Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 162 of 162

Thread: Deborah Drever expelled from NDP caucus

  1. #101
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,223

    Default

    Then if that's the case you're talking about, talk about that. Don't conflate calling someone on silly behavior with being the victim of real criminal events.

    And "character assassination"?

  2. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EveB View Post
    Then if that's the case you're talking about, talk about that. Don't conflate calling someone on silly behavior with being the victim of real criminal events.

    And "character assassination"?
    Nothing criminal here at all. It's all labelling going on. Labelling which will stick and follow her and be used against her. Monica Lewinsky might be an apt comparison. Despair isn't criminal but to be called something you are not, or for a 'youthful', even highly stupid mistake, is rather despicable, and is a form of character assassination that can leave lasting effects. I'd say that would be mildly depressing in the least.

  3. #103
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,223

    Default

    This is nothing even close to the level of Monica Lewinsky. I haven't seen calls for Drever being put in a locked room for days and interrogated by several levels of authorities.

    Seriously, you need to develop a sense of proportion.

  4. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EveB View Post
    This is nothing even close to the level of Monica Lewinsky. I haven't seen calls for Drever being put in a locked room for days and interrogated by several levels of authorities.

    Seriously, you need to develop a sense of proportion.
    Times have changed. They did that?

    I actually mostly ignored that story too.

    Aggh, sorry - I get it now. That was a pun. Forgive me, I'm slow.
    Last edited by KC; 28-05-2015 at 01:19 PM.

  5. #105
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,223

    Default

    Yes, they did. You have to be careful with your rhetoric or you risk really trivializing real injustice by conflating it with a mere slap on the wrist like we're talking about now. You are bordering on being actually offensive though I understand you don't mean to be.

  6. #106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EveB View Post
    Yes, they did. You have to be careful with your rhetoric or you risk really trivializing real injustice by conflating it with a mere slap on the wrist like we're talking about now. You are bordering on being actually offensive though I understand you don't mean to be.
    Thanks - I think - if I deserve it. I don't mind a proper proverbial slap on the wrist if I deserve it. I see such things as on a spectrum, where comparisons never work well, and so there's huge grey areas. (I imagine some people think Lewinsky got what she deserved so her treatment was well deserved and there was no injustice against her.)

    Yesterday I heard Suzuki talking about Neil Young and correcting the record on a few points. The Horoshima comment which was similar overstatement to us, was to Suzuki simply a visual description on the part of Young. Communication and appropriate hyperbole is a tough calling.

  7. #107
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    This is a version of mixed-member proportional representation. Variants are used in Germany, New Zealand, Lesotho, and Romania.
    Yeah, thanks, I thought that I'd seen some sorts of precedents for it but was uncertain. What do you think of it? Seems to offer potential improvement.
    I was going to respond to this but got busy and forgot.

    I think almost anything would improve our system in terms of better representing the views of voters. The difficulty is in actually implementing them. I tend to favour single transferable vote, not because I think it's the best system, but because it would be the easiest to implement. MMR would be better as it preserves regional representation and also provides representatives that people can directly contact if they have issues.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  8. #108
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    With a young caucus you're bound to get people who made mistakes in their past, so I would expect a couple more things like this to happen. I judge someone based on the size of their mistake, their ability to take responsibility and their willingness to at least try to change.

    In my riding our MLA is young and has almost no experience, Estafania Cortes-Vargas, if she has made similar screw ups, she (or the party) at least had the sense of virtually wiping off her history from the internet. I never voted for her because, I don't believe in large government (ruled out NDP or Liberal), I couldn't vote for PCs because of corruption. It would be nice to see what her past is (asides than being from Columbia, going to U of A and being a teacher's aid).

    I wonder to some extent why someone would vote for her, my guess is people saw the NDP on the ballot and just voted for them, rather than researching the candidates and the platforms. I also guess the same type of voters put Deborah Drever in office without doing any research as well.

  9. #109
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    Now let me state here that the above is confidential client/student privileged disclosure. He may know all of the above, it may have been disclosed to him by Drever, but why is he stating it? I wonder if he signed a confidentiality release with Drever specifically to be able to state the above. I further wonder if such disclosure is even within Mount Royal's common practice or policy and if this was obtained.
    All of that info has been publicly stated by Drever herself, or in candidate profiles of her. You're barking up the wrong tree here.
    You're questioning me on standards of professional accountability I am upheld to professionally protect in all practice? Come on.

    Again, and I'm not sure if people are reading, it does not matter if a person has self divulged information even publicly. This does not absolve, in anyway, an accredited professional answerable to professional standards of confidentiality from exercising professional confidentiality regarding the same privileged information.

    Why would you think it does?
    Because it should never be wrong to quote a statement someone has made about themselves in a public forum or has approved for public release, regardless of who you are and who you are talking about. It is absurd to treat statements made in public the same as statements made in a private meeting or a limited access group.

  10. #110
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    This is a version of mixed-member proportional representation. Variants are used in Germany, New Zealand, Lesotho, and Romania.
    Yeah, thanks, I thought that I'd seen some sorts of precedents for it but was uncertain. What do you think of it? Seems to offer potential improvement.
    I was going to respond to this but got busy and forgot.

    I think almost anything would improve our system in terms of better representing the views of voters. The difficulty is in actually implementing them. I tend to favour single transferable vote, not because I think it's the best system, but because it would be the easiest to implement. MMR would be better as it preserves regional representation and also provides representatives that people can directly contact if they have issues.
    Mixed-member proportional representation could be implemented with zero change to current election procedures. Either increase the number of MPs or MLAs by 20%, or reduce the number of constituencies by the same amount, then assign the non-constituency representatives based on the discrepancy between the FPTP constituency results and the popular vote totals. This may not be the best way to implement it (I would prefer separate party and candidate ballots), but it would be possible.

  11. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    Now let me state here that the above is confidential client/student privileged disclosure. He may know all of the above, it may have been disclosed to him by Drever, but why is he stating it? I wonder if he signed a confidentiality release with Drever specifically to be able to state the above. I further wonder if such disclosure is even within Mount Royal's common practice or policy and if this was obtained.
    All of that info has been publicly stated by Drever herself, or in candidate profiles of her. You're barking up the wrong tree here.
    You're questioning me on standards of professional accountability I am upheld to professionally protect in all practice? Come on.

