FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Who Does One Trust More — Corporations or Governments?

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.

Leave a comment »

Trumps Nominated for ‘Hypocrites’ Of The Year Award

The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘hypocrisy’ as “the practice of claiming to have higher standards or beliefs than is the case”. A ‘hypocrite’ is a person who indulges in hypocrisy.  Sorry to say, but the Trumps are in line to be named hypocrites of the year.

Donald Trump complains about the millions of cars that Germany sells in the U.S., and has threatened to stop them. Yet over the years he has been an enthusiastic buyer of German luxury cars.  After their Palm Beach wedding in 2005, Donald and Melania reportedly jumped into a Mercedes Maybach limousine.  He reportedly also once bought a limited-edition silver Mercedes SLR McLaren roadster, with a supercharged AMG V8 engine, for the small sum of $465,000. Needless-to-say, Melania had her own Mercedes at the time.

Ivanka Trump’s shoes and other accessories sold as part of her U.S. line are mostly manufactured in China. The Donald J. Trump Collection includes ties, suits, dress shirts, eyeglasses and other accessories. The Washington Post tried last year to ascertain where the products in the Collection were actually manufactured, including those sold on Amazon.com.  Their research showed that the actual country where some products are manufactured is difficult to determine.  However, it was discovered that Trump shirts are made in China, Bangladesh, Honduras and Vietnam and some Trump sport coats are made in India. Trump eyeglasses are made in China.  So much for creating jobs at home.

As President, Trump continues to complain about unfair trading practices by the Chinese, Germans, Canadians, Mexicans and others at the expense of American jobs. Trump criticizes American companies for manufacturing their products overseas.  Meanwhile, Trump trademarks are still being copywrited in various countries overseas, the most recent in China where his company secured 38 new trademarks to develop potential businesses.  This of course has raised serious conflict of interest questions among ethics lawyers.

In more personal terms, Trump recently had an audience with Pope Francis. Talk about hypocrisy.  Here you have a President who wants to ban travel from several predominantly Islamic countries and built a wall between the U.S. and one of the most Catholic countries on the planet, Mexico.  In addition, just think about all those charities that Trump claimed to support, but never did.  Really, Trump is about as religious and charitable as Steve Bannon is a socialist!  The only thing that Trump has in common with the Catholic church is misogyny and wealth.

The list goes on and on, but the evidence speaks for itself. The Trumps have definitely earned consideration for the ‘hypocrites’ award of the year.  Congratulations!!!!

Leave a comment »

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

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.

Leave a comment »

Increased Lack of Ethical Conduct Among North American Corporate Leaders

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.

Leave a comment »

‘Trumpcare’ Danger Is What It Takes Away From Existing Health Insurance

Any politician worth his or her career will tell you that the hardest thing to do in government is to take away what currently exists in law or programs that affect their constituents. Obamacare was often seen as a ‘band-aid’ solution to long-standing problems with health care coverage in the U.S., either private or public. Prior to its introduction at the time, the government estimated that the number of people in the country without health insurance was about 47 million persons.  Furthermore, if the proportions remained constant, it was estimated that there might have been nearly 16 million people with a chronic condition but no insurance to pay for medical care.  Individuals with health preconditions could either not obtain health insurance or could not afford insurance due to much higher premiums.

What the Republicans have to worry about is a real danger to their control of the House and Senate in upcoming elections because of Trumpcare. Based on the current bill, budget analysts estimate 24 million people would lose insurance over a decade, 14 million in the first year. Older Americans would face higher costs. It also gives the states more leeway to reduce coverage under Medicare and Medicaid, as well changing other health care policies. The insurers that will almost certainly feel the strain are those who provide a lot of coverage through Medicaid, which is subsidized. The Democrats have already accused the GOP of favouring the rich over the poor with proposed changes under Trumpcare. One can bet that Democrats will carry this highly emotive issue into the next federal elections. Republicans up for re-election have already faced hostile opposition from affected constituents to the point where some Senators have vowed to write their own bill.

There’s a basic premise in politics that it is always harder for a ruling party to take away provisions or funding that exist under current laws. Given that Obamacare has been around for several years, Americans who have benefited are prepared to fight to maintain their access to health care under the present system. Despite assurances by the GOP and the President, Trumpcare represents a great number of uncertainties. With the health of millions of Americans, both young and old, at stake, these uncertainties represent a real danger to the GOP control of Congress. In dismantling the Affordable Care Act, the stakes are very high, especially if done in a quick and dirty fashion.  No issue has been more contentious in modern times.  If mishandled, this critical issue could eventually lead to the downfall of the GOP, one way or another.

Leave a comment »

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

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!

