Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Not sure if this was posted already because I didn't have the time to wade through dozens of essays on Canada Post, but Christ, what a ####ing loser.

Clearly hasn't learned a thing from the election.

https://x.com/PierrePoilievre/status...JvBMHamOg&s=19

What a ####ing joke

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Would I say that the person should be punished for doing something their employer is ok with? No.

The only evidence that the employer is OK with directions not being followed is a lack of punishment. So your argument reduces to "since the employee hasn't been punished for not doing their job they shouldn't be punished".

If the employer punished the employee, and demonstrated that they did in fact want that procedure followed, you'd be fine with that then?

Worth noting that not fighting something doesn't mean you're ok with it. Eg stores direct their employees to not confront shoplifters, but thay doesn't mean they condone it. Similarly, the resources it would take to monitor nationally dispersed employees for time-theft might outweigh the savings (since most people are ethical and will do their job without being followed around), but that doesn't mean they condone time theft.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

If you want to take one line out of context in the hopes of getting a “gotcha” moment fill your boots.

I don’t blame an employee for not following a procedure that the employer has demonstrated doesn’t need to be followed. A company could have a call-in policy that requires employees to call-in an hour before their shifts if they are going to absent but if that company hasn’t enforced the policy for years and randomly decides to arbitrarily discipline an employee for not calling in an hour before their shift I’m not placing blame on that employee.

Even you in all of your contrarian glory can probably agree that the company’s actions would be unreasonable in that scenario.

The same logic would apply here.

I wasn’t looking for a gotcha moment. You’re just logically inconsistent here and mixing what is legally required and what people should do.

[btimbit]

So Poilievre doesn't believe the Canadian government should be against genocide.

Interesting, but not really surprising

[BigThief]

It's bad enough they don't have any ideas but the conservative team doesn't even have any fashion moves besides blue blazer and black shirt. If you're wearing glasses, take them off. If you don't have glasses, put some on.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1925662984367452253

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The only evidence that the employer is OK with directions not being followed is a lack of punishment.

Well that’s more evidence than there is that they’re not ok with it so I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at here.

So your argument reduces to "since the employee hasn't been punished for not doing their job they shouldn't be punished".

Actually it’s “an employee shouldn’t be disciplined for doing something their employer lead them to believe was ok”.

If the employer punished the employee, and demonstrated that they did in fact want that procedure followed, you'd be fine with that then?

If they demonstrated that they weren’t ok with it before the employee violated the policy they’d be well within their right to discipline that employee for just cause.

Now if you’re asking if I’d be ok with it if the employer only demonstrated that they wanted to start enforcing the policy after the infraction then no I wouldn’t be fine with that. It’s worth pointing out that even if an employer hasn’t been enforcing a policy for years and have effectively taken away their ability to use it as a means to establish just cause for discipline all they have to do to make the policy enforceable again is to tell their employees that going forward they will be enforcing it.

This really isn’t that complicated.

Worth noting that not fighting something doesn't mean you're ok with it. Eg stores direct their employees to not confront shoplifters, but thay doesn't mean they condone it.

You’re reaching pretty hard here bizarro. The shoplifter isn’t an employee so this is just comparing apples to oranges.

Say an employee subject to that policy tried to tackle a shoplifter running out the door though and in the process injured themselves or knocked over a display case causing damage to company product. When the company disciplines that employee for not following the policy are you going to consider that to be condoning shoplifting?

Similarly, the resources it would take to monitor nationally dispersed employees for time-theft might outweigh the savings (since most people are ethical and will do their job without being followed around), but that doesn't mean they condone time theft.

Well duh. If the company isn’t aware that the time theft is occurring then that couldn’t possibly be considered as condoning it. Glad we were able to agree on at least one thing.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Not sure if this was posted already because I didn't have the time to wade through dozens of essays on Canada Post, but Christ, what a ####ing loser.

Clearly hasn't learned a thing from the election.

https://x.com/PierrePoilievre/status...JvBMHamOg&s=19

Does Isreal even have any political weight in Canada? It's virtually impossible to get elected in the US if you oppose them, but I'm not aware of any significant lobbying groups they have up here. Once again PP isn't even saying #### for his own political fortunes, he's just repeating whatever MAGA bull#### he gets from down south

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

I wasn’t looking for a gotcha moment. You’re just logically inconsistent here and mixing what is legally required and what people should do.

What “people should do” is quite subjective and opinions would vary from person to person. It’s kind of ironic that you would accuse me of being logically inconsistent when I’m basing my position on facts and your’s is based on emotion.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Does Isreal even have any political weight in Canada? It's virtually impossible to get elected in the US if you oppose them, but I'm not aware of any significant lobbying groups they have up here. Once again PP isn't even saying #### for his own political fortunes, he's just repeating whatever MAGA bull#### he gets from down south

I’ve said this before but I think the CPC’s strategy at this point might be to turn PP into their own version of Trudeau. A lightning rod for negative press who they can replace with a better leader right before the next election in the hope that that will convince enough voters that the party is going in a better direction.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Does Isreal even have any political weight in Canada? It's virtually impossible to get elected in the US if you oppose them, but I'm not aware of any significant lobbying groups they have up here. Once again PP isn't even saying #### for his own political fortunes, he's just repeating whatever MAGA bull#### he gets from down south

I haven’t seen any recent polls, but polls last year showed Canadians with an even split in sympathies between Israel and the Palestinians, with another third taking a neutral stance.

Spoiler!

https://angusreid.org/israel-gaza-ca...trudeau-hamas/

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I haven’t seen any recent polls, but polls last year showed Canadians with an even split in sympathies between Israel and the Palestinians, with another third taking a neutral stance.

Spoiler!

https://angusreid.org/israel-gaza-ca...trudeau-hamas/

The most recent one I saw showed 58% of Canadians have an unfavorable view of Israel.

