, that is a gross mismanagement of tax dollars.

When you get into management/professional/or other more senior positions, the norm in the private sector is about 1 month per year of service, up to 24 months, and that is not given out of the kindness of their hearts. That is what courts will generally award if you sue for wrongful termination in those situations.

[DearSummer]

When you get into management/professional/or other more senior positions, the norm in the private sector is about 1 month per year of service, up to 24 months, and that is not given out of the kindness of their hearts. That is what courts will generally award if you sue for wrongful termination in those situations.

I would be interested in reading up on this. It seems odd that you could sue a company for laying you off without cause for wrongful dismissal? What does the amount of severance have to do with wrongful dismissal?

Link to me where you found out about this. It seems odd to me to say the least.

[Hitman21]

I think we have gone down this road before.

If you don't accept that public employees are human being who actually serve an important purpose, then we wont get anywhere.

But the problem is that the severance is grossly overpaid, it is way too much money which is paid by the TAXPAYER

As well if some of these workers aren't doing anything and wasting TAXPAYER money then they must be fired with no severance

[Syne]

Oh this is rich. DearSummer is asking for sources.

How about a Milton Friedman Youtube video instead? I'm sure he can explain the point away somehow.

[BornRuff]

I would be interested in reading up on this. It seems odd that you could sue a company for laying you off without cause for wrongful dismissal? What does the amount of severance have to do with wrongful dismissal?

Link to me where you found out about this. It seems odd to me to say the least.

Well, I can mainly speak from knowing many people who have been laid off from the types of jobs that I mentioned, and one month per year of service up to 24 months is the norm, though there are a ton of different factors that can affect it.

The main theory behind these awards is how long it ought to take to find a comparable position. Someone who works at McDonalds can reasonably be expected to find a comparable fast food service job pretty quickly. If you are an administrative assistant, it will probably take a bit longer, but it shouldn't be all that hard. But if you are a well paid manager, comparable positions are fewer and farther between, so it can be expected to take longer to find a comparable job.

[BornRuff]

But the problem is that the severance is grossly overpaid, it is way too much money which is paid by the TAXPAYER

As well if some of these workers aren't doing anything and wasting TAXPAYER money then they must be fired with no severance

If an employee is breaking the rules or the law regarding how they are managing company money, then they can be fired with cause, and no severance is required.

That is not what Doug Ford is talking about here though. The government doesn't get to break the law because they are the government, and government employees don't have fewer rights because they work for the government.

[Hitman21]

If an employee is breaking the rules or the law regarding how they are managing company money, then they can be fired with cause, and no severance is required. Agreed

That is not what Doug Ford is talking about here though. The government doesn't get to break the law because they are the government, and government employees don't have fewer rights because they work for the government.

But many people forget that many of these jobs aren't necessary though and increase the size of government while restricting freedom, many of these jobs there is no work being done, there just screwing around all day which is why there shouldn't be a severance. Anyone that works for the government must answer to the taxpayer who pays the salary

[DearSummer]

Well, I can mainly speak from knowing many people who have been laid off from the types of jobs that I mentioned, and one month per year of service up to 24 months is the norm, though there are a ton of different factors that can affect it.

The main theory behind these awards is how long it ought to take to find a comparable position. Someone who works at McDonalds can reasonably be expected to find a comparable fast food service job pretty quickly. If you are an administrative assistant, it will probably take a bit longer, but it shouldn't be all that hard. But if you are a well paid manager, comparable positions are fewer and farther between, so it can be expected to take longer to find a comparable job.

Right, but how could you sue a company for wrongful dismissal if they fire you without cause?

[BornRuff]

But many people forget that many of these jobs aren't necessary though and increase the size of government while restricting freedom, many of these jobs there is no work being done, there just screwing around all day which is why there shouldn't be a severance. Anyone that works for the government must answer to the taxpayer who pays the salary

Anyone who works for the government is a taxpayer, so they can answer to themselves?

This is the issue that I mentioned before though, you base all of your points on public employees being useless wastes of money.

In any organization, some jobs are redundant and can be cut. When you fire people for those reasons though, you need to pay them severance.

It is the responsibility of the city manager and other senior managers to make sure that employees are managed properly. If there is waste, it is not the employees fault, and they are not stripped of their rights.

[BornRuff]

Right, but how could you sue a company for wrongful dismissal if they fire you without cause?

I am not sure if wrongful dismissal is the correct term, but the fact is that the severance packages offered by employers are based on what they could receive if they took them to court(if it is for wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, or whatever else it might be called, there are legal channels to get the severance that you are owed).

[Hitman21]

Anyone who works for the government is a taxpayer, so they can answer to themselves? Not really

This is the issue that I mentioned before though, you base all of your points on public employees being useless wastes of money.

In any organization, some jobs are redundant and can be cut. When you fire people for those reasons though, you need to pay them severance.

It is the responsibility of the city manager and other senior managers to make sure that employees are managed properly. If there is waste, it is not the employees fault, and they are not stripped of their rights.

But the problem is that the severance is going to cost a lot of money for the taxpayer, a lot of money is already being wasted with workers not working and more money cant be wasted with severance because the taxpayer has to pay for it.

As I said earlier many of the city managers aren't needed and there are too many of them which is why they should be cut.

[DearSummer]

I am not sure if wrongful dismissal is the correct term, but the fact is that the severance packages offered by employers are based on what they could receive if they took them to court(if it is for wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, or whatever else it might be called, there are legal channels to get the severance that you are owed).

Again, you're going to have to provide some reading material to explain this because it makes no sense. If you were are being fired without cause, how could you sue for wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, or anything else. I don't get what legal channels you are referring to. It sounds like you are either misinformed or just parroting what somebody else told you.

[BornRuff]

But the problem is that the severance is going to cost a lot of money for the taxpayer, a lot of money is already being wasted with workers not working and more money cant be wasted with severance because the taxpayer has to pay for it.

As I said earlier many of the city managers aren't needed and there are too many of them which is why they should be cut.

Lots of things costs a lot of money. That doesn't mean you can get out of paying those costs. If that were the case, the government could balance the budget pretty damn easily.

[BornRuff]

Again, you're going to have to provide some reading material to explain this because it makes no sense. If you were are being fired without cause, how could you sue for wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, or anything else. I don't get what legal channels you are referring to. It sounds like you are either misinformed or just parroting what somebody else told you.

Are you confusing the terms without cause and with cause?

Without cause means that you didn't do anything to give them concrete reasons to fire you.

If you were stealing from the company, seriously incompetent, lied about your qualifications, made a huge mistake, etc, then they can possibly fire you with cause and not pay you severance.

[DearSummer]

Are you confusing the terms without cause and with cause?

Without cause means that you didn't do anything to give them concrete reasons to fire you.

If you were stealing from the company, seriously incompetent, lied about your qualifications, made a huge mistake, etc, then they can possibly fire you with cause and not pay you severance.

No, I am not confusing the terms. Firing without cause means an employer is legally obligated to pay $x amount in severance. How could somebody turn around and sue and ask for more than whatever is legally obligated? I don't see how that's a case that could be won.

[BornRuff]

No, I am not confusing the terms. Firing without cause means an employer is legally obligated to pay $x amount in severance. How could somebody turn around and sue and ask for more than whatever is legally obligated? I don't see how that's a case that could be won.

They are suing for what they are legally entitled to. We live in a society governed by common law. The ESA stipulates a minimum(though the ESA doesn't even apply to all workers), but the precedents established that larger awards should be awarded in certain situations.

[Hitman21]

Lots of things costs a lot of money. That doesn't mean you can get out of paying those costs. If that were the case, the government could balance the budget pretty damn easily.

All I am saying is that its taxpayers money which is why I make a big deal out of this and oppose severance. Government could balance the budget very easily but they wont

[gilboman]

Yes, there are legal requirements for severance pay. It's one week's pay per year of service.

However, look at what Toronto Hydro did. They offered employees up to 2 years of wages and benefits in their severance packages. :facepalm: As far as I am concerned, that is a gross mismanagement of tax dollars.

Actually no it isnt. You really have weak grasp of reality. You dont understand economics or the law. Goodthing you're not intelligent enough to work for public service or tax payers will be in trouble
http://www.moneyville.ca/blog/post/1163396--fired-after-36-years-worker-gets-2-years-pay

[gilboman]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/24/tremendous-budget-savings-can-be-found-in-middle-management-says-councillor-doug-ford/


Doug Ford says that by cutting middle managers the city can save a lot of money and this is where the gravy train is

I believe that the city has too many middle managers and cutting them would help with the budget, this is the gravy train Rob Ford was referring to

Do you agree that that there are budget savings in middle management?

Actually more savings would have been found if ford didnt waste a hundred million or more cancelling transit city and then having it put bqck paying for cancelled contracts, then pay for it again and pay for delays or pay for kpmg's useless report for a million or give so much money to the cops. Ford has done nth but waste $$$. He's lucky Miller before had a brain and left him a big pile of money to waste or toronto would be in more trouble

[Hitman21]

Actually more savings would have been found if ford didnt waste a hundred million or more cancelling transit city and then having it put bqck paying for cancelled contracts, then pay for it again and pay for delays or pay for kpmg's useless report for a million or give so much money to the cops. Ford has done nth but waste $$$. He's lucky Miller before had a brain and left him a big pile of money to waste or toronto would be in more trouble

The KPMG report wasn't useless though, many people didn't want the spending to be cut

I never mentioned Rob Ford so why do you bring him in, that's not what the topic is about

[DearSummer]

They are suing for what they are legally entitled to. We live in a society governed by common law. The ESA stipulates a minimum(though the ESA doesn't even apply to all workers), but the precedents established that larger awards should be awarded in certain situations.

