Strategic Voting

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Linus

I would still prefer the Green party to the NDP but that's a personal preference (I dislike that unions protect workers who don't do their job because they don't want to, not because of illness or what-have-you).

I forgot to comment on this part.

I like unions. I get the fear of unions "protecting the lazy worker" - but I also get that that's pretty much a catchphrase that anti-union people love. I would rather have all workers protected (even the ones who may not deserve protection) than to have no workers protected at all.

God, if the place where my spouse worked was unionised they would have never had the opportunity to fuck him over as thoroughly as they did.

(Backstory - Nick needed a knee replacement. Nick has a knee replacement. His employer wanted him back at work 2 weeks after surgery. 2 weeks go by and he goes to his doc who says "no way!" and fills out some extension of leave forms. Nick brings the forms to work. Nick gets fired for having to take off more time than they felt like letting him take. That shit is just WRONG. And it happens regularly. Honest people need protection from shitty employers. I am done derailing now.)

[Linus]

Originally Posted by betenoire

The PM, really. I think most people do vote based on the PM rather than the local MP. That's probably wrong to do, but there you have it. It's hard to separate the person running for PM from the person who is in your local riding - and so it should be. It's the seats from all those little ridings that declares the PM.

I guess I'm not as concerned about local politics as I should be. And I guess I pretty clearly vote along party lines - as I'm sure most people do.

I don't know if that's true any more. I mean, the NDP thing wasn't an aberration and resulted in a pretty swift and interesting change in Canadian politics as a whole. I think some do vote based on how well they are represented, some based on the choices of leader and some based on some other factor (e.g., party lines, etc.).

**Note: I was trying to see if there was a poll/stat about voting patterns but I can't find it. I know there was one done in the 90s but I don't think anyone has done a recent study to see how it's changed (I think today it's all about who can convince you that your bottom line will look better than the Jones next door).

Originally Posted by betenoire

I forgot to comment on this part.

I like unions. I get the fear of unions "protecting the lazy worker" - but I also get that that's pretty much a catchphrase that anti-union people love. I would rather have all workers protected (even the ones who may not deserve protection) than to have no workers protected at all.

God, if the place where my spouse worked was unionised they would have never had the opportunity to fuck him over as thoroughly as they did.

I was part of a union when I was a professor. And yet.. not part. Because I was a contract professor (Seneca College in Toronto), I had to pay dues but wasn't represented by the union (uh..?!). Additionally, my attempts to get tenure or permanent professor status was blocked by the union even though there were quite a few professors that didn't know how to teach and had limited knowledge of what they taught. The school had a shortage of good professors, many were about to retire, students said they learned lots from me, colleagues liked me, the bosses liked me but the union said no.

Overall I like the idea of unions (much like a lot of socialized things). However, many have turned into a capitalist venture and aren't really there for the average worker.

(Backstory - Nick needed a knee replacement. Nick has a knee replacement. His employer wanted him back at work 2 weeks after surgery. 2 weeks go by and he goes to his doc who says "no way!" and fills out some extension of leave forms. Nick brings the forms to work. Nick gets fired for having to take off more time than they felt like letting him take. That shit is just WRONG. And it happens regularly. Honest people need protection from shitty employers. I am done derailing now.)

What about Workman's Comp? I thought it was their job to protect against this kind of stuff?


I think the Rhino Party needs to make a comeback. That or Marg, Princess Warrior needs to run for PM.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Linus

What about Workman's Comp? I thought it was their job to protect against this kind of stuff?

Nick still lives in Ohio, where employers can pretty much do whatever the hell they want.

I do not know what Workman's Comp is. Is that kind of like WSIB? Because WSIB is for if you get hurt ON the job.

[Linus]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Nick still lives in Ohio, where employers can pretty much do whatever the hell they want.

I do not know what Workman's Comp is. Is that kind of like WSIB? Because WSIB is for if you get hurt ON the job.

Ah.. Ok. I thought Nick was in Ontario.


Hrmm.. they used to call it Workman's Comp but perhaps it is WSIB (the acronym sounds familiar). And I thought it covered both on and off job injuries but I think you're right. It may be only on the job. If it was Canada, then I'm pretty sure (unless the Conservatives have changed it) that EI would cover it (at least financially).

[Apocalipstic]

I think you are a smart voter!

I do this too. If I voted my heart I would vote way to the left of the Democrats, so I vote against the Republicans.

[DapperButch]

I didn't see this thread until now. It is a good one. I would really like to see a poll with it. It would be interesting. I wonder if you can still put one in. Or would care to?

I say vote strategically, it makes the most sense.

Originally Posted by betenoire

Nick still lives in Ohio, where employers can pretty much do whatever the hell they want.

I do not know what Workman's Comp is. Is that kind of like WSIB? Because WSIB is for if you get hurt ON the job.

Originally Posted by Linus

Ah.. Ok. I thought Nick was in Ontario.


Hrmm.. they used to call it Workman's Comp but perhaps it is WSIB (the acronym sounds familiar). And I thought it covered both on and off job injuries but I think you're right. It may be only on the job. If it was Canada, then I'm pretty sure (unless the Conservatives have changed it) that EI would cover it (at least financially).

Ok, I know this is an old topic, but I just have to ask since this seems so crazy.

Did Nick have his physician sign FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) papers? It guarantees that one's job is held for 6 months as long as your doc says you cannot work. After six months, it guarantees that they will put you in some position within the company for up to one year (I am not sure if it has to be a comparable position, or not). It is a Federal, not state by state, so it must be available to him.

I sign these papers all the time for my clients and have it myself due to the surgery and regular med appts that I need to have for the next couple of months.

I can totally see some jerk employer not telling an employee about the availability of this. I already knew about it, but my boss actually told me to make sure that I filled them out, just in case someone questioned him about my time out. It protects him as well, as a manager.

I'm sorry this happened to him. Such bull crap.

Yes, workman's comp is when you get hurt on the job and relates to who pays you while you are out. Different issue.


ETA: http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/

Ok, the above says 12 work weeks within a 12 month period. What I wrote above I have heard time and time again, so, who knows. No matter, he should have been covered. It can be continuous leave (out all the time), or intermittent leave (out for doc appts) and just gets added up by hours, I believe.