    Again, and I'm not sure if people are reading, it does not matter if a person has self divulged information even publicly. This does not absolve, in anyway, an accredited professional answerable to professional standards of confidentiality from exercising professional confidentiality regarding the same privileged information.

    Why would you think it does?
    Because it should never be wrong to quote a statement someone has made about themselves in a public forum or has approved for public release, regardless of who you are and who you are talking about. It is absurd to treat statements made in public the same as statements made in a private meeting or a limited access group.
    huh? Its evident the field I'm in and what I do for a living and on some similar topics my replies have been so detailed that for somebody following my posts, like Marcel does it would literally be difficult not to be aware of my profession.
    I was just stating that for him to question my understanding of confidentiality given I've been held to the standards for 3 decades was a bit off imo. If somebody here is an engineer I don't question their knowledge on engineering. That's how I took it. Maybe I misread that. Communication online is never as clear as it is in person.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  12. #112
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,448

    Default

    ^ To clarify, I was stating an opinion about the professional standards themselves, not anyone's knowledge of them. Sorry if I misunderstood the previous conversation.

  13. #113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    This is a version of mixed-member proportional representation. Variants are used in Germany, New Zealand, Lesotho, and Romania.
    Yeah, thanks, I thought that I'd seen some sorts of precedents for it but was uncertain. What do you think of it? Seems to offer potential improvement.
    I was going to respond to this but got busy and forgot.

    I think almost anything would improve our system in terms of better representing the views of voters. The difficulty is in actually implementing them. I tend to favour single transferable vote, not because I think it's the best system, but because it would be the easiest to implement. MMR would be better as it preserves regional representation and also provides representatives that people can directly contact if they have issues.
    Mixed-member proportional representation could be implemented with zero change to current election procedures. Either increase the number of MPs or MLAs by 20%, or reduce the number of constituencies by the same amount, then assign the non-constituency representatives based on the discrepancy between the FPTP constituency results and the popular vote totals. This may not be the best way to implement it (I would prefer separate party and candidate ballots), but it would be possible.
    Almost exactly what I stated in an earlier post. I said reduce 10 ridings and have the 10 seats be proportionally elected instead. Small change but one that introduces the concept and which could lead to greater amount of proportional representation in time.

    Trouble with proportional representation as we know is its very rare that the party in power would want to make that move. Because usually the governing party is favored in seats by the current system. Electoral change has to be demanded by the electorate. No party in power here is going to do this unless the public is in uproar about it.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  14. #114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    Now let me state here that the above is confidential client/student privileged disclosure. He may know all of the above, it may have been disclosed to him by Drever, but why is he stating it? I wonder if he signed a confidentiality release with Drever specifically to be able to state the above. I further wonder if such disclosure is even within Mount Royal's common practice or policy and if this was obtained.
    All of that info has been publicly stated by Drever herself, or in candidate profiles of her. You're barking up the wrong tree here.
    You're questioning me on standards of professional accountability I am upheld to professionally protect in all practice? Come on.

    Again, and I'm not sure if people are reading, it does not matter if a person has self divulged information even publicly. This does not absolve, in anyway, an accredited professional answerable to professional standards of confidentiality from exercising professional confidentiality regarding the same privileged information.

    Why would you think it does?
    Because it should never be wrong to quote a statement someone has made about themselves in a public forum or has approved for public release, regardless of who you are and who you are talking about. It is absurd to treat statements made in public the same as statements made in a private meeting or a limited access group.
    huh? Its evident the field I'm in and what I do for a living and on some similar topics my replies have been so detailed that for somebody following my posts, like Marcel does it would literally be difficult not to be aware of my profession.
    I was just stating that for him to question my understanding of confidentiality given I've been held to the standards for 3 decades was a bit off imo. If somebody here is an engineer I don't question their knowledge on engineering. That's how I took it. Maybe I misread that. Communication online is never as clear as it is in person.
    Almost everyone here uses anonymous usernames. Therefore posts have to stand on their own and be judged on their own. "If somebody here is an engineer I don't question their knowledge on engineering." - If they are posting with an anonymous user name, I would suggest taking everything someone says with a grain of salt. I can say a lot about my credentials and I could speak to areas where I have experience of expert knowledge, but as "KC" I wouldn't expect anyone to blindly accept anything KC says, no matter how indignant KC appears.

  15. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^ To clarify, I was stating an opinion about the professional standards themselves, not anyone's knowledge of them. Sorry if I misunderstood the previous conversation.
    Sorry about the confusion.

    It shouldn't be all that difficult to understand.

    Professional confidentiality is not in degrees it is an all or nothing concept to protect disclosure and the dignity of the patient/client/student relationship.

    There is no concept of waiving of this confidentiality because somebody stated or disclosed something earlier publicly. If there was surely you could see how much grey area this would cause, how confusing the application of standards would be and how it would end up in a slippery slope of "I said because Joe said because she said" Such a context would effectually eliminate confidentiality in any hearsay instance where somebody could suggest that an individual leaked information because somebody else earlier stated it. Also leads to further concern that what is reported publicly, for instance in media, is not always agreed statement of facts and so that an interview or article may have been twisted somewhat to suppose certain disclosure that the person didn't actually make. Its also quite easy to formulate leading questions that result in a question and answer summary and content that is not at all proferred by the interviewee.

    For instance as example the standard willful misconstruction;

    Reporter: Why did you have meetings with person X

    Target: I never had any meetings with person X.

    Reporter writes: Target repeatedly denies having meetings with person X.

    another one;

    Reporter: How long was the horrific abuse you experienced as a child?

    Person: I never stated I experienced horrific abuse as a child.

    Reporter writes; Person denies and refuses to discuss horrific abuse they had as a child.

    Now I'm not stating any inaccuracy happened in the disclosure pertaining to this particular case. I'm stating very distorted information COULD be publicly disseminated that would in some cases undermine an individual and if such hearsay resulted in any topical disclosure then being fair game the individual is not only lied about but they have their right to confidentiality undermined as well.


    It would be very difficult to withhold and maintain standards of confidentiality if the standards were so adhoc.

    That's why I asked why anybody would think that information that has already been disclosed precludes the same confidentiality standards.
    Last edited by Replacement; 31-05-2015 at 01:48 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  16. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    Now let me state here that the above is confidential client/student privileged disclosure. He may know all of the above, it may have been disclosed to him by Drever, but why is he stating it? I wonder if he signed a confidentiality release with Drever specifically to be able to state the above. I further wonder if such disclosure is even within Mount Royal's common practice or policy and if this was obtained.
    All of that info has been publicly stated by Drever herself, or in candidate profiles of her. You're barking up the wrong tree here.
    You're questioning me on standards of professional accountability I am upheld to professionally protect in all practice? Come on.

