Youngest senator has worst attendance record (AKA Why won't CPC show up for work?) - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Slava · 06-26-2012, 02:10 PM

The following article penned by Jennifer Ditchburn explains the pathetic attendance record of a few Canadian senators, but one more than the others. He was the same senator who fought (and lost) to Justin Trudeau in a charity boxing match earlier this year.

The guy is 37 years old and has a job guaranteed until age 75. Its just a complete disgrace really.

http://www.globalnews.ca/world/canad...586/story.html

Jacks · 06-26-2012, 02:13 PM

I agree, he should have to face the voters every 6-9 years.

Ashartus · 06-26-2012, 02:16 PM

While my views on Senate reform have been shifting lately towards the belief that anything that gives the Senate more credibility than it has now is a bad idea until the regional equality issues are resolved, I still support term limits. What other job is there where you can shirk your responsibilities without any real consequences?

Senator Clay Davis · 06-26-2012, 02:18 PM

Amazing they get up to 21 days excused without any explanation. Any wonder why the general public loathes politicians? Term limits should be mandatory, no doubt.

MarchHare · 06-26-2012, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashartus

While my views on Senate reform have been shifting lately towards the belief that anything that gives the Senate more credibility than it has now is a bad idea until the regional equality issues are resolved, I still support term limits. What other job is there where you can shirk your responsibilities without any real consequences?

MP for Calgary-West?

DuffMan · 06-26-2012, 02:19 PM

um.

evman150 · 06-26-2012, 02:22 PM

The problem isn't the position, it's the person and people (in general) named to the position.

Those using this as an excuse to abolish the senate need to look a little deeper. Then again, most people who want to abolish the senate or make it elected (LOL) need to look a little deeper at a lot of things to do with democracy and politics.

Slava · 06-26-2012, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evman150

The problem isn't the position, it's the person and people (in general) named to the position.

Those using this as an excuse to abolish the senate need to look a little deeper. Then again, most people who want to abolish the senate or make it elected (LOL) need to look a little deeper at a lot of things to do with democracy and politics.

What you mean a guy who responds to the reporter writing this story by saying "replace the D in your name with a B" isn't the kind of person who should be appointed? But he is a card-carrying conservative!

Cecil Terwilliger · 06-26-2012, 02:27 PM

Would you show up to work if your job was essentially meaningless, there were no repercussions to not showing up, you were guaranteed a job for the rest of your working life and there was exactly a 0% chance you could get fired?

As far as I'm concerned he's just taking full advantage of the perks of the job. He isn't the first and won't be the last.

As lame as it sounds, hate the game, not the player.

Coys1882 · 06-26-2012, 02:29 PM

What do these guys make a year doing this job? What exactly are they supposed to do?

evman150 · 06-26-2012, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Would you show up to work if your job was essentially meaningless, there were no repercussions to not showing up, you were guaranteed a job for the rest of your working life and there was exactly a 0% chance you could get fired?

As far as I'm concerned he's just taking full advantage of the perks of the job. He isn't the first and won't be the last.

The Senate is (supposed to be) for the best of the best.

And yes, the best of the best DO show up to work without being forced to.

Reminds me of the religious argument "how can people be good without God". Some of us are simply good people...

Slava · 06-26-2012, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Would you show up to work if your job was essentially meaningless, there were no repercussions to not showing up, you were guaranteed a job for the rest of your working life and there was exactly a 0% chance you could get fired?

As far as I'm concerned he's just taking full advantage of the perks of the job. He isn't the first and won't be the last.

As lame as it sounds, hate the game, not the player.

I don't know, but if I were the past leader of the Congress for Aboriginal Peoples and sat on such a committee as a senator now I probably wouldn't miss 65% of those meetings either. It's one thing to suggest that you skip things "because you can", but when you're missing meetings for a cause that is near and dear to you its a whole other matter.

And here I thought that Trudeau had knocked some sense into him!

Cecil Terwilliger · 06-26-2012, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evman150

The Senate is (supposed to be) for the best of the best.

And yes, the best of the best DO show up to work without being forced to.

Reminds me of the religious argument "how can people be good without God". Some of us are simply good people...

I'm not sure why it reminds you of the religious argument because it has nothing to do with this. This isn't a moral agrument, it is a common sense argument.

If my boss told me tomorrow that I no longer had to show up for work, I couldn't get fired and was guaranteed a paycheck until the age of 75 you think I would show up? Why? Out of the goodness of my heart? Hell no. I'd be travelling the world on my free paycheck. Yes, at some point I may get bored and show up to work but I don't love my job so much that I would just show up because it is awesome. That's like saying that you forgo your yearly vacation allowance because you love your job so much.

If his employers wanted him to show up they would change the conditions of his employment. Unfortunately this guy works for the taxpayers/government and that means it likely isn't going to change anytime soon.

evman150 · 06-26-2012, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I'm not sure why it reminds you of the religious argument because it has nothing to do with this. This isn't a moral agrument, it is a common sense argument.

If my boss told me tomorrow that I no longer had to show up for work, I couldn't get fired and was guaranteed a paycheck until the age of 75 you think I would show up? Why? Out of the goodness of my heart? Hell no. I'd be travelling the world on my free paycheck. Yes, at some point I may get bored and show up to work but I don't love my job so much that I would just show up because it is awesome. That's like saying that you forgo your yearly vacation allowance because you love your job so much.

If his employers wanted him to show up they would change the conditions of his employment. Unfortunately this guy works for the taxpayers/government and that means it likely isn't going to change anytime soon.

You are totally missing the point.

Here's a hint: You'd make a very poor senator.

Senator Clay Davis · 06-26-2012, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I'm not sure why it reminds you of the religious argument because it has nothing to do with this. This isn't a moral agrument, it is a common sense argument.

If my boss told me tomorrow that I no longer had to show up for work, I couldn't get fired and was guaranteed a paycheck until the age of 75 you think I would show up? Why? Out of the goodness of my heart? Hell no. I'd be travelling the world on my free paycheck. Yes, at some point I may get bored and show up to work but I don't love my job so much that I would just show up because it is awesome. That's like saying that you forgo your yearly vacation allowance because you love your job so much.

His point was good people do good things not because of some obligation, or being forced to, but out of the goodness of their heart. This guy clearly is another leech in it for himself. Can he do this? I guess so...Can we call him a classless a-hole for doing so? Best believe.

Cecil Terwilliger · 06-26-2012, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evman150

You are totally missing the point.

Here's a hint: You'd make a very poor senator.

No I think you are missing the point. He is under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to show up for work.

He's not a good person if he shows up. No one shows up to work out of the goodness of their heart, that is a ridiculous premise.

Do you take vacation at your job? If the answer is yes then you are no better than this guy. You should be showing up out of the goodness of your heart, otherwise you'd make a bad senator too. Do you pay 80% in income tax to be good? Or do you pay the absolute minimum that you have to within the parameters of our income tax laws? Unless you're an idiot, you pay the minimum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

His point was good people do good things not because of some obligation, or being forced to, but out of the goodness of their heart. This guy clearly is another leech in it for himself. Can he do this? I guess so...Can we call him a classless a-hole for doing so? Best believe.

Again, showing up to work does not make you a good person. I'm sure there are plenty of senators who show up to work and still do a ####ty job.

According to both of you I can show up for work and be a terrible employee and it somehow makes me some sort of pseudo-saint.

His employers have said it doesn't matter if he shows up to work or not. But now he's a piece of crap just because he's operating within the parameters of the conditions of his employment?

I'm all for senate reform but let's not pretend that it is this senator's fault. He isn't the first and won't be the last.

Daradon · 06-26-2012, 02:43 PM

The article does note that Senator absenteeism is less of a problem than it was a decade ago. It also mentioned the last person to actually break the allowed 21 days of absence was a Liberal senator.

$250 dollar fine, for a job that pays you more than that a day. Not much of a fine.

As for Evmans argument, not sure why he's putting the religious/non-religious spin on it. A little silly. Yes good people should do their jobs. Groundbreaking stuff. I'm not sure why that would even qualify one as good. Just regular or middle of the road perhaps?

This guy is not doing his job. And it's not just this guy, it's many of them. Even if Canada wants to keep the post as appointed, obviously other changes need to be made to ensure these guys are doing their jobs.

And if it truly is serious emotional family problems as Brazeau is hinting at, then I'm sure in a job as lenient as this there are ways of making sure he can fulfill his other obligations to his family and his life without being a dick about it.

Daradon · 06-26-2012, 02:44 PM

How can Cecil miss the point when you aren't even making one? You started off with some blanket insults and how you've moved on to a drive-by on him.

Jacks · 06-26-2012, 02:45 PM

If he were elected then the voters could turf him out next election. Kinda like how they turfed the former Liberal Leader Ignatieff when he had the worst attendance record while missing 60% of the votes in the house.

MarchHare · 06-26-2012, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacks

If he were elected then the voters could turf him out next election. Kinda like how they turfed the former Liberal Leader Ignatieff when he had the worst attendance record while missing 60% of the votes in the house.

Just like voters in Calgary-West turfed Rob Anders, amirite?