Big Guy Posted December 7, 2015 Report Posted December 7, 2015 Just before the last election, Stephen Harper renewed a number of appointments which, while it had the right to do, would last far longer than Harper did as PM. These are considered "patronage" because they are done at the "pleasure" of the government and are given to party supporters. The Trudeau government has decided that the people rehired in those positions at that late date will be detrimental to their running of the government and have decided to ask them to step down: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-plan-to-ask-harper-s-patronage-appointments-to-step-aside-source-1.2689361 There are appear to be a number of ways of dealing with this: 1. Allow those who want to step down and buy out the ones who refuse to do so. These are important people who may not wish to appear to be working where they are not wanted. 2. Allow those who want to step down and fire the ones who refuse to do so. These are important people who may not wish to appear to be suing the government that they serve. 3. Allow those who want to step down and work around the others until they either quit or their contracts run out. 4. Buy out all contracts and allow everyone to walk. 5. Fire everybody and let the courts decide. How many of these people would want to have their names identified with suing the government that they had sworn to serve. Other options? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Smeelious Posted December 7, 2015 Report Posted December 7, 2015 (edited) 6. Work with, instead of around, those appointed? Edited December 7, 2015 by Smeelious Quote
msj Posted December 7, 2015 Report Posted December 7, 2015 Yes, this is an easy way to give out patronage: put people into positions so that a new government will then buy them out. Typical politics done by all the parties and it would be nice to find a way to make the severance get paid out by the political party of the government that lost the election. Maybe that would lead them to be more careful with the positions. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Bryan Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 Unless you have evidence that these people were not competent at their jobs and deserving of the contract extensions (most of which actually happened last spring), calling them patronage is slander. Quote
Smallc Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 Unless you have evidence that these people were not competent at their jobs and deserving of the contract extensions (most of which actually happened last spring), calling them patronage is slander. It isn't usual to pre extend terms. The term from 2019 - 2020 is completely egregious. Quote
Bryan Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 Knowing that you'll only keep your job for 4-5 years is egregious? Quote
Smallc Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 Knowing that you'll only keep your job for 4-5 years is egregious? In that case, the term term didn't end until 2019 as it was. He already knew he had the job until then. Harper, for some reason, felt entitled to extend it from 2019 until 2020. Quote
The_Squid Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 Knowing that you'll only keep your job for 4-5 years is egregious? So political appointees deserve a job for life? Quote
Bryan Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 In that case, the term term didn't end until 2019 as it was. He already knew he had the job until then. Harper, for some reason, felt entitled to extend it from 2019 until 2020. A one year extension is egregious? Do you hear yourself when you say things like that? Quote
Smallc Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 (edited) A one year extension is egregious? Do you hear yourself when you say things like that? A one year extension that eliminates the ability of the sitting government government to decide the merit of an appointment well within their mandate is what makes it egregious. This has never been done before (except possibly by Turner - and he was flamed for it). Edited December 8, 2015 by Smallc Quote
Bryan Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 There is nothing even remotely unusual about extending a person's existing contract. Unless you have proof that these people were not performing at their jobs, you are engaging in slander. Seriously. Do you think ALL civil servants should lose their jobs every time there is a change in govt, or just the ones the media tells you to be upset over? Quote
Smallc Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 Seriously. Do you think ALL civil servants should lose their jobs every time there is a change in govt, or just the ones the media tells you to be upset over? If that's what you think I was talking about, I encourage you to re-examine. We're talking about an appointment that doesn't come into effect (doesn't even start) until after the end of the term of the current government and was put in place by the last one. Quote
Bryan Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 If that's what you think I was talking about, I encourage you to re-examine. We're talking about an appointment that doesn't come into effect (doesn't even start) until after the end of the term of the current government and was put in place by the last one. I'm taking about a guy who was already doing the job getting a very short extension on his existing contract. What are you talking about? Quote
Big Guy Posted December 8, 2015 Author Report Posted December 8, 2015 There is nothing even remotely unusual about extending a person's existing contract. Unless you have proof that these people were not performing at their jobs, you are engaging in slander. Seriously. Do you think ALL civil servants should lose their jobs every time there is a change in govt, or just the ones the media tells you to be upset over? If you use the business and industry template, any time a new CEO comes in you can guarantee that the top echelon is on its way out. If longitudinal data can be an indicator, it is probable that this Trudeau headed Liberal government is going to be in power for about 8 years. Would it then be OK for the Liberals to extend their chosen patronages five years forward just before each election? Do you feel that this is acceptable policy and should be emulated and continued by subsequent governments continues? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Smallc Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 I'm taking about a guy who was already doing the job getting a very short extension on his existing contract. What are you talking about? Why did he need an extension almost 4 years from now? Quote
Bryan Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 Why did he need an extension almost 4 years from now? If people are doing a good job, you try to keep them. Quote
Smallc Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 If people are doing a good job, you try to keep them. It wasn't his decision to make. I can understand appointments that expire 6 months or possibly even a year after the election. 2019 is ridiculous. It's that kind of arrogance that turned people against Harper. Quote
Bryan Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 It wasn't his decision to make. I can understand appointments that expire 6 months or possibly even a year after the election. 2019 is ridiculous. It's that kind of arrogance that turned people against Harper. That's a very short term. You are being ridiculous. Quote
Smallc Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 That's a very short term. You are being ridiculous. It's not the length of the term that's the problem - it's the start date. Quote
Bryan Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 It's not the length of the term that's the problem - it's the start date. Last spring? Quote
Bryan Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 Yeah, a VERY short contract extension. Quote
Smallc Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 Yeah, a VERY short contract extension. One that conveniently prevents the current government from making their own selection. 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.