eyeball Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 If you look at the US you will see that that this stat has been in decline since Obama took charge and the CBO claims that Obamacare will cause it to drop even further as people no longer feel the need to work to maintain healthcare. Does that mean Obamacare is bad? In short, this stat is complex and cannot be reduced to a talking point. It's not so complex that one can conclude that working less for the same amount of take home pay will be a great boost to many people's happiness and quality of life Oh the humanity? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Moonlight Graham Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) What makes me PO'd is that the Harper gov slashes jobs on one hand (cutting tens of thousands of government jobs, reducing funding to NGO's where many people have also lost their jobs), yet they turn around and spend tons of money on economic stimulus on infrastructure etc. If you want to keep an economy strong with consumption/GDP growth you don't do austerity measures and lay off tens of thousands in the middle of a recession. I agree with the gov layoffs, but do it when the economy is stronger, not when employment is already high. The Harper gov has performed mediocre during this recession...not great, not horrible. This budget is also highly political. Announced during the Olympics to hide the fact they aren't giving out very much, and saving money in order to buy everyone's votes in next year's budget before the 2015 federal election. Edited February 10, 2014 by Moonlight Graham Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Army Guy Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 Except for over half the OECD that has netted more jobs than Canada since 2008. Yeah. Harper has done great. I'm curious what is the bottom line that our nation is in a better economical place, or the race to see who can create more jobs.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Keepitsimple Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 What makes me PO'd is that the Harper gov slashes jobs on one hand (cutting tens of thousands of government jobs, reducing funding to NGO's where many people have also lost their jobs), yet they turn around and spend tons of money on economic stimulus on infrastructure etc. If you want to keep an economy strong with consumption/GDP growth you don't do austerity measures and lay off tens of thousands in the middle of a recession. I agree with the gov layoffs, but do it when the economy is stronger, not when employment is already high. The Harper gov has performed mediocre during this recession...not great, not horrible. This budget is also highly political. Announced during the Olympics to hide the fact they aren't giving out very much, and saving money in order to buy everyone's votes in next year's budget before the 2015 federal election. The plan for "slashing" government jobs as you say involved mostly attrition - people retiring or moving on at their own choice......and those who didn't are usually offered jobs in other areas. As a result, in most cases, they are eliminating positions - not people. Unions still put up a big stink of course - because it's all about money and influence - not about doing a better job. Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 The plan for "slashing" government jobs as you say involved mostly attrition - people retiring or moving on at their own choice......and those who didn't are usually offered jobs in other areas. As a result, in most cases, they are eliminating positions - not people. Unions still put up a big stink of course - because it's all about money and influence - not about doing a better job. mostly? Mostly, Simple? Torstar article: Federal Budget 2012 The overall reduction in federal spending means about 12,000 government jobs will be lost to layoffs over the next three years and another 7,200 positions will be eliminated by attrition through retirement and voluntary departures. That will reduce total federal employment by about 19,200 people, or 4.8 per cent. The job losses will hit Ottawa and the surrounding region the hardest. . Quote
Argus Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 The point you seem to be missing is you cannot control the costs of providing services if there is a belief that revenues are easy to come by because any additional revenue will go to pay for increased benefits and pay for existing public servants. That's idiotic. Pay for public servants is controlled by contract negotiations, and I haven't seen any suggestion the Tories care to be overly generous in any of those, not when they can simply legislate a contract, even after the fact. 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
Argus Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 The plan for "slashing" government jobs as you say involved mostly attrition - people retiring or moving on at their own choice......and those who didn't are usually offered jobs in other areas. As a result, in most cases, they are eliminating positions - not people. Unions still put up a big stink of course - because it's all about money and influence - not about doing a better job. Doing a better job means having five people do it instead of ten? What I've been hearing is people being pressured by management to work through their lunches and breaks, and work unpaid overtime because there's more work than people to handle it. 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
TimG Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) That's idiotic. Pay for public servants is controlled by contract negotiations, and I haven't seen any suggestion the Tories care to be overly generous in any of those, not when they can simply legislate a contract, even after the fact.The available revenue controls the tenor of the negotiations. When public service unions believe that there is lots of revenue available they demand more. If the revenues are limited they are forced to make more modest demands. The cost of public service will always expand to consume all available revenue. The only way to control these costs it is restrict the available revenue. The idea that more taxes = more services is an illusion. Edited February 10, 2014 by TimG Quote
