‘Summer of discontent’ coming over public service in-office order: unions (trudeau chooses this hill to die on)

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Yes, the later research is disputing that it's increased productivity. 

LOL - NOOOOOO!!!  Go check the dates!!! The later 'research' is mine, not yours, and it shows that it's actually more efficient!!! You can read the dates!!!   Yours was mid 2023 and mine is from 2024!  Why are you LIKE this?!?!

The EARLIER research questioned if it was more productive - BUT NOTED that hybrid already was and that full time seemed like it was getting more productive as they added tech and adapted to make it so.  They predicted that it would be the way business went in the future.  

My LATER research shows that it appears to be more efficient. 

12 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

By research, I don't mean the blog articles you scraped off the interwebs, or surveys of employees who want to stay working at home

Dude your 'research' was literally a guy's opinion. He wasn't even citing a survey or paper or the like. The other was a working paper. 

Surveys and polls actually are research. That's one of the ways research is done.  Thousands and thousands of peer reviewed research documents are based largely on polling.  Pollsters generally know how to ask questions in a way so as to weed out bias answers.  What kind of !diot says polling ISN"T resaerch?

 

I swear to god, every time we talk it's like you're TRYING to find a way to sound more retarded. 

[Moonbox]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL - NOOOOOO!!!  Go check the dates!!! The later 'research' is mine, not yours, and it shows that it's actually more efficient!!! You can read the dates!!!   Yours was mid 2023 and mine is from 2024!  Why are you LIKE this?!?!

So your reasoning here is that the obscure 2024 blog articles you posted negate academic research from 2023!?   🤣

Hilariously, you say this shortly after citing academic research from...2021.  

You just went full-tard.  Never do that.  

 

Edited May 14, 2024 by Moonbox

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

What does that matter? Do you think that means they don't require people behind the scenes to look at those applications, to handle all the queries, to take care of problems? To write and maintain the online functionality? 

Just because you can file your taxes online with online software doesn't mean CRA doesn't have to have people who look over all the things kicked out by various sorting and checking routines or to deal with the growing number of tax fraud cases, or to handle the queries, as well as the changes that can't be done online. 

 

What are you arguing with me about?

The topic is working 3 days in the office vice 2.

I am saying they should go back to the office because my observation is that many are not putting in full days at home.

I am also saying that many jobs can be taken over by AI. Many years in the Military, including a lot of years in Ottawa then decades in the PS, I can see what is redundant and the PS (especially union) has to be careful of their demands.

If Conservatives get back in, they can and will clear redundancy to reduce spending and the PS is a huge target.

Oh and, CRA already uses computers to do taxes and they do not need people to verify and validate anymore. They have all your documents before even you do. If the computer decides you messed up. it is up to you to prove otherwise. LOL

You even agree that the PS has too many employees and is bloated so I am not sure what your points or arguments are all about.

Edited May 14, 2024 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Yes, the later research is disputing that it's increased productivity.  By research, I don't mean the blog articles

Your 'research' is literally a blog article. It's a guy offering his opinion. 

And imagine a grown man trying to claim that polling a target demographic isn't 'research'   Seriously, shy of ACTUALLY wearing a clown hat and nose how could you make yourself look more of a joke than that?

Not to mention you agreed with it.  You then claimed that later research showed otherwise.  But - your later research was before it

Sorry kiddo - the fact you can't read dates and think that research doesn't involve asking target groups questions doesn't help make your point, it just makes you look like an 1diot. 

LOL - but I AM going to be bugging you about your claim that polling sample groups isn't research for a while  

Statcan calls it research - it's research. 

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

What are you arguing with me about?

Because you're wrong.

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

The topic is working 3 days in the office vice 2.

Which is a pointless exercise that is just ticking off the employees and will lead to less efficiency, not more.

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I am saying they should go back to the office because my observation is that many are not putting in full days at home.

And you're wrong.

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I am also saying that many jobs can be taken over by AI.

Which is true but irrelevant.

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

If Conservatives get back in, they can and will clear redundancy to reduce spending and the PS is a huge target.

Agreed.

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Oh and, CRA already uses computers to do taxes and they do not need people to verify and validate anymore.

The computers do verify and validate, then kick out those that aren't making sense for humans to look at. Not the ones with small numbers, but the larger ones which need to have a human look at them and perhaps send out a letter telling the taxpayer to send in their receipts. Or to call the taxpayer where tax fraud is suspected. Or to handle audits, and the myriad problems that creep up, like people inadvertently declaring themselves deceased. Or to argue with taxpayers - as in a whole branch of lawyers and accountants. Or to administer all the benefits CRA does - that's a whole branch too. 

