If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
How about places which employ people long enough to qualify for EI, lay them off and hire someone else. Then repeat the process. I've heard this exists but have never seen it first hand.
There is a project in some high unemployment areas called the Job Creation Partnership Program (JCP) where employers are advised to share the work to give workers some workforce experience at minimum wage. However, JCP hours and earnings are not EI insurable, and therefore they do not qualify for EI claims directly.
Normally, a claimant with little or no attachment to the labour force (LFA) over the prior two years would need 910 hours of work in the past 52 weeks to qualify for an initial EI claim. For a person living in an area with a 20% unemployment rate, that's a lot to ask for.
A claimant with enough LFA who lives in an area with an unemployment rate over 13% only needs 420 hours to qualify for Regular EI benefits. JCP is one way to give workers enough LFA so that they may qualify for benefits a year later if they find 420 hours of regular work.
An employer who lays off an employee and hires someone else is essentially falsifying the Record of Employment (ROE). A "layoff" occurs when there is a shortage of work, meaning the employer is not permitted to replace the worker because he is stating on the ROE that there is no work. If an employer dismisses an employee, then justification must follow, and dismissals are generally permanent in nature.
How about places which employ people long enough to qualify for EI, lay them off and hire someone else. Then repeat the process. I've heard this exists but have never seen it first hand.
Were you referring to jobs where workers are flown in? It's so many weeks on and then they get flow home and get so many weeks off. Then it's back to the job. I don't think that should be eligible for EI at all.
Gary,
No, that's not the same as seasonal layoff. What you are referring to is called "Lay Days". Lay Days are days that the worker is off work, however he is considered as not unemployed. EI does not pay for those days.
How lay days are determined is mainly a function of the hours worked during a cycle. Suppose a work cycle is three weeks: 14 days working 10 hours, followed by seven days off. During that 21-day period, the worker will work 140 hours, for an average of almost 47 hours per week. Since that exceeds the number of hours that would normally constitute a full work week, then the lay week is considered a part of that cycle and therefore not payable. This is most common in the oil industry, mining, on a boat (i.e. Coast Guard), and in forestry, and generally where the work is in a remote location.
If an employee works 14 straight days and is then laid off during the three-week cycle, then he is entitled to benefits only after the end of the third week of the cycle. On the Record of Employment, the employer would be instructed to put the end date of that cycle as being the last day for which paid.
Seasonal layoff is more a function of the environment, which can sometimes include a boat being tied up for several weeks for a variety of reasons causing a shortage of work. During some times of the year, there could be seasonal layoffs due to fishing restrictions, weather, construction, etc.
Hope that clears things up...
Jordan
Last edited by Jordan S. Berson; Wednesday, 13th June, 2012, 12:40 PM.
Reason: minor edit
Not everyone has the ability to pick up and move to a different area or province. While it was something that worked for you, the Federal Government would not (and should not) impose that kind of requirement in order to allow an EI claimant to continue receiving benefits.
"Suitable work" has many meanings. It does not just refer to the type of work, it also refers to rate of pay, work conditions, work schedule, distance from home, and other factors. While it still remains up to the EI claimant to prove that a particular job is not suitable for him or her, the new criteria that Service Canada will use to adjudicate job refusals may be slightly more restrictive than previously, but not unreasonably so.
Jordan, when I was much younger I worked for a Hydro utility. 1st year lineman. That was about 50 years ago. Long hours with lots of overtime. The amount of money I made was very good for the times. For various reason I didn't like the job and left.
It was many years before I made the same kind of salary I was getting doing that job.
For me to hold out for a salary of even 50% of what I had been making, in that area of the country, would have been unreasonable. It wasn't going to happen. So I went where the work and the money were. But still not as much as I'd made doing that work.
I'd like to think the definition of "suitable work" would be work which the person is physically fit to do, but other than that can see why the job can't be taken while seeking something else.
Your post to me mentions workers who leave their home province and get laid off for 6 week so they collect EI. To me these are mobile workers. Particularly when they don't want to do other work because they expect to go back to their jobs.
