Highlighting Corporate Failure

There are two lead letters in today's Star that bear reproducing. Expect no admission of a flawed ideology on the part of the neoliberals among us, however:

Re: House of Harper quickly crumbling, Feb. 22

Suddenly a lot of people from banks and corporations are in favour of the Liberals running infrastructure-investment-driven deficits from $30 billion to as high as $50 billion. In other words, they want government to do the really heavy lifting in stimulating the economy along with assuming, on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer, all of the financial as well as political risk.

This is the same group that for years has said governments really don’t create jobs, but rather are responsible for creating the right “environment and supports for investment,” by which they usually mean taxes.

Over the last decade, Canada’s corporations were given some of the deepest tax discounts in the world, and yet they have utterly failed to do anything other than mostly pocket the rewards.

We need to remember that those same corporations also failed to reinvest their tax windfalls in new Canadian jobs (ex-Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney’s “dead money”). Recent data from Statistics Canada also suggests many of the corporations were in fact investing their tax windfalls outside of the country.

Canada’s books for 2013–14 show personal taxes accounted for 48 per cent of total federal revenues, while corporate taxes accounted for a mere 13.5 per cent of that total.

So yes, Canada should indeed invest heavily in infrastructure investment in the coming years, but the question remains: Why can’t those corporations assume a larger financial input and responsibility in the country’s job and economic future?

Edward Carson, Toronto

In response to the CBC Power & Politics Ballot Box question, “How big should the deficit be?” 77 per cent responded “whatever is needed.” These voters understand that the deficit should be judged by results and not by arbitrary targets such as budget balances or debt-to-GDP limits.

The practical limit on spending for a sovereign country with a floating currency is the availability of domestic resources unused by the private sector. A reasonable measure of these resources is unemployment. When infrastructure, program spending and direct job creation measures result in jobs for all Canadians who want one, then government must either limit expenditures or increase taxes so as to prevent inflation.

But the Canadian economy is far from experiencing inflation, and there are 1.3 million Canadians who could be doing productive work. The federal government must challenge the conventional wisdom and spend whatever is needed.

There is no question it can do so, because it owns the Bank of Canada, which allows the federal government to run deficits of any size for as long as required.

Larry Kazdan, Vancouver

"It Was Very Malicious Of Them To Leave This Town In The Shape It's In" - A Tale Of Walmart's Depredations

The above observation is voiced by a former grocery store owner whose business closed shortly after Walmart moved into her town. But this is not just another story about how the retail behemoth drives out competition through its predatory pricing practices; it is a tale of what happens after it has wrung out all the profits it can and then vamooses from town for the sake of its 'corporate health,' leaving its former patrons with nowhere to shop.

This sad scenario, being played out in 150 small U.S. towns, is a sobering reminder that all too often the term 'corporate responsibility' is but a cruel oxymoron:

UPDATED: The Next System Project: A Practical Example

Yesterday's post revolved around The Next System Project, an initiative committed to exploring replacements for the traditional institutions that are failing our world so badly. One major focus of the project is on expanding business models that grant company ownership to workers.

That goal put me in mind of a documentary I saw a few years back detailing the struggle to achieve worker ownership and control of a bankrupt auto-parts factory in Argentina.

Here is a synopsis of the film:

In suburban Buenos Aires, thirty unemployed auto-parts workers walk into their idle factory, roll out sleeping mats and refuse to leave.

All they want is to re-start the silent machines. But this simple act - The Take - has the power to turn the globalization debate on its head.

In the wake of Argentina's dramatic economic collapse in 2001, Latin America's most prosperous middle class finds itself in a ghost town of abandoned factories and mass unemployment. The Forja auto plant lies dormant until its former employees take action. They're part of a daring new movement of workers who are occupying bankrupt businesses and creating jobs in the ruins of the failed system.

But Freddy, the president of the new worker's co-operative, and Lalo, the political powerhouse from the Movement of Recovered Companies, know that their success is far from secure. Like every workplace occupation, they have to run the gauntlet of courts, cops and politicians who can either give their project legal protection or violently evict them from the factory.

