trump's maternity leave plan

[Sleepr2]

4 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

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

The fact that you make enough money to eat is living proof of that.

[Sal Rosenberg]

7 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

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

 

You are so fucking stupid that there is no explaining ANYTHING to you once you have something in that thick skull of yours .  It's been that way for years here , it's amazing that can even breathe on yer own.

[Ez ryder]

8 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

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

selling some one on giving them $75 bucks a week to do something there preteen should be doing is a skill

[ArcticCrusher]

9 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

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

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?

[1trailmaker]

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

[Ez ryder]

9 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?

takes me about the same for some guys and more for others for average service calls and small jobs . really by the time I can really trust a guy to run a job they want 50 bucks and a truck .  

[ArcticCrusher]

3 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

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

There are many small businesses like that, the key is hiring the right people.  When my cousins wife had her child her company set her up with a VPN to work from home, accommodated her and she never missed a paycheck.  All depends what you are made of.

[ArcticCrusher]

4 minutes ago, Ez ryder said:

takes me about the same for some guys and more for others for average service calls and small jobs . really by the time I can really trust a guy to run a job they want 50 bucks and a truck .  

Most of my guys are making six figures plus bonuses and ot so they do not care for Libtards.

 

But yes it does take time to train people for specialties, something some obviously do not understand.

Edited November 13, 2016 by ArcticCrusher

[Ez ryder]

16 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Most of my guys are making six figures plus bonuses and ot so they do not care for Libtards.

 

But yes it does take time to train people for specialties, something some obviously do not understand.

 only my top guys make 6fig but then we remodel homes . still takes yrs to hone a skill after they are done with trade school. I can send a semi rooky for rental work but they are good for nothing on a 90g bath but cutting and polishing and cleaning and watching .

[Ez ryder]

I have to be honest I have buds who cut grass well they hire guys to cut grass . money hand over fist mid 6 fig take home . training to make straight lines to a mouth breather is pretty ez . I often wish I would have picked a ez to train guys field so much more ez . the other big money rackets buds I have are in docs and shore line service. un fricking real the money they bring in with crews of 20 something kids . 

[02sled]

2 hours ago, 1trailmaker said:

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?

And you know of course you can't raise that subject in an interview. Big legal problems if you do. I guess the person has to be psychic when they do the interview.

[ArcticCrusher]

1 minute ago, Ez ryder said:

I have to be honest I have buds who cut grass well they hire guys to cut grass . money hand over fist mid 6 fig take home . training to make straight lines to a mouth breather is pretty ez . I often wish I would have picked a ez to train guys field so much more ez . the other big money rackets buds I have are in docs and shore line service. un fricking real the money they bring in with crews of 20 something kids . 

I did what I loved, enjoyed it and grew it, zero regrets, but looking back there were easier paths to making more.  However you gotta enjoy what you do day in and day out.

[ArcticCrusher]

1 minute ago, 02sled said:

And you know of course you can't raise that subject in an interview. Big legal problems if you do. I guess the person has to be psychic when they do the interview.

Perhaps the new Trump hater CEO can?  Fucking retard.

[02sled]

1 hour ago, 1trailmaker said:

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

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

 

[f7ben]

holy fucking shit is trail dumb ...just dumb

[1trailmaker]

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

[Ez ryder]

1 hour ago, ArcticCrusher said:

I did what I loved, enjoyed it and grew it, zero regrets, but looking back there were easier paths to making more.  However you gotta enjoy what you do day in and day out.

  but at some point it is all work and the grass starts looking greener lol . I have no real regrets just saying there are many days I wish I would have picked a industry that u could just hire and train mouth breathers and if they were sick  any 14 yr old would do . yeah I know that has its own issues

[500blue]

6 hours ago, spin_dry said:

mandated 6 weeks paid leave for mothers. paid by employers. i like this. sounds...umm...liberal 

hes not a republican, stupid.

[02sled]

8 hours ago, 1trailmaker said:

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

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 

[ArcticCrusher]

1 hour 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 

That happens a lot.

[Sleepr2]

Failmaker still proving he's clueless.  .

[1trailmaker]

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

[1trailmaker]

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

[1trailmaker]

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

Edited November 13, 2016 by 1trailmaker

[02sled]

18 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

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

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

12 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

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

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.