Well I come to work I have over 350 days I don't abuse the system oh by the way I get 6 weeks vacation - it's kind of like working for club med.
Sick Days
- Thread starter buckwheat1
- Start date
buckwheat1 said:
You can get STD that starts at day 1 and at full rate, but you pay a higher rate. You get what you pay for.
Not true
Municipal workers and teachers and others with the sick day accumulation with or without the payout at the end DO NOT have STD (well some have STI--but that is different
that is exactly why the system they have was created--sure it is pretty out dated...but stick to the truth...
I wish the media did a better job of covering this in the toronto strike situation...
bigdik said:
Municipal workers and teachers and others with the sick day accumulation with or without the payout at the end DO NOT have STD (well some have STI--but that is different
that is exactly why the system they have was created--sure it is pretty out dated...but stick to the truth...I wish the media did a better job of covering this in the toronto strike situation...
Mrbig1949 said:
It creates a "labour aristocracy" where those who pay their salaries (the taxpayer) have less benefits and lower salaries that the PS. This is an economic distortion and the union aristocrats attitude is "let them eat cake".
This is not sustainable....even NDP David Miller knows he will get voted out by the aristocrat-hating public if he caves into the union attitude.
The unions don't represent the "working man"...they represent a very narrow political and economic base and generally don't care about the public. They're like a bad political party with an agenda.
Mrbig1949 said:
LOL, you don't really believe that??? I don't know anyone who would lower themselves to work in the public sector. Immediate career killer--forever more people assume you are a lazy fuck and you can never get a good job again.
buckwheat1 said:
If this was in response to my post, I should point out that the plan also has 15 sick days. Lieu days are a separate thing.
So, 15 sick days. Six weeks after that at 100% in STD. Further STD up to a year, scaling down depending on the premium. LTD after that, again the coverage depends on premium.
Available to all workers, regardless of senority.
My experience is the STD starts paying within a couple weeks. It will depend on the insurance provider.
Again, this is insurance. It is cheaper, with better coverage, to provide for such catastrophes as a shared risk pool than everyone trying to do it themselves with bankable sick days.
My personal observations, and experience, has been that you guys who never take sick days(this is not directed at the self-employed ones), come in sick, hurt, return from surgery early, whatever, seem to think that when the time comes for cutbacks, reorganizations, downsizing, rightsizing, etc, you'll some how be spared the axe, because of all your sacrifice.
You guys are fooling yourselves.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, if you've been a long time employee, and are making top salary dollar for what you do, that just makes you more attractive as a candidate for dismissal.
If it takes a "salary dump" to make the years(or even the quarters) numbers look better, you will be out the door without a moments regret on the part of management, especially if someone in management's bonus depends on making those arbitrary numbers.
If you have five sick days, or ten, or however many, make damn sure you take them. Nobody will thank you if you don't.
Plus, make sure you take your vacation days. You've earned them.
You guys are fooling yourselves.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, if you've been a long time employee, and are making top salary dollar for what you do, that just makes you more attractive as a candidate for dismissal.
If it takes a "salary dump" to make the years(or even the quarters) numbers look better, you will be out the door without a moments regret on the part of management, especially if someone in management's bonus depends on making those arbitrary numbers.
If you have five sick days, or ten, or however many, make damn sure you take them. Nobody will thank you if you don't.
Plus, make sure you take your vacation days. You've earned them.
Cycleguy007
Banned
The Cunning Linguist said:
Sorry, you're not quite there.
I don't know how many time I've heard management/supervisory people say. I want him/them/her on the crew. They'll be there, not quit, and are worth the bucks. the younger cheaper people aren't always the best value, unless what your looking for is young, strong, and dumb. When you put together a homogenous crew you asking for trouble and have a big weakness to handle things when the shit hits the fan. There is a trend that shows this thing is becoming more common.
Mrbig1949 said:
That is exactly correct.
The employer puts his capital at risk to run the business, the employee does not.
The lunatic left seems to feel that once a job offer is in place they have a say & how the company should operate particularly around the issue of compensation. Thats not the case.
If you want a say, buy some shares or put some of your capital at risk & start your own company
The employer takes the risk that if he does not reward the employee enough the valuable employee moves onto a job which does.
Why in the world should the employee have a right to set his wages?
What risk is the employee taking?
The risk he could be better compensated elsewhere.
If he offers something very unique, such as capital or a skill set in demand , but short in supply, then he has an opportunity to request more compensation or seek another job.
Smart business leaders would probably grant this request
The same group would probably denie a demand
Mrbig1949 said:
That is exactly correct.
The employer puts his capital at risk to run the business, the employee does not.
The lunatic left seems to feel that once a job offer is in place they have a say & how the company should operate particularly around the issue of compensation. Thats not the case.
If you want a say, buy some shares or put some of your capital at risk & start your own company
The employer takes the risk that if he does not reward the employee enough the valuable employee moves onto a job which does.
Why in the world should the employee have a right to set his wages?
If he offers something very unique, such as capital or a skill set in demand , but short in supply, then he has an opportunity to request more compensation.
Smart business leaders would probably grant this request
The same group would probably denie a demand.
Unionist think business is all about us vs, them, that is why there are so many confrontational and non-productive union/business relationships.
But business is more about identifying risk and reducing it
An aggressive & non co-operative partnership (union, supplier, customer) is very serious risk to the long term health of a company
(GM-unions had a very big say in their compensation at this bankrupt company. need I say more ?)
blackrock13 said:
I just know what I've seen.
I've seen long term employee's with 10 plus years of service get axed...people who put their whole being into their work.
I've seen a women with 17 years on the job, never take sick days, have to take time off for a hystectoectomy (6 weeks), and get fired the week she returned.
I've seen the controller (who must have been making six figures) with 19 years, cut, just so budget targets could be met.
And so on...I could cite countless examples.
I'm well aware there's not much loyalty in the work place out there and unfortunately the all mighty buck wins out too often. but the rope things both ways. A looooonng time ago I attended a workplace workshop and one discussion was just that. People tend to be loyal a boss/manager/supervisor, but not to a company. The job for life type of career is long dead.
I hope that women didn't take the dismissal without a fight or there's some details missing somewhere. There are horror stories on both sides. My best is a guy on LTD with death bed back problems building a country place near Barrie mostly by himself and well able to use D8 tractors, backhoes, scaffolding, and ladders quite well. Needless to say he ended up working for someone else the following week.
I hope that women didn't take the dismissal without a fight or there's some details missing somewhere. There are horror stories on both sides. My best is a guy on LTD with death bed back problems building a country place near Barrie mostly by himself and well able to use D8 tractors, backhoes, scaffolding, and ladders quite well. Needless to say he ended up working for someone else the following week.
Mrbig1949 said:
Last time I checked soldiers weren't unionized, and you have intentionally picked out a list of public employees that is very UN-representative of, say, CUPE workers
That must be because you know the people CUPE represents are in fact all lazy fucks otherwise you would have used a more honest list.
Employees
You gotta love Larue, why should workers have a say in wages. Oh cause they have had a say since about the 1860s in Canada. Ever buy a house or a car? One side is buying one side is selling. If they reach a common price they have a deal, if they don't one side has to move or the deal falls apart.
It is exactly the same thing with a labour agreement. The workers organize a union and tell the employer the price of labour is X. Boss says no it is Y. They negotiate until they have a deal or it falls apart eg strike or lockout. The workers have an equal say in wages just as one person applying to a one employee company has a say.
JohnLarue said:
You gotta love Larue, why should workers have a say in wages. Oh cause they have had a say since about the 1860s in Canada. Ever buy a house or a car? One side is buying one side is selling. If they reach a common price they have a deal, if they don't one side has to move or the deal falls apart.
It is exactly the same thing with a labour agreement. The workers organize a union and tell the employer the price of labour is X. Boss says no it is Y. They negotiate until they have a deal or it falls apart eg strike or lockout. The workers have an equal say in wages just as one person applying to a one employee company has a say.
