Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum
Ivrnet

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-19-2017, 03:47 PM   #1601
iggy_oi
First Line Centre
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WCan_Kid View Post
So you're saying the employers should be on the hook to buy out the remainder of their contracts plus pay going rates for the local workers? 100% disagree with that thinking, although I do agree that in most cases those positions should be filled locally once the contracts expire and based on GGG's post it sounds like that's already happening.
No, I'm saying I don't agree with them being guaranteed jobs over people who actually live here under any circumstances, especially when it is through a tax funded program.
iggy_oi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2017, 03:57 PM   #1602
WCan_Kid
Backup Goalie
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
No, I'm saying I don't agree with them being guaranteed jobs over people who actually live here under any circumstances, especially when it is through a tax funded program.
I think it definitely has to be closely monitored for abuse, but in cases where those workers are being brought in to fill a need they deserve some protection too. Or would you be cool with me hiring you to fill a vacancy in a city 500km away and then turning around 3 months later and letting you go because someone local suddenly became available?

I don't think we should be allowing companies to hire foreign workers at reduced wages to fill positions when Canadians are available, but when there's nobody local to hire at any wage concessions need to be made in order to keep things moving.
WCan_Kid is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2017, 04:17 PM   #1603
iggy_oi
First Line Centre
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WCan_Kid View Post
I think it definitely has to be closely monitored for abuse, but in cases where those workers are being brought in to fill a need they deserve some protection too. Or would you be cool with me hiring you to fill a vacancy in a city 500km away and then turning around 3 months later and letting you go because someone local suddenly became available?

I don't think we should be allowing companies to hire foreign workers at reduced wages to fill positions when Canadians are available, but when there's nobody local to hire at any wage concessions need to be made in order to keep things moving.
The problem with the program from the outset has been that it has given employers the ability to not hire local workers because they can find someone cheaper elsewhere. In a nutshell, all an employer had to do was try to fill a job vacancy by offering too low of a wage for anyone local to take, then they could qualify to get someone to work at that rate through the TFW program. Once that worker is under contract they are here, even if the job markets change, so if the economy rebounds by the time that contract is up the employer could just repeat the whole process.

It's also not always about not having Canadians available to fill positions, it's about businesses using this program to their advantage even in boom times to keep wages low, businesses don't seem to like when the invisible hand is telling them to pay more yet most will swear that when they make more money so will everybody else.
iggy_oi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2017, 05:34 PM   #1604
killer_carlson
Franchise Player
 
killer_carlson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

A lot of misinformation here.

Previously, in order for a Canadian firm to hire a TFW, they had to prove bonafide efforts to try and hire a Canadian. Even if the TFW was exponentially more qualified for the position, if a Canadian met the minimum requirements of the job, they were to be hired.

There were tens of thousands of positions which were not being filled.

If a company could prove to the satisfaction of the govt that they had made bonafide attempts to hire a Canadian, and no one qualified applied, then they could hire a TFW.

The TFW had to be paid at least the median wage for the job.

When the economy started to slide, there was an adjustment that allowed an employer to reduce the amount paid to the TFW, but it had conditions and adjustments that protected the Canadian employee.

Jobs for Canadians first, then if no Canadians, supplement (and not replace) with TFW.

Certainly there were people who cheated the system, but in my experience the overwhelming majority were compliant with the system requirements.

It was a highly politicized system but it was necessary due to the enormous job demand and the lack of mobility of Canadian workforce from areas of high unemployment to want to move to Alberta.

i've not had an opportunity to work through the changes announced today, but in my mind as long as the principle of "jobs for Canadians first, and only if no Canadians are applying, then supplement" then I think it's a good policy.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
killer_carlson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2017, 05:49 PM   #1605
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

The governments role in the TFW program is a difficult one. During the boom there wasn't enough people to do the work that was available from a skilled trade perspective and technical perspective. The amount of money paid just moved workers from one company to another. This is not really a healthy thing for an economy.

Alternatively if you can't hire someone to work in Tim Hortons you shouldn't be bringing in TFWs to do it. The labour pool of Tims workers is virtually endless. You just need to pay enough to make it worth while for these people to rejoin the labour pool.

