Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 1993-06-30, Page 4I lead to head C The North Huron itizen eN A P.O. Box 429, P.O. Box 152, BLYTH, Ont. BRUSSELS, Ont. NOM 1H0 NOG 1/40 Phone 523-4792 Phone 887.9114 FAX 523-9140 FAX 887.9021 Publisher, Keith Roulston Editor, Bonnie Gropp Sales Representatives, Jeannette McNeil and Julie Mitchell The Citizen is published weekly In Brussels, Ontario by North Huron Publishing Company Inc. Subscriptions are payable In advance at a rat. of $20.50/year ($19.16 plus $1.34 G.S.T.) for local; $31.03/year ($29.00 plus $2.03 G.S.T.) for local letter carrier In GoderIch, Hanover, Listowel, etc. and out-of-area (40 miles from Brussels); $60.00/year for U.S.A. and Foreign. Advertising Is accepted on the condition that in the event of a typographical error, only that portion of the advertisement will be credited. Advertising Deadlines: Monday, 2 p.m. - Brussels; Monday, 4 p.m. - Blyth. We are not responsible for unsolicited newscrIpts or photographs. Contents of The Citizen are © Copyright. Publications Mail Registration No. 6968 Letters Educator negotiates PAGE 4. THE CITIZEN, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1993. Now you're catching on Normally it's readers who disagree with editorials and write letters to the editor but a letter this week from Flo Dyck, president of the Huron Women's Teachers' Federation begs comment. It shows how out of touch with reality public service sector union leaders have become. Ms Dyck compares her position, as a teacher, to the government and suggests that just as she supplies E service for less under the Social is being asked to provide that services to the government and ditorial I C ontract, then perhaps the people who supply her family with goods will also enter a Social Contract to provide their services for less. Most already have! The "social contract" in the real world is called the marketplace. If Ms Dyk and other civil servants are forced to take less under these talks, they will cut back on their spending for groceries and other goods and the owners of the stores selling those supplies will make less money. If things get bad enough, workers in those businesses will either have to take less, or there will be layoffs. If worst comes to worst, the business will close and everyone will be out of a job (no unemployment insurance or welfare for the business owner). Twenty years ago there were five food stores orithe main street of Blyth. Today there is one. There are half as many farmers in Huron County as 30 years ago, yet there are more educators (including administration), more health professionals, more staff at the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and other government agencies. And the salaries of all public servants have increased relative to the county's private sector salaries. Whether we like it or not, the marketplace has built in mechanisms to take care of bad times. This newspaper is trying hard to provide the same service it did a year ago, even though we've had to cut back staff. Our sister publication has taken a 30 per cent cut in revenues from advertising in the past three years because of the disastrous conditions in the Ontario farming community. We're not unique. Nearly every business has had to cut back during the recession. But the public sector went sailing along untouched until the Social Contract talks. Unions were still negotiating cost-of-living-plus contracts little more than a year ago when local farmers and private business were in a state of crisis. If, given the Social Contract, Ms Dyck decides she can't afford to pay the prices local businesses feel they need, she can jump in the car and drive to Stratford or London (or Port Huron) to seek better prices. Huron taxpayers don't have the right to seek services at a cheaper rate than unions negotiate, even though there are hundreds of young teachers out there who would be happy to work for less. You want to have a Social Contract with the local business community Ms Dyck? I'm sure most business people would be glad to have you play by the rules they've lived by for years.— KR Crazier and crazier So much for a chamber of sober second thought! That's the function the Senate is supposed to perform in the Canadian Parliamentary system. But Senators didn't seem to give a second thought to voting themselves a $6000 expense allowance last week, even with the country howling in outrage. And the stupidity of the move makes one wonder if they were even sober when they made the decision. It isn't just that the senators voted themselves a raise at a time when the government is asking everybody else to cut back their demands on government, it's the way the raise was voted in. There was already a feeling from some that the Senate had outlived its usefulness and should be replaced. That movement has now won many more converts. As well, as Senator Michael Kirby pointed out on Canada AM, the senators picked a slow-news day to vote in the raise, a time when the entire Parliamentary press gallery could concentrate on the vote. The Senators then took off for several months' holidays. These guys are so dumb that one wonders if they should be let within 80 km of the national capital. Yes, say the Senators, but we need more money because of our living expenses. Compared to an M.P. the costs of being a Senator can't be compared. An M.P. has to run for election, a Senator doesn't. An M.P. has to get back to his riding on weekends. Many Senators have probably never been back to the province they're supposed to represent since they were appointed. An M.P. has to keep a constituency office and keep in touch with the local electorate. Senators apparently don't even have to keep in touch with reality. It's now obvious one of the first tasks of the next PM after the election should be to either reform the Senate, or get rid of it. —KR THE EDITOR, Hey, I can live with the Social Contract, but