Ontario PC Leader Tim Hudak’s recent white paper, “Flexible Labour Markets,” has been the centre of much controversy and debate.

Hudak trumps up a lot of nonsense and feigned concern about union democracy and transparency, but in the end offers little more than selfish individualism in opposition. That his hostility towards the union principles of social cooperation and compromise for the greater good puts him at odds with the basis of Canadian democracy — from elections to tax collection — appears to be lost on him.

However, the depth of his hypocrisy is perhaps best illustrated by his total lack of concern for fairness and transparency when it comes to his corporate backers. According to a recent study of Ontario elections, between 2004 and 2011, over 40 per cent of Progressive Conservatives’ funds ($26 million) came from corporations.

By contrast, the New Democratic Party received a paltry $666,000 from corporations. Overall, corporate contributions comprised nearly 40 per cent of all election financing while union contributions made up a mere five per cent. And in a testament to the extent of internal democracy within the labour movement, it is worth noting that unions donated money to parties of all political stripes, including a handful who pitched in to the Progressive Conservatives.

In the last provincial election, the Conservatives received donations from over 500 corporations, including more than 40 numbered companies whose dealings we may never know, since there is no obligation for private corporations to reveal financial information. To add insult to injury, corporations enjoy a tax rebate that is more than double the tax rebate available to individuals, and corporations are allowed to carry forward unused tax credits for up to 20 years!

As individuals, wealthy CEOs and bankers — along with their respective spouses and sometimes even children and extended family — regularly make the maximum possible contributions to their preferred party or candidate. Such largesse is rarely possible for low and modest income individuals; for many workers the only campaign contributions they will ever be able to afford are the ones they make collectively through their union.

Clearly, Hudak’s vitriol toward unions has little to do with protecting the interests of individuals and even less to do with protecting the integrity of our democratic processes. It is the modest efforts of union members to counter the influence of corporations and the wealthy that provokes the ire of Hudak and his followers.

You see, unions are nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its members. Any organization comprised of human beings is subject to the same fallibilities. That is precisely why democratic union processes are so critical. As in any form of representative democracy, union members use conventions, general meetings and other formal gatherings to hold their leaders accountable — and to elect new ones.

Members create new policies as necessary, adopt campaigns, review the allocation of financial resources and accept audited financial statements as already required by law. The members themselves debate and decide on the political priorities of their union; this is a basic democratic right.

What Hudak simply can’t wrap his head around — and what has provoked his venomous campaign to try to clamp down on union campaigns during elections — is the fact that working people aren’t buying his pro-corporate political agenda and they invested their energies and hard-earned union dues to convince their neighbours to vote against the Hudak Conservatives.

Working people have long memories that harken back to when Hudak served under premier Mike Harris’ conservative government when it dismantled social programs, spiked tuition fees, gutted workers’ rights and turned provincial surpluses into a deep deficit. It is, therefore, pretty unsurprising that working people would pull their votes from the provincial Tories who they see as working against their welfare; just as it is no surprise when the corporate sector pulls out the stops to bankroll a Tory platform that promises to fuel their shareholder profits through deep government tax cuts. That’s politics.

But when Hudak tables a plan to undermine union membership, gut dues collection, and limit the political campaigns that workers undertake through their unions — while continuing to give corporations and the wealthiest Ontarians carte blanche to buy influence with his party — that’s duplicitous.

What Hudak forgets is that, regardless of the prevailing laws, working people have always come together to resist exploitation and to make working conditions better for the next generation of workers. That’s why — no matter what — union members will continue to work hard, not only to address workplace issues, but also to engage in the fight for permanent, progressive legal changes so that their children will have decent jobs and better lives.

For all these reasons, I am confident that — like they did eight months ago — the majority of Ontarians will reject Hudak’s politics of division, and instead choose to make Ontario fair for everyone.

Below and attached is a detailed background document providing analysis of Tim Hudak’s recent white paper on “Flexible Labour Markets.” Hudak’s paper poses a threat to the livelihoods of all working people by proposing to eliminate workers’ right to collectively bargain and by driving wages down across the board.