Interesting. This seems like a big burden to put on employers.

[patpond]

Again, you're going to have to provide some reading material to explain this because it makes no sense.
Here's some light reading for you -
http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/unjust-dismissal-section-240-of-the-canada-labour-code/
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/L-2/ I think it's 240 in there, but read the whole thing just to be sure
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/labour/employment_standards/fls/research/research13/page00.shtml

Severance is usually a negotiated term in a contract, but can be an industry standard.

[No Frills]

All I am saying is that its taxpayers money which is why I make a big deal out of this and oppose severance. Government could balance the budget very easily but they wont

hahaha if only it was that easy to just can a bunch of useless public sector workers. all you can do right now is keep forking over your tax money and shake your fist at them...lol

[Abel4Life]

Simple solution.

Flatten the hierarchy. Eliminate the waste.

[DearSummer]

Here's some light reading for you -
http://employmentlawbc.com/2011/02/unjust-dismissal-section-240-of-the-canada-labour-code/
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/L-2/ I think it's 240 in there, but read the whole thing just to be sure
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/labour/employment_standards/fls/research/research13/page00.shtml

Severance is usually a negotiated term in a contract, but can be an industry standard.

Thanks. I'll take a read.

[BornRuff]

All I am saying is that its taxpayers money which is why I make a big deal out of this and oppose severance. Government could balance the budget very easily but they wont

If you didn't have to meet your legal obligations, then ya, it would be very easy to slash any budget.

There is nothing special about taxpayer money that allows you to not have to follow the law.

[BornRuff]

Interesting. This seems like a big burden to put on employers.

Our laws are stronger than they are in the US, but it is not necessarily a bad thing.

[DearSummer]

Our laws are stronger than they are in the US, but it is not necessarily a bad thing.

I can think of several reasons why it's bad:
-increased cost to employers which results in lower wages, lower ROI, or higher prices
-employers are motivated to hire people on contracts rather than full-time
-employees are motivated to slack off and hope to get fired to get a big settlement rather than quitting when they want to retire
-makes it difficult for employers to get rid of employees who are not productive

I'm surprised our laws are "stronger" (as you put it) than in the U.S. in regards to this. If there's one thing Americans like to do, it's sue people.

[BornRuff]

I can think of several reasons why it's bad:
-increased cost to employers which results in lower wages, lower ROI, or higher prices
-employers are motivated to hire people on contracts rather than full-time
-employees are motivated to slack off and hope to get fired to get a big settlement rather than quitting when they want to retire
-makes it difficult for employers to get rid of employees who are not productive

I'm surprised our laws are "stronger" (as you put it) than in the U.S. in regards to this. If there's one thing Americans like to do, it's sue people.

Slacking off and hoping there are layoffs right before you retire is not going to be a very successful strategy.

There are lots of social and economic benefits to providing workers with more security. Making it less likely for people to get into serious trouble(bankruptcy, losing their home, etc) saves society a lot of money.

The point of the law is really just to make employers foot the costs of their actions, which isn't really a bad thing.

[BananaHunter]

I strongly support cutting middle management. I seriously think there's too much "management" in the public sector. Most managers in public sector are paid upwards of $80k. I do agree there are too many managers in some cases evident from the amount of bureaucracy in public sector.

The real issue is the amount of opposition one has to face to actually cut anything. Of course, the severance package should negate any immediate savings. But if it saves costs in the long run, then go for it.

I don't necessarily think this needs to be mass layoffs. I think the city will be fine if you just "demote" positions so that people are doing the same work for less pay. In these economic times, I'm sure you'll still get plenty of willing and qualified applicants.

[BornRuff]

I strongly support cutting middle management. I seriously think there's too much "management" in the public sector. Most managers in public sector are paid upwards of $80k. I do agree there are too many managers in some cases evident from the amount of bureaucracy in public sector.

The real issue is the amount of opposition one has to face to actually cut anything. Of course, the severance package should negate any immediate savings. But if it saves costs in the long run, then go for it.

I don't necessarily think this needs to be mass layoffs. I think the city will be fine if you just "demote" positions so that people are doing the same work for less pay. In these economic times, I'm sure you'll still get plenty of willing and qualified applicants.

You can't just lower someone's pay and make them do the same work. That is called constructive dismissal, and they can sue you for severance.

[ghostryder]

No, I am not confusing the terms. Firing without cause means an employer is legally obligated to pay $x amount in severance. How could somebody turn around and sue and ask for more than whatever is legally obligated? I don't see how that's a case that could be won.


What an employee is entitled to when they are fired without cause under your provincial employment standards legislation is one thing.

What an employee will get if they sue you (the employer) in civil court for wrongful dismissal (or constructive dismissal as mentioned elsewhere) is completely separate and distinct.




The Employment Standards Act only provides minimum notice periods (usually one week for every year of service up to a maximum of 8 weeks). An employee can be entitled to a notice period beyond the statutory minimum, depending on a number of factors which the courts will consider in determining the appropriate notice period. These factors include: length of employment; training and experience required to fill the position; responsibility attached to the position; availability of equivalent alternative employment; employee’s relevant education, training and experience; the employee’s age; and if there was inducement to leave another job.

http://zvulony.ca/2010/articles/employment-law/what-is-wrongful-dismissal/



As an employer you have to balance paying only the minimum required in your provincial employment standards legislation with what it's going to cost you in legal fees and whatever the court decides if you get sued civily and lose.


Look at the Feds. They rolled back wages on employees even though there was a contract in place. There has been more than one case that has already gone to the Supreme court that has basically said that a contract is a contract. The gov't cannot legislate wage cuts in violation of a legal contract. But the Feds are going to end up spending tens of millions in tax dollars to fight the civil suit initiated by their employees knowing full well that the court precedent has already been set.

So in the end, the Feds will eventually lose, the court will order them to pay their employees exactly what the contract said they should have in the first place and the taxpayer will get stuck with the multi million dollar legal bill (not to mention all that court time). It will end up costing the taxpayer more than it would have to simply abide by the contract in the first place.

In the private sector this would be called "not cost effective". But in MP-land this is "make it look like we are doing something to cut costs and hope that the voters don't realize they are getting bent over, or defer their realization until we lose in court and then we can blame it on the court"

[Hitman21]

I strongly support cutting middle management. I seriously think there's too much "management" in the public sector. Most managers in public sector are paid upwards of $80k. I do agree there are too many managers in some cases evident from the amount of bureaucracy in public sector.

The real issue is the amount of opposition one has to face to actually cut anything. Of course, the severance package should negate any immediate savings. But if it saves costs in the long run, then go for it.

I don't necessarily think this needs to be mass layoffs. I think the city will be fine if you just "demote" positions so that people are doing the same work for less pay. In these economic times, I'm sure you'll still get plenty of willing and qualified applicants.

Agreed. There are too many managers and people have to remember its this bureaucracy which makes things so inefficient.

[NorthYorker]

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fords fooled the city once with their tales of pools of gravy in City Hall, although audit they ordered came up with absolutely nothing (AFAIR potential savings were in tune with audit cost). However, I'm not surprised that Hitman21 is fooled multiple times with same baseless story from same folks...

[Hitman21]

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fords fooled the city once with their tales of pools of gravy in City Hall, although audit they ordered came up with absolutely nothing (AFAIR potential savings were in tune with audit cost). However, I'm not surprised that Hitman21 is fooled multiple times with same baseless story from same folks...

Its these same bureaucrats which were opposing the costs and doing whatever it takes to stop Ford, that's why there was no gravy found

[NorthYorker]

Its these same bureaucrats which were opposing the costs and doing whatever it takes to stop Ford, that's why there was no gravy foundFor someone who preaches advantages of private enterprise, you have amazingly low opinion about effectiveness of private sector. You're saying that the best hounds of leading forensic audit company in North America were unable to dig anything from under those lazy dumb inept public employees. Hmmm, I would say that logical conclusion of your assumption would be one of unrivaled effectiveness of the public sector, isn't it? But don't worry, nobody expects any kind of logical thought from you...

[Hitman21]

For someone who preaches advantages of private enterprise, you have amazingly low opinion about effectiveness of private sector. You're saying that the best hounds of leading forensic audit company in North America were unable to dig anything from under those lazy dumb inept public employees. Hmmm, I would say that logical conclusion of your assumption would be one of unrivaled effectiveness of the public sector, isn't it? But don't worry, nobody expects any kind of logical thought from you...

I never said it was KPMG, I was referring to the bureaucrats at City Hall, you clearly have reading comprehension issues, The real question is why you find it necessary to insult me because you disagree.

[flashy_mcflash]

I never said it was KPMG, I was referring to the bureaucrats at City Hall, you clearly have reading comprehension issues, The real question is why you find it necessary to insult me because you disagree.

