Bob Rae Is Back

[August1991]

First, I don't think the ad is that good. Second, I have no problem with third-party advertising.

Edited January 18, 2012 by August1991

[fellowtraveller]

Personally, I'd love to see Rae run as Liberal leader against Harper in an election. He has so much baggage that 34 seats might look like the good old days.

But before that, Bobby will have to pick a point to resign as interim leader. He has been evading the media in their relentless questions about his leadership aspirations. At the same time, he has taken a solemn oath not to run as leader while in the interim job. His only way out is to quit as interim.

[cybercoma]

Do we need to repost all the stuff that Harper did and/or said he would do in the 90s? I'm not going to bother because all the Conservative fanboys have already said that was a long time ago so it doesn't matter.

[waldo]

huh! The OP video is a "message" from the National Citizens Coalition...

Do we need to repost all the stuff that Harper did and/or said he would do in the 90s? I'm not going to bother because all the Conservative fanboys have already said that was a long time ago so it doesn't matter.

repost all the stuff... or just a few choice tidbits from Harper's time with the National Citizens Coalition?

Stephen Harper: Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States.

Stephen Harper: Then there is the Progressive Conservative party, the PC party, which won only 20 seats. Now, the term Progressive Conservative will immediately raise suspicions in all of your minds. It should... They were in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand. Officially -- what else can I say about them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized, health-care system and multicultural policies in the constitution of the country

Stephen Harper: The establishment came down with a constitutional package which they put to a national referendum. The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things

Stephen Harper: It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act

[PIK]

Bob Rae: Rae days. Enough said.

Edited January 18, 2012 by PIK

[Evening Star]

Bob Rae: Rae days. Enough said.

You're opposed to public service cuts then, even very modest ones?

[PIK]

You're opposed to public service cuts then, even very modest ones?

Me personally, no, but I would cut alot more. But alot of other people will still hate him for it. I hang out with some PS people and they make me sick at times listening to them complain. I am in small business and having a hell of a time and they tell me I could not handle the stress of working for the goverment. lol

[Newfoundlander]

And he didn't come back for you!

[Shakeyhands]

I hang out with some PS people and they make me sick at times listening to them complain.

I'm willing to bet a dollar to a donut that the feeling is mutual...

[Battletoads]

The cons are already flinging mud like children? Wish I could say I was surprised.

[PIK]

I'm willing to bet a dollar to a donut that the feeling is mutual...

I made my own bed and I will sleep in it.One of them makes a extra 8g's a year on comp. He fell 2 feet about 30 years ago and played the system and comp got him the job wioth the gov, but to still collect that amount of money, while people that actually need it now get the run around because of guys like him.

[segnosaur]

Bob Rae: Rae days. Enough said.

You're opposed to public service cuts then, even very modest ones?

First of all, the problem with Rae Days is not that fiscal conservatives were against them (their opinion on them is pretty irrelevant since they would be unlikely to vote NDP anyways.) The problem is they would have alienated the left wing (the traditional supporters of the NDP/Liberals.)

Secondly, even if someone was in favor of cuts, it does not mean that they would necessarily approve of "Rae Days". After all, whatever cuts are made, I would hope that they would be directed at "government waste". So, not only do back-office file clerks (some of whom may not have been needed at all) end up having unpaid overtime forced on them, but also (for example) Nurses, a profession where there are considerably more demands for resources.

[Evening Star]

This is the second time someone here has claimed that Rae Days meant that everyone had to work unpaid overtime! They were basically the opposite of that: public sector workers all had to take unpaid days off, i.e. their hours were shortened.

http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/local/article/176559

http://raisethehammer.org/blog/401/

Even this editorial that is opposed to Rae Days defines them the same way I did: http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/239387

[Evening Star]

After all, whatever cuts are made, I would hope that they would be directed at "government waste".

This assumes that the government is actually wasting large sums of money, which may not be the case.

