The High Cost Of Free Trade

Despite the rhetoric by our political and corporate overlords about the wondrous benefits of free trade, multitudes of people on both sides of the border are becoming increasingly aware of its true costs.

In today's Star, readers weigh in with their usual penetrating insights:

Re: Next U.S. president won't nix trade pacts, March 19

As free trade deals are in the spotlight this U.S. election cycle most of the discussions are vague in details, often serving up false choices or straw men instead of pragmatic insight into the issue. This is common practice among politicians, I’m not surprised. Even Bernie Sanders is kind of vague, or when he is detailed the media cuts to commercial.

But I am very surprised at David Olive with comments like, “And that also has nothing to do with trade deals” in reference to low wages and anti-unionization practices in America. I believe that with free trade deals, employers have gained tremendous leverage over labour with the simple threat of “accept our offer of a low wage or we ship your job overseas.”

Empirical evidence sure leads us to this conclusion. I sure don’t see free trade bringing us tonnes more good paying jobs as was the selling feature a few decades ago. Now new trade deals are just presented as “good for the economy.”

Then after trying to justify current trade practices as good, David Olive suggests the poor economy “has almost everything to do with three decades of bipartisan public policy that has withheld economic fairness from the majority of the U.S. population.” Well please be specific. What exactly are those unfair economic policies? Perhaps labour outsourcing, which free trade enabled. Or union busting, again enabled by the tremendous leverage trade deals granted employers.

If the argument that technology has replaced many of the jobs, why did factories move to cheaper labour markets.

Don’t take me wrong, I agree with free trade. My maple syrup for your grapefruits duty free, no problem. I’m even happy with CCM skates on the retail shelf with Asia-branded and produced skates right beside them, duty free. Now that’s free trade.

Let’s compete for market share and the consumer wins. But anecdotally, CCM skates made in Asia and sold here is not in the implied spirit of free trade.
What we’re experiencing now is vastly advantageous to corporate owners, not at all for workers.

As Donald Trump offers up scenarios of China vs America in trade deals we see one of those false choices. It’s really ownership vs labour; China is just the benefactor. China did not dictate that American companies move to China; the American companies made those choices.

Another sidebar advantage for ownership under free trade is by having local jurisdictions offering up low property taxes and such incentives to attract manufacturing plants. These trade deals are sure looking lopsided.

Doug Lata, Pickering

Re: TPP will put Canadian concerns up against U.S. demands, March 21

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has devastating potential in terms of our environment and our democracy. It gives big business and industry powers equal to or greater than that of our elected officials.

The people of Canada didn’t vote for international big business in our election; we voted for elected representation. The TPP would diminish our nation’s sovereignty and allow other nations to set our standards and pricing. International trade is a great idea but not at the cost of our nation and democracy.

Justin Trudeau must stand by his election promise and allow public consultation on this deal. This is a deal that will directly affect many Canadians and we need to be heard.

Barbara Rose, Toronto

With "Full speed ahead" the battle cry of our intrepid 'masters,' expect nothing to change in the foreseeable future.

Spotlight

Given that they are generally aimed at a younger demographic, I rarely watch movies these days. However, on the return leg of our trip, one of the films offered by Air Canada was the award-winning Spotlight, important for a few reasons. The winner of two Oscars, the movie

tells the riveting true story of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Boston Globe investigation that would rock the city and cause a crisis in one of the world's oldest and most trusted institutions. When the newspaper's tenacious "Spotlight" team of reporters delves into allegations of abuse in the Catholic Church, their year-long investigation uncovers a decades-long cover-up at the highest levels of Boston's religious, legal, and government establishment, touching off a wave of revelations around the world.

I will engage in no spoilers for the film, but I have to say it resonated with me in two very important areas. The first involves my own history of being subjected to both verbal and physical abuse during my Catholic school days, abuse that began early in Grade One with the strap, progressing to being made to 'stand in the corner,' a common method of public shaming and ostracism in those days, to slaps across the face, all by the third grade. As I recall, my infractions usually involved, as they used to say, 'talking to my neighbour.'