Keepitsimple Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 mostly? Mostly, Simple? Torstar article: Federal Budget 2012 . You were right. I was wrong. Quote Back to Basics
Topaz Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 I heard the minister today say something about infrastructure money, maybe he'll help out his Toronto friend and put money in for the subway, to help with increase taxes. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 What I've been hearing is people being pressured by management to work through their lunches and breaks, and work unpaid overtime because there's more work than people to handle it. Well, they are in a union aren't they ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Shady Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 Yawn. Jim Stanford is so desperate to trash the Conservative record that mines the available employment stats and finds one which does not look so good. He then cooks up a rationalization for why this particular stat is so important. Legions of NDP types take to the internet and repeat this dubious stat without context.The particular stat you are looking at is the change in the employment rate - i.e. a country could be producing millions of jobs but if population growth outpaces it then the employment rate decreases. So your claim that "over half the OECD that has netted more jobs than Canada since 2008" is pretty dishonest because other countries produce fewer jobs but only do better on this stat because their populations are not growing. Exactly. Cyber has tried to peddle this tripe before. I guess if we slowed our immigration to a trickle and slowed our birth rates, Cyber would finally be satisfied. Quote
Shady Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 Doing a better job means having five people do it instead of ten? What I've been hearing is people being pressured by management to work through their lunches and breaks, and work unpaid overtime because there's more work than people to handle it. You're just making that up. It's all antecdotal. My experience, actually in the private sector, not in the government sector, is that that's not true at all. Quote
Argus Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 The available revenue controls the tenor of the negotiations. When public service unions believe that there is lots of revenue available they demand more. If the revenues are limited they are forced to make more modest demands. The cost of public service will always expand to consume all available revenue. The only way to control these costs it is restrict the available revenue. The idea that more taxes = more services is an illusion. That is straight out of the Tea Party manual. And it's nonsense, and demonstrably nonsense. Under your theory Canada should never have had any surpluses, for example. Because the cost of the public service should have expanded to take up all the money. Public service unions, like any other unions, will ask for what they think they can get. You seem to assume government has no ability to say no. That's ridiculous, particularly in the case of the Tories, who simply legislate every striker back to work the day after they go out. 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
Argus Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 You're just making that up. It's all antecdotal. My experience, actually in the private sector, not in the government sector, is that that's not true at all. I think my years of working for the government, with many friends and relatives in the government, gives me more insight than your job delivering flyers. 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
Argus Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 Well, they are in a union aren't they ? Yes, and there are grievances underway now about this, but it's tricky since no one ever flat out tells people they have to work through breaks. They just put pressure on them to get the work done, work which keeps piling up. Plus many people don't want to go to the union, or don't want to get into a fight. One woman I know started getting harassed by her manager and director right after she told her manager she wasn't going to be working unpaid OT any more. That wound up in a meeting with the director, the manager, a union rep, staff relations, and a labour lawyer. But the woman didn't want a long fight. She just wanted out, so she was moved to another division. I know several other situations like that, except the individuals are still doing the unpaid work desperately trying to keep up. Believe or not the vast majority of public service workers never talk to the union about their issues. 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
bleeding heart Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 I believe Argus is correct. My wife works for the Dept. of Transportation (in the high-pressure filed of Emergency Radio Services)....and to her knowledge, not a single employee has EVER gone to the Union Rep, in her many years there. She herself certainly hasn't. Most (and no, not all) harsh criticism of unions comes from people who read about some outrage on this or that rightwing blog. It usually ahs little basis in lived experience. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Topaz Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 I agree with you, Bleeding Heart, there's nothing wrong with most unions and the Feds are anti-union and tried to destroy them, but, they found out legally, it a provincial matter, so that's why Hudak is taking on the unions, which are the MIDDLE-CLASS, hoping to make all workers, peasants to work for nearly nothing and so they keep bad-mouthing unions, trying to change the public's mind. Quote