[August1991]

Do we need to repost all the stuff that Harper did and/or said he would do in the 90s? I'm not going to bother because all the Conservative fanboys have already said that was a long time ago so it doesn't matter.

I agree. I find the ad weak because it reaches back to events 20 years ago. Surely there should be statute of limitations for attacks ads.

As a niggling point: Harper only said contoversial stuff. Rae actually did whacky stuff.

This is the second time someone here has claimed that Rae Days meant that everyone had to work unpaid overtime! They were basically the opposite of that: public sector workers all had to take unpaid days off, i.e. their hours were shortened.

That's how I understand it too. In someways though, Rae Days are worse.

Rather than give a few civil servants pink slips, Rae chose to "spread the pain". Moreover, Rae chose to do it by basically acknowledging that the services of civil servants are not necessary. Why not make Rae Days permanent? I suspect that all civil servants could take two extra week holidays a year (without pay) and no one would notice the difference. What does that say about government bureaucracy in Canada?

BTW, the PQ in the early 1980s chose a different policy: they simply passed legislation cutting all public sector pay by 20%.

And he didn't come back for you!

Giggle! Edited January 19, 2012 by August1991

[Evening Star]

Moreover, Rae chose to do it by basically acknowledging that the services of civil servants are not necessary.

OK, this is the one legitimate criticism of Rae Days that I've heard.

[William Ashley]

Bob Rae: Rae days. Enough said.

Rae Days were GOOD. We need Harper Days. With 10% cuts it would be much better to cut wages off the top by having "Graduated" retirement example as civil servants age transition them to parttime employment. Since the longer you work the higher the wage rate becomes having more unpaid days off the highest rate earners or highest salaries saves he most money rather than laying off or firing the non contract employees.

With 10% departmental cuts ray days is a better viable soluion for the public service.

fact is Rae saved the 2 billion dollars he needed to from the measure, and really people over the poverty line can do well for 1 long weekend a month. and an extra day for each year of service as unpaid leave to spend with family or have more time off. 1/3rd of that would be taxed anyway.

$100 a month off should not ruin people, fact is his goal was to save jobs, and not cut the civil service and he did that by cutting work days instead of jobs - and only those who made more than 30,000$ a year lost that 100$

We needed the teachers and nurses etc... we are better because their skils wern't completely unutilized and the young people unable to find work as staff with seniority filled all positions in those fields. It would of at best resulted in brain drain.

If I can live on a subsistence wage people earning a comfortable pubically paid salary can sacrifice 100$ every month off a $2500+/month salary

The real issue in what he did was creating a solution rather than just cutting.

I think the outcome was ideal... but all these governments are irresponsibe incuding harper.. deficit spending is not responsible.

let the economy manage itself. Print money but don't borrow money that is what the US does and Canada doesn't need to.

Get rid of taxes just print the money you need - if the dollar tanks raise prices -

Edited January 19, 2012 by William Ashley

[scribblet]

They had to take 12 unpaid days off in a year and it was a nigthmare to administer as it didn't define a 'day'. We had 7, 7.5, 8 and 10 hour days, some with shift premiums and so on, in the end it was a straight 7 or 8 hours used.

I don't have a problem with 3rd party advertising in between elections but IMO during an election they should be limited to the same as the candidates and parties. They are limited during an election, but IMO the laws must not be well defined, re: Avaaz.

It's funny though, some people have no problem with foreigners using foreign money to intervene and speak out against a Canadian issue, or the likes of Avaaz as a third party interfering in a Canadian election campaign (John Baird) and our free speech, but when Canadians speak out against a Canadian interest, it's not okay !

Edited January 19, 2012 by scribblet

[fellowtraveller]

Moreover, Rae chose to do it by basically acknowledging that the services of civil servants are not necessary.

Well no. Giving people some enforced days off is not an indication they are unnecessary. It is a clear message that the govt is unable to manage their own workforce.

