Sunday, November 27, 2011

Net-zero mandate, not for all

Net-zero is OK for teachers, regular healthcare providers and the remaining public sector workers but not for important friends who do favours for Premier Photo Op. For example, and this is but one of course, check out Howard Waldner's tough road. This guy, CEO of the Vancouver Island Health Authority, decided after the position of in-house flack sat empty for 8-months, there was an urgent and secret need (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) to fill it with an associate of the Premier:


Waldner, by the way has enjoyed a 42% salary increase over the past 5 years, moving his salary before expense from $312,000 to $442,000. During that time, his annual expenses have ranged from $29,683 to $51,000. My, those business lunches are pricey!


Recommend this post

3 comments:

  1. On a day when most people are off shopping or relaxing ( including the MSM ), we are grateful to have a true professional investigative reporter writing articles that the MSM are afraid to write for fear of losing advertising dollars or a spot on the golf course.
    Norm you're doing an excellent job of painting the true picture of how sleazy politics & those in high places are taking tax payers for ride.
    Norm enjoy your coffee break today.

    Guy in Victoria

    ReplyDelete
  2. As a paramedic who has had zero's five out of the last 8 years, working in a system with fewer full time staffed ambulances than existed 10 years ago, this is really irritating.

    All the same, thanks for pointing it out. If it wasn't for blogs like yours the public is much more informed than they would be if they relied solely on the big media.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Re: Mr. Waldner's salary - some would probably trot out the old argument that we absolutely must pay top dollar to attract top talent. But (leaving aside the questions of what exactly constitutes "top talent" and how much remuneration is, or should be, adequate compensation for any given job), you raise an important point: why doesn't this argument apply equally to all jobs? For example, why wouldn't we invest in those who teach our children, or those who treat us and/or care for us when we are injured or ill or too frail? Or those that clean our hospitals? Or any job, for that matter...

    Perhaps I am naive, but I wonder what kind of performance reviews are used justify those kinds of stratospheric salaries and salary increases. Are there such things? If so, who conducts them and what criteria are used?

    ReplyDelete

COMMENTING

This is an archive only of items published before April 22, 2016. These and newer articles are available at:

https://in-sights.ca/

If you read an article at this blogger site, you can comment on it at the new site.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.