There are no bad jobs, says Flaherty

[Machjo]

There are no bad jobs, says Flaherty - Canada - CBC News

As long as the government provides the necessary trades or professional training for the jobs needed, I'm with Flaherty on this one.

The opposition calls his position insulting. I don't know, maybe he said something I'm unaware of, but I see nothing too insulting in the article except maybe he could have worded it better to clarify he's not necessarily blaming the unemployed for being unemployed, but merely saying we'll help them get back into the workforce.

But NDP critic Peggy Nash said Canadians should be concerned about what appears to be a hard line taken from the finance minister.
"If you are a computer software developer, will you be working at Tim Hortons? If you are an unemployed teacher or nurse, will you be working in the agricultural sector picking fruit?" she asked.

I'm sorry but if there are too many computer software developers for the jobs available, then he takes the job at Tim Hortons and does not just sit on his laurels waitng for the computer software development industry to pick up again.

In fact, you never know, working at Tim hortons might give him some new ideas as to how to create some kind of software Tim Hortons could use!

If anything, she just insulted all Tim Hortons employees. Does Pggy Nash look down on restaurant workers? Which riding is she in? I bet her constituents will appreciate that.

And agriculturalists are to be looked down upon too it would seem according to Peggy Nash. Oh her constituents will grill her on that one!

Now as for relocating, I would not require that unless the employer has guaranteed a job and is willing to pay moving costs. But should that happen, then yes they should be required to accept it.

As long as government funding for training and employers pay moving, I think his comments are fair enough.

Any thoughts on this?

I'm sure flaherty's constituents will be happy to hear his praise of all workers and not just those in "ideal jobs".

 

[JLM]

There are no bad jobs, says Flaherty - Canada - CBC News".

That is a bit of a stretch. I think there are quite a few jobs that don't produce anything, but rather just add to the cost of the production. These would mainly be bureaucratic gov't. paid jobs.

 

[Cliffy]

George Carlin - You are a slave - YouTube

 

[Liberalman]

As far as I am concerned if one is a bull sperm collector that person can be trained for other work

 

[Machjo]

That is a bit of a stretch. I think there are quite a few jobs that don't produce anything, but rather just add to the cost of the production. These would mainly be bureaucratic gov't. paid jobs.

His wording was sloppy indeed, but I don't think he meant it that way.

 

[DurkaDurka]

There are no bad jobs, says Flaherty - Canada - CBC News



I'm sorry but if there are too many computer software developers for the jobs available, then he takes the job at Tim Hortons and does not just sit on his laurels waitng for the computer software development industry to pick up again.

In fact, you never know, working at Tim hortons might give him some new ideas as to how to create some kind of software Tim Hortons could use!

If anything, she just insulted all Tim Hortons employees. Does Pggy Nash look down on restaurant workers? Which riding is she in? I bet her constituents will appreciate that.



I'm sure flaherty's constituents will be happy to hear his praise of all workers and not just those in "ideal jobs".

There are plenty of opportunities for software developers, the chances of a developer having to work at a Tim Hortons are slim to none. Your moaning about the plight of restaurant workers reeks of insincerity, why don't you quit your cushy job and work at Tim's for a spell. Also, if you think the corporate headquarters gives two craps about some idea a front line worker comes up with, you're deluded.

 

[Machjo]

Also, it's odd that Peggy Nash is a member of an avowedly socialist party and holds the views she does. I thought socialists believe in equal opportunity for all. So it sounds as if she's saying if you're unskilled labour, get off your butt and work, but if you're skilled labour, the government should pay you to sit on your butt until the job your trained in becomes available.

She seems to be missing two points:

1. you can teach an old dog new tricks. and

2. in socialism as I understand it at least, all get equal treatment, and just because you have skills, you don't get any special treatment.

In fact, what's even odder still is that if the NDP believes in redistributing wealth between rich and poor, and that unskilled labour is less well paid than skilled, if anything a member of an avowedly socialist party should be more sympathetic to unskilled than to skilled labour.

The irony in all of this is that flaherty, in spite of his sloppy wording of the issue, show more respect for unskilled labour than Nash deos, and he's a member of the "evel conservatives"! In some respects he's praising Tim Hortons workers and agriculturalists while she's insulting them. I can't wait to see how things turn out in their respective ridings next election.

There are plenty of opportunities for software developers, the chances of a developer having to work at a Tim Hortons are slim to none. Your moaning about the plight of restaurant workers reeks of insincerity, why don't you quit your cushy job and work at Tim's for a spell. Also, if you think the corporate headquarters gives two craps about some idea a front line worker comes up with, you're deluded.

I was quoting Peggy Nash. I know they have pklenty of opportunities, but if you take Nash at her word, she's suggesting that IF he can't find a software job, he should not be required to accept work at Tim Hortons, while imply8ing that unskilled workers should be forced to accept such a job. Sounds to me like she believes some Canadians are more equal than others if you take her at her word. Read the article.

 

[DurkaDurka]

As far as I am concerned if one is a bull sperm collector that person can be trained for other work

Your mouth needs to find a new profession then. :lol:

 

[mentalfloss]

Also, it's odd that Peggy Nash is a member of an avowedly socialist party.

They're trying to remove the socialist moniker, actually.

Also, socialism doesn't necessarily mean "equality for all" either.

