Last week, Winnipeg city council announced a proposal to build a hotel and waterpark on Parcel 4, at The Forks. This is after years of looking for a private developer to build a water park in exchange for a $7 million dollar subsidy.
Using public money to support private business is not a good deal for Winnipeg. The city would be better off investing the $7 million in recreation for inner city youth who currently have little or no access to sports facilities or programs. This is especially true when the City claims to not have enough money for recreation – or rapid transit, which the money was originally earmarked for.
The fact that it has taken since 2008 for the City to find a developer willing to build a water park, even with this subsidy, should raise red flags about the idea. And at The Forks? Right next to the Human Rights Museum? Maybe the Winnipeg Sun’s April Fool’s joke this year wasn’t that far off.
Our questions remain:
- Why is this process being rushed through council without adequate time for councilors to consider the issues?
- Why has there been no discussion of how the public would like to see the Parcel 4 site being used, particularly when public money is on the table?
- Why has Mayor Sam Katz not recused himself from the discussions and decisions made thus far, as he is the majority owner of the Goldeyes, which will be affected by decisions made by council about Parcel 4?
Next steps
The Executive Policy Committee will be voting on this issue on Wednesday, April 18th. Council is expected to vote on it on April 25th. You can attend or present at the meetings: call 311 for more information.
PDF version
by Shauna MacKinnon
On April 17th Minister Stan Struthers will release details of how the Province will manage our money this year. Here is how the process will unfold.
A few pre-budget day announcements will be, or have been, made to manage expectations and set the tone for budget day. We’ve been warned for months that the budget will be tight and that “tough decisions” must be made. It’s true that Manitoba is faced with significant unanticipated costs resulting from the 2011 flood and global economic uncertainties to which Manitoba is not immune.
Print and other media will publish some predictable commentaries pre – and post-budget day. We can expect those claiming to represent the business community and ‘taxpayers’ to call upon the government to ‘create an environment for investor confidence’ by “cutting taxes” and “removing red tape”. Organizations pegged as ‘left leaning’, ‘anti-poverty’or ‘special interest’ groups will call upon the government to make significant investments to prevent crime, reduce poverty, better care for the environment, and so on.
In keeping with the theme of ‘predictable’, my colleagues and I will make our pitch for a budget that prioritizes reducing poverty and inequality. Our pitch will be met with a mix of yawns, eyerolls, nods of agreement and indifference. What we say won’t make much difference anyway because the budget is written; spending and revenue decisions have been made. But we will continue to say it anyway in an effort to raise awareness of how critical these problems have become for all Manitobans.
Whether we want to believe it or not, the effects of poverty are very real across our province, and they are taking a social and economic toll on us all. For example, in Winnipeg, pockets of poverty exist throughout the city, but it is most concentrated and deeply entrenched in the inner city and in the North End, and has been for many decades. This persistence of poverty has led many to feel hopeless; to turn to strategies of survival that sometimes include ‘bad choices’. The effects of poverty include hopelessness and despair that often lead to ill health, violence, addictions, suicide, and the list goes on.
The Province and other funders invest in a number of excellent community initiatives that are doing exceptionally important work. These organizations provide opportunities for people, and this helps to minimize the despair and hopelessness. But it is also true that many people do not have the basic foundations to take full advantage of the opportunities that are provided. The poorest Manitobans are often forced to move, sometimes crowding in with family and friends. They often need most if not all of their household income to pay their rent, leaving little for food and other basics.
Poverty will not go away on its own and we cannot escape the damage it leaves behind. Our failure to invest what is required is creating insurmountable problems that affect us all. Most people living in poverty manage to overcome the obstacles but many do not. For example, many kids don’t bother to go to school because they can’t see past the immediate crisis in their lives, and it is hard to think about the future when you don’t know where your next meal will come from or where you will sleep that night. It is not uncommon for these children to drop out of school, turn to drugs, have children when they are still children themselves, or succumb to the pressure and allure of street gang life. Sure, we can blame it on parents or somebody else, but what good does this do?
These problems will not be resolved by the good work of food banks, soup kitchens and after-school programs. These supports are important, but without adequately investing in the basics, we are spinning our wheels. There are many things that government can and must do. They all require considerable public investment and a rethinking of how we redistribute wealth.
Here is one thing that we would like to see in this year’s budget.
