Connect with us

Politics

Up for Debate: is it OK to Talk Politics With Colleagues? – Canada NewsWire

Published

on


Majority of Workers (66 per cent) Say It’s Not a Clear-Cut Yea or Nay

TORONTO, Aug. 20, 2020 /CNW/ – Politics may be top of mind for many people right now, but is the topic safe to talk about at work? It depends, new research from global staffing firm Robert Half shows.

Workers were asked “Is it appropriate to discuss politics with coworkers?

Yes, it is appropriate                                                              

15 per cent

Maybe, depending on the situation and people involved       

66 per cent

No, it is not appropriate                                                          

19 per cent

Additional findings:

  • One in five (21 per cent) men say talking politics is appropriate, compared to fewer than one in ten (9 per cent) women
  • More working parents (19 per cent) than professionals without children (12 per cent) reported that it is appropriate to discuss politics at work
  • Workers across Canada varied only slightly in response; 18 per cent of workers in both Toronto and Montreal felt political conversations are appropriate versus 10 per cent in Vancouver

“While it can be tempting to engage in political discussions in the workplace, it is important for professionals to be respectful of opinions and perspectives that differ from their own,” said David King, senior district president of Robert Half in Canada.

“As many employees continue to work remotely, it is also natural to see a slight rise in social conversations as a way to stay connected with colleagues,” added King. “Being considerate in these exchanges is critical to help avoid miscommunication and unnecessary conflict, as these can be catalysts for compromising productivity and morale.” 

Robert Half offers three tips for navigating political talk with colleagues:

  1. Tread lightly. If you choose to participate in political conversations, keep it light and constructive. Should the discussion become confrontational, move onto another subject.
  2. Decline politely. Don’t feel pressured into sharing your political views. It’s okay to bow out of a conversation and let others know you prefer not to chime in.
  3. Speak up. If your colleague says or does something that makes you uncomfortable, pull the person aside and explain what’s bothering you. For more serious matters, consult your manager or human resources.

About the Research
The online survey was developed by Robert Half and conducted by an independent research firm from July 7-30, 2020. It includes responses from 500 workers 18 years of age or older and typically employed in office environments in five major Canadian cities.

About Robert Half
Founded in 1948, Robert Half is the world’s first and largest specialized staffing firm. The company has more than 300 staffing locations worldwide and offers hiring and job search services at roberthalf.ca For additional career and management advice, visit the Robert Half blog at roberthalf.ca/blog

SOURCE Robert Half Canada

For further information: Allison Morris-Rosnak, 647-956-6221, [email protected]

