Protests and Rallies
To-day a newscast anchor asked one of the best questions I have heard for quite some time; he asked what it would take for the viewers to march in the streets demanding perhaps as much as a change in government. The question is related to the marchers in Egypt and the courageous protesters demanding Mubarak step down.
I inferred in the question that perhaps he thought that things had to get worse than they are now to motivate the viewers to march. As I thought about this I wondered what is keeping people off the streets in Canada right now or in the case of the news anchor, the United States. It goes without saying that Canada is in a much better position than Egypt or perhaps almost every country on Earth. The United States would not be far behind. Despite the obvious differences in the state of Egypt as compared to Canada it would be my opinion that we in Canada are well beyond the basic prerequisites required to hit the streets.
If we examine what Canadians have lost and what is under attack it would seem that there is ample reason to hit the streets in huge numbers. If we only look at the time period since the inception of the first free trade deal in 1988 Canadians have lost millions of well paid (mostly unionized) jobs in the manufacturing sector, the agenda of privatization and deregulation has jeopardized our healthcare and turned many of our public services needlessly into for profit enterprises and put at risk pensions and the future dignity of workers throughout the country. Without going over the top on this issue it is the bizarre ideology of leaders married to the current obtuse version of conservatism that seems to preach a “screw the worker” ideology and a form of aggressive behaviour that puts market and market forces as the most important aspect of their belief that provides the basis for workers considering hitting the streets.
I, along, with millions of Canadian workers (and Americans as they have experienced similar if not worse degradation) should find our current situation more than enough to go to the streets and that is the answer that the news anchor should get. Of course Ontario Workers have been here before during the Harris years, but it may be time for another version of the same thing.
Dave Trumble
President
Grey-Bruce Labour Council
Friday, February 4, 2011
Saturday, January 22, 2011
If Nuclear and Coal are phased out, Letter to the Editor, Jan 20 2011
If Nuclear and Coal are phased out
Letter to the Editor, Jan 20 2011
Dear Editor;
I have yet to understand why the wind power lobby sees the phasing out of nuclear and coal as integral to the energy future of Ontario and beyond. No responsible or informed discussion on wind or renewable energy sources in general gives the slightest bit of credibility to the position that the electricity needs of Ontario could ever be met by these sources alone. Even with any amount of anticipated conservation added into this the amount of electricity demand will always far exceed the available power from renewables and conservation. In fact, traditional methods of producing electricity produce thousands of megawatts more than renewables each and every day in Ontario. Today (Jan 20th for example) wind was responsible for 90 megawatts of supply to the grid while nuclear was producing well in excess of 10,000 megawatts without one gram of greenhouse gases as a by-product.
The simple mathematics of supply and demand underscore the minimal impact that wind has on the daily electricity needs and this does not even take into account the cost of wind energy at $140 plus dollars per megawatt or solar at 400 plus dollars per megawatt hour. Nuclear power is generally produced at a cost in the range of 40-60 dollars per megawatt hour. Make no mistake that once the health effects of wind turbines are taken into effect and set backs are legislated many in the debate see wind and other renewables as having some role to play in the electricity mix in Ontario, but at no time will wind or renewables meet the base load needs of the province.
The health debate will never go away, but in simplest terms the production of electricity from nuclear energy is the most regulated industry in the world and year over year self regulates itself to less than 1% of allowable emissions to the environment. I wonder if the hundreds of trucks hauling the offshore made parts for windmills ever keep to less than 1% of their allowable emissions. CANDU Reactors and all their components are over 95% sourced in Canada and have mitigated hundreds of millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases since they first came on line. Almost all parties understand the controversy over the use of coal, but to suggest that Ontario will follow a path of renewables, wind and gas instead of converting existing coal plants to the use of biomass is another form of irresponsible energy policy in Ontario. Thankfully the government of Ontario recognizes the need for Nuclear Power, but it is time make it clear that wind and renewables are not the answer and will only be a small contributor to Ontario’s energy future. Casually disposing of Nuclear and Coal without looking at alternative uses for existing coal plants and thinking that wind and renewables will take their place is a guarantee for an Ontario with no future economic prosperity.
Dave Trumble
President Grey-Bruce Labour Council
Below Please find Last week's letter that the above is written in response too.
Phase out nukes, coal
Letters to the editor
Dear Editor,
If we take seriously the protection of human health we have to phase-out coal and nuclear-powered electricity.
