run4yourlives2

In reality, you have the accepted world standard and the US one, with a small smattering of UK units thrown in. To argue the entire world should switch back to the US standard instead of the other way around is ridiculously obtuse.

I only ask because this sounds like a great way to escalate the situation and get OP fired. (I don't care how bad she is, she has experience capital and OP does not. She is more valuable to them than he is, end of story.)

An underhanded "I'm going to get you" approach only labels you as a toxic employee. Perhaps she may already have that label with colleagues and within the industry and she is tolerated based on work output. I don't see how it is productive for OP to join that club, particularly with little to no counterbalance.

I'm not sure what type of experiences you have had in your career to conclude that your recommended approach is a good one, but launching a nuclear assault because someone shot a rifle your way is not a very effective solution unless your goal is to destroy everything, including yourself.

That's a bit of a lesson learned in terms of "Things not to do in your first week".

Aside from criminal activity, I can't think of any situation where you were in a position to understand things better than the person asking you to do the task, and even if you where, where it would be a good idea to make such an immediate disagreement vocal and public.

You should probably test the mileage of making an apology for trying to assert yourself over a senior person (regardless of whether or not you are in fact correct) in your first week before you do anything, really. I have a funny feeling that it might go further than you think here.

A person not being nice to you, or being an ass in general, is not bullying. I don't think you'll get a positive outcome here if you frame this situation as being 'bullied' so I'd suggest using a different approach.

What I do see (and of course, it is a real problem) is that perhaps you and the PO seem to have a personality conflict. This is obviously an issue because you clearly don't want it to exist and of course are in a vulnerable position being so new to the company.

The first thing you need to do, regardless of your fear, is to sit down and talk with her. You need to explain that you clearly started off on the wrong foot, and ask her directly if there is anything you can do to change things. Her position is one of the following: She doesn't realize or intend to have this affect on you; she thinks you are incompetent or; she is just an ass or dislikes you for some irrelevant reason. By talking to her directly, you have a good chance of solving this problem if her position is one of the first two. (You don't have to like what she offers, but the idea is to assign motive here.)

If something constructive comes out of that, pursue it. If she is just an ass, or if you try something for a while and you continue to have issues, then you can talk to your Coach. I wouldn't talk to HR without first talking to your direct supervisor though. As your manager they deserve the respect of being allowed to solve this issue first. At that point, you also have your conversation and any remedial steps to refer to in that conversation as well.

If that doesn't work, you should look for a new position. You can tell HR the issue on the exit interview if you want. To be honest, if your manager can't address this issue to your satisfaction, HR won't either.

Finally: If you can't sit and have a conversation with your PO directly in which you are able to articulate your position for whatever reason, you should probably just start looking for a new job regardless. Communication is essential to your success at work. If you can't communicate, whether it is "your fault" or "her fault", you won't be successful. May as well cut to the chase. If this is the case though, you need to be clear and honest with yourself though about why you are coming to this conclusion. There is more than one person out there that is going to be hard to work with... at some point you need to be able to address these types of conflicts in a way that is constructive and that works for you beyond simply removing yourself from the situation entirely.

I wish you the best of luck. These things are never fun, but they are inevitable given human nature.

It's the US that is really, really lagging behind here. And with many corporations multi-national, Americans should really be asking themselves why that is.

1. All ee's have the same payroll tax rate, regardless.

2. All companies are subject to the same limitations of the leaves.

Parental care is more popular because it affects more people overall, but compassionate care will likely grow as boomers age.

(I have no idea how this comment struck such a nerve... all it does is point out that compassionate care leaves are also the norm for the first world. It seems some people are really wedded to their ideology, even here.)

Companies don't subsidize these types of plans (well, other than being forced to allow the leave). The government does via something (in Canada) called "Employment Insurance". It's a basic payroll tax. We pay taxes into a program specifically designed to provide benefits if you lose your job. That's been extended to pay for things like leaves for having children or caring for your dying parents, kid with cancer, etc, etc.

Considering that it's in all our best interests to have healthy, well adjusted children in our society, it's a trade-off well worth the "owing". I'd take a look at your crime rates compared to ours and think about your ideology a little. I'm no socialist, but it's silly to not take the very real advantages of living in a society. You wouldn't tell someone to pay for their own roads, or fire service, would you? And if you would, what happens to our society overall when everyone thinks like this? How does that move us forward? How does that move YOU forward?

This is why AGM's, Strata bylaws and Strata Council meeting minutes are important to read, not just throw into recycling.

1. Because the Strata (HOA in Canada) has no idea this is even an option. 2. Because most of them are in favour of it, (most likely).

A big issue with a lot of condos in major cities (particularly new construction) is that upwards of 50% of them (sometimes, even higher) are owned by investors not actually living in the building. It's only on site owners that care about the actual goings on of the space. Everyone else is just looking to make a buck.

I find it pretty shallow as well. People compare it to the Twilight Zone all the time and I really can't see it. Black Mirror isn't really as deep and it deals with the issues it tries to examine pretty poorly.

As others have pointed out, simply giving yourself a raise will avoid the corp paying taxes.

Not only is all of that possible to imagine, it should be almost expected. Canada is a completely different beast, with a completely different governmental structure.

Which was exactly what I said in my first comment.

You're correct, but then again we have some built in safeguards that mitigate these events. One of them being FPTP, which is why I'm personally in no great rush to get rid of it.

It's harder to find groups to rally against when many of those groups are part of the general populace. The more diverse the culture, the less likely it is to be xenophobic when times get tough. That's why major population centres in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal voted Trudeau last time around - the Conservative message that leaned towards "dealing with" Muslims was utterly rejected.

ON and QC can each double that amount.

I hate to say it, but what people in Manitoba and Sask. think is entirely irrelevant to the country.

(Also, let's just put aside for a second that SK is a traditional NDP stronghold)

That comment however wasn't that someone like Trump could never be elected here, it's that the current environment, along with that of the foreseeable future, would have to change dramatically for it to be the case.

You know what goes a long way to eliminating blue collar angst? Healthcare. There's a policy that the US would have no issue implementing if the will existed. Hell it would be cheaper than what you currently spend.

You know another policy that would help? Subsidized maternity leaves.

Do you want a third? A government run pension program.

A forth? Controlled college tuition.

All of these are well within the US's power to implement, provided the will is there. But the will not being there has nothing to do with the ability of a nation to implement these things.

I'd imagine you are correct, but I'd assume this has been somehow handled given that we've been using the CP-140 for 30 some years and one of three primary search areas would be north of 60. As I understand it though MAD is pretty much at its peak from a technological perspective. The P-8 doesn't even carry it, afaik.

This thing is "pinging", so I suppose sonar would be the number one choice in terms of tool to use. Again though this is all way over my knowledge level.

Given the CP-140 is expressly designed for hunting things under the ocean that wish to stay hidden, I'm sure we'll learn the source soon enough. While the Air Force is saying it only searched for an hour and a half, the Aurora can search areas for upwards of 8 hours at a time, so I highly doubt that's all they are planning on doing up there.

The fact that the signal went dormant/was not able to be detected by something as sophisicated as an Aurora speaks volumes.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_anomaly_detector) 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonobuoy

At about 12-13 another player and I got cut from my rep team. We would have been forced into the house leagues for that year, instead of regional travel. I was pretty young and nobody really explained the concept of making a team to me. I just always played for the teams I was on, not realizing that I was actually playing at the top level of my club for my age. My dad lost it, and pulled me from the organization. I suppose he thought I was better than some other kids that were kept on. The intent was we'd play for another club. I suppose they were all full by that time, because I never did.

I stopped playing soccer in favour of other sports. I played hockey next year instead. I didn't try out for the high school team because I thought I wasn't a good player. The kid who got cut with me kept practicing, joined the high school team, and got a university scholarship in the US as a player. His father was just as upset as mine was, but I'd say how he approached that problem was quite different.

I'm 41 now, and I play every week in a competitive amateur league; even though I walked away from the game in the critical development years, I'm still good enough to play with guys who played all of their lives. I always wonder how good I could have actually been had I kept it up.

It's a lesson however that I'm constantly aware of for my own boys: Where you are at development wise at any particular time in comparison to others says little about where your ultimate top end might be. How you handle rejection and defeat is more important than how you are when things are going well.

Recognizing the irony here that for vast swaths of the country, that would be a marked improvement over the status quo. (Although it probably would have been cable in Canada given existing penetration at the time.)

One does not imply the other. In many ways I'm quite happy my medical information isn't all over the web. As a resident of BC myself, I don't see much of a difference between our heath care and ON or AB; other provinces I've lived in. You can argue that the Canadian system is flawed, but I have the Cambie centre that I can pay for and receive care on par with US quality right now.

>Also - you are gouged on pricing.

Demonstrably False. Your made in ON problem isn't shared by everyone else, thanks.

https://www.bchydro.com/accounts-billing/rates-energy-use/el...

http://www.hydroquebec.com/publications/en/docs/comparaison-...

>Unless there is a big 'build out

There should be one, right now. The entire country should be getting fiber to the door. That will be the last required physical infrastructure upgrade required for a long time. A national not-for-profit entity should own all of that, and the carriers can then compete/lease it to provide services.

Funny enough, in keeping with the BC, Canada example, the BC Hydro had every customer upgraded - ie, the ENTIRE CUSTOMER BASE - to smart meters a few years back - the equivalent to running fiber to every last mile residence in the province.

Upgrades and enhancements have no bearing whatsoever on the corporate governance of the service is structured. The simple fact of the matter is that I don't need 5 companies to provide 5 different physical data delivery methods to my end point. I don't need a cable line, a phone line and a fiber line connected to my home concurrently any more than I need a 220V line to run my washing machine and a 120V line for my lights.

I need a single hookup for water. A single hookup for electricity. A single hookup for internet (or rather, communication). Any more than required is just inefficient and not cost effective.

To be fair, most of the "new drug development" that is needed is not what is most profitable. I'm not sure if 30 versions of ED medicine really translate to a better social outcome for us all, really.

Similarly, there hasn't been a lot of new development from Mylar on the epi-pen that connects it to its recent 67% price hike, has there?

I'm not naive enough to think it immoral that drug companies investing in R&D should be fairly compensated, however being willfully ignorant of what is happening in Pharma R&D in the US doesn't really help matters.

The simple reality is that taxpayers fund a good deal of pharmaceutical R&D, drug prices have little to no relationship to their actual cost, and these companies do a very good job of exploiting loopholes to pay as little tax back into the system as possible. There are a lot of issues there, but at the end of the day, the only reason drug prices are so high in the US is that consumers aren't protected from hikes in the same way they are by other countries that view affordable health care as a part of their mandate. I think you'd probably get a lot more benefit overall in reverting the US to a model similar to the rest of the world, rather than forcing the rest of the world to abandon their previous positions in Trump-like bluster. The US isn't as isolated as some of its citizens think it is.