OFL BACKGROUNDER

Tim Hudak’s White Paper on Flexible Labour Markets

Published on July 16, 2012

Flexible Labour Means Cheap labour

In June 2012, Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak opened up a new attack on labour unions and working people with his release of his white paper on “Flexible Labour Markets.” The paper lays out the Tories’ new platform on workers’ rights and unveils an economic scheme for the province that is centered on reduced public services and cheap labour. Blindly aligning their interests with those of profit-hungry corporations, the Tories fault unions for the province’s economic difficulties while offering no plan for creating new jobs, revitalizing the manufacturing sector or securing greater corporate investments in the provincial economy. They propose to bring Wisconsin-style laws to Ontario that would eliminate the rights of workers to collectively bargain and drive wages down for all workers. Hudak’s proposal is a plan for poverty, not prosperity, and it requires strong opposition from workers from every sector, whether union or non-union.

Flexible Labour Means Cheap labour

Throughout the white paper, Hudak laments the wages and benefits secured by workers in Ontario’s manufacturing sector and blames the workers for expecting to maintain middle-class wages to support their families. For Hudak, “prosperity” means turning Ontario into a low-wage, regulation-free haven where corporations rake in profit at the expense of Ontario workers, communities and the environment. “Flexible labour” means cheap labour.

In this respect, Hudak differs little from his federal counterpart Stephen Harper, who, as Prime Minister, has presided over an expanded Temporary Foreign Worker Program, allowing employers greater leeway to import people from all over the world with precious little obligation for their well-being. When the work is done, or if the worker is maimed on the job, they are literally disposed of—sent back to their home countries with nary a thought. Most recently, the Harper government gave employers the green light to pay migrant workers between 5 and 15 percent less than the average wage for that occupation

Lest we think this could never happen to “Canadian” workers, the Harper government has already signaled its intent to push workers with active Employment Insurance claims into jobs earmarked for Temporary Foreign Workers, including those jobs paying 5 to 15 percent less. In the last budget, Harper eliminated the federal Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act and weakened pay equity provisions within the public service.

Cheap, flexible, and disposable: this is the Conservatives’ shared agenda, from Stephen Harper to Tim Hudak.

This ideology is barely concealed in Hudak’s white paper. In it, he approvingly cites a research document that suggests net manufacturing labour costs between the United States and China will “converge” in 2015.

In 2010, the average manufacturing wage rate in China was $3.10 US per hour, compared to $22.30 US. It seems hard to imagine that such a yawning wage gap could be overcome in a mere five years. Would this mean that Chinese wages are finally catching up with those in the U.S.? Hardly. While there has been some wage growth in China, in response to growing labour unrest (and a series of worker suicides) the real story here lies in the dramatic decline of manufacturing wages in the U.S.

Aircraft manufacturer Boeing has deliberately opened new plants in low-wage U.S. jurisdictions. There they pay their employees an average $14.00 US per hour – half the rate paid at its Washington plant where workers have fought to maintain decent pay and benefits through union membership. Likewise, in 2011, Boeing posted record profit rates – more than 20 percent higher than even the previous year when the company’s net income had soared by over 152 percent.

When Caterpillar workers at Electro-Motive Diesel in London, Ontario rejected a 50 percent wage cut, the company immediately announced the opening of a new plant in Muncie, Indiana where the wages range from $12.00 to about $14.50 US per hour—just over half the average 2010 manufacturing wage rate in the U.S. and much less than half the wages earned by the workers in London, Ontario. In 2011, Caterpillar posted a nearly 60 percent increase in fourth quarter profit and the highest yearly growth rate since 1947.

Rather than challenging a corporation that shut down Canadian operations in pursuit of cheap labour, Hudak was silent in the Legislative Assembly. He is now campaigning against the prosperity of London workers whose former wages sustained their families and the community as a whole, including businesses small and large. Even the Chamber of Commerce knew all too well what the loss of good jobs would mean for local businesses, and came out squarely in support of the workers. The London Mark’s Work Warehouse removed Caterpillar products from its shelves in protest.

Hudak is trying to imitate legislators in the U.S. who have introduced laws that make it harder for workers to organize collectively and defend their interests against domestic and multinational corporations. This has facilitated a downward trend in U.S. wages, not just among union members but also among all workers. As noted by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the real median weekly earnings of U.S. wage and salary workers fell by almost two percent between 2010 and 2011.

This should be no surprise. As Indiana’s Commerce Secretary Dan Hasler stated plainly to the Wall Street Journal: “Our goal in Indiana is really pretty simple: It is to help companies improve profitability.”

