They Sing As One.

Quite predictably, the rich have reacted with great bitterness to the new budget, in particular the part requiring them to pay more tax on capital gains that exceed $250 thousand. To hear their tune, sung in unison, financial Armageddon is upon the country.

A chorus of Canadian entrepreneurs and investors is blasting the federal government's budget for expanding a tax on the rich. They say it will lead to brain drain and further degrade Canada's already poor productivity.

In the 2024 budget unveiled Tuesday, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said the government would increase the inclusion rate of the capital gains tax from 50 per cent to 67 per cent for businesses and trusts, generating an estimated $19 billion in new revenue.

Capital gains are the profits that individuals or businesses make from selling an asset — like a stock or a second home. Individuals are subject to the new changes on any profits over $250,000.

The government estimates that the changes would impact 40,000 individuals (or 0.13 per cent of Canadians in any given year) and 307,000 companies in Canada.

In my view, this timid attempt by the federal government to look like they are holding the moneyed to account is little more than political theatre, designed to help distract from Mr. Trudeau's long-time love and admiration for financial titans. But even a bit of performative politics is too much for so many. 

Despite the fact that the changes affect almost no one, 

some members of the business community say that expanding the taxable amount will devastate productivity, investment and entrepreneurship in Canada, and might even compel some of the country's talent and startups to take their business elsewhere.

Not all agree with this assessment.

 Lindsay Tedds, an associate economics professor at Carleton University, said the tax change is one of the most misunderstood parts of the federal budget — and that its impact on the country's talent has been overstated.

"This is not a major innovation-biting tax change treatment," Tedds said. "In fact, when you talk to real grassroots entrepreneurs that are setting up businesses, tax rates do not come into their decision."

As for productivity, Tedds said Canadians might see improvements in the long run "to the degree that some of our productivity problems are driven by stresses like housing affordability, access to child care, things like that."

However, don't expect such sober analysis to fork much lightning with the hysterical. Indeed, even doctors have been infected with this particular virus:

Family doctor David Edward-Ooi Poon said, “If the government intended to tax physicians after we were pushed to the edge during the pandemic, this shows doctors, particularly young ones, that our work is not valued, that if we work harder we should be taxed more,” said Poon. “Many of my colleagues are considering moving to the U.S. or other countries where physicians make more, or lowering their hours to reduce the tax burden. For our strained health-care system to improve, I would hope that physician retention is a priority.”

To believe those in financially advantageous positions, it is never a good time to increase taxes. In good times, they say that success is being punished. In bad times, they say that kicking someone when they are down will only exacerbate problems.

Meanwhile, for those in actual need of government assistance, well, they should just learn to pick themselves up by their bootstraps (a physical impossibility, when you think about it) and stop bothering the rest of us.

Some things never seem to change.

Perhaps They'll Ease Their Pain With A Free Cup Of Coffee?

Well, Tim Horton's has done it again - disappointed their customers. Of course, that's nothing new, but I'm not referring here to the mediocre coffee that is inexplicably a national icon. Nor am I referencing their disturbing and bizarre forays into food innovations they have no business experimenting with. There is something off-putting for example, about offering flatbread pizzas alongside their downsized donuts and paltry breakfast wraps. But maybe that's just me.

What is indisputable, however, is that the best this multi-billion-dollar operation can do when it screws up is to offer a mere oops. This has happened yet again with their much hyped and cruel annual Rrroll Up The Rim to Win contest.

A technical error by Tim Hortons led coffee drinkers across Canada to falsely believe they had won a $55,000 boat as part of the franchise's Roll Up To Win promotion.

It's unclear how many people were impacted, but the chain told CBC Hamilton in an email it was an "unfortunate error" and some customers were sent an email with incorrect information.

 Darren Stewart-Jones of Hamilton said he opened an email on Wednesday morning from Tim Hortons that recapped all the prizes he won this year and it included one he didn't recognize: a 2024 Tracker Targa 18 WT boat and trailer, which retails for $39,995 US (about $55,000 Cdn) — the only one available to participants.

"I thought, 'Wow, this could be really awesome,'" Stewart-Jones told CBC News in a phone interview.

But his initial burst of excitement turned into questions as he scrolled through his emails to find out when he'd won the boat. 

