On benefits at stake

Martin Regg Cohn is right to note that there's no empirical support for attacks on unions when it comes to jobs or economic development:

Why then is Hudak trying to turn the clock back? He points to the rise of Right to Work states in the U.S., where right-wing legislators have triumphed against unions in a historical battle that has its roots in the Deep South. The movement has recently spread to nearby Michigan and Indiana, so Ontario must now graft this foreign ideology onto its economy to remain competitive, Hudak argues.

The benefits? Lower unionization rates and lower wage rates.

...
You can pick your study to suit your point of view, but it’s hard to disagree with the OFL’s bottom line: the arguments against unions are entirely ideological, not empirical. And while ideologues get bogged down by unprovable arguments about how destroying unions creates jobs, they ignore the undeniable benefits to workplace health and safety from unionization (which ultimately lowers hospitalization costs for employers and taxpayers).

But Cohn falls short of drawing all of the connections worth associating with a labour movement capable of standing up for workers' interests - including reducing inequality and boosting voter turnout.

So when your local Chamber of Commerce starts bleating about fighting against a "union agenda", that's what it's really seeking to squelch at all costs: an engaged public looking to shape its own destiny and ensure both decent wages for workers, and a fair distribution of public resources. And we'll find out soon whether Regina voters value those factors more than easy profits for the wealthy.

New column day

Here, on the general irrationality of the right-wing obsession with chaining public services and tax rates to population growth - and the particularly egregious application of that theory by the Regina Chamber of Commerce when it's put added pressure on city services by insisting on generous tax abatements for some of the businesses and individuals who can most afford to contribute to maintaining them.

For further reading...
- My look at the city's proposed 2013 budget doesn't include a detailed breakdown of tax expenditures and abatements: there's some mention of the cost associated with the city's housing tax incentive, but other well-documented ad hoc tax goodies (and the associated loss of revenue to the city) don't appear to rate a mention.
- The Chamber's response to the proposed budget - including its insistence on "inflation plus growth" at the mill rate level with no concern for its effect on services - can be found in Will Chabun's coverage of the budget.
- And finally, Regina's own City Manager notes that growth for its own sake doesn't necessarily produce enough revenue to cover the added cost of services:

Davies explained that growth into new areas doesn't always generate the tax revenue needed to extend services to those neighbourhoods in the long-term. He says that means the city needs to budget more strategically.

"We need to get sharper with finding ways to save money, to create efficiencies and create some headroom that we can make some further investments," Davies noted. "The expectations (people have) are about services but more importantly these days it's about maintaining infrastructure."

On end goals

Since the Regina Chamber of Commerce apparently isn't too fond of having its own words pointed out publicly, I'll offer a quick refresher as to how its statements about its desire to shut down workers' political activity compare to its sad claim to free speech.

Again, here are two separate questions and answers from the Chamber's submission on labour legislation. First up...

Are trade unions sufficiently accountable?

No, the issue is that unions will on many occasions support causes or political parties that do not reflect some of the membership.

Now, I'll first note that the answer doesn't particularly reflect the question. (Which, as we'll see, makes for a rather important common thread.) But if we assume there is a relationship between the two themes, it only makes sense if one takes the position that an organization is insufficiently accountable if it may "support causes or political parties that do not reflect some of the membership".

And by all indications, the Chamber has no interest in meeting that standard for itself - both based on its electoral boundary submission as noted in comments to my previous post, and its "if they don't like it, they can leave" position made explicit in today's letter.

That leads to the second question and answer which by all accounts puts the Chamber's desire to attack workers in its full context:

Should union members be able to stipulate what their dues are used for?

Yes, this would stop unions from being quasi political entities and force them to represent the interest of the workers they represent.

Once again, there's an obvious gap between the question and the answer - and one which gives the game away for the Chamber.

The question is indeed aimed at directed dues, where individual union members - unlike individual members of any other collective body, the Chamber included - would be entitled to set limits on how contributions would be used. And by implication, a union wouldn't be stopped from political participation except to the extent individual members' choices so dictate.

But that's not enough for the Chamber. Instead, it goes a step further by answering that there should be some separate intention to "stop unions from being quasi political entities" - suggesting that contrary to the newest spin, the Chamber wants to make sure that unions can't carry out effective action no matter how many members support it.

At best, one might argue that the Chamber's answer merely assumes that not a single union member would accept having dues used for political purposes. From that assumption, its unprompted comment on completely silencing the labour movement would merely be a direct consequence of the stipulated dues policy.