Strong foundations begin with having a safe, stable, affordable home. The Province has been making progress in this area by creating more social housing, but they have yet to ensure that the poorest Manitoba households, most of whom live in private sector housing, have sufficient income to pay their rent. People receiving social assistance receive allowances far below the cost of housing. The Province should increase the allowance so that the poorest Manitobans receive a housing allowance at 75% of the median market rent. Recent government estimates show that this would cost the government less than $20 million annually. Sound like a lot? It’s not, it’s far less than 1% (approximately .14%) of the provincial budget and it goes directly back into the economy. The cost to government could be offset by a slight tax increase on the incomes of the highest earning Manitobans–the 1% earning over $150,000 per year.
What can we expect on budget day?
We can expect to see a safe budget that will include a little something for everyone. It will include small measures to appease the middle class–just enough to make us feel that all is good in the world. A few concessions will be made to keep the business community from crying ‘socialist’; and there will be a little bit left over to keep the pesky poor people from revolting. And just to make us all feel really safe, the Minister of Justice has already assured us that the Province will spend a ton on new jails–exactly the wrong kind of housing program.
On budget day we will gather at the Legislative Building, with a glimmer of hope and a healthy dose of skepticism. None of us are likely to be thrilled with what we see, but two things are for certain. We won’t see a budget that will make a significant dent in poverty in 2012. And we’ll be back next year doing this all over again.
Shauna MacKinnon is the Director of the CCPA-MB.
by Errol Black and Jim Silver
In a recent post on this site, Thinking Alternatives, we suggested that the Scandinavian countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden – provided examples of more collective, egalitarian and inclusive societies that could serve as models for Canada. We based this conclusion on the considerable body of evidence that shows these countries fare much better than most other countries, including, the US, the UK and Canada in terms of key social and economic indicators. In 2011, for example, an OECD Report on social justice (cited previously in Social Justice in Canada) ranked 31 counties based on six variables: poverty prevention; access to education; labour market inclusion; social cohesion and non-discrimination; health; and inter-generational justice. The average score for the 31 OECD countries was 6.67.
The top five countries in this ranking and their scores are: Iceland (8.73); Norway (8.31); Denmark (8.20); Sweden (8.18); and Finland (8.06) .
By way of contrast, the US, with a score of 5.70, was ranked 27th and the UK, with a score of 6.79, 15th.
Canada, with a score of 7.26, ranked 9th – much closer to the Scandinavian countries than the US, and also closer than the UK.
by Julie Guard and Errol Black
Three weeks ago the Manitoba Labour Board reinstated Brandon Professional Fire Fighters/Paramedics Association president Wade Ritchie in his job as a fire fighter. The city of Brandon had fired Ritchie in January, claiming he had made “reckless and defamatory statements” that justified his termination. The Union disagreed, on the grounds that the statements in question were actually part of the normal business of the Union and that Ritchie, as Union president, had been legitimately fulfilling his duty to enforce the collective agreement – terms to which the City had already agreed. The Union also suggested that firing the Union president just as the City and the Fire Fighters were preparing to bargain a new contract looked more like a bargaining tactic than real discipline, and the message to other union members that their exercise of union rights could lead to termination was sure to create a chill on the negotiations. The Board’s unprecedented decision to reinstate Ritchie immediately, in advance of and pending formal arbitration, was a strong rebuke to the City of Brandon. The Board, which represents both employers and employees, not only agreed with the Union, but ordered the City to broadcast its decision to the entire department.
Mr. Ritchie and the other fire fighters and paramedics were greatly relieved by the Board’s decision. They know the ruling isn’t just about Wade; it’s about protecting other union members from that kind of intimidation. But the City’s choice to play hard ball with its fire fighters and paramedics is clearly no accident. Grant Mitchell, the high-priced labour-relations lawyer who argued the case against Ritchie, is an advisor to the Canadian Labour Watch Association, a Vancouver-based anti-union organization that specializes in breaking unions. Mitchell recently led Brandon University into a bitter and unnecessary strike from which students and faculty are still recovering. The City has also hired Canadian Professional Management Services, Inc. (CPMS) to bargain with its unions.