Things got worse in high school, where the same methodology (minus the strap) was employed, but in a much more intensive way. Teachers, both lay and cleric, seemed almost demoniacally driven to wear down any sense of our self-worth, suggesting our worthlessness on a regular basis. The physical abuse escalated to being slammed over our heads with heavy books, more forceful slapping across the face, and outright mockery.

I vividly recall my Grade Eleven physics teacher being especially cruel one particular day. I did not know the answer to a question when called upon, so he asked someone else who, with his textbook open but concealed, read off the answer, at which point the teacher said, "Whoa, slow down, Potter, slow down. Warwick is kind of slow." His bon mot was met with a response of general hilarity throughout the classroom, and absolute humiliation on my part. But I was hardly the only victim. There was a lad in the same class who had a stutter, and I will always remember that same teacher trying to hide his amusement whenever he gave an answer.

I could tell you so many stories, but the above serves to illustrate, I hope, that even though I was never a victim of sexual abuse, what I did experience left a deep scar for many, many years, and an abiding hatred for those who had subjected us to such measures. It was a hatred I only managed to let go of well into my forties.

I often think that those experiences were the genesis of my own extremely strong aversion to abuse of power in its many shapes and forms. They helped make me what I am today, both the good and the bad.

However, beyond my own personal reasons for valuing the movie, there is a much greater lesson to be had from it. It underscores very effectively both the power and the importance of the press, the same press that we find in our time under constant financial barrage. Had it not been for the doggedness of the Boston Globe and its reporters, the scope of both the abuse and the concealment at the highest diocesan levels would never have come to light, and the priest would have continued to be relocated to other parishes, free to carry on their predations. The movie is both an indictment of the tawdriness, cowardice and complicity of the Catholic Church and its many prominent Boston lay supporters, and an extollment, in a very quiet way, of how the profession of journalism can often rise to noble heights.

So yes, I still subscribe to a print newspaper, despite the ever-rising costs, because I know that good work costs money and a great deal of time. Think of all the investigative stories you have read over the years, and the results that ensued. My own paper of choice, The Toronto Star, has a remarkable track record of getting things done, often to the point of affecting both and provincial governments to the point of inspiring remedial legislation in a number of areas.

The battle will never end, as long as we live in such an imperfect world.

Enlightened Leadership

Having just returned from Southern California, I have no intention of indulging myself in travel reminisces at the expense of my readers. I'll only say that thanks to my son Matthew, it was one of the best experiences of my life. It also yielded some very interesting insights.

As people who check my blog regularly may know, I tend to be very critical of politicians, police and big business. In their own way, each often massively abuse their authority. Yet I also try to balance my criticisms by acknowledging good practices when I find them. The California chain, In-N-Out Burger, is one business that epitomizes both respect and opportunity for its employees, something that, in an ideal world, would be the norm.

Begun in 1948 by Harry Snyder and his wife Esther, and still a family-run chain today, it is freed from the corporate demands that so often mean treating employees like dispensable and replaceable tools. Like the exceptional corporate-owned Costco, it knows that investing in its workers is key to its success. While all store employees start at the very bottom (cleaning tables, floors, etc. before they can even cook a burger), the job's potential is quite significant. Consider these facts:

In-N-Out starts their employees at $10.50 [now $11] an hour. That's the highest of any fast food chain in the country.

While the median wage for a manager of a fast food store is $48,000 per year, employees at In-N-Out can eventually work themselves up to $120,000. That's otherwise unheard of in the industry.

According to Carl Van Fleet, the current CEO, there are solid reasons behind being an industry leader:

Our founders, Harry and Esther Snyder, started In-N-Out Burger in 1948 and were focused on taking great care of our customers, taking great care of our associates and maintaining an intense focus on quality. That focus remains firmly in place today and paying our associates well helps us maintain it.

We strive to create a working environment that is upbeat, enthusiastic and customer-focused. A higher pay structure is helpful in making that happen but it is only part of our approach. It is equally important to treat our associates well and maintain that positive working environment in all of our restaurants.