But I wonder how much that constitutes projection on its own part. Again, the Chamber's members don't seem to be receiving much chance to offer contrary views before having dues used for its own misleading ad campaign - and the next hint the Chamber sees any problem with that will be the first.

Either way, it's the Chamber that's somewhere between unconcerned and downright giddy at the prospect that changes to labour law might stop unions from having any political involvement. And the more the Chamber tries to silence unions in the name of free speech, the more reason its members will have to wonder just what it is that they're funding.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

New column day

Here, on the dangers of allowing corporate voices and employers to dictate what citizens are permitted (or required) to say about political issues.

While I didn't include a direct comparison in the column, I'll point out the rather stark contrast between the employer abuses exemplified by Murray Energy Company and the union structures which business interests are trying to tear down.

On the labour side, decisions about political involvement and work issues are made through democratic processes - and once taken, they still allow employees to choose how much of a role to play (if any) once action is taken. But with an employer like Murray, a worker receives neither an opportunity to influence demands before they're made, nor any alternative but to comply.

For further reading...
- Murray Energy Company has been the subject of extensive reporting, including this about mandatory attendance at a Mitt Romney rally, this about the use of that rally footage in a Romney ad, and this about funnelling employee donations to employer-chosen candidates.
- Jill Mahoney reported on the efforts of XL Foods' union to ensure that workers can contribute to public safety. But Matt McClure followed up and noted XL's refusal to acknowledge any remaining issues.
- Finally, my earlier post on the Regina Chamber of Commerce's free speech hypocrisy is here.

#withoutanewstadium

I've written plenty about Regina's municipal election over the past few days. But I'll take some time to encourage readers to join the conversation as early voting approaches.

With the City having released a stadium design concept at the start of the election campaign, it's been far too easy to fall into the trap of assuming that it's both a reality and a done deal. But it should be fairly simple to take to Twitter and offer some reminders that there's plenty we can do in Regina...#withoutanewstadium.

So how can we put the hashtag to good use? Well, here are a few suggestions.

First, by contrasting the current council's stadium obsession against other policy choices...

We could start building needed housing *now* #withoutanewstadium

We'll be able to save public money for far better purposes #withoutanewstadium

Second, with a dose of humour...

ZOMG!!! #withoutanewstadium, the #riders will TOTALLY move to *FLIN FLON*!

However will we teach young Reginans about "cost overruns" #withoutanewstadium?

And finally, as a response to the constant flow of business jingoism which so conveniently neglects the fact that our current stadium isn't exactly standing between Regina and the corporate community's goals either:

2668 jobs on saskjobs for yqr #withoutanewstadium

Riders generate $82 million impact annually - and #withoutanewstadium!

Of course, there are other important issues to be dealt with in the campaign as well. And I certainly hope readers and voters will take them into account at the polls.

But the most immediate choice facing for our municipal representatives is whether to let proponents of a new stadium buy their way to the front of the line while more important issues are left unaddressed. And it's long past time to recognize that Regina can keep thriving #withoutanewstadium.

Free speech for me, but not for thee

Needless to say, the Regina Chamber of Commerce's attempts to paint concerns about its purporting to speak on behalf of the City as having anything to do with free speech generally have no basis in reality.

But if we want to look for somebody who's making a concerted effort to silence key voices on the political scene, we can look no further than...the Regina Chamber of Commerce, seeking to make it more difficult for unions to participate in politics through its submission to the provincial employment law consultation (PDF; bold in original, italics added):

Are trade unions sufficiently accountable?

No, the issue is that unions will on many occasions support causes or political parties that do not reflect some of the membership.
...
Should union members be able to stipulate what their dues are used for?

Yes, this would stop unions from being quasi political entities and force them to represent the interest of the workers they represent.

So let's ask a few questions: does the Chamber assert that every single one of its members supports every single political statement it's making surrounding the municipal election? Does its dues process include some means to ensure businesses who disagree don't see any of their contributions go to the Chamber's advertising?

And how in the world can it reconcile its bleatings about "free speech" on behalf of a representative organization with an express intention to "stop unions from being quasi political entities"?

On blurred lines

In today's Leader-Post, John Hopkins responds to this week's column. But while he tries to point some fingers away from the Regina Chamber of Commerce, he only raises larger issues as to the relationship between the Chamber and the City.

In effect, Hopkins argues that it wasn't the Chamber that copied the City's "Regina Votes" theme, but the other way around. (Which is difficult to verify, as archives seem to be rather sparse in trying to track down the history of both sites.)

But of course, that doesn't address the use of what's unmistakably a City logo (and indeed, now an updated one) on the Chamber's site. And more importantly, it simply feeds into the concern that we have no way of knowing where our public institutions end and where the Chamber's influence begins.

