The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Ea APTAT: | the radio. it, like there is no tomorrow. Garbage will keep piling up The poor turnout at the Household Hazardous Waste Drop Off this past Saturday may indicate that people in this area haven't quite grasped the problem they are going to have with their garbage. The North Simcoe Waste Management Association paid a hefty sum (somewhere near $24,000) to hold the drop off. They paid a company from St. Catherines that deals primarily in hazardous wastes to send 12 of its employees to the Beamish gravel pit in Midland for a day to collect toxic waste. The employees of Tricil Ltd. spent much of the day standing and waiting for people to bring in the waste that, for one reason or another, should not be dumped in a landfill site. Oh, a few people came and for those people, our hats are off. At least some in this area are alert to the garbage problem. People around here do hear a lot about the 'garbage problem."' Every week they read about it in the paper and hear about it on But most of us continue to toss away the stuff, bags and bags of Well, there is a tomorrow and once people start to realize that they may be spending their tomorrows piled high in waste, which can't be disposed of anywhere, only then will they move into action. Right now it's estimated less than 30 per cent of households in town participate in garbage recycling. If that figure doesn't go up to 80 or 90 real soon, we're in trouble. Ball players Dear Editor: This is written for some of the Slow Pitch ball players who have played at McGuire Park since this season began. We have lived in our home 13 years and never had to put up with such poor sport- smen before this year. Certain teams have no respect for our homes, vehicles, children or bikers on Fox St. We have put up with very distasteful language, insults and threats and we are fed up. We have been keeping the balls found in our yards and therefore are putting up with much rudeness. Our intentions are, if they lose enough balls they would help us have the proper fencing installed but when told why we kept the balls they only laughed. They seem to get a big kick out of trying to hit our cars parked in our driveways or the windows on our homes. They have no respect for the properties or vehicles on Fox St. We have asked Ron Marchildon, Recrea- tional Director and Bill Puddicomb, Presi- dent of Slow Pitch of Penetang to help us Walk-a-thon Dear Editor: The organizers of the V.O.1.C.E. walk-a- thon would like to thank everyone who took part in the June 14 event. The walk-a-thon was a big success. We would also like to remind everyone to honour their pledges as soon as possible. Contact Judy or Susie. Sincerely, V.O.1.C.E. 'rude' have a higher and longer fence installed but we're told the expense is too great. Trying to protect our cars, home, children and property is the price we must pay when these so-called men take to the fields. I am hoping that with this article the reacreation committee will see fit to install the proper fencing as we must put with this until at least September. We are not trying to end Slow Pitch baseball in any way but if something is not done soon, it may be a last resort. I am a concerned homeowner and parent on Fox St. Marie Lafreniere ¢ . MEAD Camp well-covered Dear Editor: On behalf of MEAD (Music, Entertain- ment, Arts and Drama) Enterprises, I would like to thank you for your excellent coverage of both the opening of "Summer Fantasy Camp"', and the change of it's location. My compliments to your staff and your paper. We at MEAD Enterprises would also like to compliment you on your enthusiastic ap- proach to new local developments, especial- ly those pertaining to the arts. Yours very truly John Leffler Co-owner, MEAD Enterprises r=. "MPP-Repor by Al MeEean Pay equity bill is indecisive and premature The Progressive Conservative Party in On- tario has long supported the principle of pay equity (equal pay for work of equal value) and has long advocated the achievement. of greater equality for the women of this province. However, the Liberal government has been indecisive and premature in its handling of pay equity. This calls into question the government's capacity to deal with the pro- blems Ontario's employers will face when they are compelled to implement Bill 154. First, some background on the pay equity issue. It goes beyond just equalizing pay for the same work. Pay equity includes compar- ing jobs that are not similar and determining wages on the basis of the value of the work performed. Since 1951, Ontario has had a law requiring employers to pay the same wages to men and women who are performing the same work (the Employment Standards Act currently provides for equal pay for equal work). This province approved Convention 100 of the International Labour Organization deal- ing with the principle of equal pay for work of equal value in 1972. A 1983 Liberal resolu- tion addressing the principle of pay equity was unanimously supported by the Ontario Legislature and since that time, my party has favoured a staged approach to pay equity. That same year, the former Progressive Con- servative government introduced Bill 141 to broaden the equal pay for work of equal value provisions of the Employment Standards Act by requiring equal pay for substantially