Coal kills hundreds of Ontarians and triggers over 120,000 illnesses (e. g., asthma attacks) annually. It is also the most climate-destructive fuel around, emitting twice as much carbon as natural gas does. Whether the issue is respiratory disease or global warming, coal is a catastrophe.
But nuclear is extremely unhealthy as well. A scientific review by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment found all functioning reactors release radioactive materials on a routine basis.
A 2008 German government study showed children (younger than five) living within five kilometers of a nuclear plant are at elevated risk for leukemia. And Scientific American recently reported nukes harm the climate: "Nuclear power results in up to 25 times more carbon emissions than wind energy, when reactor construction and uranium refining and transport are considered."
But to phase-out conventional power we need to use less energy and switch over to renewables, including wind turbines.
Lately there's been a certain amount of anti-wind sentiment from some Ontarians. This is unfortunate because turbines are a far healthier source of power than their competition.
Dr. Arlene King, Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health, released a scientific literature review on wind and health in October, 2009. In the document she explains that there are anecdotal reports of symptoms such as sleep disturbance and headaches but "there is no scientific evidence, to date, to demonstrate a causal association between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects."
In May, 2010, Dr. King released the results of a second scientific literature review. Again she concluded that "the scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.
But what about concerns besides noise?
A recent (January, 2010) scientific review from the B.C. Centre for Disease Control examined claims that turbines might create electromagnetic fields, potentially cause epilepsy, and possibly throw ice. The study's conclusions:
* Wind turbines are not significant sources of EMF (electromagnetic field) exposure."
* Shadows caused by wind turbine rotors can be annoying, but are not likely to cause epileptic seizures at normal operational speeds..."
* Risk of injury [from ice throw] can be minimized with setbacks of 200 to 500 m..."
The verdict: the current science -from Ontario's top doctor --suggests wind turbines do not threaten human health. Unlike coal, they are not destroying our climate and killing hundreds of Canadians every year. Unlike nuclear, they are not associated with cancer -nor do they condemn the next thousand generations to the menace of radioactive waste.
Gideon Forman Executive Director Canadian
Association of Physicians for the Environment
Letter to the Editor, Jan 20 2011
Dear Editor;
I have yet to understand why the wind power lobby sees the phasing out of nuclear and coal as integral to the energy future of Ontario and beyond. No responsible or informed discussion on wind or renewable energy sources in general gives the slightest bit of credibility to the position that the electricity needs of Ontario could ever be met by these sources alone. Even with any amount of anticipated conservation added into this the amount of electricity demand will always far exceed the available power from renewables and conservation. In fact, traditional methods of producing electricity produce thousands of megawatts more than renewables each and every day in Ontario. Today (Jan 20th for example) wind was responsible for 90 megawatts of supply to the grid while nuclear was producing well in excess of 10,000 megawatts without one gram of greenhouse gases as a by-product.
The simple mathematics of supply and demand underscore the minimal impact that wind has on the daily electricity needs and this does not even take into account the cost of wind energy at $140 plus dollars per megawatt or solar at 400 plus dollars per megawatt hour. Nuclear power is generally produced at a cost in the range of 40-60 dollars per megawatt hour. Make no mistake that once the health effects of wind turbines are taken into effect and set backs are legislated many in the debate see wind and other renewables as having some role to play in the electricity mix in Ontario, but at no time will wind or renewables meet the base load needs of the province.
The health debate will never go away, but in simplest terms the production of electricity from nuclear energy is the most regulated industry in the world and year over year self regulates itself to less than 1% of allowable emissions to the environment. I wonder if the hundreds of trucks hauling the offshore made parts for windmills ever keep to less than 1% of their allowable emissions. CANDU Reactors and all their components are over 95% sourced in Canada and have mitigated hundreds of millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases since they first came on line. Almost all parties understand the controversy over the use of coal, but to suggest that Ontario will follow a path of renewables, wind and gas instead of converting existing coal plants to the use of biomass is another form of irresponsible energy policy in Ontario. Thankfully the government of Ontario recognizes the need for Nuclear Power, but it is time make it clear that wind and renewables are not the answer and will only be a small contributor to Ontario’s energy future. Casually disposing of Nuclear and Coal without looking at alternative uses for existing coal plants and thinking that wind and renewables will take their place is a guarantee for an Ontario with no future economic prosperity.