One could argue, the true spirit of socialism is actually the American dream that Uncle Sam would pivot:

To each according to his contribution is considered by socialists and Marxist socialists as a characteristic of society directly following the transition to socialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism. This essentially means that people are rewarded based on the amount they contribute to the social product.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

 

[DurkaDurka]

Also, it's odd that Peggy Nash is a member of an avowedly socialist party and holds the views she does. I thought socialists believe in equal opportunity for all. So it sounds as if she's saying if you're unskilled labour, get off your butt and work, but if you're skilled labour, the government should pay you to sit on your butt until the job your trained in becomes available.

She seems to be missing two points:

1. you can teach an old dog new tricks. and

2. in socialism as I understand it at least, all get equal treatment, and just because you have skills, you don't get any special treatment.

In fact, what's even odder still is that if the NDP believes in redistributing wealth between rich and poor, and that unskilled labour is less well paid than skilled, if anything a member of an avowedly socialist party should be more sympathetic to unskilled than to skilled labour.

The irony in all of this is that flaherty, in spite of his sloppy wording of the issue, show more respect for unskilled labour than Nash deos, and he's a member of the "evel conservatives"! In some respects he's praising Tim Hortons workers and agriculturalists while she's insulting them. I can't wait to see how things turn out in their respective ridings next election.



I was quoting Peggy Nash. I know they have pklenty of opportunities, but if you take Nash at her word, she's suggesting that IF he can't find a software job, he should not be required to accept work at Tim Hortons, while imply8ing that unskilled workers should be forced to accept such a job. Sounds to me like she believes some Canadians are more equal than others if you take her at her word. Read the article.

Would you work at a Tim Hortons? I would leave for another country before working at Tim's. You cannot even rent an apartment on a Horton's wage, hence why it's mostly students who work there.

 

[Machjo]

They're trying to remove the socialist moniker, actually.

Also, socialism doesn't necessarily mean "equality for all" either.

Well, if they're now suggesting that computer programmers, teachers and nurses are more equal than servers and farmers. Looks like thry're trying to make such a break as to swing to the right of the Conservatives in their elitist attitude. So have the conservatives become the new "labour" party?

 

[JLM]

Would you work at a Tim Hortons? I would leave for another country before working at Tim's. You cannot even rent an apartment on a Horton's wage, hence why it's mostly students who work there.

Before one resorts to the dole, I think he/she should take ANY honest job that is available that he/she is capable of performing!

 

[DurkaDurka]

Before one resorts to the dole, I think he/she should take ANY honest job that is available that he/she is capable of performing!

I'm not advocating the dole, I'm suggesting moving somewhere where you can earn a decent living. The dole can't even be an option for most people, what does welfare give a single person, $600.00/m? That wouldn't even cover my beer expenses haha

 

[mentalfloss]

Well, if they're now suggesting that computer programmers, teachers and nurses are more equal than servers and farmers. Looks like thry're trying to make such a break as to swing to the right of the Conservatives in their elitist attitude. So have the conservatives become the new "labour" party?

I think you're reading too much into it.

And the conservatives have definitely not become the new "labor" party, rofl

 

[55Mercury]

...
In fact, what's even odder still is that if the NDP believes in redistributing wealth between rich and poor, and that unskilled labour is less well paid than skilled, if anything a member of an avowedly socialist party should be more sympathetic to unskilled than to skilled labour.
...

Ah, but skilled labour = unions, while unskilled labour is largely non-union. So right, obviously Nash's and the NDP's concerns are clearly not with all the people or even the least of these.

 

[taxslave]

Well, if they're now suggesting that computer programmers, teachers and nurses are more equal than servers and farmers. Looks like thry're trying to make such a break as to swing to the right of the Conservatives in their elitist attitude. So have the conservatives become the new "labour" party?

The conservatives have been the labour party for quite some time. The social party not so much perhaps. Most people have trouble differentiating between labour and social. The difference is between hand up and hand out.

 

[mentalfloss]

The conservatives have been the labour party for quite some time.

Labour does not mean # of jobs created.

 

[Machjo]

Before one resorts to the dole, I think he/she should take ANY honest job that is available that he/she is capable of performing!

I agree within reason, with few exceptions such as stripper, exotic dancer and others such jobs, and as long as the government is prepared to provide skills training if necessary and the company is prepared to pay moving expenses if necessary. But if those conditions are met, the job is morally decent, and it's offered, then the person ought to be required to accept it regardless of salary unless it turns out the dole pays better which should be the only exception.

I think you're reading too much into it.

And the conservatives have definitely not become the new "labor" party, rofl

Then Nash's wording was pretty sloppy too, in which case she should explain what she meant more clearly.

 

[taxslave]

Labour does not mean # of jobs created.

Pro Labour mens promoting jobs. By promoting major energy projects the Conservatives are promoting good paying jobs. By protesting these projects the NDP is denying working people a chance to make a good living, which makes them anti labour. The only jobs the NDP ids concerned about is government unions.

 

[Machjo]

Ah, but skilled labour = unions, while unskilled labour is largely non-union. So right, obviously Nash's and the NDP's concerns are clearly not with all the people or even the least of these.

And I guess that's the difference between labour-socialist and other types of socialist such as social-corporatist and such. That might also be why socialists are more successful in other countries.