The story of the workers' struggle is set against the dramatic backdrop of a crucial presidential election in Argentina, in which the architect of the economic collapse, Carlos Menem, is the front-runner. His cronies, the former owners, are circling: if he wins, they'll take back the companies that the movement has worked so hard to revive.

Armed only with slingshots and an abiding faith in shop-floor democracy, the workers face off against the bosses, bankers and a whole system that sees their beloved factories as nothing more than scrap metal for sale.

With The Take, director Avi Lewis, one of Canada's most outspoken journalists, and writer Naomi Klein, author of the international bestseller No Logo, champion a radical economic manifesto for the 21st century. But what shines through in the film is the simple drama of workers' lives and their struggle: the demand for dignity and the searing injustice of dignity denied.

A heartening witness to a persistent group of people dedicated to preserving their human and economic dignity, the film embodies what is possible when we shake off the conditioned thinking that our current model of broken capitalism has inculcated in us.

Here is a trailer for the film:



If that interests you, here is the full documentary
:


Until and unless we become bold and critical in our thinking, what the film depicts will remain but a rare exception to the status quo that currently serves the interests of only a small but very powerful minority.

UPDATE: Thanks go to B Caldwell for providing this link offering an update to Argentina's workers' co-operatives:

During 2012, the number of worker co-ops in Argentina increased by 239 per cent.

According to a study conducted by La Nacion, 6,024 new co-operatives were created throughout 2012. This represents an increase of 239 per cent on 2011.

Although most of these new co-ops are in the capital Buenos Aires, other areas have also witnessed an increase in the number of co-operatives, with 367 new co-operatives in José C. Paz, 63 in Córdoba, 110 in Santa Fe, 58 in Mendoza and 125 in Capital.

The same publication mentions that the increase was primarily determined by the support co-operatives have received from the government, particularly from Alicia Kirchner, the Minister for Social Development.

it would appear that good ideas can be suppressed for only so long.

And On A Personal Note...

I thought long and hard before making the decision to post the following, for two reasons: one, in the broader scheme of things it is a quite negligible plaint, and two, it perhaps exposes me as the petty and vindictive person that I on occasion can be. On the other hand, since it deals with what I consider to be exploitative and disdainful corporate practices, it may be of interest to some readers.

I will let this letter that I sent off to Air Transat speak for itself:

To Whom it May Concern:

Recently, my wife and I flew Air Transat to Cuba, departing from Toronto early morning January 23 and arriving back in Toronto January 30 at about 5:00 pm. While our one-week sojourn on the Caribbean island was a delight, our experiences with your airline were not. As a consequence, we will no longer be patronizing Air Transat unless there is absolutely no alternative.

On our previous trip to Cuba, we had a good experience with Sunwing, where a 'snack' is the choice of a substantial sandwich or pizza. A large cookie constituted dessert. Additionally, a glass of champagne and wine with the snack were provided at no charge, as were the headphones. Ensuring that the passengers feel respected appears to be part of Sunwing's business philosophy.

Clearly, Air Transat embraces an entirely different view of the customer, first evidenced by the fact that your airline's 'snack' consisted of a Krispy Kernnels 14 gram (.50 oz.) bag of bbq toasted corn, the quantity about the size of the ones found in bulk Halloween bags. Any sustenance that might have been considered appropriate for a journey of three and one-half hours cost at least $7. To compound the insult, headphones were offered at $8 each.

It is clear from the above that you view your passengers, not as paying guests but rather as cash cows. Since I am not given to the kind of bovine passivity that afflicts so many others, I find such a corporate attitude quite objectionable and unacceptable.

The return trip had even more unpleasantness in store. My sister-in-law, who accompanied us on our trip, paid for preferred seating because she is tall. She was supposed to have been guaranteed the same aisle seat both going and returning. However, she was assigned a different seat on our return, and when she pointed out to the head attendant she needed an aisle seat, she was rather imperiously told, 'That's not going to happen.' When I pointed out to the attendant that she had paid for her seat choice, she said, “Everyone just calm down.” Frankly, I have not been spoken to in such a condescending manner since childhood. I then pointed out to her that it was disgraceful that she didn't get the seat she paid for.

