On RBC and Temporary Foreign Workers

In the news this weekend was a story about RBC hiring a firm to provide IT workers. It doesn't sound like the kind of breaking news that would have the Bank at the centre of a controversy; till you get the details. The temporary foreign workers are here to be trained by the existing crew; who's jobs they will then assume, till the bulk of the work is finally transitioned over seas.

The Temporary Foreign Worker Program-TFWP was established to provide assistance to businesses facing labour shortages, due to skills or bodies. It seems reasonable to allow businesses to bring in workers if the lack-there-of would result in the shutting of their doors. Some have voiced concern over abuses that may arise dues to this program and older ones dealing with care givers and the agricultural sectors.

RBC has found there way into this morass. What the Bank is doing is outsourcing a piece of their business; nothing unusual about that. The problem is that you aren't allowed to bring in foreign workers to displace Canadian ones. Had RBC just outsourced the department I can't imagine it would have raised an eyebrow. The idea of training the workers imported to take your job is something all together different and subsequently very news worthy.

RBC troubles are the latest incidence of companies testing the boundaries of the TFWP. In BC a mining company applied for and was given the right to bring in Coal miners from China. They argued and had supporting evidence that they couldn't find workers or skills in Canada to construct and operate their mine. This assertion has been opposed by Unions concerned with the importation of Labour. Additional documents suggest that the the Chinese workers maybe be here for up to 14 years. Nothing temporary about that.  There does appear to be labour shortages in BC but from the looks of it there is no plan to remedy that situation. It is appears easier to to hire foreign workers than to recruit and/or train Canadian ones.

One of the advantages is in wages; the Federal government has granted businesses the right to pay 15% less to TFW. Other abuses unintended but real are unsafe working conditions  wages withheld or refused, threats of deportation. The kind of things you might expect where vulnerable people are involved.

 No business wants to pay more than they have too. TFWP is like outsourcing only in reverse. Gone are the days when if you can't find a skilled worker you train one yourself; If you can't find someone to do the job you increase the pay till you do.

And it is all about cost. When a business talks of competitiveness they no longer mean innovation, quality or customer service; they mean cost, and only cost. Where once the desire to reduce costs led to the transfer of manufacturing and other jobs to Low Wage regions; temporary worker programs have led to the importation of low wage workers for that employment that couldn't easily be exported. It is argued that TFWP has an effect of lowering working standards in Canada and I think it is a point that has weight.

 Non Western economies didn't lose their manufacturing to a Developing world that did it better, they lost out to Countries that could do it cheaper. Now for those we have arranged to recreate Low Wage enclaves in Canada.

A Mailing from Rick Dykstra- On Bill C-377

Today I received a mailing from my MP Rick Dykstra letting me know how happy he was at the passage of Bill C-377. The mailing comes with the usual Orwellian title, "Transparency For Workers", that seems ever present, whether it be business or politics. The Private members bill was promoted as legislation to safeguard the worker and their union contributions and asserts the right to legislate based on the tax deductible nature of union dues. My earlier comments of C-377 can be found here. To summarize this bill requires a labour organisation to public disclose financial and other information. It should be noted that union members already have access to this information. Public disclosure will come at an increase cost; imposing a burden on the union operation. The result is money spent on red tape isn't spent promoting union interests and therefore their members interests. Win win for conservatives.

The Conservative Party of Canada of which Rick Dykstar is a member has a spotty record with labour. They routinely declare economic necessity, ordering striking workers back to work. Have allowed companies to bring in foreign workers, which I have no problem with unless they are paid much less or are hired over qualified Canadian workers. Dykstra represents a riding with a history of unionisation. So he has to present his vote in a positive light, a vote in favour of legislation that Unions describe as an anti union .

I quote:

"...Bill C-377 an(sic) law that will help ensure that unions use funds from their members effectively."

Since members already have access to information on union expenditures, it is hard for me to see how       C-377 does this. What it does do is make publicly available such information; useful I'm sure to media outlets and public policy associations. Dykstra goes onto say this bill makes union disclosures comparable to " ...a public summary of financial data much like (emphasis added) Canadian  charities already do." "Much like" is not the same as "just like" it is not reasonable to compare what are essentially different organisations. A better comparison might be to corporation.

He goes on to say that 

"Union disclosure is in place in other countries like Great Britain, France, Germany, Australia and the untied States. In fact, many Canadian Unions, like the United Steelworkers of Canada, have been reporting this information to the public under the 1959 American law."