After learning others had also received such an email, he began to suspect his good fortune was not what it seemed.

And he was right, as Tim Horton's facilely and callously pointed out: 

Tim Hortons sent customers an email with instructions to "disregard" the recap email they received, saying "technical errors" may have allowed for some prizes they didn't win to end up in the recap email.

"We apologize for the frustration this has caused and for not living up to our high standards of providing an exceptional guest experience," read the letter, which Tim Hortons shared with CBC. 

Shamefully, this is not the first time 'technical problems' have hobbled the emporium.

Just over a year ago, the Tim Hortons app mistakenly informed users they'd won $10,000.

Chris Rivett,  another 'winner' from Edmonton, is considering all of his options.

Rivet said he has filed a complaint with the Competition Bureau of Canada and is considering filing a lawsuit.

On Wednesday afternoon, a Facebook group formed with over 200 people expressing outrage about the mistake and threatening to file lawsuits.

"NOPE. Not taking this as an answer!! Two words: CLASS ACTION," read a post from Christiane Marie.

Will the fine print under contest rules insulate Tim Horton's from legal retribution? Perhaps. But in the  court of public opinion, they are already on trial and it looks like a guilty plea is pending. 

One hopes that the coffee giant won't add insult to injury by offering a free cup of coffee to the winners/losers of this latest fiasco.

 

 

Downfall: The Case Against Boeing

 I will be the first to admit that my viewing tastes are unusual for a man my age. I enjoy the off-kilter, the unusual, even the bizarre in movie/streaming fare.  And although I never watch television during the day, that still amounts to both wasted, and some well-rewarded, hours. 

Sometimes, my tastes are more down to earth, so to speak, and such was my experience the other night when I watched a riveting documentary recommended by my brother-in-law entitled Downfall: The Case Against Boeing. Although made in 2022 and focussing on the crashes of the 747-Max 8, it sheds incredible light on the current safety issues plaguing Boeing, and in that regard is must-viewing.

Here is a trailer for the film, and I am happy to report the entire documentary can be found for free at Daily Motion. It is also available on Netflix.

How does a company go from one admired worldwide for its sterling safety record to one where two catastrophic crashes occurred within five months of each other? The answer is surprisingly simply: corporate greed. But the real story is how Boeing succumbed to such venality.

It began in 1997, when Boeing and McDonnell Douglas merged. Unfortunately, in that merger, the culture of the latter ultimately supplanted that of the former, whose decisions had been determined largely by engineers, their guiding principles innovation and safety. A comprehensive detailing of the results of this merger can be seen in this Atlantic article.

The film outlines how, in order to wrest sales supremacy from its new rival Airbus, Boeing embarked on an enhancement of its 737s, in operation since the late sixties. Speed, rather than safety, was of the essence. Because the new Max-8 required an alteration in the angle of the engine, the chances of a stall after takeoff, as the craft was ascending, increased. To counteract that possibility, they developed the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System), a flight stabilizing feature. 

Because things were being done on the cheap by this time, there were two major problems with the system: there was only one sensor (which could be easily disabled by a bird strike, for example) in the nose of the plane to measure its angle of attack as it ascended, and NO ONE was trained in its use. The big selling point for the Max-8, one that allowed it to regain sales supremacy, was the assurance that no flight simulator training was needed for MCAS. Such training is very costly to airlines, given the time needed to allow pilots to become proficient. This turned out to be a fatal false economy, and like a malevolent ghost in the machine, MCAS sent hundreds of people to their deaths.

The two crashes that ensued within five months of each other, killing a total of 346 people, were entirely avoidable. Why was nothing done after the first crash to remedy the situation? False assurances and bureaucratic inertia are part of the answer.

For the rest, you will have to watch the film. I may, in my next post, write about the ongoing fallout of the merger that now has the FAA threatening on-site oversight because of the latest symptom of laxity, the door-plug blowout much in the news these days.

Breaking Up Is Hard To Do

                                                                

I do not fit the usual profile of a stalking victim. I am not young, rich, a public figure, a celebrity nor female. Yet the past week has made me empathize with those who fall victim to the obsession that often prompts unwanted surveillance.

