Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I think it's a difference without much distinction. The motion was his, and was not seconded by anyone. Is that not, in essence, the same as voting against it?

Let's see...

"I want to have a vote for Chicken on the Way to close its greasy orgy basement. Will anybody second this motion? No one? Fine.. I guess you're a bunch of greasy sex freaks then".

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Let's see...

"I want to have a vote for Chicken on the Way to close its greasy orgy basement. Will anybody second this motion? No one? Fine.. I guess you're a bunch of greasy sex freaks then".

So you're saying that you think some Councillors would have voted for the 5% pay cut? If so why do you think they wouldn't second the motion?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

So you're saying that you think some Councillors would have voted for the 5% pay cut? If so why do you think they wouldn't second the motion?

I don't think so, and I wouldn't either. If my boss came and asked everybody if they would like to to take a 5% paycut as a show of support for people less fortunate, would I vote yes to that? No. If there was some formula that dictated my salary for the year, and there was a decrease I would live with it. Similary if my boss came and told us we were getting a 5% pay cut, I would live with that too. But I certainly wouldn't voluntarily do it and I don't think any sane person would either.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I don't think so, and I wouldn't either. If my boss came and asked everybody if they would like to to take a 5% paycut as a show of support for people less fortunate, would I vote yes to that? No. If there was some formula that dictated my salary for the year, and there was a decrease I would live with it. Similary if my boss came and told us we were getting a 5% pay cut, I would live with that too. But I certainly wouldn't voluntarily do it and I don't think any sane person would either.

If those less fortunate people were the ones who decided if you kept your job or not then you might. But obviously you're right. Most people would chance it.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I don't think so, and I wouldn't either. If my boss came and asked everybody if they would like to to take a 5% paycut as a show of support for people less fortunate, would I vote yes to that? No. If there was some formula that dictated my salary for the year, and there was a decrease I would live with it. Similary if my boss came and told us we were getting a 5% pay cut, I would live with that too. But I certainly wouldn't voluntarily do it and I don't think any sane person would either.

Huh? Lots of sane people in Calgary have been choosing pay cuts over staff cuts all year? Nenshi himself admits he is overpaid.

I think the motive was quite clear, Farkas wanted council to take a 5% pay cut to demonstrate cutting back voluntarily before entering into salary negotiations with some major employee groups at city hall next year.

If your boss volunteered to take a 5% pay cut, then came in and told you to take a 5% pay cut... wouldn't you appreciate that leadership?

Once again, City of Calgary spending on salaries, wages and benefits at city hall have increased 15% between 2014 and 2017 alone. Taxes on some business are expected to increase up to 30% next year. Something has to give, and starting with council salaries would be a fantastic place.

[bob-loblaw]

Just blame Microsoft Excel then have a Kumbaya already...

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

If those less fortunate people were the ones who decided if you kept your job or not then you might. But obviously you're right. Most people would chance it.

I think I would chance it, if only for the reason that the longer you put this off, the worse its going to look down the line. Those incremental increases every year don't look so bad, but if you keep freezing the increases until 3 years in and then it's due to be an 6 or 8% correction, that's probably going ot kill their chances for relection and just generate more outrage about city hall greed.


I am interested in hearing more about these companies that gave employees a choice to volunteer (with no threat of being personally laid off) for a pay cut just out soliditary for other people who might not have it so good. Is this like, "hey guys, the store down the street just had to lay off a bunch of guys, how about we show them our support by taking a paycut? anybody?"

[KelVarnsen]

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I think I would chance it, if only for the reason that the longer you put this off, the worse its going to look down the line. Those incremental increases every year don't look so bad, but if you keep freezing the increases until 3 years in and then it's due to be an 6 or 8% correction, that's probably going ot kill their chances for relection and just generate more outrage about city hall greed.

What incremental increases every year? It's based on AWE salaries. When average weekly salaries decrease in a year for Alberta, so will their salaries. Which has happens. When they go up, so will theirs.

It happens that salaries may have increased this year on average by 2.7% (year being October - September). Other factors at play obviously, lost of jobs, job security, etc. but there's not really much of a time that their salary could be crazy out of line simply because it's based on every other person salaries.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

What incremental increases every year? It's based on AWE salaries. When average weekly salaries decrease in a year for Alberta, so will their salaries. Which has happens. When they go up, so will theirs.

