FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Nov 20

Sexual Harassment Is Alive But Not So Well In The Corridors of Power

by bcurry

Not since the dismissal in the fall of 2014 of CBC Radio star Jian Ghomeshi for the sexual harassment of several employees has the issue become as explosive as it has in recent weeks. Of course, it all started with allegations of sexual harassment and assault by numerous women against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein. Now stories by women and men of sexual harassment are coming out the woodwork involving high profiled men in the political, business and entertainment arena.  The notable use of social media has opened up the flood gates.  Countless women and men have rallied around the Twitter hashtag #metoo to reveal their own experiences with sex abuse, including in the workplace, diminishing the associated stigma.

In Canada, the Ghomeshi scandal helped to spur greater provincial protections that are now in effect through several new laws and policies. The changes beefed up provisions against sex harassment and bullying and gave governments the power to order an employer to conduct an impartial investigation when a complaint is made. Companies have also been forced to review and revamp their own policies to comply and are more aggressive in rooting out the problem of sexual harassment in their workplaces.

To date, the same cannot be said for in the U.S., although the federal and state governments will most likely have to deal with the matter in a more transparent and direct manner. After all, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, up to 85 percent of American women say that they have been sexually harassed at work. However, only a fraction of those cases are reported, partially due to the professional and legal risks for women who come forward. Nevertheless, women’s advocates are now noting that there appears to be a major ‘cultural and societal shift’ in the works.

In Canada, a 2014 survey by the Angus Reid Institute found that 43 percent of Canadian women had been sexually harassed at work. Unfortunately, the same survey found that men were more likely than women to agree that potentially problematic workplace behaviours were acceptable. In addition, a third of men (34 per cent) believed that sexual harassment in the workplace is “overblown” and receives more attention than it should.  It would appear that a real change in our attitudes about harassment still has a ways to go.  Maybe, just maybe, the recent high profile revelations of sexual misconduct in the U.S. may be enough to potentially lead to some real attitudinal changes. The fact is that everyone is responsible here and must work to stop such an obvious abuse of power.  It’s about time!

Canada Political Scandals US Women's Issues Women's Issues

Leave a comment »
Sep 28

Free Trade Versus Protective Policies and Where Is Trump Going On This?

by bcurry

As part of his campaign, President Trump stated time and time again that he wanted to either renegotiate trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) involving Canada and Mexico or withdraw from negotiations involving future agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Well, Trump withdrew from his predecessor’s signature TPP trade deal on his first full weekday in office, leaving the 11 other countries that had negotiated the pact to wonder if years of work had just gone down the drain. Currently, NAFTA negotiations are taking place with a ridiculous December 2017 deadline to complete a new deal.

The problem is that trade today involves a global economy with integrated production and services of multinational corporations around the world. Trump’s attempt to introduce protective policies is most likely going to hurt American corporations as much as foreign enterprises and workers.  In order to be competitive, American corporations now rely heavily on goods, services and component production found in other countries.  In the case of NAFTA, those in the U.S. vastly underestimate the important trading relationship most of the 50 states hold with Canada. Indeed, 35 American states trade more with Canada than any other country. Currently, some 70 percent of Canada’s trade is with the U.S. — the majority of which benefits both countries. NAFTA has also benefited Mexico economically in various ways and those American states bordering Mexico.

American, Mexican and Canadian consumers benefit through access to more and cheaper goods and services, as evidenced by the number of American retail outlets operating in Mexico and Canada. With NAFTA, we have evolved into a continental economy, with improvements for labour and the environment — particularly in Mexico as a result of side agreements. What’s interesting is that the Republicans have always been the defenders and promoters of free trade in Congress and the White House, as were leaders of the Conservative Party in Canada. Ironically, we now have a Liberal Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, who is promoting the benefits of free trade for all three countries.

Yes, there are things that can be improved in NAFTA since its implementation almost thirty years ago. World economies have changed a lot since then, particularly with new technologies. However, most experts believe that its benefits to all three countries far outweigh its costs. Other factors, such as new innovations in communications, energy and robotics have had a greater impact on the labour market and the environment than trade agreements. Simply introducing more protective policies will not change or stop the consequences of rapid innovation in the manufacturing, service, finance and other sectors. Punishing countries through protective policies will simply hurt everyone involved. Such policies don’t only go against the changing realities of our times, but also against common sense.

