|
Ikantski posted:You're the one who compared it to profitable enterprises dude. No, I didn't. I compared the position of cabinet minister to an executive position in a private company. Compensation and benefits should probably be roughly the same between the two; the actual details of how each organization is run can be completely different. You're being disingenuous and you know it.
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:03 |
|
|
Ikantski posted:If a private sector company was budgeting to spend $317,000 to make $287,000 and they already had $600,000 in debt, they'd (hopefully) be shutting down the open bar program for their couple of executives. I think you misspelled "blame the high cost of labour and give the executives contractually-obligated golden parachutes before declaring bankruptcy."
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The number one reason businesspeople claim they fly first class is not "because I'm rich" or "because I'm profligate with company finances", it's because they value the added comfort and quiet environment of the private lounge and first class cabin, which they claim is better for efficiency reasons, either because it lets them get work done at the airport and on the plane, or because it makes them better rested when they arrive at their destination, meaning they can get to work quicker and more efficiently than if they need time to recover from flying coach with the rest of us plebs. Also a lot of business travel is spur of the moment and needing a seat on a plan RIGHT NOW is usually reserved as first class to milk those dollars out of people who don't plan ahead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
PT6A posted:No, I didn't. I compared the position of cabinet minister to an executive position in a private company. Compensation and benefits should probably be roughly the same between the two; the actual details of how each organization is run can be completely different. You're being disingenuous and you know it. The perks only exist because of the profits. If the private sector company has no profits, they have no perks. You're essentially saying that we can compare the perks that are based on the profits but we can't compare the profits because that's not fair. It makes no sense to me, it's an invalid argument. Even if cabinet ministers do deserve perks, they don't deserve them because private sector execs have them. If we had full blown socialism, would they still deserve the perks because they're hard workers and it makes them more efficient? I'll also expect a snapshot of you in front of the Alberta legislature protesting that Sarah Hoffman get double her pay and benefits so as to be roughly equivalent to a hospital CEO.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
If a private sector company isn't making money, then it isn't being successful. On the other hand, the government can be successful without making money, so your comparison is stupid. Besides which, vyelkin is right about business class travel; it's not about a "reward" anyway. It's not a bonus, it's a tool that's used to make sure your high-level employees are able to function most efficiently. Secondly, I've never said a provincial health minister shouldn't be well-compensated. I'm saying they shouldn't look like walking heart disease.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:The perks only exist because of the profits. If the private sector company has no profits, they have no perks. lmao this is absolutely not true. Private sector executives give themselves perks and golden parachutes no matter what the state of their company is. Just look at Carly Fiorina and Hewlett Packard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Hopping on that "who gives a poo poo if cabinet ministers are expensing airport lounge reciepts" bandwagon. People with a sizeable stake in the running of the nation should most certainly get benefits commensurate with that stake. Not all of those benefits need to be included in the salary, either. The overall expense for a small subsection of parliament being able to travel in comfort is almost certainly too small to care about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Ok, you guys have beaten me down and convinced me. Cabinet ministers deserve the taxpayer funded Open Bar perk while travelling. Unfortunately, the cabinet minister in question has vowed to pay back the money and apologized already but I commend you guys for having more backbone than her.vyelkin posted:lmao this is absolutely not true. Private sector executives give themselves perks and golden parachutes no matter what the state of their company is. Just look at Carly Fiorina and Hewlett Packard. This is true but look at the broad private sector, not an individual company. HP has to have perks because IBM has perks. On average, the tech private sector is profitable so tech companies have comparable perks. That doesn't mean Jane Philpott needs perks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Politicians get enough perks from the private enterprises they sell us out to every day before leaving politics and immediately signing on as an executive of said entities. They can loving fly coach.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
I'm loving dying at all the just world fallacy itt. Durrr only executives at profitable companies get perks! - an idiot who has no idea how business works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Ok, you guys have beaten me down and convinced me. Cabinet ministers deserve the taxpayer funded Open Bar perk while travelling. Unfortunately, the cabinet minister in question has vowed to pay back the money and apologized already but I commend you guys for having more backbone than her. Carly's predecessor flew business and had no security detail. She killed HP. What's left of real HP is Agilent. HPE is basically EDS. HP Inc is some combo of DEC and Compaq.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
"YOU NEED TO SPEND MONEY TO MAKE MONEY" - Business 101
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
