costaudjoe said:
1. The "student article" makes no argument based on figures (it does give an example with which you obviously disagree) but rather proposes that low paid foreign service workers are at a higher risk to succomb to corruption. You have yet to disprove his hypothesis and instead go for the easiest fallacy available to you, i.e. ad hominem. Here I will help because you are quick to criticize and seem to have difficulties to critique (http://www.voxeu.org/article/higher-government-wages-may-reduce-corruption).
2. $4.2 million is well quoted in all of the union demands. The union has been very transparent about this. One of MANY examples: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/08/20/pol-foreign-service-bad-faith-complaint-hearing.html
3. Student visas ALONE brought in $7.7 billion in 2012 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/many-international-students-still-waiting-for-visas-to-study-in-canada/article13947335/). This doesn't include foreign workers visas or lost tax opportunities because family sponsorships are on hold.
Again, my question: what words do you hold for a government that refuses to pay $4.2 million over 4 years at the risk of losing a billion a year?
Thanks for your "help" with the article. By the way, did you actually read it yourself because I'm not sure you did. It doesn't support your idea at all.
Be interesting to see the results of this PAFSO strike. On the one hand people are arguing they're so small and "cheap" that it's not worth the hassle to fight the union demands. This does of course ignore the knock on effects which are conveniently forgotten when other unions crawl out of the woodwork. Or the effects on benefits, pensions and severance perhaps decades hence which are always linked to wages. It ignores that the $4m is $4m forever. Not just 4 years as you try to suggest. You're living in the clouds if you think it's somehow "temporary". Such stewardship of the public purse is what has essentially bankrupted much of the western world.
On the other hand apparently they're so mighty that it's costing the country billions of dollars and grinding visa applications to a halt. Which isn't true...at least in London where there has been essentially no discernible difference in processing. They're just going as slow as they have been for the past few years (a point I made pages ago). Such sluggishness on the whole is the last section that needs rewarded with a pay bump. I suspect it's a similar situation elsewhere regardless of the location or visa type - they're going at the same similar, inefficient, pace as previous. This is where the government has the real duty - to make the system clearer and fast. This is obviously not on the Unions radar...they care little about the efficiency of what they do but care greatly how much they are remunerated for administering it. I'll see if there is ever a strike, from any union, campaigning for a better system for the people using the service. Tip: Don't hold your breath.
The government, probably correctly, has done the math here and figures it can wait it out. I get the feeling they are right.