Canada NAFTA Protectionism Protectionist Trade Policies US

Leave a comment »
Jun 27

After 150 Years, What It Means To Be A ‘Canadian’

by bcurry

A comedian once explained that Canadians are simply un-armed Americans with health care. Needless-to-say, Canada has evolved immensely in the last century and a half. In giving away my age, I have seen these changes since Canada’s centennial celebration in 1967. Back then, the country had continued to flourish following the Second World War as an industrialized and increasingly urbanized and modern country.  The country had a relatively hip young Prime Minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who believed that the state had no business in the bedrooms of the nation.  Sex between two consenting persons, including homosexuals, was decriminalized.  Canadians even protested America’s war in Viet Nam, opening our border to American draft dodgers opposed to the war. Under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, Canada rejected the second President Bush’s invite to join the so-called coalition in the Iraq occupation — likely the best decision that Chrétien ever made. Canadians demonstrated that they would not be pushed around by the elephant to the south.  We may be mice in comparison, but we are also men — women included of course.  By the way, our women are incredible in many ways, especially in sports.

A recent poll commissioned by Historica Canada revealed that Canadians cannot agree on what makes this country great. However, Canadian beer did earn the support of 72 percent of participants polled, who proclaimed it among the best in the world. Unfortunately, while most of us love hockey, the NHL has become a business employing players from all around the world. Canadian hockey teams have not won a Stanley Cup in recent years, the majority being won by wealthy and over-priced American clubs. Lord Stanley must be rolling over in his grave.

Canada is more diversified than 50 years ago, with much more immigration from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East than from Europe. We now have proclaimed that indigenous peoples include not only the First Nation’s people, but also those who are Inuit and Métis. Multiculturalism has increasingly given way to expressions alluding to diversity, inclusivity and equality.  Sure, the two original settlers, the French and English, feel a little overwhelmed and concerned.  Indeed, in another decade they will be in the minority in light of immigration and birth rate trends — particularly by those seeking freedom and liberty, something the Americans are gradually denying under Trump.

So there you have it. Canadians don’t have to fit a national stereotype.  We prefer to live our lives openly and peacefully regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, origin or personal beliefs.  The above noted poll also indicated that the one thing Canadians do seem to agree on is a desire to celebrate the country’s upcoming sesquicentennial in some way.  Canada has a lot to be proud of and its future looks bright. The other thing that we can also agree on is that we would not want to live in any other country at this time.  We love to travel the world, but love even more to return home.  After all, Canadian beer and the diversity of food are great.  Happy Birthday Canada!

Canada

Leave a comment »
Jun 12

Who Does One Trust More — Corporations or Governments?

by bcurry

I recently read a Washington Post article which begged the question as to why Millennials — usually defined as those born between 1982 and 2000 — keep leaking government secrets? The article noted that a 2016 poll by the Economic Innovation Group found that 72 percent of American Millennials had a low confidence in their federal government.  Who can blame them given the Trump administration’s track record to date!  The author also noted that young employees are more likely to demonstrate less loyalty to corporate employers for a number of legitimate reasons.  Among these is the fact that corporations are investing little in employee training.  Instead, they are hiring young persons whom they believe have the requisite expertise and can work independently without immediate close supervision.  In addition, Millennials are much more likely to seek other employment if they are not quickly appreciated and consequently promoted in relation to their chosen career paths.

Bettered educated and informed employees today are much more likely to whistleblow on complaints about working conditions, workplace harassment, illegal corporate activities, etc., etc. Furthermore, there are more professional career-oriented women in the labour force who are willing to speak out publicly about inequities and harassment in the workplace.  We’ve seen the result of this trend in numerous recent high profile cases of sexual harassment highlighted in the media.

Governments and corporations like to talk about employee loyalty as being important to the successful delivery of programs, services and products. However, the nature of loyalty is a two-way street.  Employers also have to demonstrate loyalty to their employees and ‘walk the talk’.  When employees decide to whistleblow about irregularities or breeches of policy, then employers need to take such matters seriously and fairly.  Unfortunately, often enough the employer does not act on the complaint in an appropriate and fair manner.  This can result in employees believing that it is acceptable to leak information about the matter to outside sources, frequently via social media.  Of course, when this happens, the whistleblower may be punished and promising careers can be ended.

Books have been written and studies have been made about the values and attitudes of the ‘Millennial’ generation. Millennials are becoming more important in the labour force, particularly since the Baby-Boomers are retiring and Generation X is right behind. For Millennials, it’s a priority to make the world a better place and to promote improvements in work-life balance.  For this reason, Millennials are more likely to be interested in an organization that cares about global, social and environmental causes.  Organizations demonstrating good ‘corporate social responsibility’ will strengthen employee loyalty and will be more successful in eliciting their employees’ trust.  If more organizations were to do this, perhaps there will be a much needed renewed trust by all of us in both governments and corporations.