I guess the take away is that our law is no different from what is practised in other countries, so there. A quick google search didn't find any links Germany labour legislation, it was a quick search, but I did find this, a HuffPo article written by Terrance Oakey; where similar points are made. The title of that piece,"What union leaders aren't telling you about Bill C-377". Mr. Oakey is part of a group called Merit Canada. Merit Canada is a group formed to challenge Quebec's closed shop construction industry. 

I quote,

"I am glad that we were able to successfully change the legislation to better protect the privacy of individual workers. Because of those changes, I was able to support the bill."

What he refers to is the amendment that changes certain disclosures from a minimum of $5000 to $100000 dollars in order to meet a privacy concern. Though there are still concerns it is not enough. It is good that Dykstra's concern over the privacy of workers was allayed to the extent, that he could now comfortably vote for an anti-union bill.

We also have a photo of Dykstra meeting with union reps. There is no link to the content of what they may have discussed, but we are assured by Dykstra that  he "... made sure the final bill addressed concerns they raised about privacy rights." This is in reference to the amendments made to the bill. Should I presume then, that these union reps were thus happy with everything else? We may only guess.

This mailing ends with a "share your thoughts" survey. 

1. Should workers be able to know how unions are spending their money? Yes - No

Well there was know space for " they already do". I'll say Yes because saying No doesn't seem like a real option.

2. Do you agree that privacy of ordinary workers should be protected? Yes - No

Why yes I do, but the wording does seem to leave open the option of violating the privacy of extraordinary workers; an oversight for sure.

3. Is Rick Dykstra on the right track? Yes - No

I guess that depends on whether you think complete support and  loyalty to Conservative Party of Canada is "on the right track. "

I'd like to think that we do legislate best practices, that we will go and see how other countries do it and take the best back to our country. Germany has a strong union movement and a Huge manufacturing presence, worth emulating. On the other hand the United States has a union movement under attack and the commensurate decline in labour rights. In fact Tim Hudak, leader of the Progressive Conservatives of Ontario has declared his desire to imitate other American  anti-union legislation like "Right to Work".  I would say that some labour models are better than other. It just depends on the colour of your collar.

I don't believe there are many or perhaps any institutions that can't benefit from a bit of look over. Things change over time; and we must take hard looks at our institutions and see if they are in need of reform. It is natural and necessary, what I oppose is the insinuation of ideology in the process, and its tendency damage, not make better or way of life.

Short Commentary on Friedrich Hayek's-The Road To Serfodom

I finally got around to reading The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek. It seems to be a foundational book for many modern conservative/libertarian; one that informs their world view to a large extent. If I wanted to understand, to any degree how conservatives/libertarians arrive at their positions this book would be helpful.

It was written during the body of the Second World War, beginning at a time when Germany and Japan appeared invulnerable, defeating country after country; the allies, England and her commonwealth but not yet including the United States were pushed to the brink of defeat; it was finished in 1943; the beginning of the beginning of the end for the Axis powers. The Book published in Chicago in 1944. The book feels a bit prophetic, which I think has as much to do with its content as the time and place it was written. The Road to Serfdom is not really apocalyptic; the changing fortunes of the allies over the course of its writing made sure that it would be a warning for Democracy and not a eulogy. Chaos is a breeding ground for such tract. The purpose of Hayek's book is to inform us about totalitarianism; its origins and nature and provide a prescription for its avoidance.

The book within well argued. Hayek is not as shrill as the modern conservative that draw heavily on it in support of more radical positions. The Road To Serfdom is about the rise of Socialism as a Political force as a curative to inequality; primary economic equality by reducing poverty. Socialism aims to reduce poverty through planned economies which necessitates taking on huge powers to regulate the individual and so curtail that freedom to act of the citizen. The transition from socialist to totalitarian state is considered by Hayek as unavoidable; Hayek is of the opinion that economic planning will fail to achieve the desired results through consent; and having disabled the Free Market and Individual freedoms; socialist who sought to govern with consent will be pushed aside those willing to use force to attain their goals. Fascism and Communism are the unavoidable heirs to Socialism. The Road to Serfdom is a book for its time, but less so our time.

Modern conservatives take many liberties with Hayek's major themes. They consider any government involvement in the economy as anathema; though many will ignore subsides to corporation. The planned economy that Hayek feared would erode personal liberty and the efficacy of the Free Market is no longer seriously proposed by any modern liberal democracy and is mostly ignored by those governments that call themselves social democracies. When everything government does comes to be defined as Socialism then the meaning is lost and so is Hayek's warning. Hayek did understand that there are things that governments must do because it is impracticable for private interests to undertake; roads and the like. It is safe to say that among moderns, the list of good government interventions are seriously limited.

