Negotiation?

0cfedade-61e1-4a22-a62f-17d17cf6f074

So the new education minister has said that he will scrap the BCPSEA, which bargained on behalf of government in contract talks with teachers. His aim is to settle a ten-year long contract with the BCTF and to, in the words quoted in the Vancouver Sun, ditch the toxic relationship between the province and the teachers. The BCPSEA was always a shell, an organization set up so that it could legitimately plead poverty in negotiations even when its parent seemed flush with cash for megaprojects, spectacle  and ruinous IPP contracts. Good riddance to what was, essentially, a living lie. However, the idea that the BCTF would willingly sign an agreement with the province of the length proposed by Minister Fassbender (mouthpiece for Christy Clark, engineer herself of a large part of the legacy of bitterness between the province and teachers) without there being ironclad guarantees of stability in purchasing power and serious teeth in the implementation and enforcement of reasonable provisions for class size and composition, an end to meddling in professional development, and a more collegial decision-making process in which teachers, through their bargaining unit, would have a real say in how the school system functioned, is pure fantasy, and really points to more of the same vitriol. It would be, in effect, the imposition of a contract whose terms would be dictated largely by the Liberal Party bureaucrats through the Ministry of Education and would virtually guarantee that there would be no peace in the school system until a more balanced approach were found. It could be seen as an initiative to finally break the school system beyond repair as an excuse to turn the whole enterprise over to private interests, wherein the Province could take the costs off the books, they could cut teachers and their nuisance union loose and let them take their chances with aggressive capital. This would also, of course, further the Liberal dream of a province and world without unions, where capital and privilege reign supreme, where wealthy families can educate their young in the lap of luxury while the rest are forced to attend fact factories on their way to low-skill, low pay work, or pass directly into the penal system, where the work is the same and the pay even lower.

We have another four years of this kind of underhanded chicanery that does nothing to build a relationship of trust and everything to frustrate all other stakeholders. Parents are being held hostage, but it isn’t the BCTF that’s doing it.

 

3689

 

Many thanks to Adrian Raeside for generously allowing the use of his work.

The Latest Shot: The War Of/On Words

A poster supporting Snowden is displayed in Hong Kong

 

The following head appeared in the Toronto Star’s home page:

Ex-U.S. spy arrives in Moscow, seeks Ecuador asylum

A click through to the article does add the word whistleblower, but that aspect of Snowden’s actions seems easy to lose in the flurry of accusations about spying. It’s just the latest attempt to criminalize everything that doesn’t lie down and accept that the powers in Washington, London, Paris, Moscow, Beijing and, of course, Ottawa, get to do whatever they want in their quest to suppress their current bugaboo, terrorism, no matter how many times, how far and how fast they move the goalposts, and no matter that their actions might be creating the terrorists they seek to eliminate. It’s a great gig, like advertising the latest innovation in toothpaste to sell a ton more of the stuff, or creating a new restless leg syndrome to open up a new marketing niche. The adman parallel is appropriate because our politicians have, in effect, become shills for the same mercantile caste that has helped us build a society of overconsumption, waste, pollution, penury, austerity, faux democracy and illusion. So we have the Patriot Act and the Clear Skies Act, Families First, The Government of Canada Action Plan and a long and dreary trail of other misnomers for actions aimed at gutting the real economy and ensuring that power continues to reside with the puppet masters pulling with Wall Street, Bay Street and City strings. Snowden hasn’t referred to himself as a spy, and neither has he been convicted of such an offense, so perhaps it would be prudent to stick an “alleged” in there somewhere. Prudence in the press? only when it comes to turning over the real rocks to see what lies beneath.

Expectations

Powell

 

This young lady caused quite a stir last weekend when she made a bit of a hash of an answer to a question about the gap in remuneration between men and women. Sorry to say, why would we expect cogent and reflective answers to questions asked on the fly of a person whose intellect is clearly of secondary concern? Would we expect that she deliver a scholarly treatise on the development of the gender gap and a set of tangible and feasible steps to resolve a disparity that flies in the face of everything that we claim to support in our egalitarian and democratic society? Likely not, and perhaps we might have a quiet snicker into our popcorn bowl as we watch our beauty pageant, and perhaps we ought to muse on the way a life gets directed into public spectacle based on some idea of the perfection of the human body (and along the way, a thought about why we would be watching this stuff in the first place: no one watches, no sponsors, no pageants!). If the young lady in question mashes up a poor selection of pre-selected platitudes in a form that makes little sense, there’s likely a lack of general preparation in play, starting when she was a foetus and continuing through early childhood and school years, where it seems likely that athletics, cheerleading, modelling and film would have become increasingly important as it became apparent that she was not an ordinary physical specimen of a developing child/woman. Since we all are bathed in the same soup of sales and sex that produced this intellectual prodigy, we ought perhaps not be overly smug. After all, she could yet go into….