Dave Trumble
President Grey-Bruce Labour Council
Below Please find Last week's letter that the above is written in response too.
Phase out nukes, coal
Letters to the editor
Dear Editor,
If we take seriously the protection of human health we have to phase-out coal and nuclear-powered electricity.
Coal kills hundreds of Ontarians and triggers over 120,000 illnesses (e. g., asthma attacks) annually. It is also the most climate-destructive fuel around, emitting twice as much carbon as natural gas does. Whether the issue is respiratory disease or global warming, coal is a catastrophe.
But nuclear is extremely unhealthy as well. A scientific review by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment found all functioning reactors release radioactive materials on a routine basis.
A 2008 German government study showed children (younger than five) living within five kilometers of a nuclear plant are at elevated risk for leukemia. And Scientific American recently reported nukes harm the climate: "Nuclear power results in up to 25 times more carbon emissions than wind energy, when reactor construction and uranium refining and transport are considered."
But to phase-out conventional power we need to use less energy and switch over to renewables, including wind turbines.
Lately there's been a certain amount of anti-wind sentiment from some Ontarians. This is unfortunate because turbines are a far healthier source of power than their competition.
Dr. Arlene King, Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health, released a scientific literature review on wind and health in October, 2009. In the document she explains that there are anecdotal reports of symptoms such as sleep disturbance and headaches but "there is no scientific evidence, to date, to demonstrate a causal association between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects."
In May, 2010, Dr. King released the results of a second scientific literature review. Again she concluded that "the scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.
But what about concerns besides noise?
A recent (January, 2010) scientific review from the B.C. Centre for Disease Control examined claims that turbines might create electromagnetic fields, potentially cause epilepsy, and possibly throw ice. The study's conclusions:
* Wind turbines are not significant sources of EMF (electromagnetic field) exposure."
* Shadows caused by wind turbine rotors can be annoying, but are not likely to cause epileptic seizures at normal operational speeds..."
* Risk of injury [from ice throw] can be minimized with setbacks of 200 to 500 m..."
The verdict: the current science -from Ontario's top doctor --suggests wind turbines do not threaten human health. Unlike coal, they are not destroying our climate and killing hundreds of Canadians every year. Unlike nuclear, they are not associated with cancer -nor do they condemn the next thousand generations to the menace of radioactive waste.
Gideon Forman Executive Director Canadian
Association of Physicians for the Environment
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Attacks on the last line of Defence, the Trade Unions
Attacks on the last line of Defence, the Trade Unions
Dateline 1981; Ronald Reagan terminates unionized air traffic controllers rather than negotiate. Dateline 1984; Margaret Thatcher rips into the coal miners of Great Britain rather than negotiate. Did the Members of PATCO and the NUM enter into strikes that could be considered unlawful, yes? Did they have real grievances, yes? Did either of the strikes warrant ongoing vilification of the Union Movement, No, but at the time it was convenient to attack Unions while the first entry into the long term plan to destroy the middle class and unions known as free trade was being considered and negotiated. Years later this vilification is played out constantly in right wing and corporate propaganda and today is part of a far more sophisticated approach; an approach that finds fuel in the vitriolic outbursts of regressive people such as former Ontario Premier Mike Harris and the new Governor of Ohio John Kasich, the Canadian federal government of Stephen Harper and organizations like the “tea party” (lead by television celebrity, not politician, Sarah Palin).
The broad approach, or as some incorrectly say populist, attack on unions by the right wing is actually quite simple to define and analyze. As government policies and legislators became the servants of corporations and in this made the choice to defy one of the most well known quotes in American history, “government of the people for the and by the people” they and their corporate benefactors had to work diligently to remove obstacles to their grand plan. Unions, along with a free and progressive media would certainly not be conducive to running an economy that catered to the needs of the corporations. In fact all that is connected with a progressive media and educated and unionized workforce is entirely contradictory to government policy supporting capital and caring little for people or the environment.
