Hudak's 'Truth' Exposed For The Lie It Is

In response to an opinion piece written by Stephen Skyvington espousing the Tim Hudak canard that mandatory union membership is one of the reasons Ontario is faring so badly economically, Hamilton Spectator readers weigh in with insights of their own:

Hudak is no friend of the workers

Spectator readers fooled by Stephen Skyvington's opinion piece should ask themselves: Who would benefit from the disappearance of the Rand formula?

Skyvington's argument for PC Leader Tim Hudak's anti-labour agenda leads to one conclusion: already-wealthy corporations and corporate bosses will reap the rewards if the last voice of working people is silenced. Workers? Not so much. Hudak has promised to gut the pensions of registered nurses and other workers and freeze their wages.

Skyvington's column is an example of the attempts to rid the country of unions and the work they do on behalf of every working person. The measures he and Hudak endorse are meant to eliminate the ability of unions to represent ordinary workers. Only corporate bosses benefit; they would be free to pay lower wages, fewer or no benefits and reap greater profits from the efforts of their workers.

Federal and provincial corporate tax cuts over the past 15 years have handed tens of billions of dollars to corporations." The billions in tax savings came with no strings — the corporations didn't feel morally obligated to expand their businesses, create more jobs or share the wealth through investments in Canada.

Skyvington misleads readers when he talks of "mandatory" union membership. Union membership is not mandatory; those who go to work in a union environment have the option of signing a membership card.

Skyvington's portrayal of Tim Hudak as "going to bat" for workers would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous. Neither are friends of working Ontarians. We shouldn't believe them when they say they are.

Deanna King, Ancaster


Mandatory taxes, mandatory union dues

The union movement benefits society at large, not just those who pay union dues to a particular local. Attacking them is not new and will never go away.

What's the difference between obligating a union member to pay dues and obligating a citizen to pay taxes? Does writer Stephen Skyvington also suggest I should have the right to renounce my taxes and the benefits they pay for? Why not? I have minimal interest in subsidizing corporate welfare if those businesses have minimal interest in my welfare.

How about a compromise? The taxpayer will continue to subsidize corporate welfare in exchange for living wage legislature? Please Big Business, may we have enough wealth to purchase your products and keep the entire economy running?

Here is a headline from the Globe and Mail in 1901: "Unions have out lived their usefulness." There is nothing new in what Skyvington espouses. It's just another round of attacks. Let's stand up together against the biggest bosses, the corporate ones. Don't forget to vote!

Ben Lyons, Hamilton

Hudak works for the Robber Barons

Stephen Skyvington would have us believe that the solution to the structural economic problems arising from neo-liberal policies of globalization, free trade, deregulation, migrant workforces, and reduced incomes is more of the same.

The solution for Skyvington and Ontario Conservative leader Tim Hudak could be labelled the Caterpillar Doctrine, whereby workers are offered half their wages without any benefits or their employer gives everyone the finger and leaves town.

In the wake of Caterpillar's closing in London, Ont., throwing 460 manufacturing workers onto the street, Hudak didn't "go to bat for workers." He backed the foreign-owned company that recorded $65.8 billion in sales and revenues and registered record profits.

Caterpillar didn't throw Ontario workers out of jobs because it was hurting but because it wasn't earning enough for the CEO, who raked in $10.4 million in salary for a single year. That is for whom Hudak and Skyvington are going to bat: Robber Barons. Hudak is a premier for 1914 not 2014.

Voters who work for a living ought to recognize Hudak as a class warrior for the one per cent and reject his divisive, ruinous agenda.

Sean Hurley, Hamilton

It is always encouraging to see Canadians exercising their critical faculties instead of passively accepting propaganda that advances the cause of a small, select, and grossly dishonest segment of the population known as the political class.

Uncommon Wisdom From The 'Common' People

That is the best way to assess the fact that last night, despite all of his gerrymandering, Dalton NcGuinty was decisively thwarted in his ruthless drive for the majority government he had been denied in the last general provincial election.

Thanks to the people of Kitchener-Waterloo, both he and the leader of the Official Opposition, young Tim Hudak of the Conservatives, are looking decidedly vulnerable today. A good analysis of that vulnerability can be found in Martin Regg Cohn's column in this morning's Star.

