Car repari industry 15,000 workers short, and we're in a recession?

[Nuggler]

The problem is the training time and the ability to do so. Nurses for instance take 4 years just to graduate then need extra on the job training to go into any specialty. They don't have enough training spaces to meet the demand. They do allow a lot of nurses to immigrate to Canada every year. I see no reason why any profession should be different. If it's in demand, let them come.

Tracy, they should have been training a bunch of them all along.
They haven't and didn't.
Now we have a shortage.
This glut and shortage has been going on for years.
A few years ago they were laying them off.
Now hospitals can't "afford' nurses.
There's always a reason, but it boils down to government not wanting to spend money on health care and training health care workers.......Con or Lib......no politics here. Just what I have observed.
I'd love to be proven wrong.

BTW, when my wife trained for a RN, it took 3 years, in a training hospital, then she wrote the RN exams for Ontario. Presto Nurso.

I don't think the time has increased, unless of course, the nurse is going to specialize or is doing a Bachelor of Nursing in university.

I believe the course is now given at community colleges.

Woops, my point is; train Canadian nurses first. Look after our own.

 

[Machjo]

Look after our own.

But we have to be careful with this attitude. Let's say that we have a Canadian who'd always dreamt of becoming a tropical ecologist. Clearly there wont' be too many jobs for him in Canada, but if we could establish international labour-mobility agreements through the WTO, then he would have the option of working in South America, earn his money (and pay his taxes) there, and eventually go to university there to learn in the ideal environment for the job.

This could benefit not only Canadians, but foreigners too. Let's say we have a Brazilian who'd always been fascinated by the Arctic. Why not let him work in Canada while saving for university here if that's what he wants to study to become an Arctic biologist. After all, with the attitude that we should look after our own, we also promote an attitude of 'tit-for-tat' among other countries. So while such an attitude hurts foreigners in Canada, don't forget that it can also hurt Canadians abroad.

With this in mind, we must consider that 'looking after our own' also involves promoting reciprocation and avoiding tit-for-tat policies among other countries. A classic example of where a government failed to consider this was with Brazil a few years ago when the US decided that all foreigners had to get finger-printed at US airports on arrival. Brazil introduced a law requiring the same of Americans (and only Americans) when they arrived in Brazil. Alot of Americans travelling to Brazil at the time were not too happy with Bush for having provoked such a tit-for-tat reaction on Brazil's part. China had also started to turn Americans away at their airports at the time if there was the slightest problem with their visas, whereas previously they could be more flexible. A good government could forsee how foreign governments will likely react to its policies, and adopt policies that can benefit not only Canadians in Canada, but Canadians abroad too. The world is much more integrated that it was before.

If we look at it this way, then the best way to create jobs for Canadians is in fact to help create jobs for all. With this kind of attitude, all countries are willing to do their part to provide job opportunities for all rather than just trying to keep available jobs for themselves. With a tit-for-tat approach, everyone hurts. With a co-operative approach, everyone benefits. Enough of the socialist nanny-laws trying to pamper our own along the lines a tit-for-tat attitude.

 

[Zzarchov]

The problem with sharing with other governments is that they don't have accountability to us.

Think of it this way, you can easily cut down on rent costs with a roommate. Many do.

If there was no legal recourse if he could take all your stuff and leave with it as his own at any time...would as many people have them?

 

[tracy]

Tracy, they should have been training a bunch of them all along.
They haven't and didn't.
Now we have a shortage.
This glut and shortage has been going on for years.
A few years ago they were laying them off.
Now hospitals can't "afford' nurses.
There's always a reason, but it boils down to government not wanting to spend money on health care and training health care workers.......Con or Lib......no politics here. Just what I have observed.
I'd love to be proven wrong.

BTW, when my wife trained for a RN, it took 3 years, in a training hospital, then she wrote the RN exams for Ontario. Presto Nurso.

I don't think the time has increased, unless of course, the nurse is going to specialize or is doing a Bachelor of Nursing in university.

I believe the course is now given at community colleges.

Woops, my point is; train Canadian nurses first. Look after our own.

There is a very good reason they didn't train more nurses in the 90s: THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH JOBS! They were cutting nursing positions when I was in high school. I actually had a guidance counselor tell me not to go into nursing cause I would never find a job:roll: Here I am 10 years later and all I need to get a job is a pulse and an active nursing license...