Claiming that the Human Resources Department was currently overloaded, the City offered no explanation about why a Vancouver consulting firm, CPMS, was hired to do the work. We suggest that the hiring originates in the tight relationship between CPMS and Canadian Fire Chiefs (CFC). In 2010, CPMS and CFC collaborated in establishing an International Conference for Fire and Rescue Executives. The Brandon Fire Department participated in the inaugural conference, “Chiefs Under Fire…Are You Ready?” held in Calgary. Mohamed Doma (who was advising the City on labour relations and leading negotiations for the City with the Fire Fighters at the time Wade Ritchie was fired) was a keynote speaker. A second conference, “Leadership at the Edge of Reason,” was held in Toronto in 2011, and again the Brandon Fire Department was there and Mohamed Doma was a speaker. This year, the Conference, “Leadership in Critical Times,” is slated for Vancouver, and again Mohamed Doma is a keynote speaker in a session titled, “Protecting Your Management Rights: Your Critical Role.” In his presentation Doma will explain how fire chiefs lost control of management rights and will propose strategies for getting them back. The interesting thing about the Vancouver conference is that Chief Brent Dane is also on a panel, “Chiefs Under Fire,” and his topic is, “Leadership Control: What Does It Take?: A Case Study.” The program promises that the case study “will address the common concern that the union is ruining the [firehouse culture] and applying the international code for ‘bringing down the chief.’ [The question:] What does it take to regain management control in these situations?”
Mitchell and CPMS charge hefty fees for their services, and we question how ethical it is for the City of Brandon – or Brandon University – to spend lavishly from public funds to attack its unions. There was no evidence of serious labour relations problems before the city hired anti-union consultants. We also question why the City of Brandon has adopted such an aggressive stance even before starting to bargain with the fire fighters and paramedics, and how such a hostile management style and the poisoned workplace climate it creates will affect the vital services that these workers provide. Fire fighters in other cities that have also hired Mitchell are anticipating the same kind of anti-union bargaining and management style. Some union members have even heard that their cities want the right to call in students from the fire college as volunteer fire fighters, and hope to create “mixed” forces, in which unpaid volunteers with no insurance coverage, pay, or benefits work alongside paid, professional fire fighters. The growing trend of cities to create “mixed” police forces by using cadets and volunteers like Citizens on Patrol in place of professional police officers raises questions about how insurance rates are affected. In short, it’s clear that this case is about more than one worker in Brandon; this move is part of a broader attempt by cities to adopt a US model that uses volunteers, who have no union protection or other workplace rights, as first responders.
On the other hand, public sector unionized workforces that are given decent pay and benefits return benefits to the public in high productivity, low turnover and low training costs. A well-trained core of long-term skilled workers also reduces the costs of undertaking new functions (the paramedic function for ambulance drivers, for example) and paves the way for the development and application of innovations in the delivery of services. Whether the task is road maintenance, post-secondary education, or hospital care, the employers, the workers, and their unions share a common goal: to provide the highest quality services at an affordable cost. That these services have been provided without significant conflict for decades suggests that there is nothing wrong with the model or the labour relations legislation that supports it. On the contrary, the current problems appear to be caused by the City, which has adopted an aggressive stance toward its unionized workers, to the detriment of Brandon citizens. Ideally, labour relations in the public sector should strive to avoid conflict – not create it – but focus on goodwill, respectful treatment, and responsible collaboration in the shared goal of ensuring sustainable, high-quality services to citizens.
Julie Guard heads the Labour Studies Department at the University of Manitoba and is a CCPA Mb. board member. Errol Black is a CCPA Mb. board member.
by Sarah Cooper
In Winnipeg, three out of five households living in poverty live outside the inner city. This suggests that although the problems faced by low income households in the inner city are particularly serious, there are many households outside the inner city who experience the same challenges of dealing with poverty on a daily basis. Family resource centres address some of these challenges for families living in public housing, and in little ways – that add up to make big changes – the resource centres make people’s lives better.
The Family Centre of Winnipeg runs six family resource centres in Manitoba Housing complexes in Winnipeg. CCPA-MB recently completed a report examining the impact these centres have had on individuals, families and communities.
Over the last 10 years, these six family resource centres have become integral parts of the communities in which they are located. The centres offer supports and programming for parents and families, and a gathering space for the community. They offer residents a chance to get out of the house to socialize, meet new people and contribute to their community. They also provide learning opportunities, and a space for addressing conflict and accessing supports when crises arise.
Perhaps most importantly, the resource centres meet very basic needs for the tenants who come in: food, essentials like phones, faxes or computers, and social interaction with friends and neighbours. They offer a place for parents and children to learn new skills and to spend some time together outside the home, and tenants are always welcome to stop by and say hello, to have a cup of coffee and a snack.
People need to meet basic survival needs before they can consider other needs or wants. Manitoba Housing meets tenants’ shelter needs but for many of these tenants, low income levels mean that other basic needs remain unmet. For many households, there are often times in the month when money is tight. Food security is a big concern for many families. Access to food banks, the cooking programs, the community store and to snacks or small meals on a regular or occasional basis through the resource centres fill the gap.