My sister-in-law, when we deplaned, told me that the offending attendant was later conciliatory and told her she would be able to get her seating surcharge reimbursed, so I speak only for myself and my wife here when I say that the attendant's initial disdainful response was disrespectful but hardly surprising, given the attitude your company seems to have toward its customers.

In a few days I shall be posting my comments on some travel forums. I strongly suggest that you rethink your arrogant and exploitative attitudes before you find more and more travellers choosing alternative carriers.

A Broken Model Of Capitalism: The Latest Poster Child

Despite being on track to meet its 2014 financial objectives, Scotiabank, with a total $5.57 billion of net profit in the first three quarters of 2014, has announced it is cutting about 1500 jobs, two-thirds of them in Canada.

Said CEO and president Brian Porter,

“Today’s announcement is a result of making some difficult but necessary decisions to support our long-term goals”.

Lest you think he forgot 'the little people' who are losing their jobs in the banks's quest for even greater profits, Porter did acknowledge them, saying that

“everyone impacted by these changes will be treated with fairness and respect and deserves our thanks for their important contributions to Scotiabank.”

I guess that will put to the lie the stereotype of the heartless banker.

A Union Victory

About a year ago I wrote two posts on Richtree Market, the union-busting Toronto eatery that got the clever idea of terminating all of its unionized employees, shutting down its restaurant, located in the Eaton Centre, only to reopen later a few doors down (about 50 metres) from its original spot, much larger and still within the Eaton Centre. It rehired none of the former staff but instead offered lower-paying jobs to non-union members.

Happily, this story of corporate craftiness has a happy ending and once more reminds us of the importance and relevance of unions in fighting for and defending workers' rights.

Brought before the Ontario Labour Relations Board by the union representing the workers, the

dispute between Richtree Markets and Unite Here Local 75 hinged on the exact street address of the Eaton Centre, with the restaurant arguing the union’s collective bargaining rights didn’t apply to the new site.

Thinking they were clever, Richtree argued

that the street address on the union’s collective agreement, 220 Yonge St., did not apply to the new location, given the address of 14 Queen St. W. — which was not a physical entrance to the mall.

The restaurant's sophistry was readily apparent to the Board:

In January, labour board chair Bernard Fishbein ruled the union’s bargaining rights “should not be extinguished by a move of some 50 metres across the corridor of the mall,” especially to an address “that presently has no real existence other than on a piece of paper.”

“There is no doubt that the official municipal address of the Eaton Centre has not changed (and obviously not moved),” Fishbein wrote in the board’s decision.

Subsequently, about 140 non-unionized workers at Richtree’s Eaton Centre location ratified a new collective agreement last week.

Under the new collective agreement, the 50 employees of the old location will have the opportunity to resume working at the restaurant with their seniority intact.

A victory that is sweet to savor, and one that once more reminds us that workers' rights need to be zealously guarded and never taken for granted.

Tim Hortons Takes Aim And Fires

The advertising would have us believe that Tim Hortons is a Canadian institution and icon that we should all revere as patriotic citizens. Who can forget the role the coffee and donut emporium has played over the years in bringing caffeine comfort to early-morning hockey dads, sending underprivileged kids to camp, and, gosh darn, just being here, there, and everywhere (including Afghanistan), doing all of us proud. (Be still, my beating heart!)

Well, sad to report on this fine Sunday morning, the corporate mask has slipped a bit.

According to a report in the The Toronto Star, today, June 1, marks a new phase in the relationship that some franchisees have with their employees. Because today is the day in Ontario that the minimum wage rises to $11 per hour, it appears that the very profitable coffee giant is intent on cutting benefits to compensate for the higher wage:

A Toronto-area Tim Hortons worker, who didn’t want her name or outlet location identified for fear of reprisals, said her employer posted a memo notifying staff he was ending breaks with pay to recoup costs.

“Given this new increase, as well as continued economic and competitive pressures, increasing commodity costs and minimal increases in menu pricing, effective June 1, we will be shifting all hourly team members in the restaurant to unpaid breaks,” the memo reads.

