Politics in 2016
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 4,401
- Points
- 1,160
Lightguns said:
Harper capped his PMO moves to under $30k for chiefs of staff, $10k for others.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/top-trudeau-aides-butts-telford-expensed-over-200000-for-moving-homes/article31995512/
Also, note this article:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pmo-staff-reimbursing-64-000-in-moving-expenses-1.3084408
They got caught and they're going to pay some of it back. Cute little line at the bottom:
NJC Relocation Directive will be changed, can be expect knock-on effects again of taking away even more compensation from CAF members?
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Ah yes, where's Dingwall when you want him.... entitled to their entitlements time has arrived at last. Surprised it took this long to come out. What was that Cindy Lauper tune, "I see your true colours come shining through...." Gotta love majority governments, eh.
PuckChaser said:
I think this could be the spark to revise the CF IRP benefits, ever since MND Bob Nicholson threw Leslie under the bus for his cross town move that cost the tax payer a hefty sum I've thought that it's a matter of time. There does have to be some sort of cap on moves though, Leslie's $72,000 move a few kilometres away and Butt's $127,000 move from Toronto to Ottawa is ridiculous. I realize that a service member and a non-elected PMO staffer are two different things but these costs to the tax payer are both unreasonable.
No idea how the cap would be calculated but obviously geographic location would have to be considered. Not sure at what price point luxury housing would be defined in the various cities but costs above a certain amount for realtor fees and land transfer tax should not be covered. Tax payers should not be on the hook for individual's real estate speculation activities.
Hopefully the guy who developed the PLD formula won't be involved!
- Reaction score
- 55
- Points
- 330
Political staff shouldn't be moved at taxpayers' expense. The party needs to pay for them, period.
Jarnhamar said:
That lasted long [
Oddly enough this one is the deserving of praise to the MSM, specifically the Globe and Mail. 18,000 for an apartment in Ottawa, in a location of his social class is very likely. Not that we should pay that out but is likely. He should have went unaccompanied and stay at Cartier Suites like the rest of us slobs. $20K incidentals is tres incred!- Reaction score
- 25,788
- Points
- 1,090
Careful - the "incidentals" line includes the PS equivalent of the Posting Allowance - two weeks pay. Are you suggesting that the Posting Allowance should not be paid to military members who are moved?
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,964
- Points
- 1,010
It looks like the shine is starting to wear off slowly, that's for sure!
I was so happy to watch the National "At Issue" yesterday ("Canada's most watched political panel" according to Mansbridge - "Canada's most pro-Liberal political panel" according to me ) where they had no choice but to call on the PM's most recent press conference and state - all of them - that "transparent" government is one thing, but to call a press conference where you say nothing and basically avoid answering any of the questions you are asked by skating around is a bloody waste of time for every one.
I think even the MSM journalists are beginning to see that this government has been all about sound bites that say nothing, but no action whatsoever on any front (except the right to die thing - where they felt they had no choice but come up with a law within the deadline imposed by the Supreme Court, and somehow letting 25,000 refugees into the country quickly).
I was so happy to watch the National "At Issue" yesterday ("Canada's most watched political panel" according to Mansbridge - "Canada's most pro-Liberal political panel" according to me
) where they had no choice but to call on the PM's most recent press conference and state - all of them - that "transparent" government is one thing, but to call a press conference where you say nothing and basically avoid answering any of the questions you are asked by skating around is a bloody waste of time for every one.I think even the MSM journalists are beginning to see that this government has been all about sound bites that say nothing, but no action whatsoever on any front (except the right to die thing - where they felt they had no choice but come up with a law within the deadline imposed by the Supreme Court, and somehow letting 25,000 refugees into the country quickly).
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Just like a gigantic fart. All wind and noise with no substance at all and an unpleasant, lingering, after scent.
- Reaction score
- 7,863
- Points
- 1,160
dapaterson said:
Telford is getting paid $607,698 per annum and Butts is getting $540,774?
$23,373 x 26 and $20,799 x 26 ?
As someone who has been moved by my employer in the past - and has reasonable knowledge of what relocation contracts in the private sector may include - I have seen some really attractive international contracts - I don't dispute the terms.
But if you are suggesting that 2 weeks is the standard then Telford and Butts are being paid more than the PM - and maybe that is appropriate.
The optics of this are bad. It is worse when it involves people committed to providing service to the nation at large for altruistic reasons. As I am sure is the case here.
Chris Pook said:
No one in politics is committed to anything altruistic. Even the most idealistic politicians I met promote ideas that will assist their careers. You want altruistic politicians? Make 'em one term only, pay them peanuts, disallow all political donations over $1000 and no pension plan. They will come, pass bills as directed by their neighbours and get on with their lives. I think it is Vermont that does not pay it's state politicians and sets term limits, they get expenses to come to the capital for a month at a time to sit, that's a good model that served very well in our national youth.
- Reaction score
- 25,788
- Points
- 1,090
Chris Pook said:
Not at all. The amount includes the "posting allowance", but is not exclusively that amount. So, for example, if they were to be paid $234K per year (not unreasonable for the level they are at, which is at or about what a Deputy Minister is paid), then they would receive $9K for that allowance. The balance would be for other expenses IAW the relocation directive. Not having the detailed breakdown, I can't say what was what, or what things were rolled together. But righteous outrage is rarely constrained by "I lack sufficient information".
It is interesting that people (1) want government to be more like business - business thinks nothing of compensating very senior personnel for relocating in the interests of the company; (2) in this forum, people get irate for non-military members getting a package that is less generous than that provided to military members (these folks receive two weeks pay; married military members get a month's pay for moving); and (3) want the best and brightest to serve government - yet begrudge reimbursement and thus seem to only want the independently wealthy to be able to afford to serve.
- Reaction score
- 7,863
- Points
- 1,160
I think the biggest problem is that in business it is a given that all transactions are mercenary. People may choose jobs/careers because they enjoy the challenge but ultimately they stay, or change, for the money. People are in it for themselves - and that is good - and that is acceptable.
However people who set themselves up as supplying services out of purported altruism must expect a little push back when they claim they need to be compensated sufficiently to keep them out of the grasp of the mercenary private sector.
The push back might be a little more severe when these well compensated altruists feel it necessary to keep informing us greedy mercenaries that we must do more, pay more, sacrifice more.
However people who set themselves up as supplying services out of purported altruism must expect a little push back when they claim they need to be compensated sufficiently to keep them out of the grasp of the mercenary private sector.
The push back might be a little more severe when these well compensated altruists feel it necessary to keep informing us greedy mercenaries that we must do more, pay more, sacrifice more.
- Reaction score
- 4,401
- Points
- 1,160
They didn't have PS jobs before being staffers, why do they get paid to move when they applied for a job not in their town?
Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk
- Reaction score
- 25,788
- Points
- 1,090
PuckChaser said:
Because the rules brought in in 2011 say they do.
- Reaction score
- 25,788
- Points
- 1,090
Good. But don't complain when you don't get promoted because you lack the depth of experience because you refused to move.
- Status
Similar threads