    Again, and I'm not sure if people are reading, it does not matter if a person has self divulged information even publicly. This does not absolve, in anyway, an accredited professional answerable to professional standards of confidentiality from exercising professional confidentiality regarding the same privileged information.

    Why would you think it does?
    Because it should never be wrong to quote a statement someone has made about themselves in a public forum or has approved for public release, regardless of who you are and who you are talking about. It is absurd to treat statements made in public the same as statements made in a private meeting or a limited access group.
    huh? Its evident the field I'm in and what I do for a living and on some similar topics my replies have been so detailed that for somebody following my posts, like Marcel does it would literally be difficult not to be aware of my profession.
    I was just stating that for him to question my understanding of confidentiality given I've been held to the standards for 3 decades was a bit off imo. If somebody here is an engineer I don't question their knowledge on engineering. That's how I took it. Maybe I misread that. Communication online is never as clear as it is in person.
    Almost everyone here uses anonymous usernames. Therefore posts have to stand on their own and be judged on their own. "If somebody here is an engineer I don't question their knowledge on engineering." - If they are posting with an anonymous user name, I would suggest taking everything someone says with a grain of salt. I can say a lot about my credentials and I could speak to areas where I have experience of expert knowledge, but as "KC" I wouldn't expect anyone to blindly accept anything KC says, no matter how indignant KC appears.
    Not my intent to appear indignant. That would be one's perception in anycase.

    I am however citing standards of confidentiality in an online message board attended by thousands of people. Some of them obviously other professionals. If what I was describing regarding standards of confidentiality were clearly wrong then people would be questioning my depiction of the standards of confidentiality. But as I see it something else has occurred here. Other posters have suggested that in instances of public disclosure that the same standards of confidentiality do not apply. This is an assertion, made for some reason, and made without knowledge. Because I know that its an erroneous conclusion. That isn't being indignant, its just trying to effect clarity in the discussion.
    Last edited by Replacement; 31-05-2015 at 11:58 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  17. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    Now let me state here that the above is confidential client/student privileged disclosure. He may know all of the above, it may have been disclosed to him by Drever, but why is he stating it? I wonder if he signed a confidentiality release with Drever specifically to be able to state the above. I further wonder if such disclosure is even within Mount Royal's common practice or policy and if this was obtained.
    All of that info has been publicly stated by Drever herself, or in candidate profiles of her. You're barking up the wrong tree here.
    You're questioning me on standards of professional accountability I am upheld to professionally protect in all practice? Come on.

    Again, and I'm not sure if people are reading, it does not matter if a person has self divulged information even publicly. This does not absolve, in anyway, an accredited professional answerable to professional standards of confidentiality from exercising professional confidentiality regarding the same privileged information.

    Why would you think it does?
    Because it should never be wrong to quote a statement someone has made about themselves in a public forum or has approved for public release, regardless of who you are and who you are talking about. It is absurd to treat statements made in public the same as statements made in a private meeting or a limited access group.
    huh? Its evident the field I'm in and what I do for a living and on some similar topics my replies have been so detailed that for somebody following my posts, like Marcel does it would literally be difficult not to be aware of my profession.
    I was just stating that for him to question my understanding of confidentiality given I've been held to the standards for 3 decades was a bit off imo. If somebody here is an engineer I don't question their knowledge on engineering. That's how I took it. Maybe I misread that. Communication online is never as clear as it is in person.
    Almost everyone here uses anonymous usernames. Therefore posts have to stand on their own and be judged on their own. "If somebody here is an engineer I don't question their knowledge on engineering." - If they are posting with an anonymous user name, I would suggest taking everything someone says with a grain of salt. I can say a lot about my credentials and I could speak to areas where I have experience of expert knowledge, but as "KC" I wouldn't expect anyone to blindly accept anything KC says, no matter how indignant KC appears.
    Not my intent to appear indignant. That would be one's perception in anycase.

    I am however citing standards of confidentiality in an online message board attended by thousands of people. Some of them obviously other professionals. If what I was describing regarding standards of confidentiality were clearly wrong then people would be questioning my depiction of the standards of confidentiality. But as I see it something else has occurred here. Other posters have suggested that in instances of public disclosure that the same standards of confidentiality do not apply. This is an assertion, made for some reason, and made without knowledge. Because I know that its an erroneous conclusion. That isn't being indignant, its just trying to effect clarity in the discussion.
    Lacking that experience I think it's natural to question why someone can't state publicly known information or state information with the student's consent. I would say that at an extreme, maybe each type of disclosure would need to be appropriately annotated as to source, consent approved, etc.

    As an aside, sorry to use the word "indignant" in my example, but it is a nasty and fairly common tactic employed by certain people to misdirect or quash considered thought and investigation. Personally, I see it as a big red flag that someone may be trying to pull something over on me.

    Googled "righteous indignation" and found little but found this (see below). Not a great example but all that quick googling yielded:

    THE RETURN OF THE ROGUE
    Kimberly D. Krawiec∗

    page 167
    "Second, in order for the scheme to succeed, AIB’s back office had to sign off on these transactions. Initially, Rusnak managed this by creating fake confirmations of his trades. ...
    Rusnak facilitated this by bullying and intimidating back-office and risk management staff, frequently berating them and threatening to have them fired.200 For example, when back-office personnel complained that they were having trouble confirming Rusnak’s trades, Rusnak and his front-office supervisors blamed the back-office staff for not understanding how the transactions worked.201"

    http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/...ty_scholarship
    Last edited by KC; 31-05-2015 at 12:28 PM.

  18. #118

    Default

    ^Of course its natural to question anything.

    But I already stated that in a Professors instance that there is more grey area in confidentiality and that this profession is not as bound to confidentiality as Doctors, Therapists, Counselors etc are. That said I also cited that confidentiality issues in the teaching profession is a growing concern and with this being currently reviewed in several jurisdictions. Aside from that, whether bound or not bound by expectation of confidentiality professionals are still versed in what confidentiality is and what self standards to take.
    In no way did I ever suggest that the Professor could not make such comments. I merely questioned it, and wheher the professor duly considered it and whether or not such disclosure was acceptable while working at Mount Royal College.

