the destroyer of worlds Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 CONs: too many people coming to Canada, housing problems. Also CONs: hey, move to Alberta. We somehow don't have housing problems for you. Alberta used to have the wage advantage. Yet BC just overtook them on average wages. Oops. https://globalnews.ca/news/10484561/alberta-is-calling-phase-3-moving-bonus/ 3rd phase of ‘Alberta is Calling’ is underway, but is province moving too fast? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure_Pavel Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 12 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said: Please show me the stats on that. From my understanding productivity goes up. The govt buildings in Ottawa are full of bed bugs...rats and asbestos. No one should be working in them. And what are you talking about when you say general public? https://www.forbes.com/sites/benjaminlaker/2023/08/02/working-from-home-leads-to-decreased-productivity-research-suggests/?sh=1dcf38302afe by Stanford’s Institute for Economic Policy and Research https://www.talentcanada.ca/remote-workers-18-less-productive-at-home-versus-office-mit-ucla-study/ from researchers at MIT and UCLA More and more data is coming out against WFH and it shows in the shrinking availability of fully remote jobs. There are exception based on the type of work, some jobs such as call centers, sales job that work on commission, and some IT positions are probably fine and could actually be more productive. For the other 95% of jobs it is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 21 hours ago, Bure_Pavel said: Not as much as cause as people like to think, even if they had a majority government there would not be enough Conservative MPs in favor of axing abortions or gay rights. Seeing as they are all politicians I wouldn't be surprised if more that half of them have a least 1 abortion under their belt. Axing abortion is one thing, I'm not sure the cons would be able to get away with that. But the whittling away of LGBTQ+ rights? Or the rights and benefits afforded to other marginalized demographics? Or simply lower to average income Canadians? That wouldn't surprise me, that can be done gradually and with less coverage than an outright abortion ban would get. It also doesn't have to be done by the Feds, some things are done at the provincial level, but sometimes even provincial level stuff gets is publicly supported at the federal level. Needless to say, such rhetoric shouldn't be ignored. Goes for any party or politician, things should sometimes be taken with a grain of salt but it's still worth listening to what political folks have to say, and worth observing what they do or noting what they've done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure_Pavel Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 2 minutes ago, Coconuts said: Axing abortion is one thing, I'm not sure the cons would be able to get away with that. But the whittling away of LGBTQ+ rights? Or the rights and benefits afforded to other marginalized demographics? Or simply lower to average income Canadians? That wouldn't surprise me, that can be done gradually and with less coverage than an outright abortion ban would get. It also doesn't have to be done by the Feds, some things are done at the provincial level, but sometimes even provincial level stuff gets is publicly supported at the federal level. Needless to say, such rhetoric shouldn't be ignored. Goes for any party or politician, things should sometimes be taken with a grain of salt but it's still worth listening to what political folks have to say, and worth observing what they do or noting what they've done. Im not really up to date on all the LGBTQ+ rights, do they have many differences in rights from straight people other than marriage rights they have had to fight for? What might they be able to widdle away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 8 minutes ago, Coconuts said: Axing abortion is one thing, I'm not sure the cons would be able to get away with that. But the whittling away of LGBTQ+ rights? Or the rights and benefits afforded to other marginalized demographics? Or simply lower to average income Canadians? That wouldn't surprise me, that can be done gradually and with less coverage than an outright abortion ban would get. It also doesn't have to be done by the Feds, some things are done at the provincial level, but sometimes even provincial level stuff gets is publicly supported at the federal level. Needless to say, such rhetoric shouldn't be ignored. Goes for any party or politician, things should sometimes be taken with a grain of salt but it's still worth listening to what political folks have to say, and worth observing what they do or noting what they've done. Don't underestimate the risk of the provinces fucking with abortion access either: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-abortion-becka-viau-1.6454849 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure_Pavel Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 (edited) 10 minutes ago, King Heffy said: Don't underestimate the risk of the provinces fucking with abortion access either: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-abortion-becka-viau-1.6454849 Yeah that seems more like a provincial government issue. PEI is a tiny island, having to drive an hour to Halifax to get an abortion is inconvenient but not the end of the world. Canadians can choose with province they want to live in, some are more liberal than others. PEI has a similar population size to Langley. Would be like if Langley didnt offer abortions so you had to drive to Vancouver to get one. Again not great but PEI is a pretty strange place. Edited May 9 by Bure_Pavel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 1 minute ago, Bure_Pavel said: Yeah that seems more like a provincial government issue. PEI is a tiny island, having to drive an hour to Halifax to get an abortion is inconvenient but not the end of the world. Canadians can choose with province they want to live in, some are more liberal than others. 15 year olds can get pregnant and don't have the ability to drive or choose the province they live in. Provinces should not have the right to inflict to implement barbaric policies that restrict abortion access to Canadians. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure_Pavel Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 1 minute ago, King Heffy said: 15 year olds can get pregnant and don't have the ability to drive or choose the province they live in. Provinces should not have the right to inflict to implement barbaric policies that restrict abortion access to Canadians. Yeah they should have access, its pretty shitty for them to have to uber to an abortion and back. Would probably run $150-200 in transportation costs. I would hope they have parents they can lean on in these situations though but not always the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 1 minute ago, Bure_Pavel said: Yeah they should have access, its pretty shitty for them to have to uber to an abortion and back. Would probably run $150-200 in transportation costs. I would hope they have parents they can lean on in these situations though but not always the case. Which is why the provinces should be prevented from inflicting their barbaric policies and infringing on the rights of women. If politicians want to attempt this, they need to be held accountable for their crimes against humanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the destroyer of worlds Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 (edited) If provinces could ban it, you can bet Alberta and Saskatchewan would be at or near the top of the list of provinces that would restrict/ban it. Imagine living in Lloydminster. That would a long drive to get to BC or Manitoba. You already see this in the States. If you live in Central/East Texas, just about all the states surrounding Texas also have bans. New Mexico being the exception. It turns into quite the journey to get to a place that will even do an abortion. Edited May 9 by the destroyer of worlds 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Ravioli Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 1 hour ago, King Heffy said: 15 year olds can get pregnant and don't have the ability to drive or choose the province they live in. Provinces should not have the right to inflict to implement barbaric policies that restrict abortion access to Canadians. 15 year olds don't have parents to drive them? Also what is barbaric about having to drive an hour? Jesus Christ talk about first world hyperbole 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure_Pavel Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 57 minutes ago, the destroyer of worlds said: If provinces could ban it, you can bet Alberta and Saskatchewan would be at or near the top of the list of provinces that would restrict/ban it. Imagine living in Lloydminster. That would a long drive to get to BC or Manitoba. You already see this in the States. If you live in Central/East Texas, just about all the states surrounding Texas also have bans. New Mexico being the exception. It turns into quite the journey to get to a place that will even do an abortion. I think you underestimate those provinces a bit especially Alberta, lots of people from BC and recent immigrants have flocked that way recently and they would not have the support from enough of the population. Big cities and population centers like Calgary and to a lesser extent Edmonton are actually quite civilized over there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the destroyer of worlds Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 5 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said: I think you underestimate those provinces a bit especially Alberta, lots of people from BC and recent immigrants have flocked that way recently and they would not have the support from enough of the population. Big cities and population centers like Calgary and to a lesser extent Edmonton are actually quite civilized over there. And yet they vote for UCP and have D. Smith as their Premier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 Another Tim Hortons scandal is brewing.... Are Tim Hortons' new lids 'woke'? One Conservative MP thinks so https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-mp-tim-hortons-fibre-lids-1.7199306 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 1 hour ago, Ricky Ravioli said: 15 year olds don't have parents to drive them? Also what is barbaric about having to drive an hour? Jesus Christ talk about first world hyperbole Some kids don't have parents ffs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the destroyer of worlds Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 4 minutes ago, Satchmo said: Another Tim Hortons scandal is brewing.... Are Tim Hortons' new lids 'woke'? One Conservative MP thinks so https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-mp-tim-hortons-fibre-lids-1.7199306 "Woke" when a CON says it is the thing they are complaining about is something they don't like. They have no actual complaints based on facts and evidence. It's a toddler's response to change and should be dismissed as such. Don't like your num nums. Too bad, here comes the choo choo train. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 4 minutes ago, Satchmo said: Another Tim Hortons scandal is brewing.... Are Tim Hortons' new lids 'woke'? One Conservative MP thinks so https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-mp-tim-hortons-fibre-lids-1.7199306 https://www.collinsdictionary.com/conjugation/english/wake Woke is the past tense of wake, which is what coffee is supposed to do for you. If she has that much of an issue, she could order decaf instead of claiming the coffee doesn't work. Idiots like this woman are why there's so many warning labels on everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TortorellasRant Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 They don't care about your abortion 'rights' either side of the aisle beyond political posturing. It's merely a political weapon both here and south of the border so when the conservatives come to possibly restrict your access to it or the conditions which you can receive one, the liberals, who've done fuck all to ensure your right, will claim the conservatives coming to take it away so vote for them to protect your right which they failed to do the first time, or the time before that, or the umpteen times before that. The Dems had a super majority under Obama early on and I guess codifying Roe just happened to slip their mind, and Democrat minds the roughly 50 years prior. And so we're seeing precisely this in the US right now: vote us or x, y, z will occur even though we did nothing to prevent this in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Ravioli Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 8 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said: Some kids don't have parents ffs. Umm if there are 15 years running around without parents, we have a bigger problem than a abortion clinic being 1 hour away... "Ffs" Also not having parents means you now can't get a ride to the clinic? Give me a break 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapper Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 4 hours ago, Bure_Pavel said: WFH is terrible and has been proven to be on average 15% less productive, pretty much great for the workers and terrible for businesses. This country is facing low productivity issues, people need to stop whining about not being able to stay home and go to work. WFH works is specialized