Silencing the Critics & Neutralizing Opposition

Implementing a cheap labour strategy is not possible without neutralizing opposition.

Harper has led the way by attacking the finances of any group or individual that dares to criticize his policies: de-funding church-based charities and immigrant advocacy organizations, smearing environmental groups and firing outspoken public servants. And now, Tim Hudak is taking a page from the Harper playbook by attacking unions.

Because unions have an independent source of funding they are far less susceptible to the state-sanctioned bullying and financial blackmail regularly meted out by governments in collusion with the corporate elite. By undermining dues collection at source, Hudak hopes to undermine workers’ ability to oppose his agenda.

In seeking to repeal the Rand Formula, Hudak opens an affront on workers’ rights that even former Premier Mike Harris was unwilling to touch. The Rand Formula is a basic tenet of workplace democracy that was secured nearly sixty years ago to ensure that all those in the workplace who benefit from the improved wages and benefits achieved by the union make the same financial contribution. While the law allows workers not to join a union, they are required to contribute to charity an amount equivalent to the dues paid by union members.

For more than two centuries, working people have pooled their pennies to form unions and then shared their resources with other workers at home and around the world. Far from examples of “losing focus” as Hudak suggests, union members are proud of their record in support of human rights internationally. Indeed, as Ontario’s workforce has become more diverse—and more international—these traditions of solidarity have grown stronger.

For union members, sharing resources also means giving to charities. As only one of numerous examples, in 2011 working people across Canada contributed more than 50 percent of the United Way’s $500 million budget, through its partnership with the Canadian Labour Congress. In this light, Hudak’s attack on unions is also an assault on all those who depend on the services provided by the United Way and other worthy charities.

But there can be little doubt that what really offends Hudak is the fact that union members pool their resources to participate in municipal, provincial and federal elections. When voters pulled the rug out from under Hudak’s 2011 electoral campaign, he blamed Harris-weary union members for campaigning against him and running television ads to expose his agenda.

It is no coincidence that Hudak released his 20-page attack on basic workers’ rights immediately after an Ontario court struck down—for the third time—his legal challenge against the Working Families Coalition ads. A defiant Conservative MPP, Lisa MacLeod (Nepean—Carleton), told reporters: “we will continue to fight this in the court of public opinion.” And fight they did—issuing their call for all workers to be stripped of their collective rights.

Corporate Transparency: The One-Way Mirror

Hudak’s concern for fairness and transparency does not apply to his corporate backers. According to a recent study of Ontario elections, between 2004 and 2011, over 40 percent of Progressive Conservatives’ funds—$26 million—came from corporations. By contrast, the New Democratic Party received a paltry $666,000 from corporations. Overall, corporate contributions comprised nearly 40 percent of all election financing while union contributions made up a mere five percent. And in a testament to the extent of internal democracy within the labour movement, it is worth noting that union members donated money to parties of all political stripes, including the Progressive Conservatives.

In the last provincial election, the Conservatives received donations from over 500 corporations, including more than 40 numbered companies whose dealings we may never know, since there is no obligation for private corporations to reveal financial information. To add insult to injury, corporations enjoy a tax rebate that is more than double the tax rebate available to individuals, and corporations are allowed to carry forward unused tax credits for up to 20 years!

As individuals, wealthy CEOs and bankers, along with their respective spouses—and sometimes even children and extended family—regularly make the maximum possible contributions to their preferred party or candidate. Such largesse is rarely possible for low- and modest-income individuals; for many workers the only campaign contributions they will ever be able to afford are the ones they make collectively through their union.

Clearly, Hudak’s vitriol toward unions has little to do with protecting the interests of individuals and even less to do with protecting the integrity of our democratic processes. It is the modest efforts of union members to counter the influence of corporations and the wealthy that provokes the ire of Hudak and his followers.

Unions and Democracy

Unions are nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its members. Any organization comprised of human beings is subject to the same fallibilities. That is precisely why democratic union processes are so critical. As in any form of representative democracy, union members use conventions, general meetings and other formal gatherings to hold their leaders accountable—and to elect new ones. Members create new policies as necessary, adopt campaigns, review the allocation of financial resources and accept audited financial statements as already required by law. The members themselves debate and decide on the political priorities of their union; this is a basic democratic right.