It all started when I had the audacity to change my Internet, telephone and television service provider, after being approached by a rival company that made me an offer I couldn't refuse. (I won't name either company involved, as I have no desire to be a shill for the corporate agenda.) Suffice it to say that the new suitor offered technologically superior service, a better channel selection, a free streaming service for six months, enhanced phone service, and a cost savings of at least $60 a month for the next two years. As well, the usual hefty installation fee was waived.

And best of all, they would cancel my existing contract with the rival company and give me a prepaid Visa card for any expenses incurred in breaking the contract. It all seemed so bloodless, since I wouldn't have to endure the usual "customer retention" ploys that occur when one is threatening to leave a company, a practice I am quite familiar with from previous renegotiations over the years with the departing service.

It was a neat, arm's length relationship-severing with the jilted party - or so I thought.

Almost immediately, the phone calls began, urging me to stay with my current 'partner'. (Since I have call display, I only listened to the messages they left me.) These calls became a daily feature of my life until the new service was up and running, telling me how they could make things right for me. However, because I had already undertaken to commit to the new service, I had no intention of breaking my word.

Then the emails began. The first one expressed regret at not being able to reach me by phone, with a large caption reading, Give us one more chance to make things right, and promising an exclusive offer in hopes of retaining me as a customer. Both the calls and the emails continued, prompting me to regard them as desperate and whiny, trying to keep our 'relationship' intact. It got to the point where I apologized to my wife for bringing this messy affair into our home. I had so hoped for an amicable breakup.

What is my point in all of this? Perhaps it is obvious, but I hope it serves as a reminder that corporations are not our friends, and they are essentially profit (greed)-driven, no matter how all of their advertising suggests otherwise. But, it is also a reminder that we perhaps all too often underestimate the bargaining power we have when viable alternatives exist. Those alternatives serve as leverage.

Leverage is necessary, since no price reductions for 'loyalty' are ever offered. For example, I am sure (and this was especially apparent from reports when online learning was the only option during the height of the pandemic) there are still customers who pay hefty fees on accounts that have limits on how much internet one may use before incurring extra charges. That was my case before embracing streaming, and it was only after threatening to leave that I was given unlimited access. Do not expect the corporate heart (if that is not an oxymoron) to be touched and a company to reach out to you proactively to see if it can do better for you. 

You, and you alone, must take the initiative. Any feelings of loyalty to your ISP, I can assure you, will not be spontaneously reciprocated.

Hard To Swallow

                               
While there are many topics of pressing concern to write about these days, I can't resist a lesser story that in my view underscores corporate greed, writ large.

Some may have heard about the recent roll-up-the-rim fiasco at what Canadians like to believe is their national coffee emporium, Tim Horton's. Now owned by multinational Restaurant Brands International, which benefits quite handsomely from Canadians' loyalty, the institution is publicly reminding all of us that the only loyalty it has is to the bottom line. And that bottom line is hardly impacted by its recent 'technological 'glitch', which has left some pursuing legal action against the company.

A Southwestern Ontario man says he’s retained a lawyer after a Tim Hortons prize app told him he’d won $10,000, only for the coffee giant to call it a technical glitch and deny the win.

Jeremy McDougall, 37, of Tillsonburg is among an unknown number of customers who thought they’d won the five-figure prize in the annual Roll Up To Win campaign after being notified by the Tim Hortons digital app their cup was a winner.

“We were pretty over-the-moon thinking we won $10,000” McDougall said, noting his wife lost her job right before Christmas. The win, he said, made them think “the tide is turning for us. I thought it was some good fortune but, nope.”

Roll Up To Win is a popular annual contest run by Tim Hortons. Formerly it was manual – customers literally loosened the rim of their paper cup to see if they’d won a prize – but has now migrated to the company’s digital app.

 The restaurant chain is facing something of a public-relations nightmare after the contest’s first day, Monday. Officials with the company have said a “small subset” of players was incorrectly notified that they’d won the company’s jackpot draw, a $10,000 daily prize meant to be awarded to one person a day.

The company added it has offered a $50 gift card as compensation to players who received the erroneous award notice and is in the process of contacting the false winners “to express our regret for the disappointment caused by this error.”

McDougal is not the only one unwilling to accept the insulting offer of a $50 gift card.

There are other unhappy people who are indicating they also received the $10,000-winning message. Wrote one man on Facebook: “I’ve never won something big in my life. And now, to only be let down by the news, is devastating.”

Added another man: “I want the $10,000 that your app told me I won.”

Given that I brew my coffee at home and rarely resort to buying a cup, this story is important to me only because it reminds all of us that the chummy, patriotic feeling the company has been trying to cultivate and exploit over the years is simply PR. Scratch beneath the surface, and it is a cold, calculating and ugly picture that emerges, showing the true contempt in which Tim Horton's holds its customers. Otherwise, it would swallow its 'mistake' in order to make disappointed customers whole.

Meanwhile, Canadians still swallow their swill. Perhaps it is too much to expect, but one hopes some will remember this outrage when contemplating their next 'Timmy's run'.

 

 

 

Heroes No More

The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh? Things like corporate greed, for example.

The public was much heartened when grocery store magnates granted pay boosts to front-line line workers as an acknowledgement of the risks they were facing during the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. However, that corporate 'largess' has now ended.

Despite soaring first-quarter profits ... Loblaw Companies Ltd. president Sarah Davis said stores and distribution centres are experiencing a “new normal,” now that COVID-related safeguards have been in place for several months.

“With this stability and with economies reopening we have decided the time is right to transition out of our temporary pay premium,” Davis said in the note.

The Metro, Sobeys and Walmart chains are following suit in this retrenchment, a retrenchment that seems especially cruel given that Covid-19 is by no means conquered, and an effective treatment continues to elude the world. In other words, those same front-line workers lauded as heroes but a short time ago continue to be at risk as they perform their crucial work.

The Toronto Star expresses its disappointment in people like Galen Weston by reminding us of his words when he enacted the wage premium:

“Supermarkets and pharmacies are performing well ... And the leaders in our business wanted to make sure that a significant portion of that benefit would go straight into the pockets of the incredible people on the front line.”

Loblaw Companies Ltd. saw its first-quarter profits soar to $240 million, compared to $198 million in the same quarter last year. No doubt expenses have increased because of COVID-19 safeguards, but it’s hard to fathom how these stores are no longer benefiting financially, as Loblaw claims.

Star readers also weigh in on this shameful reversal. Herb Alexander of Thornhill writes:

Galen Weston is quoted as saying now “is the right time to end the temporary pay premium we introduced at the beginning of the pandemic.”

I wonder which information source led Weston to this conclusion. I just checked; COVID will be not be ending soon.

So it seems this is not the time to be pulling money out of the pocket of his staff, who continue to make him richer by working on the front lines in his stores.

Weston, said to be the scion of the third-richest family in Canada, is quoted as saying he “would support any government effort to establish a living wage.”

This tells me two things about Galen Weston: First, he concedes that he is currently not paying a living wage. Second, he will only pay a living wage if government forces him to.

And Wesley Turner of St. Catharines, Ont. offers this:

Major grocery chains Metro, Loblaws and Walmart, in the early days of the pandemic, awarded their hard-pressed employees an extra $2 per hour to continue working in what were dangerous conditions.

Their work inevitably exposed them to many possible sources of infection from COVID-19, and workers who had to use public transportation faced even more sources of infection.

They were frequently described as “heroes” for maintaining an essential service, providing food and other necessities to all.

So have they ceased to be “heroes?” Has the danger of catching COVID-19 ended? Are all safe to travel and work in grocery stores?

It would seem so in the eyes of their employers who can now lower labour costs and gain more profits. It looks like this increase in wages was no more than a gesture, motivated not by generosity, but by fear that employees would not come to work at the risk of their lives.

That danger remains and so should the wage increase. Indeed, a permanent wage increase would show that those companies really do value their “heroic” employees.

The response to the Covid-19 pandemic has offered many moments when the best of human nature has shone forth. However, the actions of Galen Weston and his fellow-travellers are also a stark reminder that only rarely do the better angels of our nature prevail in the corporate world.

The Shameful Behaviour Of Pharmaceuticals

Daniel Dale recently wrote a piece about how a provision in the new NAFTA could lead to higher drug costs in Canada.

Some Democrats are demanding a change to a rule that would require the U.S., Canada and Mexico to protect the intellectual property behind sophisticated and expensive drugs known as biologics for at least 10 years.

These Democrats, like Canada’s generic drug industry, warn that the new biologics rule would keep drug prices high by requiring citizens to wait longer before they can get their hands on lower-cost similar drugs known as biosimilars.

We would be wise to heed the warning.

If you have seen the Netflix documentary series Dirty Money, the episode on Valeant Pharmaceuticals is quite revealing, illustrating the rapacity of an industry whose interests lie in maximizing profits, often at the very real expense (literal and figurative) of the people it is supposed to serve. If you watch the episode, you will see that Valeant became little more than a hedge fund, buying up other drug companies for their patents, slashing R&D while at the same time rasing drug costs exorbitantly.

The following video is another story of pharmaceutical corporate greed, one that should serve as a wake-up call to all of us. It tells the tale of a drug that had been provided free of charge but is now available only for those who can pay $375,000 per year.



We are constantly told that business does things better. If that involves exploiting human misery, you will get no argument from me.

Have You Signed Yet?

Despite all of his sanctimonious talk about tax fairness, there is little evidence thus far that Justin Trudeau is committed to anything more than indulging in his standard soaring rhetoric. Now, there is a a petition being circulated on Change.org. that seeks to change that.

As reported in today's Star, the petition

was launched by advocacy group Democracy Watch after the Star, in partnership with Corporate Knights magazine, published an investigation last month that showed how individuals pay three-and-a-half times more income tax than corporations.

An excerpt from the petition offers these disquieting statistics:

Canada's official corporate tax rate is now 26.6% but, on average, Canadian big businesses paid only 17.7% from 2011-2016 -- one of the lowest rates of all G7 countries.

Canada's Big Banks paid a tax rate of only 16% over the past 6 years -- lower than banks in other G7 countries. They are the biggest tax evaders of all Canadian big businesses and, not surprisingly, also the most profitable. They made a record $42.3 billion in profits in 2017.

And that lost tax money could have been used to accomplish so much good:

If Canada's big businesses and banks paid the official tax rate from 2011-2016, governments across Canada would have almost $64 billion more to spend on making hospitals, schools, housing, public transit and roads better, and on other things Canadians need.

Given the sociopathic nature of corporations, they will never pay any more than they have too. Their much vaunted 'fudiciary responsibility to shareholders' is the tenet by which they justify their efforts at tax avoidance and cheating others out of their rightful due.

Consider, for example, Sears Canada. Francine Kopun writes:

Handsome dividends paid to Sears Canada shareholders even as the company was faltering and its employee pension fund was running a deficit are being reviewed by the court-appointed monitor handling the company’s insolvency.

The transactions of interest, according to the monitor, include a dividend of $102 million paid to Sears Canada shareholders on Dec. 21, 2012, and $509 million paid on Dec. 6, 2013.

The problem is, Sears was already seriously bleeding cash when the dividend was issued, and guess who paid the price? The Sears pension plan.

The pension deficit was $307 million in 2010 and $133 million in 2013.

When the company sought creditor protection in June, the pension fund had a deficit of $270 million, potentially leaving retirees with reduced incomes.

“Certainly from our standpoint, we felt that the payments of dividends, when the company was not making money and there was no investment in the company and there was a debt to the pension plan, were inappropriate,” said Ken Eady, a spokesperson for Sears Canada retirees.

Companies will never act with integrity on their own. That is why the role of government is essential in moderating their greed.

Please give serious consideration to signing the petition at Change.org.

Harry Smith Has Stephen Harper In His Sights

Harry Smith is a man on a mission, one that should put disengaged Canadians to shame.

The 92-year-old long-time activist, who splits his time between Canada and England, is ashamed of what has happened under the rule of Stephen Harper, and plans to make a difference as soon as he returns from the United Kingdom, where he is currently on an extensive speaking tour for Britain's Labour Party, which asked him to be a spokesman in the campaign for the May 7 election.

Smith has become a sensation

for his opinion pieces and memoir Harry's Last Stand, in which he draws parallels between his brutal childhood in the U.K. and where the western world is headed today as government austerity grips many of its countries.

Those experiences, and his memory of what Canada was like in the 1950's when he came here with his family to pursue a better life, have informed a life of activism which now takes the form of opposing austerity and corporate greed.

