Monday, September 12, 2005

Binding arbitration for civil servants?

With a Regina city worker strike in it's second full week, there are calls for binding arbitration. Does that really make any sense? We have our democratically elected mayor and council taking a position that taxpayers should only pay a certain price for labour. That position, whether you agree with it or not, is that the city will provide workers with no more than a 5 per cent raise over then next three years.

Does it make any sense whatsoever to bring in an unelected arbitrator to impose upon us all a settlement that our elected leaders are refusing to offer?

3 comments:

Shawn said...

Better idea, tie wage increases to productivity gains. I have no problem with letting them spend the winter on the picket line. Quite frankly, the longer they stay out, the more money the city saves. Perhaps it is time to take a page out of the Mike Harris playbook and start advertising how much the taxpayer is saving by having these folks off the job.

Len Pryor said...

Altogether now children, can you say "contractors" ?

Shawn said...

Funny you should mention that Len. I was just tossing the idea around a day or so ago. Allow bids on salaried positions for a set term. At expiry, reopen the bids to competition. No worries about people being "forced" to work at a wage they disagree with.

CTF You Tube Channel

Canadian Taxpayers Federation's Fan Box