    To further clarify for instance I am upheld to standards of my Education and Ethics that are learned, ongoing accreditation standards, I am upheld to standards of my licencing professional body, and to the employers which I work/contract with.

    The latter merely stated to suggest that the Professor would be bound by multiple standards. Some of which could be relevant here. More to the point, and even aside from confidentiality disclosure specifically, any employee that I have ever been affiliated with would take a poor view of going to the press with specific information and disclosure regarding a past client even if I had signed confidentiality waivers. In fact in my current employ waivers are only for communication with other working professionals involved and only done to further coordination of services for benefit of client. There simply is no such thing as a confidentiality waiver allowing disclosure to the press on behalf of a client. As I already stated there are other avenues to empowering clients, supporting them, advocating them but THROUGH professional channels and NOT to the press.
    Last edited by Replacement; 31-05-2015 at 12:37 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  19. #119

    Default

    In the press that Drever witnessed abuse. Common knowledge, article writing May 21/15.

    http://globalnews.ca/news/2010739/nd...oto-a-mistake/
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  20. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    In the press that Drever witnessed abuse. Common knowledge, article writing May 21/15.

    http://globalnews.ca/news/2010739/nd...oto-a-mistake/
    Nobody has questioned that it was self reported to media. This is not contested.

    What I clarified is that there is no absolving of professional accountability just because its already been stated to media by either the person or by another source. The expectation of professional confidentiality remains the same.

    Give you a somewhat related example. One is not allowed to release the name of a young offender even if several other publications have.

    Prior release and disclosure does not permit further ongoing disclosure by other parties within a professional client/patient/student relationship.

    It may seem nonsensical. But as I outlined theres reasons that the expectations of confidentiality being upheld are implacable within certain professions.
    Last edited by Replacement; 31-05-2015 at 03:53 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  21. #121

    Default

    ^She's not a young offender though. The professor was regurgitating what was already in the public domain. If he had knowledge of her background before it was published in the paper he may not have said those things. If he knew it was in the public domain he is just reiterating what was written.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  22. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    In the press that Drever witnessed abuse. Common knowledge, article writing May 21/15.

    http://globalnews.ca/news/2010739/nd...oto-a-mistake/
    Nobody has questioned that it was self reported to media. This is not contested.

    What I clarified is that there is no absolving of professional accountability just because its already been stated to media by either the person or by another source. The expectation of professional confidentiality remains the same.

    Give you a somewhat related example. One is not allowed to release the name of a young offender even if several other publications have.

    Prior release and disclosure does not permit further ongoing disclosure by other parties within a professional client/patient/student relationship.

    It may seem nonsensical. But as I outlined theres reasons that the expectations of confidentiality being upheld are implacable within certain professions.
    Points taken. The youth offender example is a good one. It's not my field at all, but I imagine priests too, having heard confessions face many such conundrums where they could speak out in defence of someone but have been told everything in confidence.

    So, additionally, re-publishing personal or confidential information seemingly substantiates it in the public's eye, especially if it's coming from a valid or credible source. I'm not sure if that is good or bad.

    Bottom line is that we don't know if the Professor cleared it with Drever or not. If it was pre-cleared, would it be an issue?


    A similarly messy issue I suppose...
    Patricia Grell, trustee who supports transgender girl, may face sanctions
    CBC News, May 16, 2015

    excerpt:

    "An Edmonton Catholic school trustee who spoke against a decision to make a transgender girl use a gender-neutral washroom is certain she will be sanctioned by her peers.
    ...

    While Grell's position has won her praise, she believes she will face discipline from her fellow trustees for violating an Edmonton Catholic School District bylaw.

    "I did break a protocol. You are supposed to stand behind the decision of the board," Grell said Friday. "And I'm just afraid I couldn't stand behind it, not in this case. ..."

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ions-1.3076865
    Last edited by KC; 31-05-2015 at 07:03 PM.

  23. #123

    Default

    Minimally in his instance there's 3 parties he would have to clear such action with.

    1) Whatever teaching association the Professor is accredited by.

    2) Mount Royal College. Can't emphasize this one enough. Any employer I have ever been affiliated with would take an extremely poor view of anybody initiating going to the media to speak in regards to a current or Ex client/patient/student.

    3) Drever obviously in which case wasn't she a past, and not a current student? Unless the Professor is maintaining a relationship with this young lady (which could also be viewed as circumspect) its uncertain he would have a signed waiver of confidentiality from her.

    My take is this professor acted unilaterally and perhaps quite casually in disseminating this information. To wit this casual approach to confidentiality has been a precedent and ongoing concern among educators and is basically what is leading to new conditions and expectations of confidentiality being applied.

    Now in this instance it could be viewed that this information was disseminated to help the ex student. But that's really irrelevant whether there was benefit or not as the concern about confidentiality still stands. Further, obviously some instances of leaked disclosure would, and have been, problematic for students.

    Most people wouldn't be aware of requirements of confidentiality but the Professors quotes raised a red flag for me immediately. Due to my familiarity with standards of confidentiality.

    This link is as good as any for touching on some of the evolution of student teacher confidentiality, increased rules, why the rules are being put in place etc.

    http://professionallyspeaking.oct.ca...08/privacy.asp

    Next a link that defines some rules around advanced education confidentiality which is less stringent then other levels of school. (Anybody can wonder why mature students are afforded less standards in confidentiality)
    http://www.stlhe.ca/awards/3m-nation...sity-teaching/