“We are not pleased we have to make this adjustment to the break policy and have held off making this change for several years,” it said.

I suppose, given the tone of this apologia, that workers should be grateful to the giant that it has withstood all of the above pressures so valiantly until being 'forced' into this action by a premier who finally remembered the working poor.

I guess Timmy's vote won't be going to the Liberals on June 12.

And one can't help but wonder whether the enthusiasm evident in this video might now become muted at best:

The House That Ronald Built

... seems to be undergoing some serious perturbations these days. Earlier in the month came the story of three McDonald's outlets in British Columbia abusing the Harper regime's TFWP (Temporary Foreign Workers Program) by hiring temporary workers instead of available local people and reducing the hours of Canadian employees.

Now comes word from Edmonton of more abuse by the hamburger giant, this time of its temporary workers. CBC News reports the following:

Foreign workers recruited from Belize are accusing McDonald’s Canada of treating them like "slaves," by effectively forcing them to share an expensive apartment – then deducting almost half their take-home pay as rent.

Records from three employees show they made $11 an hour working at various McDonald’s locations and the company took $280 from their pay for rent, bi-weekly. Their remaining take-home pay for the same pay periods was roughly $350.

“[The apartment lease] contracts are signed by McDonald’s. All of our bills – utility bills – were billed [to us] under the name of McDonald’s,” said Montero.

“They brought us here and they are this big huge corporation. We felt that we didn’t have a chance to even voice our opinion to them because they had brought us here so they could ship us back whenever they wanted to," said Montero. "It was like modern day slavery."


You can read the full tawdry tale of corporate malfeasance here, and watch a video report below:

Kind of takes away your appetite for when the next 'Mac attack' happens, doesn't it?

A Tale of Intimidation At TransCanada Corporation

Despite the best efforts of the Harper government to make its own addiction to the fossil fuel agenda the Canadian people's as well, increasing numbers are voicing their concern and opposition to the expansion of the Alberta tarsands through new pipelines. And evidence is mounting that those concern are wholly justified and not simply the hysterical reaction of 'lefties, eco-terrorists and the enemies of growth' that the Harper cabal would have us believe.

The 1,047 pipeline incidents in Canada between 2000 and 2011, although only a small part of the tale, provide ample reason for that wariness and suspicion.

Now there is even more reason to worry. As reported in the Toronto Star, there has been an ongoing and concerted effort by TransCanada Corporation, the country's preeminent pipeline company, to silence employees raising safety concerns about the company’s existing and brand new North American pipeline infrastructure:

They include warnings on the original Keystone pipeline, plagued by at least 35 incidents in the U.S. and Canada since it launched commercial operations in June 2010, and they also raise questions about the company’s testing and welding procedures on its infrastructure in Ontario as well as other lines that have reported at least four separate ruptures and four separate leaks to the federal regulator, the National Energy Board, in recent months.

Records released by the Senate energy and environment committee show cases where engineers were told in internal emails to stop searching for potential pipeline defects.

Reminiscent of the O-ring alerts ignored prior to the doomed Challenger shuttle mission, the records tell a sordid but hardly surprising tale of corporate intimidation, suppression and termination. Only one target, engineer Evan Vokes, responded to Star requests for comment:

“Please stop the investigation you seem to be doing on your own,” wrote David Taylor, a TransCanada manager of materials and engineering, in a June 27, 2011, email to Vokes. “This discussion has been going on for over a month, you need to accept where we are and become aligned with where we are going as a company.”

Vokes, a man of obvious integrity, refused to heed the increasingly threatening tone of the emails, and he was ultimately fired in 2012 without cause after he informed the company he would complain to authorities. Before his termination, however, he did what any man of deep conscience would do. He persisted:

... a few months before he lost his job, Vokes sent out a written warning to managers about the dangers of allowing the installation of a pressure vessel — a pipeline component generally used in compressor stations — on a natural gas line serving the oilsands industry near Fort McMurray.

A few weeks earlier, his manager, David Taylor, warned Vokes that there could be consequences if he continued to critique safety oversight weaknesses of TransCanada operations.

Taylor had issued other warnings previously:

“Also there is no need to comment about other projects and infer that they did something wrong,” said Taylor in an email to Vokes on Aug. 10, 2009. “As we chatted on Friday those things can and generally do come back to haunt you down the road!”

You can read the full story of TranCanada's corporate malfeasance and how it thwarted the efforts of some of its other employees to promote greater safety by clicking on the Toronto Star link provided at the start of this post.

An Extreme Of Capitalism?

Anyone who reads my blog regularly and has drawn the conclusion that I am anti-capitalism would be completely wrong. I have nothing against business, entrepreneurship, nor corporations, per se. And I do believe that those who take risks should be appropriately rewarded.

What I am against, however, is extreme imbalance. I have nothing but withering contempt for the winner-take-all attitude that sees life as a zero-sum game. Such thinking betrays an unschooled mind and a woefully underdeveloped character, in my view. And that is exactly the mentality pervasive in so many realms today, be they political, economic, social, business, etc. Capitalism, yes. unfettered capitalism, no.

During the weekend I read a story in The Star about the development of drugs to treat what are known as orphan diseases, those maladies that afflict a relatively low number of people. Traditionally avoided due to high development costs and low market potential, pharmaceutical firms are now turning increasingly to them as a potential source of new profits.

Patents expire on drugs that have become standard treatments for afflictions such as heart disease, diabetes, etc., and drugs to replace tried and true therapies are not needed. The revenues arising from treating those standard diseases, while still substantial, have limited growth potential, something that is anathema in a fiscal culture that demands continual corporate profit growth.

The beauty of orphan diseases, from a profit perspective, is that the majority of them are genetically-caused, which means that those for whom the drugs are developed will be life-long customers. It is this fact that makes the development of such drug treatments not only a literal life saver for some, but also an everlasting curse for the governments that will be called upon to fund them.

“There is a big crunch coming in terms of the new (orphan) products being developed and in terms of cost,” says Dr. Michael Rieder, who holds a research chair in pediatric pharmacology at Western University’s Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry.

“We’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg and it’s not going to go away.”

The issue came to the forefront again last week when young Madi Vanstone and her mother, Beth, visited Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne to seek assistance in getting Madi's drug, Kalydeco, listed so that her costly treatments would be covered under the province's drug plan. It was approved by Health Canada in late 2012, but costs $300,000 a year per person and works only for a certain genetic variant of cystic fibrosis. It’s estimated about 20 people in Ontario need it but do not have private coverage.

Fifteen countries cover the medication, but so far Ontario’s drug-purchasing consortium has failed to negotiate what it sees as a “fair” price with manufacturer Vertex Pharmaceuticals.

Consequently, Madi's family currently must rely on fund-raising for the treatment which has left her symptom-free.

The problem, as you can see, lies in the extreme pricing that big pharma attaches to what can be sometime regarded as miracle drugs. These exorbitant rates are justified by what they claim are the high development costs of the therapies, coupled with their limited market.

Jared Rhines, vice-president of scientific and strategic affairs for the group Rx&D, which represents Canada’s research-based pharmaceutical companies, says,

“The development process from discovery to development to clinical research is the same, whether it’s a drug that treats a high number of patients or a drug that treats a rare population,” Rhines says. “And when you get to orphan drugs, it’s all those same requirements and development costs and profits spread over hundreds of patients versus what is a traditional drug that treats tens of thousands of patients.”

By the way, the industry claims, but refuses to offer any supporting documentation for 'competitive reasons,' that the average cost of drug is $1.3 billion.

This is a figure hotly contested by some:

Some experts, however, say drug companies grossly inflate their R&D costs, with the oft-cited $1.3 billion-per-drug figure out of whack with reality.

Trudo Lemmens, chair of health law and policy at the University of Toronto law school, says industry uses these claims to justify “unconscionable prices.”

He says that a credible New Jersey study claims that average drug development costs could actually be in the $45 million to $55 million range.

