Note To Tim Hortons Head Office: Please Respect Your Workers

On Sunday, I wrote about The Toronto Star reporting that a Tim Hortons franchisee is eliminating paid breaks for his/her employees as retaliation against the June 1 increase of the minimum wage in Ontario to $11 per hour. Yesterday, I sent off a letter to the head office of the coffee and donut emporium. I would encourage others for whom this is an issue to do the same.

Here is that letter:

To Whom It May Concern:

It was with great dismay that I learned in Sunday's Toronto Star that some Tim Hortons' franchisees are retaliating against the new Ontario minimum wage by eliminating paid breaks for employees. An owner's memo released by an employee stated:

“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.”

While I imagine this news is most disheartening to the many who faithfully and cheerfully serve your products, you should be aware that it is also very distressing to consumers who care about workers' rates of remuneration and working conditions and try to make ethical decisions in their discretionary purchases. I am one such person among many.

Your corporate response cited in The Star, that these decisions are made at the franchise level by each individual Tim Hortons restaurant owner, consistent with provincial labour regulations, was unsatisfactory in the extreme for many reasons.

Tim Hortons has long marketed itself as a Canadian institution and icon that we should all revere as patriotic citizens. Who can forget the role your coffee and donut emporium has played over the years in bringing caffeine comfort to early-morning hockey dads, sending underprivileged kids to camp, and being in the most desolate of locations, including Afghanistan 'supporting our troops.'

Sad to say, all of that iconography rings hollow when head office absolves itself of any responsibility for the actions of its franchisees. To hide behind legalities, deferring to provincial regulations and decision-making protocols, conveys an air of corporate indifference and avarice, not leadership.

There is no doubt in my mind that should this controversy have a negative effect on your very profitable operations, the lamentations about price pressures cited by the above-quoted Toronto operator notwithstanding, you would use your influence to rectify this unacceptable gouging of your employees.

As one very active in social media and blogging, I intend to spread the word about this egregiously unfair situation as widely as I can. My purpose, of course, is to encourage as many as possible to boycott Tim Hortons until equity is restored.

I look forward to hearing from you on this matter.

...................................................................................
Should you feel so moved to express your views about the company's mistreatment of its employees, here is the link.

Mark Carney Speaks On The Consequences Of Unbridled Capitalism

Mark Carney said the following to a group of the world's elites last week:

"Just like any revolution eats its children," Carney told the audience of global power brokers, "unchecked market fundamentalism can devour the social capital essential for the long-term dynamism of capitalism itself."

"All ideologies are prone to extremes. Capitalism loses its sense of moderation when the belief in the power of the market enters the realm of faith."

It's rather gratifying to think of certain groups and individuals with their knickers in a twist, isn't it?

A Mound Of Sound Guest Post: The Lessons Of Afghanistan

Drawing upon his war studies course, The Mound of Sound offers the following perspective on what went wrong in Afghanistan:

Bad leadership, especially when it is political and military, costs lives. Our miserable experience in Afghanistan and its aftermath has exposed just how bad Canada’s military and political leadership has been going straight back to the Big Cod himself. I have written about this so many times over the years that I wouldn’t want to beat a dead horse but my mind was changed by a few passages out of a text from my war studies course from Kings College, London.

The book is “New and Old Wars, Organized Violence in a Global Era,” by LSE professor Mary Kaldor. She argues that, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, America and her allies sought to defeat insurgencies by employing “old war” or conventional war tactics that only achieved predictable failure.

“The conventional military tactics adopted by coalition forces were a significant contributory factor to the violence. Both during the invasions and after, the United States adopted ‘old war’ tactics in what were complex twenty-first-century ‘new war’ conditions. They were aimed at defeating the insurgencies. Both in pursuing al Qaeda and the Taliban and in responding to the growing insurgency in Iraq, American military forces largely stayed in their bases and ventured out to attack the enemy. Confronted with the brutal reality of the insurgencies, coalition troops seemed to default to military logic. Like earlier similar types of counter-insurgency in Vietnam, for example, or Algeria, the excessive use of force, widespread detention and torture and abuse as a means of extracting information, and the attempts to destroy the safe havens of the insurgents through the attacks on places such as Fallujah, Samarra, Najaf, or ...Kandahar and other Taliban strongholds in Afghanistan follow from this military logic.”

When our enemy, the Taliban, extended peace overtures, they were spurned.

“Instead, the remaining Taliban were harassed and intimidated both by US Special Forces and by commanders like [the murderous Gul Agha] Sherzai [governor of Kandahar] who received financial rewards for killing or capturing Taliban. Arbitrary arrests, night raids and targeted killing all contributed to a profound sense of humiliation. From 2004, the Taliban began to return to the South and the South East. Operation Medusa, undertaken by Canadian ISAF forces, was supposed to clear Kandahar of insurgents: hundreds of Taliban were killed or captured. Like Fallujah, however, the end result was new recruitment and new tactics.“

From the day we arrived in Afghanistan to the day we left we had no clue of what victory meant or the cost of victory. We swept those considerations away, ignored centuries of history including the stark lessons of the recent past, and banged away on our drums. We hunkered down in our garrisons and ventured out the gates to patrol for the bad guys. We had the tanks, the helicopters, the strike fighters and attack helicopters. We had the drones, the electronic intelligence and the artillery. We also had them severely outnumbered.