How specifically did "the bureaucrats" hide waste from an internationally-known company's forensic audit (purpose-built for finding waste)?

[NorthYorker]

I never said it was KPMG, I was referring to the bureaucrats at City HallThen what was the point of your comment? I was talking about the KPMG audit, and you chimed in with something completely unrelated. Either you were deliberately trolling, or not smart enough to read the text you were trying to comment.
why you find it necessary to insult me because you disagree.Me? Insulting you? Buddy, after you, as you just admitted, responded with something completely off-topic, I was acting on good impulse, assuming that you are just not bright enough, and not deliberately disruptive.

[DearSummer]

For someone who preaches advantages of private enterprise, you have amazingly low opinion about effectiveness of private sector. You're saying that the best hounds of leading forensic audit company in North America were unable to dig anything from under those lazy dumb inept public employees. Hmmm, I would say that logical conclusion of your assumption would be one of unrivaled effectiveness of the public sector, isn't it? But don't worry, nobody expects any kind of logical thought from you...

There were plenty of recommendations in the report for cost-savings. How did you come to this conclusion that there were none?

[flashy_mcflash]

There were plenty of recommendations in the report for cost-savings. How did you come to this conclusion that there were none?

Plenty of recommendations that would seriously impact service levels in ways that are unpalatable to most of Toronto's citizens (closing the zoo, elimination of late-night bus service, eliminating AIDS prevention programs, cutting back on Wheel Trans, etc), and even then nothing of very significant financial impact. Certainly very little actual waste.

[Hitman21]

Then what was the point of your comment? I was talking about the KPMG audit, and you chimed in with something completely unrelated. Either you were deliberately trolling, or not smart enough to read the text you were trying to comment.Me? Insulting you? Buddy, after you, as you just admitted, responded with something completely off-topic, I was acting on good impulse, assuming that you are just not bright enough, and not deliberately disruptive.

I said that the bureaucrats were opposing the cuts and doing whatever it takes to stop Ford, it was you that came in with something unrelated by bringing in the effectiveness of KPMG

[NorthYorker]

There were plenty of recommendations in the report for service cuts in order to achieve cost-savings. Fixed that for you. KPMG report proved that whole Ford campaign had been based on either lies or ignorance, and there's no way to keep services and cut costs simultaneously (key promise of Ford's mayoral bid). Now Hitman21 offers us a new idea from the very same team Ford. I'm not surprised Hitman21 might be fooled twice, but I'm not rushing into the cohort.

[flashy_mcflash]

I said that the bureaucrats were opposing the cuts and doing whatever it takes to stop Ford

Such as?

[DearSummer]

Plenty of recommendations that would seriously impact service levels in ways that are unpalatable to most of Toronto's citizens (closing the zoo, elimination of late-night bus service, eliminating AIDS prevention programs, cutting back on Wheel Trans, etc), and even then nothing of very significant financial impact. Certainly very little actual waste.

Ah, I guess it depends on your definition of waste. One example of waste that was identified was how moving to more private garbage collection would save money. Also, I would describe waste as anything that the city is doing that they shouldn't be doing (i.e. running a zoo). Anyways, that's semantics but there were certainly a lot of suggestions to save money in the report. Of course service that is offered is going to be effected by many of those cuts. It comes down to paying for only what we can afford, as we expect individuals to do.

Now was Ford disingenious if he said he would find waste and balance the budget without raising revenue or cutting services? Of course, the government generally doesn't just burn money for no reason although they certainly do spend more than they need to in order to deliver many services. There is always some true waste, but there is also a lot of other services that aren't a good value to taxpayers that I would define as waste.

[flashy_mcflash]

I would describe waste as anything that the city is doing that they shouldn't be doing (i.e. running a zoo).

Well that is what it comes down to, in the end. Fortunately, most Torontonians have no interest in Reaganomics and don't actually want a reduction in services that they obviously value even if you don't.

[DearSummer]

Well that is what it comes down to, in the end. Fortunately, most Torontonians have no interest in Reaganomics and don't actually want a reduction in services that they obviously value even if you don't.

I gotta start with your usage of the term Reaganomics because it makes no sense in this context. Reaganomics is supply-side economics and has little-to-nothing to do with a municipal government operating a zoo.

Just wondering how you know that Torontonians "obviously value" the zoo? If they did value the zoo, why can't it survive without government support?

The reality is that Toronto is spending more than it's making. That is unsustainable. There has to be some combination of revenue increases and spending cuts.

It would be interesting to see how many Torontonians would prefer a hike to property taxes rather than a reduction in non-essential services (i.e. the zoo).

[NorthYorker]

One example of waste that was identified was how moving to more private garbage collection would save money.Just a reminder, Hamilton pays more for private garbage collection than it does for public, and that's even before renewing initial (likely lowballing) contract.
Anyways, that's semanticsOK, let me explain this "semantics" issue to you, using more graphic example. Assume that City of Toronto is your body, and Ford is a "miracle weight loss specialist", who promised you 10 pounds of weight loss if you hire him. You hired him and, after initial tests (you paid for those, by the way) he says "I can't find any fat in your body, but I suggest you cut off your butt. That will deliver weight saving of 10 pounds". Now, you might consider this discrepancy between the original promise and proposed "cure" an "issue of semantics". For me there's a considerable difference between weight-loss program and amputation of body part...

[Hitman21]

I gotta start with your usage of the term Reaganomics because it makes no sense in this context. Reaganomics is supply-side economics and has little-to-nothing to do with a municipal government operating a zoo.

Just wondering how you know that Torontonians "obviously value" the zoo? If they did value the zoo, why can't it survive without government support?

The reality is that Toronto is spending more than it's making. That is unsustainable. There has to be some combination of revenue increases and spending cuts.

It would be interesting to see how many Torontonians would prefer a hike to property taxes rather than a reduction in non-essential services (i.e. the zoo).

This is true, the city is spending too much money and they have to make cuts or they will have a bigger problem

[flashy_mcflash]

It would be interesting to see how many Torontonians would prefer a hike to property taxes rather than a reduction in non-essential services (i.e. the zoo).

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/11/toronto-residents-favour-tax-hike-to-keep-services-survey

[Hitman21]

I gotta start with your usage of the term Reaganomics because it makes no sense in this context. Reaganomics is supply-side economics and has little-to-nothing to do with a municipal government operating a zoo.

Just wondering how you know that Torontonians "obviously value" the zoo? If they did value the zoo, why can't it survive without government support?

The reality is that Toronto is spending more than it's making. That is unsustainable. There has to be some combination of revenue increases and spending cuts.

It would be interesting to see how many Torontonians would prefer a hike to property taxes rather than a reduction in non-essential services (i.e. the zoo).

Many people probably would prefer the tax hike, except they want it for someone else not themselves though

[NorthYorker]

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/11/toronto-residents-favour-tax-hike-to-keep-services-surveyDoug and the rest of Team Ford disappoint me. I thought of them as pretty clever political operatives, but they are repeatedly getting caught by their own traps, and that's not a sign of smartness. They started by paying for KPMG audit (which stopped just that short of calling their political platform "a bunch of garbage"), they continued by paying for the Chong Report (which clearly said that their subway fantasy was unsustainable), now they've designed the process of consultations which proves their platform wrong again and are dismissing results of their own pet project as voodoo science? I mean, how many times can one stoop into the same trap?
Many people probably would prefer the tax hike, except they want it for someone else not themselves thoughUnlike 905-ers, who enjoy transit subsidized by all Ontario taxpayers, Torontonians pay their own way. So even a dimwit Torontonian should understand that if s/he calls for tax hike, it's their own taxes, not those of rest of Ontario.

[DearSummer]

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/11/toronto-residents-favour-tax-hike-to-keep-services-survey

Come on flashy, you and I both know that the referenced survey is not statistically valid. It's not worth the paper it's printed on.

Either way though, some people want government to run their lives, others prefer to run their own lives. It doesn't really matter which is more popular in terms of which is a better system, but majority rules (sort of) in the democracy we live in.

[Hitman21]

Doug and the rest of Team Ford disappoint me. I thought of them as pretty clever political operatives, but they are repeatedly getting caught by their own traps, and that's not a sign of smartness. They started by paying for KPMG audit (which stopped just that short of calling their political platform "a bunch of garbage"), they continued by paying for the Chong Report (which clearly said that their subway fantasy was unsustainable), now they've designed the process of consultations which proves their platform wrong again and are dismissing results of their own pet project as voodoo science? I mean, how many times can one stoop into the same trap?

The KPMG report wasn't acted on because of special interest groups who were upset though

[NorthYorker]

you and I both know that the referenced survey is not statistically valid. It's not worth the paper it's printed on.This is something we agree on. Team Ford used my taxes to pay for this voodoo survey in order to advance their quackery.

[flashy_mcflash]

Come on flashy, you and I both know that the referenced survey is not statistically valid. It's not worth the paper it's printed on.


So why did the Fords waste my tax dollars on it then? Why bother?

