PPP (Pierre Poilievre’s Problem)
Maybe it’s not Pierre’s problem. Maybe it’s my problem with Pierre. It’s not only that he offers no solutions to the various issues he condemns. It’s not just that he is constantly in attack mode and that he has shown this throughout his parliamentary career. It is because I believe that he seems to borrow his political philosophy from the two main Republicans in the United States, Donald Trump, and Ron di Santos. Both of these men have shown a propensity for revenge politics. They both have demonstrated that they can and will denigrate, belittle and, if possible, destroy their rivals. Donald Trump has shown this throughout his business and political career. Look at they way he has dealt with his ex-Vice President, Mike Pence only because Pence did the legal and proper thing in approving the election of Joe Biden. Look at the way Ron di Santos dealt with Disney Corporation, one of the largest employers in the state, when they questioned his draconian anti-gay laws. Revenge at every turn has been their modus operandi. Pierre has, to my mind, shown that he has just that in mind if he ever gains power. That is why I could never trust Pierre Poilievre. Why I could never vote for him. Let’s hope that he never gets the chance to demonstrate this side of his political tendency.
Public Service Strike
There is a strike underway by public service members of the federal government. A lot of people are not working these days because of it. Two main issues seem to be dominating the negotiations; pay and remote work (see below). I have a basic problem with public service strikes. As one commentator pointed out, it is pitting one monopoly against another. The federal government has a monopoly on the services it provides, from government pensions to defence. PSAC has a monopoly on the representation of almost all unionized federal service workers. When there is a strike, almost all government services are stopped. The union is not holding the government hostage, it is holding the entire population of Canada hostage. But the public has no place at the table. They are represented by their elected officials who they hope to have the public’s interest as their utmost concern. Personally, I think the wage demands are excessive. One strike leader said that not just government workers need a large wage increase (well over the average rate of inflation over the years in question), but that all workers need such a large increase. That type of thinking is very dangerous because it will inevitably stoke inflation that we are currently trying to get under control. It could lead to the type of inflation that many of us experienced in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In 1980, mortgage rates reached almost 20% as one of my neighbours at the time could well attest. As a retired person with adequate but no excessive means, such a scenario would devastate me and others like me. There has to be a better way of carrying out labour relations with public sector workers. They are not like union workers in the private sector where a strike could devastate a company while there would be other companies to do business with. Where union demands are moderated by the risk of job losses if a company fails.
I must say, I got a surprise the other day. I had a need to contact Service Canada, one of the institutions affected by the strike. I called about 8:45 last Friday morning. I was expecting a long wait time or worse, a message saying they could not take my call. Instead, I got someone on the phone almost as soon as I had worked my way through their automated phone maze. A woman answered, understood my issue, and gave me the information that I needed in a polite and professional manner. I must admit that I came away both pleased and amazed.
Remote Work
I have conducted what is now called remote work well before it became a rallying cry because of the COVID pandemic. As a self-employed and incorporated consultant, several of my jobs required such an arrangement. I experienced the relaxing atmosphere and comfort of doing the work in my home office. Mind you, I did not have any children at home, but I did have an understanding wife who respected my privacy until it was time for her to remind me when it was time to take a break. But it did require a reasonable amount of self discipline and time management to make it work efficiently. When the pandemic forced isolation, remote work became a safety issue to keep as many people both working and as isolated as possible. Now it has become an issue in labour negotiations as a matter of a right. The question being asked is who determines the rules for such a work environment.
But a bigger issue should be who is entitled to such a work environment? Certainly, it has become a major point in the current public sector strike where so many of the strikers work in offices on computers. But they must remember such a work environment applies to less than half of the workers in the country. It does not apply to the people who manufacture the computers and telecommunications equipment that make remote work possible. Nor does it apply to the people who ship, sell, and set up such tools. It does not apply to the people who build your houses, your cars, your home appliances, or service any of these things. You decried when your children weren’t in school but that meant that teachers and school staff could not work at home. Your growing love of remote shopping on-line required someone to process the order, someone to get the item off the storage shelf, pack it and ship it, plus the person who had to transport and deliver it to your home. Grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants and hospitals all required someone to actually be there to get anything done. So, you lucky few who are able to get to work in the comfort of your home, accept the fact that your employer has every right to specify how and when you should work remotely.
