Pension Envy

That's what Martin Regg Cohn, in his column this morning, calls the resentment stoked by the right-wing towards those who enjoy defined-benefit pensions.

In what passes for debate in the debased arena we call contemporary politics, politicians of the right, most notably Tim Hudak, have declared public defined-benefit plans unaffordable and unfair:

“Our pension system should be fair, not gold-plated for some and non-existent for others,” he began (my italics). “Generous plans are the norm for many government employees while a majority of workers . . . have no access to a workplace pension at all.”

As Cohn points out, the alternative he is advocating, Pooled Registered Pension Plans, are

...merely glorified RRSPs — they make no pretense to paying a reliable pension. The only certainty is that they will make future retirees poorer and investment advisers richer (thanks to fat management fees), while leaving all of us more exposed to the inevitable social costs of dealing with a wave of financially exposed seniors.

Yet despite that, the public clamours to bring everyone down to the lowest level rather than putting pressure on politicians to implement an enhanced Canada Pension Plan, one that would allow participation by everyone. Such reform has been demanded by several provinces, but it would seem that pressure exerted by the powerful financial lobbies have scotched that possibility for the time being.

But of course, the fate of any reform, be it political, economic, or social, ultimately rests in the hands of the electorate, the same electorate that is currently engaged in sniping at fellow citizens thanks, in part, to being such easy and eager targets for manipulation by their political 'masters.'

Updated: Another Reason To Despise Harper And His Minions

Or maybe I just don't understand the nuances of business and a right-wing mentality that will consign millions to early and unnecessary deaths.

H/t Andre Picard

Even that bastion of Harper support, the Globe and Mail, has written about how reprehensible this action is.

Rand Formula Under Attack

The other day I wrote a post about Bill C-377, ostensibly a private member's bill put forward by Conservative MP Russ Hiebert that would subject unions to unprecedented scrutiny. It is, in fact, a bill being guided by the Prime Minister's Office.

In his column today, The Star's Thomas Walkom says that the real target of the bill is the Rand Formula, which requires all employees in a bargaining unit that has democratically chosen a union to pay union dues.

Initiated in 1946, it was designed as a counterbalance to the power of the employer and as a means of ensuring that those receiving the advantage of union working conditions and pay could not simply opt out in order to avoid paying union dues. All in all, most would say it is balanced and desirable.

Everyone, that is, except the extreme right-wing, i.e., the Harperites, who are using this bill as a thinly disguised union-busting tactic. Writes Walkom:

On the face of it, Bill C-377 makes no sense. It argues that because workers can treat union dues as tax deductions, the general public has the right to know — in exacting detail — how unions spend their money.

Indeed, as drafted, the bill is remarkably intrusive. It would require the names and addresses of anyone who gives or receives more than $5,000 from a union. Unions would also have to categorize how and why they spent their funds.

As he goes on to point out, there are many tax breaks offered to professional organizations such as doctors and lawyers, as well as the executives paid in stock options, all of which cost the treasury countless sums. Yet none of them are being subjected to the kind of scrutiny Bill C-377 would impose on unions.

Walkom suggests the ultimate purpose behind the bill:

The unstated aim of this bill is to provide ammunition to politicians, like Ontario Tory Leader Tim Hudak, who would scrap the Rand formula and introduce U.S.-style right-to-work laws designed to sap unions.

The Conservatives’ working assumption is that once Canadians see how unions spend their money, they will be scandalized. It is another round in a sophisticated public relations war designed to portray union leaders as undemocratic pork-choppers.

Given the irrational contempt and envy much of the public feels toward unions, it seems likely that if passed, the bill will achieve its nefarious intent, and we will all literally be the poorer for it.

A Sad Spectacle

“This comes down to left-wing politics. The left wing wants me out of here and they’ll do anything in their power. I’m going to fight tooth and nail to hold on to my job. If they do for some reason get me out I’ll be running right back. As soon as the next election, if there’s a byelection, I’ll be the first name on the ballot.”

Thus spaketh Rob Ford, the soon-to-be former chief magistrate of the self-proclaimed 'world-class' city of Toronto. Although I do not live there, I have had an abiding interest in its political machinations since Ford was elected, and I retain that fascination in the reaction to his ouster.

Rob has been called many things: stupid, arrogant, willful, stubborn, and uncouth, to name a few. It seems to me that most of those qualities are evident in the above excerpt from this morning's Star; moreover, being an ardent student of human nature, I find his reaction emblematic of the mindset of the right-wing, echoing as it does the sentiments of brother Doug and other reactionaries who have made their way into politics.