Were you referring to jobs where workers are flown in? It's so many weeks on and then they get flow home and get so many weeks off. Then it's back to the job. I don't think that should be eligible for EI at all.
Changes to EI laws - C-38 removes definitions of "suitable work" from the Employment Insurance Act and gives the federal cabinet the power to create new regulations about what constitutes suitable work and reasonable efforts to find work. The budget bill gives no details about what the new criteria will be.
What's wrong with that? When I couldn't find suitable work in another province I moved. It was a reasonable effort to find suitable work.
Gary,
Not everyone has the ability to pick up and move to a different area or province. While it was something that worked for you, the Federal Government would not (and should not) impose that kind of requirement in order to allow an EI claimant to continue receiving benefits.
"Suitable work" has many meanings. It does not just refer to the type of work, it also refers to rate of pay, work conditions, work schedule, distance from home, and other factors. While it still remains up to the EI claimant to prove that a particular job is not suitable for him or her, the new criteria that Service Canada will use to adjudicate job refusals may be slightly more restrictive than previously, but not unreasonably so.
This bill targets workers who are on seasonal layoff, but they choose to not look for work when suitable work is available. For instance, a person may live in one province and work in another. They get a layoff for six weeks, so they return to their home province and collect EI benefits. While stating on EI reports that they are available for work, they are not actively seeking full-time work while on layoff. However, when a Service Canada agent asks a EI claimant if he is looking for work, the claimant might say that he is not because he will be returning to their regular employment in just a few weeks. If an EI claimant is not looking for work during the off-season, then he should not be entitled to benefits, which has always been the case.
The problem is, the question on the report is "Were you ready, willing, and capable of working", however it does not ask "were you actively seeking full-time employment". This is something that should be reviewed, because although this question is implied, many EI recipients don't see it that way.
Jordan
Last edited by Jordan S. Berson; Wednesday, 13th June, 2012, 08:57 AM.
Reason: Grammar and spelling corrections
In case you didn't notice, after the budget deal the Cons lost one of their MPP's. Within the next 6 to 8 months the Liberals should be in majority territory.
Anyhow, the Ontario NDP insisted on a wealth tax and Ontario lost 18,700 jobs last month. Many of them the high paying jobs. An interesting coincidence. By time the next Ontario election rolls around the people will likely be calling the NDP leader "Hard Times" Horwath.
I'd imagine with the passage of time the NDP waffle movement has been forgotten. Do you remember it? The waffle was disbanded because it didn't play well with the voters. Do you remember? If it didn't play well back then, why would you suppose these student protests and the other protest in Toronto last year would appeal to the voters?
You do realize having a lead in the polls and winning an election are two different things, don't you Bob? Ask Hudak. He lost a big lead in the polls on election day.
The problem is many don't talk to the pollsters but they do vote.
Last edited by Gary Ruben; Tuesday, 12th June, 2012, 01:11 PM.
Ontario - The NDP wrung some concessions out of the Liberals, and the budget is now acceptable, given that an election is not in anyone', including the public's, interest at the moment ( though the thick-headed PC's will do anything to again lose in an election to the Liberals. They should be worried that Ontario voters next time are going to see the Ontario NDP as the official alternative, not them, and they are going to go the way of the dodo too, like the federal Liberals ).
Federal - in a majority gov't, the opposition role is to highlight the gov't deficiencies in the media, however possible. Their action is in the court of ppublic opinion. They really can do little to wring concessions from a majority government, bound to ideological change. The NDP roadshow on the budget was a great strategy. Elizabeth May's amendments are another. All of Canada now knows that the Conservatives are abusing the system by tieing all kinds of irrelevancies into the budget bill, soley because they have a majority and think they can get away with it. But are they going to, without damage? Why else is the NDP neck and neck with them now in the polls, and the Canadian public has never before been willing to consider the NDP a gov't in waiting?
Regarding May reading the bill, if I was paid as much as she is as an MP, I'd read it as well. In reality, the MP's don't have to read the entire bills. They get to vote the way their leader tells them.
Actually, I don't hate Elizabeth May. It is the ineffectiveness of people like her that contributed to the current pleasant situation where she became irrelevant.
This is not going to be a good week for you, as she takes centre stage and leads the opposition forces. :D
The peasants are revolting! Yes, they are. What is your point?
Elizabeth May upstaging the NDP leader is a good thing from my point of view. I am sure that he will be thinking about it. I won't.
As far as thread drift is concerned, the thread dealt with who was leading the opposition. This week anyway, it is Elizabeth May. :D
As for her election tactics that got her the first Green Party seat, well done. :D
In the next election she won't have quite so much money to work with.
You derailed this topic by bringing up that very irrelevant person who aside from being an MP representing one riding is compelling only in the lengths that she went to to get elected including riding shopping and blowing her party's whole election budget on one riding.
Vlad, I get it. You hate Elizabeth May. This is not going to be a good week for you, as she takes centre stage and leads the opposition forces. :D
As far as thread drift is concerned, the thread dealt with who was leading the opposition. This week anyway, it is Elizabeth May. :D
As for her election tactics that got her the first Green Party seat, well done. :D
You find ideas and then try to feed them to the masses like pablum.
Gary, again you miss the point. I have not declared my support or lack thereof for any of the measures in C-38. The point is that instead of having a proper debate on the issues, the government has chosen to bundle together everything they want to change to every conceivable law they don't like.
It sounds like Elizabeth May maybe the only MP that has actually read the damn thing.
I want the government to convince us of the validity of their actions. They have a majority, so what's the problem? Or are they worried that with enough sunshine, their own MP's would abandon ship.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Monday, 11th June, 2012, 06:14 PM.
Vlad, your attacks on Elizabeth May are pathetic. They are also off topic.
You made them on topic by bringing her up in a thread on the next federal government. Responding to a silly comment does not make me off topic it makes you off topic. There is also a concept that you need to be aware of: thread drift. You derailed this topic by bringing up that very irrelevant person who aside from being an MP representing one riding is compelling only in the lengths that she went to to get elected including riding shopping and blowing her party's whole election budget on one riding.
C-38 will amend income tax act rules concerning political activities of charities.
If you engage in political activities then you are not a charity.
Bill C-38 shuts down several government-funded groups and agencies, including the National Council of Welfare, the Public Appointments Commission, Rights and Democracy, the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal and Assisted Human Reproduction Canada.
So? All of these organizations are welcome to make the transition to private funding. If we can't afford to have people retire at 65 we certainly don't need to fund any of those groups.
The age of eligibility for OAS will rise gradually to 67 from 65 starting in 2023. C-38 lays out a complicated chart showing how that change will be phased in.
The only annoying thing is that he picked my birth year as the cutoff. Hopefully I won't need the money at that point in time.
Changes to EI laws - C-38 removes definitions of "suitable work" from the Employment Insurance Act and gives the federal cabinet the power to create new regulations about what constitutes suitable work and reasonable efforts to find work. The budget bill gives no details about what the new criteria will be.
What's wrong with that? When I couldn't find suitable work in another province I moved. It was a reasonable effort to find suitable work.
The age of eligibility for OAS will rise gradually to 67 from 65 starting in 2023. C-38 lays out a complicated chart showing how that change will be phased in.
This one is no problem. Any of the others can make repealing that a plank in their platform for the next election.
If your long term strategy is to wait for your opponents to blunder in a catastrophic manner, you might need more than three years.
It has already happened. We've had some time of pax harperanicus; nobody need posit any action foreign to that nature. Three more years suffused by that nature ... some people believe that it is an entirely wholesome nature; but don't pretend that everybody does; it was only about 40% at last complete (save for those fooled by the election fraud) count. The count that counted.
If you characterize Mr. Mulcair's strategy with the word "wait", then the omission of the points of view of that other chunk of voters is hardly surprising.
The Liberals will make a resurgence next time and most of that will be at the expense of the NDP.
You are awfully cocky about the manner of resurgence of what is a rudderless husk of its former self. On that subject, very confident about the effect. Have you read Stephen Vizinczey's Rules of Chaos? It is a book that would appeal to a skeptic, one not in the thrall of prognostication.
You find ideas and then try to feed them to the masses like pablum.
Leave a comment: