Why Europe Keeps Failing........ merged with "EU Seizes Cypriot Bank Accounts"

[Bruce Monkhouse]

She is the manger of the Tim's.............6 weeks vacation.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

A "supervisor" at McD??.....would that be the tomato or the lettuce supervisor since I believe everyone there holds a 'supervisor' title.

 

[Sythen]

A "supervisor" at McD??.....would that be the tomato or the lettuce supervisor since I believe everyone there holds a 'supervisor' title.

That might be true now, but not when I worked there. There was Crew, which was the basic workers, Crew Trainer which was essentially senior Crew and no benefits aside from training others. Then there was supervisors (which included shift and training supervisors) and then there was a single manager who ran the store. Unless working Mon-Fri during the day shift, a supervisor would be the highest "ranking" person present. Nice try at a personal attack though.

And I will still call BS on your friend getting 6 weeks leave.. Trying to find it on their website, but can't find how many days they get.

EDIT: Further to my last, actually just called a local Tim Hortons and the person who answered said management get 20 days. So I will stand by what I said, no private company, unless you're like the CEO or something similar gets 6 weeks vacation.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Just reconfirmed with this person,................she gets 5 weeks paid vacation.[25 days]
She also gets 2 days off "in the bank" for working stat days and that was her "6th week" that she originally said to me.

So the same as the evil Govt. employee even with less time on the job..............but better stat day options.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A couple of times I linked to a Fred Reed (Fred On Everything) column about healthcare, in which he makes the basic point: some people simply can not or will not plan ahead, even if they had the kind of earning power to cover all of life's needs and privileges (their labour - what they are capable of doing in a unit of time - simply isn't worth much to anyone, and socialists are frantically devoted to removing whatever small dignity they can obtain through work by pricing it out of range with minimum wages).  Life stuck them with weak faculties and/or motivation, and there is nothing they can do to overcome that.  And what are we to do about that?  We can leave them to their own limited prospects - in which case we had damn well better look our indifference in the eye for what it is - or accept the burden of funding/subsidizing their existence.

However, that dependent population should be only a small fraction of the total population.  Where I see the problem is that there are too many university-capable people who have become protected species in public service, or are all but guaranteed some sort of sweet spot in private enterprise because we have over-regulated life.  And there are too many who think the safety net has to be wide enough to be a hammock, in the spirit of "equal benefit".

 

[Kirkhill]

....They ... you, actually ... the boomers, were/are indeed  "crude, loud, vulgar and generally obnoxious," ....

To the quick Sir, to the quick.  ;D

The boomers... we,actually..... may not have instituted the culture of entitlement but they/we certainly have taken full advantage of it. 

I will also admit that the "greatest generation" had a spotty record on a variety of issues - generating communists and fascists along with democrats.

As to the sudden increase in boomers sensitivity to politics and more conservative voting record.... doesn't that come with age?

Nemo does overstate....  He always does.  We are not evil incarnate nor, unfortunately, are we all Robber Barons - I would enjoy that status.  But, in my opinion, my generation has taken greater licence with mores, institutions and standards, and shown less respect for history than have the previous three or four generations at least.

And in that loss of contact with the past, I believe, lie many of the current problems.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If you have 30 paid vacation days a year, then you're a government employee and I fully support cutting that back as its excessive in my eyes.

I work for the Provincial gov't and get 15 vacation days a year.

Once more you're spouting generalized bullshit.

As is want of the type trying to make arguments from something they know nothing about.

 

[Sythen]

I work for the Provincial gov't and get 15 vacation days a year.

Once more you're spouting generalized bullshit.

As is want of the type trying to make arguments from something they know nothing about.

