Snow Removal Contract

nakkers

nakkers

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Forum Sponsor
So the other day listening to talk radio. The discussion was the big bad contractor that was fined nearly a million and still has a contract for this year.

The outrage seemed to turn to putting the service back to the municipalities.

Look, I get the frustration over private companies failing to do the job they are contract to do. They are fighting the fine and telling folks they need the money for more equipment to do a better job etc.

This evil companies trying to put one over the public.

But how would it be any different if the same thing happened if snow removal was government run? No fines. The union would argue they need more money for more staff and better equipment. We would pay more taxes and have folks sitting around getting paid waiting for the snow to fall. Then the outrage from the public would come about government waste and how the public sector work force is over paid, amazing benefits and do little work.
 
"A snow-clearing company accused of doing a poor job on the QEW during two storms last winter that resulted in multiple collisions..." Idea for an investigative reporter: Look up the collision reports for these specific collisions and obtain data on the tires in use at the time. Determine if inappropriate tires, poor driving, or lack of timely snow removal was the major factor. I'm willing to bet on #1 and #2. "I'm going to drive like I always do and I crashed because it's the snow removal contractor's fault for not removing the snow and salting the road" LoL
 
Last edited:
Isn't the easy solution to fine the contractor and hire a company that can do the job as specified.

sent from a device using a program
 
Scuba Steve said:
Isn't the easy solution to fine the contractor and hire a company that can do the job as specified.

sent from a device using a program
Click to expand...

Isn't the same company on contract again for this year? Carillon or something?
 
Scuba Steve said:
Isn't the easy solution to fine the contractor and hire a company that can do the job as specified.

sent from a device using a program
Click to expand...

I thought about that too. But, how many companies exist that have the proper equipment to do the job?
 
If they are bidding on the job they should have the equipment, there are a few other companies that do the same thing

sent from a device using a program
 
At least if it's in house, you can walk over and scream at them to get to work, and know that they have the equipment to do the job. Not that it necessarily should be.

The problem with snow removal contracts is that someone has to gamble on how much snow there will be.

Its possible that the risk was transferred out to the company, who accepted it as a gamble, and then found that they couldn't produce.

That shouldn't happen. Now it would be like letting a gambling addict back into the game, after he's told you he can't pay.
 
My understanding of the company that got fined was, they have the equipment but, had the drivers sitting at home waiting for a call. When the call came in, they got stuck in traffic with everyone else and couldn't get to the trucks.

Lesson learned. Pay the fine. Make sure you have staff on hand during weather alerts and pay them to wait for the appropriate time.

I've got no problem with the company continuing with the contract. The issue is, whining they can't pay the fine AND continuing to have the contract.

I'd say if the fine isn't paid, they can't bid for a new contract and get someone new in.

Apparently. It's not that easy?
 
Last edited:
nakkers said:
My understanding of the company that got fined was, they have the equipment but, had the drivers sitting at home waiting for a call. When the call came in, they got stuck in traffic with everyone else and couldn't get to the trucks.

Lesson learned. Pay the fine. Make sure you have staff on had during weather alerts and pay them to wait for the appropriate time.

I've got no problem with the company continuing with the contract. The issue is, whining they can't pay the fine AND continuing to have the contract.

I'd say if the fine isn't paid, they can't bit for a new contract and get someone new in.

Apparently. It's not that easy?
Click to expand...

It's still a management issue.
The government isn't there to manage the company, only to judge them for their work,
and pay them, when they successfully complete their contract.

But the circular logic is kinda cool: "I couldn't get to work, because I wasn't doing my job."
 
nakkers said:
So the other day listening to talk radio. The discussion was the big bad contractor that was fined nearly a million and still has a contract for this year.

The outrage seemed to turn to putting the service back to the municipalities.

Look, I get the frustration over private companies failing to do the job they are contract to do. They are fighting the fine and telling folks they need the money for more equipment to do a better job etc.

This evil companies trying to put one over the public.

But how would it be any different if the same thing happened if snow removal was government run? No fines. The union would argue they need more money for more staff and better equipment. We would pay more taxes and have folks sitting around getting paid waiting for the snow to fall. Then the outrage from the public would come about government waste and how the public sector work force is over paid, amazing benefits and do little work.
Click to expand...

From your comment (union bashing) I am going to conclude that you are not old enough to have experienced how the roads were serviced regarding snow and ice removal by the government in years past. The Ontario government was the first to privatize snow removal services and then the other levels started to follow. Government employees were fully trained on how to properly deal with ice and snow and also were paid to be on stand-by at the depots. The public complained about taxes being too high and that government workers were overpaid and lazy for being paid for not doing anything. Government (politicians not bureaucrats) solution contracting of these services to private contractors who hire almost all of their employees on an on-call basis. Pretty difficult to get to the equipment at the depot during a storm don't you think? But how else is the company going to make a profit?

