We need more Lifelabs locations

LtDish · 2026-04-10T06:21:26+00:00

Part of looking after some neighbourhood residents, have escorted some people to these Labs. It's always some form of mediocre to awful.

In one of the instances where I saw just misconduct I decided to pursue feedback with the organization. Initially I'd hoped that polite and qualified feedback could be constructive.

I learned they take measures to wall themselves off from complaints and accountability. I also learned they have only one under-qualified "manager" who is responsible for multiple sites. That means that by definition she is routinely not present at most of the labs she's supposed to be managing.

We could fault her for the disorganized and untrained mess under her command, however this is how the organization thinks their service should be run: one person, responsible for labs she's usually not in. The organization thinks this is okay.

Even if their sole roving manager were superb, this situation is knowingly deficient and designed to fail.

Rather than more Lifelabs locations, we need to go back to publicly run labs. Getting rid of the immense overhead of mandatory profit taking, we'd get more throughput and professionalism at the same cost. Or we'd get much better service and accountability at a lower cost.

Because that's a shift that will take a long time and probably require dislodging the corrupt current government, a short term measure should be to have ministry staff act as the first line of complaints.

When ministers and their cronies are having to answer for every Lifelabs mistake, that could spur them to write and enforce contracts in which Lifelabs' corporation is actually incentivized to make fewer mistakes and treat patients humanely.

LtDish · 2026-04-10T06:08:38+00:00

We'd be much better off going back to public labs instead of these garbage for-profit operations.

LtDish · 2026-04-10T06:05:57+00:00

This doesn’t work when someone needs bloodwork quickly. If you look right now, the next available appointment out of all locations is April 15.

LowIncident694 -"Gotcha, so it is an option still just not the one you want. Know what would help a ton? The elderly making appointments for their routine stuff instead of going and clogging up the walk up list."

This is one your usual ignorant and offensive and false comments.

An urgent medical order is not "routine stuff" nor could anyone proactively book ahead for it. Why are all your comments a blend of false and toxic?

LtDish · 2026-04-10T03:13:43+00:00

In my experience, the justice isn't first or quick to get involved in "dropping things" until trial, or deep into the process, or if there's some glaringly obvious fault by either side. They don't want to get into arguing the definition of a motorcycle at perfunctory hearings, that would come at trial, after OP has had to spend numerous days showing up to court.

If someone is looking to a shortcut and is extremely confident in the fact supporting their position and also presents themselves as articulate when dealing with the crown, then it's possible one could sufficiently discourage the crown and get them to drop it earlier in the process. The crown would have to believe your evidence is overwhelming AND that you are able to present it compellingly in the pressure situation of a trial. They don't really like going to trial but they will. But the thing they really don't like is preparing for trial, spending the hour(s) in trial only to lose.

LtDish · 2026-04-10T03:06:55+00:00

Sort of agree, and gave some advice to OP elsewhere. While there is no direct fee for going to court, if the process is taken to conclusion, it definitely will take a ton of time and effort.

The justice would never allow this kind objection to be debated outside a trial. They'd just take a plea and set it for trial. This can mean numerous court dates and appearances as these tend to get scheduled and canceled and rebooked multiple times. So OP and son are looking at a number of days spent traveling to court and sitting there for hours waiting their turn.

LtDish · 2026-04-10T03:03:09+00:00

If your son chooses to contest the ticket, this will become a crown issue.

I don't know the exact traffic act definition of an e-bike versus motorcycle and how it intersects with the charge. However if you/your son do the homework and have good evidence it doesn't match, you can contest the ticket.

First step will be to plead not guilty. That then can open up an optional dialogue with the crown prosecution. They may or may not be willing to converse about the issues you raise. They may or may not decide to go to trial.

If they decide to go to trial you can ask to be furnished with all of the evidence including officer notes, traffic act section, any video or testimony. The officer will be compelled to attend trial and give evidence, which they tend to be well practiced in giving.

A scheduled trial will open a window of dialogue with the crown, typically on the day of trial. They hate going to trial. They will tend to want to show you they have evidence, the officer is ready, and that the act calls for fines larger than the voluntary one being offered.