If Hudak truly had the welfare of working people in mind, he would recognize that unions raise the bar – for all workers – on wages, benefits and working conditions, and that families with decent livelihoods have more money to spend on services and small businesses that help the economy thrive. This is the conclusion of the World Bank, which found that by every meaningful economic indicator, countries with higher rates of unionization have lower unemployment and inflation, higher productivity and speedier adjustments to economic shocks. Union membership also reduces wage differences between men and women. So, in a nutshell, improving workers’ rights is the best way to reduce economic inequality. But to be swayed by that moral argument, one first has to see equality and fair wages as a priority.

Conclusion: Ontarians Deserve Better

Hudak’s plan is hardly original. It is another variation on the race to the bottom where jobs are permanently in flux, wages are low and the social safety net has all but disappeared—yet corporations make out like bandits. His vision for lean government and labour flexibility represents a fundamentally different future from the one most Ontarians expect—and deserve.

Stripped to its core, Hudak’s vision is not about “modernizing” the labour market in the interests of prosperity for all. He seeks to usher in an era of permanent uncertainty for all working people to the overwhelming benefit of corporations. To accomplish this task, Hudak must neutralize his opponents in every possible arena, from the workplace to elections.

What Hudak forgets is that, regardless of the prevailing laws, working people have always come together to resist exploitation and to make working conditions better for the next generation of workers. That’s why union members work hard, not only to address workplace issues, but also to engage in the fight for permanent, progressive legal changes so that their children will have decent jobs and better lives.

For all these reasons, I am confident that—like they did eight months ago—the majority of Ontarians will reject Hudak’s pathway to poverty, and instead choose to make Ontario fair for everyone.

Thanks to Cope 343 staff and the OFL for providing this information.

Resource Trap is a Canadian Disease
by Mel Watkins

http://www.straightgoods.ca/2012/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=553

Friday, May 25 – 7 p.m. A Multi-media introduction to the Communist Manifesto, 2011, 83 minutes A video by Carl Davidson and Zachary Robinson, With graphic arts, cool video clips, moving songs and powerful speeches by Martin Luther King, Michael Moore, Florence Reece, Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Mahalia Jackson, Paul Robeson, Joseito Fernandez and others, the presentation linked below sets the most famous tract on social change, the Communist Manifesto, in a cultural and historical context. Barry Weisleder, federal secretary of Socialist Action / Ligue pour l’Action socialiste, will comment on the video, with discussion to follow.

Each of the films in this series will be preceded by a brief introduction,
and will be followed by a commentary, and an open floor discussion period.

OISE, 252 Bloor St. West, Room 2-212
at the St. George Subway Station. Everyone welcome. $4 donation requested.
Please visit: http://www.socialistaction-canada.blogspot.com or call 416 – 535-8779.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Socialism 2012: Fighting for the 99%
an International Educational Conference June 1, 2, 3 2012
at OISE University of Toronto, 252 Bloor St. W., Room 2-212

co-sponsored by: Socialist Action / Ligue pour l’Action socialiste – Canadian state, Socialist Action – USA, and the Socialist Unity League (Liga Unidad Socialista) – Mexico
____________________________________________________________________

Friday, June 1

3:00 p.m. registration opens, literature sale

4 p.m. What Future for Youth? Tyler Mackinnon, chair, Youth for Socialist Action; Renee Taylor, Co-Chair, Ontario New Democratic Youth; and Luis Rivera, youth leader with the Socialist Unity League (LUS) of Mexico (via inter net)

7 p.m. The Occupy Movement – Results and Prospects Lana Goldberg, member of Occupy Toronto; Adam Shils, a leader of Socialist Action USA, based in Chicago; Marty Goodman, retired transit worker, SA-USA, lives in New York City.

Saturday, June 2

10 a.m. NDP: Towards Liberalism or Socialism? Barry Weisleder, chair, NDP Socialist Caucus and co-editor, Socialist Action; Marc Bonhomme, member of Quebec Solidaire, is based in Montreal.

12 noon Lunch break – a talk/discussion: “What is the Socialism that SA Fights For?” with Barry Weisleder.

1 p.m. Against the Attacks: A Transitional Programme for Women’s Liberation Christine Marie, a leader of SA-USA and the United National Anti-war Coalition, lives in Connecticut; Marie Clarke-Walker, Vice President, Canadian Labour Congress.

