Posts
For several decades now our local firefighters have been referred to as 'volunteers'. (Do a Crowsnest Pass Firefighters goggle search and you will find tons of pages of information making this very reference to them being referred to as 'volunteers', many of which come from our own municipal website). I think everybody has always taken this for granted, including our own municipal government, who as I said, have always referred to them as such. As does the following current page taken today from their municipal website:
(click on image to enlarge)
However, today, suddenly the powers that be at Municipal Hall are now referring to them, not as 'volunteers', but as "paid employees"? Today's Municipal Press Release states this in plain language for all to see:
(click on image to enlarge)
Now my concern is that if the municipality is claiming they are 'paid employees' (i.e. professionals), then I think our local firefighters would have a strong case to file a legal action that they (like so many groups before them who have successfully won 'wage discrimination' cases in the courts) have been discriminated against, with respect to what they were actually paid vs what others in their profession received in remuneration for services rendered.
I'm no lawyer, but if the municipality is now trying to say our volunteers were not volunteers but paid employees, then, I repeat, I believe a case can be made that they were discriminated against with respect to services provided and remuneration received, based on what others in their profession of 'paid' firefighters got.
Does our municipality really want to go down this road, using this as a strategy i.e. 'paid employees' vs 'volunteers' to achieve some Machiavellian end? If so, then I am afraid it is one that will soon backfire on them, resulting in legal ramifications and quite possibly a 'humongous' bill that I for one do not want to have to foot at the end of the day, because guys in suits who thought they were smart, turned out to not be so smart after all, resulting in local residents paying for their stupidity in more ways than one for their trying to be 'cute'.
The exposure of a lie is as valuable to a community as a clearly expressed truth.
14 comments:
he Friday, October 5, 2012 edition of the News Hour on Global Lethbridge
John the following is from the CUPE 812 collective agreement.
4.01 The Employer recognizes the Union as the sole bargaining agency for all Employees.
At the council meeting on Tuesday administration stated that the municipality has 100 non-union "employees". When asked to clarify who? they stated Firemen, Rescue, Swimming pool, Ski hill, and Library.
If and I do not use that word lightly, I was CUPE I would be looking at those "employees".
For years they were defined as either volunteers, or employees of a society to avoid the costs of them being "municipal employees". Cupe rates probably start at $25 per hour and higher none of these "employees" were making close to that rate.
This action could lead to some more very serious ramifications.
Dean Ward
IANAL also, but one point might be: was JM a paid employee while moving his office? He was reportedly fired for "insubordination" for how he went about this.
It just keeps getting worse and worse! What the hell are the mayor and council thinking? How can a handful of people be so disconnected from the residents of the Crowsnest Pass?
I have been coming to your blog repeatedly for news and updates about this council...and their gaffes. Thank you John for being passionate about this community and not giving up!!
Dean, with your background, your opinion is important to us. Thank you!
Just like Peter Rosner's would be too if he could find his way back here. I think he's lost in the wilderness somewhere? :-)
Anon @10:27
We've got more questions than answers, don't we?
Julie,
Ah, thank you Julie. A former councillor (Gail Montgomery) said the same thing to me this week also, about not giving up. How can anyone give up on what they have grown to love when as you said "How can a handful of people be so disconnected from the residents of the Crowsnest Pass?"
Our community has been hijacked and the way I see it we've all got to do our part in getting it back.
JP
vol•un•teer vol-uhn-teer
noun
1. a person who voluntarily offers himself or herself for a service or undertaking.
2. a person who performs a service willingly and without pay.
I realize the remuneration Crowsnest Pass volunteer firefighters receive is not a great deal, and it’s probably not anywhere close to what full-time firefighters earn, elsewhere. We all know they are not paid a lot of money for the time and effort put forth serving our community. Nevertheless, they are paid volunteers.
The words “volunteer” firefighter are a bit of a misnomer. To many people, it implies they do this for nothing. Ask those who volunteer at the York Creek Lodge or for any of the other community organizations how much they are paid and you will find out the true meaning of volunteer.
Or the people who work very hard at the Food Bank, making sure everyone can eat; true volunteers also.
HI JOHN The word volonteer is very hard to explain.Igive you my side of the story.Here we have a BOARD OF DIRECTORS for community futures that is discribed as volonteer but the real facts are you let your name sa volonteer to be elected to the board by the members of the corporation under inc.canada 3134369 and cfdc constitution or BY-LAW no 1 my question what kind of volonteer is this 1)a elected volonteer 2)or a volonteer elected 3)or just a misinform volonteer 4)or just sit their yourself and control everything let me know i am confuse
October 6, 2012 11:58 AM
I did not understand one item on this statement.
Being in the community for 1 1/2 years, could someone tell me why they also wanted to get rid of the previous council? Thank you. Also, in regards to perceptions, when we left Calgary everyone thought we were moving to BC. No one knew where CNP was.
The previous council was targeted by one local paper and some business people. They organized a petition to get rid of the council because the were closing the learning center and problems with the development of Bridgcreek. They were mainly targeting four councilers who stuck together on issues so they began the countdown to change. Meanwhile the Local mayor --one counciler and one former counciller were promoting Bridgecreek. That backfired on them and ending up costing some people a lot of money as the developers left town with all the investors money. Go to the Archive section of the Pass Promotor about five to six years ago and their is lots of info.
To anon 11:49 i guess i should elaborate further on your inquiry about the previous council. the time period is actually two to four years ago. Going back further you would get info on why the public got rid of the council before that. When you go to Achives section punch in key words Bridgecreek ---Learning Center -- Ratepayers. Good to see you are educating yourself about this Community and its politics. I personally felt the four councillers of the previous council that were targetted were doing a good job and voted for them in the last election. But you will develop your own opinion. I did give this council a chance but no longer support what they are doing.--- Oh and John your word verification that allows a person to access your site is a royal pain in the %$$.
Peter,
I see what you mean. Just got rid of it. If I start getting all kinds of spam I'll have to go back to it but we'll try it for a while and see. Thanks for the heads up... I remember Chloe mentioning this to me recently too. :-(
JP
Oh Good! Tax Payers can now flip Cupe wages for the Lifeguards now that the Pool Board has been dismissed and is no longer in charge of hiring.
Post a Comment