I guess it's really a criticism that can be applied to most parties. To a certain extent, it's understandable, because you can't really implement policies if you never hold power. Still, I'd rather be arguing over the best ways to handle important issues than trying to figure out who's tweaking my emotions for their own gain.
"Pierre is very cerebral," said one adviser. "He wants to take the time to form an idea and take a position without having to change his mind."
If he is very cerebral, I think that he's putting the big brain to the wrong use. From the outside, and now based on this article, it seems the challenge he's chosen to tackle is how win, not how to do the right thing for people and the country.
They have similar legislation in other jurisdictions. Does anyone up to no good get to hide that fact? What about people who share a name and one person wants search results hidden and the other(s) don't or even actively want to be searchable?
I used to be against this, but as time has gone on, and i've seen just how evil Google can be, i've become more and more in favor of it!
While I agree that Google is evil, don't forget that they are a search engine. If Google doesn't show the results, another search engine probably will.
"We want our pilots to be entirely free from any financial consideration when they take a safety-related decision," WestJet CEO Alexis von Hoensbroech said.
Is it somehow coming out of their pay?
I just retired as a school bus driver. There were some rules that required I cancel for safety reasons. There was also a rule that said, in effect, I was the best judge of my abilities and local conditions and circumstances, making me free to cancel even when cancellation was not mandatory.
I both cases, I was still paid as if I hadn't cancelled. This was not just a secret little rule, but hammered in to us to make sure that we understood there was no penalty for cancellation.
I never once had an administrator question my decision to cancel. In the rare case that a parent questioned my decision, it was referred to administration who unfailingly backed me up. I'm sure there was a process in place to deal with malingering, but that's pretty much standard procedure in every workplace.
If there is not a similar regime for pilots, there should be.
If it's serious enough or there are repeated offenses, the directors might have to resign from all boards and the C-suite prohibited from taking equivalent positions elsewhere. And eventually actual humans get prison.
Other than boots, I've never worked anywhere that didn't provide PPE. Some of the jankier places had to be forced to provide it by citing regulations. Some of the better places also had boot allowances. Most places, the gloves were fit for purpose, but not what I would buy if spending my own money.
The basic principle is that an employee cannot be asked to perform dangerous or unhealthy activities without training and equipment. Not every jurisdiction is the same. YMMV.
Who, precisely, did they consult with? All I got from my letter to the premier was a form response that it has been forwarded to the appropriate minister.
Well, I did get spam asking me if I support the Sask Party. Not on any issue, just in general. Does that count?
I think that's more of a "huge organization" thing than specific to governments. Over my career, I found that the larger the company, the more like quicksand or a vat of molasses the projects were.
Manufacturing facility with fewer than a couple of hundred employees seemed like the sweet spot, especially when still run by the founders or taken over by long term employees. Multinational mining companies -- not so much. :)
staff not knowing what the fuck they want and constantly "amending" the scope of the work
... is pretty darn common across the board. I've never done any government contracting but I find it hard to imagine that it could be worse than the private sector.
Singapore is nonsensical, because that's a completely different jurisdiction.
For Ottawa-specific laws, there is probably no real choice but to stay in Ottawa. For provincial and federal laws, there are options. I don't necessarily agree that change of venue should be a given, but it is a commonly accepted means of trying to ensure impartiality. I'm not sure that there is anywhere in Canada where this trial could be conducted without the spectre of bias, but, whether we like it or not, change of venue is one of the tools available.
It's not yet the law, because it hasn't even been introduced, because the legislature isn't even sitting.
The premier is directing that policy be changed in anticipation of forthcoming legislation, when that legislation hasn't even been put forward.
The premier is taking on the role of absolute dictator by directing people to act without first getting legislation in place. The judge is doing no more than upholding the rights of the citizens to be not bossed around without supporting legislation.
Really, it's not all that complicated. No regulation without legislation.
I'm well aware. I was responding to what seems to be your opinion that justice is always best served by keeping the trial in the community in which the offense occurred.
Just so you know, judges are specifically not to look to the will of the people but to the law.
Legislators are the ones who are supposed to consider the will of the people.
If the will of the people really is to have a law like this, then the Sask Party is doing it's job in bringing forward the legislation. That, of course, assumes that our provincial government has appropriate jurisdiction over everything the law covers.
And that gets us to the injunction. An injunction is not about "no you can't do that" but about "hang on there, it doesn't look like you've covered all the bases".
Why would this be any different than any other crime? Yes, there is generally a preference for trying cases in the community in which the offense occurred, but this wouldn't be the first time that a trial was moved somewhere else in order to improve the chances of an impartial judgement.
They say it takes around 1.5 acres to sustain a person. Farmland rents for around $300 per acre here, so $450 for the year to access the land you need for food. The food itself just kind of grows from that ground and sinks carbon to boot, so that's cool. A human emits carbon, so that's not exactly great for the climate, but you're probably going to do that regardless so we'll consider that a wash.
I don't know when you last tried growing a balanced diet, but I can tell you that growing anything as a crop is quite a way off "just kind of growing itself."
Oops. Not ran twice.