To take a reductionist approach, those reactions seem to epitomize something ingrained in those inhabiting a certain part of the political spectrum: intolerance of those who have a different viewpoint. How else can one explain the absolute dismissal of a legal ruling by a respected judge? How else does one explain the following by brother Doug:

His and his ilk's inability to admit any wrong by Rob Ford, his dismissal of the proceedings as 'politically motivatated' and engineered by 'the social elites' and 'the unions' bespeaks a kind of contemptuous fanaticism dangerous to the collective good. Populist politics, I guess the Ford brothers' only real political currency, is better left in the history books with people like Huey Long.

We need and deserve better.

The Not-So-Hidden-Hand of Harper

Although I believe unreservedly in the vital role that unions play in both protecting and promoting workers' rights, I make no apologies for the times that I have been critical of them. Cronyism, questionable expenditures, and corruption have no place in organizations meant to serve their members.

Nonetheless, the latest thinly-disguised attack against unions by the Harper regime goes beyond the pale, one that feeds into and exploits the inexplicable envy and antipathy felt by much of the public toward those responsible for helping their members earn a living wage.

Bill C-377, ostensibly a private member's bill put forward by Conservative MP Russ Hiebert, is getting help from the Prime Minister's office to modify measures that have touched off an unusual outpouring of concern from Canadians.

Denounced as a well-structured assault on trade union rights by MP Pat Martin, the bill,

...would require labour unions or any group involved in collective bargaining with an employer to provide Canada Revenue Agency with information annually on nearly all financial affairs, with the reports to be published on CRA’s website.

However, the information that would be required goes well beyond simple financial statements:

Required information includes every transaction or disbursement over $5,000 for conferences, collective bargaining activities, training, lobbying, political activity and payments to union officers and members. The same reporting requirement applies to all investment trusts and funds operated by unions on behalf of their members. The name and address of each person involved in any of these transactions would have to be reported to CRA and would be made public.

Especially vexing is the arrantly hypocritical Harper justification for this information, with Hiebert claiming

...the bill is in keeping with the Harper government’s attempt to promote transparency and the public has a right to know how unions spend their members’ dues, which are tax deductible and according to Hiebert cost Ottawa about $500 million in foregone revenues a year.

Transparency and lost tax revenue are concerns of this government?

Really?

A Speech From Which We All Could Learn

I suspect, however, I know how the right-wing would react to this:

H/t William B Devitt III

From Platitude Central - Part 4

For part 4 in my examination of political platitudes that substitute for substantive policy pronouncements, I turn to the Ontario Liberal leadership race to replace Premier Dalton McGuinty, a race that thus far has been 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.' I don't expect that to change in the foreseeable future.

My source for this latest installment, Questions for the would-be leaders, is yesterday's print edition of The Toronto Star. Thus far it has not appeared online, so I will simply excerpt some of the 'gems' from the answers given by the aspirants. In this post, I examine their answers to the first question,

In the aftermath of Bill 115, what would you do to improve relations with Ontario teachers?

Sandra Pupatello, considered a frontrunner along with Kathleen Wynne, had this to say:

...I intend to do that by sitting down with teachers' federations and maintaining an ongoing conversation. One thing I would like to discuss is whether the current model for negotiations is the right one for the times.

Sufficiently vague and innocuous as to be above criticism, save for its lack of substance?

Kathleen Wynne:

I will sit down with our education partners to strengthen the bargaining process at both the provincial and, importantly, the local levels.

Dare I ask what it means and how one accomplishes this rather nebulous goal?

Eric Hoskins:

...If I'm premier, I'm confident we can rebuild our relationships based on mutual respect.

'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished, Eric.

Gerard Kennedy, the Energizer Bunny of politics, has what actually constitutes a policy statement, but can't resist tossing in a platitude afterwards:

I will restore full bargaining rights and I will not use the powers in Bill 115 ... Collaboration with our teachers is the key to helping our students succeed.

Glenn Murray, whose dearth of important political experience is really no excuse for policy vacuity, offers this:

I would build and maintain the same good negotiating environment as when I was recently minister of training, colleges and universities.

Charles Sousa:

... It is my sincere intention to re-establish trust and goodwill with our teachers.

Harindar Takhar, the latest and last to enter the race:

... Maintaining a positive dialogue with our public-sector labour partners is essential.

There are two other questions posted in this Q&A. Should it appear online, I will provide a link in an update.

Oh, and for the record, inspired as I am by the 'vision' of these leadership hopefuls, I would like to take the opportunity to announce that I am for world peace, the elimination of poverty, and truth and justice for all.