Canada US

Leave a comment »
Jun 7

Has Canada Become A Country of Huggers?

by bcurry

Today I saw a photo in the local paper of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hugging Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland after she had given a major foreign policy speech in the House of Commons. Standing next to the Minister, wouldn’t a simple handshake by the PM have been sufficient? There is little doubt that Trudeau likes to hug, especially females, but not exclusively.

If compulsive hugging is not listed in The Psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual which deals with defining mental and personality disorders, then maybe it should be.  Not only are we confronted by a Prime Minister who likes to hug everyone, even the opposition members, and everything, you now have individuals on street corners with signs suggesting that you may need a hug.

It used to be that Canadians were depicted as “hewers of wood and drawers water”. Now, we have become a country of huggers, including the usual hugging of trees by environmentalists.  It may not be a bad thing, but at times it appears to have gone a little too far.  Not everyone wants to be hugged, including Canadian comedian Howie Mandel.  Maybe we should follow the lead of Sweden, where in 1994 it had the highest number of women members (40 percent) of parliaments worldwide. Or Norway where the proportion of women parliamentarians has increased from less than 10 per cent in the early 1970s to almost 40 per cent by the mid-1990s. Today, Canada has a record number of female Members of Parliament, with 92 women elected to the Canadian House of Commons in the 2015 election — however representing only 26 percent of total members. Instead of hugs, I believe that handshakes should suffice as a sign of professional respect and encouragement.

Yes, there may be appropriate times for hugs, but the Prime Minister appears to be showing alarming signs of “hugism”. Should I meet the PM some day, a hardy handshake would be most adequate. And yes, please omit the usual selfie.

Canada Justin Trudeau

Leave a comment »
May 22

Why People Have Become So Reliant On News And Opinion Via Twitter?

by bcurry

Let’s face it, many of the 140-character “tweets” by individuals seem inane. Why would Twitter users want to read short messages about what someone ate for breakfast or lunch?  It’s a reasonable question.  However, people like President Trump seem to understand that social media has become the nervous system of the American news business and political thinking. With one or two tweets, Trump can dominate cable TV, the web, newspapers and talk radio for an entire day.

The attention span of the average American and Canadian is about a few minutes before they need to skip to the next social media excerpt. The need for brief releases proved very successful during Trump’s campaign when he cultivated a Twitter fan base.  His core of supporters continue now  to hang on to his every tweet as if it were gospel.  In turn, the main stream media is forced to pay attention to President Trump’s tweets which have now become part and parcel of our daily news.  However, his continued use of Twitter has proven to be much more than a mere annoyance to Trump’s advisors and staff, since they must regularly respond to each nonsensical tweet by clarifying what the President actually meant to say in the tweets.

Now, we have Twitter co-founder Evan Williams apologizing for the fact that Twitter may have helped Trump become President. You see, Twitter tends to penalize nuance and moderation, while rewarding hot takes and bombast.  Twitter was intended as a research tool to allow individuals, governments and business share information and opinions about products and services through social media.  However, like any new technology, the Internet and Twitter can also be abused by anyone to put out “fake news” or spew hate and falsehoods instantaneously anywhere in the world.

Evan Williams is correct in suggesting that Twitter can create more problems than solutions, but he may be giving social media too much credit. I would suggest that the fact that over fifty percent of Americans and Canadians get their news from social media, their blind acceptance of such news and opinions without further investigation is the real problem.  One 2012 study further revealed that 51 percent of people age 25 to 34 use social networking at the office – more so than any other age group. Doesn’t look good for future generations!

I personally gather my information for my blogs from reputable news sources which are normally peer reviewed for their facts and accuracies. Without journalistic integrity, who is really to blame if individuals simply accept opinions or arguments put forward in tweets and social media as valid and truthful?  Like anything else, it’s buyer beware.  For all you know, one might be providing you with a bill of goods, biased and filled with falsehoods.  I also keep my blogging to four or five short paragraphs in recognition of our brief on-line attention spans.  Given Trump’s limited attention span, Twitter certainly appears to have been made for him.

Canada Donald Trump Social Media US US Politics

Leave a comment »
May 15

Increased Lack of Ethical Conduct Among North American Corporate Leaders

by bcurry

During the past couple of years, I have been closely following the scandal rocking Volkswagen over its falsifying of pollution emission data for its diesel vehicles. In January of this year, six men were formally charged by the U.S. Department of Justice, accused of defrauding the United States and Volkswagen customers there, of violating the Clean Air Act and of committing wire fraud.  More charges could be in the offing.  European authorities are also considering the prosecution of VW executives with respect to the cover up and organized deception carried out over several years. The VW scandal is just the latest in a growing list of scandals going back to Hollinger, WorldCom, Lehman Brothers and of course Enron at the turn of the century — to name only a few.