Let’s not forget that unions have been at the heart of progressive legislative change for over 150 years. A few examples of such legislation would be minimum wage, pensions, universal healthcare, public education, occupational health and safety, paid vacations, the 40 hour work week (unions; the people that brought you the week-end), and recognition of paid statutory holidays. Would it make sense, based on this wonderful and amazing record of social responsibility, for those who have chosen to cripple the middle class to leave the Trade Union Movement untouched? The Trade Union Movement is clearly a threat to the right wing corporate agenda in that not only does the movement stand for social responsibility in contradiction to the policies of capital but is perhaps the only self funded organization to take on the role of opposing the attack on working people by government and corporations. Many progressive pieces of legislation were enacted while the revenues to operate a Union were still collected from Members by elected / volunteer Stewards. Since the late 1930’s with the introduction of the legislation that would lead to the “Rand” Formula and automatic deduction of Union dues the self funded status of the Trade Union Movement is truly the last line of defence for working people (Harris at one time suggested he would attack this in Ontario and the “right to work” states already undercut this basic human right, the right to collective bargaining). The Trade Union Movement has many a partner in the fight to sustain jobs, a middle class and the basic social infrastructure that made the national caring societies that used to exist before the blind and myopic worship of capital became the very credo of so many governments, corporations and (sadly) individuals.
The sophisticated attacks on the movement are aimed at removing from view the progressive nature of unions and to corrupt the information such that people are lead to believe that instead of being an advocate for workers and positive social change that somehow unions are greedy. I will defy for all time anyone to equate any union activity with greed when greed is defined each and every day in the financial districts of places like New York, London and Toronto where the financial meltdown of late 2008 was orchestrated and the behaviours that lead to it condoned and in fact designed.
The Trade Union Movement, of which I am a proud member, deserves the time to be understood and to be respected as should it ever be removed or so badly damaged it no longer functions the corporations will have free rein in the world. If you think the near free reign is not possible just look at the loss of Union density since the afore mentioned attacks in 1981 and 1984 and right up to, and including, the latest campaign of misinformation focused on public service workers.
In Solidarity
Dave Trumble
President
Grey-Bruce Labour Council
Dateline 1981; Ronald Reagan terminates unionized air traffic controllers rather than negotiate. Dateline 1984; Margaret Thatcher rips into the coal miners of Great Britain rather than negotiate. Did the Members of PATCO and the NUM enter into strikes that could be considered unlawful, yes? Did they have real grievances, yes? Did either of the strikes warrant ongoing vilification of the Union Movement, No, but at the time it was convenient to attack Unions while the first entry into the long term plan to destroy the middle class and unions known as free trade was being considered and negotiated. Years later this vilification is played out constantly in right wing and corporate propaganda and today is part of a far more sophisticated approach; an approach that finds fuel in the vitriolic outbursts of regressive people such as former Ontario Premier Mike Harris and the new Governor of Ohio John Kasich, the Canadian federal government of Stephen Harper and organizations like the “tea party” (lead by television celebrity, not politician, Sarah Palin).
The broad approach, or as some incorrectly say populist, attack on unions by the right wing is actually quite simple to define and analyze. As government policies and legislators became the servants of corporations and in this made the choice to defy one of the most well known quotes in American history, “government of the people for the and by the people” they and their corporate benefactors had to work diligently to remove obstacles to their grand plan. Unions, along with a free and progressive media would certainly not be conducive to running an economy that catered to the needs of the corporations. In fact all that is connected with a progressive media and educated and unionized workforce is entirely contradictory to government policy supporting capital and caring little for people or the environment.
Let’s not forget that unions have been at the heart of progressive legislative change for over 150 years. A few examples of such legislation would be minimum wage, pensions, universal healthcare, public education, occupational health and safety, paid vacations, the 40 hour work week (unions; the people that brought you the week-end), and recognition of paid statutory holidays. Would it make sense, based on this wonderful and amazing record of social responsibility, for those who have chosen to cripple the middle class to leave the Trade Union Movement untouched? The Trade Union Movement is clearly a threat to the right wing corporate agenda in that not only does the movement stand for social responsibility in contradiction to the policies of capital but is perhaps the only self funded organization to take on the role of opposing the attack on working people by government and corporations. Many progressive pieces of legislation were enacted while the revenues to operate a Union were still collected from Members by elected / volunteer Stewards. Since the late 1930’s with the introduction of the legislation that would lead to the “Rand” Formula and automatic deduction of Union dues the self funded status of the Trade Union Movement is truly the last line of defence for working people (Harris at one time suggested he would attack this in Ontario and the “right to work” states already undercut this basic human right, the right to collective bargaining). The Trade Union Movement has many a partner in the fight to sustain jobs, a middle class and the basic social infrastructure that made the national caring societies that used to exist before the blind and myopic worship of capital became the very credo of so many governments, corporations and (sadly) individuals.