So good remuneration is only part of In-N-Out's formula for success. It offers benefits that are indeed rare in so many workplaces today, and almost unheard of in the fast-food industry. The perks for full-time employees and their dependents include

- a package of medical, dental, and vision benefits
- a retirement plan with a Defined Contribution Profit Sharing Plan and 401(k) Plan
- company contributions made into the plan

Many part-time employees also qualify for the above, as well as the accrual of six days cumulative sick-leave days per year, flexible working hours to accommodate people's needs, chain-wide closure on Christmas Day, Easter, and Thanksgiving, and free meals on work days.

Oh, and one more thing. In response to consumer demand, the chain has committed to use only antibiotic-free beef, although no date for implementation has yet been announced.

We ate at one of the stores, and I can tell you four things: It was very busy, despite it being about 3:30 in the afternoon; all the employees were polite and appeared very positive; the food was quite good (everything, including the buns, are fresh and never frozen), and the prices were excellent.

All in all, In-N-Out Burger appears to be an industry leader in a field where so many shameful and demeaning practices abound. Too bad others refuse to acknowledge that healthy profits and respect for employees are not mutually exclusive.

California Dreamin'

Thanks to a very generous Christmas gift from my son, who will be joining us from Edmonton, my wife and I are heading off to Southern California for a five-day trip. Ever since I was a teenager I have wanted to visit The Golden State, but for reasons that include my almost infinite capacity for procrastination, I have not. I think my son recognized if I was ever actually going to make the trip, he would have to give me a big push. Thank you, Matthew.

I should be back blogging in a less than a week. See you then.

Saying Goodbye To Alex For Up To One Year

.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I was a teacher for so many years; maybe it is because I have been a parent for even longer. But the fact is, I cannot get the killing of Alex Wettlaufer out of my mind. Unfortunately, however, although I will be thinking of him, I doubt that I will writing anything more about him for up to as much as one year. That is how long we may have to wait for the results of the SIU 'investigation' into his death at the hands of the Toronto police.

As reported in yesterday's Star, the only paper, by the way, that seems to be showing continued interest, the deeply flawed Ontario Police Services Act says

officers “shall not, during the course of an investigation by the SIU into an incident, disclose to any person any information with respect to the incident or the investigation.”

The regulation is intended to ensure the integrity of the independent investigation, but some critics say it creates a situation where the public is left in the dark about a high-profile issue, often for months at a time.

This means, according to the SIU, that

it cannot reveal whether Wettlaufer was armed because the investigation is ongoing. The vital piece of information may not be provided until the probe is completed, a process that typically takes several months, or up to a year.

In other words, there will be no information forthcoming on anything that will either confirm or refute growing public suspicion that another Sammy Yatim tragedy has occurred, nothing to suggest that people needn't be increasingly fearful of a force that is sworn to protect and serve them.

The Wettlaufer family, which hotly contests the suggestion that Alex was armed, is not willing to wait for this drawn-out and inexcusably long process to play out.

They are now hoping to find a lawyer to help obtain any surveillance video that may have captured parts of the incident, Timothy [Wettlaufer] said. They want to obtain as much information as possible that could help explain how his “soft-hearted” brother wound up fatally shot by police.

The family is hopeful TTC cameras may have captured some of the initial altercation, which began near Leslie station. However, Timothy said he is concerned there may be little independent evidence — such as witness accounts or video evidence — from the dark ravine where the shooting occurred.

From the broader community, there have been calls for much-need reform to the act that is preventing the release of any information:

Darryl Davies, a criminology instructor at Carleton University, said the province should consider changing the Police Act, currently under review by the ministry of community safety. Davies says there is far more information about fatal shootings when they don’t involve police, and that’s not they way it should be.

“There is no justification for treating the cases differently. In fact one could argue that because the shooting is by a person employed, trained and paid by a government entity that there should in fact be more transparency and not less,” Davies said.