When it comes to unethical conduct by corporate leaders, the VW case is only the tip of the ice berg. A recent study by Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated that there has been an increase in Chief Executive Officers (CEO) in the U.S. and Canada leaving their position due to scandal or improper conduct.  Improper conduct by a CEO or other employees is defined as including fraud, bribery, insider trading, environmental disasters and sexual indiscretions. Not only is this a North American concern, as the above study looked at ethical lapses by CEOs of the world’s 2,500 largest companies. They found that the issue is indeed global in extent. Furthermore, bigger companies were found to be more likely to force out a CEO over an ethical lapse.

What does this say about the ethics of leaders in the business world? How best can ethics and professionalism be taught in business schools and within companies? There is obviously a concern given that courses on corporate ethics are now being given in some of our top universities and colleges, something unheard of a decade or two ago.  Indeed, such teachings are even more important given the expanded definition of what comprises unethical or improper conduct.  It’s simply not good enough for companies to have written codes of ethics in place, they also have to be enforced from top to bottom in organizations.  Boards of directors and independent bodies have to be more accountable for ensuring that business is being carried out in a proper and ethical manner.

If the work of the private and public sectors is carried out in an unethical manner, we all suffer as clients and citizens. Indeed, it is incumbent upon our national leaders to lead by example.  They must represent the best of our societal values and act as role models for current and future generations of leaders.  Otherwise, we’re all in serious trouble.  We expect and deserve ethical conduct by our Presidents and Prime Ministers, State Governors and Provincial Premiers and other high level public officials.  They need to set the proper tone for ethical public and corporate leadership in our two countries.

Canada Federal Government Leadership Political Scandals US

Leave a comment »
May 2

President Trump, Cozying Up To ‘Dictators’ Can Be Very Hazardous

by bcurry

In 1938, British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, flew to meet Germany’s Adolf Hitler at his private mountain retreat in Berchtesgaden in an attempt to resolve the Sudetenland crisis in Czechoslovakia. If history has taught us anything, Chamberlain’s appeasement policy made war much more likely because Hitler thought he could get away with anything.  Meetings between legitimate elected leaders and ‘dictators’ are seen as legitimizing ‘dictatorial’ regimes.

Trump’s description of Russia’s Vladimir Putin as a “nice guy” two years after Russia annexed Crimea from the Ukraine baffles one’s mind. The incursion by the Russian military was seen as responsible for the defeat of Ukrainian forces. Many countries, including the U.S. and Canada, implemented economic sanctions against Russia or Russian individuals or companies.  Amnesty International expressed its belief that Russia is fuelling the conflict, noting that there had been an estimated 8000 casualties resulting from the conflict.  The Russian Federation was accused of fuelling the ongoing violence with the presence and continuing influx of foreign fighters and sophisticated weapons and ammunition.  More recently, Putin has aligned himself with Syria’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, who has used chemical weapons on his own citizens. Maybe, not so much a “nice guy” or one to be admired!

Now one sees President Trump continuing to outreach to rogue leaders, even declaring that he would meet North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong-un and Philippine president, Rodrigo Duterte. Kim’s grandfather Kim Il-sung established a Stalinist state after the Korean War.  Kim has continued to build a huge military arsenal, including a nuclear potential, while human rights are abused and North Koreans are starving from a lack of food.  Of course, we are familiar with Duterte who is accused of supporting thousands of extrajudicial killings of drug suspects in his country.

Having a face-to-face meeting between two or more businessmen is not the same thing as it is in the world of international diplomacy. You are not only the President of the world’s most powerful nation, but you are also a leader among ‘democratically elected’ national leaders.  You have alliances, both military and political, and their policies and positions must be respected.  The international community looks to you for coherent and strategic leadership, not showmanship.  Simply by meeting with the likes of Assad, Duterte and Kim can look like recognition of and support for their regimes, both internally and externally.  For the most part, this is exactly what they relish and seek out.  Such meetings will achieve very little towards resolving the real issues and dictatorial behaviour.  Only comprehensive and aggressive international actions and their economic and political consequences can help to prevent further abuses in these countries and future threats to global peace.  Indeed, beware of the Chamberlain effect!