You don't get to scream "invalid" without providing a source yourself. Sorry, try again. It's the only poll I've seen where the question you posed has been asked. There's this poll (http://www.cupelocal79.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Forum-Research-Toronto-IVR-Draft-Report-Sept-14-11.pdf) that shows Torontonians didn't want their services cut, but you're probably going to scream about how it was commissioned by CUPE (as if that means anything).

[NorthYorker]

you're probably going to scream about how it was commissioned by CUPE (as if that means anything).I dunno about DearSummer, but I am definitely going to scream about it. Being 20+ years in consulting business, I do know that a consultant's creativity is almost limitless when it comes to satisfying a customer. CUPE-ordered survey definitely going to produce a rosy-tinted result, just like anything out of Fraser institute going to be rightwing.

This very fact makes Fords' repeated failure that much more epic. They paid to KPMG only to get direct opposite of expected result, they paid to Chong only to get direct opposite of answer they were hoping for, they paid for consultations only to get direct opposite of answer they were hoping for. They have to be deliriously out of touch with reality to get a result like this.

[DearSummer]

So why did the Fords waste my tax dollars on it then? Why bother?

It's a good question. These types of public consultations make little to no sense to me. They generally are very biased and provide little to no valuable input other than special interest groups lobbying for their cause.


You don't get to scream "invalid" without providing a source yourself. Sorry, try again. It's the only poll I've seen where the question you posed has been asked. There's this poll (http://www.cupelocal79.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Forum-Research-Toronto-IVR-Draft-Report-Sept-14-11.pdf) that shows Torontonians didn't want their services cut, but you're probably going to scream about how it was commissioned by CUPE (as if that means anything).

That CUPE one, although seemingly a statisticall valid poll, is biased...


How much do you agree your local councilor should vote in the interests of
protecting city services in your community, even if it conflicts with the wishes of
Mayor Ford?

All this aside, I would not be at all surprised if a valid poll showed Torontoians want to pay higher taxes to keep services. Toronto is very left-leaning.

That said, why does the zoo need government support? If people really cared about it, why could the zoo not survive on its own like any other business?

[flashy_mcflash]

I dunno about DearSummer, but I am definitely going to scream about it. Being 20+ years in consulting business, I do know that a consultant's creativity is almost limitless when it comes to satisfying a customer. CUPE-ordered survey definitely going to produce a rosy-tinted result, just like anything out of Fraser institute going to be rightwing.

This very fact makes Fords' repeated failure that much more epic. They paid to KPMG only to get direct opposite of expected result, they paid to Chong only to get direct opposite of answer they were hoping for, they paid for consultations only to get direct opposite of answer they were hoping for. They have to be deliriously out of touch with reality to get a result like this.

Fair enough. I suppose the questions can be posed in ways to get the results you want, and I've seen evidence of that in polls from both sides, but you're right - when a poll can be that biased and still not give the desired result, it means the will of the people is fairly decidedly against you.

[flashy_mcflash]

That said, why does the zoo need government support? If people really cared about it, why could the zoo not survive on its own like any other business?

Your worldview does not allow for this inconvenient truth but not everything that's profitable is objectively valuable and not everything that's valuable is consistently profitable.

[Hitman21]

The city is involved in way too many different areas that they shouldn't be , this has to stop because too much money is being wasted

[sylpherware]

The city is involved in way too many different areas that they shouldn't be , this has to stop because too much money is being wasted

I think you should run for office on this platform. HITMAN - 2012!

[flashy_mcflash]

I think you should run for office on this platform. HITMAN - 2012!


HITMAN 2015

"No Taxes, No Services, No Government"

[Siskie]

The problem is that there are too many managers and they cost a lot of money and many aren't needed, shouldn't they be cut? Whats your solution to fixing the problem if this wont work?

They should be fired though not offered packages and the city is not a business.

They should be offered packages because they need to according to employment law.

But they should cut out this bloat. It ridiculous to have so many middle-managers. They should also look into process automation and get rid of some of the admin staff that sit around all day processing. There is software nowadays that will do that at a fraction of the cost.

[Hitman21]

I think you should run for office on this platform. HITMAN - 2012!

But this is the truth though, why is the city involved with daycare and the zoo, this is taxpayers money

[flashy_mcflash]

I think you should run for office on this platform. HITMAN - 2012!


HITMAN 2015

"I Will Literally Do Nothing For Five Years"

[sylpherware]

HITMAN 2015

"No Taxes, No Services, No Government"

Love it! :lol:


HITMAN 2015

"I WILL FIRE MYSELF TO CUT COST!"

[DearSummer]

Your worldview does not allow for this inconvenient truth but not everything that's profitable is objectively valuable and not everything that's valuable is consistently profitable.

Actually yes, everything that is profitable is valuable. Why else would people pay for it?

If people valued the zoo, why would they not pay enough to go visit it? Why does the government need to forcibly take money from people in order to keep the zoo open? If people valued it, they would open their wallet and pay the required price to go.

Socialism is force. It makes sense for certain things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good). National defense is a good example.
Capitalism is choice. It makes sense for everything else.

[NorthYorker]

Love it! :lol:You haven't lived under such a system. I did. Unpleasant experience, to put it mildly.

[Hitman21]

Love it! :lol:

I think some people misunderstand me, I want government its just the size that I disagree with people on

[Hitman21]

Actually yes, everything that is profitable is valuable. Why else would people pay for it?

If people valued the zoo, why would they not pay enough to go visit it? Why does the government need to forcibly take money from people in order to keep the zoo open? If people valued it, they would open their wallet and pay the required price to go.

Socialism is force. It makes sense for certain things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good). National defense is a good example.
Capitalism is choice. It makes sense for everything else.

Here is Milton Friedman explaining all of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYeYPcougmA

[flashy_mcflash]

Actually yes, everything that is profitable is valuable. Why else would people pay for it?


I guess we'll have to disagree on the value of things like Justin Bieber, cigarettes, and high fructose corn syrup.



If people valued the zoo, why would they not pay enough to go visit it? Why does the government need to forcibly take money from people in order to keep the zoo open? If people valued it, they would open their wallet and pay the required price to go.


People spend less on leisure activities in leaner times, like, you know, recessions. That doesn't mean they don't value it. That's the difficulty of your worldview - everything is not black and white, and one effect can have many causes (and vice versa).



Socialism is force. It makes sense for certain things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good). National defense is a good example.
Capitalism is choice. It makes sense for everything else.

And Toronto has spoken on what they would like to be public goods. They have decided that they would rather pay for the government to provide certain services and privatize others. I believe they were onside with privatizing garbage collection when polled, for example.

[sylpherware]

Actually yes, everything that is profitable is valuable. Why else would people pay for it?

"Value" is subjective since you can't put a price on everything. For an adult, maybe spending $10 on a burger and watching discovery channel is better than a day at the zoo. But what about for a kid? Is staying home watching TV more valuable than the experience of spending time with friends and family at a zoo?


Socialism is force. It makes sense for certain things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good). National defense is a good example.
Capitalism is choice. It makes sense for everything else.

If you can truly put a universally-agreed-upon pricetag on EVERYTHING, sure, you can expect people to make more competent choices under capitalism.

[flashy_mcflash]

"Value" is subjective since you can't put a price on everything. For an adult, maybe spending $10 on a burger and watching discovery channel is better than a day at the zoo. But what about for a kid? Is staying home watching TV more valuable than the experience of spending time with friends and family at a zoo?


Well said. I didn't articulate my point particularly well but this is spot-on. That's the problem with these free marketers - their brains break when people invest things with non-monetary value, because they believe that it is literally all about the benjamins.

[DearSummer]

I guess we'll have to disagree on the value of things like Justin Bieber, cigarettes, and high fructose corn syrup.

Just because those are things that YOU don't value, doesn't mean that they aren't valuable. The government loves to tell people what they should value. Why not let people decide for themselves? I am all about freedom. If you want to listen to Biebs while smoking a cig and stuffing Mars bars into your face, who am I say you shouldn't do that? It's your life and your decision.


People spend less on leisure activities in leaner times, like, you know, recessions. That doesn't mean they don't value it. That's the difficulty of your worldview - everything is not black and white, and one effect can have many causes (and vice versa).

So they don't want to spend the money to pay to goto the zoo but they don't mind that money being taken from them forcibly by the government to keep the zoo open? How does that make sense? At least if it was privatized they can choose when to scale back their spending.

[patpond]

These sound like arguments from the looney bin.

When someone is presented with proof against their claims, yet continue to argue their points, it's a very disturbing stance.

[flashy_mcflash]

So they don't want to spend the money to pay to goto the zoo but they don't mind that money being taken from them forcibly by the government to keep the zoo open? How does that make sense? At least if it was privatized they can choose when to scale back their spending.

People have decided they prefer the government to run the zoo and not a private business for whatever reason. Maybe they don't want to visit the Scotiabank Zoo so they can see the RBC White Tiger. I don't know and will not speculate. The fact is that you are in the minority of people that want to see these services privatized. I'm all about freedom, and following the will of the people.

[rems]

Just because those are things that YOU don't value, doesn't mean that they aren't valuable. The government loves to tell people what they should value. Why not let people decide for themselves? I am all about freedom. If you want to listen to Biebs while smoking a cig and stuffing Mars bars into your face, who am I say you shouldn't do that? It's your life and your decision.



So they don't want to spend the money to pay to goto the zoo but they don't mind that money being taken from them forcibly by the government to keep the zoo open? How does that make sense? At least if it was privatized they can choose when to scale back their spending.

But health care is paid for by everyone's tax dollars. You say you're all for personal choice but smoking and stuffing your face with Mars bars impacts how those resources are spent. You don't want your dollars wasted yet you're ok with people being unhealthy and burdening the health care system? :confused:

[Hitman21]

But health care is paid for by everyone's tax dollars. You say you're all for personal choice but smoking and stuffing your face with Mars bars impacts how those resources are spent. You don't want your dollars wasted yet you're ok with people being unhealthy and burdening the health care system? :confused:

Under a free market system there wouldn't be a socialized healthcare system

[flashy_mcflash]

Under a free market system there wouldn't be a socialized healthcare system

Which is why no one wants to live in yours and DearSummer's free market 'paradise'. When a far-right party can't even get traction in goddamn Alberta, it's a sign that the desire for a free market fringe fantasy is minuscule in this country.

[rems]

Under a free market system there wouldn't be a socialized healthcare system

So you want to live in a place where it's everyone for themselves and you don't care about your fellow citizen? Sorry, that's not for me.

[DearSummer]

But health care is paid for by everyone's tax dollars. You say you're all for personal choice but smoking and stuffing your face with Mars bars impacts how those resources are spent. You don't want your dollars wasted yet you're ok with people being unhealthy and burdening the health care system? :confused:

So people shouldn't be allowed to eat junk food because they burden the system? People shouldn't play sports or drive cars either, both burden the system. How are you going to regulate this?

[Hitman21]

So you want to live in a place where it's everyone for themselves and you don't care about your fellow citizen? Sorry, that's not for me.

Do you want to live in a place where government uses force to take your money only to waste it on special interests?
Do you want to live in a place where you have no freedom and the government tells you what you can do?

[DearSummer]

Which is why no one wants to live in yours and DearSummer's free market 'paradise'. When a far-right party can't even get traction in goddamn Alberta, it's a sign that the desire for a free market fringe fantasy is minuscule in this country.

100 years ago people didn't want to live in a country where all races and genders were treated equally. It didn't make it right or the best thing for society. We will see substantial changes to the political climate in our lifetimes. What those changes are nobody knows but I hardly think whatever is popular right now is the best thing. Look at how much trouble California got itself into by operating in a populist fashion.

[flashy_mcflash]

And there we have it, folks.


Actually yes, everything that is profitable is valuable. Why else would people pay for it?

So if it's popular, it's valuable. Unless....


I hardly think whatever is popular right now is the best thing.

So do people know what's best for them or don't they? Free market, baby.

[patpond]

Do you want to live in a place where government uses force to take your money only to waste it on special interests?
Do you want to live in a place where you have no freedom and the government tells you what you can do?

http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/pr2000/images/bananas1.jpg

[rems]

So people shouldn't be allowed to eat junk food because they burden the system? People shouldn't play sports or drive cars either, both burden the system. How are you going to regulate this?

Well this money is being "forcibly taken" from me when I lead a healthy lifestyle. Why does that differ from your argument that they're taking money for a zoo which you don't choose to use? I don't use that zoo and I don't mind it being open if a number of people find value in going to it. Just like I don't mind my tax dollars being spent treating someone with lung cancer cuz they chain smoked. Or broke their leg cuz they got injured playing football. Not everything is about money and making money.



Do you want to live in a place where government uses force to take your money only to waste it on special interests?
Do you want to live in a place where you have no freedom and the government tells you what you can do?

You think this government tells you want you can do? Sorry but I don't think of Canada as an oppressive country...

[DearSummer]

And there we have it, folks.



So if it's popular, it's valuable. Unless....



So do people know what's best for them or don't they? Free market, baby.

People know what they want. It isn't necessarily what's best for them (i.e. doing coke off a working lady's bottom).

[Hitman21]

You think this government tells you want you can do? Sorry but I don't think of Canada as an oppressive country...

Well there is the War on drugs, outlawed prostitution, illegal to operate private healthcare, Income taxes, no free speech and there's much more

[rems]

Well there is the War on drugs, outlawed prostitution, illegal to operate private healthcare, Income taxes, no free speech and there's much more

Since you feel so oppressed, you should definitely leave. It must be so hard living in Canada. You should claim refugee status in North Korea.

[DearSummer]

Well this money is being "forcibly taken" from me when I lead a healthy lifestyle. Why does that differ from your argument that they're taking money for a zoo which you don't choose to use? I don't use that zoo and I don't mind it being open if a number of people find value in going to it. Just like I don't mind my tax dollars being spent treating someone with lung cancer cuz they chain smoked. Or broke their leg cuz they got injured playing football. Not everything is about money and making money.

Would you care if money was forcibly taken from you to operate movie theatres in every community? What about free food for everybody? Free iPods? It's a matter of what is a public good and what isn't.

[rems]

Would you care if money was forcibly taken from you to operate movie theatres in every community? What about free food for everybody? Free iPods? It's a matter of what is a public good and what isn't.

Exactly and parks, zoos, arenas, libraries, etc... are good for the public - in my opinion anyways.

[DearSummer]

Exactly and parks, zoos, arenas, libraries, etc... are good for the public - in my opinion anyways.

This is what I mean by public good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good). Gyms are good for the public as well. Should Toronto operate gyms?

[Hitman21]

Since you feel so oppressed, you should definitely leave. It must be so hard living in Canada. You should claim refugee status in North Korea.

But North Korea has no freedom, there is oppression

[rems]

This is what I mean by public good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good). Gyms are good for the public as well. Should Toronto operate gyms?

So basically you want to decide what's good and what's not. How does that differ from the current government telling me what's good and what's not.


But North Korea has no freedom, there is oppression
That's real oppression. Yours would be considered first world problems.

[Hitman21]

Hopefully Rob Ford will be able to make these cuts and help stop the gravy train, these jobs cost a lot of money for the city

[DearSummer]

So basically you want to decide what's good and what's not. How does that differ from the current government telling me what's good and what's not.

Huh? No. Read the wiki article and get back to me. The key terms are non-excludable and non-rivalrous.


Non-rivalry means that consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others; and non-excludability means that no one can be excluded effectively from using the good.

[Simkins]

The problem is that there are too many managers and they cost a lot of money and many aren't needed, shouldn't they be cut? Whats your solution to fixing the problem if this wont work?

They should be fired though not offered packages and the city is not a business.

Says who? You, The Ford's and DearSummer, and...?

[transitguy1]

What the city of Toronto needs to do is to outsource to China and India. Send all administrative work, politicians and anything that doesn't physically need to be in Toronto over there. Salaries are so low, and benefits, pension plans don't exist, etc. Think of the savings!

Lets apply that to the whole country and see if they can save Canada that way ;)

[flashy_mcflash]

Says who? You, The Ford's and DearSummer, and...?

He is out to lunch. He is against democracy which is wrong.

[92gsr]

To DearSummer and Hitman21:
Instead of trying to convince everyone on the merits of free enterprise and smaller, less oppressive government, why don't you run for office and campaign on these ideas? Why don't you try to convince the ignorant electorate that your way is the best way? You're not going to win any arguments here as RFD is full of lazy public servants, so why not see whether your worldview has any traction 'out there'?

[Hitman21]

Says who? You, The Ford's and DearSummer, and...?

Just look at the amount of bureaucrats that the city has, amalgamation was suppose to reduce the size but instead it went up

[sylpherware]

To DearSummer and Hitman21:
Instead of trying to convince everyone on the merits of free enterprise and smaller, less oppressive government, why don't you run for office and campaign on these ideas? Why don't you try to convince the ignorant electorate that your way is the best way? You're not going to win any arguments here as RFD is full of lazy public servants, so why not see whether your worldview has any traction 'out there'?


DearSummer & HITMAN 2015
ft. Ghost of Milton Friedman
"FREE MARKET CURES CANCER!"

[Simkins]

Just look at the amount of bureaucrats that the city has, amalgamation was suppose to reduce the size but instead it went up

So are you suggesting managers do nothing? You have proven nothing.

[Hitman21]

So are you suggesting managers do nothing? You have proven nothing.

In my earlier posts I said there are too many managers so they have to be fired, some of the managers are also building empires which has to be stopped, many of the managers aren't doing anything because their job isn't necessary.

[92gsr]

Just look at the amount of bureaucrats that the city has, amalgamation was suppose to reduce the size but instead it went up

Have you ever managed a company or an organization? Any such entity say larger than the size of 10 needs at least 2 decision-makers to get any work done. That's why there are "middle managers" - to make the decisions that the top manager doesn't have the time to make.

You cut middle managers, so someone else has to make the decisions. Maybe the top manager makes all of the decisions? Or do you think the drones at the bottom of the food chain should have greater authority to make decisions?

[Hitman21]

DearSummer & HITMAN 2015
ft. Ghost of Milton Friedman
"FREE MARKET CURES CANCER!"