As for my point, you don't get rid of offices, get rid of buildings, and then try to bring everyone back to work on confidential things in large, common rooms where no one even has a desk or a locker. Half an hour is wasted every day just setting up and disassembling stuff.

 

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Because you're wrong.

Which is a pointless exercise that is just ticking off the employees and will lead to less efficiency, not more.

And you're wrong.

Which is true but irrelevant.

Agreed.

The computers do verify and validate, then kick out those that aren't making sense for humans to look at. Not the ones with small numbers, but the larger ones which need to have a human look at them and perhaps send out a letter telling the taxpayer to send in their receipts. Or to call the taxpayer where tax fraud is suspected. Or to handle audits, and the myriad problems that creep up, like people inadvertently declaring themselves deceased. Or to argue with taxpayers - as in a whole branch of lawyers and accountants. Or to administer all the benefits CRA does - that's a whole branch too. 

As for my point, you don't get rid of offices, get rid of buildings, and then try to bring everyone back to work on confidential things in large, common rooms where no one even has a desk or a locker. Half an hour is wasted every day just setting up and disassembling stuff.

 

What a bunch of blather

Ha Ha Ha Ha

Wrong, computers kick out where the math is wrong or missing info and you are sent notice to correct it. No human interaction. Mess with it more and then yes, humans will come and audit you but you are still responsible to prove them wrong. I have relatives in CRA.

As for getting rid of offices. That was a program started years before covid. Long before even I retired form the PS. Everyone got a wifi laptop and all cubicles were removed. Big tables were installed and first come first served. Only people working with security designated (confidential is nothing) tasks were given cubicles.  No setting up and no lockers.Just sit own and turn on your laptop. Th eonly offices left were to meetings and secure communications. LOL

You think you know but in reality, you do not . LOL

Edited May 14, 2024 by ExFlyer

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Your 'research' is literally a blog article. It's a guy offering his opinion. 

So Forbes and LA Times are blogs now, and their citing National Bureau of Economic Research's, Stanford University's and the German Institute of Labour Economics' actual academic study conclusions is...a guy offering his opinion. 

LOL! 

🤡🤡🤡

Edited May 14, 2024 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

59 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

So Forbes and LA Times are blogs now, and their citing National Bureau of Economic Research's, Stanford University's and the German Institute of Labour Economics' actual academic study conclusions is...a guy offering his opinion. 

 

Well seeing  as you define statcan as a 'blog' - sure     I mean you cliam statscan is a blog and that surveying target demographics is not research so i guess anything means anything in your world   

Kid.  Go read your own cites.  You are a complete ******. 

The evidence is quite clear - working from home is as productive or more and where they did find weakness they noted it can easily be corrected and expect it will be. 

It's genuinely getting painful to watch you try this crap. You're dumber every time we talk. 

[Moonbox]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well seeing  as you define statcan as a 'blog' - sure     I mean you cliam statscan is a blog and that surveying target demographics is not research so i guess anything means anything in your world   

 I never said statscan was a blog, nor did I say that the surveys they quoted weren't research. You're just lying and making shit up now to argue against....AGAIN!  🤣

I said that statscan didn't provide any productivity data.  Surveying employees on how much better/harder they feel they perform working from home is the same thing as asking them if they prefer to work from home.  

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The evidence is quite clear - working from home is as productive or more and where they did find weakness they noted it can easily be corrected and expect it will be.

I love when you try to wrap everything up like this: 

"Having pissed and shit all over myself, the evidence is quite clear. I declare myself the winner of this debate.  The smell speaks for itself."  

🤡🤡🤡

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 I never said statscan was a blog, nor did I say that the surveys they quoted weren't research.

You literally called it a blog above and claimed it wasn't research. You discounted it and claimed the articles you posted were the latest research because you discount 'blogs and surveys' as they are not "real" research.  

That's after discounting other research because you don't like the looks of the people who did it. Seriously  their looks.  Posted a picture and everything. Sigh, 

Kid - could you at least find NEW ways to look like a dipshit? Your old ways of saying something stupid constantly and then denying you said it is kind of getting kinda boring. 