4 p.m. Is the Great Recession Over? Adam Shils, SA-USA; Jaime Gonzalez, leader of LUS-Mexico (via inter net); John Orrett, Socialist Action-Ontario.

6 p.m. Supper break

7 p.m. Stop the Wars of the 1% Christine Marie, SA-USA, Connecticut; Yasin Kaya of Workers’ Solidarity Party, Turkey; Yves Engler, researcher/writer/activist, based in Montreal.

Sunday, June 3

11 a.m. Union Renewal and Working Class Struggle Julius Arscott, V.P., OPSEU Local 532, Socialist Action-Toronto; Dave Bleakney, national rep., Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Ottawa; Marty Goodman, SA-USA, New York.

1 p.m. Lunch break

2 p.m. Closed session for SA members and invited guests. SA/LAS Convention.

Tickets: $15 in advance for weekend; $25 at door for wkend; $5 per session or PWYC. Contact: http://www.socialistaction-canada.blogspot.com 416 – 535-8779 barryaw@rogers.com

#DearLaureen Harper,

​Citizens for Social Justice would like to thank you for taking the time to visit the City of Oshawa and recognizing the plight of homeless youth in our community. While you’re in town to attend a fundraiser for The Refuge, a homeless youth drop-in centre, we’d like to offer some practical policy proposals to combat poverty and homelessness.
​We’ve been told you are bringing a couple of neck-ties belonging to your husband and Minister Baird for auction at the fundraiser. With skyrocketing youth unemployment, good jobs leaving our community, and a lack of youth shelters and affordable housing, we think it’s going to take more than a couple of neck-ties to address the problems of youth poverty and homelessness.
​In return for the neck-ties, we’d like to offer you some practical poverty reduction strategies to bring back to Ottawa:
1) Create a comprehensive national housing strategy to bring good, affordable housing to our community;
2) Ensure all homeless youth have access to social services regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender;
3) Increase funding for addiction and mental health services;
4) Implement a job creation strategy to bring back good paying jobs to our community; and
5) Re-open the Youth Employment Centres that were recently cut in the federal budget.
Again, we’d like to thank you for recognizing the need to address youth homelessness in our community. Now, it’s time for this government to make poverty reduction and youth homelessness a priority through social policy at the federal level. We need less neck-ties and more action.

Sincerely,
Citizens for Social Justice:

For Labour and community groups:

We want to initiate a twitter/Facebook campaign to coincide with this press release. We would like to use the hashtag #DearLaureen and use it to offer poverty reduction solutions one tweet at a time. Please spread this widely to your network of social justice, labour, and poverty reduction activists and ask them to post a tweet with the hashtag “#DearLaureen”!
Here are some examples:
#DearLaureen, while neck-ties are nice a National Housing Strategy would be better.
#DearLaureen, neck-ties may raise some money but re-opening Youth Employment Centres reduces youth poverty.
#DearLaureen, neck-ties don’t put youth to work or create jobs.
#DearLaureen, tell Steve to keep the neck-tie – our community needs mental health and addiction counselling.
#DearLaureen, please ask your husband to create a REAL job creation strategy!

Have you been paying Attention to these races?

If you’ve ever thought: “If web browsers did ___, that would make organizing so much easier,” or “if there was a firefox extention that did ___, it would really help people think about zero waste,” you can suggest it to Hack For Change. There’s no guarantee that anyone will work on that project, but there are only 17 ideas so far (and not very many interesting ones). So if you come up with something good, someone might do it.

I haven’t come up with anything yet, but I know there are a lot of creative people on this list! Here are some of the ideas listed so far, as examples:
A Firefox extension that allows you to see the political donations of companies whose site you visit
An app that tells you the true effect/footprint of what you are about to buy (NOTE: someone’s already actually done this at http://www.goodguide.com)
A platform to connect grassroots activists to tangible, needed resources from members of the private sector who want to offer support, but dont know what to give, who to give it to, and how
Help people in developing nations to sell their products directly to the world
Make government data more accessible and actionable
The full list is here: https://hackforchange.uservoice.com/forums/113515-hack-for-change/filters/hot
If you have an idea, please add it here (feel free to email me if you want to talk about it).

