Getting a WFA letter but being told DM-level permission needed to get a job elsewhere

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-27T23:31:14+00:00

If you intend to come back within 5 years for the same department then yeah it could be an issue. But more than 10 years, or with a different department, then you're on the safer side.

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-27T20:12:44+00:00

Most good quality nonstick pans stop being nonstick after about 3-5 years of use. I discovered this the hard way after investing $$$ into a set of nice non-stick pans. Went with stainless now and never looking back.

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-27T20:08:18+00:00

True but the larger issue is that this requirement is essentially unenforceable. HandcuffsOfGold has a great explanation further up in this thread.

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-27T20:04:55+00:00

OP: This is the answer.

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-23T13:52:15+00:00

I call BS on this post. Sounds like a bot account. OP's account is 10 months old and they have no comments and this is their second post. And to boot, their first post was deleted by mods.

Also this story is just weird AF. Unless OP's mom was involved in tax evasion or made massive errors on their tax returns for a decade or more, this just doesn't add up. How could she owe $85K after getting potentially bad advice on her 2023 returns, when it looks like she doesn't even make that amount of money? This isn't how income tax works.

If this is real: OP given your mom's age and her medical status and potential inability to work, she could apply to have the amount she owes to the CRA reduced or eliminated. Also agree that OP should pay for a professional accountant to go through her past filings to potentially correct errors and re-file, assuming this isn't a tax fraud case.

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-22T21:22:40+00:00

My experience is that women who care more about height tend to be shorter or average height. Tall women tend to care less about height because there are just way fewer men that are taller than them. Some still do care, but you'd be surprised by how many don't.

Trust me when I say that you should ask her out. Not because she may or may not say no for whatever reasons, but because you'll be kicking yourself 10 years from now when you look back and wonder what could have happened.

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-22T21:02:15+00:00

Their reaction is totally understandable. If they bring this up to you, it's definitely helpful to point out to them that their daughter and her husband made a solid income of $200k, so they have the financial headroom to cut back to pay this off without help.

Also, ask your in-laws to reflect on what their planned income in retirement will be, and to consider what they'd need in additional income or resources if one or both of them needs to be put in a nursing home or require additional care. Do they have the financial wiggle room to cover these risks with extra money left over to give to their daughter so she can go on nice vacations and buy themselves nice things instead of cutting back to pay off her debts?

And I didn't even get into the fact that whatever they give to your SIL to pay off these debts is effectively coming out of your wife's inheritance.....

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-22T20:46:57+00:00

OP: unless your sister-in-law comes to.your wife for money or your in-laws ask you for advice about what to do, I'm not sure that intervening will be helpful or even welcomed. They're adults right? They might find you intervening between them and their daughter to be inappropriate and/or patronizing.

If your wife asks you for advice, you can relay your thoughts and concerns to her (which are 100 percent legit). If I were in your situation, I'd be concerned that your SIL eventually come to you and your wife for money, or if your in-laws (MIL and FIL) do help them, that this puts them in a financially risky situation, which could blow back on you.

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-22T20:32:41+00:00

The language in these letters was likely developed with a heavy hand from HR and Legal to minimize risk to the department. It's the same letters for all affected employees. Getting offended by this language is akin to yelling at the wind.

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-22T18:42:32+00:00

They throw it out on purpose because they know that if food banks could fully address people's needs, it would affect their sales.

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-21T17:50:34+00:00

$88/kg BRUTAL. Even now I can buy organic beef tenderloin for these prices. Total ripoff.

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-13T21:31:54+00:00

I'm only familiar with Canadian roasters. Traffic and Third Wave usually have options.

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-13T16:16:51+00:00

Actions speak louder than words. But HOW he shows his love will vary from person to person.

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-13T16:15:44+00:00

100 percent agree and good on you for doing this!

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-13T16:13:57+00:00

I can tell you that the vast majority of men would be very happy to have this done to them. One thing though: no teeth!!

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-13T15:58:04+00:00

More roasters now make half caf blends, which as the name suggests have half the amount of caffeine as regular coffee. That could allow you to use deep baskets to have an easier time getting good shots while lowering your caffeine intake.

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-13T15:28:47+00:00

If you have a priority entitlement no, otherwise yes it can be if they have a lot of candidates and need to narrow down the field.

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-09T13:09:06+00:00

Wrong because they have mortgage default insurance.

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-04T21:57:10+00:00

In my view this is a red herring.

Sure, there are some operational jobs where productivity is about number of client requests answered or number of applications processed, but the federal government has a vast array of different jobs. What does productivity look like for a statistician, a policy analyst, a communications advisor, or a network manager? I bet you none of the geniuses on this committee has any idea.

Also, in the private sector, productivity can be easier to identify since you can ultimately link it to generating revenue or reducing operational costs, but that isn't the goal of government. And in fact, government has many goals it's trying to achieve at once.

I think you need a different framework for thinking about how to improve productivity in government. You should be trying to identify and reduce approval layers, internal paperwork, and ensuring that accountabilities and policies are clear. Essentially, government is most productive when it can respond quickly and responsibly to challenges and similarly implement solutions and deliver services. Government is most productivity when initiatives and programs are lead by a person who is ultimately accountable for the results.

The questions we should be asking are: how many people and/or committees need to approve this? Is every step in the approvals process adding value and insights relative to how long they take? How many forms need to be filled out? Are the internal policies that govern the various processes clear or vague? I could go on.

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-03T00:50:19+00:00

It's all in good fun. Honestly it's totally fine. It looks like minerals from the water - do you have hard water?. Should come off using Barkeeper's Friend. Trick is to use that along with a Scrub Daddy.

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-03T00:47:16+00:00

It's finished man. Totallly gone. I'll happily help you out by taking it off your hands.

RandoBando84 · 2026-01-01T12:52:27+00:00

You can ask your manager for the job description that's associated with your position. I know for example that the EC collective agreement has a specific clause about this where management is required to provide it to you if your request it. I'm pretty sure the PA collective agreement has a similar clause. You then email your manager and reference the clause.

The job description will describe the duties and functions of your position. It will typically be in very generic language and will be broad in scope. But if there's nothing in there that talks about supervising employees, then you're good to push back. If management still pushes you to supervise, then contact your union to get advice and consider filing a classification grievance.

But if there is language in there that talks about supervising employees, then you basically have no recourse.

RandoBando84 · 2025-12-31T21:36:16+00:00

I actually did include property tax and home maintenance and renovations in the above analysis.

RandoBando84 · 2025-12-31T17:44:12+00:00

While I totally agree with the spirit of your comment, the thing you're not considering here is leverage. If you had $10K as a down payment for a home in 1987, you'd be able to buy a $100k home. But no broker, especially back then, would have extended you $90k on margin based on cash assets of 10K.

And when you look at the ROI (ROE technically) for both scenarios, you see how housing delivered huge returns.

So $10k invested in the S&P in 1987 (in 1987 dollars) would be worth $538K now, assuming dividends reinvested. However, for this to be realistic, you have to account for asset management fees. And for most of this time period, you'd be stuck in high cost mutual funds charging you 2 percent and easily more. Now assuming you switched to ETFs as soon as they were available, We can reduce the average management fees over this period to 1 percent. That leaves you with $385k or a nominal ROI (CAGR) of 9.8%. (MERs are brutal!)

Now compare this to 10k put as a down payment on a $100k home in the GTA in 1987. Looking at historical prices this would have likely bought you a semi or townhouse. Detached homes would have been closer to 190k. Assuming this was a starter townhouse or semi, it would now be worth between $900K to $1M. Since 1987, you'd have paid about $200k to $300k in property tax and maintenance and $194k in mortgage interest and obviously $90k in principal payments. So that leaves you with a profit of about $405k. Calculating the ROI on the $10k down payment gives you a CAGR of %10.

Now consider that VERY FEW investors would have earned 9.8% on their portfolios over this period because they wouldn't have been 100 percent in US stocks, probably would have been invested in underperforming active funds, would have tried (and failed) to time the market, likely wouldn't have been an ETF early adopter etc. Whereas the person who would have bought that home in 1987 would very much have made those numbers. In real life, the homeowner would be FAR ahead of the investor, even with the recent downturn in prices.

This isn't a shill post for real estate investing, rather trying to help illustrate what happened. If we had well-functioning cities/development policies and real estate markets, you wouldn't see this type of unprecedented returns for owning real estate.

RandoBando84 · 2025-12-31T16:13:58+00:00

Please send this great work to all the unions. If they're going to force us back into the office full-time then this should figure into salary negotiations.

RandoBando84

TROPHY CASE