401commuter

Interestingly enough, in Ontario where a strike is legal, and has happened, those areas are doing their best to get binding arbitration, in the hopes that an arbitrator will give them what City Councils won't. And they are probably right in that assumption, given the history of Fire and Police awards. There is obviously the moral factor of public safety organizations not withdrawing services involved as well, and individual medics who don't want to leave their friends and family unprotected. (not to mention that a 2 week strike will chew up a 4% pay increase) As they say, "intelligent people can legitimately disagree".

Thanks squint for the welcome. I read fairly regularly, but don't post alot. This situation caught my eye since Ontario had quite an upheaval not so long ago. Pros of municipal control is responsiveness as you pointed out. Cons are non-responsiveness, due to apathy, affordability etc. With the province regulating and funding 50%, it provides a kind of checque and balance (pun intended) You are correct about ALS capture, and it perfectly illustrates the point. It is not mandatory, and is provided at the discretion of the municipal council. It is all a question of tolerance by a) the patient and the taxpayer. When either one cries uncle, something happens. People will pay for what they want to pay for.

Read the handbook through (albeit quickly). The governance model does not sound too much different than what we have here in Ontario. What is different is the delivery options, which was just about what we used to have. private, publicly funded, providers and hospital providers for the most part. Now it is governed and dispatched by the province, and delivered by the municipalities, which is pretty good for all. Municipalities are as responsible as any employer, and perhaps more secure than private operators. As well, since most are "upper tier", or regional, they do not have direct responsibility for fire, which keeps the "fire-medic" debate to a minimum. wages are good, and pretty consistent. The provincial group is part of the ministry of health, which keeps us plugged into the hospitals et al on the health side. I think you would just want to keep an eye on the big red machine out there, in case municipal bidders intend to stuff EMS under fire (cause the chief says it makes sense to him) Anyway, good luck, we'll be watching with interest.

So you aren't offended? Sounds like you are. It is possible that I misinterpreted your intent, but there is a difference in trying to prove something and researching something. Of course there must be a hypothesis, but that is not what I read in your post. What I read was an unsupported opinion. As far as taking a side goes, that was exactly my point in pointing out the narrowness of the exercise. Better for who? The patient? The overall healthcare system? Paramedics? Paramedics as employees? Paramedics as health care providers? The taxpayer? Municipal organizations? Provincial employers? Better for one, may be detrimental to another. I'm not sure why you you would (almost) be offended, my intent was to elicit a discussion on aspects of EMS that exist in this country, to point out that different systems have advantages and disadvantages that are mutually exclusive of one another and see if you had given consideration to reconciling such issues. Ontario of course does not fit either mold, as the municipalities deliver the service under provincial regulations, with the province for the most part controlling deployment and call prioritisation through their own dispatch centres. There are advantages to this model as well, depending on what perspective is used. It reminds me of the story of the three blind men describing an elephant after touching it. What do you hope to accomplish? Do you want to foster change? Or is it simply an academic exercise, in which case I'll leave you to it.

Interesting thesis, If you start out with a bias towards one system or another, why would anyone put any stock in your conclusion? Any "results" you might espouse have already been tainted. It is imperative that system comparators and relative benefits be examined constantly, regardless of the industry. That is how organizations grow and improve. It is equally imperative that all members of an organization be involved and have an opportunity for input. These groups of individuals, from the political end, from the management ranks, to comm officers, to paramedics are tasked with providing the best service to the patient, in whatever environment they find themselves in. All have different roles, but are, theoretically at least, working toward the same goal. For a "research" paper to arrive at a conclusion as to what is "best" (although you have already made up your mind) involves thorough, objective and broad information gathering, and a solid, inclusive assessment of that information. Consider....... Municipal systems have advantages in responsiveness to the community that provincial systems do not. Provincial systems have economies of scale and an ability to standardize equipment and performance that municipal systems do not. Provincial labor issues have a generic flavor that does not generally account for local practices or conditions. Municipal labor issues lack a recognition of what are generally provincial credentials. The point is that "better" is a nebulous concept, which cannot be categorically established by the narrow, biased focus of your thesis.

well, they may not have the positions yet. they went to their committee meeting, and the new positions were approved for 2008. it still has to go to council, but if it passes there, they'll likely hire in the spring.

Ottawa just got 38 new staff spots.