Then please tell us so we can go vote for it! To vote you just have to sign up for a password, and then you have 10 votes to distribute to your favorite ideas.

=============================================
Article from http://mashable.com/2011/05/25/hack-for-change/
Can 50 Hackers Help Save the World in One Day?

Online activism platform Change.org is hosting a hackathon called Hack for Change, designed to get engineers coding quickly for social good.
Change.org will pick 50 engineers from a list of applicants and throw them into a programming blitz at its San Francisco headquarters. The goal is to get coders, designers and other creative types to start applying their talents to the non-profit and social good sector. While other hackathons have tried to get its talent to think like programmers, Hack for Change is trying to convince programmers to work for social good.

“The smartest people in the world are focused on problems that don’t really matter,” says Ben Rattray, founder of Change.org. “What we want to do is dedicate the time, effort and energy of those people to important issues.”

The event’s rules are simple, if a little vague: “You can create any feature or app that does good.” Participants can hack using any languages or available APIs and must post their code to GitHub. They can hack individually or in teams but teams still must apply — and be accepted — individually. That kind of openness will hopefully inspire off-the-wall ideas thanks to unexpected pairings (not to mention lack of sleep).

Spanning just one weekend, the programming starts June 18 at noon and ends 24 hours later. The finished products will then be presented to the attendees, invited media and judges.

There will be prizes, but that’s not really the point. Hack for Change is aimed at introducing a new community of talent to the non-profit world. Rattray and his team are trying to make the transition as easy as possible by giving social good greenhorns a slew of ideas to get their fingers moving. The conference will start with presentations by non-profits and conscientious companies offering their APIs. There is also a forum where anyone can suggest issues that need fixing.

Change.org is offering $10,000 of its own cash as seed money — $5,000 of which will go to the top project, with the rest to be divvied up amongst the top picks. The hackathon isn’t intended as a one-off; Rattray hopes to make it a regular event. “We want to create a very clear path by which engineers and designers can find full time work in the social change sector,” he says.

What do you think about a hackathon for change? Are designers, programmers and hackers the next wave of talent to revolutionize social good? Let us know in the comments.

Disclosure: Mashable is a media partner of Hack for Change.

• not parents that had national daycare taken from them

• not aboriginals that saw two treaties rescinded and killed

• not scientists that had their work muzzled by the government

• not economists or social planners that were against tampering with the census

• not women’s groups that had their funding pulled for supporting a woman’s right to choose or abolishing the gun registry

• not anyone believing in freedom of information

• not environmentalists

• not anyone that protested at the G20 and watched the CONs squander a billion public dollars

• not anyone that thinks political parties shouldn’t use government funds to spread their propaganda – 45 million and counting

• not anyone that wanted fiscal responsibility and transparency

• not anyone that sees the CONs spending more to deliver less

• not anyone that wanted to see the CPP improved despite millions of Canadians calling for public pension improvements

• not anyone who lost money in the income trust funds

• not anyone who lost their job when the CONs cut funding to the arts, public sector or dismantling of manufacturing thriving communities

• not civil servants that saw anyone of their members who pointed out abuse vilified in the media

• not watchdogs that saw their power weakened until they could no longer do their job

• not those that shook their head at terms like “ethical oil,” “cancer is sexy” “build more jails to deter unreported crime” and “Hitler theory”

• not many nations when it came time to fill a UN Security Council seat

The international community has turned its back to Harper, Canada should too… a pair of glasses does not make the PM any wiser.

Stephen Harper plans to run on his “Tough on crime” “Family Values” and his “Business friendly agenda”

Go for it Steve. Your crime policies are a joke and are going to end up costing more money, and will not reduce crime or make society and safer. Your business friendly policies are an even bigger joke after the debacle with the UAE, and as for “Family Values” I can look after my own damn values and I don’t need you to do that for me.

Why don’t you run on your real agenda:

You will continue to run up accumulated debt which is more of a danger to the economy than anything else. You will continue your shameless self promotion, you will continue to waste tax payer dollars like water running through a sieve, and you will continue to embarrass Canada internationally, and you will continue to repeat the lie that you are an economist, and you will continue to be a fiscally reckless and incompetent leader.

Sounds like a plan, and at least it would be the truth. That would be a first for Stephen Harper.

Did you know Harper and Flaherty have a  dirty little secret.