Government is doing what it takes to stop a cure for cancer, just look at the FDA

http://www.naturalnews.com/032998_Burzynski_cancer_cures.html

[Hitman21]

Have you ever managed a company or an organization? Any such entity say larger than the size of 10 needs at least 2 decision-makers to get any work done. That's why there are "middle managers" - to make the decisions that the top manager doesn't have the time to make.

You cut middle managers, so someone else has to make the decisions. Maybe the top manager makes all of the decisions? Or do you think the drones at the bottom of the food chain should have greater authority to make decisions?

All I am saying is that there are too many managers which is why I favour cuts, and many people forget that many of the services and departments aren't even necessary which is the real issue

[patpond]

All I am saying is that there are too many managers which is why I favour cuts, and many people forget that many of the services and departments aren't even necessary which is the real issue

Just because there are many managers, does not mean there are too many. Some could argue there aren't enough.

[Hitman21]

Just because there are many managers, does not mean there are too many. Some could argue there aren't enough.

There were many articles about how there were too many managers though. As I stated earlier most of the services arent even necessary so there is no need for the managers

[92gsr]

All I am saying is that there are too many managers which is why I favour cuts, and many people forget that many of the services and departments aren't even necessary which is the real issue

You failed to answer any of my questions directly which means you know nothing about how to run a company or organization. Thus, your views on what to cut are baseless and uninformed.

You say there are too many unnecesary services and programs. List some of these and why they should be cut. And then, put together an argument why a private company would provide better value and service delivery.

[CDNPatriot]

Don't know why RFD puts up with Dearsummerhitman and their antics. They contribute nothing but stir up controversy. They insult professions as they hide behind a computer.


You failed to answer any of my questions directly which means you know nothing about how to run a company or organization. Thus, your views on what to cut are baseless and uninformed.

You say there are too many unnecesary services and programs. List some of these and why they should be cut. And then, put together an argument why a private company would provide better value and service delivery.

[CDNPatriot]

DearSummer & HITMAN 2015
ft. Ghost of Milton Friedman
"FREE MARKET CURES CANCER!"

Hahahahaha great post I cracked a rib laughing so hard.

[Hitman21]

You failed to answer any of my questions directly which means you know nothing about how to run a company or organization. Thus, your views on what to cut are baseless and uninformed.

You say there are too many unnecesary services and programs. List some of these and why they should be cut. And then, put together an argument why a private company would provide better value and service delivery.

I already have answered this many times. Daycare, Toronto Zoo, cut arts grants,

[Hitman21]

Don't know why RFD puts up with Dearsummerhitman and their antics. They contribute nothing but stir up controversy. They insult professions as they hide behind a computer.

I don't insult professions, just defend myself and the taxpayer. I do contribute useful content offering a different view to challenge the status quo. If you look in these threads its always the same people who insult me with personal attacks

[CDNPatriot]

I don't insult professions, just defend myself and the taxpayer. I do contribute useful content offering a different view to challenge the status quo. If you look in these threads its always the same people who insult me with personal attacks

Yeah but Dearsummerhitman you do it over and over day in and day out insulting professions.

What is your profession? Please provide an example of this so called noble profession that is gravy free so that we can follow as an example?

PS do you work for RFD? Reason I'm asking is that you post with great frequency and wondering what you get out of it?

[Hitman21]

Yeah but Dearsummerhitman you do it over and over day in and day out insulting professions.

I do post about different aspects of big government such as welfare, regulations, monopoly. If you call criticizing bureaucrats and their outrageous salaries insulting then yes I insult them

What is your profession? Please provide an example of this so called noble profession that is gravy free so that we can follow as an example?

The private sector

PS do you work for RFD? Reason I'm asking is that you post with great frequency and wondering what you get out of it?

No, I don't work for RFD, I post because I like to provide a different viewpoint which is against the status quo and I like to promote freedom anywhere I can

[Simkins]

There were many articles about how there were too many managers though. As I stated earlier most of the services arent even necessary so there is no need for the managers

Oh I see, case closed then. Fire them all as a result of these many articles you speak of.

[Hitman21]

Oh I see, case closed then. Fire them all as a result of these many articles you speak of.

Yes, finally we agree :facepalm:

[CDNPatriot]

Oh I see, case closed then. Fire them all as a result of these many articles you speak of.

Yep, just like going after the garbage workers and City of Toronto workers was going to yield "gazillions" for the Toronto taxpayer.

Wasn't Mammolitti supposed to personally sign the tax refund cheques and mail all these savings back to the Toronto taxpayer?

After all Ford and Holyday obsessed over this for over a year. Since they spent so much time they must have saved a lot of money!

I say do fire all the managers but first, give me back the savings from the privatizing, laying off city staff and wage freezes and benefit cuts.

[Hitman21]

Yep, just like going after the garbage workers and City of Toronto workers was going to yield "gazillions" for the Toronto taxpayer.

Wasn't Mammolitti supposed to personally sign the tax refund cheques?

The problem is that the bureaucrats stole money with severance otherwise more money could be saved

[CDNPatriot]

The problem is that the bureaucrats stole money with severance otherwise more money could be saved

Dearsummerhitman, where are the savings though? Where is the tax refund cheque?

If it was the bureaucrats that stole it when they were fired why do you want to fire more?

[Hitman21]

Dearsummerhitman, where are the savings though? Where is the tax refund cheque?

If it was the bureaucrats that stole it when they were fired why do you want to fire more?

I explained this many times , the bureacrats have to be paid severance and because of that they stole the taxpayers money

Tax refund cheques wont come anytime soon because too much money is being spent

[CDNPatriot]

Buh buh but I thought that privatizing garbage and playing hardball with CUPE was going to solve all of our problems? You telling Holyday and Ford wasted a over a year in office to get no savings?


I explained this many times , the bureacrats have to be paid severance and because of that they stole the taxpayers money

Tax refund cheques wont come anytime soon because too much money is being spent

[Hitman21]

Buh buh but I thought that privatizing garbage and playing hardball with CUPE was going to solve all of our problems? You telling Holyday and Ford wasted a over a year in office to get no savings?

There hasnt been enough cuts to spending otherwise the problems would be fixed, there has been lots of opposition in council so its hard to happen

[squagles]

I explained this many times , the bureacrats have to be paid severance and because of that they stole the taxpayers money

How do I ignore a user? Do I click on their name in their post? Or is it something I have to adjust in my profile?

Found it. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, it's like stepping out of a rotting outhouse into a dewy spring meadow.

[Hitman21]

How do I ignore a user? Do I click on their name in their post? Or is it something I have to adjust in my profile?

Click on the name, view profile, add to ignore list. Your going to miss a lot of knowledge by doing this

[Abel4Life]

You failed to answer any of my questions directly which means you know nothing about how to run a company or organization. Thus, your views on what to cut are baseless and uninformed.

You say there are too many unnecesary services and programs. List some of these and why they should be cut. And then, put together an argument why a private company would provide better value and service delivery.

The Government Pension match. Cut it down to that similar to the private sector companies offering a pension. Definately a waste of tax dollars there.

[Hitman21]

The Government Pension match. Cut it down to that similar to the private sector companies offering a pension. Definately a waste of tax dollars there.

Agreed. This pension costs way too much money

[cheapmeister]

What the city of Toronto needs to do is to outsource to China and India. Send all administrative work, politicians and anything that doesn't physically need to be in Toronto over there. Salaries are so low, and benefits, pension plans don't exist, etc. Think of the savings!

Sure why not? I mean all of our blue collar jobs have gone there, so why not white collar jobs as well?

[Simkins]

Click on the name, view profile, add to ignore list. Your going to miss a lot of knowledge by doing this

I don't think he will miss anything new, you are a one hit pony. All you and DearSummer do is stir the pot by suggesting all government workers are over paid and do nothing.

[Hitman21]

I don't think he will miss anything new, you are a one hit pony. All you and DearSummer do is stir the pot by suggesting all government workers are over paid and do nothing.

No. I want to discuss Capitalism and freedom, but I don't know why people get upset and use insults. As for government workers, the government is doing things it shouldn't be doing so yes they are overpaid. Have you heard about how the government workers were wasting taxpayers money

If he wants to ignore me then that's his choice but he will miss a lot of knowledge from me

[king_george]

No. I want to discuss Capitalism and freedom, but I don't know why people get upset and use insults. As for government workers, the government is doing things it shouldn't be doing so yes they are overpaid. Have you heard about how the government workers were wasting taxpayers money

If he wants to ignore me then that's his choice but he will miss a lot of knowledge from me

One of the few times I'm stunned speechless.

If anyone's irony meter survived this post, please tell me the brand so I can get a durable replacement.:|

[Hitman21]

One of the few times I'm stunned speechless.

If anyone's irony meter survived this post, please tell me the brand so I can get a durable replacement.:|

What are you so stunned by? :confused:

[anyasok]

What are you so stunned by? :confused:
Hitman. He is stunned because you just mentiond an OXYMORON, that is, CAPITALISM and FREEDOM never ever go hand in hand. In fact, mankind has NEVER been as enslaved as it is now by this lovechild of yours called capitalism and its only getting worse.

[Hitman21]

Buh buh but I thought that privatizing garbage and playing hardball with CUPE was going to solve all of our problems? You telling Holyday and Ford wasted a over a year in office to get no savings?

