1trailmaker

8 minutes ago, 02sled said:

Your head can't get further up it's ass can it Fail. Yes women having a baby costs the business money. AND if they didn't shell out for a full year the EI premiums could be reduced even further. That is a cost savings Fail. Something you can't understand obviously.

Women in the work force is bad, having a baby and taking a year off bad (maybe 2 times in a lifetime) .  Career men taking EI payments on a regular basis year after year is good and doesn't figure into any costs. 

2 minutes ago, 02sled said:

Your stupidity continues to shine through as usual Fail . As usual you're back to making up things people allegedly said that they didn't. Nothing new for you. Your brain should be studied because it really is unique. I not once said anything about employers being able to fire someone for having a baby. Never even came close. I never said there shouldn't be anything for mothers. What I did say was that a full year was excessive and far beyond what is necessary.

So by the link you provided you just proved you as usual make things up and pull numbers out of thin air. You said that the employer contribution was going down $150 a month. I called BS and you just proved you are full of BS. It's going down $166.39 a year NOT the $1800.00  a year ($150.00 a month) that you claimed.

Heck that would have meant the employers wouldn't be paying anything. You truly are a moron. But just think how much less it could be if they didn't pay out a full year for parental leave.

Your comparison to 1997 is funny. That's right in the middle of the Chretien era. One of your heroes

 Fraser stated that the accumulated surplus, under Chrétien’s government, had grown “from $666 million in March 1996 to $40 Billion in March 2002.” In addition, we are informed that the Canada Employment Insurance Commission did attempt to hold Chrétien accountable by demanding a reduced rate of premium according to the spirit of the Act, especially Section 66, as Fraser notes. However, in May 2001, the law was amended by Chrétien’s government “to suspend section 66.” This suspension of section 66 later became an issue in a 2008 Supreme Court ruling.

Chretien changed the law to avoid reducing the premiums. But hey your hero can do no wrong.

As for fake made up department you're a lame idiot again. The corporate IT department at it's largest was 500 people. It had shrunk to 400 over time based on increasing productivity and efficiencies. The building and parking outlined in red was the building for the 500 IT people. Actually according to you there couldn't have been more than 50 in that tiny building of about 300,000 sq ft. Unlike government who keeps needing more people to do less work we actually over time needed fewer people and segregated the part of the building shaded in yellow highlighter and vacated that space.

There are now lots of women in IT and we survived by hiring people under a one year contract. We had to pay the HR people to work with a recruitment agency who also had to be paid to re

Fail again so very wrong as usual. Do you really have a job? Even a government one because you sure aren't part of the working world. You can't be. Two infants at home and lots of them decide to stay home with their kids until they go to school rather than send them to daycare. They then go back to work when the kids are in school.

Too sum it up Fail.... you continue to be just plain stupid beyond belief.

  you said its costing more, you are wrong (yes its a year and not a month) 60k a year was the number I posted which is correct for 400 employees. 

Having a person go on EI costs nothing to the employer,  you may state that a person having a baby might cost a company money by having to train a new person, but in most case that simply isn't true - give it a rest 02sled and anyone else thinking this costs companies money

How is giving EI costing more than not giving it to them?  I have been waiting for your explanation but you just keep spewing garbage about women leaving work

Why do you keep bringing up government workers? you sound like a little child having a tantrum - try to stay on topic

1 hour ago, Sleepr2 said:

Failmaker still proving he's clueless.  .

actually they haven't posted one thing about EI costing the business money, all they posted was a women having a baby costs them money.  EI doesn't cost them anything extra.

Clearly they feel women shouldn't have babies or shouldn't be able to work in baring years

sleepr keep the ball llicking going

2 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

That happens a lot.

 I bet most women don't go back to their 100k a year job - so true

2 hours ago, 02sled said:

Stop being a total idiot and go back to just being an idiot. You keep looking for everyone to provide links. Your turn. Show proof the employer is going to save $150 per month per employee. I say BS. If you can't understand that there would be savings likely in the $B range or higher if EI didn't pay out for a year every time someone in Canada has a baby then you are now into moron range. 

They pay out more to a person on maternity leave in the GTA than they do that has lost their job. Maternity you get the full year. Lose your job in the GTA and based upon EI assessment of unemployment rates in the area you only get 33 weeks. 

As for in the position to have a baby... My former IT department had 400 people. Of those 400 there were 12 off in one year. The next year if I recall correctly there were only 10. All making close to $100K a year. You have to hold their job for them but then you have those that wait until a couple of days before they are due to return and tell you they have decided not to come back. So now after collecting for maternity leave where the company paid the difference between what EI paid and their regular salary, held their job for them, continued things like medical and dental coverage they have to fill the job permanently. If you were using a contract person for the one year there is usually a fee to the employment agency if you hire the person at the end of the contract. 

