Ohio judge tells man he's still legally dead

[firhill]

I also worked at Canada post

Postal Worker is an oxymoron

[takeontheworld]

Postal Worker is an oxymoron

Love it!!!!

[firhill]

No way to talk about your father, considering here worked there

Not about him. With him. He told me.

He was gonna try nursing but wanted something a little "less strenuous"

[takeontheworld]

Awww sookie sookie now. Somebody touch a nerve? Oink...cp is on the verge of destruction with no one to blame but themselves. They are underworked and way over paid. They are actually at a loss. Its time we get rid of it entirely and privatize. If you arent going to show pride in your work then please move to let others who will.

[firhill]

I am sure you've read about where I worked after that....a few big IT companies in the GTA

I missed that. I'm sure it made for some interesting reading (for those who give a chit about your work experience).

Now you can crawl back into your little hole, and wait for my next post

Actually, I posted the "postal worker is an oxymoron" for the comedic aspect of it.

I intentionally left your name off the quote box to make sure the post was not construed as a dig at you personally.
So by you responding, using your thought process, does that mean that you were actually waiting in a little hole for my next post?

Say it ain't so bruvver!!!!!

[MS Mom]

My Ma is quite the woman, and although at the time I thought she was the devil for being so strict with all of us...the results spoke for itself. We all have a minimum of two bachelor degrees to our names, work ethics like no other 9all my end of the year reviews from way back speak to this), I have never tried any drugs, I do not drink beer

Anyway....since you are so hung up on this, how about I further throw a spanner in the works here and mess things up a little?

I am going to bring race into it....see what am about to do here? Can you honestly say a visible minority and a Caucasian doing the same work, earn the same?

Ah...now we are getting somewhere eh

You know, it's a Tuesday - payroll day - after a long weekend of double time + a day's pay and board allowances for going to a strip club..... I'm just about tired of printing $5000 pay cheques, all addressed to men, many of whom are years younger with far less experience in their respective careers than myself. I don't even receive spousal support - not even quite sure how it's calculated - but I can't help but notice the vast differences in the pay scales I deal with day to day. This must have some impact on the spousal supports being paid out there, no?

The visible minority, recent immigrant statement is quite funny, in this circumstance anyway. The male hired at $10G more for the same position was in fact all of the above....visible minority, recent immigrant and definitely NOT a master of the English language, an important part in any office position. Go figure?

But, seriously now..... all of those issues ring very true, recent immigrants, visible minorities all face an uphill battle. However, if we look at history here, immigration for work purposes didn't really blossom until the industrial revolution. At that time, the women and kids in the sweatshops all over the globe were already working at wages below those of men. All things considered, visible minorities are moving forward and gaining income speed at a pace much greater than women in general.

[caranna]

About visible minorities...There are many successful Asians, for example. As a whole, Asians are to a great degree motivated by their parents (actually pushed) to excel in their studies, attend university, and become (hopefully) highly paid professionals. I heard this from two friends at different times, one is a lawyer in Toronto, the other, a retired scientist in California.

[MS Mom]

May be, but unless there is hard fact to back that up, then it's just pure smoke

Hard facts? It's history......a well documented one.

0 to 1890 - 1890 years.

1890 to 2013 = 123 years.

Even if women are in the same boat as visible minorities - at approx. 75% of what men earn in similar or same positions, I think the 123 years vs. 1890 demonstrates the leaps and bounds women haven't made in the workforce when it comes to compensation.

[caranna]

The reference is to Eastern Asians, as one friend was born in China, and the other in Japan. I wasn't inferring that Asians are the only successful minorities.

[Mark1968]

Hard facts? It's history......a well documented one.

0 to 1890 - 1890 years.

1890 to 2013 = 123 years.

Even if women are in the same boat as visible minorities - at approx. 75% of what men earn in similar or same positions, I think the 123 years vs. 1890 demonstrates the leaps and bounds women haven't made in the workforce when it comes to compensation.

I have no idea what you mean by the above calculations. I think you're trying to say that women have been in the work force since 1890 or for 1890 years? And your argument is that visible minorities have been in the workforce for 123 years, 1890 - 2013.

It's an argument that doesn't make sense and is divorced from reality and logical thinking, not to mention historical facts. Minorities worked and went to school prior to 1890 and so did women. There are plenty of minorities who live in Canada whose parents and grandparents and great grandparents actually worked and went to school. So it's not a new phenomenon.

You imply that minority men should not earn more money than women who are considered to be in the "majority" because they have less experience in the work place? You complain that minorities are paid on the basis of being a minority, not their skills and education. The above numbers don't prove that.

All in all I don't even understand your reasoning, other than the fact that you stated at one point you work in the construction industry in HR and see pay cheques and they are more than yours.

In order for your argument to work, you need to prove that white women are paid much, much less as compared to minority men in the same positions, given the same education, work experience, etc.

All in all, your argument sounds race driven and not supported in fact.

[Mess]

Just to clarify...the term Asian as you are using it, is referring to groups from where? I ask because the term is used where I come from to mean people from Pakistan and India

Japanese folks et al...Oriental

The success amongst minorities is not limited to just "Asians"

I don't disbelieve you, but I find it odd, since India/Pakistan is not Asia. India is its own continent.

[takeontheworld]

I don't disbelieve you, but I find it odd, since India/Pakistan is not Asia. India is its own continent.

South Asia includes India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Maldives etc.

[MS Mom]

I have no idea what you mean by the above calculations. I think you're trying to say that women have been in the work force since 1890 or for 1890 years? And your argument is that visible minorities have been in the workforce for 123 years, 1890 - 2013.

It's an argument that doesn't make sense and is divorced from reality and logical thinking, not to mention historical facts. Minorities worked and went to school prior to 1890 and so did women. There are plenty of minorities who live in Canada whose parents and grandparents and great grandparents actually worked and went to school. So it's not a new phenomenon.

You imply that minority men should not earn more money than women who are considered to be in the "majority" because they have less experience in the work place? You complain that minorities are paid on the basis of being a minority, not their skills and education. The above numbers don't prove that.

All in all I don't even understand your reasoning, other than the fact that you stated at one point you work in the construction industry in HR and see pay cheques and they are more than yours.

In order for your argument to work, you need to prove that white women are paid much, much less as compared to minority men in the same positions, given the same education, work experience, etc.

All in all, your argument sounds race driven and not supported in fact.

None of what you say here is what I'm implying at all.

I'm implying that here in Canada visible minorities weren't part of our working culture until around the industrial revolution. Of course they were working in their own countries, but that wouldn't make them a visible minority now would it?

My statement had nothing to do with education, it was about statistics. Women in Canada have not made the economical strides towards equal pay as fast as the visible minority (here in Canada. A person from China in China would not be a visible minority). Women in Canada pre-dated the insurgence of immigrants into this country, and since, statistically, were in the same boat as 75% of the wage of the average man in the same or similar position, I maintain that visible minorities have far surpassed women in the speed at which they obtain equality.

There's no reading between the lines at what I'm trying to get at here.

One of the biggest issues with social media in general is people's uncanny ability to read sentences with their own biases and interpret them as such.

But you go ahead and discuss how visible minorities are visible minorities in their own countries..... Race driven? Jeezus. Oink input the race card in this conversation, my only statement was that women will continue to receive spousal support as long as the men in charge continue to hire women at rates below the men. It's simple math isn't it?

[MS Mom]

[QUOTE=Mark1968;151385]
In order for your argument to work, you need to prove that white women are paid much, much less as compared to minority men in the same positions, given the same education, work experience, etc.

[QUOTE]

I'm a white woman who left her last job because they hired someone else to do the same position for a different division. The person they hired was a visible minority, recent immigrant and a man. Which one of those characteristics caused him to be hired at $10G more than I was making at the time? I'm gonna go with the MALE characteristic. As wrong as that is in Canada, as illegal as it is....it happens every day here.

So, its my very personal experience that men will continue to surpass men in income purely because they're men. I highly doubt I'm the only working woman with this experience.

[Rioe]

Historically, men were paid what was considered to be a living wage to raise a family. Women were not assumed to be the main breadwinner for a family, so it wasn't considered necessary to pay them as great a salary. So we started out with traditionally male dominated fields paying far more than traditionally female dominated fields.

As women broke into male dominated fields, this attitude carried over and they were paid less for the same work. I suspect there was also a considerable element of men being harder to retain if they felt they were not being paid enough, while women were just grateful for a job, as well as elements of men being more aggressive than women in demanding raises.

Now, we have lingering issues that are hard to eliminate. Many unionized jobs pay FAR more than other comparable jobs because they started out male dominated. So you get starting car parts assembly line workers receiving huge salaries compared to a job that might require more experience and education.

And there is no transparency in salaries in the private sector like there is in government. This is how you get public servants, who are paid pretty much the exact same salaries as someone else of their level no matter what they do, with little understanding of how men and women are not equally paid yet elsewhere.

It's a system that's resistant to change, and will take a few more generations to sort itself out. You see that purely by the fact that even in once male dominated fields that are slowly becoming female dominated. They are still top heavy with men at the administrative level, getting paid the biggest salaries. The women haven't finished rising to the top.

I'm leaving race out entirely, as I'm not sure offhand if there are white-dominated fields and minority-dominated fields in the same way we have male/female divisions in labour. But my personal opinion is that it seems easier for a non-white person to rise in a white-dominated field (which is pretty much all of them in North America) than it is for a woman to rise in a male dominated field. Of course, if you're a non-white woman, you have two hurdles.

What all this has to do with a 'dead' guy, I'm not sure.