The Nanaimo Daily News had an outstanding editorial today, calling on municipal government to do more to control labour costs. Nanaimo will be one of the province's most important council races this fall, after an abysmal performance by its current group for the past three years. The editorial:

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has long suspected that municipal governments are overpaying their staff compared to the province and private sector.

In an 88-page report released this week, the CTF states that statistics released by the provincial government confirm their belief in the discrepancy. Municipal union employees received 38 per cent hikes in pay from 2001 to 2012 — twice as much as the 19 per cent raise received by provincial government workers.

We haven’t even touched on Regional Districts. They usually slip under the radar when it comes to scrutiny.

Hands up, those in the private sector. Did your wages go up that much during that period? And who pays those public sector wages? The private sector, of course, through their paycheques and property tax bills.

CTF’s BC Director Jordan Bateman states, “With as much as two-thirds of a city’s operating budget going to employee wages and benefits, it’s no wonder property taxes have skyrocketed in so many communities across B.C.”

Nobody is opposed to fair wages and benefits. But public sector unions seem deliberately oblivious to the plight of the private sector that pays their services through hot and cold markets.

While the private sector adjusts — by necessity — to fluctuations in business, there is no such alteration on the public side. Wouldn’t it be refreshing to have public sector contracts tied to the realities of the marketplace, like growth or shrinkage in GDP, for example?

Some would doubtless argue that these overly generous wage and benefit hikes are one of the benefits of having a union negotiate contracts. But the other end of the teeter-totter is the taxpayer having to cover the freight.

Aren’t successful contracts supposed to be “win-win”? How does the average citizen look at these escalating bills as a positive?

Indeed, those tasked with looking after the interests of the taxpayer, city councils, have proven to be woefully inadequate in terms of being able to say no to big public sector unions who are adept at flexing their muscles. Subtle innuendos that remind elected officials that they’ll be “remembered” by the union the next time there’s a trip to the ballot box are undoubtedly effective.

It’s even less subtle in jurisdictions where public sector unions are heavily involved in promoting candidates for civic elections. It’s in those unions’ best interest to elect candidates who will say yes to their requests and rubber stamp wage and benefit hikes.

To that end, isn’t it about time that the province legislate campaign contribution limits for businesses and unions? We only find out after the fact which organization or company has helped fund a certain candidate’s run for council, and by that time it’s too late. At the very least, there should be some method implemented whereby voters know before they cast their ballots which individuals or groups have funded each particular candidate. That information would be very helpful for voting citizens.

Another line in the CTF release states that “municipalities are overpaying the provincial government for technical expertise.”

Since we’re already paying for our local civic government’s expertise, why should another level of government we pay for bill us again? That’s double-billing, and it should be stopped.

The only hope taxpayers have to stop the escalation is a council that will hold the line, and decision day on that is Nov. 15. » We want to hear from you. Send comments on this editorial to [email protected].