Of course none of that expense means nothing to a government employee like you since the cost is irrelevant in government. Just take more from taxpayers. 

Now after being off for a year at full salary and benefits your employment has ended since you decided not to go back to work. Now you start to collect from EI for being unemployed. Of those 12, 3 chose to stay at home with the kid permanently. 

We also had a couple of moms that decided to have one kid, be off for a year maternity leave, be back for 3 or 4 months and then announce they were pregnant again with kid #2. So now it's lost productivity for the 9 months before kid #1 for doctors appointments and not feeling well, off for a year, back for 3 or 4 months, just getting back to full productivity and repeat the cycle. These are the ones that you know full well won't be back after kid #2 but you still have to hold the job for them and they won't tell you up front they won't be back because if they do that means they quit then and they don't get the salary top up, medical dental or as much from EI.

just continue thinking this doesn't cost businesses money Fail. You just keep proving to everyone how totally out to lunch you really are 

baby's should be illegal   women should be at home making cookies instead of working and fucking over work places Employers should be able to fire any women for having a baby -  nice post 02sled I get it now 

How did that company survive all those women in the workplace? 

here are the fees for the last 20 years http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/clcltng/ei/cnt-chrt-pf-eng.html

 that is a savings of 60k for your fake made up Department  - and is 400$ a month less per employee then in 1997

so 02sled your belief is there shouldn't be any EI collected for mothers

52 minutes ago, 02sled said:

Dumb as a stump you are. Are you suggesting that only some of Truedopes refugees are allowed to work. That he would be stupid enough to bring in a refugee, sponsor them for a year but tell them they aren't allowed to work. You're  now stupidly trying to lump all immigrants who went through the immigration process the proper way and met the eligibility criteria paid their own way here or were sponsored by family already here with a bunch of people claiming refugee status where the taxpayers pay for everything. Your stupidity continues to shine through.

I am not scared just aware that there is a real threat existing to Canadians and that we are not immune.

No links  

well over half the syrians are children so they are not allowed to work.  Refugees have to apply for a SIN and work permit before they can get a job, that is why they are sponsored.  Maybe they all got SIN and WP in the pocket of their free coat

22 minutes ago, 02sled said:

Oh so wrong again Fail. It costs the workplace plenty. Employer contributions to EI could likely be much lower if they didn't pay a year parental leave. The lost productivity while someone new gets up to speed. Very often they need to hire that person under a one year contract. They pay the placement agency a fee for recruiting. The contract cost because it is a contract and not a regular employee is typically significantly more costly for a year labour. The returning employee at the end of the year will not be at full productivity for a number of weeks. Often there is an overlap window at the start and the end where they have both the employee and the fill in working on the job together for hand over. None of that is free. 

Productivity wouldn't likely be a concern in government though since it's not that high to begi with

 

Much lower rates?  I doubt that.   EI rates are 20% lower per employee than it was 20 years ago.  Just this year rates are going down $150 a month per employee for an employer.  There is nothing to complain about.   

Over a lifetime for a business say having 30 employees, how many times do you think a maturity would come up.  I ask AC how many times he has replace Electrical engineer for a maturity leave?  I bet never

02tool in your department how many people would be in the position to have a baby this year? none or is it 1

For a place like WalMart where this might come up many times, the added cost is zero

the crying never stops

3 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

It takes me at least two years to train an electrical engineer before they can go out on their own, do you need any further explanation?

wow you are screwed if someone quits or gets ill - how do you manage.

In your case I would suggest never hiring a women or a young man that might have a child

Just now, ArcticCrusher said:

Lawn care?  How about any real skill.

Majority of jobs are not real skills I think you are aware of that.  Explain away 

1 minute ago, Sal Rosenberg said:

 

Mongo is right about Failmaker , he's the stupidest motherfucker ever to grace this site

yet no one has posted how this cost a Canadian business money never mind costing BIG TIME and this includes you.

EI pays the person off

4 minutes ago, Ez ryder said:

u know u are going to have a kid save your vacation and sick time . the rest s on your own dime . why should I have to pay because u fucked?

you shouldn't have to pay, I think I made that clear - USA has a different way of doing things

11 minutes ago, Ez ryder said:

well I assume it is like the unemployment and workers comp I have to pay and I can assure u they are not cheep and u deff do everything u can to not have to file or your rates go up

lol ya we call it employment insurance up here.  That fee doesn't change for a business in Canada, once a person is on leave you no longer pay their employment insurance - our system is very different from yours.

