BC Paramedics Legislated Into Contract Extension

[tniuqs]

I did get a response from my MLA and he did send me some information. I have asked him directly if I can post it in this forum and am waiting for his reply.

Once a letter leaves an MLAs office it is a general release, I am still awaiting a response from Mr. Rock but I will have no hesitation in the slightest to release upon arrival in my mail box, public accountability and transparency is supposed to goal of the government is it not ? <retract this statement always a day late and a dollar short>

I must agree with Kevkie we are and have been (the Edmonton Strike back in the mid 80s) when the group finally realized that the "emotional" part should be rejected, and the only way to proceed, I was one of the few that (at that time) felt an obligation to the public and actually resigned looking for greener pastures ... what an error I made. Well I will be the first in the line now

Should paramedics be in the same salary range as firefighters and police officers — a 30 per cent plus increase?

Is the B.C. ambulance system broken and in desperate need of repair?

Is the public at risk that the service will not respond in a timely and effective way to urgent health and bodily injury emergencies? These are among the questions raised during the seven-month non-strike by B.C.’s paramedics that was ended last weekend when the provincial government legislated them back to work.

And we don’t have the answers to any of them.

Maybe what is broken is the collective bargaining system as it applies to paramedics and this needs to be fixed before any of the other questions can be fully answered.Does going on strike really make sense when essential service designations mean that life goes on pretty much the way it always did before the strike started? Aside from signs plastered on the back of ambulances and the refusal of paramedics to wear uniforms, what really changed? In truth, nothing.

Paramedics kept on showing up for work and saving people’s lives when that was required, and generally provided the services people expected and needed. This un-strike only began to be noticed after six months of talk and no action brought frustration levels among paramedics to the point where essential services were genuinely coming under threat.

The government acted, as any government must, when collective bargaining with a work force delivering an essential service reaches a stalemate. Despite the histrionics on the part of the NDP, it is the responsibility of government to act under these circumstances — as the NDP did frequently when it was in government.There must be a better way to deal with collective bargaining for public sector workers who have no realistic way of applying pressure on the employer because of widely applied essential service designations. In the end the only threat is to defy the law and no government can let that carry on. The paramedics were unwise enough to make their wage demands and launch their strike as the province was slipping into its worst recession in decades.

There was next to no public support for their demand for wage parity. The government had already brought down a budget that said the cupboard was bare.Then there was the election but the paramedic strike gained no traction whatsoever. Finally, weeks after the election was over we find the government was bleeding red ink everywhere — not exactly the time to making a rich settlement with paramedics. On the negotiating front paramedics were hopelessly outclassed by Lee Doney, acting CEO of the Emergency Health Services Commission, a veteran fixer who has been helping governments get out of tight jams for years. To put it mildly, it was like a tiger playing with a mouse.Maybe it’s too much to expect that paramedics be bare-fisted collective bargainers, as well as caring and compassionate savers of lives.

Maybe we should fix the system so that paramedics can be treated in a fair and reasonable way in contract matters without having to resort to crude picket line action.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_central/cowichannewsleader/opinion/69915392.html

Or will the "Campbell" Government be in office next go around ?

Edited November 16, 2009 by tniuqs

[tniuqs]

Edited for clarity:

For Immediate Release

Nov. 8, 2009

BILL 21 LATEST BETRAYAL OF HEALTH SYSTEM AND AN ATTACK ON OUR AMBULANCE PARAMEDICS -MLA Mr. COONS

VICTORIA— The B.C. Liberals’ decision to ram through legislation forcing an imposed contract on ambulance paramedics is an admission of their failure to manage the health care system, New Democrat leader Carole James said today.“The B.C. Liberals could have appointed an independent arbitrator and settled the paramedics’ strike months ago. Instead, they ignored the issue and refused to listen to ambulance workers’ concerns,” said James.

North Coast MLA Gary Coons added,” It’s a sad for democracy. British Columbians feel deceived by the B.C. Liberals’ failed record on health care and the current attack against our valued paramedics all across the province. To pass legislation in the middle of a ratification vote is unprecedented. The members of CUPE 873 , the BC Ambulance Paramedics, were voting on a September 28 offer from the government and this is the first time in Labour history that any government has ordered back a group of workers and imposed a contract during a ratification vote. This shows the contempt and disrespect for not only the free collective bargaining system , but for our paramedics who risk their lives, to save ours, every day in this great province.”