You must realize that CUPE over inflates the salaries compared to the private sector and many times these workers dont even do a good job

[patpond]

You must realize that CUPE over inflates the salaries compared to the private sector and many times these workers dont even do a good job
Not true. Comparable jobs in private sector are usually paid more. People take the gov't job for the benefits.

[Hitman21]

Not true. Comparable jobs in private sector are usually paid more. People take the gov't job for the benefits.

The government jobs are funded by the TAXPAYER so the private sector pays their salaries. As well these benefits are too much, there are many government workers abusing the system like this guy

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2011/09/20110908-143820.html

[king_george]

What are you so stunned by? :confused:

Sometimes comedy gold simply writes itself.:lol:

Although I suppose I shouldn't laugh at those who lack self-awareness.

[patpond]

The government jobs are funded by the TAXPAYER so the private sector pays their salaries. As well these benefits are too much, there are many government workers abusing the system like this guy

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2011/09/20110908-143820.html

... so? ... what's your point? :rolleyes:

[Hitman21]

... so? ... what's your point? :rolleyes:

There funded by the taxpayer which is why many of these middle managers have to be cut because there not necessary. The taxpayer is struggling because of government just look right here
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/04/20120426-085544.html

[sylpherware]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20120423.gif (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2589)

[Hitman21]

To DearSummer and Hitman21:
Instead of trying to convince everyone on the merits of free enterprise and smaller, less oppressive government, why don't you run for office and campaign on these ideas? Why don't you try to convince the ignorant electorate that your way is the best way?

These ideas are the only ones that work but time has shown that the people arent smart enough to understand them.

You're not going to win any arguments here as RFD is full of lazy public servants, so why not see whether your worldview has any traction 'out there'?

Do you admit the second statement is true because that's why there is so much opposition and hatred towards me even when many times I pointed out this yet nothing was done

[sylpherware]

These ideas are the only ones that work but time has shown that the people arent smart enough to understand them.


Translation: "My theory is ideal if the world is ideal but it's not".

[patpond]

There funded by the taxpayer which is why many of these middle managers have to be cut because there not necessary. The taxpayer is struggling because of government just look right here
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/04/20120426-085544.html

Anyone who doesn't know the difference between there and they're should not be allowed to comment on the necessity of anything.

What is ideal in your opinion? Privatization?

[Hitman21]

Just another reason why there are tremendous savings in middle management

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/26/del-grande-wants-to-freeze-200k-salaries

[stuntman]

The government jobs are funded by the TAXPAYER so the private sector pays their salaries. As well these benefits are too much, there are many government workers abusing the system like this guy

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2011/09/20110908-143820.html


... so? ... what's your point? :rolleyes:

I agree...what is your point? Isolating an individual instance does not prove a point. This type of stuff happens in the private sector too.

There are lots of middle men in society that need cutting....distribution of goods is something with multiple levels of waste. That costs the the tax payers and those that don't pay tax money too by hiking the price of goods.

Yes....there is fat in some areas....some areas have no fat. There are savings to be had all over.

[stuntman]

Just another reason why there are tremendous savings in middle management

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/26/del-grande-wants-to-freeze-200k-salaries


huh? are you saying middle managers are making 200K a year? What are you defining as a middle manager?

[Hitman21]

huh? are you saying middle managers are making 200K a year? What are you defining as a middle manager?

All I am saying is that these people making $200k a year need to face cuts as well as middle managers

[stuntman]

All I am saying is that these people making $200k a year need to face cuts as well as middle managers

whoa whoa whoa....one topic at a time or we will end up with a 40 page thread.
Can't we stick to the topic?
If we can't stick to one topic and stay focused another manager to manage the thread might be required....that would sort of kill you goal for less middle managers right?

[Hitman21]

whoa whoa whoa....one topic at a time or we will end up with a 40 page thread.
Can't we stick to the topic?
If we can't stick to one topic and stay focused another manager to manage the thread might be required....that would sort of kill you goal for less middle managers right?

The two are very similar though, its all about the bureaucracy facing more cuts to save taxpayer money

[stuntman]

The two are very similar though, its all about the bureaucracy facing more cuts to save taxpayer money

but I was talking about adding more management in my post to keep the worker bees focused and on top. That would cost money.

[Hitman21]

but I was talking about adding more management in my post to keep the worker bees focused and on top. That would cost money.

We shouldn't add more management but instead cut management. That would cost taxpayers money

[stuntman]

We shouldn't add more management but instead cut management. That would cost taxpayers money

Your sentences state that cutting would cost taxpayers money....but I know what you meant.

What I am saying is......stay on topic...people earning 200K a year have nothing to do with this topic of middle managers.
Posting links to articles of isolated incidents and other areas of waste does not help you make your specific point.

[Hitman21]

Your sentences state that cutting would cost taxpayers money....but I know what you meant.

What I am saying is......stay on topic...people earning 200K a year have nothing to do with this topic of middle managers.
Posting links to articles of isolated incidents and other areas of waste does not help you make your specific point.

Fine, no mention of people earning $200k then.

All I am saying is that the city needs to cut the amount of middle managers because there are too many and they cost a lot, as well something that many people forget is amalgamation was suppose to reduce the bureaucracy but instead increased it providing more of these managers

[stuntman]

Fine, no mention of people earning $200k then.

All I am saying is that the city needs to cut the amount of middle managers because there are too many and they cost a lot, as well something that many people forget is amalgamation was suppose to reduce the bureaucracy but instead increased it providing more of these managers

OK...not much of a complaint when it comes to chopping middle management.
Which ones? How much will be saved? How will it be known that the dead wood is disposed of and the good ones stay.

[xxxray]

wonder how many people have "ignored" Hitman21?

[Hitman21]

OK...not much of a complaint when it comes to chopping middle management.
Which ones? How much will be saved? How will it be known that the dead wood is disposed of and the good ones stay.

A review needs to be done, there are way too many of them and cut them.

The city has way too many regulations which hurt business and these middle managers are part of that. Eliminate most of the regulations and most of the bureaucracies wont be necessary, then middle managers aren't required to manage them

[Hitman21]

wonder how many people have "ignored" Hitman21?

Thats something I would love to know as well :D

Anyone that ignores me is really missing a lot of useful information though

[patpond]

A review needs to be done, there are way too many of them and cut them.

The city has way too many regulations which hurt business and these middle managers are part of that. Eliminate most of the regulations and most of the bureaucracies wont be necessary, then middle managers aren't required to manage them

What if that 'review' shows there aren't enough managers? What then? Hire more? Just because you don't see the subway, that doesn't mean it's not coming.

btw, the article you linked to earlier listed a city manager's salary at $313K... is that too much in your opinion? If so, what's a fair salary for that position?

[Hitman21]

What if that 'review' shows there aren't enough managers? What then? Hire more? Just because you don't see the subway, that doesn't mean it's not coming.

btw, the article you linked to earlier listed a city manager's salary at $313K... is that too much in your opinion? If so, what's a fair salary for that position?

Its the government so there will be more than enough managers. The salary of $313k is way too much and needs to be cut

[patpond]

Its the government so there will be more than enough managers. The salary of $313k is way too much and needs to be cut

You didn't answer. If $313K is too much, then how much should a city manager be paid?

[Hitman21]

You didn't answer. If $313K is too much, then how much should a city manager be paid?

Definitely much less than $313k

[webdoctors]

You didn't answer. If $313K is too much, then how much should a city manager be paid?

I think it was Bill Gates that said 256K should be enough for everybody.

[Hitman21]

I think it was Bill Gates that said 256K should be enough for everybody.

That would still be too much

[stuntman]

A review needs to be done, there are way too many of them and cut them.

The city has way too many regulations which hurt business and these middle managers are part of that. Eliminate most of the regulations and most of the bureaucracies wont be necessary, then middle managers aren't required to manage them

OK.....so you don't know. But you do suspect. A review is required to determine
1. if it is required or not
2. what to cut.

So your stand is actually "a review needs to be done to investigate possible cuts to middle management"??? A far more winnable stand.

[Simkins]

Thats something I would love to know as well :D

Anyone that ignores me is really missing a lot of useful information though

I hope you don't actually believe that. All they are missing is you spouting off about destroying government services.

[Hitman21]

I hope you don't actually believe that. All they are missing is you spouting off about destroying government services.

Except the government is destroying the people with regulations and taxes

[stuntman]

Except the government is destroying the people with regulations and taxes

yes because people don't need regulation. We are all good AND smart people that don't try to cheat, poison, steal from, hurt or otherwise take advantage of people. Right?

Maybe the government is destroying us with bad regulation? I don't agree with that at all but the can do better.

[Hitman21]

yes because people don't need regulation. We are all good AND smart people that don't try to cheat, poison, steal from, hurt or otherwise take advantage of people. Right?

Maybe the government is destroying us with bad regulation? I don't agree with that at all but the can do better.

Regulations kill business and hurts the consumer because it keeps out new entrants and serves big business, the free market is the best system.

Milton Friedman explains it all


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8d42BMRNQ0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZL25NSLhEA

[stuntman]

Regulations kill business and hurts the consumer because it keeps out new entrants and serves big business, the free market is the best system.