So for skilled labour if there legitimately isn't people to fill the role the TFW program makes sense. For unskilled labour the market should drive the rate to increase labour participation rather than suppress wages.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Old 04-19-2017, 06:15 PM   #1606
iggy_oi
First Line Centre
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killer_carlson View Post

Previously, in order for a Canadian firm to hire a TFW, they had to prove bonafide efforts to try and hire a Canadian. Even if the TFW was exponentially more qualified for the position, if a Canadian met the minimum requirements of the job, they were to be hired.
If the program was working in this manner there would be no TFWs working at McDonald's or Tim Hortons.

Quote:

Certainly there were people who cheated the system, but in my experience the overwhelming majority were compliant with the system requirements.
I'm not doubting your personal experience has led you to believe that this is the norm and it is not being abused, however there are many examples of abuse throughout the country. With the food and hospitality industries being this biggest culprits.

Quote:
It was a highly politicized system but it was necessary due to the enormous job demand and the lack of mobility of Canadian workforce from areas of high unemployment to want to move to Alberta.

i've not had an opportunity to work through the changes announced today, but in my mind as long as the principle of "jobs for Canadians first, and only if no Canadians are applying, then supplement" then I think it's a good policy.
This system was never necessary for low skilled work in the long term, when the program was originally introduced it was aimed at bringing in workers for high skilled positions that time would be needed to adequately train people here for(doctors, surgeons etc), when they amended it in the early 2000's to include low skill workers they should have had the forsight to see how it could be abused, they didn't and it needs to be addressed. This is a welcome first step, but there will be a lot of push back from conservative lobbyists if the government begins to go after companies employing TFWs in low skill/min wage jobs.
iggy_oi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2017, 07:46 PM   #1607
iggy_oi
First Line Centre
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Funny I thought the carbon tax was supposed to scare all the businesses away?

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/c...mber-1.4076358
iggy_oi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2017, 08:30 PM   #1608
Violator
First Line Centre
 
Violator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Calgary Alberta Canada
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/e...jobs-1.4075684

Nice to see the government is addressing the TFW issue, still can't understand how this program hasn't been scrapped altogether.
This would have helped me out but this is a little to late should have implemented this during the last year or more.alot of companies cheated the system and still do I know a couple projects that are still 30% tfw.
Violator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2017, 11:21 AM   #1609
Regorium
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
Funny I thought the carbon tax was supposed to scare all the businesses away?

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/c...mber-1.4076358
I would presume that energy businesses love carbon tax. It gives them a very consistent framework to plan around and make decisions.

It's far better than trying to determine what the pet word of the month is for the government and filling your project application up with that word to try and win some subsidies for which your project's viability depends on.

The non-energy businesses that just see their costs go up (negligibly, but that's for a different thread) probably don't like it as much. Same with the consumer/individual. But that's always how it's going to be with a broad based taxation.
Regorium is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Regorium For This Useful Post:
Old 04-20-2017, 02:39 PM   #1610
Lubicon
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium View Post
I would presume that energy businesses love carbon tax. It gives them a very consistent framework to plan around and make decisions.

It's far better than trying to determine what the pet word of the month is for the government and filling your project application up with that word to try and win some subsidies for which your project's viability depends on.

The non-energy businesses that just see their costs go up (negligibly, but that's for a different thread) probably don't like it as much. Same with the consumer/individual. But that's always how it's going to be with a broad based taxation.
Energy producer's costs go up with a carbon tax just like every other business. I think some of the uncertainly with the carbon tax (before it was announced) was what form it was going to take and whether the tax would be applied to the producer or the consumer. With it being the consumer everyone is treated equally. I'll agree that they may be satisfied now that it is out there and they can now plan for it.
Lubicon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2017, 04:03 PM   #1611
iggy_oi
First Line Centre
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

I just found it interesting that the industry that will be impacted the most by the carbon tax appears to be ok with it, yet before it was legislated people were claiming that it would scare off investors and cripple our economy.

