Sure, but I don't really think Nash or Flaherty's comments are so divergent from their own respective platforms. Nor are the comments anything that noteworthy on either side.
There are no bad jobs, says Flaherty
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Sure, but I don't really think Nash or Flaherty's comments are so divergent from their own respective platforms. Nor are the comments anything that noteworthy on either side.
That depends. If you're concerned only with those who already have jobs, you might be right. But if your concern is with helping the poorest of the poor, then while creating jobs is not your sole concern, it is a concern none-the-less, along with strategies to raise people's standard of living in other ways too, such as skills training, etc.
A principled socialist party concerns itself with needs of the poorest first before worrying about the rest. The NDP does not, and if anything it woud seem for all the Conservative's flaws, in some ways at least they're helping the poorest more than the NDP is right now.
They learn English in school, so it's their job as politicians to express themselves clearly so we know exactly what they mean. The best we can do is take their words at face value, and if their wording is sloppy then that's their fault if we misunderstand them.
On that particular front the NDP is certainly better than the Conservatives in principle, however when it comes specifially to the idea that a Tim Hortons worker can be expected to work at Tim Hortons but that that's somehow below a skilled labourer is undoubtedly insulting to unskilled workers.
On taht front, Nash has some questions to answer to.
It is not about teaching an old dog new tricks. It is the waste of training and education and skills. It is the drag on the economy of not using the talents that we have and that we have developed.
Socialism is not about equal treatment ( though that is a vague enough term to be debatable). It is about equal opportunities. It is about using skilled labour for the benefit of all and supporting the unskilled, not about bringing absolute equality. In the redistribution of wealth - distribution would be a better description for Socialism, is about fair distribution, not equal.
Flaherty is no respecter of unskilled labour. He is a snob and an elitist. He was one of the chief facilitators for the freezing of minimum wages for several years under Mike Harris and for the 22% reduction in welfare rates.
If those software engineers and those teachers cannot find jobs in their fields, then thousands of them will not "get off their butts" and take jobs at Tim Horton's or any of the other McJobs the government specialises in creating to replace all those being lost through its policies, they will leave the country as thousands of nurses did here in Ontario when Mike Haris and Flaherty made them redundant.
"Labour" has become a bit of a misnomer and very seldom is used in the context of its original meaning- grueling and exhausting physical work. :lol:
Conservatives care for investors. How many minimun wage Horton's employees can afford to invest pay cheques in stocks and bonds?
But shouldn't training match the market and not the other way around? I can't learn Klingon, get a masters degree in Klingon linguistics, and tehn expect a job as a Klingon teacher. This is not to say that learning the complex linguistics of Klingon would not require a certain intellectual ability, but merely that the government cannot guarantee you employment in the field you chose to learn otherwise the government would also have to create many jobs for political scientists, philosophers, and English lit majors in their respective fields. I'm sure you see how ridiculous that would be.
But they must be skilled in jobs that are in fact in demand. As for unskilled labour, how about providing them with training too so as to upgrade their skills?
I agree with freezing the minimum wage. As for reducing welfare rates, I guess it depends on:
1. how low it is already, and
2. what alternatives are available.
Certainly to cut welfare when there are no jobs available is inappropriate, and when there is minimum wage then social assistance ought to meet that standard too or at least offer some kind of guaranteed employment alternative such as some kind of peace corps or other work programme that guarantees a reasonable wage as a last resort.
If Canada needs X number of teachers, and we have X + Y number of teachers, then Y teachers ought to be free to seek employment elsewhere, or alternatively learn a new skill. I'm all for the government retraining them, as I'm for ministries of education at home and abroad standardizing their professional and trades education standards with each other and Canada establishing free labour-movement agreements with other countries so as to give those teachers access to jobs abroad too.
And no, I'm not for forcing anyone to move, but either we give them the training they need for the jobs out there they choose to move or accept whatever is available. The way Nash had worded it was that the poor Tim Hortons sucker should just suck it up while the unemployed teacher can just wait for the ideal job he was trained for.