Remove Christian nationalists and full-blown Zionists from the equation and I think that number easily reaches 70%.

But really it's another example of why PP shouldn't be running the country. This is genocidal rhetoric that's explicitly red meat for the Christian nationalist base of the party.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

What “people should do” is quite subjective and opinions would vary from person to person. It’s kind of ironic that you would accuse me of being logically inconsistent when I’m basing my position on facts and your’s is based on emotion.

Your entire argument hinges on the assumption that a lack of discipline is evidence of employer consent; but that’s a logical leap, not a fact. Silence isn’t endorsement. By that logic, any unenforced rule becomes void whether or not management is even aware, and employees bear no responsibility for knowingly ignoring it. That’s not how accountability works.

You said yourself that employees should follow direction unless there’s a safety issue. If an employee knows the policy -- follow customer delivery preferences, ie: deliver to the front door, back door, concierge, etc. -- and there's no explicit directive to do otherwise, then ignoring it is still a choice and a poor one. Management may be failing in enforcement, yes, but that doesn't absolve the employee of basic professional standards. Blame rests with both.

This is about basic expectations. If an employee is aware of a procedure and willfully ignores it, they’re not just a passive victim of lax enforcement -- they’re an active participant in delivering bad service.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Your entire argument hinges on the assumption that a lack of discipline is evidence of employer consent; but that’s a logical leap, not a fact. Silence isn’t endorsement.

Unless you’re lying about your calls and the calls of others to Canada Post complaining about it and a lack of any action on their part to address it then it’s completely reasonable to state that the company consents to what they’re doing.

By that logic, any unenforced rule becomes void whether or not management is even aware, and employees bear no responsibility for knowingly ignoring it.

No. As I’ve previously stated if the company isn’t aware of it then it’s a completely different scenario. In this case you’ve made it quite clear that they are aware of it.

That’s not how accountability works.

Agreed. But that’s only because your previous statement was so far removed from what I’ve said and reality in general.

You said yourself that employees should follow direction unless there’s a safety issue. If an employee knows the policy -- follow customer delivery preferences, ie: deliver to the front door, back door, concierge, etc. -- and there's no explicit directive to do otherwise, then ignoring it is still a choice and a poor one.

Yes the employees should follow the direction of management. Your argument is that there is no way the company would direct the employees to not worry about the policy regarding special instructions. My argument is that their actions, or inaction, according to you suggests otherwise. Heck we don’t even know what their policy is but that’s a whole other discussion.

Management may be failing in enforcement, yes, but that doesn't absolve the employee of basic professional standards. Blame rests with both.

Again, despite all evidence indicating otherwise you’re assuming that Canada Post is telling their employees to follow all special instructions when that does not appear to be the case.

This is about basic expectations. If an employee is aware of a procedure and willfully ignores it, they’re not just a passive victim of lax enforcement -- they’re an active participant in delivering bad service.

If the company has given the direction to the employees to not worry about the special instructions under certain circumstances or for any reason really then the employee not doing what you want is them doing the job as directed. As a customer you don’t get to dictate how a business provides their service, only whether or not you want to use their service as they’ve decided to provide it.

I’m not saying the business not being upfront with their customers about how the service will be provided is a good thing. I’m just saying that you’re not really in a position to dictate how they run their business and if the employee is doing as they’re told then they’re not doing a bad job. The job they’re being paid to do is just providing a poor service. If they decide to be a hero by going against management’s direction and it results in delays/overtime they may be subject to discipline. I don’t think it’s fair to expect them to put their livelihood at risk because you think they should do things differently than how they’re directed by their employer. You’re welcome to disagree with that if you like but personally I think that would be a pretty unreasonable position to take.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

What “people should do” is quite subjective and opinions would vary from person to person. It’s kind of ironic that you would accuse me of being logically inconsistent when I’m basing my position on facts and your’s is based on emotion.

I’m basing it on what you said a person should do. You should be replying to your own post and arguing against yourself.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

I’m basing it on what you said a person should do. You should be replying to your own post and arguing against yourself.

Again, you’re trying to take a single line out of context to put words in my mouth while assuming that the employer isn’t consenting to what the employee is doing.

Why would I argue against myself when it’s so much easier (and more fun) to argue with you?

I know you’re smart enough to understand and agree with what I’ve been saying but if you want to keep doubling down go right ahead.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Again, you’re trying to take a single line out of context to put words in my mouth while assuming that the employer isn’t consenting to what the employee is doing.

Why would I argue against myself when it’s so much easier (and more fun) to argue with you?

I know you’re smart enough to understand and agree with what I’ve been saying but if you want to keep doubling down go right ahead.

You are agreeing with everyone else and trying to have an argument about something that no one is trying to argue.

We absolutely all are assuming that the employer has not instructed the employee not to do door to door delivery on packages shipped for door to door delivery.

[Paulie Walnuts]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1925888004691775970

This is what Pierre stands for. #### him and the CPC.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

https://twitter.com/user/status/1925888004691775970

This is what Pierre stands for. #### him and the CPC.

Hm. Not going to engage in too much political debate on this one, but I do find it somewhat interesting.

That was the exact same line of thinking that was directed at the Israelites throughout Biblical history and their own persecution.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

We absolutely all are assuming that the employer has not instructed the employee not to do door to door delivery on packages shipped for door to door delivery.

You’re assuming that, sure. The fact that the special delivery instructions continue to consistently not be followed strongly suggests otherwise though. Did you know that among other things some companies have no cell phone use policies and yet employees use their cellphones at work on a regular basis without reprimand? I guess you’ve got a very interesting theory on how that impossibility could happen with there being a written policy in place.

[puffnstuff]

Can we get a seperate Canada Post thread?