Labour Day: who is exploiting whom?

Sign in Toronto Labour Day Parade 2012....

Labour day was never my favourite holiday. Since schools, of one sort or another, were always part of my life, first as a student, then as a teacher, well, I'm sure you get it.

Labour Day is primarily a labour union holiday commemorating significant events in the labour history of both Canada and the USA. The big difference in the holiday between the two countries is that a "u" is found in the Canadian holiday name. And there are more than twice as many unionized employees (as a percentage of workers) in Canada versus the USA.

Once upon a time there was good reason for labour unions. In the past workers in North America felt exploited by their employers and needed a remedy that provided them with leverage to rectify their grievances. The right to associate peacefully is fundamental to the freedoms in both countries, and unions played a major role in improving the safety, wages and benefits of their members.

However, in most of the States and Provinces the "remedy" aspect of union function has been usurped by government regulation and adjudication. In Ontario, for example, the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) says this: "The OLRB's mandate is to provide, as an independent tribunal, excellence in administrative justice through the effective resolution of labour and employment disputes."

So whats left for the unions? Well, wages and benefits primarily, and that's part of the problem.

Trade across the planet is now less constrained and more widespread than ever. Competition has forced large corporations to seek out the cheapest labour world wide while maintaining quality. As a result private sector manufacturing done by unions is shrinking rapidly in places like Canada and the USA. Their past union agreements cannot compete with present day offshore workers, so they have priced themselves out of the market. They may yet recover, but they will need to face the new reality, increase their productivity or do something else.  

Over the same time span as labour unionists became more powerful, governments in Canada and the USA grew by usurping more and more responsibilities from their citizens. The growth of government translated to increases in the number of government employees and the unionists formed huge, powerful, public sector unions. In most cases in Canada the public sector unions are closed shops, meaning, in order to be employed workers must join the union and pay dues. That aspect has been rapidly changing in the USA with the advance of "right-to-work" legislation in various States. But not in Canada, at least not yet.

In the past and especially in recent years, the government of Ontario has pandered to the public sector unions. That shortsightedness backfired and created the massive deficits and debt today, and worse still, there are unfundable liabilities in the future, to meet those previous obligations.

Recently Ontario teachers unions were told by the government that their salaries and benefits will be frozen through emergency legislation to help control the deficit (never mind the debt). Some of the smaller teacher unions actually acceded, but the major unions did not. Strangely, not that long ago, these same unions were supporters of the government, now they have turned, and are vehemently apposed the government's action.

Given the current state of affairs in Ontario, something must change or the Provincial financial situation will get far worse. Recently, their have been downgrades in Ontario's debt by two ratings agencies. The sad truth is that politicians can NEVER be truly held accountable for errors in judgment made 10, 20 or 30 years ago; errors that we must all now live with cannot be adequately punished, memories are too short.

Public sector workers have a high degree of job security, a well supplied union war-chest for media ads and potential strikes, a monopoly agreement with the government eliminating non-union replacement workers, excellent benefits like defined benefit pension plans, ample sick leave, medical and dental insurance, and on-and-on. Should they also have the right to be in unions that can hold an entire province hostage if they choose to strike? I don't think so. I think the public sector unions are adequately protected by agencies like the OLRB, and that they should NOT be free to strike, nor should they have the right to prevent non-union staff from competing for their jobs.

While exploitation of workers has happened in the past, the shoe is now on the other foot. We, the citizens of Ontario are being exploited by the public sector unions, and it has to stop.

RNC shuts out Ron Paul

Probably the most "balanced" news from the Republican National Convention this past week, was from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Yes, thats right, truth in comedy.

But even they missed the back-room shenanigans that involved fundamental changes in the rules of the convention, preferring instead to focus on things like Clint Eastwood's appearance with an empty chair.

Canadians may view Jon Stewart's last report from the RNC here. If you are reading this from a US location, you will have to see that episode here. Aside from being funny, Stewart does what he is expert at, and for that you will have to watch.

For the past year I naively believed that Ron Paul would get to speak at the Republican Convention if he just hung in and followed the rules, but it didn't happen. The rules were changed, and Ron Paul was literally ostracized from the RNC. Ben Swann of WXIX in Cincinnati explains how the RNC rules were changed to ignore the Ron Paul delegation here.

Where will libertarian supporters of Ron Paul cast their vote considering the debacle in Tampa? This report from ReasonTV may shed some light on that.

The necessaries of political sainthood

This past week was the first anniversary of the death of Jack Layton. He died in office as Leader of the Opposition, less than four months after taking his party to a once unimaginable second place finish in a Canadian Federal election. That is an accomplishment worthy of praise if your political bent is toward socialism. So, Mr. Layton and I have very little in common as I suggested here just days after his death.

