Monday, June 16, 2014

Independence is Priceless

This fall, two of Europe's oldest nations, Scotland and Catalonia, will vote on whether or not they should become independent states.  Proponents of independence in both regions face heavy opposition from their respective national governments, big business and the rest of the member states that make up the European Union.  In fact, the Spanish government even refuses to recognize any sovereignty referendum in Catalonia as being valid.  So much for democracy.



Whether it's national governments, big business or the stiffs that run the E.U., the argument against independence for Scotland, Catalonia or any other distinct region of the world seeking self-determination is always pretty much the same.  More specifically, people in independence-seeking regions are always threatened with economic doom and political isolation if they opt to separate from the country in question.  If any of this sounds familiar to the folks in Canada who read this blog, I'm not surprised, because this same argument is used by Canadian federalists whenever the notion of a sovereign Quebec comes up.



It's not that this argument is incorrect.  In fact, Scotland, Catalonia, Quebec and any other region with a distinct population would find that having independence is very difficult, at least in the short run.  But should people not seek self-determination just because it might be difficult?  Absolutely not!

Self-Determination is Priceless

If you study the history of each of the world's nation-states, you would be hard-pressed to find any country that did not go through harsh times because they chose independence, especially in their early years.  In fact, if peoples around the world stopped wanting self-determination because they thought that it would be too difficult, almost none of today's nation-states would exist at all.  Just think, for example, if the Americans decided that they should not try to seek independence from the British Empire because doing so would mean grave consequences, and no I'm not talking about bad economic prospects.  I'm talking about facing the guns and soldiers of the strongest empire in the world at the time.

Fear of the consequences of independence didn't phase the founders of Israel either.  The Israelis, like the Americans, were outnumbered and outgunned.  They faced the armies of several Arab states.  But unlike the Americans, they also faced the threat of extermination for seeking independence on their own land.

Basically, what I'm saying is that if peoples are willing to go to war and risk death or even extinction so that they can achieve self-determination, then the threat of economic hard times and political consequences shouldn't seem so scary.

Short Term Pain for Long Term Gain

Yes, it's true that if peoples like the Scots, the Catalans and the Quebecois choose independence, they may go through some difficult times.  I know of very few countries whose early years were not beset by struggle of one kind or another.  But economic and political struggles are nothing compared to what some nation-states have had to go through in exchange for their freedom.

Indeed, freedom is something that isn't free at all.  It always comes with risk, challenges and sacrifices.  Whether or not a nation-state succeeds depends on how its people meet those risks and challenges and how willing they are to make sacrifices for their country to succeed.  At the end of the day, one can't put a price on a people's right to independence and self-determination, so whatever a people needs to do to gain and maintain their freedom is worth whatever consequences may come.     

  

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Time to Hit Hamas and Hit Them Hard

It's official.  Israel's government is now saying Hamas carried out the abduction of three young Israelis.  I'm not surprised, nor should anyone else be.  Ever since abducting Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists have been attempting to kidnap more Israelis so that they can exchange them for fellow terrorists now in Israeli jails.  We should also remember that just days before the kidnapping, members of the international community, including the Americans, were toasting the national unity government that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his rivals in Hamas had recently established.  Leaders around the world were screaming at Israeli Prime Minster Binyamin Netanyahu and his government to restart peace talks with the new, Hamas-backed Palestinian regime.  Even one of his coalition partners, Yair Lapid and his Yesh Atid party, threatened to pull out of the government if Netanyahu did not start talking to the new Palestinian government supported by Hamas.  Nevertheless, Bibi, as many of us Israelis like to call him, resisted both the external and internal pressure put upon him.  And now we know why.

Hamas' new arrangement with Abbas changed nothing about the terrorist organization's nature and its intentions, which are of course to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth and create an Islamic state in its place.  Bibi knew this, but as is often the case, many people didn't want to believe him.  Now that Netanyahu has proven himself right, again, on the subject of how to deal with terrorists, it is time for Israel's government to show unity and do whatever it takes to crush Hamas once and for all.