Leave a comment »

With Trump, ‘Brinksmanship’ Appears to be the Name of the Game

Brinksmanship is defined as the pursuit of a dangerous policy to the limits of safety before stopping. When it comes to Syria, North Korea and Iran, it appears that President Trump is willing to employ this approach to his foreign policy. What is curious, is the fact that during his campaign Donald Trump indicated that he wanted the U.S. to avoid becoming the world’s policeman. Even then, his platform was and continues to be incoherent as evidenced on his changed stance on Russia and NATO. Putin was a good guy, now not so much!  NATO was obsolete, now not so much!  Worry about ISIS, not about Syria’s Assad regime. All that changed with the recent use of chemical weapons by Assad on civilians, including children.

I remember the Cuban blockade of Soviet Union cargo ships which was imposed unilaterally by President Kennedy in response to Soviet missiles being installed in Cuba. Fortunately, this scary example of brinksmanship did not lead to a full-out nuclear war because of delicate behind-the-scenes diplomatic negotiations with Moscow at the time. The U.S. had to agree to withdraw its missiles stationed in Turkey in exchange for the removal of the Soviet missiles from Cuba. Both sides came to their senses, and back room diplomacy saved the day.

The U.S. is today’s only real superpower. With respect to the proportion of its GDP in terms of military spending, it far outspends countries such as China and Russia. However, even though the U.S. currently has enough nuclear weapons to completely destroy any country, President Trump wants to increase its nuclear arsenal. Given such policies, one would think that other countries would see his position as a further threat to their internal and external political and economic objectives.  Whether one agrees or not with American intentions, launching unilateral military strikes against countries or carrying out military exercises off their shores is being interpreted as belligerent actions.  Moreover, saying that foreign regimes “must behave” sends an ‘inciteful’ message.

I would suggest that American behaviour has to also be in accordance with international laws and coherent foreign policy goals. The way to avoid brinksmanship is to keep open the lines of communication through diplomatic channels, including those of one’s allies.  Canada and its other NATO allies cannot afford to sit back, wait and watch as this dangerous drama unfolds on the international stage. It is incumbent upon America’s allies to provide a stabilizing effect when confronted with any form of brinksmanship. As during the Cuban crisis, we may be able to avoid future conventional wars, and even all-out nuclear conflicts.

Leave a comment »

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

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.

Leave a comment »

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

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.

Leave a comment »

Are Canadian Conservatives Regressing in the Face of 21rst Century Human Rights?

There used to be a federal party in Canada called the ‘Progressive Conservative Party’. In addition, between 1987 to 2000 the Reform Party of Canada emerged federally as a right-wing populist political party. This party then merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form the current ‘Conservative Party of Canada’.  Note that they lost the ‘progressive’ portion of the party’s nomenclature.  However, today there are growing concerns about how Canadian conservatives view ‘human rights’ issues, both federally and provincially.

After all, it was John Diefenbaker, as a Conservative prime minister, who in 1960 successfully introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights, the precursor of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Diefenbaker thought that individuals’ freedoms of religion, press, speech and association were threatened by the state.  He believed that a Bill of Rights was needed to take a “forthright stand against discrimination based on colour, creed or racial origin.”

However, lately there has been a conspicuous trend in the stated views of several conservatives in Canada, as exemplified by the following:

  • Federal conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch was seen shaking the hands of a ‘Rise Canada’ senior advisor, who represents an organization that has called for a permanent ban on all Muslim immigrants plus the mass deportation of existing Muslims. Leitch has also pushed for the stricter vetting of potential immigrants/refugees based on so-called ‘Canadian values’.
  • Federal Conservative Party leadership candidate Brad Trost’s campaign is not backing down after controversial comments about his stated discomfort with the idea of people being gay.
  • Federal conservative leadership candidate Kevin O’Leary enjoys severely criticizing the policies and qualities of female provincial premiers such as Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley. He appears to imply that male premiers are more capable leaders, especially when it comes to economic matters.
  •  Ontario provincial Conservative MPP Jack MacLaren was forced to apologize after speaking against the provincial government’s proclaimed “zero tolerance” policy for the sexual abuse of patients by medical professionals.
  •  Jason Kenney, leader of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta, stated that Alberta schools should notify parents when their children join a gay-straight alliance club at school. This without fully understanding the nature of such school clubs and the resulting danger of putting some students at real physical and emotional risk.
  • Conservative Senator Lynn Beyak was roundly criticized in Parliament after she shocked other senators by defending those who had worked in the church-run schools, and saying that the residential-school experience had positive aspects for the Indigenous children. This despite the findings of the 7-year national Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluding that the residential school system was a program of assimilation and “cultural genocide.”

Canada is generally recognized for its enviable record for respecting individual human rights, societal tolerance and inclusion of groups and their beliefs, cultural diversity and progressive social policies. The above several incidences are but a few representing an alarming trend regarding conservative thinking and attitudes.  Hopefully, they won’t have to change their federal and provincial parties’ names to ‘Regressive Conservatives’.

Leave a comment »