 

Clark

 

…politics.

 

Papal Misbehaviour

Francis Misbehavin'

 

One of our spiritual leaders has spoken again, a couple of instances over the last few days and must have been invoking  the Catch-22 clause. On the one hand, he blessed a horde of Harley-Davidson riders in honour of the 110th anniversary of the founding of the Milwaukee motorcycle manufacturer. Then there was the meeting of the delegation of good Catholics from France, and urged to overturn recent legislation in that country that legalized marriage between same sex couples. So it’s all right for a spiritual leader to do commercial endorsements? It’s all right for the Pope to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign  state? What happened to the idea of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s?

The definition of a zealot fanatic is that he knows what’s best for him and will go to great lengths to ensure that you do it.

Our Mutual Obessession

WebLoon

 

There was considerable splash in the regional media about the Congress being held at the University of Victoria with large numbers of delegates flooding the campus and the city as they attended sessions and debated questions in the Humanities and Social Sciences, those forgotten areas of study that have taken such a back seat to the core sciences, both theoretical and, ultimately, practical, engineering, math and business. First, we seem to have forgotten that all knowledge is connected, and that social, spiritual and ethical considerations are attached to all the results of all the research that fills institutions of higher learning, as well as government and commercial labs: we seems generally to have forgotten the lessons of the fable of Pandora’s Box, be it in relation to nuclear energy, the general use of fossil fuels, the implementation of genetic modifications, nanotechnology, as well as all the panoply of new communication devices. In all the reporting, there was little or nothing about the content of the Congress, about questions debated or about what resolutions might have united groups of delegates in the quest to further our understanding  of human and social phenomena. Instead, we have been told repeatedly how good this gathering is for the local economy, wherein the delegates bring money and spend it on lodging and meals, double-decker bus tours, kitschy souvenirs or weighty tomes from Munro’s, whale watching excursions, copious quantities of single malt whiskey, or newspapers that lack any substantive content. Pride of place amongst those interviewed is given to the chamber of commerce types, the hôteliers and restaurateurs, the boutiquiers and tour operators who will funnel this manna back into the pockets of Victorians in general. Hardly a word that there might be some benefit beyond the simple pecuniary, sad to say, and the question of our infatuation with monetary considerations needs to be one of the questions put front and centre.

Of course the same reporting applies to almost any community event worthy of mention, from social justice film festivals to minor hockey tournaments. Granted, some of these events are only spectacle and entertainment whose legacy will be a note in the statistical compilation of sports and entertainment superlatives as well as the money left behind by those who managed to be on the screen rather than camped in front of it. Does it not, however, seem that the benefits of community interaction might be worthy of a mention? What about the opportunity for our local Pee Wees to measure their mettle against that of their counterparts from over the hill and far away? The reports seem to be generally lacking any of these considerations as though no one among the reader-/listener-/viewership had any interest beyond personal gain. Sadly, that may be the case, given that we’ve been so thoroughly trained to focus on the material economy.

A piece on Northern Reflections by host Owen Gary lays out the ugly truth of the results of humanity serving the economy rather than the economy serving humanity (perhaps the rest of the biosphere is just collateral damage):

http://nor-re.blogspot.ca/2013/06/democracy-and-efficiency.html

Not only is Gray’s piece a telling slice of prose, some of the comments are revealing, as are Gray’s  replies. It’s a tonic for the tripe that passes for information in the press in our time.

Sidestepping Through Questions

confusion_3

 

Here’s a question for all us’ns:

What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?

I saw this gem as a minor headline on the Globe and Mail site yesterday, from whence it then disappeared, though a quick search turned up the article. It burned me up some, as these idiocies will, but I had other things to attend to and Geoff Dembicki over at the Tyee beat me to the acid comment fest (as probably did legions of others).

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2013/05/30/exxon-mobil-resolution-climate-tillerson/

So what remains to be said is that we are getting as bad at paying attention to questions as we are at seeking answers and solutions, often the latter being something of a result of the former.

You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers.

You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions.

—Naguib Mahfouz

We ask questions all the time that are perhaps not the optimal questions to deal with situations that confront us. How, for instance, did pacifists deal with the prospect of World War II., supposedly a war to eliminate fascism and the threat of Nazi domination of the planet. Tough to do, largely because folks had already painted themselves into a corner with regard to the aggressive acts of the Axis powers, and, really, part of the problem is that the essential questions were no longer applicable because no one knew what to ask back around the Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815 (and better results might have stemmed from an even earlier questioning of direction and process). So here is Rex Tillerman asking us if we want to stall development in the poorer sections of the world so that we can reduce carbon and forestall the damaging effects of climate change: what he’s really saying is that those poor little brown people are really in the stew anyway, so why can’t we just party on. Climate refugees are already a reality, and even the operators of ski hills are beginning to see that they are seriously impaired in their ability to do business if the snow and ice is all gone on the mountains that they presently occupy.

Dr. Henry Morganthaler died yesterday. He probably thought he had the abortion question whipped several decades ago, but there are still many who don’t think it’s really a good move to be removing nascent life from a woman’s womb before it has a chance to defend itself, and others who will vigorously defend a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body. Heck, in my feeble mind, they’re both right, but, again, the timing of the question is wrong: ideally, the question of the survival of the child needs to be answered before conception, and to facilitate this decision, there needs to be easy availability of family planning, contraception (other than the Bush-era counselling to crossed knees) and counselling. I have no answer for the poor fetus resulting from forced sexual intercourse and better minds will see that there is an answer stemming from a better question, something on the order of looking at how we prevent rape in the first place, something on the order of a fundamental shift in attitudes toward relations of sex and power.

The same quandary applies to the debate about gun control. I’ve never owned a firearm and don’t intend to start any time soon, but I know lots of people who do own firearms, and most of them treat them with a sense of respectful caution and would never think of leaving them lying about in a way that might promote an accidental shooting, let alone have a thought of using a firearm to enforce their will or take revenge. However, we keep hearing of accidents where youngsters harm each other, either with their own firearms, or with carelessly stored firearms belonging to a responsible adult, and every once in awhile, someone loses it and goes on a rampage, shooting mostly random victims. Likely we need to be asking ourselves questions about people’s expectations, people’s perceptions of society, how we define success and how we participate in a live lived in a community, and particularly how we resolve conflicts.

The sad part of the topic is that Tillerman gets away with framing an argument in these terms, when really, it isn’t just the developing world that will suffer, but all of us. There was a line from a song by Luc de la Rochellière a couple of decades back called “Six Pieds Sur Terre” in which he expresses his fervent desire that Hell exist (Mon Dieu, promets-moi que l’enfer existe!) as a remedy for people who perpetrate the unspeakable crimes of warmongering and economic plunder, something that would certainly seem to apply to Tillerman and people of his ilk who are quite keen to add insult to the injury they have  done by sequestering the wealth of the world for their own benefit all out of proportion to any sane standard.

 

Misbehavin’

What Comes Around?

What Comes Around?

 

Complaints about constraints on doing business are rife with taxes, regulation, red tape and labour unions high on the list. Businesses may face constraints on hours of operation, location, waste stream, supply chain, manufacturing processes, noise, smell, unsightliness issues and, of course all manner of labour regulations regarding hiring, firing, salaries, benefits, pensions, working hours, breaks, and workplace safety. Why all the regulations? The regulations exist because of the long litany of bad behaviour on the part of a segment of the business community, overworking, underpaying, absconding with the cash register, failing to consider the safety and well-being of employees and clientèle, sending toxic waste directly into the waste stream without treatment, faulty storage of chemicals and toxic materials, harassment, assaults, situating business such that they infringe on the ability of the community to carry on without nuisance: every time some of these people get out of line, government seems to be the only recourse and we end up with more red tape and more regulation. Of course there are businesses that get around much of this by manufacturing in low-standards jurisdictions where environmental and labour standards allow the manufacturer to operate without regulation. Isn’t it interesting to note that in those jurisdictions, business tends to seek the lowest common denominator, to so the least they possibly can so as to maximize profits. Some of this may be due to laws on the books that state that the business may have no other concern than to generate profits for shareholders, but even privately held companies tend to hew to the same line, perhaps because they have to compete with the publicly held outfits, perhaps because it fits their view of what constitutes a sound business plan. When we tack on poor quality, lack of workmanship and planned obsolescence, and then export the goods back into our own jurisdiction where the lowest price seems to be the most important consideration, then there are profits, but the people who made the mess don’t seem to bear any responsibility for cleaning it up, for finding additional space in landfills for the shoddy goods they’ve brought on shore or for the people put out of work because of a tilted labour market (see the previous post about RBC and offshoring). Then there are the convoluted and sometimes outright fraudulent schemes concocted to avoid taxes, funds that ought rightly be used to provide health, education, infrastructure, policing, fire protection, bylaw enforcement and diplomatic services, but which end up in offshore accounts, The executive suite has also been an inordinate beneficiary of the gains built on externalities and junk economics: J.K. Galbraith famously quipped: “The salary of the chief executive of a large corporation is not a market award for achievement.  It is frequently in the nature of a warm, personal gesture by the individual to himself.” Should we wonder, then, that there be a clamour for something to inhibit the victimization of citizens by the investor group? What?, you say, we won’t be able to produce anything if we keep all these rules and forbid the waste, planned obsolescence, exploitation of labour, and the ability to externalize whatever interferes with the profits. True, and it probably means that we can’t go on changing electronic devices every six months, our wardrobe every season of every year, our home decor at a whim and kids toys on a daily basis. Fewer, truly durable goods, easily repaired in case of failure, manufactured with all byproducts recycled and without toxic material let loose manufactured by people as close to market as possible and by workers well enough paid to exist comfortably in society. When greed ceases to be the motivating factor in society’s business, we’ll need fewer protections and will be able to simplify our code of legal protections. Please, let’s have less griping and moe constructive moving to a real economy.

 

It’s Only Words, And Words Are All I Have…

Open Up The Gnarly Gates

Open Up The Gnarly Gates

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is featuring a series of pretty upbeat ads showing how good the tat sands business is for the whole country, that, dadgummit, they fuel all our activities, and besides, they ensure that people all over the country benefit from jobs in manufacturing and transportation, not to mention spin-off jobs and what a wonderful world it is. You can see this all for yourself at

http://www.capp.ca/Pages/default.aspx

On the other hand, there is the statement issued, today, I think, by some egghead scientists, any one of whom has more credibility in the cuticle of the nail of his left pinky than the whole phalanx of oil patch shills. You can see it here:

http://mahb.stanford.edu/consensus-statement-from-global-scientists/

I can give you the short version, but I recommend you check out the statement and peruse the rather lengthy list of those who’ve signed on in support of the document: it basically tells us what some of the more forward-thinking writers have said for decades, that there are too many of us, that our patterns of consumption are unsupportable, that our living space is already seriously toxic, that we’ve managed to wipe out a huge swath of species, and that we’re staring down our own demise due to accelerated climate change. Of course, a lot of us are staring at our own demise with a blindfold securely covering whatever we normally use to see, and it comes as no surprise that a big part of the blindness is brought on by the smokescreen of don’t-worry-be-happy advertising thrown up by the same people who benefit short term from the destruction they intend to continue wreaking. the same people who have bought, on the cheap, governments who participate fully in the fraud that will kill us all. All parties on that side of the “equation” (a formula which, in this case, represents no equilibrium at all), when caught in a situation where the facts belie what they say, make up their own facts as though they alone can defy the laws of physics, and when they are caught in an outright fiction, their strategy is most often, to lie some more. It’s sad in a way that those who vote for Harper, Wall, Redford, Clark, et al, have so little idea of their share of responsibility for recreating a new version of the middle ages, but at least it will be short-lived as the rulers die in the same cataclysm that will envelope us all.

A Cure For Outsourcing

 

 

WebRBC

Norm Farrell and others have outlined the latest prank on the part of the Canadian banking establishmen

 

t:

http://northerninsights.blogspot.ca/2013/04/royal-bank-of-canda-exporter-of-jobs.html

Alison over at Creekside had this to say:

http://creekside1.blogspot.ca/2013/04/boycott-royal-bank-of-canada.html

 

So here’s my two cents’ worth. If you want to do business in Canada, you have to pay Canadian living salaries and benefits to Canadian residents and pay reasonable taxes on earnings. If you want to pay Indian wages and eschew benefits and taxes, you can go live there, or in Lichtenstein, or Andorra, or in the Turks and Caicos, or wherever they’ll have you, but then you would be precluded from doing business in Canada.

 

Oh, wait a minute, I have to tear Chapter 11 out of the book I’m reading.

Too Bad, Maggie, We Really Did Know Ye

Margaret Thatcher-1521973

 

Word out of Newsworld Land this morning was that Thatcher had died, not surprising that, given her age and what have you. Newsworld conveniently forgot that there might be other things going on as they lathered up with coverage that made the Ralph Klein circus look like a quick beer at the Arlington. They also glossed over the damage she did to society by calling her legacy “divided”, thereby taking euphemism into new territory. What no one was saying is that she forced Britain into a brutal transition from (possibly misguided) notions of social support into the clear primacy of capital. And there is crowing all over the press about how she rebuilt society for the better. David Cameron called her one of the greatest peacetime prime ministers: one can only hope his knowledge of history is not quite that lamentable.