And just before I leave the topic of politicians who forget who they are elected to serve, I am reproducing a letter I came across yesterday in The Spectator. The observations made by the writer, Mark Kikot of Burlington, are ones that our arrogant political 'masters' would be wise to bear in mind the next time they contemplate the bald pursuit of power at the expense of the electorate.

McGuinty scapegoats public-sector workers

Premier Dalton McGuinty is demonstrating through his current strategy for dealing with the deficit that behaving like a conservative government is easier than being a liberal government, and that behaving like a corporation is easier than being a government.

Those Ontarians who have accepted the corporate mindset as the controlling metaphor in their lives, and the corporate structure as an inescapable reality, would argue that any responsible government should function like a business. Costs that cannot be sustained must be offset by cuts in order to produce a supposedly more efficient, hopefully more effective, and clearly more profit-driven organization; in other words, the ideal model for governance is the lean mean machine.

While any sensible person should acknowledge that we cannot continue to live beyond our means, any sensible person should also recognize that the debt incurred by a government must be shared by all the sectors of the society that that government represents.

By targeting primarily the public sector, and the educational sector in particular, in its attempt to balance the books, the McGuinty government has made scapegoats of those public sector workers who provide social services that improve the quality of life for all Ontarians. In adopting this politically convenient strategy, McGuinty has created the impression that the deficit is entirely an in-house problem, instead of a problem for which the private sector is also responsible. It is unreasonable and unjust to expect the deficit to be reduced almost exclusively at the expense of public sector employees who make on average much less than $100,000 a year, while private sector employees who make between $100,000 and $500,000 a year pay taxes at pre-deficit rates, and corporations continue to be granted privileged tax status in the hope that they will create jobs.

The McGuinty government in its bull-headed idiocy is moving forward with legislation that ignores the collective bargaining process and imposes working conditions, not negotiated contracts, on teachers and other educational workers. There can be no social contract without contractual agreements.

Mark Kikot, Burlington

Another Failure of the Press

I had an experience yesterday that served only to deepen my cynicism about the mainstream press (The Toronto Star being the sole exception). I called The Hamilton Spectator's Stephanie Crozier to suggest that her story about Friday's protest at the constituency office of my Conservative M.P., David Sweet, had overlooked an important element, the fact that a No Trespass sign had been erected at the entrance to the strip mall housing Mr. Sweet's office.

She told me that she didn't see how that was newsworthy. I tried to point out to her that it was a violation of our fundamental rights as citizens of a democracy, and that the kind of gated community mentality represented by the sign was perhaps also indicative of a deeper problem with what is happening in this country under Harper.

Her response was that the interdiction seemed reasonable, given that the owner's property had allegedly suffered some damage to plants some time ago. She had not pressed him on whether this damage had been caused by an individual or a group. As well, she had spoken to Sweet's office manager, who had stayed behind a locked constituency door during the protest, despite the fact that it was supposed to be open to constituents. Again, she saw this as perfectly reasonable.

While she was pleasant and cordial enough in our telephone discussion, I got the distinct impression as we ended our conversation that she had pegged me as some sort of crank.

Why am I even bothering to write about this? Is my ego so fragile that I cannot accept that my view did not hold sway over her? Not at all. It's just that when one remembers that a free press used to be regarded as a mainstay in protecting our democracy, it is yet another reminder of how debased our fragile democracy has become, and that the press has done little to mitigate that slide.

Andrea Horwath's Dance With Dalton

While I continue to remain dubious of what will happen when the Ontario Legislature votes on Dalton McGuinty's budget, I give the leader of the Ontario NDP, Andrea Horwath, top marks for what she says are her demands for NDP support.

It is, however, interesting to note how her plan, especially regarding a two-point increase in the marginal tax rates for those earning more than $500,000 per annum, is being met. Today's editorial in The Hamilton Spectator is a case study of the reactionary mind. The writer, Howard Elliott, while claiming to endorse her noble goals of increasing day-care spaces and boosting social assistance rates, decries her methodology, dismissing any prospect of raising taxes on the rich as "blatant wealth redistribution and social engineering," code words undoubtedly designed to appeal to and provoke the extreme right-wing.

A much more mature and nuanced assessment is offered by The Star's Martin Regg Cohn. While giving approval of her initiative to put "taxes back on the agenda," he does offer an additional suggestion for the use of some of the monies raised - defraying the deficit.

A tale of two newspapers, and a telling distinction between the bush league and the major league players.

Political Partisanship Masquerading As Political Analysis

With the Ontario provincial election pending, more and more opinion pieces will find their way into both national and local papers. I certainly welcome a broad range of views to read and react to. However, it strikes me as the epitome of dishonesty for a columnist to pretend he or she is writing a political analysis when in fact the purpose is to advocate for a specific party or candidate.

Such is the case with Andrew Dreschel's column in today's Hamilton Spectator. Entitled Ontario could face coalition government, the article, by invoking the prospect of a coalition, transparently attempts to invoke the same kind of reactionary fear that Stephen Harper so effectively exploited on his road to a majority government. While I encourage everyone to read the piece, here are a couple of snippets that illustrate Dreschel's larger purpose:

Hudak might end up leading a minority government.

If so, the idea of an alternative governing coalition or at least an alliance between the Liberals and New Democrats may very well be in the cards.

He then goes on to remind the reader of the alliance that took place between Liberal David Petersen and then NDP leader Bob Rae that ultimately led to the disastrous Ontario NDP government, suggesting that Dalton McGuinty and Andrea Horvath could find sufficient common ground to partner:

As with Peterson, McGuinty’s generally seen as progressive — if you take the word to mean left of centre.

The sowing of fear has begun.

Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.

Graeme MacKay Remembers Jack Layton

Editorial cartoonist Graeme MacKay has a poignant cartoon in today's Hamilton Spectator, which I am taking the liberty of reproducing below:

Asbestos - Part 2

I suspect you have to be of a certain age to appreciate the allusive wit of Graeme McKay's editorial cartoon in today's Spectator. Enjoy!

Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.

A Slightly Less Rosy View

“All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.” So said Doctor Pangloss in what is probably Voltaire's best-known satirical work, Candide. And perhaps it is understandable that I briefly thought that The Hamilton Spectator had decided to devote part of its op-ed page to French literature upon seeing the title, 'All in all, things are getting a whole lot better' (Dec.30).

Written by David Seymour, described as a senior analyst for the Frontier Centre, a conservative/libertarian organization whose website boasts the article's original title, 'Cheer Up- The World Is A Wonderful Place,' the article extols the tremendous advances the world has made in a number of fields, including economic growth (hasn't Ebay enriched all of our lives immeasurably?) sanitation and longevity. At the same time Seymour hints at something deeply pathological about those who do not see the glass as half-full, dismissing them as 'the glum,' 'the moaners, and 'merchants of doom.'

To the reader with critical-thinking skills, perhaps most risible is Seymour's assertions “that everyone is getting wealthier and the environment is generally improving ...” and that “ freer and wealthier countries are better environmental custodians. “

Hmm... In his worldview, the writer has conveniently omitted that pesky problem of climate change which almost all balanced studies suggest will ultimately engulf low-lying lands in catastrophic flooding, make many parts of the world much more vulnerable to drought and consequent starvation, and cost world economies many many billions of dollars. Indeed, although no single year's volatile weather can be attributed to climate change, one cannot help but begin to see a pattern emerging in hotter summers worldwide, record snowfalls and freezes in Europe, and massive disruptions in travel throughout the world.

Indeed, I suspect that few would argue that it is the industrialized, free and wealthy countries who are responsible for the massive buildup of greenhouse gases at the root of these changes, the same nations that are proving quite intractable in their refusal to lower their emission rates in order to slow down the rate of earth's degradation.

And yet, according to Mr. Seymour, things just keep getting better for our species.

Would I prefer to live in an earlier time, before the advances of which the writer speaks? Of course not. But let's not kid ourselves that a world offering us greater longevity, sanitation, opportunity and technological marvels is one separate from the world of poverty, child labour, human exploitation, starvation, disease and early death that are constant realities for a significant percentage of our fellow human beings.

But let's face it. There is something beguilingly attractive about Seymour's premise that we can enjoy and exploit the world, guilt-free, because after all, things are so much better now than they were in ages past. Indeed, that nettlesome small warning voice in our heads can finally be put to rest – as long as we are also willing to cast out any sense of morality and concern for those less fortunate who have to pay a very heavy price for our indulgences.