When asked what they liked about the centres, one respondent said:
When I first got here I didn’t have a washing machine, I have one now, but you know the simple things like that, a place to come and do my laundry, a place for me and my kids to come hang out that’s a safe place, there’s many positives.
Another said that:
With the resource centre, my kids know if we are short on something or having to do something, we do have the resource centre here now, that would help us with, either we’re short on bread or something we can always come ask, and not be scared to ask.
Having the opportunity to meet their neighbours, and for their children to play with other children at the resource centres, has helped individuals and families build self-esteem, overcome shyness and get to know their neighbours as a result of attending programs at the resource centre. Many feel safer and more comfortable now that they can say hi to others in the complex. One tenant said:
It’s really opened me up to being more comfortable with my neighbours. I’ve lived in places in the past where I haven’t even really talked to any of my neighbours.
Another mentioned:
Oh my son’s a lot more confident, the eight year old, for sure. And [my younger son] loves it, like every Thursday there’s a program, like he reminds me… so obviously he’s really enjoying that. And my daughter loved Kids in the Kitchen, and she’s just waiting until it comes around again. So yeah, we’re happier, we’re very very much happier now.
Having a space for parents where they can come for a little break, where their children are welcome and there are other parents there to chat with helps to take the pressure off. This helps people be better parents, which makes the whole family happier. Overall, people also talked about having more connections with other tenants, better relationships with neighbours, more supports for each other, and increased trust and pride in the community.
Despite all these successes, the resource centres still face a number of challenges. These include insufficient funding, pressures on staff and safety concerns. The report concludes with a number of recommendations for the Government of Manitoba, The Family Centre of Winnipeg, and the six family resource centres. These recommendations include:
- Recognising the integral role that the resource centres play in improving the quality of life of the tenants in the Manitoba Housing complexes;
- Ensuring that the resource centres have access to core funding to cover basic costs such as space and core staffing.
- Ensuring that tenants in all Manitoba Housing complexes have access to resource centres.
- Strengthening the decision-making processes in the resource centres.
- Finding ways to increase the hours and programming available through the resource centres.
From changes in people’s self-esteem and level of comfort in their community, to better communication and stronger relationships among family members, to networking and mutual support among tenants, interviewees had a lot to say about the impact the resource centres have had on their lives and on their communities. The comments from tenants and staff show that the family resource centres help to build stronger communities and reduce costs for Manitoba Housing as the complexes become more stable. In addition, all of these changes point to a better quality of life overall for tenants in the Manitoba Housing complexes. These family resource centres offer an excellent model for community development that could benefit other communities as well.
Sarah Cooper researches housing issues for the CCPA-MB.
by Shauna MacKinnon and Lynne Fernandez
Although there seems to be a collective sigh of relief that the Conservative’s first majority-government budget was not as bad as those that came down in the 1990s, it is important to remember that Canada still hasn’t recovered from that “age of austerity” and that this is the first of 4 budgets this government will deliver. Moreover the following points explain how this government is dancing to the same tiresome tune composed by the Liberals.
Changes to the OAS/GIS are completely unnecessary. There’s a lot of fearmongering around how OAS/GIS payments will increase, but spending will only increase from 2.3% of GDP in 2010 to 3.1% in 2030. After 2030, the ratio will go back down to 2.6%. This small, temporary increase is very manageable.
Canada’s greatest success story on the poverty front has been the reduction of seniors’ poverty. Changing OAS/GIS access will begin to reverse that significant gain. This move will see healthcare costs increase: low-income seniors who have to choose between buying medicine or food will end up using the healthcare system more.
Under changes to EI, of note is new spending of $387 million that will “reduce disincentives to accept available work”. This money would be better spent to increase the number of workers eligible to collect EI, the amount they receive, and the duration of benefits. This new move continues the anti-worker sentiment from the 1990s that culminated in the drastic transformation of UI to EI.
In these volatile economic times, the litmus test for this budget is what it will do to create not just jobs, but decent jobs. Unfortunately, it does not pass the test. This government continues to claim that its unprecedented tax cuts (another favourite dance move from the 90s) over the past 6 years is the best way to stimulate economic growth and jobs. We know that this is not true, and it has not worked so far. This budget contains no real plan to help grow jobs – in fact, it missteps badly on this front.
This government is determined to drag the Canadian economy back into one of resource extraction, pitting the development of the tar sands against our manufacturing sector/green economy/and/or the IT sector. It waters down environmental reviews and skips public/community consultations. By insisting on letting mostly foreign-owned oil companies drain oil to foreign markets before even taking advantage of any value-added processing that would create hundreds of well-paying jobs, this government is overlooking any possibility of creating a national energy strategy or conserving our resources. At the same time, it is going to try to quickly push through environmentally dangerous projects. Insistence on making Canada an energy superpower causes our dollar to overheat, making it difficult for Manitoban exporters to compete globally.