    Principle 6: Confidentiality
    Student grades, attendance records, and private communications are treated as confidential materials, and are released only with student consent, or for legitimate academic purposes, or if there are reasonble grounds for believing that releasing such information will be beneficial to the student or will prevent harm to others.
    This principle suggests that students are entitled to the same level of confidentiality in their relationships with teachers as would exist in a lawyer-client or doctor-patient relationship. Violation of confidentiality in the teacher-student relationship can cause students to distrust teachers and to show decreased academic motivation. Whatever rules or policies are followed with respect to confidentiality of student records, these should be disclosed in full to students at the beginning of the academic term.
    In the absence of adequate grounds (i.e., student consent, legitimate purpose, or benefit to student) any of the following could be construed as a violation of confidentiality: providing student academic records to a potential employer, researcher, or private investigator; discussing a student’s grades or academic problems with another faculty member; and using privately communicated student experiences as teaching or research materials. Similarly, leaving graded student papers or exams in a pile outside one’s office makes it possible for any student to determine any other student’s grade and thus fails to protect the confidentiality of individual student grades. This problem can be avoided by having students pick up their papers individually during office hours, or by returning papers with no identifying information or grade visible on the cover page.
    The above btw being very poorly defined, weak operative or guiding illustration of confidentiality which is fraught with problems and almost certainly requires revamping as precedents and harmful episodes require it. This acting definition is so behind other fields operative application of confidentiality its laughable. Its as if this defining of confidentiality was written in the 60's. Although it is from 1996 and has likely been reworked considerably. (I could at least hope) But I post this just as illustration of how behind advanced educators are in matters of student confidentiality. Which has been oft raised and challenged by other professions. Also, tenured, or longterm professors have been known to act in accordance to definitions and standards that they are more familiar with. Those that are more longterm are at greater risk of acting on outmoded concepts of confidentiality such as what is quoted above.
    Last edited by Replacement; 31-05-2015 at 11:20 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  24. #124
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    Its evident the field I'm in and what I do for a living and on some similar topics my replies have been so detailed that for somebody following my posts, like Marcel does it would literally be difficult not to be aware of my profession.
    I have zero idea what you do for a living. If forced to guess, I'd say you were a professional picker of nits and/or an exceptionally hard working "get off my lawn" public service announcer.

    Am I close?

  25. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    Its evident the field I'm in and what I do for a living and on some similar topics my replies have been so detailed that for somebody following my posts, like Marcel does it would literally be difficult not to be aware of my profession.
    I have zero idea what you do for a living. If forced to guess, I'd say you were a professional picker of nits and/or an exceptionally hard working "get off my lawn" public service announcer.

    Am I close?
    heh, lol.

    Hey you'd do the same and correct people if somebody is talking about your line of work and you have. We each have some selective expertise we can bring to the board which people can pay attention to or not. Myself I tend to enjoy others expertise and don't mind learning from them.

    Have a good Monday AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  26. #126
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default Drever rule

    If I was king for the day I would create a new 'Drever rule' that changes the way MLA pay is calculated. MLAs pay would be based on the yearly amount they were paid in their real world job prior to the election. Or at least take the average of their 10 highest paying years and compare to most recent year, which ever is higher counts. MLA base salary would be 50k and max would be 125k. Increase pay by 5% per year of service. So every MLA gets at a min. 50k or what they were making prior to being elected. Cabinet pay stays the same. It bothers me that a 26 year old sociology student is going to make 500k over 4 years. If she tried to get a 125k job in the real world with her qualifications she would be laughed out of the room.

  27. #127
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,791

    Default

    I'm sure you would attract the best of the best that way. Not.

  28. #128
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    I'm sure you would attract the best of the best that way. Not.
    I don't know about that... I think it would repel the worst of the worst.

    If you rate the best by how much they were making prior to being elected their salary wouldn't change. Most professionals or successful business men are making in the 125k range. Even teachers wouldn't take a huge haircut. But nobody would be taking a pay cut from their previous pay. And this change wouldn't apply to current MLAs. The job is supposed to be about public service and I think the best are there for that reason. I don't know if Councillor Tony Caterina ran in the last election looking for a pay increase but I wasn't impressed by him doing so. Same for Sohi.

    I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a party to propose this but it would get some notice. Greg Clark made headlines when he proposed a change to the way the living allowance is determined. http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/06/0...ances-for-mlas

    It would be a breath of fresh air, I would love to see Ceci's reaction if it was brought up in question period by Fildebrandt.
    Last edited by 2cents; 06-06-2016 at 05:33 AM.

  29. #129
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    If I was king for the day I would create a new 'Drever rule' that changes the way MLA pay is calculated. MLAs pay would be based on the yearly amount they were paid in their real world job prior to the election. Or at least take the average of their 10 highest paying years and compare to most recent year, which ever is higher counts. MLA base salary would be 50k and max would be 125k. Increase pay by 5% per year of service. So every MLA gets at a min. 50k or what they were making prior to being elected. Cabinet pay stays the same. It bothers me that a 26 year old sociology student is going to make 500k over 4 years. If she tried to get a 125k job in the real world with her qualifications she would be laughed out of the room.

    This is a monumentally bad idea. We pay MLAs based on their job. If you don't think someone deserves the pay, don't vote for them. Like it or not, if someone is voted in as an MLA the people have spoken.

    What you are suggesting is a perverse corruption of democracy.

  30. #130

    Default

    "perverse corruption of democracy?" I don't ever recall elected official pay ever being put to voters. Their pensions were made an issue but pay? If an idea like this was put to voters then that would be democracy in action.

    Also, I'm not sure if we pay MLAs based on their job in any normal sense of the word. We pay them based on committee judgments, which more like CEO and executive compensation committees.

    Ironically, 2cents came here and gave c2e an idea for free.
    Last edited by KC; 06-06-2016 at 07:11 AM.

  31. #131
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    If I was king for the day I would create a new 'Drever rule' that changes the way MLA pay is calculated. MLAs pay would be based on the yearly amount they were paid in their real world job prior to the election. Or at least take the average of their 10 highest paying years and compare to most recent year, which ever is higher counts. MLA base salary would be 50k and max would be 125k. Increase pay by 5% per year of service. So every MLA gets at a min. 50k or what they were making prior to being elected. Cabinet pay stays the same. It bothers me that a 26 year old sociology student is going to make 500k over 4 years. If she tried to get a 125k job in the real world with her qualifications she would be laughed out of the room.

    This is a monumentally bad idea. We pay MLAs based on their job. If you don't think someone deserves the pay, don't vote for them. Like it or not, if someone is voted in as an MLA the people have spoken.

    What you are suggesting is a perverse corruption of democracy.
    I don't see how basing a salary on a real world value is a corruption of democracy. This change does not effect democracy, I am not suggesting some kind of recall.

    Drever is still elected but doesn't make 127k initially. If she does outstanding work and becomes a cabinet minister she gets a big raise. Or if she has a 20 yr career because she is doing outstanding work and gets re-elected 5 times then she gets 20 years of 5% raises. How is pay based on performance perverse or undemocratic? In pretty much every job other than elected officials pay is based on performance or seniority. If you are doing outstanding work you are rewarded or you go find a job that pays you what you are worth.
    Last edited by 2cents; 06-06-2016 at 07:18 AM.

  32. #132

    Default

    The idea would sure bring in the underperforming million + dollar CEOs facing job loss. It would be a useful way to extend the pay packet a few more years.

