Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium
To be fair, I truly believe Notley had the best intentions in mind. She worked with the other premiers and they probably said "look, if you can get some climate strategy worked out, we'll work on our constituents and get this done."
Notley held up her end of the bargain, and the other premiers stabbed her in the back.
It doesn't matter what age you are when you finally lose that naivete, but I think it will happen quickly with her after what happened. She's a smart woman. I feel bad because she truly wanted to compromise and do something good for all of Canada, but the other premiers took advantage and made her look weak and foolish.
We'll see how she responds.
|
I dont doubt that in most of what she does, but you know what they say about the road to hell...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Yeah, this is an opinion I can respect. I think there are some other more creative options you could give public sector employees that would offset reducing their pensions as well. A lot of posters on here have talked about how if you invest properly you don't really need a pension, but investments can carry some higher risks for public servants, especially if they're investing in companies or stocks that could bring conflict of interest charges against them. Maybe there's a way to tweak the language in CBAs to reduce the risk/liability for those kinds of issues.
|
And thats all it comes down to. The system cant last the way it currently operates which means that at the moment these guys are lining up to get screwed, it makes much more sense to take an honest and critical view of the system and adapt it so that its more sustainable.
Perhaps less lucrative, but at this point its about getting part of something as opposed to just riding it out until the whole thing goes down because at that point yeah, we are talking "fall of the Soviet Union: All of your pension cash is gone" and they wind up getting all of nothing.