News   Nov 22, 2024
National Housing Day: City of Toronto and Riverdale Co-op Open Affordable Homes
 776     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
Bauhaus Condos Rising in Toronto's Old Town
 1.4K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
49-Storey Waterfront Tower Proposed at Spadina and Queens Quay
 3.4K     8 

Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

EagleEye said:
Don't forget DoFo said he was donating his salary and we never saw proof of that. I'm not buying it with Lisi.
Click to expand...
A trustee doesn't make all that much (under $30,000), so unless Lisi is living in poverty, it's not really a grand gesture. And yes, talk is cheap. For me, it comes down to do we want someone with Lisi's character making decisions about schools?
 
PinkLucy said:
A trustee doesn't make all that much (under $30,000), so unless Lisi is living in poverty, it's not really a grand gesture. And yes, talk is cheap. For me, it comes down to do we want someone with Lisi's character making decisions about schools?
Click to expand...
Does he even have a child in the TDSB? If not, what exactly is his reason for wanting to be a trustee in the first place? For all the racist, angry and bigoted garbage "Trustee Sam" and Neil Flagg throw around, both ran when they had kids in the system.

Really, the only people I see having any great interest in being a [inserted for clarity: (n) effective, useful] trustee are former educators and people with kids in it.

That said, my trustee of choice (Chris Moise) doesn't have kids, AFAIK. But that's a whole different kettle of fish.
 
Last edited:
narduch said:
People do use Trustee as a stepping stone to get into higher elected positions.

And really not having kids shouldn't be a big deal.
Click to expand...

No, but an interest in kids, helping develop kids minds, etc. should be a prerequisite. At least Moise works in Mental Health and Addiction, which at has some intersection with education and childhood development.

If you're just using it as a stepping stone, I don't want my kid in your hands. For reference, see Doug Ford's effectiveness as a councillor when using that as a stepping stone to Premier.
 
That is what I disliked the most about Premier Mom and Dad (Wynne and Dalton)... and hope the next Liberal Leaders move on from that mindset.

That everyone in the province is an idiot and the government needs to control everything and regulate everything or else it will chaos even though numerous places have private liquor stores or weed stores.

Wynne's Pot plan made weed even more restricted than when it was illegal lol...
 
MTown said:
It does indeed. So does the cost of housing which is going up way faster than inflation.

I don't get the issue here. The small business I work for could afford to hike my wages by 10% in the last year (off a base muuuuch higher than minimum wage) and we're not going out of business any time soon because of it.

The argument that raising the minimum wage hurts business is false af.
Click to expand...


There is nothing wrong with increasing Min Wage at a reasonable rate as a dollar per year for 4-5 years to a decent level.

Increasing it from 11 dollars to 15 in 2 years in order to salvage the Liberal Govt hold on power was a stupid idea.
 
Last edited:
Thinker said:
Oh god, a dithering attempt to pull the "buck a beer" stunt.
Click to expand...

It may well be a 'stunt', but its not necessarily bad policy.

Most nations in the developed world have far more liberalized policies on public drinking, particularly of beer and wine.

To be clear I don't see liberalization in this regard as a public imperative of any kind.

But neither do I see any harm, if done properly. (we don't want every kids soccer game to have the rowdier part of the TFC fan base on the sidelines).

I don't, however, envision it as difficult to craft some simplified, streamlined rules on locations, times of day etc; and directing appropriate by-law enforcement as required.

As someone in support of thoughtful, larger government, I believe its very important to understand where government doesn't need to be; and where a lighter hand would be a vote-getter w/very little consequence.
 
Northern Light said:
It may well be a 'stunt', but its not necessarily bad policy.

Most nations in the developed world have far more liberalized policies on public drinking, particularly of beer and wine.

To be clear I don't see liberalization in this regard as a public imperative of any kind.

But neither do I see any harm, if done properly. (we don't want every kids soccer game to have the rowdier part of the TFC fan base on the sidelines).

I don't, however, envision it as difficult to craft some simplified, streamlined rules on locations, times of day etc; and directing appropriate by-law enforcement as required.

As someone in support of thoughtful, larger government, I believe its very important to understand where government doesn't need to be; and where a lighter hand would be a vote-getter w/very little consequence.
Click to expand...