  33. #133
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    The idea would sure bring in the underperforming million + dollar CEOs facing job loss. It would be a useful way to extend the pay packet a few more years.
    But they only get what they were paid prior to being elected up to 125k so doesn't cost more.

  34. #134
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,512

    Default

    The assumption here is that what someone was paid prior to being elected is somehow relevant to their value as an MLA. It is not. MLA's are representatives of their constituents and communities and the only qualification required is the approval of those people. The change in the pay structure you propose would be a disincentive for many otherwise qualified people to run.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  35. #135
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    If an idea like this was put to voters then that would be democracy in action..
    If some party made it a part of their platform I can't see many voters who would be against it. I can see some basing their vote primarily on it. Works at civic, provincial and federal levels.

  36. #136
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    The assumption here is that what someone was paid prior to being elected is somehow relevant to their value as an MLA. It is not. MLA's are representatives of their constituents and communities and the only qualification required is the approval of those people. The change in the pay structure you propose would be a disincentive for many otherwise qualified people to run.
    I can see this as a disincentive for some people running because it would mean making their pay public if they were making less than 125.

    Prior to the last election the average age of MLAs was 51 and for most of those people if you look at their education, experience and accomplishments you can make a reasonable argument that 127k is valid.

    But in the last election there were a couple of 20 something students that were elected as protest votes against the PCs. Worse case scenario you make the same as you did prior to being elected and you get to do an awesome job in public service. Can't see how this would turn good people away based on that alone.

  37. #137
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,223

    Default

    That's not how it works in the real world. If I snag a job that's more senior than I used to hold, I get the pay for the job I've just snagged. I don't have to be stuck at the level I have been working at.

    These people were "hired" using one of the most rigorous job application processes around. If you don't think they're worth the standard pay, don't hire them.

  38. #138
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    This is a perverse corruption of democracy because it creates a financial incentive for the rich to run for office, and a financial disincentive for the poor to run for office.

    Moreover, it is completely nonsensical in that it fails to connect the job to the pay. We pay people based on what their job is paid, not how much they make before. If a billionaire gets a job at McDonald's, she isn't going to make $500k a year. She is going to make minimum wage.

    Similarly, if a minimum wage McDonald's worker graduates from medical school, they aren't going to keep making minimum wage. They are going to be paid the wage of a physician.

    This entire idea is monumentally bad. It is ill-thought out at its core, fails to address any real problem, and would have disastrous impacts on our democracy.

  39. #139
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EveB View Post
    That's not how it works in the real world. If I snag a job that's more senior than I used to hold, I get the pay for the job I've just snagged. I don't have to be stuck at the level I have been working at.

    These people were "hired" using one of the most rigorous job application processes around. If you don't think they're worth the standard pay, don't hire them.
    I don't think this is going to happen any time soon. Only the Drever situation got me thinking about it really. Some of these protest votes didn't even attend debates and you have to think the NDP didn't have any other options to Drever so in her case it wasn't a rigorous job application.

    Plus in a rigorous job application your past behavior is examined. No one searched her social media history in any way.

    Drever is an exceptional member, the result of an exceptional election.

  40. #140
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    Like or hate Trump he has stated he'd work for $1 a year. You can attract very competent people who care about the job that do not need to be paid $500,000 a year. The current system of base pay for MLAs, additional pay for premier, cabinet ministers and committee work makes sense.

    But I suppose it could be modified to add a surplus incentive clause, deficit penalty clause, and some sort of efficiency bonus clause (you'd have to factor in taxes collected, infrastructure deficits, hospital wait times...)
    Last edited by sundance; 06-06-2016 at 08:45 AM.

  41. #141
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    This is a perverse corruption of democracy because it creates a financial incentive for the rich to run for office, and a financial disincentive for the poor to run for office.

    Moreover, it is completely nonsensical in that it fails to connect the job to the pay. We pay people based on what their job is paid, not how much they make before. If a billionaire gets a job at McDonald's, she isn't going to make $500k a year. She is going to make minimum wage.

    Similarly, if a minimum wage McDonald's worker graduates from medical school, they aren't going to keep making minimum wage. They are going to be paid the wage of a physician.

    This entire idea is monumentally bad. It is ill-thought out at its core, fails to address any real problem, and would have disastrous impacts on our democracy.
    There would be a cap of 125k so no one is going to be making 500k, did you read my post? Most poor ppl would be happy with 50k and a 5%/yr raise. preverse, nonsensical and disastrous... really, don't think that's a little over the top?
    Last edited by 2cents; 06-06-2016 at 08:56 AM.

  42. #142
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    ...
    Prior to the last election the average age of MLAs was 51 and for most of those people if you look at their education, experience and accomplishments you can make a reasonable argument that 127k is valid.

    But in the last election there were a couple of 20 something students that were elected as protest votes against the PCs. Worse case scenario you make the same as you did prior to being elected and you get to do an awesome job in public service. Can't see how this would turn good people away based on that alone.
    It will turn people away because you're asking them to do the same job as someone else for radically different pay. It's a violation of the basic principles of how much people should be paid for the work they do.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  43. #143

    Default

    When you consider the average Alberta family makes almost 100k per year, I don't think 125k for a politician is unreasonable at all, given all the publicity / stress / job insecurity. Like any other job, I don't think what you were paid before should impact what you are paid now, it should all turn on your performance.

  44. #144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    This is a perverse corruption of democracy because it creates a financial incentive for the rich to run for office, and a financial disincentive for the poor to run for office.

    Moreover, it is completely nonsensical in that it fails to connect the job to the pay. We pay people based on what their job is paid, not how much they make before. If a billionaire gets a job at McDonald's, she isn't going to make $500k a year. She is going to make minimum wage.

    Similarly, if a minimum wage McDonald's worker graduates from medical school, they aren't going to keep making minimum wage. They are going to be paid the wage of a physician.

    This entire idea is monumentally bad. It is ill-thought out at its core, fails to address any real problem, and would have disastrous impacts on our democracy.
    .... preverse, nonsensical and disastrous... really, don't think that's a little over the top?


    Hyperbole is just ONE of those nasty, manipulative language tactics you'll encounter here. "Everyone knows" that "everybody uses" sleazy, scumbag wording to win arguments and shoot messengers and authors alike. Preferably a good old character or career assignation shuts up people but putting down anonymous posters requires cruder approaches, and "if you don't know that, you don't belong on this board"...
    Last edited by KC; 06-06-2016 at 09:01 AM.