Indeed, there may never be a better time to destroy the Palestinian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Not only will a swift, decisive and fatal blow against Hamas unite the Israeli people, but it will also earn praise, albeit that of a quiet nature, from governments throughout the region who are struggling with their own Islamist terrorists.  Egypt's military-backed government, for example, has spent about a year decimating the ranks of the country's Muslim Brotherhood, most of whose prominent figures are now in jail.  Many have been sentenced to death.  I would encourage Israel to follow the same root that the current Egyptian regime has taken to imprison and kill every Islamist terrorist until there are no more.

               

In other words, Israel should arrest, jail and if necessary, kill every member of Hamas and any other Islamist terrorist organization in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and inside the Green Line until they are never heard from again.  Furthermore, Israel should compel the Palestinian Authority led by Abbas to terminate its unity deal with Hamas and assist in the liquidation of the Islamists.  If the PA refuses to co-operate, Israel should respond with punitive measures, including the gradual annexation of areas of the West Bank in which there is a Jewish majority.  Doing this will send the Palestinians a serious message that if they will not agree to root out the terrorists in their midst, Israel will do it for them and they will slowly lose the territory that they hope to retain for a state of their own.  We will then see what is more important to the Palestinian people: safeguarding the lives of terrorists who jeopardize their quest for self-determination, or ridding themselves of these same terrorists so that they can enjoy a peaceful, independent state alongside Israel.  The choice will ultimately theirs to make.  Let's hope they choose to do the right thing this time, because the Palestinians have an infamous history of making bad choices.    

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Ontario Election 2014: Another Uninspiring Flirtation With Democracy

So another provincial election has come and gone.  From my perspective, it was a rather dull affair, but I guess you could say that about most elections in Canada.  Anyhow, for those of you who were paying attention to the results that poured in on June 12th, you know that the Ontario Liberal Party, to the surprise of many, managed to earn a majority mandate that will prolong what has already been over a decade in power for them.  Most of the pollsters and many experts did not believe that this could happen and instead predicted a minority government of some sort.  Personally, I thought that there was a chance the Grits could snag a majority and it looks like I was right.

Better the Devil You Know

I certainly have no love for the Ontario Liberals.  In fact, I took every opportunity I could to bash them on my Facebook page for their record of scandals, fiscal mismanagement and nanny statism.  Nevertheless, I didn't like any of the alternatives either.  Whereas I would normally vote Conservative in a provincial or federal election, I felt I couldn't do that this time because of what the Tories planned to do in regards to education, like cutting the 30% tuition rebate for post-secondary students, or increasing class sizes in Ontario's schools.  I do work in the field of education after all.  And I obviously wouldn't vote NDP, seeing as how the Grits stole most of their bad policies from them anyway, not to mention the fact that the Dippers kept Premier Kathleen Wynne and her cronies in power for so long.  I ended up declining my ballot.  In other words, I voted "none of the above".

I believe that like myself, other Ontarians had no love for the Liberals, but found the alternatives to be even worse.  Tory leader, Tim Hudak, ran on a campaign of austerity to fix Ontario's economy and get the province's soaring debt and deficit under control.  His platform was very similar to that of former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, lacking in compassion and written from a strictly dollars and cents perspective.  Wynne's Liberals knew this, so they made sure that the comparison between Hudak and Harris stuck.  And stick it did.  Many Ontario voters had no desire to the return to the slash and burn days of the former Tory premier, so they could not bring themselves to vote for Hudak.  The other alternative, Andrea Horwath's New Democrats, were a long shot to win this election, although I did think they still had a slim chance.  The main problem for them was that the Grits stole their thunder by governing with the same radical, leftist ideology that normally characterizes the NDP.  Premier Wynne and the Liberals decided to stick to that ideology during the campaign, leaving the New Democrats to try and find another way to distinguish themselves from the Grits.  I'm not too surprised that the Liberals ripped off the NDP's ideology and policies.  After all, the Grits are notorious plagiarists, routinely latching on to the ideas of other parties and passing them off as their own (think Tommy Douglas' pitch for universal health care).  Horwath responded to this predicament by trying to move her party further to the right - a move for which she was lambasted by many in her party.  Predictably, this bout of disunity amongst New Democrats  made its rounds in the media and negatively impacted the party's prospects in the elections.  Moreover, Premier Wynne and the Liberals managed to convince voters that by voting NDP, they would be giving the election to Hudak's Tories.  Ah yes, the old strategic voting scare tactic, which we see in many elections and which we will continue to see unless we get rid of our ridiculous electoral system.  Anyhow, Ontario voters, angry with the Liberals, but more scared of Hudak and willing to vote strategically to keep him out, decided to go with the devil they knew instead of the one that they didn't. 

