BornRuff
Apr 8th, 2009, 06:38 AM
Now, before I get into this, may of you already know me as the guy who is always providing the counter arguments when others complain about high pay and bonuses for executives, unions, etc. I honestly really hesitate to post this since I know it will just start the usual rhetoric again, but it will end up being posted by someone else anyways, and I do feel that the City Council Executive is making a very poor choice here.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/615388
Councillors freeze pay for others
Email Story Email story
Print Print
Text Size Text Size Text Size Choose text size
Report Typo Report typo or correction
iCopyright License this article
AddThis
City politicians under fire for eliminating staffers' cost-of-living increases while keeping their own
Apr 08, 2009 04:30 AM
Be the first to comment on this article...
Donovan Vincent
city hall bureau
Paul Moloney
John Spears
Councillors on the city's powerful executive committee agreed yesterday to eliminate cost-of-living and merit increases for non-union city staff this year. But an hour later, they voted not to touch a 2.42 per cent raise for themselves.
It was precisely what Councillor Doug Holyday had warned would be "the height of hypocrisy."
In a long-shot bid, he and a group of other councillors, mostly fiscal conservatives, had urged the executive committee to allow a vote on the councillor pay question to be held later this month during a meeting of the full council.
"I'd like my constituents to know where I stand,'' said Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, adding he wanted a chance to vote against the freeze.
But that bid failed.
Instead, the executive committee adopted a motion from deputy mayor Joe Pantalone calling for a study into councillor pay to be conducted before the beginning of the next term, in late 2010.
That effectively ends the issue for now, while the freeze for non-union staff will be debated at council.
Yesterday's debate over the councillors' automatic pay raise at times turned nasty, with interruptions and name-calling.
At one point, Councillor Frances Nunziata, who like Holyday isn't on the executive committee, said some members were behaving in an "ignorant manner," interrupting her and making faces as she spoke in favour of a council vote on the issue.
She later retracted the remark after Mayor David Miller rebuked her for improper decorum.
In 2006, after a review, councillors voted to raise their salaries almost 9 per cent – to $95,000 – in 2007. They declared that henceforth there would be only cost-of-living increases. Including this year's increase, councillors earn $99,153.
Most GTA councils gave themselves 3 per cent increases this year.
Miller did not take this year's cost-of-living increase, freezing his salary at $163,040.
But he refused to ask fellow politicians to do the same. Councillors could sign a form returning their increase to the city.
Sixteen did so. The rest accepted the pay hike or donated it to a charity of their choice.
One of the 16, Adam Vaughan, said referring the matter back to council for a vote wasn't required, given that council had already referred the matter to executive weeks ago.
Richard Majkot, executive director of the non-union staff association, had said his members would accept a cost-of-living freeze, but only if council extended it to unionized workers as well.
Miller argued that many non-union employees won't have their wages completely frozen this year, because their pay increases up to 3 per cent as they gain experience, as long as they meet performance standards. They'll lose their cost-of-living raise, but not the experience increase.
Performance-based bonuses are also being frozen for employees at the top of their wage scale.
But Majkot told the committee that merit pay increases shouldn't be frozen this year, since they're based on last year's performance.
Freezing pay will mean Toronto employees' salaries will fall behind those in other GTA municipalities.
"Morale will decrease, you may have a problem attracting and retaining high-performing employees (and) the city becomes less competitive in its salary rates," he said.
Hanging over the debate is the fact that the city is currently bargaining with its unionized workers, whose contracts expired Dec. 31.
This seems like a caricature of government bureaucracy. A government that votes to freeze cost of living increases for their staff, but keep that exact same increase for themselves, with the punch line being that they deferred having to take the decrease themselves by commissioning a study into their compensation, something that will end up costing the city more money.
The right action here is so simple. If you are going to tell your workers they can't have a certain pay increase, show them that you are also not taking that increase. David Miller and 16 councilors are already not taking the increase, but if they do not present a united front on this it makes them all look bad.