  45. #145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    When you consider the average Alberta family makes almost 100k per year, I don't think 125k for a politician is unreasonable at all, given all the publicity / stress / job insecurity. Like any other job, I don't think what you were paid before should impact what you are paid now, it should all turn on your performance.
    It should but it doesn't. Again, compensation committees make the judgement based on comparables, etc. Only the voter decides on a periodic basis, but in the interim numerous vested and lasting benefits kick in.

  46. #146
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Bonnie Doon
    Posts
    5,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    If I was king for the day I would create a new 'Drever rule' that changes the way MLA pay is calculated. MLAs pay would be based on the yearly amount they were paid in their real world job prior to the election. Or at least take the average of their 10 highest paying years and compare to most recent year, which ever is higher counts. MLA base salary would be 50k and max would be 125k.
    So if I am making $23/hour at my current job that means my average annual salary is $50k...the same as your proposed minimum MLA base salary.

    But with my $23/hr job, I just punch-in in the morning and punch-out 8 hours later. My day is done.

    If I was an MLA making the same wage, I have to attend morning political party meetings, appear for Question Period, briefings with associate ministers and department staff, deal with issues from my constituents, attend committees, deal with the odd media request, make public appearances for events and charity, go to party fundraisers.

    For a rotten 23/hr. I'll keep my day job.

  47. #147
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post



    Hyperbole is just ONE of those nasty, manipulative language tactics you'll encounter here. "Everyone knows" that "everybody uses" sleazy, scumbag wording to win arguments and shoot messengers and authors alike. Preferably a good old character or career assignation shuts up people but putting down anonymous posters requires cruder approaches, and "if you don't know that, you don't belong on this board"...

    There is no hyperbole here. We are talking about a core component of democracy. If you start favouring the rich in holding office, you have made a massive change that will reverberate through the electoral process.

    Not to mention that the idea doesn't even address a real problem to begin with. It just targets people who made less for absolutely no reason. Pay should be connected to the job, not one's financial history.

  48. #148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post



    Hyperbole is just ONE of those nasty, manipulative language tactics you'll encounter here. "Everyone knows" that "everybody uses" sleazy, scumbag wording to win arguments and shoot messengers and authors alike. Preferably a good old character or career assignation shuts up people but putting down anonymous posters requires cruder approaches, and "if you don't know that, you don't belong on this board"...

    There is no hyperbole here. We are talking about a core component of democracy. If you start favouring the rich in holding office, you have made a massive change that will reverberate through the electoral process.

    Not to mention that the idea doesn't even address a real problem to begin with. It just targets people who made less for absolutely no reason. Pay should be connected to the job, not one's financial history.
    However, look at how people typecast candidates based on their prior careers such as doctors, lawyers, businessmen, teachers, etc. Those positions carry a perceptual status to the lay public and so influence the vote. That typecasting is at the root of this suggestion as well. That typecasting is at the root of the idea that you have to pay well to attract the top talent - who coincidentally are seen as high paid people in private sector positions. That typecasting drives compensation committee to inflate compensation packages. (note the sleasy parallelism. )

  49. #149
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Bonnie Doon
    Posts
    5,262

    Default

    The irony from the last provincial election is candidates like Deborah Drever and Thomas Dang spent peanuts for their election campaign. They beat rival candidates who spent tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps over $50,000, on their campaign. Money can't buy you everything.

    That's true democracy.

  50. #150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by North Guy66 View Post
    The irony from the last provincial election is candidates like Deborah Drever and Thomas Dang spent peanuts for their election campaign. They beat rival candidates who spent tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps over $50,000, on their campaign. Money can't buy you everything.

    That's true democracy.
    That shows 'unbelievable' business and fiscal acumen. A return on capital deployed that few experienced business minded people could ever achieve, even in their dreams....

    In fact they are veritable Don Trumps and Bernie Sanders, not beholden to special interests of the wealthy, etc. ...
    Last edited by KC; 06-06-2016 at 09:36 AM.

  51. #151
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    The last campaign was a major protest vote, and provincial politics here generally relies on money less than federal (the ability to raise funds play a major role in who wins federal elections). Drever and Dang rolled in on the orange wave; in a normal election they would have a more difficult time (though from what I hear Dang is a very hard worker and devoted to his job, so he might be able to drum up support in 3 years).

  52. #152
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by North Guy66 View Post
    So if I am making $23/hour at my current job that means my average annual salary is $50k...the same as your proposed minimum MLA base salary.

    But with my $23/hr job, I just punch-in in the morning and punch-out 8 hours later. My day is done.
    Well Top_Dawg is a bit unsure about 2cents' proposal, but Top_Dawg figures this is exactly the point he's making.

    At your $23/hr job, your employer actually expects you to do some work.

    Quote Originally Posted by North Guy66 View Post
    If I was an MLA making the same wage, I have to attend morning political party meetings, appear for Question Period, briefings with associate ministers and department staff, deal with issues from my constituents, attend committees, deal with the odd media request, make public appearances for events and charity, go to party fundraisers.

    For a rotten 23/hr. I'll keep my day job.

    Read the bolded part carefully.



    Basically describes a whole lotta dog ******.

  53. #153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by North Guy66 View Post
    So if I am making $23/hour at my current job that means my average annual salary is $50k...the same as your proposed minimum MLA base salary.

    But with my $23/hr job, I just punch-in in the morning and punch-out 8 hours later. My day is done.
    Well Top_Dawg is a bit unsure about 2cents' proposal, but Top_Dawg figures this is exactly the point he's making.

    At your $23/hr job, your employer actually expects you to do some work.

    Quote Originally Posted by North Guy66 View Post
    If I was an MLA making the same wage, I have to attend morning political party meetings, appear for Question Period, briefings with associate ministers and department staff, deal with issues from my constituents, attend committees, deal with the odd media request, make public appearances for events and charity, go to party fundraisers.

    For a rotten 23/hr. I'll keep my day job.

    Read the bolded part carefully.



    Basically describes a whole lotta dog ******.
    Exactly. Nothing beats attending endless meetings for accomplishing nothing. It would be like being paid to post to c2e. There's doers and there's talkers. A lot of talkers are great at creating the impression that they are great doers, when in fact they are just great talkers.

  54. #154
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Bonnie Doon
    Posts
    5,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by North Guy66 View Post
    So if I am making $23/hour at my current job that means my average annual salary is $50k...the same as your proposed minimum MLA base salary.