Poor Choices and Disenchanted Voters

This year's provincial election was yet another example of how pathetic Canadian politics is.  It was another election of lousy choices and voters who just wished that our politicians didn't suck so much.  The disenchantment of voters in this province is reflected in this past election's voter participation rate.  Just over half of Ontario's eligible voters, about 52%, went to cast ballots this time around.  And believe it or not, this is actually an improvement, because in the last provincial election, less than half of eligible voters, around 48%, cast ballots.  In fact, it's the first time since 1990 that voter participation hasn't gone down.  Still, having nearly half of the province's electorate stay at home on election day doesn't bode well for democracy.  I believe that everyone should take advantage of our fundamental right to elect our leaders, even if they just show up to decline or spoil their ballot, but I don't blame those who choose not to vote, especially when I look at the idiots they have to choose from.  And even if there is someone you want to vote for, that person or party may not have a chance in hell of getting elected if they're not with one of the three big, fat cat parties.  I'm speaking, of course, of the Liberals, the Tories and the New Democrats.

As always, I place the blame for lack of voter participation squarely on two factors: Uninspiring politicians and Canada's ridiculous, winner-take-all, first-past-the-post electoral system.  Unfortunately, there's not much we can do to alleviate the first factor negatively impacting voter participation.  We just have to hope that better, more inspiring leaders will arise in the future.  Personally, I'm not holding my breath.  The good news, however, is that we can do something about our electoral system.  We can change it so that it more accurately reflects the popular will of the electorate.

Making Every Vote Count Will Boost Voter Participation

Think about this for a minute:  Premier Wynne's Liberals were re-elected with a majority government with just under 39% of the popular vote.  Should one party be able to govern unhindered for up to five years when they did not earn a majority of voter support?  I think not.  And what about the nearly 5% of voters whose choices will have no representation, like the poor saps who voted for the Green Party?  Shouldn't their votes count for something?  Unfortunately, they don't.  In fact, unless you voted for the winning candidate in your riding, your vote didn't count either.

I don't know about you, but I think a party that governs with a majority in the legislature should have to receive the backing of the majority of the voters.  And if they can't do that, then they should not be governing, unless of course they are willing to share power with other parties in a bloc for which the total number of votes they received is more than half of the votes cast.  This is a true majority government - a government backed by the majority of voters, not the manufactured majority that Ontario voters just put back into power.

I think it is logical to assume that if electors knew that their votes would count, no matter who they voted for, they would be more inclined to exercise their fundamental democratic right to choose their leaders.  But if we want all votes to count, we will have to change our electoral system and adopt a fairer system; one that involves proportional representation or ranked balloting, both of which more accurately reflect the will of the electorate.  Unfortunately, however, it is unlikely that any of the three fat cats, whether they're Liberal red, Tory blue or NDP orange, will move to change the way people in Ontario, let alone the rest of Canada, elect their politicians.  And why would they when our current system gives these parties the chance to run their own one-party dictatorship for up to five years at a time?  If they did change the system, they might have to share power with some of the little guys, like the Green Party, and they certainly don't want to do that when they can keep all the power to themselves.

Let's face it.  Unless some really charismatic and principled new leader comes along with the courage and support to change the way we elect our governments, we will keep voting the same way we have since confederation in 1867.  Hence, voter participation rates will continue to be low - unless of course we force people to vote.