Here is a brief sample of Smith's early years in Britain in a moving speech he gave last year:



When the British election is over, he plans to replicate his tour in Canada,

in a ''full-tilt'' effort on his part to help oust Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

''He is really, to me, the worst prime minister that ever existed,'' Smith said over the phone from Manchester, pausing for a drink of water. ''Since Harper has come into power, everything has gone downhill. He has one consideration, and that is to let the rich get richer and the poor fend for themselves.''

Smith said the ''epidemic'' of child poverty in Toronto, government service cutbacks, and tax loopholes used by corporations are some of the most concerning threats facing the country today.

The Canada he sees today presents

a stark difference from when he first arrived in Ontario in the 1950s to start anew after serving in the Royal Air Force during the Second World War.

''I've seen this province and the rest of the western world slip back to a society that reminds me of my boyhood,'' Smith said. ''Today is starting to have that same edge -- the same cruelty, the same divisions between those that have, and those that have not, that polarized the 1920s.''

When he arrived here, he saw a country offering people real opportunities for establishing themselves, a country where

none of his friends or neighbours had a problem with paying taxes. Most of them, having grown up in the Depression, thought services paid for by taxes were what made the country a safe and good place to live.

That has all changed now,

as corporations and politicians robbed the public of its social safety net, he said.

With that has come a loss of faith in our political institutions.

Smith said he will tour the country in the run-up to the Canadian election, delivering speeches aimed at youth about the perils of austerity and attacks on government services.

He said young people in Canada need to realize their futures are at risk if they don't oust Harper and vote in someone with ''compassion'' who cares about them.

Smith has an especially sharp warning for the young, disengaged among us:

[Y]oung Canadians must be warned their inaction risks the return to an uncivilized, brutish reality -- one festering with poverty and indifference to those drowning in it.

Harry Smith will be returning to Canada soon and

he said he's ''looking forward to seeing the back of that monster,'' Harper.

I, and millions of other Canadians, wish him every success in his campaign.

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.

This Just In

According to a CBC report,

EU lawmakers are threatening to block a multi-billion dollar trade pact between Canada and the European Union — a blueprint for a much bigger EU-U.S. deal — because it would allow firms to sue governments if they breach the treaty.

The agreement with Canada, a draft of which was seen by Reuters, could increase bilateral trade by one fifth to $37 billion (26 billion euros).

But European consumer and environmental groups say a mechanism in the accord would allow multinationals to bully the EU's 28 governments into doing their bidding regardless of environmental, labour and food laws and would set a bad precedent for the planned EU-U.S. trade pact.

Although the neoliberals leading our government don't care about a loss of sovereignty rights, other do:

Tiziana Beghin, an EU lawmaker from Italy's anti-establishment 5-Star Movement who sits on the parliament's influential trade committee, called the EU-Canada deal an "affront to democracy".

"Giving corporations the right to sue governments for loss of anticipated profit would be ridiculous if it were not so dangerous," she told Reuters.

Let's hope that a European revolt leads to a restoration of sanity in trade pacts. Corporate greed has been setting the agenda for far too long.

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:

Ronald McDonald's Secret Agenda

As Johnny Carson used to say, "Folks, I merely report these things".

Wisdom From A 91-Year-Old

Don't worry. This is not one of those bromides on how to live a long and happy life. It is, however, a realistic recipe for social cohesion and progress. The letter, from Joy Taylor of Scarborough, was published in today's Toronto Star:

Today I turned 91. My friends and I celebrated with laughter, and good food. How lucky I am to have had such a good life. I wish that everyone could be as lucky as I.

I often think of the working poor. I think of their struggle to try to make ends meet. I think of the children not having enough to fill their stomachs and no second helpings at mealtime. Of going to bed hungry. Living in places that should be condemned. No TV, no sports or hobbies of any kind to help overcome the sadness and dreariness of their lives. They struggle with education. Some turn to crime.

I think of CEOs and bankers and wealthy people in general. They lack for nothing. Their interests lie in money. Making it, saving it and how to avoid paying taxes.

Many of them admit that they could never exist in the lives of every day people. They are not aware of how some people live — they avoid thinking about them. I cannot avoid thinking of them.

Is it a fantasy or could all Canadian families be given a chance at a decent life. Working people could earn a wage that allows them a decent place to live, good food and education for the children. Those unable to work could be well looked after and not despised by society.