Didn't say it was bad, raised in Europe, I have enjoyed being able to enjoy a picnic with a glass of wine. Seems like Tory is playing from the same book as Ford, avoiding debates and trying to win with liquor :)
 
Jasmine18 said:
That is what I disliked the most about Premier Mom and Dad (Wynne and Dalton)... and hope the next Liberal Leaders move on from that mindset.

That everyone in the province is an idiot and the government needs to control everything and regulate everything or else it will chaos even though numerous places have private liquor stores or weed stores.

Wynne's Pot plan made weed even more restricted than when it was illegal lol...
Click to expand...

The problem being that the current conservative trend towards austerity means governments are being starved of funds.

People always like to talk about how much better life in Ontario would be if we sold off the LCBO, ignoring that it brings in $2B a year of pure profit for the government.

But more importantly, having the government in retail also allows the province to set an example for employees in what are generally considered "low-wage" positions. The government usually pays more than the minimum wage for this reason. Do you think workers at privately owned liquor stores would earn as much, have the same benefits, or job security? Capitalism runs antithetical to those things. We all say we want better jobs and better pay, but few want to make the correlation that wanting something cheap goes against that.

With profits being the impetus of private business, we'd see more injuries of employees with a push to later hours, a lack of safety resources, and pressure on employees to confront theft (something not done at the LCBO by non-security staff). And it's not like the LCBO hasn't had to fight for some of that themselves, but it's a hell of a lot harder to the government to say no to unionization than it is for a private employer who can turn around and fire without cause when they catch a whiff of organization.
 
zang said:
The problem being that the current conservative trend towards austerity means governments are being starved of funds.

People always like to talk about how much better life in Ontario would be if we sold off the LCBO, ignoring that it brings in $2B a year of pure profit for the government.

But more importantly, having the government in retail also allows the province to set an example for employees in what are generally considered "low-wage" positions. The government usually pays more than the minimum wage for this reason. Do you think workers at privately owned liquor stores would earn as much, have the same benefits, or job security? Capitalism runs antithetical to those things. We all say we want better jobs and better pay, but few want to make the correlation that wanting something cheap goes against that.
Click to expand...

Most workers at the LCBO are part time with little to no benefits, making a few bucks more than minimum wage. The ones making decent money have been there for years. There are over 300+ people in LCBO's management on the sunshine list.

This is from 2013, i would imagine managements salaries have ballooned since then. Why not? They have zero competition.

LCBO salaries will drive you to drink

https://torontosun.com/2013/04/10/l...rink/wcm/ee848c68-40ca-41c2-9e97-6f67f47780f7
 
zang said:
The problem being that the current conservative trend towards austerity means governments are being starved of funds.

People always like to talk about how much better life in Ontario would be if we sold off the LCBO, ignoring that it brings in $2B a year of pure profit for the government.

But more importantly, having the government in retail also allows the province to set an example for employees in what are generally considered "low-wage" positions. The government usually pays more than the minimum wage for this reason. Do you think workers at privately owned liquor stores would earn as much, have the same benefits, or job security? Capitalism runs antithetical to those things. We all say we want better jobs and better pay, but few want to make the correlation that wanting something cheap goes against that.

With profits being the impetus of private business, we'd see more injuries of employees with a push to later hours, a lack of safety resources, and pressure on employees to confront theft (something not done at the LCBO by non-security staff). And it's not like the LCBO hasn't had to fight for some of that themselves, but it's a hell of a lot harder to the government to say no to unionization than it is for a private employer who can turn around and fire without cause when they catch a whiff of organization.
Click to expand...

Your point about profit is entirely valid.

Though, I would happily favour raising the sales tax by 2 points which would raise in the neighbourhood of 9B per year. (7 net if we lost all LCBO profit)

But I don't think that justifies a prohibition era government monopoly on beer and wine.

The answer to crappy employment standards in the private sectors is both to raise employment standards:

3-4 weeks paid vacation (pro-rated for part-timers)
5 or more paid personal days
higher minimum wage
Benefits or cash-in-lieu for part-timers and casuals that are equal to full-timers.
Universal pharmacare through the state.

etc.

As well as making it easier to unionize across franchises/multiple locations.
Making master franchisees responsible for the minimum employment standards of their franchisees.
Consider mandated sectoral bargaining with imposition on non-union work places. (common in northern Europe)

In respect of raising the lot of the typical retail worker, the LCBO does not do much at all.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top