Now This Is The Kind Of Story I Like To Read About

The opportunity to report about something positive in the kind of blog I write is rare. For example, while reports abound of corporate theft and paltry remuneration for the workers that make big profits possible, less common is a story about a business doing the right thing. Well, here is one such story.

All through the night, the workers at Nebraskaland Inc., a meat distributor in the Bronx, roam the alleys of a cavernous warehouse, piling boxes of beef and chicken onto pallets in subzero temperatures. Until last year, many were paid $10 (U.S.) an hour, a little above the minimum mandated by New York State.

Then Richard Romanoff, the company’s owner, saw a news segment about a movement started by fast-food workers to push the minimum wage to $15 an hour. “I’m going to speak straight with you, my managers wanted to get people as cheap as they could,” Mr. Romanoff said. But something about the idea “really clicked,” he said. Last summer, Nebraskaland began gradually increasing the lowest hourly wage at the company, which will hit $15 at the end of this year.

One can rightly ask if we are witnessing a growing momentum in the movement toward raising minimum wages, a movement that captured not only Romanoff's but also national attention a few years ago when marches and strikes began in the fast-food industry to raise wages to $15 per hour. And it seems to be getting results:

In the past week, two of the most populous states in the country – California and New York – enacted legislation to raise the minimum wage to $15 within six years. Major cities, such as Seattle, Los Angeles and San Francisco, have pledged to increase their minimum wage to $15 in steps. In Portland, Ore., the minimum hourly pay will rise to $14.75.

It would seem that some employers are starting to get the message, and they are putting the issue into propoer perspective:

At Nebraskaland in the Bronx, Mr. Romanoff said roughly half of his 250 workers are benefiting from the wage increases, at a yearly cost to his company of about $350,000. “You pretend it’s an increase in rent, or electricity – you deal with it, one way or another,” he said.

Meanwhile, the number of applicants for job openings has quadrupled as news of the pay hikes spread.

Mr. Romanoff acknowledged that for some industries – including some of his customers, like supermarkets – such increases would be a challenge. “I just know for me, why wouldn’t I do it if I can afford it?”

Enlightened business leadership is a term I usually use ironically. I am happy that at least for today, I can speak of it literally.

What Are They Hiding?

You tell me.

The federal agency that levied a $1.1-million fine against a Canadian bank for failing to report a suspicious transaction had intended the hefty penalty to send a stern message to the financial sector. Instead, it has fuelled an outcry over why the name of the penalized bank has been kept a secret.

On Wednesday, all of the Big Six Canadian banks said they were not fined by Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FinTRAC, leading to speculation that the offending bank is a smaller entity or the Canadian branch of a foreign institution.

FinTRAC said that the fine, the first of its kind levied against a Canadian bank and paid two weeks ago, was supposed to act as a deterrent against taking a loose approach to reporting standards. Rules have been toughened up in recent years in response to money laundering and terrorism financing activities.

But it is unclear how this deterrent is supposed to work when the offender is granted anonymity and whether an unintended consequence of the fine is that it casts suspicions upon the entire financial sector.

While FinTrac has been happy in the past to name names, its reluctance to identify a big player is perhaps best explained this way:

Michael Baumbach is director of Toronto-based Diamond Exchange Toronto Inc. which was fined $12,750 and named by Fintrac in March. He says the agency is unfairly punishing smaller firms like his jewelry business, which is trying hard to comply, while letting bigger players with deeper pockets off the hook.

He believes the bank’s name was kept secret because it has resources at its disposal to give Fintrac a legal headache. Meanwhile, he feels powerless when trying to get answers about why it fined his company, which now faces bankruptcy over what he says is an unjust fine.

“The banks are not just going to sit back and have their names slipped, but a small company — we can’t do anything,” he said.

“All they’re doing is putting the smaller businesses out of business and the bigger businesses who have the legal clout to contest it, obviously they’re not naming names because of the fact that these companies will do something.”

Yet another reminder that the thing we call justice can too frequently be a fluid and elusive concept, more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

A Little Hard To Swallow

Despite the fact that I think and write a great deal about the disparities and inequities that plague our society, I am almost embarrassed to admit that until now, I had never heard of something called The Big Mac Index, launched, according to a recent article in The Star, in 1986 as a “lighthearted guide” to global purchasing power.

While its original purpose was as a tool to make exchange-rate theory more digestible, it has also become a barometer of purchasing power. In Britain, for example, which currently has a minimum hourly wage of ₤6.70, it would take 26 minutes of minimum wage labour to buy a Big Mac. That country has a target minimum wage of ₤9 by 2020, at which level it would take only 18 minutes to make the purchase. How does this compare with other countries?

Denmark is well ahead of the pack at a current 16 minutes. Australia: 18 minutes. France: 25 minutes.

Canada? A chart in the Financial Times shows our country at 33 minutes, which closely equates to a minimum-wage worker in Toronto, at $11.25 an hour, paying $6.10 for two all-beef patties, special sauce, etc. That same worker can look forward to a Dickensian 15-cent-an-hour increase come October.