The training has changed since your wife did it. RNs are required to have a Bachelor's degree in BC, Ontario and a few other provinces. That means 4 years minimum. Hospital based programs are all but extinct. Plus specialty training adds to the time requirement. To be able to function on their own in most specialties, most nurses need 3-6 months of on the job training.

 

[Machjo]

Well, here's another way of looking at it:
If Canada wants to say that individuals have the responsibility to find work, then it also has a duty to not stand in the way, by for example, promoting more labour-mobility between countries (between provinces should go without saying).

If the government is to create barriers, be it intentionally or otherwise, to labour mobility, then it also has an even greater duty to help people find work.

Now I don't mind paying my taxes, but I still believe that the government should do all it can to help people find work in the private sector. Only after that fails should we consider spending money on education in trades and professions. Through labour mobility, we might be able to lower the unemployment rate at least a little, leaving us with that many fewer persons we need to train, which thus helps make our tax-dollars work that much more efficiently. it's not a matter of how much we pay in taxes, but how that tax-money is spent. It ought to be spent efficiently, and to keep spending at a minimum, we ought to try to create jobs through the free market first, and only if that fails should we intervene more.

 

[Machjo]

The problem with sharing with other governments is that they don't have accountability to us.

Think of it this way, you can easily cut down on rent costs with a roommate. Many do.

If there was no legal recourse if he could take all your stuff and leave with it as his own at any time...would as many people have them?

But these govenments would be well aware that increased international labour mobility would benefit not only Canada, but them too. As a result, they would value maintaing their reputation as trustworthy co-signatories. Sure they could brak their agreements, but if they do that, not only would Canada rescind the agreement, but other countries would likewise reconsider signing any futrue agreement with these countries, thus hurting them more. So I believe that there is accountability in that respect; accountability to their international reputation and credibility before the international community. The WTO itself can also make judgements during trade disputes. So why could it not also make judgements in labour mobility disputes? I'm sure some kind of mechanism could be put into place to protect the well-being of the workers.

 

[tracy]

I would also agree that while we have a responsibility to educate and provide for the unemployed, once we have given them the education they need, they have no right to dictate salary. Once they have suficient education to find work, then they're expected to take whatever local job they can get which maches their skills, irrespective of income. They don't get to dictate salary.
.

This is the part that always loses my support for the whole thing...

Why shouldn't people who receive government subsidized training get to dictate their salary as much as any other worker? Nearly everyone's education and training is subsidized by the government yet we see no push to tell social workers or biologists or English majors not to get uppity and demand more money for their time. For some reason when we have a shortage in any type of occupation, it becomes a patriotic duty to accept whatever wage and live in whatever place the government wants us to. Well, obviously I didn't buy into that line of bs cause I left. I seriously doubt the people who advocate that would accept it for themselves, it's just easy to say when it only affects someone else.

 

[tracy]

But these govenments would be well aware that increased international labour mobility would benefit not only Canada, but them too. As a result, they would value maintaing their reputation as trustworthy co-signatories. Sure they could brak their agreements, but if they do that, not only would Canada rescind the agreement, but other countries would likewise reconsider signing any futrue agreement with these countries, thus hurting them more. So I believe that there is accountability in that respect; accountability to their international reputation and credibility before the international community. The WTO itself can also make judgements during trade disputes. So why could it not also make judgements in labour mobility disputes? I'm sure some kind of mechanism could be put into place to protect the well-being of the workers.

Other countries may not benefit. It's likely we'll see like what we have in nursing: rich countries poaching from poorer countries.

 

[Nuggler]

There is a very good reason they didn't train more nurses in the 90s: THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH JOBS! They were cutting nursing positions when I was in high school. I actually had a guidance counselor tell me not to go into nursing cause I would never find a job:roll: Here I am 10 years later and all I need to get a job is a pulse and an active nursing license...

The training has changed since your wife did it. RNs are required to have a Bachelor's degree in BC, Ontario and a few other provinces. That means 4 years minimum. Hospital based programs are all but extinct. Plus specialty training adds to the time requirement. To be able to function on their own in most specialties, most nurses need 3-6 months of on the job training.

Well now, ya see.........That's how old I am.

My wife just informed me they rely more on RPN's these days to do the general bed care. 3 years for them?

Dull day ifn ya don't learn something eh!!

Yepper, in the 90's they were in surplus, so they quit training them or scaled way back.........Now big shortage. Pity no one has forethought regarding people getting old and retiring with no one to take their place(s)

Anyway, still.........Canada and Canadians first.

never happen

 

[tracy]

You're not that old Nugg, the changes have happened in the last 5-10 years. When I was graduating you still had the option of the diploma. RPNs do 3 years, but they are mainly in long term care and regular med surg floors (not used as much in intensive care units, operating units, pediatric, maternity, etc). My hospital in Toronto was actually all RN.

 

[Nuggler]

Saskatchewan has a labour shortage and needs another 15,000 or 18,000 bodies
last I heard. Ontario has many-many-many recently unemployed persons needing
work. If you can not convince them to slide two provinces west, it'll be doubtful
that you could convince them to export their skills globally. Sad but it may be a
reality. I like your idea, but will the human nature of the unemployed work with
your idea? Retrain for new skills and move, or move to utilize your current skills.
How many will just sit and wait for a hand-out?

Many folks (8 whom I know personally), have upped stakes and moved west to Alta or Sask. Heard of many many more.

But, just read Potash is laying off..........what's the real deal, Ron?. Still jobs out there?
_______________________________

Just read your link Ron. Thanks. I actually do know some folks who would like that info.

 

[Machjo]

This is the part that always loses my support for the whole thing...

Why shouldn't people who receive government subsidized training get to dictate their salary as much as any other worker? Nearly everyone's education and training is subsidized by the government yet we see no push to tell social workers or biologists or English majors not to get uppity and demand more money for their time. For some reason when we have a shortage in any type of occupation, it becomes a patriotic duty to accept whatever wage and live in whatever place the government wants us to. Well, obviously I didn't buy into that line of bs cause I left. I seriously doubt the people who advocate that would accept it for themselves, it's just easy to say when it only affects someone else.

Sorry, perhaps I didn't explain myself so well. What I meant by 'they don't get the right to dictate salary' is that the government has no duty to create a high-paying job for him. Of course if he refuses to work, we shouldn't trhow him on his rear, and sure he could stay at the dorm. perhaps then a social worker could try to find out why he'd refuse a job, even if low paying, when we consider that we could still welcome him to stay at the dorm to save money while working, and the experience would help him advance in future. Is it fear? Something else? So certainly a social worker could try to find out what his problem is and ease him back into the workforce gradually without shocking his system. But all I'm, saying is that the govenrmetn has no duty to create high-paying jobs in his field for him. What the market offers is what he gets, just like anyone else.

And as far as relocation is concerned, I absolutely agree that we shoud not force people to relocate. Some cultures can be very attached to family and friends, or identify strongly with their local community. All I'm saying is that if an unemployed person is willing to relocate of his own free will with no pressure form anyone else, and an employer has given him a provisional contract already, why couldn't the government pay for his moving expenses? The sooner we get him paying his taxes, the sooner he'll be contributing to building this great country. And he'll feel happier too in the process.

 

[Machjo]

Other countries may not benefit. It's likely we'll see like what we have in nursing: rich countries poaching from poorer countries.

Very good point indeed. But if it's combined with fair trade, we must consider that production costs are cheaper in poorer countries than in rich. So while many might want to get higher-paying jobs in Canada, many companies would like to relocate to the poorer countries. So we can see the problem there. Workers want to come here, our businesses want to go there. If there are more jobs there and fewer here as a result, then many of their workers might decide to stay there. And companies that move their might then have to start to raise salaries to keep them. Over time it could balance itself out.

In addition to this, other things could be done too. For example, let's say that richer countries are expected to give a certain percentage of their GDP every year towards education in less developed countries. And to keep politics out of it, this money must be with no strings attached (the IMF has been known to pressure countries seeking loans from it to spend more on English-learning in school, which really just becomes an extension of linguistic imperialism, and continued cultural and economic dependence from which English-speking countries profit, sometimes even more than the initial loan it gave out of its 'kindness').

But yes, you have braught up a good point that would need to be addressed. But if done well, this could in fact help to promote more economic justice in the wold by putting Canada more at par with poorer countries. On the one hand, it would create jobs in Canada, but on the other, granted, it might unfortunately stall salary increases as money drains into poorer countries. But then we must ask ourselves if the objective is to create full employment while at the same time promoting justice, or to create wealth for Canada even if at the expense of justice. This is where the heart and soul of Canada must be challenged, wher its true colours must be revealed.