For anyone arguing that a Cabinet Minister for a G7 Government doesn't deserve the same loving perks as a mid-level manager or engineer in a Fortune 500, you're legit being dumb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:For anyone arguing that a Cabinet Minister for a G7 Government doesn't deserve the same loving perks as a mid-level manager or engineer in a Fortune 500, you're legit being dumb. Yeah I agree it's pretty loving dumb, but this is the kind of rinky dink red meat that turns out the right wing base. Meanwhile, the NEB is having private meetings with Liberal politicians and TransCanada Corp. board members (Surprise! there's some crossover!) regarding pipelines in violation of it's own mandate to have open hearings. I pretty sure Dan Grenier, the fed Liberal campaign co-chair also works for TransCanada. http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/08/22/news/new-allegations-bias-over-charest-meeting-shake-transcanada-pipeline-hearings Corruption laid bare for all to see, but yes lets get upset about Ministers using the business lounge at the airport. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Ok, you guys have beaten me down and convinced me. Cabinet ministers deserve the taxpayer funded Open Bar perk while travelling. Unfortunately, the cabinet minister in question has vowed to pay back the money and apologized already but I commend you guys for having more backbone than her. Dumb question, but honestly how often do you travel for business?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Ok, you guys have beaten me down and convinced me. Cabinet ministers deserve the taxpayer funded Open Bar perk while travelling. Unfortunately, the cabinet minister in question has vowed to pay back the money and apologized already but I commend you guys for having more backbone than her. This attitude is why 24 Sussex is falling apart.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:This attitude is why 24 Sussex is falling apart. This attitude is why Canada's infrastructure is falling apart.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Flying is a god drat nightmare and anyone forced to do it for work should at least get a bit of leg room or what ever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Flying is a god drat nightmare and anyone forced to do it for work should at least get a bit of leg room or what ever. Most people like Ikantski who complain about this almost never, ever travel via air for business on a regular basis. Company policy where I am is that if a leg on the trip is more than six hours I have to travel business class as I am expected to be alert and ready the moment that I land wherever. Being that we have operations on every continent, this policy makes sense because it's not unlikely that I may have a trip that requires me to go overseas where the flight is anywhere between 8 and 16 hours. If I am flying domestically, I am not expected to fly business class unless there are no seats available and there is a time constraint. Access to a lounge is complimentry when you have a business class fare at least with Air Canada and all Star Alliance carriers. At my last job when I was a consultant, the rules were basically get me on any flight possible and it didn't matter if it were business class or not because I was expected to be in whatever city for whatever time--business class was probably 40-50% of my travel. However, I was more than free to expense access to the lounge although at one point it didn't matter for me. If a minister or even MP is travelling a lot to Ottawa or elsewhere on official business, the idea of them being able to expense loving lounge access doesn't matter to me because flying around a lot sucks. If you expect these individuals to perform well in their jobs, trying to scrutinze ever single loving thing they do including lounge access is petty and speaks volumes about how the person interprets travel. Being stuck in economy for 5+ hours on a regular basis is a loving nightmare and I will attest to the fact that the stress in business class is far less especially since you can actually get poo poo done by being up front because everyone else sitting with you won't be peering into your work because they themselves want to get to and from in peace. The lounge allows a minister to be in a semi-private place without having to be harassed by the general public. I don't want these ministers getting a loving red carpet everywhere they go but I do expect that they don't have to stress out about travelling everywhere because the nitwits at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation or dimwits like Ikantski have no concept of reality when it comes to travel. Unrelated, but you're more likely to die in business class than economy in the event of a crash landing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Paying 520 per year for lounge access is fine. Paying nearly 4 grand for limo service for two days to a guy who volunteered for your campaign is probably not. If she hadn't done the latter the former wouldn't matter nearly as much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:Paying 520 per year for lounge access is fine. Paying nearly 4 grand for limo service for two days to a guy who volunteered for your campaign is probably not. If she hadn't done the latter the former wouldn't matter nearly as much. Yeah, the limo service was really bad, but no one should remotely mind the lounge access. I mean, if I flew regularly for personal reasons I'd loving pay for regular lounge access, it's so worth it. Also I work in IT and rarely fly basic economy, always economy plus/comfort/whatever it's called or higher, there's absolutely no reason a cabinet minister shouldn't get to fly business class, he/she is way more important than I am.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:Unrelated, but you're more likely to die in business class than economy in the event of a crash landing. Yeah but at least you'll die in luxury.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Yeah, the limo service was really bad, but no one should remotely mind the lounge access. I mean, if I flew regularly for personal reasons I'd loving pay for regular lounge access, it's so worth it. It's not the lounge access itself. Here are the rules. quote:7.3 Airport Lounges I think they're pretty clear. Expense Canada lounge membership, ok. Expense North America or international lounge membership, not ok. It's about expensing things that aren't supposed to be expensed. You can make fun of conservatives for getting angry about $500 but the whole Mike Duffy scandal was about even less, it only really started after the money had been repaid. People on the left and right of the spectrum can get fussed about what things our MPs and senators spend money on, no matter how small the amount.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Yeah but at least you'll die in luxury. It's the only way I'd agree to dying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