Related Links

http://www.rhii.com

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Politics

Democrats also play politics with Supreme Court seats – CNN

Published

on


Charlie Dent
Like her dear friend Justice Antonin Scalia, Ginsburg died in the final year of a president’s term, and this vacancy will ignite yet another epic Supreme Court battle . During the prolonged debate and discussion over the nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016, I believed that then-President Barack Obama had the right to make the nomination in a presidential election year and that the Senate should have initiated the confirmation process.
Similarly, under the Constitution, President Donald Trump is well within his rights to make a nomination, and the Senate GOP is within theirs to move forward with the confirmation process now. However, Republicans are justifiably being criticized for hypocrisy. In many instances you can simply use the words of Republican Senators from four years ago against them now. Yes, this is a power play and it is all very cynical.
Nevertheless, if the shoe were on the other foot, with Democrats controlling both the Presidency and Senate under the same circumstances, they most assuredly would attempt fill a Supreme Court vacancy without hesitation and in record time. No one should be surprised the GOP will do everything within their power to fill this vacancy before the end of the year.
Democrats are predictably making hyperbolic and exaggerated statements about the impact of this Supreme Court fight, from overturning Roe v. Wade to stripping Americans of certain civil rights. We’ve heard all of this with past GOP Supreme Court nominations; it’s part of the Democratic playbook.
Obviously much of this rhetoric is aimed to motivate the Democratic base in the hopes of making electoral change. In this battle, the Democrats most persuasive attack will be on health care and the plight of people with pre-existing conditions should the Affordable Care Act be struck down, which was nearly overturned by the Supreme Court a few years ago with Justice Ginsburg as part of a majority in opposition.
To be clear, the tactic of weaponizing the politics of the Supreme Court is not new nor is it reserved to only one party. Republicans have for decades employed a fairly comprehensive strategy for building and maintaining the current conservative balance of the Court. One needs no further evidence then their reliance on outside groups like The Federalist Society to vet ideologically appropriate potential nominees.
Meanwhile, the Democrats have employed the politics of the personal destruction to tear down Republican nominees — starting with the rejection of Judge Robert Bork in 1987, to hardball tactics used against Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, respectively. The left attacked Bork mercilessly and declared him too extreme to be confirmed; they even turned Bork’s name into a verb. His nomination was defeated in the Democrat controlled Senate 58-42. President Reagan then nominated Anthony Kennedy who was confirmed unanimously.
It should be noted many Democrats and their allies said at the time that Kennedy would overturn Roe v. Wade. The same was said about virtually every other Republican Presidential Supreme Court nominee including swing votes Sandra Day O’Connor and John Roberts, as well as the liberal David Souter.
No, Republicans most assuredly do not have a monopoly on hypocrisy and cynicism. Nor have Democrats shied away from a bare knuckle, back alley fight when it comes to past Supreme Court nominations.
Although within their right to move forward, Senate Republicans would be wise to let the voice of the American people be heard in this confirmation process. Hastily moving forward under an artificial political deadline, in this case the election, may severely damage the credibility of the nomination process.
Politically, President Trump may benefit from this Supreme Court fight. Rather than discussing Trump’s botched Covid-19 response, absurd comments or his glaring unfitness to hold office, the narrative is about something both the GOP base and soft Trump voters care deeply and passionately — in 2016 exit polls, 56% of Trump voters said appointments were “the most important factor” in their vote.
Notwithstanding his inconsistent and contradictory statements on considering Supreme Court nominees in a presidential election year,
Sen. Lindsey Graham, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and who is locked in a tight reelection fight, likely benefits from this fight, too, in deep red South Carolina. Of course, Democrats will be further angered and energized by this fight as well to the detriment of swing state Republicans like Sens. Susan Collins, Cory Gardner and perhaps a few others in competitive elections.
Meanwhile, Democrats would be wise not to overreact with hyperbole and personal accusations, or extreme proposals like court packing, DC statehood, and impeachment. Instead, they should focus on putting pressure on Republican Senators and working to defeat President Trump at the ballot box.
Unless Democrats can find four GOP Senators to oppose Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, they will lose this battle. If they’re smart, they will use this potential defeat to mobilize their base and turn out their voters for the upcoming and future elections. In fact, Democratic prospects of winning the White House remain very favorable, and flipping several seats in the Senate is well within their reach.
Republicans appear poised to pick up another Supreme Court seat, but the fight is just beginning. If the vote on the nominee occurs before the election, what will the impact be on the presidential race, and swing state Republican senators? If a confirmation vote were to occur in the lame duck session, and Democrats were to turn the tables in the election by winning the Presidency and the Senate, will defeated Republican Senators vote to confirm the nominee under those circumstances? We’ll know soon enough.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Don Martin: The prime minister talks turkey in a political address to the nation – CTV News

Published

on


OTTAWA —
What. Was. THAT??

A prime minister calling for time across Canadian airwaves is a BIG DEAL and thus very rarely done.

It’s not allowed to be political posturing. It’s supposed to be a five-alarm siren on a matter of national significance from a prime minister who believes urgent information must be fed directly into Canadian ears.

So what does Justin Trudeau do when his demand for 15 minutes of unedited access to the airwaves was granted under the assumption it NOT be political?

In that weird breathlessness he saves for his most dramatic conversations, Trudeau warned Canadians their Thanksgiving turkey is likely cooked by the coronavirus and they might as well cancel the family feast now. Then he dangled the faint hope of Christmas salvation IF we wear masks, download the government COVID-19 tracking app and get a flu shot.

That glum scenario hardly qualifies as news-bulletin material being released by a leader with unique insights to share. It barely rates as a news story, being the parroting of what public health officials have already said about the second wave being upon many of us.

And then Trudeau dived into an overtly-partisan listing of government actions already taken and those to come, provided the throne speech gets passed by Parliament.

It was political grandstanding masked as a public service message, a transparent and shallow attempt to paste Trudeau’s face over the throne speech highlight reel instead of leaving all the television clips to a disinterested reading by scandal-tainted Gov. Gen. Julie Payette.

Not to be outdone with this flexing of prime ministerial power, Trudeau’s opposition rivals jumped on the free political advertising bandwagon with highly partisan televised reactions of their own.

Clearly the last week or two have given Canadians an ominous preview of COVID cases building into a tsunami-sized wave on case projection charts.

It’s an emerging emergency which could’ve justified a national address, provided Trudeau’s 6,000-word action plan had not been read to rapture-level media coverage just four hours earlier.

All he did in the prime-time address was echo the throne speech’s pandemic as priority one and repeat the ways his government will help millions of Canadians through the approaching winter of self-isolation discontent.

To be fair, the government did launch a flotilla of lifeboats aimed at keeping COVID-displaced Canadian workers, ravaged retailers, vulnerable seniors, disadvantaged women and daycare-dependent families afloat in the second wave. (The resulting deficits which will confront post-pandemic taxpayers are going to be truly staggering).

But to flesh it out with a hodgepodge of less-urgent, undelivered or oft-repeated priorities dilutes an agenda which should be almost solely fixated on the medical and economic trauma this country is facing.

For example, it’s a safe bet Canada will be two billion trees shy of the two billion trees this government again promised to plant in the Wednesday speech by the time we head to the polls. That and most of the other non-pandemic initiatives will be quickly moved to the back-burner.

But, getting back to the address, for Trudeau to graft his message onto the throne speech was blatant duplication for purely political purposes.

Trudeau and the other party leaders will get their opportunity for an official Hansard-recorded reaction to the throne speech in the House of Commons on Thursday.

What more Trudeau can say after his urgent national address the day before is hard to imagine, unless he’s about to scare off Hallowe’en as well.

Here’s hoping the next time Trudeau demands access to the nation’s airwaves, the networks will say his turkey was cooked in 2020 when he deemed a threat to Thanksgiving worthy of a national broadcast alert.

Then they should tell Trudeau they’ll wait and air his Christmas greeting instead.

That’s the bottom line.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump Says FDA Is Playing Politics With COVID-19 Vaccine – NPR

Published

on


President Trump addresses reporters during a Wednesday news conference.

Joshua Roberts/Getty Images

Joshua Roberts/Getty Images

President Trump on Wednesday decried reported health agency efforts to issue stricter guidelines for evaluating a vaccine against COVID-19, accusing the Food and Drug Administration of playing politics.

Trump was apparently reacting to a Tuesday report in the New York Times that said the agency will soon move to tighten requirements for emergency authorization of any coronavirus vaccine to better ensure its safety and effectiveness.

“That has to be approved by the White House. We may or may not approve it. That sounds like a political move,” Trump said during a press briefing at the White House.

“I think that was a political move more than anything else,” he said.


PBS NewsHour via
YouTube

The timing of a vaccine has been an issue of contention between the president and health experts.

Trump has directly contradicted Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield on an estimate for widespread release of a vaccine, saying that such distribution of a vaccine would happen before the end of the year. Trump has also said that “every American” will have access to a vaccine by April.

Redfield has testified to Congress that a vaccine would likely not be widely available until next spring or summer.

Multiple potential vaccines are undergoing testing. Top health officials vowed in a hearing on Capitol Hill Wednesday that a COVID-19 vaccine would not be approved until it met “vigorous expectations” for safety and effectiveness.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending