Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Nadine Yousif writes about the growing frustration people are experiencing as they're told to manage their own risks in the midst of a pandemic with obvious social dimensions, and all while being denied the information needed to do so. Dylan Scott similarly laments being stuck in the choose-your-own-adventure phase of the pandemic. Aaron Carroll writes about some of the options to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 which should still be on the table even if protective masking is (needlessly) ruled out. And Maija Kappler reports on the shortest known interval between COVID infections in an individual at 20 days - signaling that the people getting infected now won't have any reason for confidence they'll avoid further harm within a matter of weeks. 

- Clarrie Feinstein and Rosa Saba discuss the need for wages to catch up to inflation - not be pushed down in an effort to ensure only the wealthy benefit from price increases. Josh Bivens points out how the U.S.' inflation has been disproportionately the result of profiteering - with supply chain issues as the other substantial contributing factor, and wages playing hardly any role. And Dean Baker calls out the corporate spokesflacks trying to ignore that reality in seeking to suppress workers' income. 

- Meanwhile, Bert Blundon notes that the Libs' budget offers minimal (and less-than-promised) improvement in securing revenue from the people with the most, while also imposing Harper-style attacks on the public sector. 

- Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood and Marc Lee discuss the continued confusion in the Libs' climate policy, with loud declarations of climate leadership paired with free money and regulatory approvals for major sources of additional emissions which our planet can't afford. And Shawn McCarthy notes that Canada's history of climate policy under the Trudeau government has been one of the worst among developed countries.  

- Finally, David Sirota discusses how U.S. Democrats devoting their time and effort to declaring that government is powerless to do anything but continue catering to the wealthiest few are Jokerfying a generation of voters who saw the 2020 election as the last best hope for better. 

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Dean Baker responds to attempts to paint inequality as an inevitable result of market forces by pointing out the choices being how our markets are structured. And Jonathan Tepper discusses how the concentration of wealth and power has created giant corporate monopolies which are antithetical to market competition and innovation.

- Richard Reeves points out the need for growing inequality to be addressed by sufficient worker bargaining power to boost wages. Julia Wong and Kaylen Small report on the acts of solidarity by workers across Canada in response to the Trudeau government's choice to force CUPW to give up an effective and effectively-managed strike. The Canadian Press reports on the similarities between the effort to respond to GM's abandonment of Oshawa and the wider issues facing Canada's labour movement. And L. Ian MacDonald points out that our reaction to the Oshawa closure speaks volumes about our view of the significance and meaning of the national interest in managing economic development.

- Robin McKie writes about another global climate summit being held in the face of warnings that we may have already reached a point of no return as we try to avoid outright climate breakdown. Bob Weber reports on new research showing that Canada's cities are woefully unprepared for the future projected to result from climate change. And Amy Harder comments on the wilful ignorance and disinformation at the core of the only position opposed to a massive effort to change course.

- Simon Little reports on the apparent connection between fracking and earthquake activity in Fort St. John, B.C.

- Finally, James Wilt analyzes how far too much of Canada's media is dedicated to serving the ruling class rather than the public interest.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Dean Baker discusses some of the myths about the effects of corporate globalization - with particular attention to how our current trade and immigration structures are designed to provide easy profits for capital at the expense of labour around the world. And Jason Hickel reports on new research showing how the developed world (or at least its upper class) is extracting trillions of dollars from the countries which can least afford to lose them.

- James Kwak comments on the massive gap between the effects of minimum-wage increases as threatened based on oversimplified economic theories, and the real-world impacts which have been beneficial for workers and the broader economy alike. 

- The International Labour Organization reviews the continued lack of secure employment around the globe. And Ashley Cowburn reports on the UK public's strong support for the idea of reining in CEO income compared to that of a business' general workforce.

- Alexander Kaufman highlights Rex Tillerson's implausible denial that he has any idea Exxon and other oil companies enjoy public subsidies. And Ross Belot points out that based on then Libs' combination of nominal greenhouse gas emissions targets and plans which fall far short of meeting them, we're likely to see yet another public giveaway to the oil sector in the form of carbon bailouts.

- Finally, Dennis Gruending offers his take on the need for a public response to the threat of mass surveillance.

Monday Morning Labour Day Links

Assorted content for your Labour Day reading.

- The Star comments on the place of the union movement in the face of a determined push to silence workers:

Given the challenges ahead, and all the ground that’s been lost so far, it remains to be seen if the new union will succeed in building “a powerful social movement fighting for all working people.” But the takeaway is that on this Labour Day, unions still have the vision to imagine a better life for working people, and the will to try to bring it about. The long march continues.

 - Meanwhile, Craig McInnes recognizes how bleak a future where the corporate right manages to trash the labour movement would look:

Whether the decline in union membership is seen as a benefit or simply inevitable, what's often lost in the economic debate is the value of unions to the communities in which they operate.

There are the historical benefits that we take largely for granted that were achieved for everyone through long and difficult struggles - the weekend, for example.

But there is also the ongoing benefit of higher wages. Using data from the 2011 Census, the Canadian Labour Congress calculates unionized workers in Vancouver make an average hourly wage that is, at $27.09, almost $5 an hour higher than non-unionized workers. That benefit - seen as a negative by the Fraser Institute and other commentators who view life only through the business pages - makes life easier for unionized workers and their families.

...
If the demise of unions means ordinary working people can't aspire to be consumers, to achieve a reasonable standard of living, it's hard to imagine the communities we have built on that expectation can continue to thrive.

- And Judy Halven observes that what we need is to focus on creating good jobs for Canadian workers, rather than unstable, low-paying jobs for the benefit of multinational employers:

Thinking about Labour Day 2012, we need to turn our attention to limiting “bad” jobs and increasing “good” jobs. “Good” jobs have good pay, full-time hours, benefits, pensions and more. We can remind ourselves about the $260-million forgivable loan the Nova Scotia government gave to Irving Shipbuilding for the federal shipbuilding contract. While some “good” jobs will no doubt be created, they will go to semi-skilled and skilled tradespeople — mainly men. Though some women will get jobs on site, the majority of new jobs for women will be created in the restaurant, bar and service sector. These jobs usually pay minimum wage, plus tips, and could be considered “bad” jobs.

Wealthy people seem to know all about “good” jobs, as they tend to have them. The average income for the richest one per cent of Canadians was $405,000 in 2007. Between 1997 and 2007, the richest one per cent (246,000 people) took almost one-third (32 per cent) of all growth in incomes. In addition, the tax system is making them richer. In 1948, the top marginal tax rate on incomes over $250,000 was 80 per cent. In 2009, that rate was cut almost in half to 42.9 per cent for incomes above $126,264.

This Labour Day, we need to work to eliminate the obstacles for the 99 per cent who want to make a decent living in this province, obstacles such as low wages, part-time work and large handouts to corporations. The Occupy movement’s message — “We are the 99 per cent” — is as true for us today as it was a year ago.

- But on the bright side, Dean Baker notes that Canada can still serve as a positive example of the value of organized labour - at least, compared to our neighbour to the south:

When the Employee Free Choice Act was debated in 2008, the anti-union groups argued that majority sign-up (which was a major provision) would lead to workers being stuck with unions they didn't want. Their story was union thugs would intimidate workers into signing union cards against their will. 

The differing experience in Canadian provinces over time gives us a simple way to test this claim. If workers were intimidated into signing cards, then we would expect to see a higher rate of de-certifications in provinces after they have put in place laws allowing for majority sign-up. 

In fact, there is no evidence at all that there was a rise in de-certifications after majority sign-up was adopted. In several provinces the de-certification rate fell after majority sign-up was allowed. This would seem like pretty solid evidence against the "union thug" story. 

All of this matters because if we chose, we could make US labour law closer to Canada's. That might over time bring us somewhat close to Canadian unionisation rates. 

People who care about inequality should have this at the top of their agenda. In our bag of tricks to reverse the upward redistribution of the last three decades, higher unionisation rates should rank near the top.