Newfie Canadian Posted September 27, 2004 Report Share Posted September 27, 2004 Anyone else sickened by this? CTV Story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted September 27, 2004 Report Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfie Canadian Posted September 27, 2004 Author Report Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWayne625 Posted September 27, 2004 Report Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfie Canadian Posted September 28, 2004 Author Report Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfie Canadian Posted September 28, 2004 Author Report Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playfullfellow Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.