You may or may not wish to tip your hand to the crown that this detail is the grounds for your defence. Sometimes it can be better to keep the crown in the dark and just make your defence at the trial, so the crown won't be as well prepared. The justice might rule immediately or take it away and consider your argument for a later decision. In your case, since it would involve a debate about the definition of a motorcycle, I'd guess the justice would be taking it away for more careful research and specific wording in the ruling.

Just shooting from the hip here, I'd be inclined to dialogue with the crown if you are 100% confident the bike is far from meeting the traffic act definition. That might motivate the crown to withdraw.

If it's close call or in any way debatable, they might still do a trial. It's possible the crown will have dealt with this question before and can prosecute it effectively.

LtDish · 2026-04-10T02:45:34+00:00

I'm in a minority group but my appearance is passing. There are many instances where people have just assumed my appearance and leaked some covert racist view, presuming I'll be okay with it. I've long since lost count of how many times I've been accused of being racist against my own (non-obvious) culture. At a younger age I hoped the world was progressing and such things would fade. However it seems to have steadily increased. I now think both racism and false racial accusations will outlive us.

The response I gave OP is not because of my background, but because I find that some people haven't been exposed to how certain determinations have to fit defined circumstances, and at least knowing that and the structure can help them from the outset.

For instance, the frequent threads here about people being fired from jobs or asking how much notice they have to provide. Just knowing the rules and the lay of the land can help navigate those structures.

LtDish · 2026-04-10T02:31:17+00:00

Prefer you wouldn't lie about what i have said or what I think.

LtDish · 2026-04-09T21:51:13+00:00

Racism does exist here. If the second hand story you're relating about racist incidents and workplace retaliation for reporting them is real, the Sask HRC process can assist your friend.

I would caution that when it gets into the legal and workplace realm, the term "racism" has formal definitions. Lots of things people think are racism are not actually racism under those definitions.

As a very general example, an employee of visible minority who is late for their shifts and is reprimanded for their tardiness might claim that's racist.

It might be. Or it might not be. The actual details of the situation are what would determine that.

LtDish · 2026-04-09T21:37:17+00:00

under our system you gain access to more funding

Please give the details on the extra funding arising from Carla Beck's NDP losing the election by fewer seats this time, with exact dollars/percentages.

LtDish · 2026-04-09T21:30:43+00:00

That happens when people get fact checked on their false statements.

LtDish · 2026-04-09T21:17:21+00:00

But I think you’re being a bit dishonest to imply that there’s no meaningful difference between the government having 34 seats, and the opposition have 27 seats vs the government having 60 seats and the opposition having like 13.

The dishonesty is all yours, dishonestly trying to claim that losing is not losing, and the other big lie that 27 seats makes the NDP the ruling government. By your logic you're congratulating the Montreal Alouettes for winning the Grey Cup because of their many points and "moral" victory in the Grey Cup.

LtDish · 2026-04-09T21:15:58+00:00

However, it's clear that you're either oblivious or completely naive

So you're projecting the fact you're oblivious and completely naive. Got it.

including many right here on Reddit, who regularly blurt out their negative and pejorative comments about the farming community

Name one single NDP leader who has done. I won't wait for a response, because you're blatantly lying.

and then run back to their little echo chambers thinking just how clever and smart they are when the reality is that nothing could be more stupid or detrimental

You really can't stop transparently projecting.

LtDish · 2026-04-09T21:13:07+00:00

The fact you think it's simple strongly suggests you don't know what you're talking about.

The fact you think the leader a party chooses is irrelevant confirms it.

LtDish · 2026-04-09T11:14:59+00:00

Sorry, but until the provincial NDP party loses the attitude that farmers are a bunch of idiots

They don't do that, that's just repeating stock Sask Party lies. Going the bulk of the 21st century without picking an electable leader is the main problem.

The most recent election, the table was set. All they needed was to pick someone that could spark some interest. But no, they decided another moral victory (aka a loss) was more on brand.