I never said conservatives are much better, but Nash's comments were pretty insulting to Tim Horton's workers and farmers no doubt. If it was lazy wording on her part, then she should clarify that and soon.
You keep going on with this minumum wage should match social assistance should match minimum wage. Social assistance covers drugs benefits and emergency dental. How many drug plans are offered in minimum wage work?
There IS no such thing as a "bad job". ANY job is better than no job at all. I have personally worked as: a janitor, a day laborer, a bus boy, an orderly, a waiter, a bartender, as a bakery helper, a cook, a dishwasher, and a host of other unskilled, semiskilled and skilled work. I took ANY job that I could get, and if I didn't like it, I still worked it as if it was my chosen career.
I have been promoted on almost every job I ever had. I was promoted because I did the best I possibly could. The ONLY job that I absolutely could not stand was cleaning "Port-A-Potties"!
I would often look for something better when I was doing something i didn't care for. I worked for wages from the age of 11, until I retired at the age of 62. If it was necessary, I would not hesitate to take any job that was available, in order to see to it that we retained a roof over our heads and food on the table.
Thankfully, I don't have to do that, thanks to the fact that my mother trained me to put 50% of every wage increase into investments. I began doing that at 16, when I joined the Army, and I never stopped.
I have been promoted on almost every job I ever had. I was promoted because I did the best I possibly could. The ONLY job that I absolutely could not stand was cleaning "Port-A-Potties"!
I would often look for something better when I was doing something i didn't care for. I worked for wages from the age of 11, until I retired at the age of 62. If it was necessary, I would not hesitate to take any job that was available, in order to see to it that we retained a roof over our heads and food on the table.
Thankfully, I don't have to do that, thanks to the fact that my mother trained me to put 50% of every wage increase into investments. I began doing that at 16, when I joined the Army, and I never stopped.
That same strategy has worked well for me - the other 50% was invested too....................................................IN BEER!
Probably not for the EMPLOYEE in the short term. But "jobs" that are wasteful hurt us all in the long run. I know years ago with Union carpenter jobs, the rule was they hired an extra man for every 6 carpenters............supposedly as a gopher and cleaning up after them, but at the carpenters' rate. I'm sure the carpenters would have gladly taken the extra 16% and cleaned up after themselves.
Not surprisingly..
Tories backing away from Jim Flaherty’s ‘no bad job’ EI comment
OTTAWA — The Harper government is trying to douse a growing political firestorm over the finance minister’s claim that “there is no bad job,” insisting Canadians on Employment Insurance will be expected to take jobs in keeping with their skill levels and in the areas where they live.
The Conservatives also contend they don’t know the long-term cost-savings of increasing Old Age Security eligibility to age 67 from 65 — despite maintaining the current system is unsustainable — but said an estimate is likely to come over the next few months.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has come under heavy fire this week for saying — as the government contemplates reforms to the EI program — that there is no such thing as a bad job.
The NDP accused Flaherty of proposing a “nanny state” in which unemployed Canadians will lose their EI benefits unless they reluctantly accept jobs for which they are overqualified or leave their home regions to find work.
The federal budget bill, which is weaving its way through the House of Commons, gives Cabinet the power to define what is considered “suitable employment” — which could affect whether a person qualifies for EI and the benefits they are paid.
A definition of what is deemed suitable employment will be announced in the coming months. Flaherty told Canadians this week: “There is no bad job. The only bad job is not having a job,” noting he once drove a taxi and refereed hockey.
On Tuesday, Human Resources Minister Diane Finley seemingly took a step back from those comments and tried to reassure Canadians seeking EI that they won’t be forced to take jobs outside their skill sets or regions.
“Canadians would be expected to take jobs appropriate to their skill level in their area,” Finley said in Question Period in the House of Commons.
The government, however, is sending mixed signals on the file; Flaherty didn’t backtrack from his comments Tuesday and again stressed the notion that there’s no bad job.
