- Glen Pearson follows up on the importance of organized labour - particularly as a desperately-needed counterweight to the pressures faced by public officials which may not be obvious to anybody less connected to the political scene:
I often thought about this during my time in the Canadian Parliament. Corporate presence and pressure was everywhere – hard to ignore and even harder to oppose. Politicians blessed with benefits, holiday pay, and the kind of pensions that unions struggled so hard to attain for everyone, learned to give lip-service to union representatives while at the same time passing legislation that serviced the corporate sector but deprived not only union protections, but the abilities of average workers to gain a productive wage.- The CCPA has released its annual focus on soaring executive compensation. But if one needed to know how striking the 27% jump over last year actually is, take a look at Mike Moffatt's immediate suspicion that the numbers had to have been torqued by a redefinition of the term "CEO" to produce such a massive increase - followed by his subsequent recognition that in fact the CCPA has merely measured what's actually happened from a consistent baseline.
And so we come to a sad truth. Beginning in the 1970s, corporations on both sides of the 49th parallel undertook a comprehensive assault on unions. In Canada, opportunities emerging in the global economy meant that they didn’t want to be linked to Canadian labour legislation anymore. While the majority of small and medium-sized businesses continued to abide by the arrangements, the large corporations wanted to slip the reins and move unhindered. Unions slowly awoke to the reality that a new unfettered capitalism was about to sever the historic link between employers and their workers.
(Of course, now that the increase is known to be a real phenomenon rather than merely a shocking number, Moffatt is back to suggesting that it's nothing worth worrying our pretty little heads over.)
- Meanwhile, Frances Woolley points out how the unintended consequences can be seen in past building construction - raising a nice illustration of the importance of focusing taxes on the right sources of funds. Though I'd argue that high-end incomes which have relatively little positive impact in terms of either economic or social outcomes would look to be a more important source than consumer-based reserves.
- Jean Sorensen points out that B.C. voters have intervened in a couple of attempts to privatize drinking water.
- Finally, Anu Partanen points out that Finland's efforts at improving education as a matter of equal access to quality schools have produced far better results than the U.S.' competition-driven system.
If by 'immediate suspicion' you mean 'having read the entire document and notice that there were a bunch of non-CEOs on a list of CEOs' then sure, I'm guilty.
ReplyDeleteThe CCPA did the very unhelpful thing of not citinng how they got their 27 percent figure, nor did they link to their previous year study, so it was a non-trivial matter of seeing whether or not they were doing an apples-to-apples comparison. After some searching I managed to track down the 2009 report to see that they, in fact, were, which I tweeted.
Fair enough if the explanation wasn't quite as readily available as it could have been. But it still strikes me as bizarre to interpret the result as crying out for explanation until you establish that it's accurate - and then conclude that there's nothing to see here.
ReplyDeleteI didn't *conclude* anything. I wondered aloud if they were using the same methodology in both years. I then answered my own question through research when no answers from the CCPA were forthcoming. I got the distinct impression that the CCPA didn't even know if they were using the same methodology!
ReplyDeleteWhy would you expect me to know more about the methodology of the report than the people that released it?
ReplyDeleteI don't expect that by any means - and can certainly understand asking questions about the report. But it makes little sense to me to show that willingness to "wonder aloud" about the CCPA's methodology, then spend the rest of the day dismissing the questions others were raising about the reasons for the acknowledged increase in executive pay based on nothing more than a similar lack of obviously conclusive answers.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't dismissing questions - I was providing counterarguments.
ReplyDeleteI don't buy this idea that we can't question, that we have to take everything on faith and we can't provide alternative explanations. That we can't point out logically fallacies when they occur.
ReplyDelete