Peter F

and thats ok with me. Frankly I think the system thats running right now is just dandy. So what would you like written down that keep things just the way they are?

Exactly.

So? Whats stopping such a party riding association to abandon this draconian liberal leadership and still running their preferred candidate for parliament?

Im puzzled about what Keepitsimple thinks a party - any party - is for?

and certainly not surrender to them

Putting what down on paper? The common sense rules? Thats the brilliance of it! There is nothing to write down.

Thats not true. Anyone no matter thier opinions can join the liberal party just like anyone can join the Conservative party. No difference whatsoever.

Hah. We already have commonsense rules - right now.

A very good point: Aim Higher. It's almost like some law is being violated when uneducated low-lifes get paid a good wage. Its just WRONG!

What part of "I hate that f****er" eluded your grasp? I'm pretty sure your just fine with nasty bastards as long as your political views align. So save the holier-than-thou shit for someone who cares. Hint: I don't really give a shit about you or trudeau or harper. I aint voting for anyone of them - even though I agree with how they handle the abortion so-called issue.

Why? You think the Ruski's will send their bomber fleet vs the USofA instead of their ICBM's? Very tricky...who da thunk they'd pull a sneak attack with bombers?

No kidding, you actually saw that somewhere? Wow. The response is something I agree wholeheartedly with and when Harper gives the same response I will say "I hate that F****er, but I like what he said". Unbeleivable but True!

yes. So? whats odd unusual about that?

See? There are limits to what government allows all-powerful union folks.

But its not limitless. Its limited by taxes collected which is a finite amount. and budgets are allocated based on that finite amount of taxes. Treasury board is allocated X amount of dollars to pay wages/benefits. Government negotiators are given their 'envelopes', as they call them, within which they must negotiate a contract. As long as they remain within the envelope then they can talk. As soon as the talks start leading them out of the envelope then the answers are flat out - no discussion - off the table - No. Negotiators enter contract talks knowing very well what their limitations are. I've been there, I've seen it. If it was like you say then I'd be a very rich man today - but I'm not.

ok so the government negotiator shouldn't do any negotiations because they have no dog-in-the-hunt. Who should negotiate then?

and another Thumbs up on that!

I don't believe thats true. The negotiators on the government side do not get to decide whether a particular contract proposal is acceptable or not. Like Unions the negotiator must return to his principals to see if they approve the proposed contract. This happens in the private sector also.

So there was consequence to the quality of work. Otherwise you 'opportunity' vanishes.

Lord Jeebus here we go again. Every single Civil Service job - every one - no exception - could and actually can be contracted out. Every single one. How would I trim it down dramatically? How dramatic do you want it trimmed. Sack the lot of them is one way. Would that be a good enough answer? Canada is not Australia. There is no need in this country to put everybody on a 3 year renewable contract. For some reason you think that Federal government employee's in Canada are on some sort of Life-time contract to the government. Federal Employees only have a Terms of Employment contract. Here's a big not-so-secret secret: Federal Public Servants can have their employment ended immediately at the snap of a finger. There is no contract saying FPServants must be employed for X duration. They can be sacked/laid off at the drop of a ministerial hat.....Holy moly! Just like every other non contract employee! Canada thus has no need to enter into a 3 year contract with employees. In fact the Treasury Board would lose their elfin minds at the mere proposal.

ah my mistake. I have edited the subject post to be clear on what I meant. Actually what would save the taxpayers a fortune every year is to eliminate government entirely.

Bullshit. What's your complaints about civil servants? Your complaints are: They get paid better; They have better benefits, You want to see an end to those better conditions. You believe they should get what everyone else gets. Which is what? Unpaid sick leave; Less vacation time; Lousier working conditions; Lousy managers; Less pay - more work; and most of all NO UNION.

After all that I still cannot understand why you think its actually good for better off workers to be brought low.

At present there is no short term disability, only long term available after 13 weeks off work. "Your benefits begin after an 'elimination period' of 13 continuous weeks of disability, or upon the expiration of your paid sick leave, whichever is later." (see http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hr-rh/bp-rasp/benefits-avantages/dip-rai/dis-eng.asp) regarding wether the benefit is taxable: "If you qualify for benefits under the Plan, the amount you receive will be subject to income tax. At the end of each year, the Insurer will send you a form indicating the total amount of benefits paid to you during that particular year." (same link as above) Perhaps you are thinking of the premiums paid that can be deducted as explained further on in the same document: " If you become eligible for benefits, the total amount of the premiums you have paid from the time you became a member of the Plan may be deducted for tax purposes from the amount of the disability income you received from the Plan. If the total amount of premiums you have paid under the Plan exceeds the benefits you receive during the first taxation year in which your benefits begin, you can carry over the excess amount to the following year." But, yes, in the example I gave I suppose the premiums he paid may exceed benefits received for, what? a months worth? So yes I suppose its no cut at all in that specific case. ETA: To clarify: the above paragraph would be true under the present system. Under the proposed system where the employee would be put on disability at 2-3 weeks off work, his paid premiums will probably not exceed benefits received and so the most part of the benefits would be taxable.

Sure you can take an extended vacation prior to retirement....you just gotta find a doctor in whose opinion you shouldn't be returning to work for a few months and that doctors opinion has got to be able to stand up to the scrutiny of another Health Canada doctor and, in practice, the scrutiny of another doctor appointed by Health Canada to review the first doctors opinion. Easy Peasy.