“The claim of $1.3 billion or higher costs of drug development is industry mantra,” he says. “But it’s based on things that the industry keeps close to its (chest) and it’s very hard to critically analyze.”

As well, such claims are misleading, if not downright untruthful, for other reasons:

Jillian Kohler, director of global health at the U of T’s Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, has this to say about the issue:

... these numbers, for people who are actually in the field, are highly controversial and industry doesn’t like to be honest about what goes into their R&D.”

Kohler says drug companies may routinely pack marketing costs into their estimates as well as lost investment returns — opportunity costs — from the money they actually do sink into research.

“They (also) don’t talk about the public funding that contributes to some of the development of these (drugs),” she says.

And so to conclude, I repeat what I said at the outset: I am not opposed to capitalism, only the unfettered kind which, it would seem, the charges attached to the treatment of orphan diseases are but egregious examples.

Harper Lies: The Dismal Truth About Corporate Tax Evasion

My friend Gary recently alerted me to this, which should sicken all Canadian citizens. It is a story of corporate greed, massive amounts of lost tax revenues, and a government that aids and abets both. After viewing it, be sure to read the missive from Star letter-writer Robert Bahlieda that follows, and think about it when you hear the empty rhetoric from the Harper cabal about its 'tough on crime' agenda:



Recently, a Global TV investigative report on offshore tax havens indicated that as much as $20 billion of uncollected taxes are owed by major Canadian corporations and other wealthy individuals who employ these tax loopholes to evade/avoid taxes in Canada.

To add insult to injury these same individuals are given generous tax credits for moving their businesses offshore, leading many corporations like Gildan and the Toronto-Dominion Bank to pay little or no taxes year after year while making millions and billions in profits. This is not new — it has been going on for decades and there are thousands of companies doing this.

In effect, the Canadian government is subsidizing Canadian companies for moving jobs offshore to other countries, killing jobs in Canada and raising everyone else’s taxes in the process while implementing austerity measures here to supposedly stimulate the economy.

The final insult is all this is legal. While federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty talks a good game on tax cheats, it appears he has intentional blindness about these egregious abuses of his own tax policy and no interest in pursuing his corporate friends.

Even more disturbing is the complete lack of interest and deafening silence on this important issue by government, business, academia or the public and particularly the media as indicated by the recent headlines. The antics of Rob Ford, senators like Mike Duffy who have evaded a few thousand dollars or selected abuses by a few nursing homes are deemed to be a more salacious and newsworthy headline than $20 billion in missing tax money owed by the corporate elite of Canada.

The self-righteous opposition parties are also silent on this issue. Better not to bite the hand that feeds them. Academics and economists who regularly opine on the abuses of unions have nothing to say about this unrealized multi-billion dollar tax windfall.

The massive amount of money owed by these upstanding Canadian tax cheats is a serious issue and should be top of the agendas of all in Canadian society. It is unfair, unjust and illegal despite what the tax law says. These “loopholes” (a polite term for legal corporate tax fraud) are quietly put in place and ignored by governments of all stripes to maintain their cozy relationships with powerful big business interests who have them in their hip pockets.

This is how capitalist democracy works. Powerful special interests lobby the government to get special treatment that ensures they remain powerful special interests. Meanwhile we prevaricate about increasing the Canada pension by a niggling amount or introducing a Guaranteed Income Supplement that would massively reduce social support costs in the long run, saving taxpayers additional billions.

Capitalist economics isn’t about making democracy work better, its about making it work better for the select few. Let’s start getting angry and take action on things that really matter in this world and relegate Rob Ford and the Senate scandal to the comics section.

Robert Bahlieda, Newmarket

But I Save so Much Money Shopping There!

For the true cost of those bargains that we all slavishly delight in (cue Pavlov's dog), you might want to read this article about Walmart workers and watch the video below. As well, a recent post by Dr.Dawg is instructive.