If the current city administration has indeed copied an election theme from the Chamber, and doesn't see any concern with the Chamber in turn splashing its logo on an advocacy site, all at the same time that the City hawks the Chamber-backed stadium project in the middle of an election campaign which should determine whether or not Regina residents actually want to push ahead...well, that looks all the worse to me as a matter of overall perception and electoral fairness, even if it shifts a bit of the immediate blame from the Chamber to the City.

At higher levels of government, similar issues are resolved by drawing clear lines between general administration, electoral oversight and campaigning. But this year's campaign is only highlighting a glaring absence of similar protections at the municipal level. And if the Chamber genuinely doesn't see why anybody would be concerned, that probably signals that it sees itself as benefitting from a city administration which hasn't addressed the issue.

[Edit: fixed typo, wording.]

New column day

Here, on how the Regina Chamber of Commerce is taking election misdirection to new lows in this fall's municipal campaign.

For further reading...
- Vanda Schmokel pointed out the same issue earlier this week.
- The Chamber's Regina Votes site is here. The City of Regina's official site with the same theme is here. The City's rules surrounding the use of its logo (or at least its latest version) are here.
- In contrast to the Chamber, David Robert Loblaw's entirely neutral site includes a clear statement to avoid confusion (along with a thorough set of information about the candidates):

This is NOT an official election website.  The official City of Regina election site is at Regina.ca/residents/elections
Election questions should be directed to the official City Election Office

- Finally, CUPE Local 21's Wants vs Needs site doesn't pretend to be official - but it does mention some of the issues conspicuously excluded by the Chamber.

Case in point

I'm shocked to see Ken Krawetz happily outsourcing the Sask Party's policy development to the Chamber of Commerce, then taking on the job of selling a corporate agenda to the public. Who could possibly have suspected?

On journamalism

While I criticized a number of CanWest's obviously-biased op-eds on health care privatization yesterday, let's give them this much: flawed though they are, at the very least they roughly fit the definition of the type of material that's supposed to appear in their format. And that's more than one can say for what's passing for news on the same topic.

So what's wrong with the Leader-Post's excuse for a news article about private health services? Let's start with the basic premise before going into the details.

My impression would be that most news stories are intended to actually reflect news of some sort. So let's ask: what news value is there in the fact that a service provider has provided services? Or put another way, how often has the Leader-Post printed news stories about, say, happy welfare recipients as an argument for improved social services? Or people who received excellent care in the public sector and don't much want to see a privatized system?

The main answer is that they wouldn't bother, because things functioning as they're supposed to aren't generally considered to have any particular news value. But apparently CanWest makes an exception where it suits its editorial slant. And that brings us into the jaw-dropping degree of bias in what's supposed to be a matter of news rather than opinion.

Want any context comparing public and private services? Counterarguments in anything but the flimsiest of straw-man form? You'll find none whatsoever, just an article-long homily to privatization. Indeed, while I don't have a hard copy of the Leader-Post in front of me, I'd be shocked if there weren't some ads in the paper that are more balanced in their treatment of their subject matter.

And all this over services which themselves could just as easily have been delivered in the public sector as the private sector. But again, any actual context would be entirely unhelpful in serving the corporate purpose.

But wait, there's more! Scroll down to the end of the article, and you'll find out just who it is that's been called on to pass off their opinion as news:

Hopkins is speaking out, not as the CEO of the Regina & District Chamber of Commerce, but as a grateful parent.

Now, most of us would have the sense to treat an article along the lines of "President of Domestic Auto Dealers of Canada: Ford Offered Me A Great Car At A Great Price!" with the level of skepticism it deserves. And I'd like to think most journalists would do the same in deciding how to frame an article.

But the Leader-Post's choice to offer a corporate spokesperson free rein to spout uncontradicted pro-privatization blather amounts to effectively the same thing. And it's combined with just enough subterfuge to lull the reader into thinking there's something more to the article, before mentioning the interviewee's pecuniary interest as an afterthought.

Now, it's sad that this is what passes for media in our province - and it's never a plus to be up against such widely-distributed propaganda. But let's close with a look on the bright side: we can safely say that the privatization movement is completely devoid of any intelligent thought if this is what's passing for a sales job.

Less than altruistic

Murray Mandryk's latest probably deserves a complete fisking. But for now, let's stick with noting how warped our political discourse must be if an anti-tax group's predictable call for constant tax cuts (instead of using public funds on any other priority) is somehow being hyped as the height of publicly-interested policy development.

(Edit: fixed wording.)