Quote:
Originally Posted by CaramonLS
Slava, I think the point you're missing is that a lot of us work in the private sector, have to travel for business and actually have a fair amount of hurdles to jump through for accounting for our travel.
I work for a company where if I want to fly, I have to fly with a very specific criteria (airline restriction), if not, I have to make a case to my VP Finance as to why I should take another flight (cheaper, better times to get to the city, etc).
I have specific approved hotels I can stay at where our company has negoitated discounted rates.
I have specific restrictions on car rental - and if I want to exceed those, I need a good reason.
I have a $ meal limit as well.
I don't think this is uncommon, I'm sure others have examples too. People are being critical (at least I am) because I do make travel arrangements within parameters every single time I book it, with the goal to not be a drain on the company and to do it at a reasonable cost and be reasonably comfortable when doing it.
The government is the single largest employer in this province, and the people who elect them typically have to work with restriction similar to what I mentioned, but somehow, people elected into public office are now outside of that? That is why people are angry.
|
Thing is I don't disagree with any of this. I have my own business and travel at times for business, and I obviously don't treat it as "no holds barred". All my point is here is that there are columns in the paper suggesting that there was a flight with a stop in Winnipeg that she could've taken, and frankly I wouldn't have chosen that myself. I also think its a case where its low hanging fruit.
The opposition has areas like the children dying in foster are which are far more important and concerning, and instead we have discussions about whether she should've taken a different flight, ordered a smaller orange juice. Its just so off-putting in general.