The only concrete job-creation idea we could find the extension of their temporary hiring credit for small business (maximum $1,000/employer). Do they really believe this is going create permanent, decent jobs for the already unemployed and the 70,000 soon-to-be unemployed as a result of this budget? Total spending on this questionable policy is $205 million, money that could be better spent on helping Aboriginal Canadians.
For example, the $205 million could allow the government to reinstate much needed healing programs for generations of Aboriginal Peoples who have been negatively impacted by Canada’s system of residential schools.
Finally, continuing the trend of the 1990s to download financial responsibility to the provinces, this budget’s plans to make both OAS and EI less accessible will ensure that Manitoba will have to pick up the tab to protect our most vulnerable citizens.
This is clearly a budget that does not address the serious inequality situation in Canada. In fact, it will only make things worse.
by Shauna MacKinnon and Lynne Fernandez
Although there seems to be a collective sigh of relief that the Conservative’s first majority-government budget was not as bad as those that came down in the 1990s, it is important to remember that Canada still hasn’t recovered from that “age of austerity” and that this is the first of 4 budgets this government will deliver. Moreover the following points explain how this government is dancing to the same tiresome tune composed by the Liberals.
Changes to the OAS/GIS are completely unnecessary. There’s a lot of fearmongering around how OAS/GIS payments will increase, but spending will only increase from 2.3% of GDP in 2010 to 3.1% in 2030. After 2030, the ratio will go back down to 2.6%. This small, temporary increase is very manageable.
Canada’s greatest success story on the poverty front has been the reduction of seniors’ poverty. Changing OAS/GIS access will begin to reverse that significant gain. This move will see healthcare costs increase: low-income seniors who have to choose between buying medicine or food will end up using the healthcare system more.
Under changes to EI, of note is new spending of $387 million that will “reduce disincentives to accept available work”. This money would be better spent to increase the number of workers eligible to collect EI, the amount they receive, and the duration of benefits. This new move continues the anti-worker sentiment from the 1990s that culminated in the drastic transformation of UI to EI.
In these volatile economic times, the litmus test for this budget is what it will do to create not just jobs, but decent jobs. Unfortunately, it does not pass the test. This government continues to claim that its unprecedented tax cuts (another favourite dance move from the 90s) over the past 6 years is the best way to stimulate economic growth and jobs. We know that this is not true, and it has not worked so far. This budget contains no real plan to help grow jobs – in fact, it missteps badly on this front.
This government is determined to drag the Canadian economy back into one of resource extraction, pitting the development of the tar sands against our manufacturing sector/green economy/and/or the IT sector. It waters down environmental reviews and skips public/community consultations. By insisting on letting mostly foreign-owned oil companies drain oil to foreign markets before even taking advantage of any value-added processing that would create hundreds of well-paying jobs, this government is overlooking any possibility of creating a national energy strategy or conserving our resources. At the same time, it is going to try to quickly push through environmentally dangerous projects. Insistence on making Canada an energy superpower causes our dollar to overheat, making it difficult for Manitoban exporters to compete globally.
The only concrete job-creation idea we could find the extension of their temporary hiring credit for small business (maximum $1,000/employer). Do they really believe this is going create permanent, decent jobs for the already unemployed and the 70,000 soon-to-be unemployed as a result of this budget? Total spending on this questionable policy is $205 million, money that could be better spent on helping Aboriginal Canadians.
For example, the $205 million could allow the government to reinstate much needed healing programs for generations of Aboriginal Peoples who have been negatively impacted by Canada’s system of residential schools.
Finally, continuing the trend of the 1990s to download financial responsibility to the provinces, this budget’s plans to make both OAS and EI less accessible will ensure that Manitoba will have to pick up the tab to protect our most vulnerable citizens.
This is clearly a budget that does not address the serious inequality situation in Canada. In fact, it will only make things worse.
by Kevin Shimmin
In 2011, American retail giant Target bought 189 Zellers stores across Canada. Soon after the purchase, the corporation sold 39 stores to Walmart and another handful to other retailers such as Sobeys. Target has consistently referred to these dealings as “real estate transactions” and asserted that they are under no obligation to the people who work at Zellers. The company says that it chose to enter the Canadian market through existing retail stores, rather than building new locations, because it was concerned about meeting the requirements of our municipal regulations.