The sophisticated attacks on the movement are aimed at removing from view the progressive nature of unions and to corrupt the information such that people are lead to believe that instead of being an advocate for workers and positive social change that somehow unions are greedy. I will defy for all time anyone to equate any union activity with greed when greed is defined each and every day in the financial districts of places like New York, London and Toronto where the financial meltdown of late 2008 was orchestrated and the behaviours that lead to it condoned and in fact designed.
The Trade Union Movement, of which I am a proud member, deserves the time to be understood and to be respected as should it ever be removed or so badly damaged it no longer functions the corporations will have free rein in the world. If you think the near free reign is not possible just look at the loss of Union density since the afore mentioned attacks in 1981 and 1984 and right up to, and including, the latest campaign of misinformation focused on public service workers.
In Solidarity
Dave Trumble
President
Grey-Bruce Labour Council
Friday, December 31, 2010
Tax Base and The Industrial Sector
The new year is hardly underway and the mainstream media has already jumped on the issue of budget deficits as proclaimed with alarming and accelerating regularity by all levels of unelected and elected government officials. It should be no surprise that when the source of is this information is sourced that workers in the public service are always mentioned and in most cases the focal point of the blame. Of course this is not anywhere near the truth and is another example of where workers are blamed for government,corporate and international trade and monetary policy failure that goes back to at least the beginning of the free trade, de-regulation, privatization thrust of globalization and the forces that drive globalization. Of course the people blaming the workers seem to forget or intentionally ignore the failure, the United States being the clearest example of this, of the globalization agenda.
The nineteen eighties, ushered in by the election of government leaders such as Thatcher and Reagan, witnessed the early stages of the manifestation of the globalization agenda. The policies of globalization continue to be a failure and when it comes to tax base a quick calculation should bear simple and clear witness to this. Globalization and its intrinsic exploitation of labour forces in the developing world and repression of the labour force in the developed world drive manufacturing and industrial jobs offshore. This equates to millions of jobs shipped offshore and lost in the industrial sector, as has been the case in Canada and the United States for example, and with it goes the well paying middle class jobs that served us so well in the post war era (and before the free trade era). Since the majority of those affected by these job losses never again regain full employment and the industrial facilities that once paid significant taxes are gone forever it is no surprise to find that the tax base in a wide number of jurisdictions is diminishing. The loss of industrial and manufacturing facilities in Ontario is alone responsible for billions of dollars in lost tax revenue.
Take this to the next absurd argument offered by globalization advocates and you find them saying that the way to attract business is to lower taxes. Now the policies associated with this say to solve this lets further attack the wages of public sector workers to regain the loss in general revenues that don't exist anymore. Is anyone getting this? Globalization destroys well paying middle class jobs, destroys social safety nets for those in our society that are most in need and makes the elite and rich in our society ever richer (headlines today say that CEO's make 115 times what their workers make). Nowhere does this agenda of globalization set forth a plan to sustain the middle class and to do what is necessary to make the future brighter for workers in our own communities. Nowhere does the agenda of globalization set forth a plan to regulate for the purpose of the common good and ensure that things such as water, energy, , health, infrastructure and food (to name a few) should remain in publicly regulated hands to ensure that it does the maximum good for the common good.
The agenda of globalization is now an example of failed public and international policy and it is time to get past the blaming of workers, unions and the poor for the failure of this policy and to get on with peeling the lid back on this and putting the world back on a path to fair trade, proper regulation and public ownership of public infrastructure, increasing access to collective bargaining rights for workers and sound social safety nets for all. This is nothing more than what worked successfully in the post war era to make a strong and healthy middle class that propelled at least the economies in North America to enviable strength and growth.
One of the past leaders of General Motors was quoted as saying "you can't have an economy if you don't build anything"; well we are fast approaching that. Add the loss in taxes and the poor choices made with limited tax dollars and it is no wonder that a revenue shortfall exists in a wide variety of jurisdictions.
Dave Trumble
President
Grey-Bruce Labour Council
The nineteen eighties, ushered in by the election of government leaders such as Thatcher and Reagan, witnessed the early stages of the manifestation of the globalization agenda. The policies of globalization continue to be a failure and when it comes to tax base a quick calculation should bear simple and clear witness to this. Globalization and its intrinsic exploitation of labour forces in the developing world and repression of the labour force in the developed world drive manufacturing and industrial jobs offshore. This equates to millions of jobs shipped offshore and lost in the industrial sector, as has been the case in Canada and the United States for example, and with it goes the well paying middle class jobs that served us so well in the post war era (and before the free trade era). Since the majority of those affected by these job losses never again regain full employment and the industrial facilities that once paid significant taxes are gone forever it is no surprise to find that the tax base in a wide number of jurisdictions is diminishing. The loss of industrial and manufacturing facilities in Ontario is alone responsible for billions of dollars in lost tax revenue.
Take this to the next absurd argument offered by globalization advocates and you find them saying that the way to attract business is to lower taxes. Now the policies associated with this say to solve this lets further attack the wages of public sector workers to regain the loss in general revenues that don't exist anymore. Is anyone getting this? Globalization destroys well paying middle class jobs, destroys social safety nets for those in our society that are most in need and makes the elite and rich in our society ever richer (headlines today say that CEO's make 115 times what their workers make). Nowhere does this agenda of globalization set forth a plan to sustain the middle class and to do what is necessary to make the future brighter for workers in our own communities. Nowhere does the agenda of globalization set forth a plan to regulate for the purpose of the common good and ensure that things such as water, energy, , health, infrastructure and food (to name a few) should remain in publicly regulated hands to ensure that it does the maximum good for the common good.
The agenda of globalization is now an example of failed public and international policy and it is time to get past the blaming of workers, unions and the poor for the failure of this policy and to get on with peeling the lid back on this and putting the world back on a path to fair trade, proper regulation and public ownership of public infrastructure, increasing access to collective bargaining rights for workers and sound social safety nets for all. This is nothing more than what worked successfully in the post war era to make a strong and healthy middle class that propelled at least the economies in North America to enviable strength and growth.
One of the past leaders of General Motors was quoted as saying "you can't have an economy if you don't build anything"; well we are fast approaching that. Add the loss in taxes and the poor choices made with limited tax dollars and it is no wonder that a revenue shortfall exists in a wide variety of jurisdictions.
Dave Trumble
President
Grey-Bruce Labour Council
Monday, December 27, 2010
Grey-Bruce Labour Council Letter from the President 2010 / 2011
GREY-BRUCE LABOUR COUNCIL
Representing the Needs of Working People Since 1956
(Chartered to the Canadian Labour Congress in 1956)
Grey-Bruce Labour Council
Letter from the President
2010 / 2011
Sisters, Brothers, Delegates, Friends & Partners of the Labour Council, Union Presidents, CLC and OFL;
As we approach the end of 2010 I want to wish everyone the best for 2011 and beyond and to say thank-you for the dedication, passion and compassion of the past years. I, along with some others, will see the our 22nd year of involvement with the Grey-Bruce Labour Council this coming year and when I look back on our accomplishments it is always through the prism of the people that have graced our table and our work in the community that our accomplishments are viewed most clearly.
Our Labour Council, amongst the ruins of Ontario’s industrial sector and the never ending attacks on working people and our most vulnerable, remains a vibrant component of the Labour Movement in our region. The Grey-Bruce Labour Council is not without challenges that must be overcome to continue to be successful, but one glance at our strength and diversity of membership, partnerships and friends demonstrates that we are here to overcome these challenges and to continue to be the voice of working people in our region for the foreseeable future.
There are always dangers when one attempts to set certain people or actions above others in the vein of a letter such as this, but with immense pride in all our successes it is the inclusiveness of our Council that needs to be near the top of the list. Of course this inclusiveness is a choice made by all at our table, but we have never sent anyone of social conscience away from our table. I am sure that this pillar of our existence will continue in 2011 and I can see no better of way of demonstrating this than ensuring that our OPSEU Sisters and Brothers are welcomed despite any activity between NUPGE and the CLC at the national level.
The upcoming year has amongst our key activities a deeper involvement with our political allies and partners, a week-end school in April, refinement of our scholarships, a president’s meeting, a youth forum and outreach to our region’s unions to become involved with the Grey-Bruce Labour Council. Each of these initiatives will require significant effort to see a successful outcome and to neglect the help our CLC and WHSC Staff can provide and have provided would be a huge oversight. To this end, many thanks to Stephanie and Kim!