New Democrat MLAs opposed Bill 21, the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act, through an all-night session of the legislature, but on Saturday morning the Liberal government rammed through this draconian piece of legislation. Although the opposition spent over 30 hrs of debate not one backbench Liberal government member stood to justify this assault on workers, families and the bargaining process, and only 2 Ministers gave their ‘interpretation’! Throughout the paramedics’ dispute, essential services orders have ensured that ambulance services have not been impacted. In many cases, levels of ambulance service have actually been higher under the essential services order.

“Although the Minister of Health used H1N1 as an excuse, this legislation seems to have been influenced by VANOC and the VANOC Medical Services (see attached) who requested that the Campbell government either settle or legislate the strike so that services would not be interrupted during the Olympic Games. The government chose legislation that will not only set back future negotiations with the paramedics but will inflame the labour relations climate just months before public sector negotiations”, said Coons. “If the government were serious about improving our public health care system, they would respect front-line health care workers, including the hard work of ambulance paramedics who save lives in our communities every day. I believe that this is not the end of the paramedic struggle to fight for their, and our, ambulance service. They have the support and respect of so many people in BC.”

Paramedics have been fighting for better staffing levels and fair wages, including an end to the $2 an hour on-call rate.

The B.C. Liberals have a record of trampling the rights of ordinary British Columbians. Last year, the B.C. Liberals had to bring in legislation to repair the damage done when they tore up health care workers’ contracts in 2003, which the Supreme Court of Canada ruled illegal. AND Deputy Speaker: I will take this opportunity to remind all members that the debate consideration this evening is for the motion before you.

G. Coons: Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I'm here.

It's an honour and privilege to speak to Bill 21, the ambulance services imposed contract act. I don't think we can call it a collective agreement. I think everybody in this room can agree that it is not a collective agreement, and that's why we need to support the hoist motion before us. We need six months to sit back, reflect on what's happened in the last year, the last two years — and it isn't just the last year or two. It's a collection of decades where we've allowed our ambulance service to get in a critical condition. I represent the paramedics in Prince Rupert on the north coast, in Prince Rupert, on Haida Gwaii and on the central coast in Bella Coola. But I don't represent paramedics; I represent my constituents. We in this House represent British Columbians. This motion before us, this hoist motion, is what we need to do to ensure that we have labour peace in the province, that paramedics are respected for the job that they do, and that we can move forward, continuing the best ambulance service we have in the country. We need the six months so that we can reflect on the 3,471 paramedics in the province who work out of about 400 or 500 ambulances, who did 534,000 calls in 2007-08. If you take these numbers in perspective, paramedics made contact with one in eight people living in the province of British Columbia.

If you compare that elsewhere, you can see very quickly that our paramedics, our ambulance service, is not only the busiest in the country but the most dedicated, the best trained. They deserve six months for us to sit down and reflect on what we're doing with this imposed contract. Now the best trained, and they deserve six months for us to sit down and reflect on what we're doing with this imposed contract. Now, I'm a teacher, and quite often I become…. I'm overprepared. I get hundreds and hundreds, or thousands, of letters and e-mails about this situation, and I try to put it in perspective. The last thing I want to do…. I come to this legislature, go to meetings, travel throughout the riding I represent, travel throughout the province, and I listen, because my role is to learn and represent the feelings of British Columbians.

The last thing I want to do is be in a bubble, be the only one that's in this bubble, all by myself. I think we need this motion to hoist and have an extra six months so that we give a gentle nudge to the bubble that the members on the other side are in. Now, I would hope that over the next few hours, couple of days, as we debate this hoist motion and move forward with trying to actually have a collective agreement versus an imposed one, that it is our job on this side of the House to just burst that bubble, that bubble that this government is in, so that they realize that we need six months, at least, to look at where we need to go with our ambulance service in this province.

Now, I'm not too sure if it's the whole opposite side, the government side, that's in the bubble. We have that opportunity to burst that bubble and allow us, collectively, to have six more months, with this hoist motion, but I have a feeling that the minister is in his own bubble — the ultimate bubble boy, I guess. I think that our job today, tonight, and however long it takes, is to get the members on the other side of the House to have their bubble burst so they can approach the minister and burst that big bubble that he's standing in.