No where did I say every government employee gets 30 days. Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth though. If I actually cared more, I am betting it wouldn't be hard to find a sunshine list equivalent for vacation days. And should I post a link to the article about government employees averaging 18 sicks days a year? I don't know you at all, so don't know your personal situation.. But do you really want to try to try to compare private sector and public sector perks? Government employees have it VERY good compared to equally educated public sector.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

No where did I say every government employee gets 30 days. Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth though. If I actually cared more, I am betting it wouldn't be hard to find a sunshine list equivalent for vacation days. And should I post a link to the article about government employees averaging 18 sicks days a year? I don't know you at all, so don't know your personal situation.. But do you really want to try to try to compare private sector and public sector perks? Government employees have it VERY good compared to equally educated public sector.

CAW get better than me. Teachers get better than me. A whole host of NGO workers do better than me.

I also don't get anywhere near half of those 18 sick days a year.

More generalised bullshit from you trying to paint all with the same brush and not really having any real world experience of what the fuck you're talking about.

BTW, go for it with your 'Sunshine List' cause it doesn't include me.

A Government worker.

 

[Sythen]

CAW get better than me. Teachers get better than me. A whole host of NGO workers do better than me.

I also don't get anywhere near half of those 18 sick days a year.

More generalised bullshit from you trying to paint all with the same brush and not really having any real world experience of what the frig you're talking about.

BTW, go for it with your 'Sunshine List' cause it doesn't include me.

A Government worker.

For every private sector job that has it better than you, want to guess how many can be named that are far below? Whether or not you personally get to those 18 days, lots do and far past to get the average up that far. Where can you work outside the government to keep your job with stats like that?

I didn't paint everyone with the same brush and even stated:

No where did I say every government employee gets 30 days.

and

I don't know you at all, so don't know your personal situation

And btw, public school teachers are government employees. So again, stop putting words into my mouth, stop being so defensive and calm down. You're obviously mad.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So again, stop putting words into my mouth, stop being so defensive and calm down. You're obviously mad.

I'm not mad, just flabergassted and trying to devolve the misinformation that uneducated people are trying to perpetuate upon other hard working people, simply because they happen to hold a goverments job.

A federal government job that, btw, they are also likey to be holding.

 

[Sythen]

I'm not mad, just flabergassted and trying to devolve the misinformation that uneducated people are trying to perpetuate upon other hard working people, simply because they happen to hold a goverments job.

A federal government job that, btw, they are also likey to be holding.

You're taking this discussion far too personally. I have no problem with government employees personally. There are necessary jobs within the public sector. No where will I ever advocate for no public sector jobs. And no where have I attacked the individual workers. I will never blame someone for working for a living. My problem is a lot of public sector jobs are vastly overpaid with unrealistic benefits. I don't even really blame the unions, as its their job to get the most they possibly can. I blame cowardly or inept politicians for allowing it to get to this point.

As for your last sentence, if that's directed at me.. No. I wish I had a government job. Maybe one day I will. And even while working for the government, my opinion won't change. If someone wants to pay me double what the work I am doing should pay, I am not gonna turn down the money. But when I do finally get a pay cut/job cut/benefits cut due to the overspending, I also wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Brad Sallows]

We can't all have government jobs, any more than we can set the minimum wage arbitrarily at $30/hr and all live well.  That is why public sector bargaining should never have been instituted.  Although economic growth as a whole is not a zero-sum game, the division of the government's annual "pie" is.  If politicians had the backbone to leave public workers out on strike for 6-12 months to hold compensation creep down to match basic inflation, public sector bargaining would be OK.  But there is no such will.

 

[bridges]

Life stuck them with weak faculties and/or motivation, and there is nothing they can do to overcome that.  And what are we to do about that?  We can leave them to their own limited prospects - in which case we had damn well better look our indifference in the eye for what it is - or accept the burden of funding/subsidizing their existence.

However, that dependent population should be only a small fraction of the total population.  Where I see the problem is that there are too many university-capable people who have become protected species in public service, or are all but guaranteed some sort of sweet spot in private enterprise because we have over-regulated life.  And there are too many who think the safety net has to be wide enough to be a hammock, in the spirit of "equal benefit".

