I brought it up as that seemed to be the spin of the story. Wouldn’t mention the word “Woman” or even “Bathroom” on this topic. Seriously.You're the one that brought up the issue being about trans people. Don't know how you expect it to be looked at as anything else, Ron. If you didn't think it was about trans people, then why did you bring it up?
I guess I was ahead of the curve blaming JT for the things he’d done long before he was PM, but didn’t in this case. Sorry. I’m sure I will about something soon though. I’m flattered that you think I was hip before it was cool.And the comment still stands: IF you were blaming JT, you'd be jumping on the blame JT for everything because that's the "cool" thing to do, or something, regardless of it being a good or bad thing.
I was pointing out JT’s attendance record in Parliament long before he was leader of the Liberals. Didn’t blame for anything here this time, & don’t even see it as a missed opportunity.
OK."Anyway, I was thinking of ease of implementation and cost-effectiveness"
You said that, and I replied with getting rid of all washrooms. Problem - the cost-effectiveness of putting these things in bathrooms - solved.
No one would have to worry about it.
Who will have to pay for it? In a stand alone Federally regulated entity, the employer would have to pay for these “Free” items.So semantics: okay then yes, you're right, it won't be "Free" because someone will have to pay for it.
What about in a rental situation where 25% of the occupying businesses are federally regulated and the other 75% aren’t, but there’s two washrooms (sorry, toilet rooms) on each floor…? And all 20 businesses and for some of them their clients using all the washrooms???
Who would be responsible for that cost? Apparently it’s not going to be the guy that owns the building and collects the rent.
All semantics aside, someone has to pony up for FREE stuff. It’s not like it’ll be coming out of some publicly funded pool, contributed into by all of taxpaying society.Aside from the semantics... they will be free to the people who use them. Does that make it better?
I was being completely serious about this being being a “check the box” for a tax deduction/rebate thing as opposed to what I expected to (& did) see as a response to this legislation today though. Seemed like a simple realistic solution to creating the bureaucracy to creating Tampon Police to enforce this (ok, that last bit was sarcasm on my part).No, but I was being sarcastic to your comment about 'cost effectiveness'.
Did you create an awareness in your workplace like I did with our landlord at work?On that I have to agree with you; even in the hospital I work at there's nothing about it mentioned and I can't wait to see on the weekend if there's anything set up. Likely there won't be.
I planted the seed. It didn’t take, but I threw it out there ‘cuz I’d done my homework, knew the employees where to be consulted, and was prepared to offer that the “Tampex Pearl” are the shit! & there won’t be any ‘applicator free OB Nonsense’ for this guy!! Shizzle my Nizzle.