instances not for the general public. Maybe the Musk survey lol The real driving force behind this is the micromanaging bosses who's entire careers are built on the presumption that in their absence work stops The pandemic proved that middle management who's sole purpose is over seeing workers at work are the ones that are redundant and unnecessary There are some jobs that need you at work in person and nothing will change that Workers sitting at a desk can be monitored remotely and most companies do total productivity monitoring and have even before covid ..... Monitoring amount of work processed , calls made etc Most reports I've seen have not shown a reduction in work being done , rather in the bosses view Any business owner has the right to say if they are paying the bills they get to decide ... That's the right. But they should be honest and say it's because it's what they want. It's also true that workers who have a wfh agreement take less in raises to keep.them.... a win win 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapper Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 3 hours ago, Bure_Pavel said: https://www.forbes.com/sites/benjaminlaker/2023/08/02/working-from-home-leads-to-decreased-productivity-research-suggests/?sh=1dcf38302afe by Stanford’s Institute for Economic Policy and Research https://www.talentcanada.ca/remote-workers-18-less-productive-at-home-versus-office-mit-ucla-study/ from researchers at MIT and UCLA More and more data is coming out against WFH and it shows in the shrinking availability of fully remote jobs. There are exception based on the type of work, some jobs such as call centers, sales job that work on commission, and some IT positions are probably fine and could actually be more productive. For the other 95% of jobs it is not. They say not peer reviewed and one of them only used office workers in one city in India Should be taken with a huge ymmv 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 11 minutes ago, Sapper said: Maybe the Musk survey lol The real driving force behind this is the micromanaging bosses who's entire careers are built on the presumption that in their absence work stops The pandemic proved that middle management who's sole purpose is over seeing workers at work are the ones that are redundant and unnecessary There are some jobs that need you at work in person and nothing will change that Workers sitting at a desk can be monitored remotely and most companies do total productivity monitoring and have even before covid ..... Monitoring amount of work processed , calls made etc Most reports I've seen have not shown a reduction in work being done , rather in the bosses view Any business owner has the right to say if they are paying the bills they get to decide ... That's the right. But they should be honest and say it's because it's what they want. It's also true that workers who have a wfh agreement take less in raises to keep.them.... a win win The cost of replacing workers who decide to move on to a company with more flexible working condition also needs to be accounted for. These are often the best performers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure_Pavel Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 16 minutes ago, Sapper said: Maybe the Musk survey lol The real driving force behind this is the micromanaging bosses who's entire careers are built on the presumption that in their absence work stops The pandemic proved that middle management who's sole purpose is over seeing workers at work are the ones that are redundant and unnecessary There are some jobs that need you at work in person and nothing will change that Workers sitting at a desk can be monitored remotely and most companies do total productivity monitoring and have even before covid ..... Monitoring amount of work processed , calls made etc Most reports I've seen have not shown a reduction in work being done , rather in the bosses view Any business owner has the right to say if they are paying the bills they get to decide ... That's the right. But they should be honest and say it's because it's what they want. It's also true that workers who have a wfh agreement take less in raises to keep.them.... a win win Unfortunately the proof is in the pudding, speaking to a recruiting company recently they told me these fully remote positions are far and in between at the moment and are in a fast decline compared to even 6 months ago as more employers continue to push the return to an office environment. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapper Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 8 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said: Unfortunately the proof is in the pudding, speaking to a recruiting company recently they told me these fully remote positions are far and in between at the moment and are in a fast decline compared to even 6 months ago as more employers continue to push the return to an office environment. The productivity results also factor in all work ... Not just wfh. It is correct that it's down in Canada but it impacts near every industry and I don't think they have concluded they why's yet But your correct employers hate wfh and the amount is in steady decline. I just wish employers would be honest and say it's because they want workers.at work vs blaming wfh. Like I said private owners have that right and shouldn't be ashamed to just say it if that's what they want. I still suspect that many of the HR and middle corporate bosses pushing this is more about the loss of power and fear that this is making their job redundant But again ... Private companies have the right to just order it ... Don't have to justify it ... And even if it's the wrong move or costs more in the long run it's still their right to make They ones I do have issue with are employers who hired promising it , or agreed to wfh policies then revoked them just because they can and complete upended some workers.who based home location for example on the ability to wfh..not much they can do with proper notice to change it in office but at unionized workplaces if they bargained it and the employer doesn't honor it they will end up paying a fortune as I can see an arbitration award for costs and drive time as the make whole for violating an agreement What they should do is wait till next renewal and then the employer can demand it comes out of the agreement ( imagine it would cost them big time to get agreement ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arrogant Worms Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 New bill would give Alberta more power in emergencies, change election date to fall https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/new-bill-would-give-alberta-more-power-in-emergencies-change-election-date-to-fall-1.6880553 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.