There are many reasons, I believe, we need to have an extra six months of reflection, we need this hoist motion. I'm trying to put it in perspective so that I am not getting off the reason I'm talking. I've got some reasons here why we need to hoist the bill before us, this imposed contract. It's a regressive piece of legislation. It's an assault against free collective bargaining. It's a deliberate attack against our valued ambulance paramedics.

Another reason we need to hoist this piece of legislation is because it's not in the public interest. There has been interference by VANOC in the free collective bargaining process. It does nothing. If we pass this and do not hoist it, it will do nothing for the systemic problems that we have daily in our ambulance service. It's an outrageous and callous interference during a strike vote. It will cause undue labour disruptions throughout the province. This bill before us — this ambulance services imposed contract act — needs to be hoisted so we have that reflective thought — exemplifies the contempt and disrespect for the people that ride in our ambulances and all of the ambulance workers. But one of the key reasons I'm going to start off with this is, basically…. Not one government member on the other side, except for the Minister of Energy and Mines, stood to defend the reason for imposing a contract on paramedics. There might be some really good reasons. We don't know that.

In my comments, I will stick to…. Hopefully, I will be able to get through all of the ten reasons why we need to hoist this and delay for six months, because there are many, many reasons. I've heard from so many people, as we all have, as government members have heard. I hope I have an opportunity to get to some of them. hoist this and delay for six months because there are many, many reasons.I've heard from so many people, as we all have, as government members have heard. I hope I have an opportunity to get to some of them, but I have an obligation to acknowledge and recognize a paramedic chief in Port Clements who e-mailed me to talk about the reason we need to hoist this bill before us. I'm going to get to that.

This is Terry Mitchell. He's a paramedic chief in Port Clements. I read part of his letter in second debate. He says he's angry, disappointed and fearful. He's angry because they bargained in good faith, unlike the government. He's disappointed because it gives him no incentive to continue working for B.C. Ambulance, and he's scared because if this legislation passes, it truly confirms that the government has "no respect for the job I do" and, more importantly, no respect for the citizens of British Columbia. Now, that was on the debate a couple of days ago. He's contacted me since the hoist motion. He says: "I am truly amazed that the minister is so narrow-sighted that he thinks this will solve the pressing concerns that the government has fabricated. The hoist motion introduced by the opposition is perhaps the only thing, the only thing at this point in time, that could demonstrate good faith on the part of the government." That's why we're here. We're here to hopefully encourage the government to vote for this hoist motion and move forward and demonstrate good faith.

Now, I do want to talk about Terry and why he's so dedicated and so inclined to e-mail his MLA to try to get this hoist motion passed in this House. Terry is a very, very dedicated paramedic. He was the first paramedic to ever ride with the Cops for Cancer on the Tour de North from Port Clements. He raised $8,000 for Cops for Cancer.

The ex–Minister of Health, who is now the Minister of Aboriginal Relations, said: "We are very proud of the fundraising efforts of Terry Mitchell and the support the B.C. Ambulance Service provides each year as other paramedics volunteer time to travel. The commitment of our paramedics and others at the B.C. Ambulance Service in giving back to our communities needs to be recognized and applauded." I agree. I agree. That is the Minister of Health two years ago — the ex-minister, the previous Minister of Health. Where is he now? Nowhere to be seen. Where are the members from the other side?

Deputy Speaker: Member. You will bring yourself back to consideration of the motion.

G. Coons: Thank you, Chair.

When I talk about the ten reasons, one of the reasons we need to hoist this bill is to give the members on the other side an opportunity to stand and reflect and realize we are going in the wrong direction with an imposed contract.I'm standing here on behalf of paramedics who are dedicated, who have dedicated their lives to the profession and want to have a negotiated contract. Paramedics like Terry Mitchell. Now, as I mentioned, one of the key reasons that we need to hoist this bill that's before us is we have not heard from the members from the other side. They need an opportunity to participate. They need an opportunity — maybe not to participate here in this House on record. They need to go back into their chambers, perhaps burst the bubbles at their end, sit down and reflect on what this bill is going to do not only to paramedics but to the labour climate in this province and how it's going to impact British Columbians.

Now, I mentioned earlier that one of the members…. I give credit to the member, the member for Peace River South, the Minister of Energy and Mines. He stood up. He stood tall and talked to this bill. the member for Peace River South, the Minister of Energy and Mines. He stood up. He stood tall and talked to this bill. But again, he received communications about his comments.The reason that we need to have an extra six months of delay — of reflection, negotiations, looking at a path forward — is so that people throughout the province — not only paramedics but the mayors throughout the province, the regional districts, those at the UBCM who supported our paramedics for the last three years and recognized what the paramedics do in every corner of our province — have an opportunity to get hold of their MLA, whether it's government or opposition, and confirm the direction we need to go. That is why we need to hoist this bill and have a six-month parlay into actual communications throughout the province.

Now, when I look at a note I got from a person from Chilliwack, Michael Topping…. His MLA is the Chilliwack-Hope MLA, and he says: "It's great disappointment I find myself writing to you. I want you to stand up in the House and explain to your paramedic constituents why you personally support this bill." Now, if we pass this bill, the Minister of Environment, the MLA for Chilliwack-Hope, will not have an opportunity to stand in this House and talk about the bill and explain why this government is imposing this contract on them. So a key reason for the hoist motion is so that there's an opportunity for everybody in the House to go back to their ridings and actually explain why we need this bill passed, or why we need to change it and actually have it in a collective agreement versus in an imposed contract. Another letter I got dealing with hoisting this motion and hoisting this bill was from Peter Smith. His MLA is for Abbotsford South, and he says: "I find Bill 21 an absolute outrage, taking away basic collective bargaining and democratic rights because of some excuse like H1N1. Shame on all you Liberals for not standing up for your constituents. Shame on you."

Deputy Speaker: Member, please take your seat. You will know that I have repeatedly asked members to consider the motion under debate and not to revisit second reading debate. Please proceed.

G. Coons: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Again, the reason that we need to hoist this bill is to have the opportunity for reflective debate. If it's passed, if it was passed when this government wanted it to be passed, that would be the end of it. Constituents could not have the opportunity to have input into it, and that's why we need to have this bill hoisted, with an extra six months of reflection and thought. Also, we look at the MLA for Abbotsford-Mission. "Where are you on this?" says Peter Smith. "Are you going to stand up and tell me why you backed Bill 21 when the ambulance service was in such a dismal state of disrepair for years prior to this?" He's requesting thoughtful debate on this, and that's what this motion we've brought forward, this hoist mission, will allow us. Now, when we look at this legislation and one of the reasons I said that we needed to hoist this and delay it for six months was because it's regressive. It's a regressive piece of legislation. It's imposed. It's draconian. But we can change that. We can change that if we had time to look at what's in the bill and how we need to move forward.

Again, this piece of legislation was at what's in the bill and how we need to move forward.

Again, this piece of legislation was actually presented in the House — to some degree, as a lot of people have informed me — under some sort of false pretence. And we need to alleviate that concern. We cannot pass a bill in here where people think it was presented to us in this Legislature under a false pretence. You know, the minister stood up and said that H1N1 is the real reason that paramedics are being legislated back to work. I'm hearing that's not true. We've seen a memo from VANOC that says that pressure was put on the government to either settle or legislate. Nowhere in there did H1N1 come into the question, come into the equation. So I think it's imperative — not only on this side of the House, but on the government side — to alleviate that concern of false pretence. But we haven't heard anybody stand up. We haven't heard anybody stand up and shoot down that theory.

Leanne Nixon: "I urge you to reconsider Bill 21. Paramedics deserve a fair settlement. H1N1 is not the real reason they're being legislated.

If it was, why aren't paramedics even being considered a priority for the H1N1 shots?"

I don't understand. As we look at the purpose of us being here tonight, which is trying to get passed a piece of legislation that is so vital…. It's so significant, at such a significant point in time in the province. We got the Olympics coming up. We have other issues out there. This should have been dealt with a long time ago. There could have been an arbitrator, an independent arbitrator. There's still time for that. There's still time for that. If we have a hoist motion, then there's an opportunity to rethink how we got here today and put in an arbitrator to get a real collective agreement.

Again, I have to go back to the premise of why they had to pass this legislation — the premise, a false premise that we need to deal with. The only way we can deal with that false premise is by having a six-month delay.