Canada Donald Trump Foreign Policy Foreign Policy US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Apr 12

Why Expect Lifestyles of Political Leaders to Change Once They are Elected?

by bcurry

Well, here we go again with complaints about the costs of keeping Presidents and Prime Ministers in lifestyles they’re accustomed to. President Trump spends more time at his Trump Tower in New York and his Florida golf resort at Mar-a-Lago. American taxpayers are paying millions of extra dollars to provide additional security at both locations.  Everyone knew about Trump’s celebrity lifestyle, so why complain?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whose father Pierre Elliot Trudeau led a lavish lifestyle, is continuing to frequent the hospitalities of rich friends. Like all prime ministers, Trudeau cannot fly on commercial airlines for security reasons and must instead travel on Department of National Defence Challenger jets, which cost about $10,000 per flying hour to operate. Sounds reasonable.

However, during winter holidays last year, the Trudeau’s flew to and stayed at the Paradise Beach Resort on the Caribbean island of Nevis. The private resort has a brand new collection of seven beachfront villas that come with their own personal butler and, apparently, monkeys.  Celebrity gossip site TMZ reported that Trudeau paid $2,500 US a night for a 3,400-square-foot villa.  Fortunately, Trudeau personally later picked up the bill for the pricey resort stay.

More recently, Trudeau and his family spent several days during a New Year’s vacation as the guest of the billionaire philanthropist, lobbyist and spiritual leader the Aga Khan at the Aga Khan’s private island in the Bahamas. The Aga Khan’s island, Bell Island, is 115 km away from Nassau. A Canadian air force executive jet took the Trudeaus from Ottawa to Nassau. It was the Aga Khan’s private helicopter that took his family back and forth to Bell Island. This episode raised eyebrows because the federal Conflict of Interest Act prohibits ministers from using private aircraft without prior permission from Parliament’s conflict of interest commissioner. Apparently, Trudeau did not seek prior permission. Surprise, surprise!

Do you really expect Donald Trump or Justin Trudeau to change their celebrity ways? Complain all you might, but the electorate put them in power, lifestyles and all. After all, they’re both working to benefit us middle-class folk.

Canada Donald Trump Justin Trudeau US

Leave a comment »
Apr 4

Bombardier and the Corporate Welfare State are Alive and Well in Canada

by bcurry

The term “corporate welfare” was reportedly invented in 1956 by an American of distinction, Ralph Nader. In the 1972 federal election campaign, the New Democratic Party (NDP) of Canada picked up the term as a major campaign theme.  At the same time, David Lewis, the then leader of the NDP, used the term in the title of his popular book, Louder Voices: The Corporate Welfare Bums. The term is often used to describe a government’s bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment for corporations.

Remember, not long ago in the U.S. and Canada, federal governments provided bailout funds and loans to the auto industry, primarily to Chrysler and General Motors. In addition, Canadian taxpayers reportedly fell about $3.5-billion (Canadian) short of breaking even on the money that the federal and Ontario governments invested in the bailouts of Chrysler and General Motors in 2009.

Now, we have the case of a plan that includes federal and provincial money — a $372.5-million federal loan and $1 billion from the province of Quebec — for the CSeries and Global 7000 aircraft programs of Canada’s Bombardier Corporation. Bombardier is eliminating 14,500 jobs around the world by the end of next year, part of a restructuring plan aimed at helping the company turn itself around. However, as part of a PR disaster, six executive officers decided to give themselves a 50% raise bringing their total salaries to $32.6 million (U.S.) in 2016. Given that Canadian taxpayers are subsidizing the above payments and Bombardier’s planned lay-offs, there was an immediate public outcry against the planned increases in executive compensation. As evidenced over the last 50 years, this was not the first time that Bombardier had received federal and provincial assistance, totaling billions of government dollars.

Despite praising the benefits of free enterprise and the market place, governments of all stripes continue to use taxpayers’ monies to subsidize corporations for political reasons. Conservatives like to preach the benefits of reducing corporate income taxes, referred to as ‘tax expenditures’ in budgets. Governments even subsidize the oil and gas industry through such tax expenditures. Tax expenditures are now a huge part of governments’ budgets, and unlike actual expenditures reduce government revenues that could be used in support of public services and programs, including those directed at the poor and disadvantaged.

As well, a current tax loophole allows people to pay less tax on for income earned on stock options than they do if they are paid in cash. Corporate executives in particular greatly benefit since they receive much of their compensation in the form of stock options. The federal Liberals had pledged to close this tax loophole, but have backed off in their last two budgets. This loophole represents millions of savings for the wealthy and millions in revenue losses for governments. Moreover, the corporate welfare state is alive and well in Canada.

Canada Corporate Welfare State

Leave a comment »
«Older Entries
Newer Entries »
Blog at WordPress.com.