Dec. 22, 2003

By Alex J.Walling

As they say, ask 100 people and you are very likely to get 100 answers.

Bottom line on this topic (40 % possible salary increase for MLA’s) is two fold. One, how the question is asked and two, just how much you think of what an MLA does.

On the first I like the answer given on the CJCH Open line show by Art Donahue who was responsible for the recommendations to the Nova Scotia MLA’s salary structure. His first step was a 4.3 per cent raise effective on January 1st and then following the next election a 40 % raise.

I think it is the 40 % that has miffed many people especially those who make less or considerably less then what an MLA is making today and that is around $39,000 - $59,000 when you include the tax free portion of the salary.

On Rick Howe’s (the salary god) open line show (920 CJCH radio) Donahue pointed out that had the question been ‘Should your MLA make a decent salary?’ or ‘As compared to your MP what should your MLA make?’ the story may have taken on a different slant.

In the previous column we talked about some of the comments to this report. Now to try and answer why they should get the big 40 % raise.

First of all, and I don’t have the answers, but people seem to be so concerned about what others are making. Many who have not done the job of the ‘other’ person seem to be upset by any salary that is more than theirs.

That is pettiness and being small minded. Some people are simply more talented, more educated and better than others and instead of bitching about these people they should worry about themselves. There is nothing wrong to say ‘hey, this person is very good and is better than me at things’. In fact most people are better than us in one capacity or other.

I don’t have a lot of money but if I want some more then it is up to me to get more via my current skills or get new ones. Envying what my neighbour makes isn’t going to get it done.

Some try to keep up with the Jones’s where others are the Jones’s.

If you want good legal advice or have to be defended in court do you object to what your attorney is making and many are in the $100,000 range and many are in the stratosphere? Joel Pink doesn’t come cheap but I haven’t heard too many complain that he is not worth it.

How about your dentist? Good ones with a large client base earn over $250,000 but if they are good in handling your teeth you don’t wince at forking out two, three or more hundred dollars for major work.

I, and while not alone on this issue, may be in the minority when it comes to MLA’s but still believe like Danny Graham, Robert Stanfield and others that public service is a noble calling and worth the money to lure people especially good ones into it.

I also look at an MLA as one who is partially responsible for running the business of the province and folks there is no business that is bigger than our government.

Running a province is bigger than running the Irving, McCain and Ganoog empires. You’re not dealing with millions but billions of bucks and yet many want someone who is making $40,000 to be the custodian of the dollars!

Would you let you kids in charge of the family budget? Maybe some of you do.

That is like putting a janitor in charge of a heart transplant or in charge of any medical procedure.

Maybe it’s the union mentality where salary raises are the same with everyone but I for one really believe that certain people make a difference. Good people lead to good companies. And good people make more, sometimes much more, than average people or workers.

If you want a good buck then get equipped (education and/or knowledge) for it.

I’ve worked in the media for most of the past 35 years and the biggest piece of equipment, radio or television is a transmitter that can set you back over $100.000.

That may sound like a lot of money but it really isn’t when you compare it to people. If you hire one person at $30,000 per year and he/she lasts for a decade than you have made an investment of $300,000 in one employee. Imagine the investment for a person making 80-100 g’s over 20 years.

When you go car shopping you have your choices of prices and what you get for your dollar. Yes, a small low budget car will do the trick but don’t put it up against the Honda.

But you pay more for the Honda. And it is worth it.

Same with MLA’s.

You really do pay for what you get.

Yes, there are some decent MLA’s with Bill Estabrooks and a few others come to mind.

But Estabrooks had to take a salary cut to get into politics. He had been in education for over 20 years. Of course he was making more than the starting MLA salary? I don’t think his constituents envy what he his making.

And while he took a cut many who would want to entire public life cannot afford to.

The proposed MLA’s salary would be $87,000. Sure it’s a good wage but not extravagant.

Most MLA’s are in their 40’s or 50’s and that is peak career earning time and we expect them to simply give up this time to serve us?

Most don’t and won’t do it. It simply isn’t worth the time and there simply isn’t enough financial incentive to do so.

Since I have lived my life in the media business and have owned and managed several stations I am familiar with the pay scale.

A good morning man in a market like metro is worth 70 -100 thousand. Nothing less than 50 grand.

A good reporter (Paul Withers, Rick Grant etc) has to be in the 70-90 range. Grant has been in this business for nearly 30 years and he isn’t working (and shouldn’t be) for 40 grand.

Want to try a salary for Bruce Graham when he was at Global and Steve Murphy at ATV. Try six figures.

Graham tried a run at politics AFTER he retired from Global. He wasn’t about to give up his big salary and car and perks that he negotiated and deserved.

I don’t see Steve Murphy who is as politically astute as anyone running for office. He would have to take a monstrous pay cut to start at 40 g’s.

And yet that is what we expect.

If you want good representation, and many of us do, come to the realization that for the most part the persons you want are educated, successful and many either own their businesses or are the reason why a business is successful and solvent.

The amount of ‘work’ that one does is misconstrued.

People who make big bucks are paid for their brains not brawn.

In a typical television station editors, in my opinion, work the hardest. They are forever cutting (editing) tape, running around getting archive footage and have to perform under stress.

Yet they are the least paid in the business while the ‘anchor’ sits at his/her chair and makes much more but appears to work nowhere as hard.

Same in the field. The good camera person is lugging gear, lights, tripod and more while the reporter is apparently fixing his/her hair and looks into the camera and simply talks.

You don’t want to know the difference in salary. In short the camera person is doing a ‘mechanical function’ while the ‘talent’ is using his/her brains in ‘telling’ you the story.

Steve Murphy doesn’t get paid to ‘read the news’. He gets his money for making sure everything comes off smoothly and most of the time it does and even when there is chaos on the other side of the camera with editors, producers and people still in the edit suite rushing so Steve can deliver the story, he makes it look as if everything is running around fine.

He earns every penny he makes.

If labour were the criteria in making money then those kids working at McDonalds would be making $30 an hour and not minimum wage.

Back to the MLA salary debate.

Most people see the 35-50 year old period as their maximum earning phase and yet we expect them to just give that phase up and ‘represent us’ and take a small salary.

Think about it, before an MLA can earn a pension he/she must serve at least six years, win two elections and can’t get the pension until 55.

What assurance can anyone give you that you or your party can take back to back elections or you can win two in a row.?

Jane Purves gave up a great job (probably a huge pay cut) to get into politics and she found herself on the outside looking in following the last election. She was one of the lucky ones as her skills (managing editor) were required by the Daily News.

At times there is not much of a calling for a defeated MLA. Especially one who gave four years of his life and has little to go back to.

So if you want a ‘good candidate’ to represent you …you expect him/her to give up at least six good earning years (where they are earning a pension at their work), to give up a possible promising career and take a chance on no security.

Would you do that? But you expect ‘good’ candidates to?

I also get a good laugh when I hear the ‘unions’ complaining about the proposed MLA salary increase.

First of all most union people can be employed for the next 20 years. It’s almost like tenure but what guarantee does your MLA have in getting by one election?

Also most unions get ‘raises’ every year under their collective agreement.

When was the last time the MLA’s got a raise? So that 40 % raise may be the first in a decade and they may not get another one for another decade. That along with the trials and tribulations of the job doesn’t make it all that appealing even for the so called ‘big bucks’.

I assume we want good people?

We expect them to give up or delay their careers at the highest income earning time?

We expect them to represent us seven days a week with no guarantee of a job continuance after the next election and as in the case of a minority government that could mean an 18 month career. (Imagine leaving a law firm and expecting to get back in two years later. Especially if you are not a partner in a firm). Good luck.

There is no tenure in being an MLA unlike a university professor.

And we expect them to do that for 40-60 thousand dollars!

If that’s the case then maybe that is the reason we don’t see the John Risley’s, Ken Rowe’s, Steven Parker (CCL) and other top business people running.

It may be the reason we don’t see some good car salesmen (a good one can make 100 g’s and many are in the 70-80 range).

Maybe we should learn that we do get what we pay for and I for one would like to see more educated, business aware people who care at least try for public office.

But they have to be well paid to gamble their lives, their families and their time for us.

It’s one thing to say that money shouldn’t be an issue. Of course it is. They (MLA’s) have the same bills, trying to put their kids through college and financial problems as most of us but there role is even harder as many of these MLA’s are on the road living away from home for a good part of the year.

If someone invites you to apply for a new job I bet your first re-action is ‘how much does it pay?”

Pay the MLA’s a darn good salary so we can attract more top flight candidates and stop bitching over a few thousand dollars per person. The people we may attract may be a major factor is bringing down our 12 Billion dollar debt.