I just want to make sure I understand ... are you saying that all (or even most) people who need the safety net, need it because they have weak faculties and/or motivation?

 

[Edward Campbell]

I just want to make sure I understand ... are you saying that all (or even most) people who need the safety net, need it because they have weak faculties and/or motivation?

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, but, surely, obviously, some "people who need the safety net, need it because they have weak faculties and/or motivation." There is a question of: how many are they and how much do they abuse, as opposed to need, that net?

The net is, arguably, too fine ~ almost nothing (no one) slips through ~ and too high ~ people fall into it before they have real 'need.' Maybe if the net was more coarse and 'lower' (closer to the disaster level) then it would be cheaper and still catch everyone with a real need.

I like to think I am a utilitarian (greatest good for the greatest number and all that). In my opinion the social safety net fails the utility test: it provides GREAT 'good' to a relatively small number but at a cost that disadvantages the greatest number because the cost of it deprives the greatest number of an opportunity to make the best use of their own, hard earned resources. I'm not suggesting we should all be mean or niggardly, but I am suggesting we should be careful with our money. Further: the government or society or whatever has no money of its own - it uses yours and mine.

 

[bridges]

Further: the government or society or whatever has no money of its own - it uses yours and mine.

Obviously.    I'm sure you didn't mean that in a patronizing or insulting way.

I'd far rather see my tax money used for the public good, speaking in general terms, than for certain "perks" and wastage that it's been used for over the years.  I feel an ethical sense of responsibility toward our shared fate, and have no problem contributing to that, financially.  This is not the same as encouraging it to be taken advantage of.  There's always a danger, though, of setting a lot of truly needy people adrift, in the effort to catch a few idlers.  Striking a balance is probably the best we can aim for. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Obviously.    I'm sure you didn't mean that in a patronizing or insulting way.

I'd far rather see my tax money used for the public good, speaking in general terms, than for certain "perks" and wastage that it's been used for over the years.  I feel an ethical sense of responsibility toward our shared fate, and have no problem contributing to that, financially.  This is not the same as encouraging it to be taken advantage of.  There's always a danger, though, of setting a lot of truly needy people adrift, in the effort to catch a few idlers.  Striking a balance is probably the best we can aim for.

I didn't intend to be patronizing, but I can see that it might look that way. I was trying to end the "utilitarian" explanation by affirming that it isn't society that pays the bills, it's you and me and there are 'opportunity costs' associated with those payments.

You'll get no argument from me about "an ethical sense of responsibility toward our shared fate" and I, too, have no problems paying for it. But: I want it to be efficient effective, especially cost effective; opportunity costs again.

 

[a_majoor]

And the most efficient way to take care of the truly sick and unfortunate is for you, personally, to do so. You can choose whoever is needful according to your list, and you can help them according to what you think best and using the resources you deem appropriate.

Next best is local, community or church based charities, you can pool your resources and you still have a fair amount of control over the process (if you want to). Larger, impersonal secular charities (especially national level ones) have much less access for you as an individual to audit their activities.

And there lies the rub; "if you want to". Far too many people think that if they just write a cheque it is enough, most people could not tell you what % of their donation actually reaches the intended recipient and how much gets eaten in administration, fundraising etc. For those who think charity is forcing others to contribute to their cause, the fact that they have gotten "x" amount of government dollars to support a worthy cause is sufficient; they seemingly have no interest in what happens to that money, not the perverse incentives it causes (do you really think a bureaucracy devoted to "solving" poverty would be interested in actually eliminating poverty and thus their reason for existence and annual budget?). The moral superiority they achieve for "helping" in this manner is their incentive.

 

[Nemo888]

Individuals can't build a school, manage roads, airline safety, stand up an army or police force.

Your argument that individuals should do it  is juvenile.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Nemo,

If you had been paying attention at all, Thucydides was talking about charity, not about core governmental responsibilities.

Or do you just enjoy being deliberately obtuse?