“The principle here is the value of work and the dignity of work and the usefulness of work, and work being a good thing to do. I firmly believe that,” Flaherty told reporters Tuesday after appearing at the House of Commons and Senate finance committees.
“Minister Finley believes in the value of work just as I do.”
As the opposition parties ramp up their attacks against the government on the 425-page omnibus budget legislation, Flaherty also noted that “there’s quite a bit” in the second budget implementation bill coming in the fall.
“There are a number of areas that we said we would take action in that are not in the first budget implementation act, so it will be another serious bill,” he said.
Despite the government’s assurances to Canadians seeking EI, the Conservative caucus seemingly signalled it supports the notion there is no bad job, applauding loudly Tuesday in the Commons when NDP leader Tom Mulcair quoted Flaherty on the matter.
The NDP attacked the government over Flaherty’s comments and the looming EI changes in the wide-ranging budget bill, arguing Canadians would be squandering their skills if they were forced to accept any job in order to qualify for EI.
“They can try to send in Ms. Finley to give a slightly different answer from Minister Flaherty. Mr. Flaherty’s the minister of finance. It’s his project and he’s giving the real government version,” Mulcair told reporters.
The Official Opposition announced it will hold public hearings across the country to allow Canadians to comment on the omnibus budget bill that critics say is being rammed through the House of Commons by the majority Conservative government.
NDP House leader Nathan Cullen said the Tories’ plans on EI reform — like changes to environmental regulations and seniors’ pensions — are just one example of critical policy shifts the government is trying to implement without public oversight.
It’s extremely problematic the government has not defined what is considered suitable employment, he said.
“Who is going to decide that?” asked Cullen. “Well, the nanny state, Mr. Flaherty, will decide what’s suitable for you or for other Canadians. Where you should work or what you should work as.”
Cullen predicted a system in which people in professions ranging from journalism to teaching who are on EI could be stripped of their benefits if they don’t take a job at fast-food chains.
Flaherty also was grilled by opposition members at committee on how much the government expects to save by increasing the OAS eligibility age to 67.
“If you can’t tell us the figure of how much you’ll save, how can you tell us (OAS) is unsustainable in its current form?” asked Liberal finance critic Scott Brison.
When asked this week how much his department expects to save with the OAS changes, Flaherty acknowledged he has heard reports of between $10 billion and $12 billion in long-term savings and didn’t refute the numbers.
On Tuesday, the minister said the government only budgets five years out and that it’s not certain how much could be saved. But he noted the chief actuary likely will report back in a few months with the expected long-term cost savings from the OAS changes.
Tories backing away from Jim Flaherty
Tories backing away from Jim Flaherty’s ‘no bad job’ EI comment
OTTAWA — The Harper government is trying to douse a growing political firestorm over the finance minister’s claim that “there is no bad job,” insisting Canadians on Employment Insurance will be expected to take jobs in keeping with their skill levels and in the areas where they live.
The Conservatives also contend they don’t know the long-term cost-savings of increasing Old Age Security eligibility to age 67 from 65 — despite maintaining the current system is unsustainable — but said an estimate is likely to come over the next few months.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has come under heavy fire this week for saying — as the government contemplates reforms to the EI program — that there is no such thing as a bad job.
The NDP accused Flaherty of proposing a “nanny state” in which unemployed Canadians will lose their EI benefits unless they reluctantly accept jobs for which they are overqualified or leave their home regions to find work.
The federal budget bill, which is weaving its way through the House of Commons, gives Cabinet the power to define what is considered “suitable employment” — which could affect whether a person qualifies for EI and the benefits they are paid.
A definition of what is deemed suitable employment will be announced in the coming months. Flaherty told Canadians this week: “There is no bad job. The only bad job is not having a job,” noting he once drove a taxi and refereed hockey.
On Tuesday, Human Resources Minister Diane Finley seemingly took a step back from those comments and tried to reassure Canadians seeking EI that they won’t be forced to take jobs outside their skill sets or regions.
