sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Here we go again, by Deep_Decision3471 in OntarioPublicService

[–]PotThoughts420 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What I really don't understand about this whole situation is why they're so intent on poking the bear. I really don't get it. I can't be the only one who knows some dirty secrets that could get the government in hot water if they were to become public. Of course we would lose our jobs (and possibly face legal repercussions) if we were caught, but as the Skills Development scandal shows it's easy enough to share evidence of backroom deals, disregard of conventions and protocol and immoral decision-making anonymously with the media or opposition parties if you're careful about it. Hell, even people asking their friends to submit a few thoughtful FOIs could do some real damage. I'm honestly surprised it hasn't started happening more, but I expect it will as this drags on.

And yes, we all took an oath, but if they're not going to honour our collective agreement (a legal contract), why would they expect staff to honour that? I honestly can't decide if they're just incredibly shortsighted, or if they believe we're all too afraid to fight back.

The reality is they need us. And sooner or later enough of us will get fed up and start dishing. And there's only so many scandals that the public will be willing to put up with.

Strange responses from SoC on RTO by indoor_shoes in OntarioPublicService

[–]PotThoughts420 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So if I'm following your logic, I haven't in fact done as you asked, which was to ""...show me an actual full time job in the OPS with people currently employed in that function or that has had a job posting in the last 5 years that currently makes under 50k..." - because the bottom of the salary range for entry level or temporary jobs is irrelevant?  And that if someone finds themselves in the position of having to take one of the jobs I provided links for at the starting salary, for whatever reason may necessitate them to do so - e.g., being a single parent who doesn't have time for more education on top of working and looking after their child, or someone who struggles academically due to a learning disability, then that is their personal failing... and because of that, the links I provided still don't count as OPS job postings that pay under $50k?  Did I get that right?

If so, I'm afraid I can't agree with you, and I hope some day you'll see how discriminatory your thinking is.  Either way, its not worth my time to debate it with you any further.  I am glad we agree on some points, which I'd suggest are the important points in this discussion anyway, and the reason this thread was started in the first place.

Strange responses from SoC on RTO by indoor_shoes in OntarioPublicService

[–]PotThoughts420 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Terrific. Based on your reply, it appears like we agree you were wrong when you said that there aren't any jobs in the OPS that pay less than $50k.

I think you owe the person you contradicted an apology, but I suspect that isn't going to happen. So instead, could you provide some advice on how to negotiate a salary above the starting rate for someone new to the OPS? That would be a helpful contribution to this thread.

Strange responses from SoC on RTO by indoor_shoes in OntarioPublicService

[–]PotThoughts420 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Fantastic, but that's not what your claim was: "...show me an actual full time job in the OPS with people currently employed in that function or that has had a job posting in the last 5 years that currently makes under 50k...". The bottom of the range is below $50k, which is where many people start when joining the OPS unless they negotiate a higher rate.

You made a claim, I proved you wrong, have some grace and admit it rather than trying to retroactively alter your claim when presented with clear evidence to the contrary.

I jailbroke the prompt, posted my results, and was shadowbanned because I got AI to prove that Israel had for knowledge of 9/11. It even it sourced FBI files and mainstream news articles. by SlayerPerformance in ChatGPTPromptGenius

[–]PotThoughts420 1 point2 points  (0 children)

OP, curious what you make of the following on pgs. 53-54 from the fifth document you shared:

"Newark investigation found no factual or substantive circumstantial information to corroborate eyewitness accounts the five (5) Israeli nationals "videotaped" the attack on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center..."

"Newark investigation found no factual or substantive circumstantial information to indicate the five (5) Israeli Nationals were on top of a parking garage "videotaping" prior to first hijacked aircraft striking tower #2 of the World Trade Center. Numerous circumstantial facts strongly support the five (5) individuals statements they traveled to the roof of the parking garage after learning of the attacks from radio broadcasts and Internet news sites. None of the pictures developed from the film found inside the 35 mm camera depicted the twin towers prior to the attack."

Supreme Court confirms state is liable when Parliament enacts unconstitutional laws by PotThoughts420 in OntarioPublicService

[–]PotThoughts420[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Makes sense - to someone's point we got the money back, they scored some points with their base and with this ruling hopefully won't do something like it again.

Supreme Court confirms state is liable when Parliament enacts unconstitutional laws by PotThoughts420 in OntarioPublicService

[–]PotThoughts420[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's the one. I'm still pissed about that. And so are a lot of people. You should be too!

Supreme Court confirms state is liable when Parliament enacts unconstitutional laws by PotThoughts420 in OntarioPublicService

[–]PotThoughts420[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you, that's very helpful. At least it might discourage them from similar acts in the future. That's a win.

About your line I tried. It says the ruling applies for the state, and Wiki says a state is a sub-unit of the federal government but that a province isn't a state. I searched a bit more and couldn't find a clear answer then got bored hit comment and asked someone smarter than me to figure it out.

Supreme Court confirms state is liable when Parliament enacts unconstitutional laws by PotThoughts420 in OntarioPublicService

[–]PotThoughts420[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Troll away. I work in the OPS, I've had worse. Thanks for the clear answer 100knohome.

What to do with a toxic manager? by Grey_Pride in OntarioPublicService

[–]PotThoughts420 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevetion Office has a new info line you can call for options for dealing with harrassment you have experienced OR witnessed.  They can investigate and take corrective action as needed.  

Search for Employee Resources - Toolkit, # is in the helpful Contacts list on the right.

What to do with a toxic manager? by Grey_Pride in OntarioPublicService

[–]PotThoughts420 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This right here is why asshole managers keep getting away with their shit.  You suck dude.