John Strohmaier says:

"The government claims this legislation is necessary in light of the H1N1 crisis. We've been saying the service needs serious attention for more than four years. We warned the government…. The reality is that paramedics are leaving the service in droves because they pay for their own training, they pay for their own travel to and from the job, and they cannot afford to remain paramedics." Now, that is a real dilemma. A real dilemma.

There are mixed messages going on here, and to pass a piece of legislation as important as Bill 21, we have to make sure we're doing the right thing. The government, on that side, has to ensure they're doing the right thing. At this point in time, our job in this House is to try to burst that bubble and say: "Think about whether you are doing the right thing." I remember the debate back a year ago, prior to us having a concern about negotiated contracts or imposed contracts or hoisting a bill that needs clarification.

The member from Abbotsford-Mission, the Minister of State for Mining said: "I want to talk about the individual members, the individual paramedics who are out there working in British Columbia. I want to speak for a moment about the leadership that John Strohmaier, the head of the paramedics union, has shown." So we have a mixed message. We don't have the member from Abbotsford-Mission standing up talking about the premises — of false pretences. But there's a lot of respect on the other side for John Strohmaier. So we need clarification talking about the false pretences, but there's a lot of respect on the other side for John Strohmaier. So we need clarification. We need an extra six months to sit back, reflect, burst our bubbles, and move forward. As we move forward, you know, it's a concern, not only in this House, where we're debating Bill 21, this imposed contract, and we want to hoist it so that we change that imposed contract to a collective agreement. But there's concern outside of this chamber, a lot of concern. People up and down my riding on the north coast, throughout the province in every riding, every constituency, have concerns. Again, we cannot rush in and pass a bill that is not in the public interest. It would be a detriment to communities throughout the province. As far back as 2003 at the UBCM there was a resolution for support for provincewide ambulance services. Right up until 2009 the UBCM had motions put forward by mayors, by regional districts, by elected officials throughout the province — every corner of the province.

I've got some communications that are concerned about the progress of this bill and where we're going. We have an obligation. We have an obligation to sit back, take this Bill 21 and put it somewhere where we can sort it out, either through an independent arbitrator or perhaps back at the bargaining table. But, you know, as far as the latest UBCM…. They talk about a recruitment challenge. In 2008 they talk about standby pay. In 2007 they talk about the ambulance service, where a timely response….

Deputy Speaker: Member, that is not referencing the motion under debate.

G. Coons: Thank you, hon. Chair.

All of these issues are issues that need to be looked at during the six-month hoist. We need to be sure that those mayors, those regional district members, those elected officials throughout the province have confidence and faith in the bill we're passing before us, and we can't do that. We couldn't do that yesterday. We couldn't do that today. That's why the opposition reluctantly put forth the hoist motion — so that we can have that reflective thought and move forward. Hon. Chair, we saw the concern about some interference, some false pretences. Again, when we move forward with this bill, we need to ensure…. Have the opportunity to tell British Columbians that we've passed a bill that we are comfortable with, that the paramedics are comfortable with, that we can move forward with an ambulance service where there's timely response, where their issues about recruitment and training have been dealt with. The $2 wage needs to be dealt with, and that's something where a hoist motion…. We can look at all of these issues and move forward. A key component that I have a real problem with and a lot of people have is that we need to hoist this motion and change it from this imposed contract to a collective agreement. I mentioned that one of my ten reasons for hoisting and having a delay of six months is because we need to deal with free collective bargaining. Somebody from Kamloops South wrote a letter, and they said that they're appalled it's being rammed through. "My MLA from Kamloops South said that he was standing by to allow collective bargaining to take its course."wrote a letter, and they said that they're appalled it's being rammed through. "My MLA from Kamloops south said that he was standing by to allow collective bargaining to take its course." Now, collective bargaining to take its course. Well, let's go to…. Oh yeah, they've called it the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act.

But it is not collective bargaining. There's no collective bargaining. It's an imposed contract in the middle of a vote, so we need to hoist this motion — because, I guess, paramedic members of the union were voting on the contract that the government put before them, I believe, last September 28. How ludicrous is it to be standing in this House and have a bill come before us where we're waiting for the results of the vote on a contract? If it's agreed upon by the union, then I guess it's a collective agreement. Then we can call it that. We need to hoist this bill for six months so that we can see if we can get to free collective bargaining. I did have ten things here I was talking about, and at first, I thought: "Jeez, it's a top ten, sort of like the Letterman show." But I realize that you can't really equate what's happening in this Legislature with Letterman, except that to some degree what happened to Letterman and his staff is happening to paramedics throughout the province and by this government.On that, I will reiterate: we need six months' reflective, sober reflection on this bill. We need collective bargaining. We need to respect our paramedics. One last thing. A couple of paramedics e-mailed me and said that Bill 21 needs to be shredded. It should not be before this House. That's why we have this motion before us to hoist it, and respecting paramedics, I'm going to do what I think needs to be done with Bill 21. We're going to support the hoist motion, and hopefully, it will be shredded.

