This week, some readers may have been shocked to discover that a citizens group is forming to force council to take home more taxpayer money.
Politicians' wages have been debated ever since they began being paid, but it's always been a politically thorny issue that many councillors across Canada won't even weigh in on.
After all, how can elected officials agree that councillors should be paid more without appearing self-serving? On the other hand, how can they agree not to vote for their own wage hikes when many make less than $20,000 a year and put in 30-plus hours a week?
The political hot potato was tossed aside when it came up during the last 撸奶社区council's administration.
But the matter will not rest.
Now it's up to this council to decide - will they attempt to provide a concrete answer, or keep tossing that potato?
It's almost impossible not to cynically wonder if the 14 citizens that signed the document are simply trying to create themselves a job.
See? There's that thorniness again.
However it's obvious they are of the mind that "You get what you pay for." They would undoubtedly point to a study of the same name that attempts to prove that if you pay a mediocre wage, you get mediocre work. While at the University of California, economist David Levine tested "efficiency wage theories" among workers and employers in the U.S. and Japan. He concluded workers with higher wages are more satisfied, less likely to quit, willing to work harder than they have to and are more committed to their company.
But other argue that keeping councillors' salaries low ensures the positions only attract idealistic people with altruistic motives, and paying local politicians more means you'll get candidates who only are after the money. The counter argument to that is if we paid councillors more, we'd attract more civic-minded candidates who now head to the private sector because, quite simply, they can't afford not to.
And the low salary often limits the type of person who can run to either the independently wealthy or retired. We should ask ourselves, does that allow for true representation of the population?
It is, admittedly, a little difficult to sympathize with elected candidates who enter politics fully aware - or so they should be - of what they're salary and workload would be, and then decry the situation as untenable. Was there no plan in place to deal with the low income in conjunction with the time pressures?
It seems that council's only way to properly handle the sticky subject of their own salaries is to A) do what many other communities have done and set up a citizens task force and B) when and if salary raises are supported, enact it only after the next election.
We wouldn't blame councillors for being ticked off at those who tossed the hot potato over to them.
