02sled Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 50 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said: 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 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1trailmaker Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1trailmaker Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spin_dry Posted November 13, 2016 Author Share Posted November 13, 2016 this plan was drawn up by trump's daughter. it's good that he's getting family involved in policy making for business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02sled Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 (edited) Fail was the inspiration for this You totally ignore the Chretien surplus into the $B's because that would go against your rhetoric. You try and hold up your $60K savings annually (which is far less than the cost of hiring one employee per year) but ignore the fact you were WRONG ON THE $150 / MONTH SAVINGS PER EMPLOYEE. and so much more that you are continually wrong on.. I keep coming back to government since where you are employed (don't work just employed) doesn't ever see any of what the world of business sees. I guess if a couple of women from your office go on maternity leave for a year it's easy for the rest to pick up the slack since they have so much unused productivity capacity already. Edited November 13, 2016 by 02sled Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1trailmaker Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 you win 02sled - women in work force is bad and costs money to the employer - giving them EI payments costs employers billions a year - giving a father 6 months is even more cost to an employer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Rosenberg Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 He's still going Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 3 hours ago, 1trailmaker said: 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 If you were any dumber you'd flatline, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1trailmaker Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 7 minutes ago, Sleepr2 said: If you were any dumber you'd flatline, you are right - women should have their baby during lunch time and be back at work on time. there is no need to have any time off and if you wish to have time off QUIT. I get it sleepr you guys have made it clear - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 3 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said: you are right - women should have their baby during lunch time and be back at work on time. there is no need to have any time off and if you wish to have time off QUIT. I get it sleepr you guys have made it clear - Are you high, Stupid or both? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 2 hours ago, 1trailmaker said: 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 You could get the wife two nannies, then they can continue with their career. Just like our wonderful Prime Minister did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.