The Predator At Our Doorstep

I've just finished reading Confessions of a Sociopath, written by the pseudonymous M.E. Thomas, a law professor who confesses herself to be a sociopath who has integrated fairly well into mainstream society. The book offers a chilling if somewhat annoyingly self-aggrandizing portrait of the mind of a person lacking the normal constraints that conscience and empathy impose on most of us. Her goal in writing the book was to show that lacking the conventional tools to successfully navigate life doesn't automatically make one a 'monster.'

I will take M.E. Thomas at her word. Less likely, however, am I to feel even a modicum of sympathy for the worst of all contemporary psychopaths/sociopaths (as far as I understand it, the terms are interchangeable) known as the corporation. Accorded personhood status in the United States but something less than that in Canada, the corporate mentality is such that it has virtually no imperative beyond making money for its shareholders, no matter the extent of its immoral albeit legal exploitation of anyone and anything in pursuit of that goal.

A letter in today's Star reminds us all of the some of the terrible costs of having such predators within our midst:

Our youth deserve more mental health support, Opinion Oct. 7; and Offer hope to troubled kids, Editorial Oct. 4


I find both Michael Kirby’s campaign and your support of it to be superficial. Certainly kids with problems should be helped, but it seems that there are more and more of them as time goes on, hence the appalling incidence of suicide among young people. Why should this be?

I have just read a wonderful article by John McMurtry in the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) Monitor for October. Its headline is “Profit-driven system exploits, mistreats vulnerable youth.” Corporations, it says, are profit-driven psychopaths, with no regard for anything at all but money, and they are exploiting our children.

Young people are sold junk foods and beverages, poisoned by untested chemicals and drugs and an increasingly toxic environment, addicted to junk commodities, and exposed to media, which induce aggressive and violent thought, create artificial, harmful, needs, and discourage rational thought, decency, or the search for real knowledge. They are supposed to become unthinking consumers and cheap labour for corporations.

We do really know what is good for children — whatever helps them to grow to be their best selves. With so many young people living in an environment that is physically, mentally, and emotionally toxic, it is easy to understand why our children are in trouble.

We need a caring society to elect a caring government that will pass laws and regulations to prevent the harming of the young. Michael Kirby wants to pull the drowning children out of the river. I suggest we stop pushing them in.

Jenny Carter, Peterborough

More On The Struggle Of Minimum Wage Workers

We hear it all the time from those who slavishly and unconscionably parrot the corporate line: raising the minimum wage is a job-killer. While that rhetoric may serve the insatiable business appetite for greater and greater profits at the expense of vulnerable workers, it simply isn't true. While I have written several posts recently on American fast-food workers' attempts to double their wages, we would be indeed foolish and willfully ignorant to believe that the American struggle is not also the struggle of their Canadian counterparts.

Even if you only have a few minutes to spare, I would urge you to watch at least part of the following video, and read the accompanying story on Alternet.

How Much Do We Really Pay For Those Bargains?

There is a segment in the documentary, The Corporation, where Michael Walker of The Fraser Institute extols how corporations help developing nations by using their labour to make their products. If you watch the video below from 3:15 to about the 6:00 mark, you will hear his explanation:



While the claims made by Walker were nonsense in 2003, when the film was made, ten years later workers are experiencing even more exploitation. As reported in today's Star, based on a report published by the Center for American Progress, despite increasing orders from the West, the wages being paid to third-world workers are getting worse, and no one is receiving anything even remotely approaching a living wage.

Amongst the report's highlights:

Garment workers in Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and Cambodia saw the largest erosion in wages. Between 2001 and 2011 wages in these countries fell in real terms by 28.9 percent, 23.74 percent, and 19.2 percent, respectively.

In 5 of the top 10 apparel-exporting countries to the United States—Bangladesh, Mexico, Honduras, Cambodia, and El Salvador—wages for garment workers declined in real terms between 2001 and 2011 by an average of 14.6 percent on a per country basis. This means that the gap between prevailing wages and living wages actually grew.

Much more information is available through the above links for those interested, but perhaps one of the most important inferences we in the affluent part of the world can draw is that we really are paying much much more than we think whenever we seize upon 'bargain' garments, and contrary to popular corporate propaganda, the lives of those who help us indulge in our cost-saving passions are not being improved as a consequence.