If the staff were unnecessary, management should have laid them off and made the savings permanent. Regardless of need, Bob Rae simply did not and does not have the gumption to take that action, then or now.

[William Ashley]

Well no. Giving people some enforced days off is not an indication they are unnecessary. It is a clear message that the govt is unable to manage their own workforce.

If the staff were unnecessary, management should have laid them off and made the savings permanent. Regardless of need, Bob Rae simply did not and does not have the gumption to take that action, then or now.

They were unionized and on contract employment terms. You can't just as management lay people off if you have a legal agreement not to.

Both Harper and Rae crossed the line by interfering in labour issues... it is an issue of long term economic and adminsitrative mismanagement it is not indicative of either Rae or Harper soley.

They should have signed temp employment contracts rather than bloating the civil service beyond its needs, they should have signed new employment contracts with nurses and teachers for new hires, and should not have required a bill to accomplish what they have.

That is the real issue.

It is unfortunate that political and administrative and economic necesities have not coincided.

But the bottom line is we are all still alive. I just don't think breaching contracts and enforcing labour is really all too fair in our society.

Edited January 19, 2012 by William Ashley

[segnosaur]

Re: "Rae Days" as a way to cut government spending......

After all, whatever cuts are made, I would hope that they would be directed at "government waste".

This assumes that the government is actually wasting large sums of money, which may not be the case.

Do you honestly believe that there was "no large sums of money wastes" at the time of Rae's leadership in Ontario? Any large organization will have such things happening. And the fact that the government did not collapse when a certain number of individuals were forced to take unpaid leave should more than demonstrate that government had people on the payroll that it did not need. If we could get by with every government employee taking 12 days off (around a 5% reduction in total work among those affected) why not just lay off 5% of the employees? (That way they not only save on salary, but also on secondary costs such as benefits, office space, etc.)

This is the second time someone here has claimed that Rae Days meant that everyone had to work unpaid overtime! They were basically the opposite of that: public sector workers all had to take unpaid days off, i.e. their hours were shortened.

You're right... I did falsely use the phrase having unpaid overtime forced on them (government employees) when I should have said "Forced time-off". However, that was a mistake in word choice, rather than in understanding what was meant by "Rae Days". (If you go back and look at my previous post, I commented on "not needing the labor", so from that context it should be clear that I was referring to time off rather than overtime.)

[jacee]

This is the second time someone here has claimed that Rae Days meant that everyone had to work unpaid overtime! They were basically the opposite of that: public sector workers all had to take unpaid days off, i.e. their hours were shortened.

http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/local/article/176559

http://raisethehammer.org/blog/401/

Even this editorial that is opposed to Rae Days defines them the same way I did: http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/239387

Yes, that's the correct interpretation.

"Unpaid overtime" would be just business as usual in the public sector, in my experience.

In fact, I recall working unpaid overtime to catch up the work from my unpaid days off.

The workload didn't change. People either gave up personal time to catch up, or services were slowed down - eg, waiting longer for your new license, building approvals,etc and longer lineups at provincial offices, etc.

So no Segnosaur, the system didn't collapse but the reduced staff time did affect services.

And many worked unpaid overtime to catch up.

It was an attack on the public sector workers who helped to elect Bob Rae, and he'll never recover politically from the backlash from that.

Edited January 19, 2012 by jacee

[Brijohlaw]

I can remember Bpb Rae when he was premiere of Ontario why would anyone want to now make him a leader of anything after what a mess he left Ontario in.

[Tilter]

I can remember Bpb Rae when he was premiere of Ontario why would anyone want to now make him a leader of anything after what a mess he left Ontario in.

Did Rae have any unpaid days while premier?

[MiddleClassCentrist]

First, I don't think the ad is that good. Second, I have no problem with third-party advertising.

I have a problem with third party advertising only that we do not always know who funded it.

Regardless of who it is for, I want to a list of support from large contributors so that it is crystal clear where the message is from.