Deputy Speaker: Members, and for the member who has just spoken, you know that those inferences are not appropriate when referring to other hon. members. I would ask you to withdraw.

G. Coons: I withdraw.

Earlier this fall, a memorandum was sent from Dr Mike Wilkinson (he's Director of Medical Services for Vanoc) to Stephen Brown, Lee Doney and other government officials. In part that memo stated: "VANOC Medical Services (and thus the IOC) requires definitive confirmation by Oct 1 2009 that all required ambulance services will be provided as planned. These services include the ability to engage the VPCs and BCAS members in full venue planning as soon as possible. This confirmation must also include a guarantee that no services during the Games will be disrupted or reduced from what has been planned.""If we are unable to obtain that guarantee (through either settlement of the strike or legislated "detente" for the Games), then VANOC will be required to initiate alternative contingency plans to avoid cancellation of the Games."

Edited November 16, 2009 by tniuqs

[kevkei]

Im sorry to hear that you have personally lost your care in your job.

Where did I say I have personally lost my care in my job? I am one of the most caring, dedicated and professional people I know when it comes to this job. I have been a part of and experienced almost every aspect of our industry top to bottom, inside and out. I speak based on first hand experience from a labour as well as managerial experience.

I commented on being naive because caring is what sets us apart from most other jobs. Do nurses not care when they take job action or strike and walk off the job? How about us?

I worked through a strike that involved staff walking off the job, partly because our department publicly promised that service levels would not fall (was a bold face lie, they were running half of the number of units). Perhaps it should be said that it is management that doesn't 'care' and puts the public at risk.

The sad reality is that as long as the powers that be are able to hold a gun to the head of this profession (patient's lives, safety, well being, that we care and only want to help people, etc), we will never be in a position to truly negotiate. We will have to reluctantly accept whatever offers are made.

There is no requirement for them to negotiate (opposite is true, take it or leave it attitude). They don't need to bargain in good faith as they know the Provincial Government can step in and demand you return to work or Legislate you as a 'temporarily essential service'. As we are not typically deemed as a truly essential service, we are powerless in going to binding arbitration. Another ploy that works to the advantage of the employer.

An "imposed contract". Sounds fair to me.

[Happiness]

Happiness,

that in and of itself is the problem. Government, employers, supervisors, etc all count on the fact that we like to help people and will effortlessly hold it over our heads and very frequently use it as a bargaining tool or tactic.

How can staff 'help' the people we serve if you feel overworked, overutilized, understaffed, undervalued, and underpayed? After 16 years of doing this line of work, I have lost any care for the glory of the job. It is just that, it's a job. I work to live, not live to work.

At some point in time we as a collective have to stand together and say a loud and resounding "NO". It's like battered wife syndrome. As long as you feel it is acceptable and you deserve what you get, you will never get out of a pattern of behaviour.

Like you said, we make constant sacrifices. Missing special events, working important holidays away from your family. It's a wonderful feeling telling your kids "sorry daddy can't be home with you Christmas morning". I'm still reminded by my daughter of the times I haven't been there.

I think your perspective is admirable but is a little naïve.

Did I miss something

My reference to that was not to be taken as an insult by any means, it is a common ailment of full time paramedics that have are overworked and underpaid.

[kevkei]

Did I miss something

My reference to that was not to be taken as an insult by any means, it is a common ailment of full time paramedics that have are overworked and underpaid.

You did miss something, I said I had lost any care of the "GLORY" of the job. Meaning the thrills of 'saving' lives, driving lights and sirens, respect of the public, etc. The things people 'enjoy' when they first start in the industry or when they think of the 'glories' of the job when looking into the industry.

[Happiness]

Ok if that is what you mean.