It happens that salaries may have increased this year on average by 2.7% (year being October - September). Other factors at play obviously, lost of jobs, job security, etc. but there's not really much of a time that their salary could be crazy out of line simply because it's based on every other person salaries.

I just meant in the hypothetical situation where there was cause for a small salary increase each year, it would look worse no matter what, than having just having taken those salary adjustments each year, instead of bumping it up after the course of a few years. People like to fret over percentages. Nobody will remember the years you didn’t accept a salary increase, but if you should decide to catch up and it’s suddenly a 8% increase or something, people will freak out. That is unless the councillors freeze their salaries for their entire terms.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

What incremental increases every year? It's based on AWE salaries. When average weekly salaries decrease in a year for Alberta, so will their salaries. Which has happens. When they go up, so will theirs.

It happens that salaries may have increased this year on average by 2.7% (year being October - September). Other factors at play obviously, lost of jobs, job security, etc. but there's not really much of a time that their salary could be crazy out of line simply because it's based on every other person salaries.

It's not the salaries, although they started higher than comparable cities. It's the pensions. Over the last ten years we've spent more on councilor pensions than Edmonton, Ottawa and Vancouver combined. They haven't touched anything to do with pensions since 1999. Might be time to look at that and bring it more in line with private and other public pensions.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

The problem I have is the unanimous vote to get rid of Farkas. It's grand standing on the mayor's part.

Let me see if I have this straight.

A UNANIMOUS vote to act against Farkas is grandstanding on the MAYOR'S part.

You do know what unanimous means, right?



Sent from my MIX using Tapatalk

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Duerr gets a bad rap, but he had to deal with an energy industry on its knees from low prices, while senior governments choked off funding. Nenshi has received far more funding from senior governments than Duerr ever got.

Part of the mayor's role is to secure funding from senior governments.

[monkeyman]

The worst part about our council is our thin skinned, petty, vindictive mayor. Our council easily has to be one of the most secretive, dysfunctional city councils in all of Canada, all lead by mayor McCheese.

[Fuzz]

LOL. Forgot about Toronto already?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

The worst part about our council is our thin skinned, petty, vindictive mayor. Our council easily has to be one of the most secretive, dysfunctional city councils in all of Canada, all lead by mayor McCheese.

On what grounds do are you basing this?

If you look at council votes you get really odd alliances and voting blocks don’t seem to exist on most issues. The in-camera stuff relative to other councils is explainable because council deals with a lot of land and procurement issues that others don’t.

I think you are projecting your dislike of Nenshi’s personality onto the actual function of council.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by GGG

On what grounds do are you basing this?

If you look at council votes you get really odd alliances and voting blocks don’t seem to exist on most issues. The in-camera stuff relative to other councils is explainable because council deals with a lot of land and procurement issues that others don’t.

I think you are projecting your dislike of Nenshi’s personality onto the actual function of council.

Have you never heard Nenshi speak, how he reacts to be challenged, how he bends facts to suit his naritive? It's also well documented how many out of camera sessions Calgary has compared to other jurisdictions.
Just to be clear, Im talking about a mayor who was sued and lost for making false, derogatory comments about a local business and was caught on camera making more false derogatory comments about an international business.
Nenshi is a horrible mayor. I can't wait until he's gone.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Have you never heard Nenshi speak, how he reacts to be challenged, how he bends facts to suit his naritive? It's also well documented how many out of camera sessions Calgary has compared to other jurisdictions.
Just to be clear, Im talking about a mayor who was sued and lost for making false, derogatory comments about a local business and was caught on camera making more false derogatory comments about an international business.
Nenshi is a horrible mayor. I can't wait until he's gone.

He did save us from Ric McIver, so I'll always be grateful for that. He has kind of sucked at everything else, though.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Have you never heard Nenshi speak, how he reacts to be challenged, how he bends facts to suit his naritive?

Bending facts to suit a narrative is certainly despicable.

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Just to be clear, Im talking about a mayor who was sued and lost for making false, derogatory comments about a local business

Like bending this fact to suit your narrative. He never lost. It was settled out of court with negotiated terms.

[PsYcNeT]

No dude, the world is black and white and there's literally 0 reason to ever settle out of court unless you're actually guilty. Ipso facto carpe diem e plurbus unum lawyer.