What I don't understand is that the amount of money we are talking about is very small, and more symbolic than anything else. It seems like the damage to the credibility of the council is not worth an extra $2400 each. If they really think that giving up the cost of living increase is too much to afford themselves, then they should not be imposing it on others.
This isn't going to be good PR for them, that is for sure.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/615388
Councillors freeze pay for others
Email Story Email story
Print Print
Text Size Text Size Text Size Choose text size
Report Typo Report typo or correction
iCopyright License this article
AddThis
City politicians under fire for eliminating staffers' cost-of-living increases while keeping their own
Apr 08, 2009 04:30 AM
Be the first to comment on this article...
Donovan Vincent
city hall bureau
Paul Moloney
John Spears
Councillors on the city's powerful executive committee agreed yesterday to eliminate cost-of-living and merit increases for non-union city staff this year. But an hour later, they voted not to touch a 2.42 per cent raise for themselves.
It was precisely what Councillor Doug Holyday had warned would be "the height of hypocrisy."
In a long-shot bid, he and a group of other councillors, mostly fiscal conservatives, had urged the executive committee to allow a vote on the councillor pay question to be held later this month during a meeting of the full council.
"I'd like my constituents to know where I stand,'' said Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, adding he wanted a chance to vote against the freeze.
But that bid failed.
Instead, the executive committee adopted a motion from deputy mayor Joe Pantalone calling for a study into councillor pay to be conducted before the beginning of the next term, in late 2010.
That effectively ends the issue for now, while the freeze for non-union staff will be debated at council.
Yesterday's debate over the councillors' automatic pay raise at times turned nasty, with interruptions and name-calling.
At one point, Councillor Frances Nunziata, who like Holyday isn't on the executive committee, said some members were behaving in an "ignorant manner," interrupting her and making faces as she spoke in favour of a council vote on the issue.
She later retracted the remark after Mayor David Miller rebuked her for improper decorum.
In 2006, after a review, councillors voted to raise their salaries almost 9 per cent – to $95,000 – in 2007. They declared that henceforth there would be only cost-of-living increases. Including this year's increase, councillors earn $99,153.
Most GTA councils gave themselves 3 per cent increases this year.
Miller did not take this year's cost-of-living increase, freezing his salary at $163,040.
But he refused to ask fellow politicians to do the same. Councillors could sign a form returning their increase to the city.
Sixteen did so. The rest accepted the pay hike or donated it to a charity of their choice.
One of the 16, Adam Vaughan, said referring the matter back to council for a vote wasn't required, given that council had already referred the matter to executive weeks ago.
Richard Majkot, executive director of the non-union staff association, had said his members would accept a cost-of-living freeze, but only if council extended it to unionized workers as well.
Miller argued that many non-union employees won't have their wages completely frozen this year, because their pay increases up to 3 per cent as they gain experience, as long as they meet performance standards. They'll lose their cost-of-living raise, but not the experience increase.
Performance-based bonuses are also being frozen for employees at the top of their wage scale.
But Majkot told the committee that merit pay increases shouldn't be frozen this year, since they're based on last year's performance.
Freezing pay will mean Toronto employees' salaries will fall behind those in other GTA municipalities.
"Morale will decrease, you may have a problem attracting and retaining high-performing employees (and) the city becomes less competitive in its salary rates," he said.
Hanging over the debate is the fact that the city is currently bargaining with its unionized workers, whose contracts expired Dec. 31.
This seems like a caricature of government bureaucracy. A government that votes to freeze cost of living increases for their staff, but keep that exact same increase for themselves, with the punch line being that they deferred having to take the decrease themselves by commissioning a study into their compensation, something that will end up costing the city more money.
The right action here is so simple. If you are going to tell your workers they can't have a certain pay increase, show them that you are also not taking that increase. David Miller and 16 councilors are already not taking the increase, but if they do not present a united front on this it makes them all look bad.
What I don't understand is that the amount of money we are talking about is very small, and more symbolic than anything else. It seems like the damage to the credibility of the council is not worth an extra $2400 each. If they really think that giving up the cost of living increase is too much to afford themselves, then they should not be imposing it on others.
This isn't going to be good PR for them, that is for sure.