Milton Friedman explains it all


how many posts of that guy speaking am I going to have to see posted?


Regulations that "hurt" business but help people and therefore help everyone including the people running a business:
-BPA is a toxic substance
-food must have (almost all) contents listed on their packaging
-price labels in stores have price/gram on them
-other food regulations
-certain pesticides are banned
-gas fitters must be licensed
-cars must meet certain pollution regulations
-places of businesses must be zoned for business
-advertising standards

I could go on and on and on. So are these regulations killing business and hurting consumers?

How is your post even on topic?

[Hitman21]

how many posts of that guy speaking am I going to have to see posted?

As long as there are people who dont understand Capitalism Milton Friedman will explain it all for them


Regulations that "hurt" business but help people and therefore help everyone including the people running a business:
-BPA is a toxic substance
-food must have (almost all) contents listed on their packaging
-price labels in stores have price/gram on them
-other food regulations
-certain pesticides are banned
-gas fitters must be licensed
-cars must meet certain pollution regulations
-places of businesses must be zoned for business
-advertising standards

I could go on and on and on. So are these regulations killing business and hurting consumers?

How is your post even on topic?

To get back to the thread you still didn't answer about the bureaucracy getting bigger after amalgamation

[LostInTruth]

Milton Friedman has you brainwashed bud.

[Hitman21]

Milton Friedman has you brainwashed bud.

No, Milton Friedman promotes freedom just like I do. Brainwashed is believing the government can fix all the problems for people

[stuntman]

To get back to the thread you still didn't answer about the bureaucracy getting bigger after amalgamation

well stop going way off topic :)

Yes I did. You don't know what cuts and where or what reorganization is required.
You want a review right?
You certainly are not following the mindless 'work harder get paid less money have less people doing the same job' are you? It should be done correctly right?

[Hitman21]

well stop going way off topic :)

Yes I did. You don't know what cuts and where or what reorganization is required.
You want a review right?
You certainly are not following the mindless 'work harder get paid less money have less people doing the same job' are you? It should be done correctly right?

There are lots of areas to cut just look at the massive bureaucracy. There are too many people they need to be cut. A review would help

[stuntman]

There are lots of areas to cut just look at the massive bureaucracy. There are too many people they need to be cut. A review would help

A review (and possible reorganization) would be REQUIRED for proper cuts. Nothing like charging into battle without a battle plan.

[Hitman21]

A review (and possible reorganization) would be REQUIRED for proper cuts. Nothing like charging into battle without a battle plan.

I have no problem with a review

[stuntman]

I have no problem with a review

OK....so that is what the topic should be. Not much to talk about though.
Do you have examples of 1 manager managing 1 person etc?

[Hitman21]

OK....so that is what the topic should be. Not much to talk about though.
Do you have examples of 1 manager managing 1 person etc?

I never stated one manager manging one person BUT I did say we need less managers though. You have to understand these guys are a problem with the budget

[stuntman]

I never stated one manager manging one person BUT I did say we need less managers though. You have to understand these guys are a problem with the budget

Just because a lot of money is spent on them does not mean they are THE problem.
I was only giving of an example of specific waste example that you might have. If you go around stereotyping and saying those guys must go without specifics your argument does not look good or agreeable.

so how about some specific examples? (I don't mean wrong doing)

[Hitman21]

Just because a lot of money is spent on them does not mean they are THE problem.
I was only giving of an example of specific waste example that you might have. If you go around stereotyping and saying those guys must go without specifics your argument does not look good or agreeable.

Listen I said this many times earlier the bureaucracy has to be cut, there is no other option

How do you propose the city deals with the budget then.

[stuntman]

Listen I said this many times earlier the bureaucracy has to be cut, there is no other option

How do you propose the city deals with the budget then.

OK....you have no argument. Just a rant.
How about raise taxes on residents! That would fix the budget right?
How about cut services by 30%! That would fix the budget right?

See....anyone can cry out an argument topic.....but for to get people to take it seriously details and proof are required.

[Hitman21]

OK....you have no argument. Just a rant.
How about raise taxes on residents! That would fix the budget right?
How about cut services by 30%! That would fix the budget right?

See....anyone can cry out an argument topic.....but for to get people to take it seriously details and proof are required.

You dont believe there are too many bureaucrats :-0. I already pointed out how it increased after amalgamation when it was suppose to decrease.

[sylpherware]

You dont believe there are too many bureaucrats :-0. I already pointed out how it increased after amalgamation when it was suppose to decrease.

You don't know one thing about regulation, management, and bureaucracy but that "it costs money".

If you're a righty, would you remove your left arm for the sake of lowering your body's total requirement of nutrient? How would you know that "growth" on you body is an organ that is rarely used or a malignant tumor? You don't, unless you do extensive evaluations on it, evaluations that cost time and money.

Why do regulations exist? Because people like to compare apples to apples, not to oranges. Let's say you have a choice between two cars to buy - A & B. Car A has a AJIWEO (made up standard) safety rating of 88, and Car B has a QIWU safety rating of 90. Which one is "safer"? You can't answer it unless you know exactly what those two standards are about. Comprehending two standards might be manageable, but what if you had dozens of cars, each with its own safety rating? How much time are you willing to spend studying the standards before making a decision? A resourceful person would say "I'm gonna find someone to convert all the standards in to apples, so I can compare them and make an informed decision", thus the "bureaucracy" is born.

I have a co-worker who worked with Nortel and, after its demise, a bunch of smaller tech companies. He would told us how much bureaucracy existed at Nortel that it made every design decision very difficult and costly, and nothing was getting done. He also told us how much relaxed smaller companies were with its paperwork and processes, but, while stuff got done faster and with more freedom, every mistake made was virtually untraceable because there were no paper trail.

Are there fat to be cut? For sure, but where are they? Are you an expert of evaluating the usefulness of each department? No, you're not. You don't even know how much it costs to form an investigation team to monitor the departments.

[patpond]

Hey OP, are you going to answer what a city manager should be paid, in your opinion?

I'm not asking a difficult question, just an opinion.

[king_george]

Hey OP, are you going to answer what a city manager should be paid, in your opinion?

I'm not asking a difficult question, just an opinion.

You'll have to wait until he's back from his 47th temp ban......:|

[flashy_mcflash]

You'll have to wait until he's back from his 47th temp ban......:|

How many temp bans does one have to eat before it becomes permanent, incidentally? The guy gets these monthly bans, comes back for a week, earns another one, and rinse-repeat. At what point do the mods say 'this person clearly has no respect for the rules'?

[king_george]

How many temp bans does one have to eat before it becomes permanent, incidentally? The guy gets these monthly bans, comes back for a week, earns another one, and rinse-repeat. At what point do the mods say 'this person clearly has no respect for the rules'?

I have no idea but I'd sure like to know what he does to earn these temp bans. I miss all the good stuff it seems.:|

Unless parroting the same 8 lines 126 times a day in every thread he starts or posts in does it.

[sylpherware]

I have no idea but I'd sure like to know what he does to earn these temp bans. I miss all the good stuff it seems.:|

I think the Mods should change his "temp. Banned" status into "BRB. Watching Milton Friedman Vids."

[king_george]

I think the Mods should change his "temp. Banned" status into "BRB. Watching Milton Friedman Vids."

Oh hell I made a huge mistake. I thought he wanted me to watch Milton Berle vids. No wonder I couldn't refute his economic nonsense. :lol:

http://media.avclub.com/images/articles/article/70/70487/vlcsnap-2012-03-13-11h13m35s122_jpg_627x325_crop_upscale_q85.jpg

[stuntman]

You'll have to wait until he's back from his 47th temp ban......:|


How many temp bans does one have to eat before it becomes permanent, incidentally? The guy gets these monthly bans, comes back for a week, earns another one, and rinse-repeat. At what point do the mods say 'this person clearly has no respect for the rules'?

Temp ban again? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: I noticed last time he lasted less than a day before being banned again....this time 4 days? Maybe?

I don't see him doing stuff in the threads that are banning offenses.........what is the scoop?

[patpond]

You'll have to wait until he's back from his 47th temp ban......:|

meh,... he wasn't going to answer anyways.

[stuntman]

when he returns.......I am going to flat out ask Hitman21 what the deal is and see what comes out of it. :)

[king_george]

when he returns.......I am going to flat out ask Hitman21 what the deal is and see what comes out of it. :)

He'll blame big government, public sector unions, liberalism and McGuinty. If he didn't have to pay so much tax and give the teachers union so much, he'd never get banned. :D

It's like asking a trained parrot any question, all you'll get is one of a set of preprogrammed responses.

I'll just continue to be amazed at his lack of self-awareness and his pure ironic idiocy on this forum. And mock him a lot of course. Being a member of a union thats affiliated with the public sector, I have a real fine time trying to get him riled up.:D

[stuntman]

......

It's like asking a trained parrot any question, all you'll get is one of a set of preprogrammed responses.

I'll just continue to be amazed at his lack of self-awareness and his pure ironic idiocy on this forum. And mock him a lot of course. Being a member of a union thats affiliated with the public sector, I have a real fine time trying to get him riled up.:D

sweeeeeet :)

We know you are reading this Hitman21.....you have until your tempban to think of good responses, if you choose to do so. :D