The Ultimate Camp Costs Thread

[lily]

[Edit by Administrator: I just combined about five different topics about camp costs into one giant topic. So if the conversation seems to occasionally lack a bit of "flow," or if questions come up that were brought up earlier in the topic, that's why. But at least all the different discussions are in one place. You can probably tell which topic each post originated in by the title of the post].


NGR in Alberta charges the highest camp costs I've heard of at $33/day.

Are there any other companies who charge that much?

Any ideas on how to convince the owners of NGR to lower these charges to the industry standard???

[Nate]

If you're an above average planter, you want higher camp costs.

When camp costs drop, it's not as if the company just decides to put some cash back into the planters pockets. Lowered camp costs result in one of two things (or perhaps both); worsened camp conditions or lowered tree prices.

It's a personal preference whether one wants to see worsened camp conditions in exchange for lowered camp costs, but my experience is that planters (myself included) would much rather have great cooks, great food, safer trucks, better water, and perks like propane heaters in the dry tents than save $5/day in camp costs. NGR probably has the best food across the board of any planting company that runs four or more camps, and it's not hard to figure out why. They pay their cooks higher than average wages, and their food budget I would have to guess is at least 25% higher than the norm. You cut those camp costs down and instead of strawberry and blackberry crepes with whipped cream and a smoothie for breakfast, you're getting shitty half-burnt sausages, generic eggs, generic bacon and some crusty oven-toasted bagels or toast. That leap in cook wages and food budget makes a WORLD of difference.

If the money isn't cut out of the camp, however, it's taken off of the tree prices, and THAT is bad news bears. Some companies have tried offering "no camp costs" as a hiring incentive, but this is flat-out bullshit. They're just hidden. It costs a lot of money to run camps, and the company has to pay for it somehow; they either take it out of the bid price or they charge for it. Let's look at a comparison of the two.

Take a company with a 60 person camp that plans to operate for 60 planting days, planting 6 million trees. Now let's say they figure it's going to cost $108,000 to set up the camp between wages, vehicles, equipment, supplies etc. Their choice is to either charge the planters $30 camp costs each day, or else to garnish 1.8 cents off each tree. Either way it works out that average planter is losing $30 per day to these expenses. The difference between straight camp costs and garnishing tree prices, however, is that the distribution of paying for those expenses gets skewed.

Average number of trees planted in the season = 100,00.
100,000 x 0.018 = $1800
$30 camp costs x 60 days = $1800

Let's see what happens to our good friends Highballer Harry and Lowballer Larry under the two systems:

1. Under the camp cost system, it doesn't matter what each person plants, both end up shelling out $1800 for the season.
2. Under the "hidden camp cost system", i.e. "no camp costs! hooray!" Highballer Harry plants an impressive 200,000 trees for the season, whereas Lowballer Larry, who sits around eating block treats all day, only plants 50,000 for the season. At the end of the season Harry has paid out $3600 in camp costs, whereas Larry has only paid out $900.

Which system sounds better?

The bottom line is that reduced or eliminated camp costs aren't free money; they're shuffled money. If you want to actually save money YOURSELF, the only way is to decrease the operational cost (and hence the quality) of the camp.

And, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the tax break overall is better with the camp cost system as they're tax deductible?

[Scooter]

Great post Nate. However ...

And, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the tax break overall is better with the camp cost system as they're tax deductible?

Yes, usually tax deductible. However, that's a wash. If you're not making that money either because the tree prices are lower, you're not paying taxes on the money that you don't make.

Other than that, great analysis.

[Nate]

Yeah I actually did try and search for it to save retyping that post, but I couldn't find it.

[lily]

Thanks for the responses Nate & Scooter!

[krahn]

i agree with nate, if you you make good money planting you should want slightly higher camp costs. it's the rookies that suffer a bit. with Northern, at least in the past the cooks were free to spend what they wanted and it sure showed, the food is insane. and although we pay thirties bucks a day that does not cover what they spend on us.

last season seemed a bit more restrained for good reason as companies are all in survival mode but the budget was still quite healthy and you eat incredibly well. i would rather pay fifty bucks a day in that company if i had to, rather than 25 a day for some of the others i've worked for which will remain nameless.