4 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

How does it cost the workplace nothing?  It costs small businesses big time.  How you do not understand this is mind boggling?

as I said in most cases no, but your blanket statement without any facts doesn't help the discussion.  Explain how this cost a lawn care business BIG TIME MONEY

1 minute ago, Momorider said:

 in no cases does it cost nothing you ignoramus 

your post is worthless MoMoNothing - are you suggesting no leave at all?  yes or no answer please

7 minutes ago, Ez ryder said:

not sure how chit works in CA but I am willing to bet the farm it is costing business owner something some place along the line.  NOTHING IS FREE

A business pays employment insurance which is a cost of doing business, no other costs - Making a business pay an employee plus the fill in person is really a stupid idea 

9 minutes ago, Momorider said:

You are a fucking idiot, you think that holding a job finding someone to do it temporarily cost nothing??? You are the stupidest idiot on this board without exception  

in most cases NO it doesn't cost anything

Just now, Momorider said:

More BULLFUCKINGSHIT from WRONG AGAIN FAIL, some things never change  

care to explain or are you just going to post your typical useless post

1 minute ago, f7ben said:

You accused me of making sweeping antiquated sexist generalizations while you were making sweeping antiquated sexist generalizations you fucking idiot

if you say so

1 minute ago, Ez ryder said:

I would really get to know my new goldfish to will u pay me to stay home and also pay the person covering my job?

In Canada it costs the workplace nothing - and if you can compare a child to a goldfish then in your case yes.

What is being proposed in USA isn't helping anyone, I agree there

1 minute ago, f7ben said:

My god ....you are one dumb motherfucker

if you say so, but how about explain how this stops hiring a women that isn't having anymore kids or have them at all.   You wonder why the WHITE population is dwindlng?

1 minute ago, 02sled said:

Pay attention to the bouncing ball Fail... they may have been born here but they are radicalized muslim. How about bringing in people who can contribute to the economy and prosperity of Canada rather than be a burden on the tax payers. Like I said.... the majority of those that arrived almost a year ago and are getting the 1 year totally free are now saying they want a second year because they still haven't adapted, still aren't employed and are also looking for medical treatment for depression and anxiety.

As for me sponsoring them the answer is yes I already do through my tax dollars. Not because I choose to but because Truedope says I will. I would much rather give that money to charities of my choice supporting the needy such as the homeless born here.

Yet you ask me if I have sponsored anyone do you have a link to your claims that all these people are not working (the ones allowed to work) what about the other 225k we brought in last year? any concerns?  

And WRONG the guy you posted was a Christian (not muslim) - sorry 02sled I am not scared like you are

2 hours ago, f7ben said:

I think this is a good plan , it will discourage low wage employers from hiring woman though

? why? what about hiring a Women that is already done having kids, many are done before they hit 30 years old.  1950 is over time to move forward.

2 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Its OK for large corps, but hurts the smaller ones.  Not sure what kind of homo wants to take time off when the kid is best with mom.  Sure if she is the breadwinner but still, the kid needs mom at that age.

It has nothing to do with a Women working or not A father can oped to stay at home (wife there or not) for 6 months and get to know their child.  Nothing wrong with that.

You are married to your work and that is okay too

3 hours ago, 02sled said:

you nailed it Fail is a taker and not a giver who deflects every time anything hits home

what hits home? you posted a link to a Born Christian Canadian that blew himself up , then posted another born Canadian that ran a mock in Ottawa

where are all these syrian terrorist we were told about? Last year when all this was happening I asked you what are you going to say when there wasn't even one terrorist attack from a new comer, and now I found my answer

We take in 250k people a year, no I don't sponsor any of them   do you?  what a dumb statement to make.   Where is all this terror you talked about and bought from Harper?

1 hour ago, 02sled said:

The head in the sand fool of all time pipes up again still diverting away from my challenge to show us how he supported the Syrian refugees. WHAT ELSE IS NEW. HE TALKS THE TALK BUT DOESN'T WALK THE WALK.

As for terrorists

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/08/10/possible-terrorist-threat-thwarted-says-rcmp.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/terror-threat-arrest-rcmp-1.3715969

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/two-men-arrested-over-al-qaeda-inspired-plan-to-attack-a-via-rail-train-in-the-greater-toronto-area

http://www.news1130.com/2016/08/11/mounties-to-release-more-details-about-foiled-terror-plot/

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/02/bc-terrorism-plot-rcmp_n_3534910.html

http://mackenzieinstitute.com/new-terrorist-threats-canada-components-effective-countermeasures/

we have been lucky SO FAR!

You have a short memory Fail but what else is new. You forget the attacks on the war memorial and Parliament as well.

One can only hope in some ways that one of the plans succeed and you or one of the idiots like you with their heads buried in the sand are impacted enough to realize the threat is real.

Idiots like you would pretend the threat isn't real and do nothing leaving everything wide open.