In her column in today's Star (which does not yet appear to be available online), Linda McQuaig points out the remarkable similarities between the government of Justin Trudeau and that of Stephen Harper when it comes to facilitating the erosion of defined benefit pension plans. She observes that as a consequence, it is becoming easier for the rich to get richer while ordinary citizens become poorer.
An example of this is currently being played out in Ottawa as the Trudeau government — ostensibly a “progressive” government that champions the middle class — is moving forward with legislation aimed at stripping away pension benefits from potentially hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers.The most immediate problem stems from Finance Minister Bill Morneau's Bill C-27, whose details MoneySense recently provided:
Bill C-27 is an Act to amend the long-standing Pension Benefits Standards Act. Those in favour of pure Defined Benefit (DB) pension plans have criticized Bill C-27, saying it would allow federally regulated employers to replace DB plans, which provide a guaranteed retirement income for life with no risk, with Target Benefit Plans (TBPs) which are also generous pensions but because they count on employees taking on some risk, final retirement guaranteed payments may not be as iron-glad.Both private sector and government employees will be affected by this bill:
It would allow federally regulated private sector and Crown Corporation employers to offer a TBP to their employees, or to convert an existing DB pension plan into a TBP [Target Benefit Plans, also known as Defined Contribution Plans].While Moneysense, with its own biases, sees this as a good change, Linda McQuaig offers a different interpretation:
... Certainly, Morneau’s legislation puts the Trudeau government fully on the side of corporate interests who, in recent decades, have been trying to take away hard-won workplace benefits that helped workers enter the ranks of the middle class in the early postwar years.When this kind of change was first championed by Harper, Trudeau appeared to be on the side of the angels, as he
A key corporate goal has been to replace old-style workplace pensions, where workers are guaranteed specific benefits in retirement, with new-style pensions, where benefits aren’t guaranteed and can shrink if markets fall.
sided strongly with the outraged workers, denouncing Harper’s pension changes as “wrong in principle” and “unacceptable.”Mr. Trudeau appears to want it both ways, his public image apparently never far from his mind:
But, after Trudeau became prime minister in 2015, workers were surprised when his new government quietly introduced a strikingly similar version of Harper’s pension changes.
The Trudeau government defends its proposed changes on the grounds that workers must “consent” to having their pensions converted to the new riskier format.To provide some penetrating perspective, McQuaig discusses banking, one of the federally-regulated industries that stands to benefit from Trudeau's 'change of heart.'
But this is like the “consent” given by women who get groped by a powerful boss; employers can get their unionized workers to “consent” by locking them out if they don’t agree to the pension change at the bargaining table.
The corporate keenness to foist riskier pensions on their workers is not driven by necessity. Corporate profits have risen significantly in recent years, even as companies have switched to the stingier pensions that transfer all risk to employees.Jesus said that the poor will always be with us. With the secret handshake that exists between government and private interests, that seems guaranteed.
Even fabulously rich corporations are adopting the new pensions — not because they can’t afford to pay workers fixed pension benefits like they used to, but because they’d rather not be obliged to do so.
Take the Royal Bank — with staggering profits of $10.5 billion last year. In 2011, RBC adopted the new-style pensions for all new employees.
McQuaig's point needs to be underscored, Lorne. Corporate profits are at all time highs. Targeted Benefit Pensions are all about making those profits higher.
ReplyDeleteAnd those who facilitate such gross disparities need to be properly and publicly shamed, Owen.
DeleteIt's this sort of thing that has me thinking of becoming a pamphleteer, an advocate for revolt. I suppose that's seditious and yet I see just two paths to free ourselves of neoliberalism, collapse or revolt. Collapse is the default option.
ReplyDeleteTruly, Mound, there must be something fundamentally flawed in our natures that history seems an endless series of revolts or collapses that are followed by revised forms of oppression. Today, the neoliberal agenda has convinced far too many people that if they can afford the latest IPhone or other technological 'marvel', they are rich. Comforting delusions are hard to smash.
DeleteEvery thing that Trudeau says is meant to have Canadians think of him as this progressive thinker who deeply cares about the Canadian people. His actions however are what matters. Everything that he does supports the corporate elite, not the Canadian people. As he implements his neoliberal policies at the behest of the financial/political and military elite the Canadian public are being manipulated by his lying rhetoric which amounts to empty platitudes.
ReplyDeleteHe supports the rich and the powerful just like Harper, his rhetoric to the Canadian people is nothing short of a CON!
The corporate,political,military elites of whom he has handed over the governing of our country to. They will control our country politically, along with controlling our wealth and Canada will be hand delivered to them by our very own Prime Minister
Keeping its eye on the ball has never been a well-developed skill of the electorate, Pamela. That vters are easily distracted makes Trudeau's service to the neoliberal agenda all the easier to pursue.
DeleteI wonder, could it actually be, that Trudeau thinks he really is a progressive. I don't think he understands anymore than MelonHead does what neoliberalism is. In which case he is both undereducated and dumb, mirroring the average prole wandering down the street. Judging by some serious anger little T has shown when lobbed questions by reporters that he adjudges nasty, I'd say he has mesmerized himself into believing he's striving to do good deeds. $40 billion on housing for the poor after the next election - I bet your average small local contractor will never get a look-in on that money. No, it'll be highrise concrete slabs with better exterior styling than Khruschev gave Muscovites 60 years ago, and IT WILL BE GOOD.
ReplyDeleteBM
It is hard to know his mind, BM, but one thing should be clear both to him and his supporters: he is a hypocrite on this issue.
Delete