Certainly I respected him as a politician, but I thought the funeral then, and the memorial just days ago, were a bit over-the-top. I know its inappropriate to speak ill of the dead, but Jack Layton did not plan the funeral or the recent memorial, these were planned by his living family and his political party. Most commentators in the Canadian media avoided any criticism of the recent memorial, I found a couple I could agreed with. Chris Selley in the National Post, said this about Layton and the memorial:

"He wasn’t a hero, wasn’t a saint. He was an uncommonly skilled retail politician who gained respect for practicing a brand of politics that was less greasy and vulgar and off putting than his opponents’. That’s not nothing. It’s quite a lot, really. I don’t begrudge anyone a good vigil. But ringing bells in towers for a nice guy and a very good politician just seems a bit … much."

Some of the media went to great lengths to pay tribute to Layton, in particular the government funded broadcaster CBC. It went a bit overboard in its coverage in my opinion. That did not help dissuade my belief that CBC has an overt leftish bias, for which I continue to resent paying for in any amount. 

Also annoying was the frequently heard "Jack would have wanted it this way" from a variety of interviewees and commentators. Of course he would! This was blatant political opportunism, by a political family with a message to deliver no matter how inappropriate it was on the back of a memorial.  It was nothing less than a political beatification, not unlike was done with Tommy Douglas or Pierre Trudeau or FDR in the States. The difference being those men had made some accomplishments (for good or ill), what exactly did Jack Layton do outside of his tiny political world?

Some at the memorial promised to "finish the work that he started," and some suggested Layton was a beacon of hope. Well, hope is a subjective thing, and the hopes of Layton and the NDP are most emphatically not shared by me. Yes, I'm sure he wanted to make Canada better. So do I. But my vision of the future of this country is diametrically opposed to his.
Here is a excerpt from the Preamble of the  2011 NDP Constitution to show you what I mean:

Did you read that? Let me highlight these lines again:

"That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not for making profit;

To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning. Toward these ends and where necessary the extension of the principle of social ownership;"

Is this the work 'they' want to finish? Is this the beacon of hope and optimism that we are to look toward? Is that what it takes to become a political saint in this country? Do those words represent Canada? Not my Canada!

I occasionally agree with Ezra Levant, often not. But here is one place I think he said it best for me: 

Eco-pigheadedness and costly paranoia - DDT

National Post editors will never be accused of being shrinking-violets. The fiftieth anniversary of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring is upon us and the Post pulled no punches marking the occasion in an editorial this week. Wikipedia calls it the book that helped launch the environmental movement.

The Post points out that Carson was correct in that the indiscriminate use of synthetic chemical pesticides is not wise: "spraying large quantities of pesticides can have serious, and sometimes fatal, consequences. Ms. Carson helped sow a degree of caution about synthetic chemicals by showing the ill effects they can have on plant life, animals (Silent Spring focuses on the effects of DDT on birds — the Spring season will be “silent” once they have all been killed off) and, potentially, humans."

But, and it's a big BUT, the editorial continues: "DDT is not nearly as harmful to humans (or birds), in moderate doses, as Ms. Carson suggested. But it is harmful to the mosquitos that transmit deadly malaria and typhus that kill millions every year across the developing world." That's the issue of course, the uses of pesticides and other methods to increase crop yield or protect humans are rarely black or white situations, there are levels of appropriate use.

Its thought that the total ban or at least diminished use of DDT, particularly in areas where serious diseases (malaria) are carried by insects has led to untold millions of human deaths. How many deaths can be shown to be caused by DDT spraying? Certainly not anywhere near the deaths attributed to malaria. What I'm suggesting is that there is a level of DDT use that allows it to be used effectively without undue risk to human health, and therefore it should be used in that context.  

The ban and abandonment of DDT is for me a perfect example of the "lets be safe attitude" that many environmentalists have with regard to global warming and similar situations. You know the attitude, where they come out and say lets curtail energy output, lets cut back on industrial production, lets stop using fossil fuels to drive our economy, just in case it may cause catastrophic global warming, melting of the ice caps, raising sea levels - in fact the whole Al Gore "inconvenient truth" scenario that only the most fanatical still believe. That attitude has the effect of destroying or diminishing our economy on the chance that global warming or whatever will lead to catastrophe.

The Post's editorial mentions the use of chemical spraying in Dallas Texas to curtail the spread of West Nile virus. The irony there is that West Nile's North American invasion is likely an effect of global warming, but the spraying went ahead without much fuss.

My point being, that environmental issues are best examined where they actually affect people, and that is in local situations where those involved can make use of all the tools that are available to them and make rational and objective choices.