Mandatory Voting: The Cop-Out Solution

Some folks, like The Toronto Star's Haroon Siddiqui, believe that voting should be mandatory (see: Canada should make voting mandatory).  He does talk about the need for electoral reform, implying that it might boost voter participation.  He also says, however, that making voting mandatory is the most "persuasive" solution to low voter turnout.  This solution, I believe, is no solution at all, but rather a cop out.  It's as if a person or company with a product that doesn't sell decided to try and force people to buy their product, instead of improving that product to make it more attractive to would-be buyers.  Actually, there's a more practical analogy I can use, which involves one of our other fundamental rights: free speech.  We all know that in a democracy, everyone has the right to say what they want and to speak freely about what they think and feel.  However, no democratically-elected government in their right mind would ever try and compel people to say what they think.  In other words, while we have the right to free speech, we also have the right to keep our mouths shut and not speak if we don't want to.  Hence, I believe that although we have the right to vote, we should also have the right not to.

So contrary to what folks like Haroon Siddiqui might tell you, the only just solution to low voter turnout, short of more inspiring politicians, is not to make voting mandatory; it's to make voting more worthwhile by reforming our electoral system to make every vote count.        

Monday, June 9, 2014

Unions: Part 2

In my last post, I talked about the relevance of unions and the difference between public and private sector unions.  For this post, I'm going to continue on the unions theme because there are still some things I want to discuss.  Let me start with a personal story.  In 2004, I worked on a construction site in Brampton where a new housing subdivision was being built.  Among the folks I worked with was a guy named Jeff, who was using the money he was making from working on the site to help finance his future education.  One day, a person from the construction union arrived on the site and started threatening him, telling him that if he didn't join the union, he could not work on the site.  I tried to plead with this union person to give Jeff a break because he was using the money from the job to pay for school.  But the union big boy would have none of it and simply repeated to me what he said to Jeff.

Unfortunately, this kind of situation that my former work colleague found himself in is not uncommon.  In many workplaces, especially in the public sector, union membership is mandatory and there's nothing a would-be worker can do about it.  He or she must join the union or not be allowed to have the job in question.  The same goes for the employers.  Once a collective bargaining agreement is concluded between the employer and the union, the employer in question faces severe restrictions on who they can hire to do the required work.  It can also be difficult to get rid of a unionized employee, even if he or she is not up to the job.  In fact, in unionized workplaces, it's often not how good you are at your job, it's how long you've been in the union that determines your prospects for work.  I am, of course, referring to the concept of seniority.  This is what drives a lot of people crazy and makes people hate the unions.

I don't know about you, but shouldn't the best person for the job get that job?  I think so, but unfortunately, a lot of the unions don't.  And for those folks who happen to be looking for their first full-time job, unions can be a real impediment.  Say, for example, that you're a new teacher in Ontario.  You just got your teacher's certification and are ready to begin your career.  Unfortunately, you're going have a very steep mountain to climb.  Not only is there a surplus of new teachers, but there are also a whole bunch of older teachers holding onto their jobs.  Obviously, you can't blame them for this, it's just human nature.  The problem is that some of these older teachers may not be that great at their jobs.  I graduated from a public high school and I can tell you that there were a couple of older teachers there that shouldn't have been there in the first place.  But it didn't matter how bad they were, because of course they were in the profession for a long time and hence had the seniority in their union to stay where they were.  In the meantime, younger teachers, like the unfortunate man who taught me economics in my last year of high school, were the first ones to be laid off whenever cutbacks needed to be made.

The unions are very hesitant to use the term seniority when describing how people who have been long-time members get to keep their jobs while folks who are not fortunate enough to have been in the union long enough don't.  Instead, they like to use another term: job security.  Yes, I do believe that everyone deserves the right to a decent salary to support themselves and their families, but I don't believe that you're entitled to keep a job just because you've been doing it for a long time and regardless of how good you are at it.  Going back to my teacher example, I have Ontario Certified Teachers working in my company because they can't find jobs.  And one of the reasons they can't find jobs?  They are blocked by a union culture that rewards seniority over merit.

Forcing Workers to Join Unions and Contribute Money to Them is Undemocratic, Especially When the Unions Exceed Their Mandates

One of the fundamental freedoms that we should all cherish is the freedom of association, which of course includes the right to form unions and engage in collective bargaining.  However, shouldn't this freedom also include freedom from association?  That is, the freedom not to join an association, whether it's a union or some other form of group.  It's simply unfair for any worker, especially a person looking for their first full-time job, to be required to join an organization that they may have no interest in joining just so they can be gainfully employed.  Forced membership in any association is unbecoming of a democracy and more characteristic of a dictatorship.


In fact, in the case of unions, not only are regular working folks faced with joining an association they may not agree with.  They're also forced to give money to that association, and they may not agree with how that money is spent, especially if it is spent on causes that have nothing to do with defending the rights of the union's members.  Take, for example, an incident last year where the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) published a newsletter in which it accused Israel of war crimes (see: http://www.torontosun.com/2013/03/06/postal-union-cupw-slammed-for-anti-israel-newsletter).

I use this example, not simply because I am an Israeli who supports his country, but also because I resent a public sector union using the dues from their members, who are paid with my tax dollars, to finance newsletters that have nothing to do with defending their rights.  The point is that unions exist to protect the rights of the working people whom they represent and from whom they collect dues.  They should not be using those dues to pay for causes that have nothing to do with protecting their members' rights, especially if they happen to be a public sector union whose dues ultimately come from taxpayers.

Some would even argue that during the current provincial election campaign, unions have exceeded their mandate by openly campaigning against Tim Hudak and the Progressive Conservatives.  Yes, I do believe that during this election, the unions are pulling out all the stops to make sure that the Tories don't get elected and that they can continue to get much friendly treatment from Premier Kathleen Wynne's Liberals.  However, I believe that they are well within their rights to do this as whoever forms the next provincial government certainly does have a bearing on the rights of Ontario's public sector workers.  And if the public service unions think that they will get a better deal from the Grits than from the other parties, it's their prerogative to support them.  Personally, I don't think the honeymoon between the Liberals and the public service unions will last if Wynne's government does get re-elected.

Time to End Mandatory Union Membership and Contributions

I believe it's time to give all workers, both in the private and public sectors, a choice of whether or not to be part of a union, and that choice should not cost them a job.  A fairer deal would allow someone to opt out of joining a union and paying union dues in exchange for not being entitled to all the benefits that the union in question bargained for.  It's basically a trade-off.  Be part of the union, pay union dues and get all the benefits of a unionized employee, like wage guarantees, health coverage and paid vacation time, or decide not to be part of the union and waive the benefits that union membership would give you.  As I have said before, I firmly believe that forming unions and collective bargaining are fundamental rights.  However, just because we have rights doesn't mean we should be compelled to exercise them.  For example, we have the right to speak our minds, but that doesn't mean we have to.  We can keep our mouths shut and keep what we think to ourselves.  In the same respect, although we do have the right to form unions and engage in collective bargaining, we should also be free not to do so.  After all, democracy is all about choice, isn't it?       

Sunday, June 8, 2014

Unions: Do We Still Need Them?

In the midst of Ontario's current election campaign, a lot of people are making light of how much power the province's unions, or more specifically public sector unions, have.  Indeed, day in and day out during this campaign, I've come across one advertisement after another sponsored by one of the public sector unions.  At the same time, I've been bombarded by just as many ads attacking the power and influence of these same unions.  I do take issue with the kind of clout that the public sector unions have in this province right now.  However, I am just as concerned with folks who believe that we don't need unions anymore.

Do We Still Need Unions?  The Short Answer is...Absolutely!

