BCGEU Warns of Forest Ministry Cuts

Tuesday, July 07, 2009 12:59 PM

Victoria, B.C. - The union representing most of the B.C. Government employees says the axe is ready to fall on 230 positions in the Forests Ministry. The B.C. Government and Service Employees Union says the ministry officials have outlined plans to implement a 12% budget cut in 2009/2010.

The union says the news came out at a recent labour management meeting. Officials claim the Ministry told the union they are unsure of exactly what cards they will be dealt by the new Liberal budget which is due September 1st. The union says the plan is to implement a cut of $96 million by March 31, 2010. The cuts would come from a combination of the 230 job cuts, reduced spending, rejigging functions such as compliance & enforcement to work ‘smarter' and cheaper, and collaborating with other ministries on spending items such as road engineering.

The BCGEU says Ministry officials have said the goal is to not have any current employee pushed out of work. They are pursuing cuts through normal attrition, filling only critical vacancies, filling those vacancies internally, deleting as many vacancies as possible, and using lateral transfers-including to other ministries-using the Opportunities and Skills Database.

The union says it's concerned about permanent shrinkage and loss of valuable services provided by the forest ministry, the potential for impossible workloads for remaining staff, and the economic impact of job losses on forestry communities that are already hurting from the downturn in the economy.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 12:59 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: CaringSoul on July 7 2009 1:37 PM

I was wondering when the Government side of Forestry was going to start shrinking. Took their sweet time about it in the end.

Posted by: swingline on July 7 2009 1:53 PM

No kidding!

Posted by: astro on July 7 2009 3:06 PM

Well they had to wait until the election was over. And we don't need as many anyway because some outfits that have contracts with the govt import lumber from the US.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on July 7 2009 3:51 PM

This is just getting started.
No way they would even mention these cuts during an elecion campain!
Wait for it!

Posted by: camoose on July 7 2009 4:01 PM

We taxpayers still own a vacant forestry building in McBride from the last Forestry cutback. The government could save bunches of money if they were to roll back MLA wages and benifits. Northern health could save a bunch by cutting the top end by at least 50%. It seems to always be the lower man on the totem pole. Oh well, just less money employees will have to spend in the community. I'm waiting for lots more layoff news that was held back untill after the election. Also look for some bad news about the cost of the Olympics. That was not mentioned too often during the run up to the election.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on July 7 2009 4:55 PM

The federal government has been known to waste a bit of money as well!
In Fort St.James, they have a very nice chunk of waterfront out on Stones Bay road with what used to be a good house that is now rotting away and has been for afew years.They spent a lot of money on it over the years but now,they neglect it completely other than one garage they use at times.
It also has a large boathouse and marine ways and several other buildings.
It used to have a good wharf and pilings, but they let that go to hell too!
Nobody has lived there for a number of years and they don't even bother to heat the house anymore.
I am sure there are a lot of other places similar.
Money means nothing to a pencil pusher somewhere!

Posted by: Eagleone on July 7 2009 5:20 PM

With a $2 billion dollar deficit this year (not yet announced), and the massive and ever rising legacy costs for civil servants... these cuts have not even begun with this announcement IMO. I fully expect unless the government can get their legacy cost structure under control... then we will also see huge cuts in health care, education, and social services.

Government today is about 'guaranteeing' a secure future for the select few honored with government employment... it is no longer about the quality of services for those in the private sector that are paying the bills.

Posted by: northernjoe on July 7 2009 5:27 PM

Not a real surprise, there were a ton of MOF postings before Christmas last year that had progressed to the interview process that suddenly disappeared.... given the may election upcoming at the time not surprising that the news is just coming out now... it looks like they are simply not filling vacant positions, probably not the end of the world, but certainly not good news for small towns who most of the postings were directed at... more jobs lost in small town BC. It will be interesting to see how long the province can survive without people working in the heartland of interior bc, where the wealth of the province has always been created.

Posted by: He spoke on July 7 2009 5:29 PM

The government really do not waste money, somebody makes a living and profits. Thus they may misspend it.

Posted by: NMG on July 7 2009 5:58 PM

"Government today is about 'guaranteeing' a secure future for the select few honored with government employment it is no longer about the quality of services for those in the private sector that are paying the bills"

I think if you suggested to the average teacher, nurse, conservation officer, jail guard, etc., that they were not into providing quality service, they would look at you like you were nuts. For the most part, these folks are putting in the same hours as your average private sector employee, trying to do their job to the best of their ability given what they have to work with.