Hayek believed that the Free Market was integral to a free society; when you impinge on the former the latter is impaired. I agree that their is a relationship between the two; but see it as a co-evolution. We have the beginnings of political freedom, however narrowly and tenuously applied with the advent of the Magna Carta. The Black Death and the decline of Feudalism; in England, inadvertently gives rise to new economic possibilities, by way of labour mobility and technical innovation. It is hard to give precedence to either economic or political changes that account for the Freedoms we presently enjoy. Modern conservative have a tendency to put forward the Free Market as the fount of our freedoms, in that the are steady with Hayek.

They part ways again on the issue of government support for the citizen. Hayek understands that the Free Market; can unpredictable and may leave labourers destitute and it is in the interest of government to ameliorate as much is possible where doing so doesn't impact the impartial workings of the Free Market. The modern conservatives in an orgy of personal responsibility diatribes seem willing to cut lose the citizen almost entirely.

The Road To Serfdom is an important book, historically and as a way to understand the thinking of the Modern Conservative. Do yourself a favour and read it, but I recommend borrowing a copy from the Library.

Bill C-377 An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations)

Another day another Private Member's bill. I'm getting the feeling the Harper Government is using it's back bench to shoulder some of the legislative burden. I don't think they are acting independently of Harper. Which begs the question; why isn't his government introducing this legislation instead of passing it through a backbencher. The MP in question is Russel Hiebert. A quick look at his political position places Hiebert firmly to the far right. It is then not unreasonable that he would present the Anti-Union bill, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations). It's not a long bill and thankfully doesn't come with the usual Orwellian Alternative title. 


A piece of  legislation is presented to meet a need; the need may be defined as either practical or ideological.   The test of any legislation is whether it harms or benefits Canadian citizens. While this should be objective; more often than not it is an argument beset by partisanship. I take a simple approach; any legislative action should be neutral or beneficial to the majority of Canadians whenever possible; in cases where there is obvious harm, a pressing necessity must be demonstrated and that such legislation have an expiration date.

So what is the Bill C-377? It amends the tax code to require labour organizations to disclose all financial information, expenditures, investments salaries and other activity dealing with the disbursement of money. The information will be made available for public viewing. 

The reason given for given for the new reporting requirement is that it is a public tax benefit. While public money does not go directly to unions; union members receive tax benefits related to their membership. Public money however indirect means citizen have an interest. The best way to promote and protect that interests is the implementation of a rigorous and transparent reporting requirement. 

There are two fallacious notions being promulgated here "transparency" and "public tax benefit" in justifying an increased reporting requirement. They are closely entwined ideas, public money and knowing how that money is being spent. On their face it is hard to argue against the idea of supervision over public money. That is the slight of hand in this Three-Card-Monty, legislation. Their is no public money, it's a tax deduction; you get your own money back. If there is no public money then the need for transparency no longer applies. 

I will note that unions are require to make financial disclosures already. In fact union members have access to all the financial dealing of their unions. The idea inferred by C-377 is that union members are not in fact kept informed about union goings on. The notion that C-377 will actually help guard the interests of union members is laughable. You don't get this level of Orwellian logic till you encounter "Right To Work' legislation. 

The fact that other groups and associations charitable or otherwise will not face such strenuous reporting requirements indicates a subtler intent. Doctors and other fee paying entities who receive similar tax benefits do not face a heightened scrutiny. It can be argued that charities should receive greater public scrutiny because of the work they do and the level of trust given to them. The legislation imposes a burden on a particular type of association, labour, leaving similar groups alone. 

It is clear that Unions and labour is being singled out for an increased reporting burden. It won't be cheap to comply. It will cost money to hire personal to deal with the new level of disclosure. Government types sniff and say stuff like "Internet filing" and "digital"; as if the information is magically compiled and filed by accountant elves. Money spent on this regime, can't be spent furthering Labour interests; how convenient. A novel way to reduce opposition to conservative government.

The finally requirement of posting for public view the very detailed working and financial interest of a Labour organization, is ridiculous. Why does the public need to know what a Union leader is paid; union members already do. I imagine much like the purpose of "sunshine" laws; fill a days worth of conservative media; generate faux outrage and division. 

In any measure it can be said that C-377 doesn't meet the legislative test. It serves no practical purpose. It discriminates  against one type of association. It imposes a burden without a discernible benefit. There is no pressing level of necessity. It is partisan. It is a bill meant to challenge Labour, impose burdens and weaken the union movement. It should not pass.