I knew we didn’t have a hope and that our soldiers were led by utter incompetents the day I read a quote of a Canadian colonel denouncing the Taliban as rank cowards for their unwillingness to stand in the open and fight like men. He might as well have ridiculed them for refusing to stand in the open, with their Korean-vintage assault rifles and light machine guns, while we leisurely rained 2,000 pound bombs on their heads with impunity. They were cowards, in this Canadian idiot’s mind, for choosing not to commit suicide. - Game Over. This colonel wasn’t remotely capable of thinking in terms of the Taliban’s war, the war that actually mattered, the new war that would decide the issue.

Professor Kaldor offers an interesting opinion on the real purpose of America’s (and her allies’) failed wars:

“...the purpose of the war was war; it was designed to keep alive an idea of old war on which American identity is based, to show that old war could be upgraded and relatively pain free in the twenty-first century. I do no want to suggest that this was cynical manipulation; on the contrary, the conservatives in the Bush administration probably believed in American power and their mission to spread the American idea. My point is rather that they were caught up in a narrative of their own making, which resonates well with the American public and is reinforced by the American media. And it can be argued that this belief is mirrored by a similar belief among some elements of the insurgency, particularly those who espouse the idea of a global jihad, or Islam against the West.”

The 3rd edition of Kaldor’s book went to press before the Afghan issue had been decided, while there was still time to pluck some measure of victory out of debacle.

“There have been moments in the aftermath of the invasions when there were genuine opportunities to establish legitimate governments. In Iraq, the problem was the reliance on expatriates, the dissolution of the army and the Ba’ath party, and the preoccupation with sectarian politics. In Afghanistan, the problem was the inclusion of commanders, who had previously been defeated by the Taliban and had been totally discredited by the Karzai government. The biggest failure in both countries has been the failure to consult civil society – not just NGOs who are often financed by outsiders, but a range of local people, women’s groups, student groups, tribal elders and others. In both countries ordinary people felt marginalized and neglected as people with guns were chosen as the main interlocutors for the outsiders.”

“Even today (i.e. 2011) some of these mistakes could be rectified. For example, in Afghanistan, a serious attempt to arrest those involved in corrupt practices, many of whom have American passports, or to condemn fraudulent election practices, would be one way to get rid of predatory commanders and could help to provide a better environment for the emergence of democracy. Moreover, in both countries ‘islands of civility’ do exist. Greater attention to those islands as opposed to the defeat of enemies could help to spread civility instead of predation.”

Our combat soldiers and junior officers can be proud of their service. Our senior military commanders should hang their heads in disgrace. Our political leaders, those who milked the last drop of political capital to be had from the dead and the mangled bodies and minds of our soldiers, should simply hang.

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:

A Safe Bet

Mother Jones predicts that the next episode of Cosmos will inflame the climate-change deniers. I think that is a safe bet:

Sometimes You Just Have To Hold Your Nose

It would never occur to me to withhold my vote in any election. Yet the one occurring in Ontario on June 12 is particularly striking in its paucity of real choice. I can't remember a campaign for which I have felt less enthusiasm.

Of course, Tim Hudak's extremism disqualified him as anyone worth considering long ago. His palpable anti-unionism, although muted in this campaign, would surely resurface in full bloom should he ever become premier. Coupled with his contempt of public service, he is a viable candidate only for those with blunt minds, those who take comfort in stark choices and worldviews.

The Liberals come with some terrible baggage and the ennui that inevitably characterizes a regime too long in power. While the gas plant debacle has had the most prominence, there have been many others that call into question their fitness to continue in office. And then there is the latest reminder of their way of doing business, the MaRs planned bailout that is just gaining traction as we move into the final stretch of the campaign.

The third major party, the NDP led by Andrea Horwath, also offers real problems for the conscientious voter. Her failure to support a Liberal budget that had much to offer progressives, on the pretext that she doesn't trust them to keep their word, along with her devolution into populist politics and policies, have led many to abandon any hope for her party. It is hard to escape the notion that power at the expense of principle is the NDP's defining characteristic under her leadership.

Because we are soon going away for a week to visit our kids in Alberta, we will likely vote today in an advance poll. Since I always try to be honest in this blog, I will tell you who we are casting our vote for, in case you are interested. It is Kathleen Wynne's Liberals who, despite the above, seem the least odious of the three major parties on offer.

Hardly a ringing endorsement, I'm sure.

Everything Is So Simple

That is, if you have a fundamentalist cast of mind like Pastor Matthew Hagee, who says this whole climate change thing is ordained by God, and to pay no attention to those environmentalists trying to tempt you from the true path.

Perhaps the good pastor should bone up on his Bible, given that his 'proof' resides in things he claims were said by Jesus in Matthew, Chapter 25, that just aren't there. Even if you go to the previous chapter, 24, the closest Jesus gets to mentioning calamity is when he says, There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.

But then, I guess this wouldn't be the first time that Hagee's ilk have taken liberties in their unwholesome zeal for The Apocalypse.