If it's not a blog post and it IS research, then the statcan research was done LATER than the stuff you posted and you were wrong to claim otherwise, 

Sigh.  This is like watching the final season of happy days.  You've jumped the shark man. 

Working from home is as productive or more so, and we should be embracing it for all it's benefits. end of story. 

[I am Groot]

18 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

What a bunch of blather

Ha Ha Ha Ha

Wrong, computers kick out where the math is wrong or missing info and you are sent notice to correct it. No human interaction. Mess with it more and then yes, humans will come and audit you but you are still responsible to prove them wrong. I have relatives in CRA.

That's nice. I used to work in the department that developed the software that examined incoming T1s for likely fraud or errors. I know the people in Refunds and Setoffs, and in Audit who were then sent the information so they could look into it. I know people in Ident who dealt with ID fraud. Who are these relatives of yours? Call centre agents? Much is audited, but when you're dealing with millions and millions of T1s, business returns, GST refund requests and various benefit requests that still leaves a ton of stuff that requires human attention. That's why some people get Notices of Reassesment months after they file their taxes. 

18 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

As for getting rid of offices. That was a program started years before covid. Long before even I retired form the PS. Everyone got a wifi laptop and all cubicles were removed. Big tables were installed and first come first served. Only people working with security designated (confidential is nothing) tasks were given cubicles.  No setting up and no lockers.Just sit own and turn on your laptop. Th eonly offices left were to meetings and secure communications. LOL

It's spread throughout the government and even upward to managers and senior directors. And since most meetings are now on TEAMs it serves no purpose to come in just to spend most of your day taking part in an online meeting. Further, doing so in a large room at a table with any sort of other people is both disruptive to them and will allow confidential information to be spread around that shouldn't be.

It's also wasteful of time. Plug in and get going? Please. Every chair is supposed to be ergonomic. Many of them don't work. A lot of people have trouble hooking their laptop up. There are people with various light disabilities who have difficulty being constantly being interrupted by others talking, by people passing back and forth behind them, and by the sheer inhumanity of this system. The clerks don't have much choice. But people like lawyers, IT specialists, and accountants who have years of experience can make much more in the private sector and not deal with garbage like this. The people who are going to be leaving are the higher-skilled ones who'll have no difficulty being taken on either by provincial governments or the private sector for much higher money.

The ones who will stay are the drones, who just don't care.

 

 

 

[Moonbox]

25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You literally called it a blog above and claimed it wasn't research.

No I didn't.  That's why you can't quote it.  🤡

I called the two obscure blogs you cited...blogs.

Having humiliated yourself again, the only tool you have left in your box is to make something up to argue against, and then spiral out ranting in frustration about points nobody made. 

You're literally too dumb to argue with anyone but yourself.  🤣

Edited May 15, 2024 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

No I didn't.  That's why you can't quote it.  🤡

IT's on the same page.  It's right there. As always . And I did quote you. I even made fun of you for it saying imagine an adult thinking that pulling a target group isn't research. And that was in direct response to your statement at the time.

Like i said - if you could come up with some NEW kinds of stupid, that'd be great. it's getting to the point where  it's hardly worth making the popcorn  

I just don't understand you. I can see what you wrote. Others can see what you wrote. You must know that to virtually anybody who's paid attention to this thread you look like a lying fool with serious mental health issues.  And for me thats "yet again". 

Not to mention that once again the information you posted it proves my point more than yours. And it's older.

 

So as statcan says It works, and therefore we should be encouraging it. And once again you look like a complete jackass. Are we doing the hissy fit thing this time or will you go straight to complaining how it's all my fault because of post count?

 

 

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I just don't understand you. I can see what you wrote.

If you can see what I wrote,  you'd just snip the quote instead of limply ranting and insisting on it for paragraphs and paragraphs over multiple posts, convincing yourself that somehow, this is magically more convincing.  

Beyond that, you're literally trying to argue that I claimed Statscan is a blog.  I would have never imagined someone pushing such a frivolous, ridiculous line of reasoning before, but the one thing you've proven here is that CdnFox can always lower the bar further.  👌

Edited May 15, 2024 by Moonbox

[Army Guy]

On 5/14/2024 at 2:23 PM, Moonbox said:

Higher skilled than what?  Let's not confuse post-secondary education status as "higher skilled", if that's what you mean.  Do we call the social studies post-grads working for "Social Development Canada" higher-skilled?  