“Canadians would be expected to take jobs appropriate to their skill level in their area,” Finley said in Question Period in the House of Commons.
The government, however, is sending mixed signals on the file; Flaherty didn’t backtrack from his comments Tuesday and again stressed the notion that there’s no bad job.
“The principle here is the value of work and the dignity of work and the usefulness of work, and work being a good thing to do. I firmly believe that,” Flaherty told reporters Tuesday after appearing at the House of Commons and Senate finance committees.
“Minister Finley believes in the value of work just as I do.”
As the opposition parties ramp up their attacks against the government on the 425-page omnibus budget legislation, Flaherty also noted that “there’s quite a bit” in the second budget implementation bill coming in the fall.
“There are a number of areas that we said we would take action in that are not in the first budget implementation act, so it will be another serious bill,” he said.
Despite the government’s assurances to Canadians seeking EI, the Conservative caucus seemingly signalled it supports the notion there is no bad job, applauding loudly Tuesday in the Commons when NDP leader Tom Mulcair quoted Flaherty on the matter.
The NDP attacked the government over Flaherty’s comments and the looming EI changes in the wide-ranging budget bill, arguing Canadians would be squandering their skills if they were forced to accept any job in order to qualify for EI.
“They can try to send in Ms. Finley to give a slightly different answer from Minister Flaherty. Mr. Flaherty’s the minister of finance. It’s his project and he’s giving the real government version,” Mulcair told reporters.
The Official Opposition announced it will hold public hearings across the country to allow Canadians to comment on the omnibus budget bill that critics say is being rammed through the House of Commons by the majority Conservative government.
NDP House leader Nathan Cullen said the Tories’ plans on EI reform — like changes to environmental regulations and seniors’ pensions — are just one example of critical policy shifts the government is trying to implement without public oversight.
It’s extremely problematic the government has not defined what is considered suitable employment, he said.
“Who is going to decide that?” asked Cullen. “Well, the nanny state, Mr. Flaherty, will decide what’s suitable for you or for other Canadians. Where you should work or what you should work as.”
Cullen predicted a system in which people in professions ranging from journalism to teaching who are on EI could be stripped of their benefits if they don’t take a job at fast-food chains.
Flaherty also was grilled by opposition members at committee on how much the government expects to save by increasing the OAS eligibility age to 67.
“If you can’t tell us the figure of how much you’ll save, how can you tell us (OAS) is unsustainable in its current form?” asked Liberal finance critic Scott Brison.
When asked this week how much his department expects to save with the OAS changes, Flaherty acknowledged he has heard reports of between $10 billion and $12 billion in long-term savings and didn’t refute the numbers.
On Tuesday, the minister said the government only budgets five years out and that it’s not certain how much could be saved. But he noted the chief actuary likely will report back in a few months with the expected long-term cost savings from the OAS changes.
Tories backing away from Jim Flaherty
Why aren't some boomers saving for retirement? There are oodles of low cost, decent return options out there. Take care of yourself FFS, don't expect me to carry your load twice over.
It's not that simple.
The people that will get hurt are low-income seniors, beginning 2023. Whether you care about them or not is up to you, but the only real benefit they can contribute to is OAS because of the low salary requirement for eligibility.
We're talking about people who work at Walmart or Home Depot for a living.
Essentially, we're debating whether or not they deserve retirement savings.
Ouch! The opposition might not like some of what they hear at the public hearings, though such hearings might help them change their minds. The idea that some unskilled labourer would be forced to work at Tim Horton's but that somehow it's below a uni grad is not likely going to go over well especially among traditional socialists. Ouch!
They have 11 years. If you can't learn the market, invest in a solid penny stock venture, watch it develope and cash in within 11 years you're beyond help.
Fine,give us the option to opt out of ei then,as it now takes allmost 4 months for a claim to get processed it is pretty well useless anyways.If I was to go work at tim hortons theres no way i would be working anywhere else as it takes time and lots of traveling to scare up work in the patch after spring breakup.