[jdtesluk]

Nate I totally agree with you- you're bang on - great break down!
Consider this- perhaps the contractors with higher quotients of rookies may prefer lower camp costs because it alleviates the financial burden on their new workers who are most likely to fold under the pressure. By getting the high production workers to shoulder a bit of the load, it helps carry the newbies through until they become truly productive.
For the newbies this also a good thing.

Just a thought.

[Gualbert]

It's important to remember that the camp cost system doesn't occur in other bush jobs. People are generally appalled when you tell them that you as a treeplanter have to pay for your room and board. And when companies in other aspects of forestry, oilngas, trucking, CN Rail put their employees in a hotel then pay them 35-60 dollars a day for cost of living. And alot of oilngas and logging camps people are put up in camps like PTI, Royal or Serratus at no cost to the employee. And those camps have individual rooms (with housekeeping), TV rooms, laundry, sometimes gyms, premade lunches, and gas stations.

Though I have had pesticide jobs where you have pay 25 dollars to stay in a hotel room and then deal with your own food; and then I have others where I have gotten a free hotel room with 35 dollars live out per day.

I think the cognitive dissonance on this one is pretty high. It would be better if the government just legislated that room and board would have to be provided by the treeplanting companies. This would put everybody on a even playing field and if the companies could even get their act together they would just transfer the cost of camp to an increased bid price. Though they would pretty much have to if they wanted to keep any planters.

I'm not asking for a fancy rig worker set-up but I think if I am going to travel 3000km and engage in piece-work for an employer while living in the dirt with gear that I have paid for then the very least that the employer can do is provide the sustenance that I require to preform the heavy manual labour that gives them their livelihood.

[Scooter]

Gualbert, that's a good post, but I have to disagree with your argument.

It would be better if the government just legislated that room and board would have to be provided by the treeplanting companies.

Who would it be better for? As pointed out above, it would favor the "lower 50%" or the planters who are less than average.

If tree planting as a whole was paid for "by the hour," then yes, I would absolutely agree with you. However, it's not. It's commission based - no oilfields jobs are.

Go to work in the oilfields, and you get the same amount per hour as the next "equally qualified" guy in the same position. It doesn't matter if you're harder, better, faster, or stronger. You don't get rewarded directly for your abilities and production, unless of course maybe you get a promotion and/or pay raise.

Covering meals and lodging absolutely makes sense in an hourly based environment. Everybody is paid the same. Everyone is treated the same. But the commission (production) based structure of tree planting is what enabled the industry to develop. Sure, there would have been planting if it was based on hourly wages, but it would have been an entirely different and less efficient industry.

If the "rookies" ran the industry, I'm sure this would have changed long ago. And compensation would have probably migrated to a time-based system. If camp costs are $25 per day and you're making $100, then the camp costs are 25% of your pay. A much bigger deal than if you're a vet making $250 a day, where camp costs are 10% of your pay. But we have to remember that it is the cream of the crop that run the industry - the company owners, supervisors, foremen, and the influential vets. None of them have a vested interest in changing the status quo. Get rid of camp costs, and it ultimately hurts the vets. Get rid of production-based pay, and it hurts the vets. And the vets are the ones, for the most part, who have put in their time and now expect to reap the rewards after a couple seasons of learning to plant.

This would put everybody on a even playing field and if the companies could even get their act together they would just transfer the cost of camp to an increased bid price.

I disagree. This would hurt the "better" companies, who have done things more efficiently, and in so doing, have attracted a better trained internal employee base. And as far as "getting their act together," they can't do that official because it would contravene the federal Anti-Competition Act, or whatever its current iteration is entitled. And based on the bid prices this year alone, we've seen that they can't informally work towards a common collective good.


If the industry suddenly changed (via government regulation) to eliminate camp costs, I'd be pissed, because it would hurt my best employees.

[Gualbert]

Quote:
It would be better if the government just legislated that room and board would have to be provided by the treeplanting companies.


Who would it be better for? As pointed out above, it would favor the "lower 50%" or the planters who are less than average.

Couldn't you make the same argument for other the necessities that treeplanting companies have to invest in to turn a profit: trucks, fuel, ATVs and support staff? A vet plant more trees so therefore make more money for the company and therefore 'pays' more for the company expenses then a rookie?

Look I see where people are coming from. Hell I spent 3 years defending camp costs before I just couldn't do it anymore. But the fact of the matter is that a planter should not have to worry/pay for his/her most basic human needs while making money for the employer.

And yes there would be a lot of practical issues in changing this deeply entrenched mentality.

Quote:
This would put everybody on a even playing field and if the companies could even get their act together they would just transfer the cost of camp to an increased bid price.


I disagree. This would hurt the "better" companies, who have done things more efficiently, and in so doing, have attracted a better trained internal employee base. And as far as "getting their act together," they can't do that official because it would contravene the federal Anti-Competition Act, or whatever its current iteration is entitled. And based on the bid prices this year alone, we've seen that they can't informally work towards a common collective good.

Totally agree with the "getting the act together" part that mostly wishful thinking on my part and its not going happen.

But I'm not really sure that it would hurt better companies because really its almost a level playing field now as a majority of companies have 25 camp costs. In this sense, you are just shifting the playing field to a different level. Now for hiballer vets to maintain wages then yes bid prices would have to go up. Current bid prices reflect the fact that the companies are forcing their workers to provide own food (and lodgings) as such current bid prices are too low.

But that's not really a surprise to anyone in this forum. And I'm a realist so I dont forsee any change coming. This something where you would need a strong collective voice to lobby for no camp-cost legislation in good times when employers were desperate for labour and then it would get entrenched and become difficult to dislodge. But from the current viewpoint "good times" seem increasingly hazy.

[Scooter]

Couldn't you make the same argument for other the necessities that treeplanting companies have to invest in to turn a profit: trucks, fuel, ATVs and support staff? A vet plant more trees so therefore make more money for the company and therefore 'pays' more for the company expenses then a rookie?

Yes, absolutely. That's a great point.

Unfortunately, most of the expenses are relatively non-discretionary. There isn't much choice about whether or not the company will use trucks for the summer. So we're kind of stuck with those, although it isn't the best situation.

Non-essential items, however, could become subject for argument. Let's say that a company planted 2 million trees for the year. Let's say the owner, based on popular request, buys a pool table for the camp and it costs $2000.00. Essentially, for each tree that gets planted that summer, 0.1 cents of the company's profit goes to cover the cost of the pool table. Let's also assume that if the pool table hadn't been purchased, the owner was planning to give that $2000.00 to the planters as a higher tree price. In that case, the share of money that the vets would have made would have increased more than the amount to the rookies. By sacrificing 0.1 cents per tree, the vet who planted 100,000 trees essentially "lost" $100.00 in earnings because of the pool table, whereas the rookie who planted 50,000 trees only lost $50.00.

It's an interesting system, this tree planting thing.

[Sebastian]

(good ol' necro)
Just wanted to reiterate that zero camp cost is a terrible idea. Might be flogging a dead horse here, but everyone should know.

[Gabe]

flogging a dead horse is fine, but only if you are attempting to tenderize the meat so it'll maintain its texture after boiling

[Slowsis]

The best way ever to punish fast planters, and encourage rookies to slut the cache.

[barnbill]

flogging a dead horse is fine, but only if you are attempting to tenderize the meat so it'll maintain its texture after boiling

flogging is great to tenderize pork as well

[Duncan]

(good ol' necro)
Just wanted to reiterate that zero camp cost is a terrible idea. Might be flogging a dead horse here, but everyone should know.

i dunno, i think camp costs have always been the worst idea, most industries pay their workers to work in remote locations, not pay $25 bucks a day to live in a tent, yeepeeeeeeeee
Then to boot how many companies that have it their contract that part of the 'tree price' is to help set up camp, which is work one way or another, BUT how many of them give you ei hours for that work that is in the 'tree price'
I may be flogging a dead elephant, but anyone who fails to see some of the bs in this industry but I just thought everyone should know

[steel8909]

(good ol' necro)
Just wanted to reiterate that zero camp cost is a terrible idea. Might be flogging a dead horse here, but everyone should know.

i dunno, i think camp costs have always been the worst idea, most industries pay their workers to work in remote locations, not pay $25 bucks a day to live in a tent, yeepeeeeeeeee
Then to boot how many companies that have it their contract that part of the 'tree price' is to help set up camp, which is work one way or another, BUT how many of them give you ei hours for that work that is in the 'tree price'
I may be flogging a dead elephant, but anyone who fails to see some of the bs in this industry but I just thought everyone should know

Yea I see it too, but I guess that's just how it is with this kind of work.

[Sebastian]

I feel like "that's just the way it is with this kind of work" is unacceptable in any industry in any way. If you're getting screwed over in some way, it's not acceptable.

Now, the deal with camp costs is that it actually benefits better planters to have higher camp costs. I would more than happily work in a camp with $50 camp costs, and so should any highballer on this board.

The key here is that we get payed piece-rate.

[steel8909]

Wow 50 dollars thats way too much. What more can u get out that compared to $25? Internet, trailers?

[Duncan]

The prices our clients have agreed to pay have not gone up in ten years, while our costs have.

the fact is that costs will go up, prices have not, and maybe eventually camp costs will go up, and ways to justify will NOT include better money for more than average planters, why?
there will always have to less than average planters so there will be the "We have internet!" or "Gas prices have gone up." or "Either you pay the extra hotel costs or the prices go down." Just to appease the masses.

Everyone would agree with more $$$ until they have their first down day and are out $50 rather than $25, telling people that they are worth less because they are less productive may work for some, but most of those workers will look at you like you just said they are 'worthless'
If you are treeplanter your value should NOT be determined by how many trees you can slut in, and only a small minority of above average planters (NOT talking about rookie mills) have above average quality
Argue all you want, but every highballer I've ever checked has at least several plots on a block that can fail the whole thing.

pay $25 bucks a day to live in a tent

That's a tent that you paid for, set up, and a camp you probably also set up (probably for free) and are paying for everyday, but it's become more than a higher paycheque for an above average planter since its arrival, its more of a pass the buck onto the workers....
"If we paid people to set up the camp that means less money per tree."
"If we didn't charge camp costs thats less money per tree."
other stupid ideas in the industry - "pay an extra 2 cents if you hit 3000" = motivation for stashing
all ideas based on the logic of higher paycheques for higher production

How bout an industry that values all its workers? too much to ask?

How many crews/camps/companies do better when everyone sees that the higher producing workers get blatant preferential treatment? Overall ZERO

But it's okay to hide that under the idea of "camp costs?"

No wonder the industry will never keep workers over a long period of time!

[steel8909]

... higher paycheques, if you're an "above average" planter ...

Read the thread:

http://www.replant.ca/phpBB3/viewtopic. ... st+#p76081

I see your point, but still $50! Assuming you work 5 days a week, that's $250 a week plus food and hotel costs for your off day. On top of that you're still paying rent or a mortgage back home during that time.

I guesse it's just cuz I'm a cheap bastard, I don't care if it's only a small percentage of a fat paycheck that $50 camp costs can help you get.

[Scooter]

Well, remember, there are limits. Higher is better, but only to a point. Once you reach the point where the total costs to the company are met, then you don't want it to be higher. Anything above breakeven is basically a reverse Robin Hood scenario. So let's say your cooks have a daily budget (per head) of $16 for food, plus $8 for cooks' wages, plus maybe $4 for generator fuel and propane, plus maybe $4 for equipment wear & tear and maintenance. In that case, the costs of running the "camp" (exclusive of vehicles) would be about $32 per day. You wouldn't want to see camp costs above that amount, because basically you'd be taking money OUT of slow planters' pockets (via camp costs) to put into faster planters' pockets (via tree price).

[krahn]

i'm all for getting camp costs covered, as other industries do, as long as it's the mill footing the bill. if not i would rather have a higher camp cost than none at all. and even if no camp cost didn't mean lower prices, and it's a reward for planting a certain amount as with some companies, then you're just screwing over the rookies, that's not cool.

[Sebastian]

I know there's generally broad agreement here...

But in what universe would the mill cover camp costs without that impacting tree price?!?!?

Duncan: I understand your complaint about the focus on production leading to poor quality, and I have heard it a lot. That said, the companies I've personally worked at for the last several years require adequate quality from EVERYONE regardless of daily production, and I'm sure most "good" companies operate the same way. Otherwise, you would wind up with endemic poor quality, the mills/foresters wouldn't like you, and camp morale would crumble since some planters would be getting preferential treatment. And yes, that would lead to fewer returning planters.

[Gabe]

well hypothetically speaking, were there to be a mandatory minimum level of service provided for planters in terms of camp costs. And this minimum level of service included something to the effect of mandatory trailers or motel accomodations (similar to what is provided for loggers). And this minimum level of service could only be passed along to the planters at a nominal rate - say $10/day - a price that would put a demand on the contractor to include the 'camp costs' inside of a tree price, wouldn't this assist in negating some of the downward pressure on pricing that's evident through underbidding.

In other words, if setting up a camp with actual facilities was a bar to entry for the business, it would prevent some jerkoff with a truck throwing down a massively lowballed bid on a contract and then expecting the planters to deal with the squalor in their living situation (and of course it's common knowledge that you shouldn't be working for this kind of chucklehead in the first place). A contractor would have to actually have experience with running a camp operation as well as equipment and/or cash flow sufficient to deliver on a project. A fly-by-nighter wouldn't be able to meet this kind of standard.
And in actuality, this requirement for the provision of a proper kind of remote habitat may induce upward pressure on current tree prices.

Further, if you considered such a system, it would translate to a more 'true-cost' of what it costs to actually reforest a block, as opposed to having a portion of the cost of operations (IOW the associated labour costs of lodging and board) simply passed back to the labour performing the primary service the mill needs.

To put it plainly, while I can agree with the economic arguments stated so far, at the end of the day, any camp cost subsidizes a mills operation. Of course, the mills have been hurting and are in need of assistance, so perchance camp costs are simply a necessary evil. I'd be curious to know RPF's or JDtesluk's perspective on such things.

[jdtesluk]

I think that the existing camp standards were proposed as a bar to entry just as you suggest, Gabe. The bar may not be set quite as high as some would like, but there are some basics there along with other regs (Water quality regulations) that should ensure a minimum (although it is true that some do occasionally fall below this). However, the standards were put forth to allow silviculture to continue its rather unique style of camp, and not be forced to utilize the logging style camps. The fact is that logging camp facilities are simply seldom located in the exact area that a silviculture camp is required. Silviculture contractors need the flexibility to set up camps in various locations for short periods of time- this necessitates use of temporary structures (tents) and the specialized legislation that now exists (Silviculture Contract Camp Standards).

I think it is a matter of opinion and personal experience as to whether planting camps are preferable to logging camps. If I were to speak from a contractor perspective, you can bet they would rather stay with the flexibility of the existing camp standards. It is generally easier and FAR more affordable to set up a planting (tent-based) camp than acquire the tools and resources to make a logging-style camp (see Industrial Camps Health Regulation-- which does not appy to silviculture camps). It would simply be far too expensive and difficult to set up such camps for only 2-3 months per year. It would likely result in nothing but hotel shows throughout much of the industry (as a way to avoid dealing with camp standards) equalling much longer drives and fewer productive hours on the groung. Therefore, one can expect that the industry (contractors) would never support such a move and would prefer the existing system of bush camps (making no reference to the cost issue).

Similar issues would characterize the situation if it was set up for the licensees to provide or ensure such services. It is simply very implausible that they would be willing to open up camps just to accomodate planters for a few months.

Ultimately, I do not think that altering the regulations and rules applying to camps would do much to alter the bidding practices, nor do I think that any such move is likely. I think there is one pot of money, and everything comes out of it. If somehow one were to successfully pressure the licensees to providing a minimal level of accomodation- chances are that is exactly what you would get- minimal ----and the wages being earned on the ground would likely not change. If anything, there may be even more pressure to lower bids now that camp costs are covered.

I think that bush camps are great when they're done right. They really are one of the defining features of the industry. I tend to side with Scooter's perspective when it comes to the camp cost issue though. As a faster planter and as a person lucky enough to stay in some great planting camps, I have been perfectly happy to pay a flat rate for what I have received. Whereas, I have stayed in a lot of lousy logging camps, and generally felt like a second-class citizen when staying in them (with a few exceptions).

In sum, I think the camp cost issue is one of the less critical issues that planters should be concerned with (I think EMployment Standards are far more imminently relevant). Not to dodge the issue by defaulting to pessimism, but it's not likely the regulations are going to change anytime soon, and even less likely that anyone is going to step up to foot the bill out of love and/or respect for the workers. I just don't see any gains to be made that will not result in some counter-move that will negate any gains made.

[Sebastian]

wow, could not have said it better...
Thanks JD

[Duncan]

yeah, i doubt it will ever change in planting (camp costs) especially if such ideas were shot down during the boom years, but it's just another in a long list of expenses put onto the planter, definitely many that would fit into the employment standards bill such as making rookie planters buy cache tarps, first sign you are working for the wrong people!

but as far as eliminating camp costs leading to lower bids, well maybe prices but it would make some companies think long and hard about their bid as they would have to add in more $$$ each bid to compensate for the lost revenue, after about a couple years the real idiots and speculators may be out of the biz.

Screw it, should just ban camp costs, see what happens, couldn't hurt the industry anymore than its hurtin' right now

[jdtesluk]

It does seem that this thread belongs elsewhere, as it really has flowed beyond a discussion of Wilderness.

Nonetheless. The issue of "who pays" for camp costs is not (likely) to be changed by either employers or licensees out of concern for the workers. I do not suggest that neither party cares about the workers (particularly the employers, most of whom do value their employees and wish them well). However, neither influential party sees camp costs as an issue, and is unlikely (read Michael Jackson makes a comeback- unlikely) to move forward on changing the current status quo.

The only way it becomes an issue is if the workers make it one. Now, even if the workers did express themselves through a viable representative voice or body, it is clear that they would not be able to reach a consensus on this issue. It is important of course that a worker voice/body accurately represents the will of its consituents. However, on this issue it seems almost split down the middle. Furthermore, the operating rules of any union or similiar structure would likely require a better than 50% resolution to make an important decision regarding financial matters.

Therefore, all of this discussion is really about personal ideals, shoulds, and woulds. I think the will's, likely's, and is's are unlikely to shift based on these realities and the split opinion expressed in this thread.

Now would someone please check the pulse on that horse?

[dirt rich]

Here's my 22, just stand back: Well I think someone mentioned a definite PRO to the camp costs is motivation to anyone who might be apt to slack, as I'm sure we've all been acquinted with the Phenomenon. Based on my particular position, I'm all for camp costs, since one cent off my day would invarialbly decrease my day's wage by at least 1.5 of the camp cost, and two cents off the tree price would be unthinkably out of balance with with losing the camp costs. Go ahead, call me greedy, but who really WANTS to make an 'average' day?

[Slowsis]

I actually worked my first two seasons in a unionized camp for Brinkman in Ontario. Part of the union deal was that we had reduced camp cost (10$ as opposed to the 24$ brinkman ontario standard) and the logging company footed part of the bill. This of course is by far an exception, but I just wanted to highlight the fact that it does exist.

Even still, the logging company has a set budget for reforestation, and if that 14$/per day/per planter was put back into the tree price, I would have been able to walk way with a higher precentage of it (18-20$ instead of 14$).

[Gabe]

Fair enough points JD, and I do fully agree with you that Camp Costs are perhaps one of the less critical issues. Fully agreed that the concerns of who is paying what in terms of microeconomics of different planter productions vs. what their fair pay of camp services are fairly inconsequential and ultimately a matter of personal preference (though young planters should be cognizant of the 'rules of the game'). Personally, I hardly consider camp costs when I'm looking at a contract, and I've known many a planter who end up spending more money on pot, booze, and cigarettes than their total season cost of camp costs.

But in light of the Powell River Meltdown thread I am of the mind that there is the potential for utilizing the traditional camp costs as an economic factor in bid pricing. The situation described in the thread is more or less the exact economic scenario that I described earlier. In effect the "race for the bottom" fosters an economic environment where a company can 'allegedly' exploit the lack of knowledge of inexperienced silviculture employees and/or immigrants who are ignorant of their rights and the forestry mill can more or less wash their hands of any liability.

Of course, I concede the point that many contractors would be reluctant, and yes, drives may be a bit longer, but to follow the story of that thread where one startup company went into a contract and completely lowballed the bid beyond any reasonable expectation, you have to wonder whether the contractor cares more about it's bottom line and will be expensing experience and safe practice in favour of profit margin.

[50centtree]

I read somewhere on the forum that its illegal to charge more then 25 dollars a day for camp costs. If this is true are there any exceptions? I was going over one of my pay stubs and I had some camp costs that were around 27 a day, so i thought I would ask around.

thanks

[somesilviguy]

The $25 per day limit is for B.C.

[The Gardener]

I think that what you are seeing on your paystub is the $25 camp cost with the GST added to it!
Would add up to around $27 or so.

[Scooter]

Both are possibilities.

My current company charges $25 in BC, $27 in Alberta, because the food costs are much higher in Alberta.

[steel8909]

If someone quits in the middle of the season, is it legal to jack up their camp costs by an extra $12 for everyday they stayed?

[jdtesluk]

If someone quits in the middle of the season, is it legal to jack up their camp costs by an extra $12 for everyday they stayed?

Not in BC

[Scooter]

Who would do that? That's ridiculous.

[jayBOT]

If someone quits in the middle of the season, is it legal to jack up their camp costs by an extra $12 for everyday they stayed?

I think it may depend on whats in your contract. If you sign up for it, it may be legal.

I'm fuzzy on the details but I'm pretty sure there is a stipulation in the some Ontario/Alberta contracts that states the company reserves the right to charge you a full 30$ a day for the time you were there if you breach the contract. e.g. You get fired for stashing/over claiming or quit before the end of the contract. However, I have never even heard of it being executed for quitting early, for any reason. Rookies that don't take to planting and vets that bail from bad contracts (to my knowledge and I have seen lots of both) are not punished. That would not work out for anyone in the long run.

I'm pretty sure it has been used for the stashing/over claim situation, but I don't mind the thought of people burying trees that I could be planting receiving an extra punishment (on top of being paid min wage for the entire contract).

Who would do that? That's retarded.

I'm guessing its there to prevent a mass exodus? But for that to ever occur I think the plant probably would have some much bigger problems. Maybe to encourage (enforce?) commitment... but like a said I have while I have never seen it used, I think it can be there.

[steel8909]

^ it was in the contract, Ontario. We asked why and the answer was that food will go to waste or something, which is again retarded. Real greasy if you ask me.

[jayBOT]

^ it was in the contract, Ontario. We asked why and the answer was that food will go to waste or something, which is again retarded. Real greasy if you ask me.

Yeah, I don't buy that. Cooks get regular food deliveries/opportunities to shop and budget for the number of people that are actually there. So at worst they would waste one severing/meal for a shift. I imagine its the reason I gave above and to give termination (firing someone for a valid reason eg. stashing) some real consequence. Whats greasy is trying to hide it. I can understand the desire for some extra security maintaining a work force but the best way to do that is of course to run a good plant.

Personally I have signed a lot of contracts with the stipulation and my planters right now sign the same one (I think... I'll make sure to give it a read through now). I have never been overly concerned and my planters don't need to be concerned about quitting either. Of course it's up to me and management of the camp to insure they have no desire to do so.

So yeah... Maybe they clause shouldn't be there? Exercising it on honest quitters would likely just alienate current and future planters.

[Scooter]

I definitely agree with Jay. Food wastage is almost a non-issue. I say "almost" because in my own camp, if someone misses a meal, I don't let them get away with no camp costs, unless they have a valid reason AND notify the cooks 24 hours in advance. So for example, if someone's parents are swinging through town and want to take their son/daughter out to dinner in town, and the cook knows the night before, then sure, they won't get charged camp costs. But if someone stops in town on the way home from the block (if they're driving through town) and stops at A&W and doesn't feel like eating when they get to camp, they still pay camp costs because the cooks went to the effort of making their meal. That takes care of thaw times on frozen goods, so the cooks can't complain, but for the planter's benefit, if they leave, the worst they get nailed with is the camp costs for the day they left.

[jdtesluk]

No real mystery here. The only plausible reason one would jack the camp costs up for quitting early is to pressure workers into staying during conditions that may otherwise cause them to quit. It's kind of like the old "bonus" system (where bonus is really two words). If you see such a retention system in place, it's often (although not always) a good signal to stay away. Some companies had such systems in the past when work was plentiful and people quit for the lamest reasons (ooooh, no Shreddies!? Waaa I quit), but later dropped the retention mechanisms when the market shifted and they realized that people would simply stick around so long at the conditions were reasonably decent.

[Scooter]

Has anyone here ever tracked their food costs for feeding themselves over the course of a full coastal season? I'd be curious to see what kind of daily average people spend to eat healthy. I'm doing the same right now, not skimping on anything, but staying completely away from restaurant meals and frivolous foods. But at the same time, not skimping either, ie. not a kraft dinner diet.

[SwampDonkey]

I found food prices out there were the same as back east here. And actually NB is the highest in the country according to recent surveys. When you have to truck bread and dairy (not milk) from Ontario and Quebec you can see why. About all our food processing has been bought up by "upper Canada" syndicates.

[salbrecher]

I would be interested to know what your average works out to. I used to avoid thinking about how much I spent on food and justified it by thinking I was making a lot of money and needed to eat well to feed the engine. It definitely brings the old average down when factoring in the high cost of eating while planting. Before I bought a van and carried all the condiments, etc etc from contract to contract I used to buy salt and pepper, sauces at each motel causing a huge up front cost for the first shop. It was only after moving away from planting and working jobs where food was paid that I realized how much I could save. Last year I worked for a forestry engineering company out of Vancouver where all food was paid for while on shifts (which was most of the time). This probably saved me about $400-500+ a month and I was eating better than I do at home. Fancy yogurts, good meats, steaks, dinner at restaurants if we didn't want to cook. It certainly made me realize that there is more to an income than the $/hr that you make.

[Scooter]

So true. And for all the complaints about having to pay camp costs that I used to hear (which have, by the way, subsided drastically in the past three or four years), it's quite impressive to see how well we eat in camp for that amount per day.

I'll post a summary of my own expenses in mid-April.

[mcD]

I spend on average around $20 per day on food while working in a motel. I could probably bring this down to around $15 per day if I really wanted to. but I would rather not. Often eating better is a bit cheaper because you actually have to cook or bake instead of eating packaged crap. When at my best I try to make a Large Lasagna, pasta Sauce or Curry on the night before day 1 of a shift so I have a few meals preparred ahead.

[salbrecher]

How much do you budget for beer Scooter ;). My first year I didn't really drink except for a beer or two on night off. Some seasons or contracts I would have 2-4 beers a night. Adds up fast!