Every now and then I hear people saying that we don't need unions because we already have labour laws to protect workers.  Uh, yes, that's true, but the reason we have those laws is because of unions.  Anyone who knows their history knows that unions were created because there was no protection against worker abuse.  Before unions, ordinary workers were not treated much better than slaves.  They worked endless hours, earning meager wages that they could not support themselves on, let alone their families.  Actually, many of them were lucky if they even got paid.  They could also be ordered to do work in life-threatening situations without any safety precautions afforded to them.  Hey, wait a minute, why am I talking about this in the past tense?  This abuse of workers is still happening all over the world right now, as I am writing this.  Anyone remember what happened to those poor garment workers who were burned to death in Bangladesh making clothes for Western companies, including Canada's Joe Fresh?  And no, worker abuse is not limited to third world countries.  It's still happening in the industrialized world, including right here in Canada.  If you follow the news, you've heard all the fuss being made about Canada's temporary foreign workers program.  Not only have there been allegations made by foreigners who came to Canada because of this program, but we're also finding out that big corporations have allegedly taken advantage of these to hire foreign labour instead of Canadians.  Here are some examples of these allegations:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mcdonald-s-accused-of-favouring-foreign-workers-1.2598684

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/Go+Public/ID/2450187011/

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/04/24/temporary_foreign_workers_program_has_boosted_joblessness_cd_howe_report_says.html#

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/tim-hortons-breaks-with-franchisee-expands-foreign-worker-oversight-after-wage-theft-claims-1.2620672

Public Sector vs. Private Sector

Most of the worker abuse cases that we hear about in the media tend to occur in the private sector.  This doesn't mean, of course, that no abuse goes on in the public sector.  There is, however, a big difference in terms of who public sector unions deal with as opposed to private sector unions.  Unions in the private sector deal with private businesses, usually larger ones.  The Canadian Autoworkers Union once represented thousands of people working for big automakers, like GM and Ford before it merged with another union to create what is now known as UNIFOR.  As we all know, big multinational corporations, like the aforementioned car makers, are for-profit businesses whose owners are often multimillionaires and even billionaires.  This is not the case with the folks that public sector unions deal with.

Public sector unions deal with governments that are, at least in theory, controlled by, who else?  The public.  That is, every living, breathing taxpayer residing in the jurisdiction that the government in question has control over.  In Ontario, our public sector unions deal with a government that is certainly not a money-making giant corporation, like McDonald's or Walmart.  In fact, our province's debt and deficit have grown quite a bit over the last few years.  And unlike the owners of big corporations, most of the folks that our provincial government represents are ordinary working people, many of whom struggle to make ends meet in today's sluggish economy.  What I'm trying to say is that the folks in the public sector unions need to understand that they cannot deal with a government that is supposed to work for all of us the same way a private sector union deals with a big, multimillion dollar conglomerate that works only for its rich owners and shareholders.  They have to realize that more money for them doesn't mean less money for some big shot corporate CEO; it means less money for Joe Shmo Ontarian to pay the rent and feed the kids because he has to pay the government more in taxes so that public sector union members can have bigger salaries, more vacation time and better benefits than most Ontarians can only dream of.

Yes, I understand that public sector unions represent some of the most noble professions out there.  They're our doctors, our nurses, our teachers, our firefighters and our police officers, just to name a few.  And I understand that it is only human nature to try and get as much as possible.  Nevertheless, you folks in the public sector must be prepared to be reasonable when dealing with what are essentially fellow taxpayers represented by our government.

  

Friday, June 6, 2014

Everyone Deserves a Living Wage

To this day, people are always taught that working hard is the key to a better life.  Unfortunately, this isn't always the case.  Indeed, what really bugs me nowadays is hearing so many stories about people working two or more jobs and still have trouble making ends meet.  At the same time, I hear conservative-minded politicians saying that the best social program is a job.  These are often the same people that say people who are poor are poor because they don't work hard enough, they're lazy, or they made bad choices.  While these characteristics may be true of some poor people, there are many other poverty-stricken folks who work very hard, yet still can't find a way to get ahead financially.  We often refer to folks in this situation as the "working poor".