On a very personal note, the people involved and that support our Labour Council embody what Sister and Brother actually means and I am never more proud than when I get to brag to the world about all my Sisters and Brothers.
In Solidarity, Dave
Representing the Needs of Working People Since 1956
(Chartered to the Canadian Labour Congress in 1956)
Grey-Bruce Labour Council
Letter from the President
2010 / 2011
Sisters, Brothers, Delegates, Friends & Partners of the Labour Council, Union Presidents, CLC and OFL;
As we approach the end of 2010 I want to wish everyone the best for 2011 and beyond and to say thank-you for the dedication, passion and compassion of the past years. I, along with some others, will see the our 22nd year of involvement with the Grey-Bruce Labour Council this coming year and when I look back on our accomplishments it is always through the prism of the people that have graced our table and our work in the community that our accomplishments are viewed most clearly.
Our Labour Council, amongst the ruins of Ontario’s industrial sector and the never ending attacks on working people and our most vulnerable, remains a vibrant component of the Labour Movement in our region. The Grey-Bruce Labour Council is not without challenges that must be overcome to continue to be successful, but one glance at our strength and diversity of membership, partnerships and friends demonstrates that we are here to overcome these challenges and to continue to be the voice of working people in our region for the foreseeable future.
There are always dangers when one attempts to set certain people or actions above others in the vein of a letter such as this, but with immense pride in all our successes it is the inclusiveness of our Council that needs to be near the top of the list. Of course this inclusiveness is a choice made by all at our table, but we have never sent anyone of social conscience away from our table. I am sure that this pillar of our existence will continue in 2011 and I can see no better of way of demonstrating this than ensuring that our OPSEU Sisters and Brothers are welcomed despite any activity between NUPGE and the CLC at the national level.
The upcoming year has amongst our key activities a deeper involvement with our political allies and partners, a week-end school in April, refinement of our scholarships, a president’s meeting, a youth forum and outreach to our region’s unions to become involved with the Grey-Bruce Labour Council. Each of these initiatives will require significant effort to see a successful outcome and to neglect the help our CLC and WHSC Staff can provide and have provided would be a huge oversight. To this end, many thanks to Stephanie and Kim!
On a very personal note, the people involved and that support our Labour Council embody what Sister and Brother actually means and I am never more proud than when I get to brag to the world about all my Sisters and Brothers.
In Solidarity, Dave
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Essential Services
The deeming of services beyond what society has no ability to be without whatsoever as essential services is nothing more than the next step in undermining our charter right to free collective bargaining. The latest headline grabber in this debate is Toronto Councils’ support for essential service legislation for the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC).
The need (however arrived at) for essential service legislation in almost all cases outside of the narrow band mentioned above is removed or at least significantly mitigated should employers come to the bargaining table with full intention of reaching a two party collective bargaining agreement. When union negotiating committees give notice to bargain there is always full intention to reach a two party deal. The intolerant regimes like Ford and his Council minions in Toronto find it easy to overlook this vibrant component to labour relations and instead play off those who are easily turned to a negative opinion of unionized workers.
Perhaps an even more fundamental part of the debate and the legislative initiatives that undercut free collective bargaining is the failure of governments, irrespective of jurisdiction, to enact anti-replacement worker legislation and card check certification. Both of these items encourage free collective bargaining by ensuring that employers are kept at the bargaining table and that more workers have easier access to union organization.
The use of essential service legislation should be a measured approach and only applied with the utmost care and due diligence and never used as it is in this case; to intentionally mislead people into thinking negatively about unionized workers and to grab more headline space for people like Ford.
Branding the TTC as an essential service is playing with a tool that is needed, but is not appropriate in anyway for the suggested application.
Dave Trumble
President
Grey-Bruce Labour Council
The need (however arrived at) for essential service legislation in almost all cases outside of the narrow band mentioned above is removed or at least significantly mitigated should employers come to the bargaining table with full intention of reaching a two party collective bargaining agreement. When union negotiating committees give notice to bargain there is always full intention to reach a two party deal. The intolerant regimes like Ford and his Council minions in Toronto find it easy to overlook this vibrant component to labour relations and instead play off those who are easily turned to a negative opinion of unionized workers.
Perhaps an even more fundamental part of the debate and the legislative initiatives that undercut free collective bargaining is the failure of governments, irrespective of jurisdiction, to enact anti-replacement worker legislation and card check certification. Both of these items encourage free collective bargaining by ensuring that employers are kept at the bargaining table and that more workers have easier access to union organization.