As a result of these “real estate transactions”, more than 10,000 Zellers workers could lose their jobs by the end of 2012. Target has announced that more than 100 Zellers stores which they purchased will close this summer and all the employees will be terminated. In fact, many workers have already received termination notices from Zellers. These same stores will re-open under the Target banner in 2013. In Manitoba, the company has bought the Grant Park, Polo Park, Kildonan Place and Southdale Mall shopping centre stores in Winnipeg, and the 18th Street store in Brandon.
According to Target, terminated employees are free to apply to work in their stores once the conversion is complete, but their wage rates, benefits and years of service will not be recognized. Zellers workers will be competing with new applicants for the opportunity to simply return to work in their store.
Zellers’ worker turnover rate is relatively low compared to other chains. In any given store, one can find employees who have worked at Zellers for 20, 30 and even 40 years. The shared experience of most Zellers workers, no matter what their demographic, is that they depend on their jobs for their livelihoods. The people who work at Zellers remind us that retail work is an important career for many.
This is why many people are shocked to learn that Target’s entry into Canada appears to be contingent on wide scale job loss. Many Zellers employees know their customers on a first name basis and often consider them friends. They are people who live in the neighbourhoods which surround their store – neighbourhoods which could be damaged by so many job losses.
Target has refused to answer calls for recognition of the seniority, wages and benefits of Zellers workers. If a Zellers worker does get hired by Target in 2013, they can expect to start at minimum wage with no guarantee of hours. The average Zellers store in Canada has about 125 employees. Target boasts that their re-branded stores will have between 150 and 175 employees. The company wants Canadians to believe that this will mean a higher degree of customer service. However, in the US the company frequently employs large numbers in their stores, yet refuses to schedule an adequate amount of work hours for each worker. Target employees in the United States, called “Team Members”, often find it extremely difficult to make ends meet. Some are forced to rely on food banks to feed their families. One of the most common complaints among Target workers is that they are not given enough hours to escape the cycle of working in poverty.
Are these the types of jobs we should look forward to? Target thinks so. But many Canadians do not. Ask Target for Fairness is a national campaign that wants the CEO and shareholders of Target to change their minds and do the right thing. We want the corporation to understand that Canadians expect employers to treat workers fairly. We are asking Target to keep the workers in the stores which they have purchased, to recognize their years of service to Zellers, and to honour the wages and benefits they have worked hard to achieve. Ask Target for Fairness brings together Zellers workers, community activists, social justice groups, and the union which represents Zellers workers at 15 stores across Canada.
The United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW Canada) has long-standing collective agreements covering the wages and working conditions at 15 Zellers locations. Of the unionized stores, six were purchased by Target. After selling one of the six to Sobeys, the company announced that the remaining five locations would convert to Target, but that the company would not recognize the collective agreements. UFCW Canada believes Target’s actions could be in violation of provincial labour laws. Therefore, the union is filing applications which call on provincial labour boards to deem Target as the successor employer.
The ability to classify Target as the successor employer at Zellers is one possible avenue to pursue better wages and working conditions for retail workers. This avenue necessitates that a Zellers must be at least in the process of unionization before it closes for renovations. Judging from Target’s public announcements and the termination notices already received by affected workers, most stores will close this summer. So timing is certainly limited. But the power of collective bargaining, and the capacity to build fair and secure working conditions, is definitely a strategy worth pursuing.
Having a collective agreement at a newly opened Target store could mean the difference between night and day. The precarious nature of retail work itself would be replaced with a significant degree of job security, binding protections and fairness across the board for all workers. Guaranteed wage rates and employee benefits would be something which Team Members themselves would negotiate collectively.
Recently, thousands of Canadians voiced their opposition to the actions of Caterpillar when the American company locked out and then terminated almost 500 workers in London, Ontario. This strong sentiment should be no different when it comes to retail workers. We should expect Target to treat Canadian retail workers with dignity and respect, particularly as the corporation rolls out an aggressive plan to begin attracting our dollars in the near future.
What will Target jobs look like in Canada? Will they be minimum wage jobs, with few hours and no recognition of seniority or experience? Or will they be good-paying, secure jobs where workers are honoured for their years of commitment to the retail sector. The choice belongs to Target. But it is up to all of us, in Manitoba and across the country, to demand that Target makes the right choice.
Kevin Shimmin is a National Representative for UFCW Canada, who is working on behalf of Ask Target for Fairness.