Argus Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) I believe Argus is correct. My wife works for the Dept. of Transportation (in the high-pressure filed of Emergency Radio Services)....and to her knowledge, not a single employee has EVER gone to the Union Rep, in her many years there. She herself certainly hasn't. As an example, CRA has people in approximately 26 buildings in the Ottawa area. We only have union activists (shop stewards and local officers) in about seven or eight of those buildings. So even if someone has a problem, they probably won't think about the union, and even if they do, usually don't want to get involved in a dispute with their manager or director for fear of retaliation (which does happen, yes). I have no reason to believe the situation is any different in most public service workplaces. Public servants are not very militant, and often think of their union dues as little more than one more deducation (among many) on their pay stubs. Edited February 11, 2014 by Argus 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
Keepitsimple Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) The problem lies on both sides - Unions for demanding too much - and government for giving in for political expediency. What's the result? Relatively secure jobs with top notch benefits and pensions should have moderated wages to be no more than equal to the private sector but in reality, a bit less. It should be a fair-vaue trade-off - excellent benefits and Job Security in exchange for moderated wages. But that's not what we have. We've got wages that are for the most part higher than the private sector - and benefits and job security that exceed the private sector. It's simply time for a correction - long overdue actually. Do you think the Unions will play ball? Of course not - especially with a pliant media using terms like slashing and gutting and our own posters saying the goal is to make peasants out of Civil Servants. It takes courage to take on the Unions - it's not a vote-getter. In spite of the logic of slowly bringing Government worker salaries back in line, there will be numerous hand-wringing stories emanating from the Left. But it's someting that has to be done. Need I bring up the Teachers salary grid and benefits here in Ontario? Edited February 11, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
PIK Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 And the excuse next year will be well the Canada jobs act that doesn't exist but that we pissed away millions advertising kinda screwed up out books. On top of that the "economic action plan" F 35's and gazebos. Well you have to understand when we waste all that kinda money it's a bit hard to flog the old "fiscal conservative" agenda. But don't worry, we'll be right back. I love how the left just loves mentioning that gazebo, but yet had no problem with the taxpayer putting in a million dollar fountain in chetien's home town. The left can be so funny at times. lol Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
waldo Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 I love how the left just loves mentioning that gazebo, but yet had no problem with the taxpayer putting in a million dollar fountain in chetien's home town. The left can be so funny at times. lol more of your made-up bull-shyte, hey PIK! Try $200K associated with a development grant for that fountain... if you'd really like to have a tit-for-tat go at pork-barrelling from that Harper Conservative "G8 Legacy Fund", Clement's gazebo is nuthin! Try the $1.2 million that found its way to Baysville for "downtown revitalization".... hey PIK, what did that have to do with the G8 and border security? Quote
Topaz Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 Smokers beware, smokes going up to 10.40 a pack starting Wednesday, 4.00 tax on carton. I guess that part of the 6 billion surplus for 2015. As far as the apprenticeships, first people have to find one. I know our plumber said he wouldn't never have an apprentice because he figured if he put all that money and time into that person, they would end up leaving and start their own business. and he would be out a worker. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 12, 2014 Report Posted February 12, 2014 I love how the left just loves mentioning that gazebo, but yet had no problem with the taxpayer putting in a million dollar fountain in chetien's home town. The left can be so funny at times. lol And here is where the right seems to be so funny, or actually not funny, is that they often seem to trot out something untoward that a Liberal gov did 20 years ago, and somehow suggest that because of that the current rip off show should somehow be either excused or ignored. The gazebos don't really mean a whole lot in the overall scheme of things, just something they did that is also laughable. Quote
Boges Posted February 12, 2014 Report Posted February 12, 2014 Smokers beware, smokes going up to 10.40 a pack starting Wednesday, 4.00 tax on carton. I guess that part of the 6 billion surplus for 2015. As far as the apprenticeships, first people have to find one. I know our plumber said he wouldn't never have an apprentice because he figured if he put all that money and time into that person, they would end up leaving and start their own business. and he would be out a worker. Getting people into the skilled trades is the best way to lower unemployment. The US is already focusing on these STEM jobs. The lady in these fake jobs program ads got into HVAC. BTW The budget it pretty much balanced now. There's a $3 billion contingency, about the same as the deficit. Good election gamesmanship. Regarding smokes. A lot of people I know that smoke in Ontario utilize reserve smokes. As I wrote in a thread that didn't get much attention, if we wanted people to quit smoking we'd legalize nicotine E-cigarettes in Canada. BUT NOOOOOO!!!! Can't excise tax that because it's not tobacco. 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.