And Now, A Word About Kellie Leitch From The Salamander

The question of personal integrity is one that is very near and dear to my heart. Since literature at its best is a reflection of some of the deepest truths about human nature, during my teaching career, it was a topic I explored with relish every time the curriculum permitted it. In so-called real life, questions of personal honour and adherence to principle become central to the conduct of our society, especially because of its presence or absence (the latter all too often the case), in public life.

Yesterday I posted a video from Evan Solomon's Power and Politics featuring the comments of Kellie Leitch, a physician before she embraced the Conservative banner, and now a Conservative M.P. and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour. Like a good and faithful servant of Harper, Leitch, in response to Solomon's questions, was content to parrot the party lines about the Temporary Foreign Workers Program that has been so much in the news of late. This is the same Dr. Leitch who, after her election, staunchly defended the government's position that exporting asbestos to the developing world was just fine, much to the consternation of her former medical colleagues and millions of Canadians.

So the surrendering of principle for political expedience and power both fascinates and appalls me. In this vein, I am, with permission and thanks, reproducing an analysis of Leitch that The Salamander offered on yesterday's post:

Kellie Leitch is a dead end .. Her political psychosis is likely identical to that of Stephen Harper. She is a classic over achiever, with salt of the earth roots, in Manitoba and Alberta.. Fort McMurray fer gawds sake ! A medical and clinical exemplar, a pediatric orthopedic surgeon who fixes little kids injuries and broken bones. Probably a Mensa level brain or higher.

There's a huge lesson to be learned by looking at this woman's professional arc. But then there's huge lessons to learn examining other Conservative arcs.

At the risk of being extremely blunt.. she may be no different than ethical and moral losers such as Harper, Oliver, Flaherty, Kent, Clement, Ashfield, Baird etc ad infinitum. After all, she defended asbestos exports to construct third world schools, even when 300 fellow clinicians requested that she honor her Hippocratic medical oath to do no harm.

She comes across robotically on TV/Web like a female version of Pierre Poiievre but without the smug conceited sneer. But her pedantic defense and sidetracking evasions of un-defendable ethics and twisted policies is certainly common to all the anointed Harper spokespersons.

Do you want her in the emergency room when your child has a severe fracture or worse? Yes. Do you trust her to do what's right for Canada ? No .. There's that Conservative Conundrum .. the nasty aspect that makes any sane person question how these people get elected.

Ms Leitch is OK with asbestos, Grassy Narrows mercury poisoning, denying Fort Chipewayn's poisoned fish and water, good with exterminating boreal caribou, fine with electoral fraud, mingling with Rob Anders & defending Peter Peneshue or Dean Del Mastro, closing the Experimental Lakes Area, comfortable with gutting environmental laws .. Does she have an ethical or moral line in the sand ?? If so.. what is it ?

Does anyone in the Harper Government or Conservative Party have such a line in the sand ?

Apparently not ...

Outsource Canada

I'm not sure who is actually responsible for breaking down these outsourcing statistics according to province and company, but we certainly owe him or her a real debt of gratitude.

Bad Corporate Behaviour Abounds

As fellow blogger LeDaro pointed out to me the other day in a comment on my post about the Royal Bank's outsourcing of jobs, such practices are common among all of our banks. Further research by the CBC has come up with ample evidence to verify LeDaro's observation. You can read the complete sad and ugly truth here.

H/t David Doorey

The Royal Bank Responds With An Attempt At Damage Control

Somehow, I don't think George Orwell would be too impressed by the RBC response to its public relations nightmare over the outsourcing of Canadian jobs:

Said Zabeen Hirji, RBC’s chief human resources officer:

“We recognize the impact of this situation on our employees and we continue to remain focused on assisting our employees through this transition. We are working diligently to find suitable roles for those affected and it is our hope over the next few months to transition them to other positions.”

My hope would be that RBC and the other banks making record profits immediately transition to a policy of employee retention instead of dismissal through outsourcing.

Now It All Makes Sense

RBC CEO Gord Nixon

I just knew there had to be a logical explanation. This explains that.