Labour Day, Tim Hudak and the Right To Work

Labour Day seems a good time to look at Tim Hudak's position on Organized Labour. In June the Progressive Conservatives of Ontario presented a white paper "Flexible Labour Markets" as part of their series entitled "Paths to Prosperity".  It describes a need to modernize the rules regarding how Unions operate in the work place, among other things. In the United States they call it "Right to Work" and it's all the rage. Here is a cool website, National Right to Work, you can see how serious they are, their Header includes "Defending America's workers from the abuses of compulsory unionism since 1968". Satire is stunned into silence. 

The Pitch: Unions have too much power, and as a result, the economy, the employer and the employees suffer. The Solution: Change the rules that govern how unions operate in the work place. No more mandatory membership or mandatory dues, institute secret ballots and full disclosure of unions spending and revenues. Thrown in for good measure: Open Bid tendering, Fix the Labour relations board, it seems that it is not impartial or limited enough in scope, WSIB needs to face competition from private Insurers.

At first blush a person might mistake Hudak for a rights crusader, trying to get the Jack Booted of Union oppression off the neck of the freedom loving worker. A second blush should come at the recognition of your error. It is right that people should question things that are mandatory, so as not to impose an undue burden on a citizen. So Hudak say " let's look at mandatory union dues and membership", he find these to be an undue burden on the employee; and you know they might be for some. 

Membership and dues paying are at the core of a Union. Their strength is derived from the ability to speak for all employees, to withhold work if necessary. The dues go toward the maintenance of the Union, and goals the leadership deems necessary for continued prosperity of its membership. If membership optional, part of the workplace opts out, not of the benefits, just the risks and of the costs, the ubiquitous "free rider" of conservative nightmares. A divided work place certainly favours the employer, at least in the short term. Eliminating mandatory dues, will for one, reduce Union effectiveness, which in turn reduces the willingness of members to pay dues. Nobody likes to pay and get nothing in return. It also eliminates Unions as an effective political force. That's not a problem for Hudak since the Progressive Conservative are unlikely to see a dime from Unions.

Opening the Union Books. Who can argue with transparency. I can't, but the open books policy has little to do with the Hudak's concern for the ill used worker. It is a just one more way to attack Unions, fomenting descent within the membership. An attempt to turn members against their leadership. I will support any effort that gives a greater say in how money is spent, but not to the point where it paralyzes a Unions ability to act. I wouldn't handcuff government spending,(useless balanced budget legislation as a case in point)like that so I won't Unions. 

What Hudak offers is faux freedom for the worker, resulting in a weaker Union. Which shockingly give real freedom and increased power to the Employer. What of the salutary effect of this policy on the labourer and on the economy. Its a good, but sad thing that we can look South to see how the American experiment with "Right to Work" is going.

Twenty-three American states plus Guam have "Right to Work" laws. Well this admittedly anti-right to work site, and this one too. hey I gave you the Pro right to work site at the top so don't complain, says things aren't so good in those  "Free the Worker from Evil Unions States". In those states, workers earn less money, less is spent on education, higher workplace accident, lower standard of living. Hard to say those are good things unless you are a Running Dog Capitalist, and then likely you only say it to the like minded. Just so you don't think I'm hiding the good effects of  "Free the Worker from Evil Unions States" This articles speaks glowingly of some of the good things it has wrought. What you read is higher rates of economic growth, population movement to towards those states with RTW laws and something referred to as " accumulated growth in manufacturing income" I'll translate that; companies move to States where unions are weak or non existent, people who need jobs go to those states where there are jobs, what "accumulated growth in manufacturing income" is i don't know, the quotes are theirs. But I might offer that if they had meant to say people in RTW states made more money they would damned well have written it in big letters.

What I'm reading and don't see a lot of articles denying, what ever side of the issue you are on, is that RTW laws have the sole purpose of  eradicating unions. They create an environment favourable to business. A worker in the RTW states is worse off, not better. It is an odd effect that in a country where 70% of the economy is driven by consumption that such strenuous effort is made to redirect wealth from the many to the few. The reality that  people with less money spend less, has no apparent effect on policy like this.

This is what Hudak would like to bring to Ontario, under the guise of freedom. Hudak is Pro Business which shouldn't mean Anti-Labour but some how does. People need jobs. Those jobs need to be able to support a reasonable standard of living. Unions help in that regard but its tough going. Hudak seeks to make it harder.

I am hopeful that the citizen of Ontario can think through the concept of "Right to Work" and see it for what it is, an attempt to lower the standards for all But a few.  

Have a happy Labour Day