The use of essential service legislation should be a measured approach and only applied with the utmost care and due diligence and never used as it is in this case; to intentionally mislead people into thinking negatively about unionized workers and to grab more headline space for people like Ford.
Branding the TTC as an essential service is playing with a tool that is needed, but is not appropriate in anyway for the suggested application.
Dave Trumble
President
Grey-Bruce Labour Council
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Law and Order and Poverty
Prime Minister Harper and his caucus are great advocates for a Law and Order agenda or as I like to call it; another right wing easy answer.
Make no mistake there are legitimate criminal entities that the very brave women and men in law enforcement must confront to ensure the safety of the individual and society in general, but the concern in this letter is part of the convoluted attempt of governments of similar philosophy to the Harper conservative to use the cover of the law and order agenda to cover up the fact that they have no policy to deal with the roots of poverty.
The various roots of crime are indeed far too broad and varied to discuss in a short letter, but sadly a statistically relevant part of crime is rooted in the fact that for conservative and right wing governments are happy to pander to the segment of the population that believes in throwing more policing and bigger jails at the problem instead of doing the hard work and establishing programs or funding existing program to aid those whose poverty has driven them to crime. Of course not everyone who lives in poverty turns to crime; in fact the vast majority live a life dignified and defined by their struggle to do what is right by themselves, their families and their communities despite the daily challenges that must be overcome. In the same breath poverty, sometimes multi-generational and sometimes a direct result of recent job loss drives people who do lose hope to do things outside of the law.
The law and order agenda, where policing and incarceration increase considerably, needs to be stopped in its tracks and re-evaluated in light of what would take place if government policy took straight aim at generating jobs in the manufacturing and resource sectors. This would create an economic recovery based on being a producer of Canadian made goods rather than country racing to the bottom of the economic ladder and shipping off middle class unionized jobs to parts of the world where workers are exploited.
If legislative policy at all levels of government focused on regenerating the well paid unionized jobs found in the manufacturing and resource sector that have disappeared in the millions in Canada since the signing of the first free trade agreement in 1988 it may just be that the crime generated out of the poverty created directly by the ridiculous trade policies of successive Canadian governments would be mitigated. The end result is a much healthier country economically and socially and the easy answer or glib conservatives / right wing are forced to answer for their long term legislative failures instead of hiding behind the façade of their law and order agenda.
Dave Trumble
President
Grey-Bruce Labour Council
Make no mistake there are legitimate criminal entities that the very brave women and men in law enforcement must confront to ensure the safety of the individual and society in general, but the concern in this letter is part of the convoluted attempt of governments of similar philosophy to the Harper conservative to use the cover of the law and order agenda to cover up the fact that they have no policy to deal with the roots of poverty.
The various roots of crime are indeed far too broad and varied to discuss in a short letter, but sadly a statistically relevant part of crime is rooted in the fact that for conservative and right wing governments are happy to pander to the segment of the population that believes in throwing more policing and bigger jails at the problem instead of doing the hard work and establishing programs or funding existing program to aid those whose poverty has driven them to crime. Of course not everyone who lives in poverty turns to crime; in fact the vast majority live a life dignified and defined by their struggle to do what is right by themselves, their families and their communities despite the daily challenges that must be overcome. In the same breath poverty, sometimes multi-generational and sometimes a direct result of recent job loss drives people who do lose hope to do things outside of the law.
The law and order agenda, where policing and incarceration increase considerably, needs to be stopped in its tracks and re-evaluated in light of what would take place if government policy took straight aim at generating jobs in the manufacturing and resource sectors. This would create an economic recovery based on being a producer of Canadian made goods rather than country racing to the bottom of the economic ladder and shipping off middle class unionized jobs to parts of the world where workers are exploited.
If legislative policy at all levels of government focused on regenerating the well paid unionized jobs found in the manufacturing and resource sector that have disappeared in the millions in Canada since the signing of the first free trade agreement in 1988 it may just be that the crime generated out of the poverty created directly by the ridiculous trade policies of successive Canadian governments would be mitigated. The end result is a much healthier country economically and socially and the easy answer or glib conservatives / right wing are forced to answer for their long term legislative failures instead of hiding behind the façade of their law and order agenda.
Dave Trumble
President
Grey-Bruce Labour Council
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)