Some of the posts in this thread from before it was legislated really showed how quickly people can get caught up in politics. Every city, province, state or country has their own set of different rules and regulations, I said it before, most businesses aren't going to abandon a market of 4 million people because of a carbon tax. They may claim that it will cost jobs, raise prices etc but people need to start seeing these threats for what they are, a scare tactic to build up support to prevent additional costs to their businesses. I'm not saying people don't have the right to disagree with the tax, nor am I suggesting that smaller businesses aren't affected more than larger companies. I just think people should try and consider all the facts before jumping to conclusions, when you base your position on what businesses and the politicians they lobby tell you will happen, take a moment to ask yourself, do they have anything to gain by convincing me this is bad? The fear driven hysteria was just on another level before they implemented this tax. We are living in the proof that most claims or predictions made during that time were out to lunch, it's just interesting how quickly people seem to forget.
iggy_oi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2017, 04:32 PM   #1612
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Probably a little early to be declaring that.
__________________
Air Canada - We're not happy until you're not happy.
Telus - hold on tight, we're going in dry!
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2017, 08:31 AM   #1613
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
I just found it interesting that the industry that will be impacted the most by the carbon tax appears to be ok with it, yet before it was legislated people were claiming that it would scare off investors and cripple our economy.

Some of the posts in this thread from before it was legislated really showed how quickly people can get caught up in politics. Every city, province, state or country has their own set of different rules and regulations, I said it before, most businesses aren't going to abandon a market of 4 million people because of a carbon tax. They may claim that it will cost jobs, raise prices etc but people need to start seeing these threats for what they are, a scare tactic to build up support to prevent additional costs to their businesses. I'm not saying people don't have the right to disagree with the tax, nor am I suggesting that smaller businesses aren't affected more than larger companies. I just think people should try and consider all the facts before jumping to conclusions, when you base your position on what businesses and the politicians they lobby tell you will happen, take a moment to ask yourself, do they have anything to gain by convincing me this is bad? The fear driven hysteria was just on another level before they implemented this tax. We are living in the proof that most claims or predictions made during that time were out to lunch, it's just interesting how quickly people seem to forget.
I think you are misreading the support for the Carbon Tax. Its a public relations move to support the government and support that their company is viable in Alberta after making a 13 billion dollar investment. There public position has to be the Carbon tax doesn't affect our ability to be competitive with the rest of the world. Point to the 13 billion dollar investment as the evidence and not the public statement

Does the Carbon tax affect them negatively? Yes, but not to the extent it could have especially in the pre-payback phase.

Now you could look at the signs that industry competitiveness is decreasing as you see juniors fail and big international companies leave the market Statoil, Conoco, Shell and move their capital elsewhere. At the same time you have the Canadian majors all expanding in Suncor, CRNL and Cenovous. This is a real concern for the future of the industry as its a sign that large scale expansion in Alberta is done and we will only have sustaining production going forward.

The Carbon tax is a net negative however if other taxation was properly offset and the tax was truly revenue neutral it would have minimal affect.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Old 04-21-2017, 09:46 AM   #1614
iggy_oi
First Line Centre
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
I think you are misreading the support for the Carbon Tax. Its a public relations move to support the government and support that their company is viable in Alberta after making a 13 billion dollar investment. There public position has to be the Carbon tax doesn't affect our ability to be competitive with the rest of the world. Point to the 13 billion dollar investment as the evidence and not the public statement

Does the Carbon tax affect them negatively? Yes, but not to the extent it could have especially in the pre-payback phase.

Now you could look at the signs that industry competitiveness is decreasing as you see juniors fail and big international companies leave the market Statoil, Conoco, Shell and move their capital elsewhere. At the same time you have the Canadian majors all expanding in Suncor, CRNL and Cenovous. This is a real concern for the future of the industry as its a sign that large scale expansion in Alberta is done and we will only have sustaining production going forward.

The Carbon tax is a net negative however if other taxation was properly offset and the tax was truly revenue neutral it would have minimal affect.
I can appreciate your take on this, however I disagree with this being a PR move. How do they gain anything from that? Whether they come out and say they love or hate the carbon tax, their choice to invest and do business here is really up to them.
iggy_oi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2017, 10:28 AM   #1615
Bill Bumface
My face is a bum!
 
Bill Bumface's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
Funny I thought the carbon tax was supposed to scare all the businesses away?

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/c...mber-1.4076358
Carbon pricing for the oil sands will include credits for, I believe, the top quartile of performers with respect to C02 emissions.

That means anyone who is in the top group will have a competitive advantage.

You'll note companies who look to be in that top group have been very vocal in support, while those out of the top group have been very against it. The funny thing, is the biggest determinent in carbon intensity is the reservoir itself. Regardless of technology, as long as we are using steam, those in the best areas will always be the top performers. Technology isn't really being incentivized here.

I think the government would have been better off in dumping money at COSIA.
Bill Bumface is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
Old 04-21-2017, 01:09 PM   #1616
calgaryjohn87
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killer_carlson View Post
A lot of misinformation here.

Previously, in order for a Canadian firm to hire a TFW, they had to prove bonafide efforts to try and hire a Canadian. Even if the TFW was exponentially more qualified for the position, if a Canadian met the minimum requirements of the job, they were to be hired.

There were tens of thousands of positions which were not being filled.

If a company could prove to the satisfaction of the govt that they had made bonafide attempts to hire a Canadian, and no one qualified applied, then they could hire a TFW.

The TFW had to be paid at least the median wage for the job.

When the economy started to slide, there was an adjustment that allowed an employer to reduce the amount paid to the TFW, but it had conditions and adjustments that protected the Canadian employee.

Jobs for Canadians first, then if no Canadians, supplement (and not replace) with TFW.

Certainly there were people who cheated the system, but in my experience the overwhelming majority were compliant with the system requirements.

It was a highly politicized system but it was necessary due to the enormous job demand and the lack of mobility of Canadian workforce from areas of high unemployment to want to move to Alberta.

i've not had an opportunity to work through the changes announced today, but in my mind as long as the principle of "jobs for Canadians first, and only if no Canadians are applying, then supplement" then I think it's a good policy.
I knew a guy looking for welders, was offering $18-$20 for Journeyman, he couldn't "find " anyone so he brought it a bu ch of Filipinos.

The TFW system is a joke and should be done away with. We have skilled labour here, if there is not enough then the project gets built later, no need to build everything at one time
calgaryjohn87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2017, 10:17 PM   #1617
killer_carlson
Franchise Player
 
killer_carlson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Immigration is full of "I knew a guy" stories.

I take them with a big grain of salt.

If what you said is true, the guy likely broke the law.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
killer_carlson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2017, 11:38 PM   #1618
iggy_oi
First Line Centre
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killer_carlson View Post
Immigration is full of "I knew a guy" stories.

I take them with a big grain of salt.

If what you said is true, the guy likely broke the law.
If you don't believe this happens, how do you explain the fact that there are thousands of minimum/low wage jobs across the country that use TFWs? Do you really feel there is no one living here who can work those jobs? Those employers aren't trying to be competitive, they are looking at keeping labour costs down any way they can. And it's not illegal, immoral yes, but that's the problem with this program, there's too many loopholes that can be exploited.

Using TFWs for low skil/low paying jobs is a blatant form of wage suppression, and it's gotten extremely out of hand. When companies like McDonalds and Tim hortons are allowed to participate something isn't right. If those companies do not want to pay their employees a decent wage when they obviously can, they should not be allowed to abuse the system to get what they want when it is keeping people out of work here. Without this program those employers would not be guarded from doing what an employer should do if they can't attract employees, and that's obviously offer better compensation. There is no benefit in this for our economy, the employers abusing the program are the only ones benefiting.
iggy_oi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2017, 05:28 PM   #1619
cal_guy
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Bumface View Post
Carbon pricing for the oil sands will include credits for, I believe, the top quartile of performers with respect to C02 emissions.

That means anyone who is in the top group will have a competitive advantage.
The credit is for each unit of production and is set industry-wide and the amount of the credit is set so it matches or exceeds the carbon intensity of the top quartile of the industry. So if top quartile in the oil sands sector emits 50 KG of CO2e per barrel of bitumen then you can expect a credit of about $1.50 or less per barrel of bitumen with $30/ton Carbon tax. Also to be clear this credit will given to all producers and not just to the top quartile.
cal_guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2017, 12:40 AM   #1620
DoubleK
First Line Centre
 
DoubleK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Bumface View Post
I think the government would have been better off in dumping money at COSIA.
Sorry, what, if anything is wrong with the work COSIA is doing?
DoubleK is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:20 PM.

Calgary Flames
2016-17




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016