Be careful what you ask for, you may not like what service you receive; it's not always about paying the least amount of money.
 
I was driving on the QEW a lot last winter and wasn't even aware there were issues with the snow removal
 
trebororr said:
From your comment (union bashing) I am going to conclude that you are not old enough to have experienced how the roads were serviced regarding snow and ice removal by the government in years past. The Ontario government was the first to privatize snow removal services and then the other levels started to follow. Government employees were fully trained on how to properly deal with ice and snow and also were paid to be on stand-by at the depots. The public complained about taxes being too high and that government workers were overpaid and lazy for being paid for not doing anything. Government (politicians not bureaucrats) solution contracting of these services to private contractors who hire almost all of their employees on an on-call basis. Pretty difficult to get to the equipment at the depot during a storm don't you think? But how else is the company going to make a profit?

Be careful what you ask for, you may not like what service you receive; it's not always about paying the least amount of money.
Click to expand...

That's why I posed the question. Would it be better to have the service run by the government? I'm not sure?

My point is, things do get messed up. It's how they get resolved that's important to me.

If it's government run, typically their approach is to throw more money at it. Its also a monopoly. So, if nothing changes, too bad.

I'm actually old enough to remember when unions were a benefit to improving working conditions. They still can be.

The issue I have with unions is generally in the public sector and the arbitration process which tends to make binding decisions without consideration to how the municipality/government will pay.

The weird thing about modern unions is, they rarely if ever adjust benefits or wages or work forces negatively. Where as the private sector constantly does and the affected work force has to deal with the change instead of leaving it to the tax payer.

Back on topic. Think the issue with the contractor is the contract itself. If the government fines them for not meeting the contract obligations, the company should pay up. They should also lose the remaining contract and be excluded from the next bid.

But, I think the government just doesn't know how to do good business. Like negotiate a decent contract.
 
Ps. Also, the contractor did mismanage and cause poor service. They screwed up. There should be consequences for that. Either they learned what they did wrong and pay for their mistake. Or pay for their ,I stake and get someone that knows what they are doing.
 
nakkers said:
So the other day listening to talk radio. The discussion was the big bad contractor that was fined nearly a million and still has a contract for this year.

The outrage seemed to turn to putting the service back to the municipalities.

Look, I get the frustration over private companies failing to do the job they are contract to do. They are fighting the fine and telling folks they need the money for more equipment to do a better job etc.

This evil companies trying to put one over the public.

But how would it be any different if the same thing happened if snow removal was government run? No fines. The union would argue they need more money for more staff and better equipment. We would pay more taxes and have folks sitting around getting paid waiting for the snow to fall. Then the outrage from the public would come about government waste and how the public sector work force is over paid, amazing benefits and do little work.
Click to expand...


Yes the service was better when MTO union guys maintained the provincial roads. Mike Harris ended that. I think he golfs with Leo ( Miller Maintenance ). If you look at the municipal level it's the same thing. We have to redo the contractor routes all the time. They pay terrible wages thus you get what you pay for. No loyalty to boot. Seen a guy walk off the job right in the middle of a snow storm. Said **** it and parked the truck on the side of the road with the keys in it. I have also found that contractors do not like to use the wing. Not sure if there scared of it from inexperience but you can't do a decent job using front plow only and leave snow 5 feet from he curb.
 
nakkers said:
The issue I have with unions is generally in the public sector and the arbitration process which tends to make binding decisions without consideration to how the municipality/government will pay.
Click to expand...

Binding arbitration decisions can go both ways. Employers win some & the union wins some. Public and private. Most issue are about the collective agreement so not sure what you mean about "consideration to how the municipality/government will pay"
 
Last edited:
In the public sector, contracts are negotiated on the payers (tax payer) behalf w/o sweat off of negotiators sack. In private it's a little closer to the bone.
 
I only know what I hear and I know that doesn't make it fact.

I'm just another armchair critic.

I'm sure before Harris came in and slashed everything, things were much better.

I kinda remember folks crying about Rae days and how the Province was run into the ground. Then Harris came in and everyone freaked out with an unarmed protester getting shot and killed in Ipperwash and tainted water because that experiment failed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
inreb said:
In the public sector, contracts are negotiated on the payers (tax payer) behalf w/o sweat off of negotiators sack. In private it's a little closer to the bone.
Click to expand...

To an extend. Some public bargaining teams are very, very tight with the tax payers money. 1% per year is the norm these days. Thats all I've seen he last nine years anyways.
 
This is how a competent, unionized operator wings back on second pass. Notice how I don't float the wing and launch the shoulder gravel into the pasture & fill in driveways. Good luck finding a contractor winging like this.
I should also mention that back in the day ( pre Mike) this was a 2 person job. A "wingman" would operate the wing from passengers seat. So now it's a one man job and you wing by feel and perception cause you can't see it from the drivers seat.

[video=youtube;FExwAEwj5O8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FExwAEwj5O8[/video]
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom