Topaz Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 The DFO is cutting 275 jobs from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I also saw on TV news that they are transferring one service in St John's NFDL. to Halifax NS but I think it has something to do with the coast guard but not sure. BTW, with the 275 jobs gone it will take estimate 500,000.00 out of the EI, which I'm sure is going to get well used due to the future lay-offs or job losses. So how will the EI be maintained when money is coming out than going in, another rise in EI premiums? http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1247403.html Quote
CPCFTW Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 The DFO is cutting 275 jobs from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I also saw on TV news that they are transferring one service in St John's NFDL. to Halifax NS but I think it has something to do with the coast guard but not sure. BTW, with the 275 jobs gone it will take estimate 500,000.00 out of the EI, which I'm sure is going to get well used due to the future lay-offs or job losses. So how will the EI be maintained when money is coming out than going in, another rise in EI premiums? http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1247403.html Did you even read the article? "The department, which reported 11,030 employees in its 2009-10 annual report, ought to be able to handle the cuts — 2.5 per cent of its payroll — through attrition, which is expected to be four to six per cent annually until 2013-14, when most of the savings are projected to be realized." Fucking drama queen. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 Did you even read the article? "The department, which reported 11,030 employees in its 2009-10 annual report, ought to be able to handle the cuts — 2.5 per cent of its payroll — through attrition, which is expected to be four to six per cent annually until 2013-14, when most of the savings are projected to be realized." drama queen. Interesting.....attrition is twice as much as what they have to cut.....so presumably, they'll still have to replace some of those workers. That means they'll save even more because it's cheaper to hire a new young person than it is to maintain an older person who is likely at the top of their pay grade. These minor reductions would be a piece of cake if the media didn't need to sensationalize each and every adjustment. Just look at the headline of the article. It could just as easily have read "Projected fisheries cuts easily handled through Attrition"......but that doesn't sell papers - or would it? Quote Back to Basics
mikedavid00 Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 The DFO is cutting 275 jobs from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. YES!!! VICTORY!! FINALLY IT'S HAPPENED IN CANADA!!! YES YES YES I'M SO HAPPY!!! IT'S A SMALL START, KEEP IT COMING!!! THEY DO ***NOTHING ALL DAY*** AT THAT DEPARTMENT. GET RID OF EM ALL!!! Quote ---- Charles Anthony banned me for 30 days on April 28 for 'obnoxious libel' when I suggested Jack Layton took part in illegal activities in a message parlor. Claiming a politician took part in illegal activity is not rightful cause for banning and is what is discussed here almost daily in one capacity or another. This was really a brownshirt style censorship from a moderator on mapleleafweb http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1oGB-BKdZg---
Saipan Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 The DFO is cutting 275 jobs from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I also saw on TV news that they are transferring one service in St John's NFDL. to Halifax NS but I think it has something to do with the coast guard but not sure. BTW, with the 275 jobs gone it will take estimate 500,000.00 out of the EI, which I'm sure is going to get well used due to the future lay-offs or job losses. So how will the EI be maintained when money is coming out than going in, another rise in EI premiums? http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1247403.html Good time to cut government bureucracy. EI is much less than overpaid deadwood. Quote
fellowtraveller Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 They could whack about 40% of the DIAND staff and nobody at all would notice except the families of those whacked. Same at Health Canada Quote The government should do something.
Smallc Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 Given what Health Canada does (drug approvals and regulation) we might just notice that one. Quote
Topaz Posted June 8, 2011 Author Report Posted June 8, 2011 Did you even read the article? "The department, which reported 11,030 employees in its 2009-10 annual report, ought to be able to handle the cuts — 2.5 per cent of its payroll — through attrition, which is expected to be four to six per cent annually until 2013-14, when most of the savings are projected to be realized." Fucking drama queen. Is this forum going to allow that word to be used?? Drama Queen? How would you like to be one of the Canadians that going to have their jobs gone? The Tories have to cut because THEY overspend taxpayers tax dollars! Speaking of using tax dollars I wonder how most Canadians would feel once they heard about Harper spending tax dollars to take his daughter and who ever else, to Boston to watch the hockey game tonight? Since when did the PM think he could use the government plane to travel for personal use? Added cost for jet fuel and security. We'll just see how much is through attrition as the Tories now new word when explaining their cuts. Advice, don't use the F-word again or I'll report u! Quote
CPCFTW Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 Is this forum going to allow that word to be used?? Drama Queen? How would you like to be one of the Canadians that going to have their jobs gone? The Tories have to cut because THEY overspend taxpayers tax dollars! Speaking of using tax dollars I wonder how most Canadians would feel once they heard about Harper spending tax dollars to take his daughter and who ever else, to Boston to watch the hockey game tonight? Since when did the PM think he could use the government plane to travel for personal use? Added cost for jet fuel and security. We'll just see how much is through attrition as the Tories now new word when explaining their cuts. Advice, don't use the F-word again or I'll report u! You mad that you got called out for your trolling on the very first post? Advice, stop editorializing news stories with your sensationalist BS and maybe people won't call you a drama queen. Quote
Topaz Posted June 8, 2011 Author Report Posted June 8, 2011 You mad that you got called out for your trolling on the very first post? Advice, stop editorializing news stories with your sensationalist BS and maybe people won't call you a drama queen. I don't care about the drama queen bit but watch the swearing, there's no reason to use it here. As far as my views, its my views, if u don't like them, that your problem. IF I see wrong I was wrong, then I 'll correct until then..... Quote
Michael Hardner Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 I don't care about the drama queen bit but watch the swearing, there's no reason to use it here. As far as my views, its my views, if u don't like them, that your problem. IF I see wrong I was wrong, then I 'll correct until then..... I agree - it's an insult. Not good. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
scouterjim Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 Why not start with the Senate? We can rid ourselves of those drones, and save millions. Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
CPCFTW Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) I don't care about the drama queen bit but watch the swearing, there's no reason to use it here. As far as my views, its my views, if u don't like them, that your problem. IF I see wrong I was wrong, then I 'll correct until then..... No one's losing their jobs.. People are retiring on sweet pensions and not being replaced. It says so in like the first paragraph of your article. Makes your ei comments completely misleading and disingenious. Sorry for swearing. Edited June 8, 2011 by CPCFTW Quote
Saipan Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 Is this forum going to allow that word to be used?? TV does. How would you like to be one of the Canadians that going to have their jobs gone? I was. So I went fishing, scuba, and sailing at 57. I call it early retirement Advice, don't use the F-word again or I'll report u! Phuck u. Quote
RNG Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 Phuck u. My spellchecker doesn't accept that word. What does it mean? Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
August1991 Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) How would you like to be one of the Canadians that going to have their jobs gone?Topaz, how would you like to be someone laid off because taxes are too high to pay for the job of the person that the government had hired?There's no free lunch and it's foolish to believe that there is. For every government employee, there are people across Canada who have given up money to pay the salary. Federal government employees do well. They receive $60,000 a year for 20 years of service and then get a lifetime pension with survivor benefits. Topaz, even you would agree that if we're going to tax the fat cats, surely we should help the downtrodden first - and not more government employees/bureaucrats. ---- As to the question of language, I agree with you Topaz. You were right to object. Edited June 9, 2011 by August1991 Quote
mikedavid00 Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 How would you like to be one of the Canadians that going to have their jobs gone? WHAT DO YOU THINK WE GO THROUGH IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR EVERY DAY??? THIS IS A WAY OF WORK LIFE FOR US! Quote ---- Charles Anthony banned me for 30 days on April 28 for 'obnoxious libel' when I suggested Jack Layton took part in illegal activities in a message parlor. Claiming a politician took part in illegal activity is not rightful cause for banning and is what is discussed here almost daily in one capacity or another. This was really a brownshirt style censorship from a moderator on mapleleafweb http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1oGB-BKdZg---
Shwa Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) Did you even read the article? "The department, which reported 11,030 employees in its 2009-10 annual report, ought to be able to handle the cuts 2.5 per cent of its payroll through attrition, which is expected to be four to six per cent annually until 2013-14, when most of the savings are projected to be realized." XXXXXX drama queen. Attrition will likely be the first line of cuts. With an aging work force and the rise of service automation, attrition makes perfect sense. There are two problems to this: for one, the automated functions of the government are not quite there yet. This came up with the controversy of web services not meeting the accessibility requirements or key government departments being hacked; the second thing is that not all people want to retire and it is tough to force them. I wouldn't be surprised to see the federal government start to offer early retirement packages like they did back in the day. Edited June 9, 2011 by Shwa Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.