But anywho maybe take a look at what I posted from my MLA as the topic is about the paramedics being forced back to work.

So I will try to stay on topic myself

[tniuqs]

BC Ambulance brass are apparently preparing to discipline several medics who have unnecessarily booked off sick since a forced strike settlement last week. The Globe and Mail (Jane Armstrong/November 16) said 50 practitioners did not show for work on Friday, while on Sunday the number was 32. Several ambulances were also taken off the road due to staff absences. BC Ambulance spokesman Leo Doney said illegal job action kept medics from reporting for duty, rather than actual sickness. Doney said while he appreciates practitioners are angry at the strike stoppage, sanctions could soon be in the offing for offenders. Union spokesman BJ Chute, however, disagreed with Doney, saying the strike has worn medics out. Chute also said the service constantly operates by relying on overtime instead of filling 100 vacancies.

One day with the essential service type act invoked and forced to work OT/ Burn Out! The next day a legislated contract without due process in regards to rights of the "workers" and Emergency Paramedics "allowed" the latitude under contract to take a day off are now called "offenders" and the BC Ambulance Brass taking disciplinary action ?

What next forced labour camps, the government now attempting to put yet another spin on things, heck Federal Prison Inmates have more rights and priority access to H1N1 vaccinations ? In Calgary about 20% sick call for all essential services during this pandemic and advice from many notable government sources is if one is experiencing ILI stay at home ?

Now the BCAS Brass attempting to polarize the public ... this is stepping things up a notch they are truly idiots.

I can foresee a possibility of a couple of things happening:

1- A mass exodus of personnel or go looking for other jobs

2- Amendments to allow OFA level 3 (ie Band Aide)to jump in a truck without any training(AB EMR poised to get 2 weeks pay)

3- Other Unions in BC combining forces ... one knows where that is headed ... and it ain't the yellow brick road.

4- VANOC hiring a private operator to provide EMS services (a good thing that VANOC is strictly adhering to their budget?)

My bet is the BC voters/ taxpayers would just love to hear those options, well that is my bet

http://www.theprovince.com/health/paramedics+certainly+upset/2227135/story.html

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Union+slams+transfer+ambulances/2225624/story.html

[Arctickat]

I must admit, I'm disappointed.

I was accepted as a medical volunteer at the 2010 Olympics. My post is located at the Whistler Sliding Centre. I was quite excited to be a part of the Olympic experience because I will likely never have the opportunity to take part in it again. At the moment, I am drafting my letter to VANOC to withdraw my status as an Olympic volunteer. I doubt that one volunteer from one venue will be all that significant, but I will pass my resignation on to my counterparts and perhaps something will get started.

[tniuqs]

I must admit, I'm disappointed.

I was accepted as a medical volunteer at the 2010 Olympics. My post is located at the Whistler Sliding Centre. I was quite excited to be a part of the Olympic experience because I will likely never have the opportunity to take part in it again. At the moment, I am drafting my letter to VANOC to withdraw my status as an Olympic volunteer. I doubt that one volunteer from one venue will be all that significant, but I will pass my resignation on to my counterparts and perhaps something will get started.

BRAVO that is what they call SOLIDARITY !

I will personally deliver a 24 to your home, its only an 10 hour drive in the other direction for me.

Question remains is "Canadian Beer" acceptable ?

Cheers

[tniuqs]

Paramedics' tough tactics are a sign of renewed militancy.

I applaud the B.C. paramedics' refusal to take overtime shifts now that their job action has been ended by legislation. As a former union activist, I've always believed the relationship between unionized workers and employers needs to be based on mutual fear. The boss needs to fear the workers will use the tools at their disposal, including the strike, if that becomes necessary. In return unionized workers are duty bound to give an honest day's toil and abide by the employer's policies and procedures, and all other conditions that have been collectively bargained. Those days are gone. Trade unions have become an added layer of bureaucracy, an expensive bag man where professional union representatives often make better money and benefits than the workers they are paid to represent. Professional union leaders, especially in the public service, enjoy a relationship with employers that's far too comfortable and cushy. The strike, at least in the public services, is toothless now we can count on back-to-work legislation in almost every case. The paramedics' tough tactics are the first indications for a very long time of a renewed union militancy. Their actions say they won't be burned out, like so many disposable candles, by an employer who doesn't care about their health and welfare.

John Daly, Burnaby