Kevin Rebeck, of the Manitoba Federation of Labour, sent this letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper regarding Bill C-377. This Bill would require labour organizations to submit detailed financial information covering salaries, revenues and expenses each year, to be posted on the Canada Revenue Agency website. The rationale for this bill, and its contents and implications, have not been widely reported in the mainstream print and electronic media. Rebeck’s letter to the Prime Minister identifies some of the key implications, and suggests that the Bill is yet another manifestation of the Conservative government’s contempt for working people and trade unions.
March 20, 2012
Dear Prime Minister Harper:
I’d like to draw your attention to a few of the concerns I have about Bill C-377, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act (Labour Organizations).
As you are aware, Bill C-377 is a reflection of your contempt for the free trade union movement and not a response to an existing, verifiable issue with how unions in Canada conduct themselves.
If enacted in its current form, Bill C-377 will amend the Income Tax Act and require all labour organizations to make detailed annual financial filings covering salaries, revenues, and expenses. The information would be posted, on the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) website, for anyone to read.
Those who drafted the Bill and its defenders argue that workers get hundreds of millions of dollars in tax benefits through union and professional dues deductions. They argue that any organization that enjoys a tax exemption should be fully transparent so that taxpayers may assess the propriety of their actions and determine whether the tax exemption is being used for the intended purposes. But C-377’s provisions only apply to unions. What about the “any organization that enjoys a tax exemption should be fully transparent” test? Why isn’t every individual, corporation and organization that benefits from tax credits, tax deductions, tax loopholes and tax reductions listed? Clearly, those aren’t the people you want to attack and union members are!
Trade unions, through existing legislative requirements and through our self-imposed constitutional requirements and every-day practices are already the most transparent entities in Canada. Our financial statements are already available to members for their inspection and, in most cases, are formally presented at membership meetings at least once a year. But this isn’t so simply because that’s the way we wrote our organizational constitutions and by-laws. It is so because that is our natural inclination. We promote straightforward, honest relations because of the strong sense of solidarity we share. We extend honesty and we expect honesty in return.
There is nothing useful to union members or the public to be gained by passing this Bill, but there is much to be gained by employers and Conservatives. Complying with its provisions will requirement substantial financial expenditures by unions – money that can be put to more rewarding uses. But that’s the whole point of the legislation now, isn’t it? You want to force unions into spending there scant budgets on meaningless, but expensive “busy work” so those financial resources can’t be spent defending union members who are attacked by their employers, filling training gaps for their members, conducting social-economic research in support of collective bargaining and maintaining a self-defense fund for use during strikes and lockouts. If you force us to use our time and resources on crap, then they can’t be used to resist your agenda.
The Bill is also a gift to employers and professional union busters. It will give them direct access to extremely detailed information about everything a union spends money on, and how strong the union they are bargaining with or have in the cross-hairs.
MP Russ Hiebert, the sponsor of the C-377, has resorted to making statements that are completely false and designed to mislead people, in an effort to justify the Bill. For example, Hansard reports that he stated, “unions already file detailed financial returns with CRA, providing much of this information”. That statement is simply untrue. He also stated, “filing would not impose any additional outside expense on labour organizations”. Again, this is not true.
In the US, where reporting requirements are not as onerous as those contained in C-377, it is estimated by the United States Office of Management and Budget that completing the forms under their legislation requires over 550 hours of work each year – the equivalent of one person working for three months to complete the task.
This level of reporting will be beyond the ability of many of our union locals and small unions to complete. They rely on volunteers to carry out their work and simply do not have the resources to do this themselves.
C-377 is an unwarranted intrusion into the internal affairs of unions in order to provide information to employers and anti-union groups while forcing unions to take on significantly increased costs.
It may well be an unconstitutional intrusion into provincial jurisdiction since labour organizations in that realm fall under provincial labour relations Acts. But we all know that your contempt extends beyond honest working people to their provincial governments as well.
In closing, let me add the following: Shame on you.
Regards,
Kevin Rebeck, President
Manitoba Federation of Labour
This weekend the federal NDP will elect a new leader. Whoever party members choose to lead the NDP should take seriously Tony Judt’s 2010 book titled Ill Fares the Land. Judt argues that our inability to stop the destructive policies of the political Right is a function of our inability to imagine a different and better way of living.
Herein lies what we believe to be the most important role for the new leader of the NDP — to change the narrative from taxes and government are bad, to a narrative that states the far reaching benefits of a more collective, egalitarian and inclusive society. A model that other countries such as Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, have shown to produce better outcomes on many social and economic indicators.