No, you see, it's about ethics in claim journalism. Seriously though, if you're expensing something the rules say not to expense, how much it costs shouldn't matter as much as the fact that you're doing something the rules clearly say not to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:It's not the lounge access itself. Here are the rules. Oh yeah ok, the rules said so, so I should change my opinion to follow them immediately! I disagree with those rules, and expensed lounge access should be permitted for cabinet ministers no matter where in the world they are. I have no issues with MY TAX DOLLARS being used for that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Oh yeah ok, the rules said so, so I should change my opinion to follow them immediately! I disagree with those rules, and expensed lounge access should be permitted for cabinet ministers no matter where in the world they are. I have no issues with MY TAX DOLLARS being used for that. This. If she indeed broke the rules, then she's right to repay the expenses, but at the same time I believe that, if she broke the rules, they should be changed because the rules as they currently stand are stupid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:No, you see, it's about ethics in claim journalism. Yeah that's definitely true. I hadn't realized that. You don't get to expense stuff that's on the do not expense list. Fairly straightforward.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Oh yeah ok, the rules said so, so I should change my opinion to follow them immediately! I disagree with those rules, and expensed lounge access should be permitted for cabinet ministers no matter where in the world they are. I have no issues with MY TAX DOLLARS being used for that. He won't acknowledge that he never travels for business purposes so let's just assume that he has no clue about business travel and move on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:If we had full blown socialism, would they still deserve the perks because they're hard workers and it makes them more efficient? If we had full blown socialism, everyone would be in first class. There would only be a first class. The People's class.  PK loving SUBBAN posted:Yeah I agree it's pretty loving dumb, but this is the kind of rinky dink red meat that turns out the right wing base. Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Aug 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Does being a Lone Soldier break any Canadian Law? Say you're getting out of the CF earlier than you planned and you want to eat olives on the Golan Heights while you get your life together, will anything happen to you while you're away or when you come back?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Does being a Lone Soldier break any Canadian Law? Say you're getting out of the CF earlier than you planned and you want to eat olives on the Golan Heights while you get your life together, will anything happen to you while you're away or when you come back? Please elaborate on this further. Are you asking if it is okay to go join the Israeli army as a foreign combatant so you can shoot up people in Palestine, the West Bank, and Syria since the Canadian Forces don't engage in these conflicts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
No, I'm asking if it is illegal for a Canadian to join the IDF, according to Canadian law, for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
yeah go ahead man. do what the heart wants.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
It's legal, just as long as the IDF doesn't do anything that could be considered terrorism. How confident do you feel about that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:No, I'm asking if it is illegal for a Canadian to join the IDF, according to Canadian law, for whatever reason. Unlikely if you are a Israeli citizen. It is pretty well understood that if you have dual citizenship, you are potentially a target for compulsory military service in the other country. ~~~ Like all things though the legality is probably determined after the fact. If you go to Saudi Arabia and drive a Canadian made tank into a Yemen village you are probably ok. If you go to Yemen and blow up that Canadian made tank, you are probably a bad guy, for varying definitions of bad guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Idf is immune to all international law or even simple criticism so go hog wild with your war crime fantasies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:It's legal, just as long as the IDF doesn't do anything that could be considered terrorism. How confident do you feel about that? You can probably feel exceedingly confident about that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/23/justin-trudeau-rules-out-burkini-ban-in-canadaquote:Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister, has defended individual rights and freedoms when asked about a controversy in France over a burkini ban. Trudeau does Good Things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:03 |
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:Unlikely if you are a Israeli citizen. So if you get your passport stamped, get a work visa, and pay Canadian taxes, you're fine, generally speaking?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 20:15
|
|