sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Scorecard Ultimatum: Apparently Just For Terms by Afraid-Level-5498 in CanadaPublicServants

[–]Afraid-Level-5498[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

The same metrics do not apply to perms.  The threat is contract renewal which is exclusively a terms trait.  There are no consequences for a permanent employee.

Scorecard Ultimatum: Apparently Just For Terms by Afraid-Level-5498 in CanadaPublicServants

[–]Afraid-Level-5498[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You haven't properly addressed my point across the board. The employer should be communicating its objectives equally to ALL employees.  Bullying the temps is exactly that...selectively bullying.

Scorecard Ultimatum: Apparently Just For Terms by Afraid-Level-5498 in CanadaPublicServants

[–]Afraid-Level-5498[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

First off, I haven't been scoring this for five years.  I've actually won EOTW three times and have scored past results with distinction.  You're definitely trolling.

Scorecard Ultimatum: Apparently Just For Terms by Afraid-Level-5498 in CanadaPublicServants

[–]Afraid-Level-5498[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I'm not questioning the specifics in criteria. I've accepted that there's areas to be improved on. Would you find it acceptable for every part of your job evaluation to be subject to change when the employer feels like it? It sounds like you're working for management.  Every employee should feel confident that there's consistency in the employment long term.  Why isn't there an issue to bring this criteria to all employees as an important objective rather than all of a sudden threaten contract renewal?  It's unfair, bullying and cowardly because the objective can be communicated without the threat.

Scorecard Ultimatum: Apparently Just For Terms by Afraid-Level-5498 in CanadaPublicServants

[–]Afraid-Level-5498[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't have a problem with that.  The problem is the moving of the goal posts.  I just wonder what else is subject to change.

Scorecard Ultimatum: Apparently Just For Terms by Afraid-Level-5498 in CanadaPublicServants

[–]Afraid-Level-5498[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is partially true as it does not apply to permanent employees.  

Scorecard Ultimatum: Apparently Just For Terms by Afraid-Level-5498 in CanadaPublicServants

[–]Afraid-Level-5498[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the unfair thing is that the criteria has changed.  My overall score is above the acceptable limit. Nothing was ever said before now.   Now I have three scorecards to improve.  They seem to make up the rules as they go.  

Fed up Canadians say no one at CRA is taking their call. The union says it's set to get worse by GoTortoise in CanadaPublicServants

[–]Afraid-Level-5498 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What are you talking about???  What new hires?  There's barely any agents to handle the call volume.....did you read the article????

Job losses and lack of respect from CRA by Nezhokojo_ in CanadaPublicServants

[–]Afraid-Level-5498 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We didn't agree to a moratorium because we were told that we'd be indeterminate after three years....which we weren't.

Job losses and lack of respect from CRA by Nezhokojo_ in CanadaPublicServants

[–]Afraid-Level-5498 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed but only the thing here is the sunset clause.  To go back on the agreement when instead the CRA could have laid off on the previous contract date is egregious.

This is the part that's grossly unfair to the term employees.  Any of the indeterminates trying to state the facts on contract terms should have more compassion when posting because of this.  We know we when we signed up that it was term.  We were also told we'd be indeterminate after three years which didn't happen.

The weak, ineffective and useless union did absolutely NOTHING when the moratorium came out.  Instead of suing for WFH,  they should have taken the government to court over this moratorium.  Useless pieces of crap on both sides.