Minimum Wage - Another Piece of Straw

I read "Restaurants 'taking from Peter to pay Paul' amid minimum wage hike" by CBC Marketplace and thought "here we go." I knew that the minimum wage hike was not going to have the desired effect, but I am quite disappointed that businesses are taking their hardship out on their employees. Once again, those who can least afford to pay, are going to shoulder the burden for everyone. Maybe this is the time to review wages across the board.

Now, I can hear the business owner's cry out "yes, but it's not our fault, the government saddled us with this burden, and s**t rolls downhill." I'm sorry, that is not acceptable. The actions shown in this Marketplace report, and those of certain Tim Horton's franchisees are unethical. Not only should you not be surprised when the public blames you, should should be ashamed for having tried it in the first place. I have written extensively on Ethical Debt in the past, check it out if you don't understand. The citizens of Ontario need to be made to see this for what it is, an increased tax on business. Like all tax increases, it will work its way through the entire supply chain, and end with the person purchasing the final item.

If business owners feel hard-done-by, why don't you take it out on Kathleen Wynne? When June 2018 rolls around, the populous of Ontario will vote, and the Wynne government will be unaffected (or even rewarded) for this tax because people will not see the long-term impact of her actions. Any rage that is generated, will be directed to businesses who are seen to be greedy by those with little or no knowledge of the true costs of entrepreneurship.

Instead, I suggest that you embrace this increase, and propagate it throughout your organisation... and quickly. Ask yourself, why do some people make more money than others? Does the person who makes more than minimum wage really add more value? If so, how much more? Then adjust her or his wage accordingly. If not, this becomes a training opportunity. This is an opportunity to begin paying people based on the value they provide, rather than the minimum that is required. It may seem trite, but if you care about your people, they will care about your business.

Obviously, these increases will have to be reflected in the prices of goods and services. After all, you are in business to earn a profit, not as a charity. However, I am not proposing that you have carte-blanche to gouge the consumer, but it is appropriate that your expenses are covered. And when the consumers are upset by the hit on their pocket-book, they will direct their anger to the person who initiated the hit, Kathleen Wynne. If you hold off, and try to survive, you will not only be putting your business at greater risk, but you will be letting the Wynne government get away with this attack on your livelihood.

We are all camels here. Each one carrying a burden for the values that our society holds dear. Let us be careful not to transfer our straw to our neighbouring camels, but rather refuse any additional straw that is placed on us just to win votes.

Democrazy

Maybe it's time we re-think this whole "Democracy" thing. I am not proposing Communism (though in its pure form would be better than Democracy), and I am not proposing Anarchy (which in its pure form is better than Communism). However, it seems obvious to me after watching the turmoil surrounding the Arab Spring, the Brexit vote, the Trump victory, and numerous Canadian elections, that "Democracy", as it is currently implemented, is broken. It is time to move away from party politics and embrace direct representation.

I think it is time for "Democracy 2.0".

Before I go further, let me stress two things:

I am a layman. I have no political training whatsoever.

I don’t want to lead you. I have no political aspirations whatsoever.

What I do have is a desire to see mankind live in peace, and to see governments actually represent their people.

If you continue to do what you’ve always done, 

you will continue to see what you’ve always seen.

What’s wrong with the status-quo? When I reflect on the lack of direct representation in democracy, there is one thing that repeatedly jumps out at me: The Party Political Model. Under the party model, one person is appointed leader (or assumes leadership) of the party. This leader establishes the platform that the party rallies behind. The party then goes out into the country (or province), and places a candidate in each electoral district (or riding) that they can afford to. On Election Day, you (the people) then choose the party (and its leader) whose platform closest relates to your personal set of priorities. In Canada, this usually boils down to a decision between Liver & Onions or Onions & Liver. The local politician has very little say as to what issues are important, and is often bullied into voting the party line, especially on issues of significance. Your voice is heard only once every four years.

Based on photo by Arthur Chapman CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

In English, when one wants to say that something is out of order, one often says that “the cart is before the horse.” This is the current state of Democracy. As long as the leader of government is chosen before the members of government, the members will represent the leader before their constituents. This may have been needed at a time when most people had no way of knowing what a particular candidate’s opinion on the issues was. So, the party was trusted to assemble like-minded representatives. However, with the advent of the internet, and even more so Social Media, a constituent can know everything there is to know about a candidate. Fancy a life in politics? You had better keep your digital footprint clean.

Democracy 2.0 in Action

What would Democracy 2.0 look like? For starters, the size of the constituency would be based on the number of people an average representative can actually represent. I don’t know what that number is, that would require further research. But think of it this way, if a representative were to speak with a different constituent every half hour, seven hours a day, every week day for fifty weeks of the year, s/he could hear the opinions of 3,500 constituents. If the size of the constituency is 100,000 people, the opinions of those 3,500 constituents would reflect the entire population of the constituency 95% of the time with a 1.63 margin of error. (As an aside, the average population of Canadian federal ridings is 99,034.)

In Canada, we have a situation that doesn’t occur everywhere, but must be addressed in all countries where it does occur. Since the formation of Canada was the result of colonialization, we have an indigenous population. Our indigenous population is known as the “First Nations.” Due to the sleight of hand and wordsmithing skills of the colonial forces (not to mention military might), the First Nations are not represented equally in government. Under Democracy 2.0, each Nation of the First Nations would have a seat in government. We cannot undo the past, but we can fix the future.

So, now that we’ve nailed down the size of the constituency, let’s discuss candidates. All candidates that wish to represent a constituency must actually be from that constituency. Under the party model, it is not un-common for a party to move a candidate to a constituency where they cannot, or will not, field someone local. That person knows nothing about life in that area, and cannot possibly have a vested interest in the wellbeing of that community. If we remove the parties, we open the door to direct representation. The electorate focuses their decision making on choosing the candidate that best represents their beliefs and concerns.

You might ask: what about Leadership, and Opposition? How would that work? I would reply: ask yourself this: what do you expect the Opposition to do? Oppose. But what should they do when the law being debated has merit? Do you really want someone to sit in opposition to something they know to be right? Under Democracy 2.0, all members of the House of Representatives are members of the Government, and all members of the House of Representatives are members of the Opposition. Under Democracy 2.0, they are all expected to consider each bill or act (or whatever you call them in your context) under its own merit. Each representative can propose a bill for consideration by his or her peers, but there is no one person who is sitting in a position of authority over them. As such, there is no one person who influences their vote.

The role of Leader would be occupied by a member of the House of Representatives chosen by his or her peers. For this, I like the British term “Prime Minister.” This would be the first among equals, the Head of State. One must note however, that this position is external facing. As each representative is accountable to his or her constituency, this Prime Minister would be accountable to the House of Representatives, and would be expected to represent their beliefs and concerns on the world stage.

A Brave New World

The beauty of the Democracy 2.0 model is that it would scale really well. The same model could be applied to local governments, provincial (or state) governments, even to multilateral organizations like the United Nations. The challenge is making it a reality. The political machines that drive democratic implementations around the world are protectionist in nature, and are not likely to change from the inside. It would take a true statesman or stateswoman to give up power once granted the majority required to make Democracy 2.0 happen. But I can always dream.

The Culture of Poverty

From "The Devil's Miner"

I watched a report by Mathias Meier in the New York Times entitled "Embracing Child Labor". Bolivia, my birthplace, has made it legal for children to begin working at ten years of age.  I must say I am shocked and saddened. I am shocked that this has barely received any press in the developed world, and I am saddened to think of what this will mean for the future of these beautiful people.

I understand the logic of the proponents of child labour. The families are starving, the children are working already, let's make sure that they at least get a fair wage. In fairness, child labour happens to some degree all over the world. Even in North America, on family farms children are expected to perform duties before and after school that are critical to keeping the farm running. The same is true in many family run businesses in Bolivia, but this is not what we are talking about here. Here we are talking about children working at hard labour (mining, brick making, etc), and though it is not supposed to interfere with schooling, one would have to be quite naive to think that it doesn't.

In the above story, Dr. Jorge Domic, the director of Fundación La Paz (a development NGO), says that child labour is part of the Andean culture, and especially Bolivian culture. I beg to differ. Culture is not what a people do, it is who a people are. Culture is the characteristics of a people that distinguishes them from their neighbours. Being hard working and industrious can be seen as cultural. Keeping a segment of one's population poor due to lack of education is not cultural. Despite the promise of a socialist revolution, it is the rich in Bolivia that are profiting from this move, not the poor. Oh sure, the poor will get a few extra pennies, and that will make a difference, but it will be just enough to keep them poor. And by legalizing child labour, families who would have otherwise obeyed the law and endured the hardship of poverty, might be tempted by the newly legalized source of income.

According to the CIA World Factbook, 45% of Bolivians live on less that $2 per day. The Factbook also points out that:

"Bolivia's income inequality is the highest in Latin America and one of the highest in the world. Public education is of poor quality, and educational opportunities are among the most unevenly distributed in Latin America, with girls and indigenous and rural children less likely to be literate or to complete primary school."

So there's your problem. A third of the population is under the age of 15, you have a low quality system of public education, and the access to public education is not universal. Now you are going to compound the problem by making it OK for children to work for pay starting at ten years of age (and their "union" is pushing for that age to be lower still). I like how Alex Rosen put it in his article on this topic in "No Se Mancha":

"If this is Bolivia’s best answer, then perhaps they have asked the wrong question."

What is needed is a break in the cycle of generational poverty. This can only be accomplished by a high quality, universal, public education system. President Morales has done his people a huge disservice.

Contracts Written in Disappearing Ink

Credit: Peter Kaminski

They say "A Picture Paints A Thousand Words." If that is the case, then it stands to reason that a thousand words must paint a picture. But what happens to the picture if you start to erase some of the words?

According to Mario Elia; a Doctor from London, Ontario; this is what the Province of Ontario is doing with it's contract with Physicians. They agreed to a certain rate of pay, but are now changing the game to suit their own purpose. Essentially, they have made election promises and expect the doctors to pay the bill.

Now I'm not going to get into the political side of this issue. We are currently under Liberal Party rule, but the same thing was done by the New Democrats under Bob Rae (referred to colloquially as Bob Rae Days), and the Progressive Conservatives under Mike Harris made dramatic cuts to health care as well. I personally have a very difficult time trusting any politician.

This story is, however, an excellent illustration of #EthicalDebt at play.When (if) our government goes back to the bargaining table, our physicians (if there are any left in Ontario) will have a hard time agreeing to any contract. They will be, justifiably so, suspicious that the contract may be written in disappearing ink. I chose the image that accompanies this post because the artist says:

« The [Buddha] board has a sandstone-like texture that turns ink-black when you paint on it with plain water. Over the course of 20-30 minutes, the water evaporates, and your drawing disappears. »

For how long is your signature a sign of your commitment?

Do your contracts (or the spirit within which they were signed) only last as long as circumstances are in your favour? ...or do you stand by your word?

If I asked your business associates or customers the same question, would their answers agree with yours?

So, you are different. That's great! What about the people you manage? Have you said one thing, but put your people in a position that they can never deliver? Have you already identified the "scape goat" for your failed promise?

Ethical Debt is a line item on your moral balance sheet. You can talk all you want about honesty and transparency, but when the people look at the picture that is you, does the image align with what the public relations department has painted, or were they painting on a Buddha Board?

Gambling on Bailouts

Credit: Phil Long

So, according to the Business News Network (BNN), "Canadian taxpayers [will] lose $3.5B on [the] 2009 bailout of auto firms". Does this surprise you?

If a company cannot make it on it's own, what made anyone think that bailing it out of trouble would change anything? It's just a matter of time before the big automakers come, hat in hand, looking for more. Of course, the unions wouldn't agree. As reported in the BNN story, the unions would rather see the government strong-arm the companies into expanding operations. After all, the unions are big business, and they want a bailout too. That $3.5B would have been much more usefully invested in public transportation, or some clean energy venture.

If you open a generic donut shop next to a Tim Horton's, should you be surprised that it fails? One of the reasons that the Future Shop stores are closing is because they are often located in the same neighbourhoods as Best Buy. I'm just glad that nobody from the government offered to bail them out. The fact of the matter is that poorly run companies close. Likewise, employees who demand concessions that force the companies into a bad position, lose jobs. It's all very unfortunate, but not very surprising.

There are many people with new clean energy ideas that don't have the funds to get started. If the federal and provincial governments are prepared to just throw away $3.5B, imagine the jobs that could have been created if they just gifted $1M to 3,500 companies in the clean energy sector. Imagine the progress that we could make on climate change? Rather than Canada being a manufacturer of greenhouse gas emitting machines, I for one would like to see Canada become the world leader in clean energy research and development.

WR