can my grocer, my pharmacist and Ontario Hydro? (My thanks to Jack McArthur, columnist of the of the Toronto Star for the idea for this article.) I'm a teacher in Huron County. I've taught for 23 years. I earn a decent income in light of the fact that I spent eight years in university. I love teaching and have always given my employer and my students the best that I have to give. But now I'm here to negotiate a social contract with the businesses that supply my family and myself with goods and services. Here's the situation. You may as well face facts. After years of mismanaged finances, I am unable to meet my financial commitment to pay for the supplies that my family requires on a daily basis. The Social Contract that I propose is to take effect immediately. If the businesses and services do not agree to this cut in funds payable within the time frame given, then I will withdraw my patronage of these businesses. Social Contracting is the most promising alternative to this financial emergency. My proposal allows all sides to sit down and negotiate a deal. I recognize that the time frame is short but I am sure the service providers involved will be reasonable in light of what's at stake here. We must throw out the old ways of doing business and come to a collaborative partnership. I am not being arbitrary in my proposal; I am willing to sit down with each supplier and negotiate the cuts in ways that fit particular circumstances. We will define Sectoral Agreements within a Framework Agreement twhat delivers cuts in what I pay for services provided. I hear you saying that we already have a contract as to price, but all past agreements are nullified by this new proposal. (I love the word "agreement"!) The word denotes that both parties have some say in the conditions of the action taken.) Upon the signing of this new agreement in what I pay for services, I will assure you of new heights of efficiency in my household. I will pay all my bills (albeit at a lower scale!) and meet new escalating demands for my dwindling funds. I will search out inefficiencies. It will be a new beginning for all of us. If you agree to this Social contract, and I know you will becatise you are concerned about the essential fabric of this and future societies, I will offer you my continued patronage. I will get your services at a lower cost and you will have my continued support. Don't worry that your bottom line is never paid off. This is a socially responsible solution to my financial problems. I did see this coming years ago but I could not seem to manage the down-scaling that was needed to balance my books. I feel I must inform you that this Social Contract does not apply to all of my expenditures, just to the services and goods that you supply to me. It is not my intention to ask all sectors of my financial indebtedness to accept the same cuts. But I hear you argue that this is not a Social Contract if it does not apply generally to all sectors of society - you say that everyone in society must share the pain to be truly a social contract? I am asking you to negotiate a small sacrifice for the benefit of the entire nation. You must see that this request is socially responsible. One small and inconsequential repercussion of the fact that I will be paying you less for your services is the result that the economy will receive a small influx of money because of these cuts but the longer term benefit to my finances out- weighs this concern. I will pay less for the same goods and my money will stretch to do more for less. If you receive less money and have less spending power from my actions, just keep in mind that this is an emergency situation. You are doing this in the best interests of an entire nation. This is a new age. Joint the hip generation. I don't want to lower expectations for my lifestyle — I Photo by Janice Becker just want to pay less. If suppliers refuse to accept less for the same services, the public has to be told that you are selfish capitalists without a thought for a better future for our province. Flo Dyck, RR 2, Seaforth. THE EDITOR, I do not intend to get into a battle of ads with the Ontario Medical Association, however, I feel that it is important to provide some background material for the public to consider. The issue is to preserve our health care system by making it more affordable. The global recession has forced everyone to reduce expenditures and there are limits to taxation. The health care sector represents one- third of all Ontario government expenditures — $ 17 billion. From 1981 to 1991, Ontario's population grew by about 10 per cent. The number of physicians increased by about 33 per cent. During this same period govern- ment health insurance payments to physicians increased by 195 per cent. Three years ago Ontario's Provincial Auditor, Douglas Archer noted that doctors don't seem to feel any responsibility toward discouraging people from frequent treatments. The quarrel is not with doctors, but its about how we can afford the health care system which we have in Ontario. The government is working and negotiating with Ontario Medical Association on ways to improve the system and save money. Each new doctor who opens a fee-for-service practice in Ontario has the potential to generate $500,000 in costs to the health care system. Approximately half of this represents fees for service, and the balance is due to laboratory and other charges. Other provinces have already introduced measures to restrict the numbers of physicians, resulting in increasing numbers of physicians from other provinces establishing practices here. At present nearly 2,000 physicians in Ontario are aged 65 years or more - one of every 10 doctors in the province, with total annual billings of more than $200 million. There is concern that parts of Ontario are underserviced. No physician will be required to set up practice or take any particular Continued on page 5