Comment 30089

By Frank (registered) | Posted April 13, 2009 at 12:23:51

Grassroots my point is this: I've held many positions both contractual and not and never has information such as wage, hours of work, termination arrangements etc been withheld. It was my responsibility to read this information.

A politician enters into the position knowing that after their term of 4 years they are up for re-election should the choose. It's their responsibility to perform their duties adequately in order for them to retain their position. If they don't, they are NOT entitled to severance pay and they know that before they get into it. If Clark was actually fighting for rights, he should stipulate that it starts with whoever take his position next. As it stands, it stinks of "I don't want to do my job properly and I don't think I'm going to get re-elected but I still want to get my fat salary for a while".

As a point of reference, my post was started before you posted about Bill 139 and I got sidetracked by work. A politician is not placed by a temporary agency which is what Bill 139 covers and while that may bode well for my earlier comment about those employed by them, it doesn't mean that a politician is entitled to severance pay.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools