This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- Maude Barlow and Sujata Dey
point out that the job promises linked to CETA and other new trade agreements are no more plausible than the false ones made in previous rounds of corporate rights giveaways. And the Canadian Labour Congress
discusses the secrecy surrounding the new set of deals including the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
- Meanwhile, the International Labour Organization
documents the connection between collective bargaining rights and greater equality. And lest anybody think there's a tradeoff to be made between equality based on labour rights and growth based on corporate control, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research
finds that "flexible" labour markets do nothing to improve productivity or output. (Which, if course, isn't to say that the Cons plan to do anything but
stomp on workers for the sake of stomping on workers.)
- Peter Fleming
comments on the eroding relationship between productivity, social utility and pay for workers. And in a particularly stark example of how the system is rigged against workers, Chris Thompson
reports on the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's findings about an employer who used the leverage provided by the temporary foreign worker program to sexually abuse employees.
- Stephen Kimber
writes that corporate charity ultimately serves only the purposes of the businesses who get to dictate terms to recipients - meaning that we should refuse to eliminate public supports in favour of private handouts.
- And finally, on that front, Duncan Cameron
makes the case for a more fair tax system which both reduces inequality and ensures we have the revenue to take care of everybody:
Today, accepting that the rich should pay a fair share of taxes would
constitute progress. Through tax cuts, money is being returned to
corporations and the wealthy. Personal tax cuts enacted by the Chrétien
Liberals in the 2000 budget put one-third of the benefits in the pockets of the richest five per cent of taxpayers.
Economists can be found arguing that taxing the rich reduces
incentives to create wealth. True-believing right-wingers argue that the
rich are entitled to whatever money they have, regardless of how that
money is used or how it was obtained. Cynics simply observe that through
provincial sales taxes and the GST, it is possible to soak the poor,
always more numerous than the rich.
With greed being presented as a virtue, even the idea that all
individuals benefit from redistributing resources through taxation to
provide education, health care, recreation, and access to cultural
activities for the entire population can seem counterintuitive. Yet the
principle that each should contribute to society according to ability to
pay retains its power.
Whoever knows financial success already reaps more material benefits
than others, and should be called upon to contribute accordingly. Wealth
and high income confer rewards; such resources provide the fortunate a
greater responsibility for collective endeavours.