The sub-prime mortgage fiasco they enable by de-regulating the Banks.

A Globe and Mail investigation in 2010 into more than 10,000 foreclosure proceedings has uncovered a burgeoning subprime mortgage problem that many, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, have insisted does not exist in Canada.

The last five years under the Harper, Refrom regime has been a nightmare. They do not represent 68% of the electorate, but they keep ramming the ideologically driven Tea Party policies through government while ignoring parliamentary procedure.

Their boorish, arrogant, self-centred, big spending leader is an abomination to the majority of Canadians who did not vote for his condescending bills on law and order, corporate tax deductions, environment, and, in your face abuse of public funds to promote the Reform Party.

So if the Conservative party is testing the water and on-the road promoting their plans for Canada we may want to enact some real alternatives to what good government is all about.

Voting for the Cons or Libs reminds me of people who go into a bar looking for a meaningful relationships, get f–ked over, whine and complain about it, and yet, go back into the bar the very next night.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

The government of Bolivia has passed a new pension law that reduces the retirement age for most men to 58 from 65, in stark contrast to many other countries which are seeking to hike the retirement age in order to deal with climbing life expectancy rates.

Signed by President Evo Morales, the new measure will also nationalize pension funds.

In addition, the law, which will come into force next year, will for the first time grant pensions to the 60 percent of the workforce who work in informal jobs, including market traders, bus drivers and taxi drivers, as long as they make contributions. It is estimated that 3-million Bolivians (or 60 percent of the workforce) are employed in the “informal sector.”

The retirement age for miners was reduced to 56.

For women, will be able to retire at age 55 if they have three or more children. (Women currently retire at age 60).

In a symbolic gesture, Morales signed the new law at the headquarters of Bolivia’s main trade union federation, accompanies by miners, peasants and other workers.

“What is most important to highlight is the fact that, when we bring together workers with their experience and our ministers and our experts, it is possible together to formulate, propose, and develop a law for the benefit of the Bolivian people,” Morales said in a speech at the Bolivian Workers’ Center .

In response to the reduced pension ages, Bolivian ministers explained that many poor Bolivians work in difficult jobs in harsh conditions which older workers cannot reasonably be expected to do. Moreover, the nation’s life expectancy rate is only 62 years for men and 65 years for women.

However, Bolivian business leaders have criticized the new laws, saying they are unsustainable.
Thirteen years ago, Bolivia privatized pension funds after a state-run system collapsed.

Thanks to Palash R. Ghosh for this information.

The LIVE broadcast runs December 7th -9th 2010.
8:00p.m.-12-p.m. Eastern US time

Help support the work of this news network or visit the website as well at http://therealnews.com/t2/

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 11.

What: G20 Legal Defence Fundraiser with NAOMI, HAWKSLEY and LAL (with an
optional special meet and greet with Naomi Klein)

When: Thursday, November 11. 8pm.

Where: The Great Hall 1087 Queen St West, Toronto ON

Website: http://www.g20.torontomobilize.org/nov11

During the G20 summit in June this year, the residents of Toronto bore
witness to the largest mass arrest in Canadian history as approximately
1200 people were assaulted, harassed, beaten and arrested by the police.
More than 250 were charged and six remain in jail. Others are out on bail
under extraordinarily restrictive conditions, continuing to face police
harassment and re-arrest. Legal costs are mounting.

Despite this repression, more than 40,000 people marched on the streets of
Toronto to resist the destructive, exploitative and exclusionary agenda of
the G20. As we continue to organize against the G20 agenda, we must now
also raise money to defend all those who are forced to go through
expensive legal proceedings.

Join us for an evening of song and speech with Naomi, Hawksley, LAL and
friends! All proceeds raised will be donated to the G20 legal defence
fund.