Basically, the working poor are people who are employed, but who earn very meager wages and do not receive any other benefits from their work, such as paid holidays or health care coverage.  I consider myself to be a conservative-minded person, so I do believe that there are people who are poor because they made bad choices in their lives or because they don't work hard enough.  But I also recognize the reality that many people are simply caught in a cycle of poverty that is very difficult to break.  Take, for example, fast food workers, who last month waged a massive one day strike in several countries around the world, demanding better wages and working conditions (see:  http://www.aljazeera.com/video/americas/2014/05/strike-highlights-fast-food-workers-plight-201451651741606709.html and http://www.aljazeera.com/video/americas/2014/05/us-fast-food-workers-demand-better-pay-20145155216322554.html).

I don't know how any rational person, conservative or otherwise, can say to people like these fast food workers that their jobs are the best social program when the wages they receive aren't even enough to pay for basics like food, rent and utilities.  The fact is that for too many people, these low-paying jobs are a path to nowhere, which is why it's no wonder that some folks would rather sit on the rear ends and collect welfare than work at McDonald's for close to the same amount of money that they would receive through government hand-outs.  If we want to break the cycle of poverty, and give people the incentive to work at the same time, we need to make sure that all jobs, no matter what they may be, pay a wage that folks can support themselves and their families on - a living wage.

Less than six years ago, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a left-wing think tank, issued a report saying that a living wage in Toronto would be $16.60 per hour (see: A Living Wage for Toronto).  Taking into consideration the cost of living increase since this report was published, this living wage would have to be even higher today.  Up until the beginning of this month, the minimum wage in Ontario was $10.25 per hour.  Anyone making this would still be living 25% below the poverty line according to the Low Income Measure (see: http://www.thestar.com/bigideas/experts/2014/02/15/make_toronto_a_livingwage_city_trish_hennessys_big_idea.html).  Effective on the first date of this month, the minimum wage was raised to $11 - a good step, but still not enough for low-income earners to even climb over the province's poverty line.  Obviously, we need to do better.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of folks out there who don't want to see a living wage for all come to fruition.  These include big business owners, but also small business owners who say they can't afford such a pay increase and claim that they would have to cut back on employees if forced to do so.  In regards to big business, I don't buy this excuse at all.  Can anyone seriously tell me that big multinational corporations like McDonald's and Walmart don't make enough money to pay their employees a living wage?  What would happen to these big boys if they have to pay their workers fairly?  At worst, their CEOs may have to fly first class on a commercial airline instead of flying in a private jet.  Oh no!  Boo-hoo!

As for smaller businesses whose owners don't make millions of dollars and don't own private jets or luxury yachts, I can understand how such a significant rise in labour costs could impact them.  After all, I am a small business owner myself.  So I believe that in certain cases, governments should help small businesses so that they can make the transition to paying their employees a living wage without incurring significant losses.

So do I think that the best social program is a job?  No.  I think the best social program is a good job - a job where someone earns enough to support themselves and their family.  A job that doesn't force someone to make a choice between feeding the kids and paying the rent.  A job that allows someone to break the cycle of poverty and work towards a better life.

I am not an economist, but I do know that an economy in which people make a decent living and have more disposable income is better than one in which people can't even afford the basics and therefore won't contribute to economic growth.  In other words, a vibrant and productive economy is one in which people have good paying jobs, so a living wage just makes sense.     
 



   

Sunday, June 1, 2014

Israel Needs to be More Israeli

A couple of days ago, news broke that Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, tried to convince Nobel laureate, Elie Wiesel, to stand for election to the Israeli presidency as the term of the current president, Shimon Peres, winds down (see: PM 'wanted Elie Wiesel as president').  I am an Israeli citizen and even though I live in Canada, I am still very proud of my Israeli identity, so I have a big problem with giving high Israeli government posts to outsiders.  It's not that I don't like Elie Wiesel.  In fact, I think he would make a perfect statesman and he has done a lot for both Israel and the Jewish people.  But he is not an Israeli citizen, nor has he lived in Israel for any significant length of time, which is the reason I think he did the right thing and turned the Prime Minister down.

I had the same problem in 2005 when then Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon (blessed be his memory) and Netanyahu, who was the Minister of Finance at the time, decided to appoint American banker, Stanley Fisher to head the Bank of Israel.  Fisher did an amazing job in the position and his qualifications as a fiscal manager were never in doubt.  But like Mr. Wiesel, he was not an Israeli.  Neither was Albert Einstein, who was sought after to be the country's first president.  But of course, Israeli was in its infancy back then and few folks in the Zionist movement were born and raised in what became Israel, so back then I would have considered it okay to have outsiders in high-up government positions since almost everyone was an outsider.  However, Israel is now 66 years old and the overwhelming majority of the country's population was born and raised inside the country, so I think that Israel is mature enough to have Israelis govern it.

In fact, from a hypothetical standpoint, if I was offered a high-up position in the Israeli government, I would have to turn it down, otherwise I would be a hypocrite.  After all, even though I am an Israeli citizen, my citizenship is inherited from one of my parents, who was born and raised in Israel.  I have never lived in Israel for any significant length of time, nor have I paid taxes there, done military service or voted there, so I don't think I should be entitled to rule over Israelis who have done all of these things.

Some people will say to me that since Mr. Wiesel and Mr. Fisher are both Jewish, it's okay for them to hold key posts in the Israeli government.  But I think this argument is wrong because being Jewish shouldn't be enough to make you an Israeli.  As I said my previous blog, Israel's Citizenship Laws: It's Time for a Change, citizenship is something that needs to be earned.  It should not be an automatic entitlement just because someone happens to be Jewish.  The only exception to this rule is people like myself who inherit their citizenship from their parents.  This exception is generally made in countries throughout the world.  Nevertheless, I believe that I and people in my situation have a moral obligation not to accept senior Israeli government positions until having contributed in some way to the state, and I don't mean through donations like many Diaspora Jews already do.  I mean actually living in the country, paying taxes, working there and so forth.

In short, I believe that choosing our leaders is one case where Israel needs to be more Israeli.  There are other cases as well.  For example, Israel still maintains the old, pre-state Zionist organizations, such as the Jewish Agency and the Jewish National Fund.  The former deals mostly with Jewish immigration to Israel, while the latter deals with issues pertaining to land in Israel.  Non-Israelis are heavily involved in these organizations and their influence has the power to affect the lives of Israeli citizens.  This should stop immediately and the two organizations should be abolished or at least nationalized and put under the direct control of the Israeli government.  It is for Israelis and ONLY Israelis to make decisions and policies on immigration, land management and everything else that effects us.

Israel must also protect its distinct culture, most notably the Hebrew language.  When I'm in Israel, everywhere I go, I see signs that are exclusively in English or some other language, rather than Hebrew or Arabic.  There are folks who immigrate to the country and won't even make an effort to learn the language.  In fact, I remember a friend of my grandmother, who had been in the country for decades, but still couldn't speak fluent Hebrew.  As I said, I have never lived in Israel for a significant period of time, yet even I am almost fluent in the language, so unless a person immigrating to Israel has some sort of learning disability, there's no reason they shouldn't be learning Hebrew from the day they get off the plane.  Perhaps Israel should consider sign laws akin to those in Quebec (although I wouldn't be as extreme as the Quebecois are in enforcing such rules).  I also can't stand the fact that many Haredim refuse to use Hebrew as their vernacular in favour of Yiddish.  People, Yiddish is a language that belongs in the Diaspora.  If you want to speak Yiddish and live like you did in the shtetls of Europe, then go back there!  But just to clarify, I obviously don't care if people use languages other than Hebrew and Arabic in Israel.  If I did, I wouldn't be writing this in English.  My problem is that the Haredim suppress the use of one of Israel's two official languages so that they can go on living as they once did in the Diaspora, and this to me is wrong.

What I'm trying to say here is that whether it's choosing our leaders or protecting our culture, Israel has to be Israeli.  Being Jewish is not enough.