I had a situation in my constituency where someone received notification of being a potentially affected employee. Someone else in the same organization, with a similar skill set, doing a similar type of work, wanted to embark on voluntary separation, thinking that if he did that, the person who received notification for layoff would not have to go through that. The voluntary separation was denied, so it goes back to the person they want to remove. It makes you wonder about the motive. Was this really entirely a job reduction for saving money, or was this some kind of a housecleaning exercise that gave managers a prerogative to have people affected who maybe they’d had an issue with or crossed swords with? It doesn’t make sense. I can give you another example.
Jane Groenewegen on Question 160-16(2) Budget Development Process
In the Legislative Assembly on May 22nd, 2008. See this statement in context.
Question 160-16(2) Budget Development Process
Oral Questions
May 21st, 2008
See context to find out what was said next.