Does higher education mean a person is higher skilled...I know a lot of very educated people , that can barely do day to day activates without out help...I also know lots of guys that had high school education that planed logistics for a 5000 person brigade group, 7 days in advance from beans to bullets to fuel, trains and planes etc....that takes a higher skill to get it right...

Education is not always the end all be all...nor does it mean you are highly skilled, becasue of it.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

If you can see what I wrote,  you'd just snip the quote 

I did.  And replied with that snip specifically addressing it. Now you want me to do it again, and then you'll want me to do it again and again and again, 

You always do this. You just keep demanding the same quotes be reposed over and over. 

You claimed that none of the information i posted was research and you didn't listen to blogs.  Statcan is not a blog, and surveys of a target group is research.' Statcan has been doing that kind of research for a while, they know how to get honest answers out of people by and large.

Sigh. You are such a broken person 

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I did.  And replied with that snip specifically addressing it. Now you want me to do it again, and then you'll want me to do it again and again and again, 

Is that so?  Here's your reply, you absolute clown.  

Where is it?  Where did I say statscan was a blog?  

That's what's so great about the quote function.  I can prove you're completely full of shit with the press of the button, while you spiral out and puke all over yourself trying to gaslight...yourself I guess? 

🤣

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 

Is that so?  Here's your reply, you absolute clown.  

Ahhh back to lying again i see.  That was a much much later reply and not for the same thing at all. 

 

 

Quote

By research, I don't mean the blog articles you scraped off the interwebs, or surveys of employees who want to stay working at home

You specifically said that the statcan work was not 'research' in your opinon. 

And i quoted that in my reply pointing out that surveying a target demographic IS ABSOLUTELY research. 

 

I asked if you found flaws with their methods.  NOPE! 

I the 'bloggers' you claim include a paper from harvard.   I guess harvard university is just 'bloggers' now.  And you couldn't come up with any other complaints about the other data. 

 

This is your biggest problem. You're a lying sack of shit literally every time you talk to people.  

You LIED about what you said. Now i've proven it. 

You LIED that the statcan paper had "no data". That was obvious

You LIED about virtually everything else. Because you're incapable of actually thinking your way through an argument. 

 

Again - why are you like that? 

[ExFlyer]

9 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Is that so?  Here's your reply, you absolute clown.  

Where is it?  Where did I say statscan was a blog?  

That's what's so great about the quote function.  I can prove you're completely full of shit with the press of the button, while you spiral out and puke all over yourself trying to gaslight...yourself I guess? 

🤣

Wow, reading comprehension is not your only issue, understanding comprehension seems to go hand in hand  with it LOL.

You just make shit up and convince yourself you are right LOL.

[Moonbox]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You specifically said that the statcan work was not 'research' in your opinon. 

That's not what we're disputing, you donkey.

I asked you to to prove where I "literally said Statscan was a blog", as you've repeated multiple times.   Once again (and not for the first time in this thread), we've proven you're absolutely full of shit.  🙃

LETS RECAP your journey of humiliation on this thread:

"All of the research says remote work improves productivity" (aside from the numerous academic papers published within the last year suggesting otherwise) 

"bu-bu-but that's all old research!  That's from 2023!  Here are some blog articles from 2024....and a statscan page referencing employees surveys from 2021 !"  

"You literally said statscan was a blog!"  (see above)

Keep up the good work.  Clown Academy is very proud of you.  

 

Edited May 16, 2024 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

That's not what we're disputing, you donkey.

 

ROFLMAO - it is precisely what we were discussing   It's the very thing you claimed you didnt' say and i claimed you did  

Oh - and you didn't actually ask me to prove anything.  You just out of the blue started claiming that i wasn't.   

And once again, when you're proved wrong you have to try to go back and change what you said. 

Pay attention little guy - this is simple.  

You posted older cites and claimed it was newer.  Then i pointed out that mine were actually later because apparently you can't read dates.

And thats when you tried to claim that statcan's work is NOT "real" research because you think they don't know how to do a survey of a target group to account for potential bias. 

 

You're an !diot.  But at least you're a fairly amusing 1diot  

As was proven previously -  remote working is as productive or more generally speaking and we should be promoting it. We've gone from 7 percent to 20 percent and we should try to increase that if possible. 

And once again you a) look like an 1diot and b) look like a liar trying to cover up the fact you look like an 1diot  

Please proceed with your hysterics tho    a few pages of you trying to deny what you said and claiming that black is white before you degrade into blaming my post count and the size of my posts is always worth the popcorn