If we can achieve this outcome, it would ensure promising futures for both the NDP and Canadian society.
by Errol Black and Jim Silver
It is essential that we oppose the terribly destructive policies being imposed upon us by the federal Conservative government, but it is equally if not more important that we think and talk about the kind of alternative approaches that we need.
A useful starting point in thinking alternatives is a small book by the late Tony Judt, titled Ill Fares the Land. Judt says: “Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For 30 years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest,” out of “the obsession with wealth creation, the cult of privatization and the private sector, the growing disparities of rich and poor.” He adds: “We cannot go on living like this… We know something is wrong and there are many things we don’t like. But what can we believe in? We seem unable to conceive of alternatives.”
His view, and ours, is that what we can believe in, and what we should publicly make the case for, is a more collective and egalitarian, and a less individualistic and narrowly materialistic, approach to our way of living and our governance.
Stephen Harper and Britain’s David Cameron, and before them Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, and to our south the truly remarkable crew now contesting the Republican Presidential nomination, all believe we are better off if we assume that we are, and govern ourselves as if we were, simply and only individuals. Thatcher went so far as to say that there is no such thing as “society.” There are only individuals and their families.
Judt rejects this reasoning, arguing that the individualist pursuit of narrow self-interest, and the belief that all that matters is the relentless quest for limitless prosperity and material wealth, is destructive of the collective good, and a diminution of what it means to be fully human. It promotes an emptiness that can be filled only by the increasingly aggressive demands to consume, demands that are destroying not only our collective wellbeing, but the very earth that sustains us. This is, among other things, an ethical issue. A progressive politics ought to include an ethical vision.
Judt argues in favour of returning to the more collective and egalitarian approach to living and governing that characterized the quarter century following the Second World War. Margaret Thatcher got it wrong. Individuals and families don’t live in isolation from each other. On the contrary, we are all dependent, one upon the other, for our day-to-day subsistence and our survival as a species. Rather than the greed and growing intolerance and insecurity that are promoted by the appeal to narrow, materialistic individualism, our individual wellbeing is better ensured by developing greater levels of mutual support and solidarity, and by sharing the fruits of our collective efforts—in such a way that no one is left out. This necessitates that we build collective institutions, which in turn requires that governments invest in our collective wellbeing.
The result of governments doing so would be a move away from the truly intolerable gap that has emerged these last three decades between extreme wealth, and debilitating poverty. The growing gap between rich and poor, and the squeezing out of the middle class, is the product of the relentless promotion by the political Right of greed, and of excessive individualism and materialism. The evidence is overwhelming that more equality brings with it better health, improved educational achievement, lowered levels of violence, plus greater levels of mutual trust and security. Judt observes: “Inequality is corrosive. It rots societies from within.” It is an ethical issue. It is ethically wrong that some should be rich beyond comprehension while others barely survive. It is also an economic issue. We would all be better off if we were to reject those who urge the endless pursuit of wealth, and adopt instead policies characterized by moderation and prudence, directed not to the promotion of a narrow stratum of the obscenely wealthy, but rather to the goal of each of us and all of us having enough.
Taking this approach will require a more progressive form of taxation, and for those who are exceptionally wealthy, a steeply progressive level of taxation, in order to facilitate public investment in the collective benefit of all. Progressive taxation is a good thing. It can facilitate publicly funded and universally available social and economic services of a wide variety of kinds—health; education; pensions; infrastructure, for example. In such an environment each of us and all of us could develop our capacities and capabilities to their full potential, and apply our skills in ways that produce both individual and collective benefits.
Judt argues that our inability to stop the destructive policies of the political Right is a function of our inability to imagine a different and better way of living, and he argues that this is a discursive problem: “we simply do not know how to talk about these things any more.”
We need to talk about these things. But how do we break the Right’s narrative that both taxes and government are bad, and replace it with an alternative narrative? Judt advocates being relentless in making clear how mindless and destructive the “fantasies” offered by the Right are, and how economically and ethically flawed they are. He recommends that we be similarly relentless in talking about, and outlining fully and consistently the benefits of, a more collective and egalitarian and inclusive society. We agree, and would add that the creation of such a society is not mere “pie in the sky”: Scandinavian countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden –consistently lead Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. on virtually all indicators of social and economic wellbeing. The superior performance in these countries reflects a strong commitment to social democratic principles and robust trade union movements. Greater equality and inclusiveness, justified for reasons as much ethical as economic, is an alternative frame that can find resonance with Canadians because it connects with Canadian values, and because it can build a better future for all of us.
Judt’s point is: let’s talk about such alternatives!
Errol Black and Jim Silver are CCPA-MB board members.
Follow us!