Holy Moley - A Crown Agency Trying to save Money!

Addictions agency shutting doors for Christmas season

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/addictions-agency-shutting-doors-for-christmas-season-70262532.html

Now that is impressive, but does this mean a non paid layoff for the workers employed there?

Saving money by a bureaucracy is always a good thing. Not in this case. In fact this simply proves we are a province run by complete morons. Addictions are massively difficult to overcome in the best of times. Christmas just so happens to be the most stressful time of year and to shut down this agency over Christmas is asinine.

I'm certain this is but a ploy to get someone to anti up another $50 grand to keep the doors open. What utter idiots...

According to Jim Rondeau...

"Traditionally, during the Christmas holidays there is very little utilization (of AGM residential programs). Then right after, there's lots of utilization. You want to take your staff when they're underutilized and move them so they're better utilized. You want to be fiscally prudent," he said.

They're short $200K in their budget apparently, and this is a savings measure.

On the face of it (the quote) it seems reasonable to me.

Reduced staffing? Yes. Shut down completely? No.

JTF wrote:According to Jim Rondeau...

"Traditionally, during the Christmas holidays there is very little utilization (of AGM residential programs). Then right after, there's lots of utilization. You want to take your staff when they're underutilized and move them so they're better utilized. You want to be fiscally prudent," he said.

They're short $200K in their budget apparently, and this is a savings measure.

On the face of it (the quote) it seems reasonable to me.

Fiscally prudent is the NDP.

Wow, usedtoliveinstb... I think maybe you are trolling the sandbox. I apologize if wrong.

But the NDP as prudent spenders? Not ever. They grow their expenditures by leaps and bounds. If not for massive increases in transfer payments maybe the NDP would have learned prudence by now...

grumpy old man wrote:Wow, usedtoliveinstb... I think maybe you are trolling the sandbox. I apologize if wrong.

But the NDP as prudent spenders? Not ever. They grow their expenditures by leaps and bounds. If not for massive increases in transfer payments maybe the NDP would have learned prudence by now...

Historically the Agrarian Socialists (CCF >> NDP) have been extremely fiscally prudent. In fact, even Albertan neo-liberals have very positive things to say about their management. I mean, I don't have a doctorate in economics, but many of the guys that I know that do look rather fondly at the Manitoba NDP. (Which is really a fiscally conservative, socially progressive, liberal market party)

However, your mention of transfer payments is valid, our province still suffers through a substantial culture of poverty (culture is more or less what parents teach their children), but the slow steady growth due to economic diversification has been a net positive.

Remember, the economy is not run by the government, the government just mitigates market failures. This is why the government cannot get involved in disputes such as private market investments (Crocus), and also much lower taxes and over-regulation on business.

Do any of you run a business in Manitoba?

usedtoliveinstb wrote:

However, your mention of transfer payments is valid, our province still suffers through a substantial culture of poverty (culture is more or less what parents teach their children).

Is this why you moved to Ontario, Canada's new economic powerhouse?

I kid I kid!!!

grumpy old man wrote:Wow, usedtoliveinstb... I think maybe you are trolling the sandbox. I apologize if wrong.

But the NDP as prudent spenders? Not ever. They grow their expenditures by leaps and bounds. If not for massive increases in transfer payments maybe the NDP would have learned prudence by now...

That's what is so strange about this...the Nippers acting prudently with our money? What's with that???

But the greater question is why did the Foundation run out of money? Poor management or not enough funding?

JTF wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:Wow, usedtoliveinstb... I think maybe you are trolling the sandbox. I apologize if wrong.

But the NDP as prudent spenders? Not ever. They grow their expenditures by leaps and bounds. If not for massive increases in transfer payments maybe the NDP would have learned prudence by now...

That's what is so strange about this...the Nippers acting prudently with our money? What's with that???

But the greater question is why did the Foundation run out of money? Poor management or not enough funding?

Likely due to the inevitable operational cost inflation that occurs over time.

What inflationary costs over a year? That makes no sense.

JTF wrote:What inflationary costs over a year? That makes no sense.

Unforseen rises in cost don't happen in a year? Oh wait, they do.

200 grand. maybe in your la la world.

JTF wrote:200 grand. maybe in your la la world.

200 grand is barely a drop in the bucket in the business world.

Check their website for financials. They have run operating deficits of 596,000 and 792,000 over the past 2 years. Bout time they tried to trim costs.

Keep in mind that the largest funders of this are us 16,000,000 and us again (lotteries) 3,000,000. Theres an unfunded liability in their pension plan of 18,000,000 as well. Maybe time for the Nippers to appoint a new board. A saving of $200,000 doesn't go far when you look at their balance sheet.

dont happen to have a link to their website do you?

Freeman wrote:Check their website for financials. They have run operating deficits of 596,000 and 792,000 over the past 2 years. Bout time they tried to trim costs.

Keep in mind that the largest funders of this are us 16,000,000 and us again (lotteries) 3,000,000. Theres an unfunded liability in their pension plan of 18,000,000 as well. Maybe time for the Nippers to appoint a new board. A saving of $200,000 doesn't go far when you look at their balance sheet.

You're not off to say those numbers are troubling. Although, I'm weary of appointed boards. It's like an appointed Senate, you get a bunch of partisan idiots rather than people who will actually work to make Canada better. The idea of an "Upper House" is that you get your most successful types (business, athletes, scientists, educators, lawyers, etc.) that know what it takes to be successful, and try and help develop policy that makes this possible. but that's getting offtopic..

Maybe it is time for them to get off the public tit.

usedtoliveinstb wrote: but that's getting offtopic..

Yes it is

LivingDead wrote:Maybe it is time for them to get off the public tit.

Yea charge the addict when they come to the door great idea .

They have run operating deficits of 596,000 and 792,000 over the past 2 years.

Looks like someone has trouble setting a budget and keeping to it.

But if you have the government ready to chip in and cover it, who cares. Sounds like the health care system.

Agreed. It may even come out of the same budget.

It doe,s somewhat

Pavolo wrote:It doe,s somewhat

Good answer, I guess.