the same kind of work. My party maintained that, through amend- -Penetanguishene Citizen-- Published by Bayweb Limited every Tuesday at 74 Main Street, Penetanguishene, Ontario Second Class Mail Registration Number 2327 Year subscription rate $39.00 Page 6, Tuesday, June 23, 1987 ments to the Employment Standards Act, the wage gap in this province would begin to close. But the Liberals and. New Democrats refused to support Bill 141 on the grounds that it did not go far enough and the bill died on the order paper. My party's Throne Speech of June 4, 1985 contained a commit- ment to implement pay equity in the Ontario public service, crown corporations and the broader public sector. The proposal also in- cluded the creation of a commission to con- sider future applications in the private sector. The accord that brought the Liberals to power two years ago promised legislated pay equity for the public and private sectors in Ontario to be implemented during the first session. The Minister of Labour introduced Bill 105 (the Public Service Pay Equity Act) on February 11, 1986. That bill provided for pay equity in the narrow civil service and was supported by the Progressive Conser- vatives and New Democrats with substantial changes including extending coverage to the entire public sector. But the committee pro- cess stalled on the issue of wider scope and Bill 105 did not proceed any further. My party's amendments to Bill 105: -- widened the scope of the bill to include the broader public sector including municipalities, school boards, colleges, universities and hospitals; -- removed gender predominence cutoffs so that jobs would be compared on the basis of content, rather than the sex of the incumbent; -- contained provisions for penalties for noncompliance and made any adjustments retroactive to the date the bill was introduced; 549-2012 Publisher: Andrew Markle Manager: Judy French Editor: David Wright Reporter: Murray Moore Sports: Arnold Burgher -- were specific to public sector conditions and reflected the position on pay equity taken in my party's last Throne Speech. The Liberal government then introduced Bill 154:0n November 24, 1986 to provide equal pay for the broader public and private sectors. That bill required employers to undertake comparisons between predominantly female job categories and make pay adjustments for female job categories if the work is of equal or similar value. The bill set out a proactive period for public sector and large private sector employers and a complaints-based period for small private sector employers. It exempted firms with fewer than 10 employees with its application phased in over six years beginn- ing with the public sector (small businesses are the last to be covered by the bill). My party tabled a number of amendments aimed at simplifying the bill, streamlining the administrative process and providing greater protection for employers. Our amendments: -- would have covered the Ontario civil service; : -- had the Crown responsible for up to 100 per cent of the costs incurred for the im- plementation of pay equity in the public sector; ig -- would limit pay equity comparisons to job classes having five or more incumbents; -- placed an exemption on the construction and other industries involved in province- wide wage negotiations; -- would have the bill administered by the Ministry of Labour's Employment Standards Branch; -- provide employers and employees with access to the courts because decisions by the Employment Standards Branch would not be final; and -- offer employers compensation for costs incurred in the case of frivolous or vexatious complaints. But none of my party's amendments which would have brought about these im- provemenis to Bill 154 were supported by the New Democrats or Liberals. Established Progressive Conservative policy has been that pay equity requires a staged process beginning with the public sec- tor in Ontario. It must have a period of im- plementation in the public sector before mov- ing to the private sector so that the impact on this province's economy and labour force can be assessed. The government's pay equity legislation ad- dresses only a portion of the overall wage gap: the implementation of pay equity policies must be carried out in concert with other measures which deal with causes of gender inequality in the workplace. Specifically, these include improvements in childcare, skills development, training and retraining initiatives and employment equi- @ ty. A co-ordinated policy in those areas has ™ not been developed due to the government's exclusive focus on pay equity. The government's management of the pay equity issue has disrupted the pattern necessary to the orderly implementation of policy and public acceptance. My party plans to resubmit our amend- ments to Bill 154 again in the hopes that the government will accept all or some of them to protect the business community in Ontario. --Eetters- : Member : ----) "CNA Member The Penetanguishene Citizen welcomes Letters to the Editor. They must be legible. signed (by hand), and carry the writer's address and telephone number for verification. Pen names are not allow- ed and 'anonymous letters will not be published. Letters published by this newspaper de not necessarily reflect the opinion of this newspaper, its publisher or editor.