Low wages provides hard workers; higher wages provides
smarter and more efficient workers.
Do The Conservatives Deserve Another Chance?
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
Low wages provides hard workers; higher wages provides
smarter and more efficient workers.
Are you sure?
My experience supervising minimal wage workers was that you had to constantly ride them, to the extent that sometimes it felt like it was taking more energy than it would to have taken to have done the work myself.
Minimum wage workers will work harder to move up the ladder once they prove themselves they are promoted out
Hmm... okay... so you're presuming it's an organization with a vertical hierarchy with wages/salaries corresponding to rank.
Would never work in my place. There's two ranks... me, and everyone else.
That may be a misnomer- I've seen lots of employees who were neither smarter or more efficient after receiving a raise. :smile:
Why don't you go **** yourself?
Actually, money has very little to do with work ethic. A hard worker is what he is because he has pride in his work ethic - a dollar here or there won't make any difference, but when he feels he's been abused he'll just move on because he has confidence in the demand for him. :smile:
Aww come on, don't back down and get all wishy washy now. The tone of your post implied it was meant in a derogatory manner just like most of your other posts towards people who have a social consience.
But what is your idea of market value? You already stated you want the hardest work for the lowest wage so I would imagine you would like to see about $4/day and 12 hour days under a whip.
PoliticalNick; But what is your idea of market value? You already stated you want the hardest work for the lowest wage so I would imagine you would like to see about $4/day and 12 hour days under a whip.[/QUOTE said:
Why Harper must not have his majority
By RALPH SURETTE
First, my own story. Back in ’07, when the Harper government was new, I got under its skin with a column that went viral in fisheries circles on both coasts, attacking proposed changes to the Fisheries Act that had most of the industry in a fury.
Shortly after, I got a call from Randy Kamp, parliamentary secretary to the fisheries minister and an MP from B.C., who aggressively demanded that I tell him where I got my information and rang off with "the government of Canada is unhappy with you."
Keep in mind that in many, if not most, countries on the face of this Earth, a phone call like that from a government official to a journalist constitutes a death threat.
I was disturbed, but also baffled. I’d had governments unhappy with me for 40 years and never heard the like, and nothing in the Canadian tradition explained it. So I assumed this was just one out-of-control individual who didn’t know his job.
I checked with people I know in Ottawa. They told me emphatically: "That’s them. That’s them exactly!"
Since then, through a rising crescendo of deceit, manipulation, corruption and assaults on parliamentary democracy, the "that’s them exactly!" has become abundantly clear. But let me stick to fisheries as a subject of instruction.
Two years ago, the government was proposing a fishery treaty with the European Union — one drafted by the EU itself and that opened the door to the EU, the main predator of stocks off Newfoundland, possibly having a say in how fish are managed inside Canada’s 200-mile limit. Canada’s veterans of international fishery negotiations, going back to the 200-mile-limit and the UN Law of the Sea, raised the alarm, calling it a sellout.
The Senate and Commons fisheries committees both agreed and called for revisions. The government pressed on. Then, on Dec. 10, 2009, the House of Commons rejected the treaty, 147 to 142.
Then — note this — the very next day the government signed the treaty anyway.
That such a flagrant violation of parliamentary process should not only happen, but happen unreported by the mass media (except by me in a column for this newspaper) as though it was normal business not worthy of attention makes me wonder how far we are from that notorious category of countries we usually decry as "corrupt and authoritarian."
Read More:
Why Harper must not have his majority - Opinion - TheChronicleHerald.ca
Decent article, cover's a bunch, also left out a bunch of reasons why for all of our sakes, The Harper Hypocrites should never be allowed their coveted majority.
Reason # 12
The disgusting school yard bully way The Harper's are insulting our intelligence with their pathetic American ugly campaign attack ads against Iggy.
I don't particularity like Stiff Iggy either, but by dumbing down their attacks on him to the level of a Jersey Shore Fan, once again proves that The Harper's are not mature enough to handle a majority, and Canadians of all stripes need to hope that we do not fall victim to it.
I am so sure of this, that I may even break my Lying Brian Mulroney inspired protest, and take up to voting once again.
Fallout 2:1 - One needs not partake in criminal activity to have a legitimate take on organized crime.
By RALPH SURETTE
First, my own story. Back in ’07, when the Harper government was new, I got under its skin with a column that went viral in fisheries circles on both coasts, attacking proposed changes to the Fisheries Act that had most of the industry in a fury.
Shortly after, I got a call from Randy Kamp, parliamentary secretary to the fisheries minister and an MP from B.C., who aggressively demanded that I tell him where I got my information and rang off with "the government of Canada is unhappy with you."
Keep in mind that in many, if not most, countries on the face of this Earth, a phone call like that from a government official to a journalist constitutes a death threat.
I was disturbed, but also baffled. I’d had governments unhappy with me for 40 years and never heard the like, and nothing in the Canadian tradition explained it. So I assumed this was just one out-of-control individual who didn’t know his job.
I checked with people I know in Ottawa. They told me emphatically: "That’s them. That’s them exactly!"
Since then, through a rising crescendo of deceit, manipulation, corruption and assaults on parliamentary democracy, the "that’s them exactly!" has become abundantly clear. But let me stick to fisheries as a subject of instruction.
Two years ago, the government was proposing a fishery treaty with the European Union — one drafted by the EU itself and that opened the door to the EU, the main predator of stocks off Newfoundland, possibly having a say in how fish are managed inside Canada’s 200-mile limit. Canada’s veterans of international fishery negotiations, going back to the 200-mile-limit and the UN Law of the Sea, raised the alarm, calling it a sellout.
The Senate and Commons fisheries committees both agreed and called for revisions. The government pressed on. Then, on Dec. 10, 2009, the House of Commons rejected the treaty, 147 to 142.
Then — note this — the very next day the government signed the treaty anyway.
That such a flagrant violation of parliamentary process should not only happen, but happen unreported by the mass media (except by me in a column for this newspaper) as though it was normal business not worthy of attention makes me wonder how far we are from that notorious category of countries we usually decry as "corrupt and authoritarian."
Read More:
Why Harper must not have his majority - Opinion - TheChronicleHerald.ca
Decent article, cover's a bunch, also left out a bunch of reasons why for all of our sakes, The Harper Hypocrites should never be allowed their coveted majority.
Reason # 12
The disgusting school yard bully way The Harper's are insulting our intelligence with their pathetic American ugly campaign attack ads against Iggy.
I don't particularity like Stiff Iggy either, but by dumbing down their attacks on him to the level of a Jersey Shore Fan, once again proves that The Harper's are not mature enough to handle a majority, and Canadians of all stripes need to hope that we do not fall victim to it.
I am so sure of this, that I may even break my Lying Brian Mulroney inspired protest, and take up to voting once again.
Fallout 2:1 - One needs not partake in criminal activity to have a legitimate take on organized crime.
Only if you want to interpret it that way.
You mean the treaty that was signed by Canada in 1978?
That treaty?
Or was the author of this crap trying to tell us, an amendment to an existing treaty, is a treaty?
Really?
Here's the truth, and the facts of the matter.
Vote Details (40-2 Vote No. 158)
The house agreed with the findings of the committee, and the amendment was not ratified.
The treaty was already in existence.
Any more lies you me to dispatch Fallout?
Last edited:
I hope I have this right, but it sounds like the contract for the fighter jets has been cancelled. Not sure if that is good or bad news! Just heard what sounds like it on C.B.C. radio.