If everyone paid their fair share of taxes and worked together with a major plan, just think that we could become the most perfect country in the world. The envy of people everywhere. It is possible.

Maybe this is what we were intended to do before it is too late. If not, perhaps a meteorite will carry us off to begin again until we get it right.

Millions of dollars is such a waste, lying offshore when it could be helping Canadians realize that there is a better living for us all. Why don’t we try it. We may learn to like it.

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.

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.

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.

A Master of the Universe Speaks

ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson: ‘What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?

Chilling, vile, and depraved words.

H/t Nathan Cullen

More On RBC's Outsourcing From Star Readers

I have a busy morning ahead, so for now I take the liberty of reproducing two letters from this morning's Star that make some excellent points as to how to apportion blame for the outrageous corporate practice of outsourcing Canadian jobs, most apparent in the current RBC imbroglio. As well, if you have the time, check out this column by Heather Mallick, who writes on the same topic.

Royal Bank faces heat over foreign worker plan, April 8

The outsourcing by the Royal Bank of Canada of work done by Canadians to foreigners is the logical outcome of the Conservative government's policy of allowing temporary workers into Canada and generally supporting the large-corporation agenda put forth by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and their ilk. The bankruptcy of these policies is brought into sharp relief when one of the most profitable corporations in Canada enhances its already huge profitability a little bit more at the expense of Canadian employment.

The government's Economic Action Plan should be retitled “Corporate Welfare Plan.” The government has no coherent approach to dealing with the twin job-reduction forces of globalization and technology, other than tax cutting, cost cutting and making Canada safe for corporations.

As for RBC, shame on you. Their stated defence for their action is the usual meaningless corporate blather about “reducing cost to reinvest in initiatives that enhance the customer experience.” Really? When did any of the large Canadian banks put customers ahead of profits?

John Simke, Toronto

RBC's decision to replace Canadian workers with foreign workers under the faulty new federal legislation is an affront to Canada and Canadian workers. Profits at all costs shows a disrespect to Canadian workers.

Since RBC is doing quite well financially, this move is troubling. With five unemployed workers in Toronto for every job, many of them low paid, this is a further slap in the face.

It is clear that RBC shows no moral responsibility to the country and its people, who made them rich. While the executives of this company make millions, they have lost touch with the rest of the population.

Joan Dolson, Toronto

On Corporate Propaganda and Tax Avoidance

It is the fashion among our corporate overlords and their rabid right-wing courtesans to utter a trite phrase that, because it is repeated so frequently, is taken as truth by many: We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Like the magician who relies upon misdirection to perform the seemingly miraculous, the corporate cabal purports to prove, through both its rhetoric and 'studies' done by its think tanks (think The Fraser Institute in Canada, The Cato Institute in the U.S. as examples), that taxes are 'job killers' and that the key to robust economies and solid employment numbers is low taxation.

Of course, the falsity of such assertions has been amply demonstrated, most recently by Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney, who has weighed in on more than one occasion about the abysmal rate of business investment in new machinery and equipment — considered vital to boosting growth, creating jobs and making the economy perform more efficiently. This sad state despite the fact that Canada has one of the lowest corporate tax regimes in the world.

While there will always be the true believers who subscribe to the myth of the efficacy of marketplace discipline and an ultra-low tax regime, I suspect more and more are starting to realize that the corporate agenda has nothing to do with the betterment of society or the support of democracy, and everything to do with its own self-aggrandizement. As reported last week in The Toronto Star, The OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), consisting of 34 countries, issued a report condemning the practice of corporation, including giants such as Google, who are shifting profits to places where they pay little or no tax, places such as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and Barbados.

As the report points out, not only is this costing the countries in which these corporations do business billions of dollars in lost revenue, it is also encouraging a perception that the domestic and international rules on the taxation of cross-border profits are now broken and that taxes are only paid by the naive, and if nothing is done about the situation ordinary taxpayers might refuse to pay their share of taxes on the grounds that the system is unfair.

So there you have it: corporations with a patent disdain for the countries who make their businesses both possible and viable, without conscience or concern for the massive damage their schemes do to the social and economic fabric of those countries, beholden only to their own bottom lines and their shareholders.

If such misbehaviour is not an indictment of unfettered capitalism, then I don't know what is.