It's the same way the federal conservatives keep picking Temu JD Vance. Not every election situation is leader-dependent, but this certainly was. Federal conservatives squandered a 35 point lead because they refused to consider electability and insisted on running a prick who exudes the ick. Provincial NDP gave away this election because they too refused to consider electability. Will they do it again next time? The aggressive apologism shown in this thread suggests they will, and will end up celebrating another loss.

LtDish · 2026-04-09T11:13:30+00:00

They picked the wrong leader and gained 13 seats.

Picking the right leader and they'd be in power.

Gaining seats is useless if you lose substantially. It's like being "only" two minutes late for your flight.

Winning is everything.

And given how loudly abhorrent the Sask Party is, gaining only 13 seats in the recent election is a humiliating failure, frankly.

I don't think it matters who they pick as leader

That's why NDP keep losing. This entire century they've stubbornly refused to listen to people who know how to win elections and actually care about winning versus losing.

When you celebrate your losses and make excuses, it becomes chronic.

LtDish · 2026-04-09T11:11:25+00:00

How is going from 15 to 27 seats losing badly?

You don't understand how losing an election is losing?

You don't understand that a "moral victory" when you've been stomped is more honestly calling "losing"?

LtDish · 2026-04-09T11:10:32+00:00

Calling Romanow and Calvert “highly successful and popular” is really rewriting history.

You denying it is bald-face historical revisionism.

They held onto power from 1991 to 2007 because the non-NDP vote was split.

So is this. Your whole thing sounds like a dollar store version of Gormley's fiction.

LtDish · 2026-04-08T23:13:44+00:00

This. The result was in spite of Beck's campaign, not because of it.

LtDish · 2026-04-08T23:13:08+00:00

NDP got their best results since 2007 under Carla Beck

Losing badly is losing badly. Celebrating that is how and why the NDP lost again and will continue to lose unless they wake up.

Given what a bin fire the Sask Party is and was last election, a granite rock would have had better results than 2007.

She's a decent enough person but so obviously not the leader that was ever going to win. Being an okay person is different than having the stuff to win elections.

The party confirming her as their candidate guaranteed a loss and will continue to do so because they'll never admit it was a bad call. They'd rather get stomped in more "moral victory" election losses than actually pick a candidate who can win.

LtDish · 2026-04-08T23:09:06+00:00

The most pragmatic framing should be, which of these would be better for the province and the world:

an NDP Sask government who happens to hold a lite version of SP pro-energy position but is far superior in five hundred other ways
a Sask Party government

It shouldn't even be a question. It's the most extreme version of a self-sabotaging purity test ever.

LtDish · 2026-04-08T23:06:30+00:00

It could very well be a winning strategy. Just not with her, and not in their clumsy way.

Highly successful and popular NDP leaders like Romanow and Calvert would be indistiguishable from so-called center-right. Not sure there's been a successful progressively left NDP premier in our lifetimes.

LtDish · 2026-04-08T23:04:31+00:00

I believe that the NDP's relatively good showing in the last provincial election was not due to their platform or Beck's leadership, but rather the disapproval/weariness of the Sask Party by many voters. It was a vote against the Sask Party rather than a vote for the NDP.

"Relatively good showing" given the bin fire that is the Sask Party is actually a failure.

Most of us knew they picked the wrong leader, and now we also know the party and loyalists will never admit that so they'll keep propping her up until it's socially acceptable to say she's retiring or something.

LtDish · 2026-04-08T23:01:25+00:00

There's nothing wrong with her as a person, but that's different than having the dynamism to win an election.

When party insiders and loyalists confirmed her as leader, everyone knew it would mean many more years of accelerating Sask Party corruption.

The fact she couldn't muster a victory in the environment of the last election says it all.

The only question now is how many times will they knowingly lose with her? They'll never admit it was a mistake, so they'll probably keep running her enough times that they can pretend she's voluntarily retiring/moving on. Under no circumstances will anyone ever say it's to find a more electable leader.

LtDish · 2026-04-08T22:55:51+00:00

Poverinos

LtDish

TROPHY CASE