Newfie Canadian Posted September 27, 2004 Report Posted September 27, 2004 Anyone else sickened by this? CTV Story Quote "If you don't believe your country should come before yourself, you can better serve your country by livin' someplace else." Stompin' Tom Connors
Big Blue Machine Posted September 27, 2004 Report Posted September 27, 2004 It's their choice if they want a pay-raise. A job of a politican is only four-years, if they get elected once. They have to make a good earning in fouryears, if they get defeated in the next election. Quote And as I take man's last step from the surface, for now but we believe not too far into the future. I just like to say what I believe history will record that America's challenge on today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow. And as we leave the surface of Taurus-Littrow, we leave as we came and god willing we shall return with peace and hope for all mankind. Godspeed the crew of Apollo 17. Gene Cernan, the last man on the moon, December 1972.
Newfie Canadian Posted September 27, 2004 Author Report Posted September 27, 2004 It's their choice if they want a pay-raise. Isn't that a poster child for "conflict of interest". It just seems to me that with all the public service strife going on, primarily over money, it is a rotten thing to be doing. Quote "If you don't believe your country should come before yourself, you can better serve your country by livin' someplace else." Stompin' Tom Connors
JWayne625 Posted September 27, 2004 Report Posted September 27, 2004 Is it not the Canadian Parliament that sets the pay-scale for Supreme Court Justices? If it is and Chretien has tied raises for Members of Parliament, through legislation to those raises, is that not a conflict of interest? Parliamentarian's have set themselves up like corporate CEO's when it comes to wages they pay themselves, but wages they want to pay to their employees, it's do as I say, not as I do time. Parliament tells PSAC they have no money for raises for them, but try to shove through a huge pay raise for themselves. Yep, just like the corporate world. The poor get poorer, and the rich get.... Employee pay increases haven't even equaled the cost of living in a number of years, and they are now working for wage levels about 1990 when inflation is taken into account. Somehow it's fair that exucutives are entitled to raises many times the cost of living, and we're not supposed to say anything, because they were good enough to let us burn ourselves out so that they can benefit from the money they have saved on paying wages, so that they can get an even bigger raises next year. If we were to tie parliamentary wage increases to their productivity, as we should, they would owe us rebates on their salaries. Now that sounds fair! Quote
Newfie Canadian Posted September 28, 2004 Author Report Posted September 28, 2004 I have a big problem with government saying out of one side of their mouth that their isn't enough money for programs, the military and the public servants, who everyone must admit do the real nitty gritty work, and then say they want to give themselves a payraise out of the other side of their mouth. They get so many free flights a year, allowances out their ears for just about everything, paid offices, over $100,000 a year for salaries, and on top of it all, a pension that any military officer or public servant would give their right arm for. Sorry to sound crude, but it just sucks. Quote "If you don't believe your country should come before yourself, you can better serve your country by livin' someplace else." Stompin' Tom Connors
Argus Posted September 28, 2004 Report Posted September 28, 2004 It's their choice if they want a pay-raise. A job of a politican is only four-years, if they get elected once. They have to make a good earning in fouryears, if they get defeated in the next election. The government has offered a take-it-or-leave-it deal to its public servants of 1.75% this year. Where do they get off giving judges and themselves 10%?! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Newfie Canadian Posted September 28, 2004 Author Report Posted September 28, 2004 Then again, maybe not. Is it a result of conscience, common sense or public outcry. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...9_21?hub=Canada Quote "If you don't believe your country should come before yourself, you can better serve your country by livin' someplace else." Stompin' Tom Connors
playfullfellow Posted September 29, 2004 Report Posted September 29, 2004 Is it a result of conscience, common sense or public outcry. Probably because he is scared crapless of the revenge people would take on him in the next election if they vote themselves a new raise now. Besides, a 10% raise is a load of crap when the rest of us are happy with a cost of living raise. Besides, it is not really the wages they make that we should be looking at, I think their expenses are what we need more scrutiny in. This is one area where there are not enough controls. Quote
Argus Posted September 29, 2004 Report Posted September 29, 2004 Is it a result of conscience, common sense or public outcry. Probably because he is scared crapless of the revenge people would take on him in the next election if they vote themselves a new raise now. Besides, a 10% raise is a load of crap when the rest of us are happy with a cost of living raise. They get cost of living raises automatically.The 10% would be on top of that. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
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.