@PBizzell and others, I have read your posts and unfortunately there is nothing contained therein deserving of an apology. I don't condone personaI attacks and I am certain that local vets are as qualified and dedicated as vets anywhere in the world, however, your rationale and logic on this matter is far from obvious. My understanding is that Operation Potcake is a charitable undertaking whereby all expenses for labor and materials are either freely volunteered or covered by donations. I also understand the proposal of the local vets, and correct me if I am wrong, to be that local vets would freely volunteer their time and would request reimbursement of $50 for materials used. My question to you is who do you expect to pay this $50. The reason they are called stray dogs is because they are not readily attached to an owner or an owner that gives a damn. Therefore, it would seem to me that at a charge of $50 the only persons you are likely to attract are persons who are already your customers or potential customers. In either event it does nothing to substantively address the stray dog epidemic. Further, assuming that we all can agree that we do have a stray dog epidemic in the Bahamas, why can't the local vets perform their initiative in conjunction with Operation Potcake if the local vets are truly sincere about addressing the stray dog epidemic and not motivated by greed. Operation Potcake can perform their services with costs borne by donations and the local vets can perform their services charging their $50. Why are the local vets taking the position that these initiatives must be mutually exclusive if their only interest is addressing the stray dog epidemic? Do you think the dogs or cats have a preference whether the surgery is done by local vets or Operation Potcake? This problem did not magically appear overnight and I am afraid the business as usual approach that the local vets appear to be adopting will do little to make this problem disappear.

It would seem to me based on just the above that the Court of Appeal overruled Lockhart on a legal technicality and not on the substance of his interpretation. Essentially they are saying that he ruled on a matter that was not before him. The government may want to re-visit the definition of a week in the Employment Act because it is far from obvious that Lockhart is incorrect in his interpretation given the literal meaning in the Act.

Well then we need to advocate for an amendment to the law. I am prepared to meet you in Rawson square tomorrow with my placard to start our campaign.

This is an excellent point Rory. From a personnel and compensation perspective the real issue with BEC, and in fact most of the civil service, is that they need to be introduced to the 21st century with respect to their HR practices. Most of these government corporations and ministries, some of which have been in existence for over half a century, either have no or totally inadequate performance appraisal and evaluation systems. As a result the top performers are treated no differently or in some cases are treated worse than the poor performers. There is no clear demarcation between skilled and unskilled workers. Advancement is based on who you sweethearting, which political party you support or who is your family. Because compensation is not based on performance then the government have to throw in all kind of irrational perks to level the playing field and there are no disincentives for negative behavior.

We may have strong feelings about this, but using this type of language is unfortunate because the practice may be called many things, however, fraud it is not.

Let's be pragmatic folks and take a deep breath. A civil democratic society is based on the fundamental premise that each individual will implicitly accede to a social contract and that the Law will protect certain rights involving our persons, property and mutual promises. This fundamental underpinning transcends Mr. Miller or the union. The union's position may be distasteful, but is that sufficient to abridge their purported rights? Therefore, in my view, there are no heros in this mess only villians. Further, the day when we as a society begin to accept the proposition that the end justifies any means used to accomplish that end, then we as a society would be one step closer to anarchy and one step closer to the condition described by Thomas Hobbes when he stated that, we will live "in continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". Some may say that we are already living under such conditions.

Skepticism is required when there has been so much conflicting information put out into the public domain on this issue. I have read the NIB Act, and I certainly stand to be corrected, but I did not see the section that prohibits this practice. The Act seem to state that an employer has the right but not a legal obligation to adjust the salary of employees who also claim NIB sickness benefits. BEC, as did most of the civil service, appeared to have granted their employees this enhanced benefit over an extended period. The legal question then is after having granted this benefit over an extended period and the employees having relied upon and forming a legal expectation to receive this benefit can BEC unilaterally revoke this benefit. Obviously this is a simplification of the legal and practical issues that involve many embedded aspects of common and contract law.

The PM is silent but the other daily paper is reporting that the DPM says "BEC sick pay status quo to remain". I guess as Mitt Romney would say, the DPM was for it before he was against it. All this duplicity should make us scared that someting big may be happening in the background. The fact that the government is pushing VAT down our throats and at the same time is unwilling to take a moral stand on this widespread practice that is patently wrong and costing the tax payers millions of dollars a year speaks volumes. I understand that there may be legal constraints to changing the practice immediately but that should not stop us from declaring that at the earliest opportunity this practice will be changed.

Good points from both of you. It is just so strange how this government operates. The PM is silent and the DPM said he supports Miller but even as he is giving that support he is distancing himself from Miller.

Where is the leadership or just simply the adults in this government? If this is the position of the labor Minister then why is it that the PM has not instructed the AG to get involved in this issue. Of course one of the reasons can be that this issue is not really important to the PM, merely a red herring so that the public would not focus on the larger BEC issues that are occurring behind the scenes.