    But with my $23/hr job, I just punch-in in the morning and punch-out 8 hours later. My day is done.
    Well Top_Dawg is a bit unsure about 2cents' proposal, but Top_Dawg figures this is exactly the point he's making.

    At your $23/hr job, your employer actually expects you to do some work.

    Quote Originally Posted by North Guy66 View Post
    If I was an MLA making the same wage, I have to attend morning political party meetings, appear for Question Period, briefings with associate ministers and department staff, deal with issues from my constituents, attend committees, deal with the odd media request, make public appearances for events and charity, go to party fundraisers.

    For a rotten 23/hr. I'll keep my day job.

    Read the bolded part carefully.



    Basically describes a whole lotta dog ******.
    Exactly. Nothing beats attending endless meetings for accomplishing nothing. It would be like being paid to post to c2e. There's doers and there's talkers. A lot of talkers are great at creating the impression that they are great doers, when in fact they are just great talkers.
    Indeed, I get the point. The stereotypical politicians who are lazy and riding the gravy train.

    But the majority of people would rather work 9-5 than be a public servant. Heck, I'll rather drive a forklift than deal with the sleaze at the Legislature everyday.

  55. #155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by North Guy66 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by North Guy66 View Post
    So if I am making $23/hour at my current job that means my average annual salary is $50k...the same as your proposed minimum MLA base salary.

    But with my $23/hr job, I just punch-in in the morning and punch-out 8 hours later. My day is done.
    Well Top_Dawg is a bit unsure about 2cents' proposal, but Top_Dawg figures this is exactly the point he's making.

    At your $23/hr job, your employer actually expects you to do some work.

    Quote Originally Posted by North Guy66 View Post
    If I was an MLA making the same wage, I have to attend morning political party meetings, appear for Question Period, briefings with associate ministers and department staff, deal with issues from my constituents, attend committees, deal with the odd media request, make public appearances for events and charity, go to party fundraisers.

    For a rotten 23/hr. I'll keep my day job.

    Read the bolded part carefully.



    Basically describes a whole lotta dog ******.
    Exactly. Nothing beats attending endless meetings for accomplishing nothing. It would be like being paid to post to c2e. There's doers and there's talkers. A lot of talkers are great at creating the impression that they are great doers, when in fact they are just great talkers.
    Indeed, I get the point. The stereotypical politicians who are lazy and riding the gravy train.

    But the majority of people would rather work 9-5 than be a public servant. Heck, I'll rather drive a forklift than deal with the sleaze at the Legislature everyday.
    Some people need a sense of accomplishment, others don't. Some people stay fit building things, others by walking on a treadmill.

  56. #156
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Some MLAs do a huge amount of work. Some don't. The way to address pay isn't to arbitrarily punish people with a weaker financial history - that fails to actually account for the level of work being done (unless you believe that rich people work harder, which is beyond ridiculous).

    The solution is quite simply to vote for people that work hard. There isn't another way of doing it. Do your research into candidates and make an educated vote.

  57. #157
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    Well Top_Dawg is a bit unsure about 2cents' proposal, but Top_Dawg figures this is exactly the point he's making.
    Well, tbh I am making the suggestion in the Deborah Drever expelled thread and I started it with 'if I was king for a day'... I think most MLAs are fairly compensated and it takes a special person with thick skin to put up with the public esp. when they are angry, and for politicians, that is most of the time. Most MLAs are passionate ppl, you have to be, with a sincere desire to do good.

    I just have a hard time believing that a system that pays a 26 yr old sociology student the same as a professional with 25 years of experience the same amount is fair. I don't think some tweaking is going to end democracy in Alberta or we are going to end up with a lower level of candidate.

  58. #158
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    You are making a completely ridiculous association between wealth and impact.

    It is very possible (and from what I've seen in government, entirely likely) that a young recent graduate will be more invested and harder working than a semi-retired wealthy business person or lawyer.

    A 26 year old sociology student could have a much greater impact than a banker or lawyer simply by doing the work. You would be appalled at how many rich MLAs abuse the system. Just go back and look at the PC scandals with committee appointment pay.

  59. #159
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    It will turn people away because you're asking them to do the same job as someone else for radically different pay. It's a violation of the basic principles of how much people should be paid for the work they do.
    Not necessarily, I work in IT and I have 5 or 6 people who have the exact same job title and description as me and we were all hired around the same time but we all make different amounts because:

    1. Compensation was not part of the job ad, we all had different offers based on training(degree was a min.), experience (5 yrs was the min.) and accomplishments which weren't specified. And we all negotiated salary, I did anyways.

    2. We get yearly performance reviews and raises aren't the same.

    3. Vacation time is based on years of service, which is standardized.

    I like the fact that my salary is based on performance so do the ppl I work with.

    I used to work for the provincial gov't and there were 5 or 6 of us with the same jobs but we were still paid differently, although not as much variation because there was a max amount for job title, but several different grades for each title, but still had yearly performance reviews.

    point is ppl with same job can be paid differently

  60. #160
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    You are making a completely ridiculous association between wealth and impact.

    It is very possible (and from what I've seen in government, entirely likely) that a young recent graduate will be more invested and harder working than a semi-retired wealthy business person or lawyer.

    A 26 year old sociology student could have a much greater impact than a banker or lawyer simply by doing the work. You would be appalled at how many rich MLAs abuse the system. Just go back and look at the PC scandals with committee appointment pay.
    Lets start with the assumption that most MLAs work hard and those that don't eventually won't get re-elected, which, could be argued, is what just happened.

    So if everyone is working hard, a Lawyer or CPA or successful business man is going to bring more to the table than a sociology student. But if Drever works harder then she will get the cabinet post and this whole discussion is mute. If she isn't working hard and posts facebook comments that call former cabinet ministers 'gay boyz' she won't be around long.

    You get what you give.

  61. #161
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    (unless you believe that rich people work harder, which is beyond ridiculous)
    Don't know if you are a troll or not with that comment. I think you really believe it, but the 'beyond ridiculous'... that's some serious drama, are you an actor?

  62. #162
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    I somewhat wish my MLA (Estefania Cortes-Vargas) was as visible as Drever, pretty much everything written about her is about her sexuality, so she's gay, I really don't care. I do care about what she is or isn't doing in my constituency. She unlike Drever has almost been invisible since the election.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •