Some are volunteers just to volunteer, some are ex military and extremely well trained. Many regualr services could not perform their function without volunteers.

Not experienced it in civvy street, but doubt it's any worse than being in a war, getting shot at, telling your buddies daughter she won't see her dad again and try and explain why. Some things defy description.

Lots of us perhaps do or did not get paid what we thought we were worth, but if the conditions are not right, don't do the job. If not enough people come into a profession the conditions will change.

This is fair enough in the private sector where there is generally a win win or lose lose option. If a company treats its workers fairly it gets a productive workforce and a reasonable return for the owners. If a company treats its workers unfairly it gets a union. If the union doesn't work with management to make the company successful they end up with no jobs for the workers and no income for the union.

It is a different story in the public sector - especially as it gets played out in BC. The government of the day either panders to, or plays harball with, the public sector unions depending on who puts money into the party coffers. The unions huff and puff and strut to justify the dues collected from their members secure in the knowledge that however unreasonable their demands their members have guaranteed jobs. No one seems to give a toss for the public who a) elected the politicians to manage public services on their behalf and b) pay the wages of the workers to deliver these services.

It is only a game played by leeches (politicians and union leaders) for their own benefit.

I remember a few years ago talking to some teachers about this and they described how the process works:

1) The government budgets $xm (a reasonable figure) for pay increases for teachers.

2) The teacher's union starts running adverts on TV saying that the school system is about to collapse but the teachers are bravely struggling on to educate the kids who, after all, are our future.

3) The teachers union demands a totally excessive rise - say ten times more than is reasonable.

4) Government refuses.

5) Union says let's go to arbitration

6) Government (knowing that all an arbitrator will do is to split the difference between what the union demands and what the government offers) refuses.

7) The union goes on a PR offensive saying it is impossible to teach children in classes of more than 25 so they are going to "fight for our kids" until the government agrees to reduce all classes to 25 or less.

8) The teachers then demonstrate their commitment to educating our children by going on strike and refusing to teach them.

9) Teachers man picket lines, politicians and union leaders get their face all over the TV, parents desperately try to find childcare.

10) After some weeks the government does its sums and works out that with all the money they have saved in wages they can now afford to offer $xm + a bit more and still keep within budget.

11) The union tells its members that they have won a great victory and recommends acceptance.

12) Everybody conveniently forgets about class sizes - until the next contract negotiation.

So, who wins?

The politicians and union leaders who have enhanced their careers

Who doesn't win?

Teachers. They end up being paid exactly what they would have been paid without any strike action. The teachers who think that teaching is important (the majority IMO) lose because their pupils have lost weeks/months of tuition time. As a profession, teaching has been devalued in the public's eyes.

Who loses?

Parents - many, many dollars in lost wages and childcare costs.
Students - who don't learn what they should learn.

But then, who gives a **** about parents and students.

no, if not enough people come into a profession the people that need their help suffer. So you have to add that into your calculation.

If you reduce it to mere dollars and cents, you miss the other ways having a lack of emergency workers affects a society. Economics is a tool but it hasn't done a very good job of predicting the climate and environmental degradation we're all facing now and the costs it will add, for example.

Everyone should have the ability to negotiate for better wages and working conditions.

Now how would the paramedics do that if they are legislated to work under an essential work order then back to full duties by a act of prov parliament.

And you say that the action was ineffective - yep the govt made sure of that. Also the union has to factor in the HUGE public backlash should a newborn babe die because they were on strike - bit like your house burning down cause the fire dept was on strike. Sound familiar to the UK fire strike?????

Thats not negotiation thats the govt doing whatever they want without giving due consideration to the fact that Paramedics will leave the job and others will not back fill their spots.

We are seeing it in the UK as nurses and paramedics are voting with their feet and passports. Lost track of how many are leaving or already left.

I have been in EMS for nearly twenty years and I started out part time with BCAS.

I LOVE what I do.

If it didn't pay the bills I would change jobs today. Thats it........

If the govt does not ante up they will find that the anbulances in small communities will go unmanned or manned with staff who are lesser trained because they are doing it for the community and can't/won't spend the money to get the extra training.

Saying you are indifferent to the plight of BC paramedics is ignorant in my opinion. Pay peanuts get monkeys......... Monkeys don't provide high level complicated pre hospital clinical care. They just take you to hospital and you hope to survive. Now that the BC govt has got the taste of steam rolling want they want whos next??????

Hi highly doubt that volunteer fire fighters, St John Ambulance workers, aux police are better trained or experienced than full timers, in fact I know they are not. And once the shiny new uniform has lost its appeal, you are left with a back breaking job, fraught with dangers and very little thanks.

As for the military - been there done that - they deserve a lot more too - reality is they get a predictable stock of youngsters who do it for a few years then move on. Some stay - most don't.

If you want the best you have to put your hand in your pocket, some things you can't put a price on - like someone giving you top shelf medical care. No one is saying we should be paid beyond what we are worth but I daresay that paramedics are worth a lot more.

You forgot SAR volunteers, some of whom are ex military and as well trained as their full time counterparts. Shiny new uniforms don't come into it when you are up to your neck in snow or raging white water.

Me to, don't think pay ever came into a serious discussion when I was in. There was a lot of wardroom banter, but nothing serious about deserving more pay.

Who decides what something is worth. Those performing the duties, the employer or end user?

SAR volunteers are an exceptional bunch, such noble fellas are few and far between though. Not withstanding that some are professionally or financially secure and don't 'need' financial compensation and do it coz they like it - I know more than a few cops who are volunteer SAR and firefighters.

You can't seriously expect that the love of a vocation will entirely carry the day?

As far as a person's worth, my comments are based on what is deemed appropriate for other front line emergency workers. I feel paramedics deserve the same. I don't view myself as being any better trained or needed as they are so why not the same level of compensation?

That's kind of irrelevant. If the union leadership are idiots then so be it, it's up to the members to either find a better union or leave it. As long as there is no coercion involved they can do what they like as they see fit (and I equate making striking illegal as coercion).

It's fair to say that the state needs to step in where the free market is inefficient. Recruitment and employment are not in that group - competent unions, a flexible workforce, and the free market will fo the job.

You (the public sector) should be paid as little as possible to fill the positions with people who are able to do the job. I as a taxpayer expect this; it's bad enough as it is, given that I am forced to pay your salary under the threat of violence and imprisonment.

You (the public sector) should be paid as little as possible to fill the positions with people who are able to do the job. I as a taxpayer expect this; it's bad enough as it is, given that I am forced to pay your salary under the threat of violence and imprisonment.

Yep then we can be like many US forces in the deep south where it becomes common place to find other ways of making ends meet. In fact we could emulate them and not view a previous criminal conviction as an obstacle to a career in law enforcement. None of this stupidity in hiring people with degrees.

Frankly if my job paid considerably less than it does at present, I wouldn't do it, I have doubts as it at times if it's worth it or not. Don't get me wrong it's not all about money, but you have to get enough to feel respected and not taken advantage of. A new copper makes around 50,000 a year - less than a bus driver. How much do you think they should get? And thanks for the handout Alan.

As I said, they should get enough to fill the positions with capable people. If they aren't offering enough for that, then they need to offer more, however if there are a 100 qualified applicants for every position then, yes, they can offer less. You are mistaken if you think that I expect all public sector workers to be low paid, I do not. I expect them to get paid the market rate, whatever that may be.

Anyway do you really think all public sector workers would turn to a life of corruption to top their salaries up? Clearly you should all be replaced by the current set of people on min wage who've managed to resist a life of crime despite being low paid

I wonder how much corruption costs a society? My guess is way, way more than a decent salary for law enforcers would.

We've lost many excellent Paramedics to RCMP, various municipal police and fire departments aready. I heard 108 Paramedics in Vancouver passed the police physical a few weeks ago!
I would consider applying (I've been told to apply a number of times in the last year) but I love being a Paramedic and I would never want the split second responsibility of carrying a handgun and having to make a sllife or death decision that the politicians could spend years criticising and going over. I deeply respect the police and have worked closely with many departments over the last 20 years. You officers do a job I could not!

Then I haven't made my point properly.

There is different (implicit) contract between workers in the private and public sector. The private sector contract of employment is about money, and only money. The employer only pays the employee if they can make money out of them.

In the public sector you cannot evaluate the benefits of service purely in terms of money. The public has a benefit of public servants just being there even if they don't use their services. They also have a right to the services they are paying for, especially if they don't have the right to chose an alternative provider. Contracts of employment are necessarily different. I don't think it unreasonable that some public sector workers give up the right to strike in return for the security of employment they enjoy.

As most public service in BC is a closed shop there is no opportunity to either find a better union or leave it. The teachers I referred to above didn't want to be on strike, nor did they agree with the reason for the strike. However, their only choices were to man the picket lines or quit.

Most corruption comes from the state anyway - you'll get no argument from me there.

that's right