The Age of the Disposable Worker

On this blog I frequently lament the fact that we live in the age of the fungible worker, the one who is easily exchanged for another should his or her expectations of decent wages and working conditions threaten to impede the flow of easy profits accruing to corporate coffers. It is happening abroad, an example evident in the declining fortunes of China, which has seen wages rising, resulting in multi-nationals shifting their production to lower-wage regimes; we see it in North America, with manufacturers closing up shop to relocate in jurisdictions with more lax labour regulations, the Caterpillar closing being one of the more recent and egregious examples in Canada.

But as bad as corporate indifference to workers' fates may be, there is an entirely distinct class of workers for whom Canada as a nation shows little but withering contempt: the migrant worker, the people we import from places like Jamaica, Mexico and the Dominican Republic, to do the work we refuse to do - agriculture labour such as picking tobacco and fruit and vegetables. As bucolic as such endeavours may sound, they are often fraught with danger, but even when the unthinkable happens, workers and their loved ones are not extended the kinds of protections that Canadians enjoy, an example being the right to inquests into deaths that occur on the job.

Such was the case with Ned Peart, a Jamaican worker brought to Ontario through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program, [who] died in 2002 after a tobacco bin fell and crushed him at a farm near Brantford. When the Office of the Chief Coroner refused to hold an inquest, Mr. Peart’s family lodged a human-rights complaint in the hopes of catalyzing broader legislative reforms.

Watch the video below and see if you can avoid the natural distaste that arises when such obvious injustice occurs:

For Those Who Don't Mind Gov't Surveillance Because They Have Nothing To Hide

You might want to take a moment to read Rick Salutin's thoughts on the implications of living in a country where environmentalists and others who oppose the government's corporate agenda are regarded as terrorists.

As well, this Canadian Dimension piece might also give you pause.

A Rare Moment of Praise For The U.S.

Despite being deeply cynical about Amercian poltics in general, and Barack Obama in particular, a rare opportunity to praise both has just arisen. Although relatively modest in scope, in response to the terriblly unsafe working conditions in Bangladesh that have cost so many workers their lives and maimed countless others, the U.S government has moved to suspend Bangladesh’s special trading privileges to force that country to improve the situation.

Although the greatest source of these dangerous conditions is the clothing industry, it will, unfortunately, be only minimally affected by the suspension, for reasons explained here. Nonetheless, it is hoped the move will put pressure on both Canada and the EU to take appropriate measures to further 'encourage' the Bangladeshi government to clean up its act:

Since the April disaster, Canadian labour activists have tried to convince Ottawa to use its tariff program to force Bangladesh to improve safety and establish workers’ rights.

The pressure is now on Canada, said Hassan Yussuff, secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress.

“I applaud the U.S. decision. I hope Canada and the EU follow,” Yussuff said from Ottawa.

Alas, such a hope, at least as it applies to Canada, appears to be a forlorn one. It would seen that Mr. Harper and his corporate handlers have never met a situation of desperate workers it has not tried to exploit, hence its fond embrace of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, its changes to E.I., its efforts to weaken unions domestically, etc. etc.


A finance ministry official told the Star that Canada is “concerned about working conditions in the global ready-made garment sector” and supports efforts to improve standards.

BUT

It does not appear Ottawa has any plans to follow the American lead, calling the move largely “symbolic” as it doesn’t apply to the garment industry.


No doubt Corporate Canada and Mr. Harper (separated at birth?) will soon unleash a torrent of rhetoric about constructive engagement through trade to improve the conditions of workers abroad. No doubt Galen Weston will continue with his sanctimonious rhetoric. And no doubt countless lives will continue to be lost in Bangladesh and elsewhere if no one else picks up where the Amertican example leaves off.

Duh

Who could have seen this coming?

Just Because ...

...he deserves all of the ridicule and contempt we can muster.

The Peripatetic Pamela

It would seem that the good Senator from somewhere, Pamela Wallin, is on the road so much that she has been denied health coverage in both Ontario and Saskatchewan, at least according to The Globe and Mail. This conflicts with a report in The Waterloo Record, which states that she has an Ontario health card, which is not necessarily such good news, given her senatorial claim of being a Sasatchewan resident.

What is a wily woman from Wadena (originally) to do? But then again, the question of health coverage may be the least of her problems.

But perhaps all of this pales in comparison to the problems her fellow provinceless Red Chamber mate, The Puffster, has caused for their common master, Mr. Harper, whose handling of the Senate imbroglio has left many decidedly unsatisfied.

On Corporate Welfare

David Lewis, the one-time head of the federal NDP and father of Stephen Lewis, used the phrase corporate welfare bums in his 1972 federal election campaign to describe the various subsidies handed out to the corporate world. It was a withering jab at the world of business, so proud to trumpet the merits of unfettered capitalism while not too proud to take every bit of free money that government has to offer it.

Today, that concept has never been more relevant. Probably the most egregious example of corporate welfare will become apparent in the coming months as the rest of Canada ponies up to pay for the environmental devastation wrought in Alberta that is, in my mind, the direct result of climate change, change which the corporate world continues to deny, evident in its ongoing concerted effort to oppose any measures that might ameliorate its most devastating effects. Corporate Canada will be asked for nothing by the Harper regime, which will continue to lower its tax rates as soon as the deficit is eliminated.

The futility of corporate welfare is, I think, very nicely addressed in the lead letter appearing in this morning's Star as Morgan Duchesney of Ottawa points out the folly of lowering corporate tax rates and getting nothing in return:

Re: The Great Recession still lingers, June 22

Stephen Poloz, the newly minted governor of the Bank of Canada, is working hard to distance himself from former governor Mark Carney’s “dead money” warnings to corporate Canada. Does that mean that Poloz also approves lowering tax rates for non-investing Canadian corporations that happily ship jobs to low-wage destinations like China?

As former CEO of Export Development Canada, Poloz is an expert proponent of corporate welfare. As corporate Canada continues to avoid research and development investment while stridently demanding lower taxes, the regime of public subsidy for private profit continues unabated under the Harper government’s well-advertised Economic Action Plan. Such behaviour exemplifies the eternal mythology of the so-called free market.

Private sector investment could reasonably be left to corporate Canada if our industrial titans were not so addicted to public subsidy. Ongoing multi-billion-dollar tax breaks and outright grants to the energy sector are good examples of this public-risk- for-private-profit model. In spite of the cost to working people, stiff corporate resistance to investment remains strong, although this hesitation is categorized as “thrift” by the generous Poloz. There is every indication that the Harper government plans to reward Canadian corporations with further tax cuts in spite of their continued reluctance to invest their profits in necessary research and development.

Of course, our political leadership has little desire to take a hard line on the business elite, who are, after all, their funding source and future employers. The tired excuse about not wanting to punish “job creators and innovators” is a bit threadbare in light of abysmal levels of corporate investment in Canada.
If Canadian corporations are operating overseas while shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions, exactly who is benefiting and just how “Canadian” are these companies if they employ foreigners and only benefit arms-length stockholders?