Brannock posted:

It takes an enormous amount of weightlifting and bulking up to actually bump into overweight BMI without a high body fat percentage,

Brannock posted:

Does anyone else want to cite 25.7 BMI examples as proof that it's faulty?

CLAM DOWN posted:

Of all the CF's real serious problems, I'd venture to say that BMI isn't one of them.

Blade_of_tyshalle posted:

The bmi charts want me, a 6'5" man, to be ~200 lbs or less to stay within the healthy range. The last time I was that light I was perpetually malnourished and biking 50km once a week to go to Edmonton on top of working full time as a stocker at a busy store. I'm just a big loving guy. Bmi is horseshit.

Baronjutter posted:

Neshi's policies are fine, it's that he isn't the sort of person you'd like to have a beer with, which is the most important quality in which politicians you support and which ones you hate.

RBC posted:

MPs and Senators are getting a 1.8 and 2.1% raises this year because they automatically get an increase that’s equal to the average percentage increase negotiated by unions with 500 or more employees in the private sector.

So why are they offering public sector unions .5% raises in their new contracts?

infernal machines posted:

Well there's also whether you perceive them as "weak" and "French".

Risky Bisquick posted:

You are very generous in thinking that politicians are not the most FYGM citizens in the country. Of course policy jockeys need a mandatory raise on top of their housing/vehicle/travel/office/staff allowances. Those poo poo heel public sector union workers, well gently caress those guys they are leeches on the tax dollars you see.

RBC posted:

I'm trying to locate the history on how and why representative's salary increases were bound to private sector union contract increases but I can't find anything. It's weird as hell because they are bosses with no collective bargaining rights not unionized workers.

quote:

How did we end up with this particular index? We looked at number of indices before settling on the HRSD one. It had a number of advantages. For one, it is the only major index of private sector wage settlements that is widely available and easily accessible. When we look at the index itself and how it is made up, it is readily understood by everyone, and I believe, as I am sure many others will if they have the opportunity to look at this index, that it will be a fair and representative indicator of the general wage settlement trends in the economy.

It is also very important, and this again is an advantage of using this particular index, that we use an index that does not include wage increases negotiated by public servants because Parliament, from time to time, may need to legislate on public service compensation. Thus, using an index with a public sector component could in fact be perceived by some as putting Parliament in a conflict of interest.

Some people have put forward the cost of living index, COLA, which is used by Statistics Canada as a possible measure for linking MP compensation. However, what this particular index does is it tracks the prices as they rise and as they decline of the goods and services in the economy. It does not reflect the changes in wage increases received by Canadians across the country. The prices of commodities can rise and fall dramatically depending on trends in the economy. Therefore we believe that we should base salary changes for MPs on what is happening to Canadians in the economy, not on the supply and demand curves of goods and services.

For those reasons the government has chosen to use the private sector wage settlement index that is published by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development as it is an authoritative index. Both the government and industry use it. It is a data source that many use in analyzing wage settlement trends in our economy. It is published monthly in the Wage Settlements Bulletin and quarterly in the Workplace Gazette.

Therefore there is a lot of accessibility and there is I believe an understanding of what this index actually does and what it means for the economy. It covers a broad economy: primary industries, construction, manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, transportation, education and health services, finance and professional services.

The index itself measures the average annual salary increase negotiated by collective bargaining for private sector units with 500 or more people. It is comprised of over 430 collective agreements in the private sector and these agreements apply across private sector units of 500 or more people. It means that the wage settlement data that we expect to use as an index are really reflective of what more than 8,000 people across the country are getting in terms of wage increases. It represents mostly a unionized workforce but it also has a very significant component of non-unionized employees as well, so there is that mix in this index.

For the reasons that I have laid out before the House, we think this index meets the test of linking the increases in compensation for parliamentarians to the increases obtained by Canadians. By aligning future compensation increases with changes in the private sector wage settlements, parliamentarians can be assured and will be assured that their salary increases will be the same as those of other Canadians.

Blade_of_tyshalle posted:

The bmi charts want me, a 6'5" man, to be ~200 lbs or less to stay within the healthy range. The last time I was that light I was perpetually malnourished and biking 50km once a week to go to Edmonton on top of working full time as a stocker at a busy store. I'm just a big loving guy. Bmi is horseshit.

Pinterest Mom posted:

Bill C-30, 2004-2005, pretty much immediately post Sponsorship scandal. MP pay hikes were tied to judicial pay hikes, but in September 2004, a report recommended that judicial pay go up 10%. Martin's government responded by delinking judicial and MP salaries because they didn't want MP pay to go up that much, and they just kinda went and found an index that they thought was appropriate.

Tony Valeri's speech introducing the legislation

GENDERED SLUR posted:

If this thread really wants to slapfight about this poo poo I can post a picture of my dumb 6'4 rear end at 180lbs and 240lbs and then we can all agree that BMI is only really useless on population-scale and not individual scale and that waistline measurement is far easier to calculate and far more important to diagnosing unhealthy weight.

Risky Bisquick posted:

But what if you're a power lifter?

Dreylad posted:

Pinterest Mom posted:

Hey, à propos of nothing.

Remember when the RCMP released a letter in the middle of the 2005 election saying they were opening a criminal investigation into a cabinet minister?