Posted by: dogs on July 7 2009 7:19 PM

No kidding about time- just a little over staffed- eg takes 53 MOF to adimister 1.2 million cubic meters of cut verus 8 industry staff. With the reduction OF AAC they must be picking their noses- axe up to 30% or more.

Posted by: dogs on July 7 2009 7:31 PM

Posted by: Mr. PG on July 7 2009 9:20 PM

I agree with NMG, there are some amazingly well qualified government employees that definitely work as hard as some private sectors employees. Tonight for example, I was still getting emails from BC Housing staff, well after 7pm.

Posted by: supertech on July 7 2009 9:52 PM

Mr PG said it right--there are "some".
Not the majority; only some.

Posted by: Eagleone on July 8 2009 4:44 AM

Look at the outrageous pensions and the pay raise hikes of recent years... those are unheard of for the average private sector worker that has seen no real income increase in nearly 20-years. The unions that negotiate these deals under threat to cut off essential services, know that they can threaten the government into anything, because they know the government is spending someone else's money and thus political peace is bought from the legacy of future generations and the services that these unions are supposed to represent.

At some point very soon the legacy costs of the public service will make up the majority of the government expenses, and not the costs of the actual daily services that the tax revenue was allocated for. This is a huge problem for my generation who will for sure see a lower standard of service as a result of having to pay our own way, as well as the generosity of past government employee deals.

Money doesn't grow on trees and in the end someone has to pay the bill... the people paying the bill are shrinking in relation to the people getting paid on the other end... and this is a fact and not an opinion or political agenda... its a fact we will all have to deal with in the coming years very soon.

Posted by: gus on July 8 2009 6:10 AM

"Money doesn't grow on trees" ... around here it does.

Posted by: gus on July 8 2009 6:19 AM

"the people paying the bill are shrinking in relation to the people getting paid on the other end"

My mother has been a senior for some 20 years. She was never a government employee nor a unionized employee. She did, however, work for much of her life. She paid her earned money into pension funds, bonds, and certificates. She is still paying income tax at her age. She lives in her house rather than in a home for seniors and she employs people at $20+ per hour to do lawns, shovel snow, clean house and help with other general house maintenance. The only thing that she gets "free" form the state is health care, which she needs very little of since, to her, doctors are no longer the caring people they once were. One problem at a time. Have a second medical problem? Make another appointment. What a way to treat a senior.

Posted by: gus on July 8 2009 6:22 AM

Before one generalizes about who is paying for what, I think we need to take a closer look at cities that house a large number of seniors - the island, the okanagan, and find out the source of the money and you might be surprised.

Posted by: Eagleone on July 8 2009 6:45 AM

Gus my argument isn't against seniors getting government services, but rather the legacy cost of tomorrows public pensions 'guaranteed' by tomorrows tax payer, rather than being fully funded by todays government revenue.

Your mom Gus did well because she fully funded her retirement plans while she had her revenue... she didn't accept a promise to pay at a future date with no source in place to make the actual funding... she didn't do that because she couldn't... otherwise she very well may have if she could like our politicians can with their public largess payable by future generations.

BTW I agree old people have a lot of money and assets on the whole and are beneficial to any community where they live. That is completely different issue though than the viability of government fiscal responsibility.

Posted by: NMG on July 8 2009 5:42 PM

"Gus my argument isn't against seniors getting government services, but rather the legacy cost of tomorrows public pensions 'guaranteed' by tomorrows tax payer, rather than being fully funded by todays government revenue"

They aren't "fully funded" by government revenues, nor will tomorrow's taxpayer be on the hook for the full amount. A significant portion of the pension funds (like any pension fund) would be funded by employee contributions and very healthy contributions at that. You can bet that if and when the actuaries determine the fund needs more dough in order to meet future requirements, that the contribution rates for the plan members will sky rocket. You can take that to the bank.

Posted by: Eagleone on July 9 2009 4:19 AM

NMG, reports out recent say they are only 30% funded... the rest will be covered by the tax payer at a later date. You would think the public unions would be as concerned about it as anyone, because when the day comes it won't be the services to the public that will be cut (to a point), as much as they might think their pension guarantee is solid gold....