Even some police are frustrated by the constraints of the act:

Mark Valois, a former Toronto Police officer and retired use-of-force training officer, said the legal gag-order ... can be “very frustrating.”

“Absolutely there’s times when things happen, and things are hitting the news, there’s rumours and you might read something and say, ‘that’s not what happened, but I can’t say anything,’ ” he said.

Secrecy inevitably invites suspicions of coverups, sanitization of facts, the illegal fabrication of police notes and the development of 'plausible deniability.'

So goodbye for now, Alex. You may be tragically gone, but you are not forgotten.

ONE FINAL NOTE: The gofundme campaign to raise funds for Alex's funeral is ongoing. So far 29 people have contributed just under $1700. Should you care to lend a helping hand to the family at this very difficult time, please click here.

In A World Where Truth Mattered

....this might be significant. Unfortunately, the more Donald Trump lies, the more popular he seems to become with his acolytes, who laud him for his 'authenticity'. Too bad so many Americans seem to have slipped into a parallel universe.

The Tyranny Of Conformity

Yesterday, KirbyCairo wrote another of his thought-provoking posts, this one on the current plight of the federal NDP and its search for renewal. That prospect is dim, Kirby says, unless the party can break free from what he calls the top-down party structure and its inability to address issues that matter to Canadians. It is a plaint that was also echoed, but with a different emphasis, in a piece by Thomas Walkon in yesterday's Star. And now, the former NDP candidate for Toronto Centre, Linda McQuaig, writes about the tyranny of conformity imposed upon political candidates.

First, some background. You may remember this moment of frankness from the last federal campaign, (start at the five-minute mark on the video) and the fireworks that ensued:



In her column today, McQuaig discusses why she entered the political arena:

I ran (unsuccessfully) as the federal NDP candidate in Toronto Centre in the 2013 byelection and again in 2015, with the dream of putting into action progressive ideas I’d championed as a journalist. In jumping into politics, I realized I was giving up some of the freedom I’d enjoyed as a columnist and author to become part of a team with a collective message.

What conclusions did she draw from those experiences?

... it strikes me that the iron hand of party discipline — by which all three of our major political parties keep tight control on their messaging — can also have the effect of limiting debate and discouraging independent thinking, to the detriment of our democratic system.

It was a fact brought home to her by her experience depicted in the above video showing how her honesty was used against her:

Out of the blue, ... [Michelle] Rempel was trying to goad me into saying something negative about the oilsands.

I knew I was supposed to “pivot” — that is, deftly switch to something in line with party messaging.

Host Rosemary Barton sided with Rempel and pushed me for an answer.

So — to pivot or not to pivot? If I didn’t pivot, I knew I’d be stepping into a trap laid by Conservative strategists to portray the NDP as anti-development. But if I did pivot, I felt somehow I’d be betraying the planet.

After a split second in which I saw my political life pass in front of me, I decided to side with the planet, saying “a lot of the oilsands oil may have to stay in the ground if we’re going to meet our climate change targets.”

The ensuing ado included being predictably pounced upon by Harper, as well as other Conservatives and Liberals, including future prime minister Justin Trudeau, who denounced my “extreme” position.

Others recognized it as a mere statement of fact, but, of course, facts seem to have little relevance or value in political campaigns.

Citing Susan Delacourt, McQuaig says the experience

seemed to reinforce the case for tight political messaging based on the rule, as reported by Susan Delacourt in her book Shopping for Votes: “Do not talk of sacrifice, collective good, facts, problems or debate.”

In other words, avoid complexity and controversy — or anything else that assumes the voter is capable of accepting the responsibility of citizenship.

Much to her credit, the journalist questions whether this is the right way to go.

The pressure to conform and adopt a 'group-think' mentality is one of the chief reasons I have avoided being involved in groups for most of my life. I am glad that Linda McQuaig recognizes that such constraints are not for her. Her voice is much stronger, more appreciated and more effective as a journalist seeking to be a constructive contributor to some much-needed national debate than as a mouthpiece for a political party. We are all the better for it.