Tickets: $50 in advance, $60 at the door

You can purchase tickets for the show online at GalleryAC here:

http://www.galleryac.com/tickets/hawksley-workman-naomi-klein-event.html

Show Tickets also available at the following stores:

ANOTHER STORY: 315 Roncesvalles Avenue/ 416-462-1104
ROTATE THIS: 801 Queen St. West/ 416-504-8447
SOUNDSCAPES: 572 College St./ 416-537-1620
TORONTO WOMENS BOOKSTORE: 73 Harbord St/ 416-922-8744

+++PRE-EVENT WITH NAOMI KLEIN+++
A special reception with Naomi Klein prior to the beginning of the main
show. Capacity limited to 60 people. On first come first serve basis.
Tickets for pre-event + show are $100, and are available online only here:

http://www.galleryac.com/tickets/hawksley-workman-naomi-klein-event-exclusive.html

For twenty-four hours, Barcelona was shut down by a general strike: public transit ground to a halt, cafes were shuttered and garbage collection ceased. Later, as passions rose, a Levi’s clothing store was looted and its merchandise distributed to the crowd, a police car was torched and riot cops tussled with everyday folk. And in a sign that this time the insurrectionary passion will not subside, Portugal’s largest union is calling for a general strike on November 24th which is, coincidentally, in the midst of the global Carnivalesque Rebellion. “We think that there are now conditions for wide protests, a wave of strife that we have not seen in decades,” one observer explained.

These events in Europe are truly exhilarating. They suggest that a tsunami of dissent is building that has the potential to fundamentally transform society. If this rebellious mood keeps boiling then November 22–28 may well turn out to be the catalytic global mindshift moment we’ve all been waiting for.

Deep in a recession and with scary ecological scenarios looming, now may be the ripest moment we’ll ever have to power-shift global capitalism onto a new path. Adbusters #85 asks economics students around the world to join the fight to revamp Econ 101 curriculums and challenge the endemic myopia of their tenured neoclassical profs. Read a few articles, download the Kick it Over Manifesto (and other posters) and whack them up in the corridors of your campus. Make sure your university is at the forefront of the paradigm shift from neoclassical to ecological economics now underway.
Filed under: Opinions ]]> http://johnnyinlabour.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/tactical-briefing/feed/ 0 johnnyinlabour http://johnnyinlabour.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/standford-vs-mintz/ http://johnnyinlabour.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/standford-vs-mintz/#comments Fri, 08 Oct 2010 04:09:55 +0000 johnnyinlabour https://johnnyinlabour.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/standford-vs-mintz/ ]]> Good to see CAW Economist Jim Stanford on Evan Solomon’s CBC showkicking ass and taking names. And the economist he’s sparring with,
Jack Mintz, is no lightweight either. A study Mintz did where he
concluded that adopting the HST would hurt Ontario’s economy is in the
middle of yet another HST scandal in BC. It was recently revealed
through a FOI request that during the campaign in the 2009 BC
election, in reaction to McGuinty’s agreement with Flaherty on the
HST, that the Finance Ministry in BC began negotiating with Ottawa
over the HST, with Finance Minister Colin Hansen (and probably the
Premier’s Office) being briefed on this, including on Mintz’s study
saying it would hurt Ontario. Hansen has publicly stated, repeatedly,
that he, nor anyone else in his ministry, engaged in any discussion or
contemplation of the HST before the election. So Hansen’s been caught
red-handed outright lying. He laughably claims he had nothing to do
with the negotiations going on and “doesn’t remember” being briefed on
them. Yeah, sure. The NDP are looking into some sort of formal
indictment of Hansen because blatantly lying to the Legislature, and
he was specifically asked about this in Question Period, is apparently
against the law. And it’s even more scandalous, because Mintz had
been hired by the BC Liberals this year to conduct a study on the
HST’s effect on the economy, and he concluded that the tax would be
wonderful for BC, the diametric opposite of his earlier study on
Ontario where he argued it would be disastrous. Why would these taxes
have opposite effects, according to Mintz, in Ontario and BC? Not to
be a total cynic, but one explanation would be, given Mintz’s Far-
Right agenda, that saying the tax is bad in Ontario helps the Right-
wing politicians there, and claiming that the tax is good in BC helps
the Right-wing politicians here.

The link:

1:45:50

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/Power_&_Politics_with_Evan_Solomon/ID=1608171456

As usual, Stanford’s got some interesting facts. I didn’t know that
Canada has the highest amount of foreign ownership of its economy,
measured by stock, than any other developed country. Very ominous.
The escalating takeover of the Canadian economy by foreigners,
particularly Americans, since the 80s, is a terrifying trend and the
fact that the Harper Conservatives want to increase this even further
demonstrates what contemptible sell-outs of Canada they are. It’s
like they’re literally trying to turn Canada into a neocolonial client
of the United States.