This is not good, and our country could ultimately become an unenviable outlier when it comes to fair compensation, since the movement for increasing the minimum wage is gaining momentum in many jurisdictions:

Last Thursday, California passed a six-year phase-in to a $15-an-hour minimum wage — a landmark achievement as it’s the first state-wide success in the country. Seattle started its phase-in a year ago, with a $15-an-hour target set for Jan. 1, 2017. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who spent part of the winter travelling around in a “Fight for $15” branded bus, saw his push for a statewide $15 minimum watered down Thursday, but scored significant gains nonetheless, including a three-year phase in to $15 in New York City from the current $9.

Such increases are to be embraced, not opposed. As I noted recently, California's goal of increasing its wage will raise the incomes of 30 to 40% of workers in that state.

But what about all those fraught cries that such moves will result in massive job loss? According to Britain's Low Pay Commission, and as reported by The Star,

the commission wrestled with the predictable “job killer” charge — that businesses facing increased costs will flee or retrench, hurting vulnerable workers the most.

The “range of evidence,” the commission found from more than 140 research projects, was that the national minimum wage “has succeeded in raising pay for workers without damaging employment or the economy.”

While most past increases have admittedly been more gradual and modest in scope, the Commission

points out that businesses have previously worked around increased payroll costs by a variety of measures, including reducing non-wage costs or increasing productivity.

And there is one more thing that neither the Commission nor critics consider: the likelihood that the vast majority of people will not object to paying a little more for their products since it will allow their fellow-citizens the opportunity to conduct their lives with a little more dignity and a little more security.

Who could argue with that?

The Lord May Move In Mysterious Ways

... but I wish He would choose better messengers:

The Outrage Continues

In the weekend Star, Tony Burman gave five reasons that Canada should cancel the Saudi arms deal, an immoral agreement which the Trudeau government refuses to budge on. I will simply give the headings of his arguments here:

1. Canadians oppose it

2. Canada is being bought off

3. Saudi Arabia is an awful regime

4. Canadian arms are undoubtedly killing innocent people

5. Canada’s arguments have no moral core

In response to that column, Star readers offer their views:

Canada must cancel the contract selling armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia. Yes, let's pay the agreed upon penalties. Canadians are not so venal as to be ready to sell the lives of thousands of people, and in the process, sell their souls for a handful of coins.

Better to pay the penalty for cancelling the sale than the ones implicit in the ratifying of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In the latter case Canada will be liable to pay corporations that deem to be shortchanged by enacting legislation to redress old wrongs, like First Nations inequalities or environmental protection.

Canada should cancel this deal with Saudi Arabia and not ratify the TPP. We expect this government to deliver on the profound human values that have been a hallmark of Canada.

Bruna Nota, Toronto

Once again Tony Burman masterfully and succinctly provides us with an excellent and well-reasoned article on this very serious and important topic. Is our government listening?

As a Canadian and member of the Liberal party I call upon the government to reconsider the Saudi arms deal. Do we really want the blood of those weapons when used on our hands? Is this what Canada stands for? I think not. While this is a complex issue, there is a line to be drawn in the sand.

Canada is not “back” when it sells out its moral fiber with such a deal.

Janice Meighan, Toronto

Mr. Burman provides five compelling reasons why Canada should kill the $15 billion arms agreement with Saudi Arabia. Here are two more:

1. Canada may have bypassed its own tough weapons export control laws to ink this deal. In doing so it circumventing its own rule of law and due process.

2. Canada needs to bring Saudi Arabia's extremist theological and financial support for groups like Daesh, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and the like to light rather than trying to gain from it.

Ali Manji, Thornhill

Unfortunately, given the obdurate stance of the Trudeau government, it is doubtful that any of these compelling points will move any of our representatives' hearts and minds on this very important issue.

A Little Bit Of Justice

Just when I fall into despair that justice will ever prevail, the gods send me a small bone:

Former Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro lost his appeal of his election overspending case and was taken away to jail Tuesday, after an Ontario judge found he had committed offences that “strike at the heart” of the democratic process.

Del Mastro was convicted in the fall of 2014 for violating the Canada Elections Act during the 2008 election and was sentenced last summer to a month in jail.

Justice Bryan Shaughnessy, who heard Del Mastro’s appeal in Oshawa, offered this grave assessment of the latter's sins:

“Violations of the election spending limits and deliberate and concerted efforts to evade compliance with the honest and truthful reporting of contributions and expenses, such as occurred in this case, is a serious affront to our democratic system of government and fairness of our election process,” he said.

“The offences that Dean Del Mastro committed … are serious and do strike at the heart of our democratic electoral process.”

Never, I suspect, has there been a better poster boy for the morally-depraved universe of the Conservative Party that existed under Harper, a legacy that may well-resist the party's current attempts at renewal.

Lest We Forget

The Star's Tim Harper reports that Kellie Leitch, one of the robotic but very malleable mainstays of the former Harper regime, has become the first declared candidate for the Conservative Party's leadership.

I hope no one forgets her appearance with Immigration Minister Chris Alexander during the Conservatives' desperate and divisive bid to hold on to power during the last election. She and Alexander made a good team, given that both are singularly devoid of even a shred of personal integrity: