Well, the TTC strike is over. The provincial legislation met yesterday and unanimously passed back to work legislation. Service resumed late yesterday afternoon and today's commute was uneventful.
I suppose it is all over except for the game of trying to figure out why the transit union voted against a deal that gave them a decent increase, more benefits, and which (in the words of a TTC spokesman) did not ask any concessions.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Strike Out!
The news has just reported that the transit union has rejected the tentative deal reached earlier in the week. To make matters worse, they are striking effective midnight.
For the past couple of weeks the union had been talking big about how they would give the public 48 hours notice before starting the strike. Tonight, however, they have justified reducing this notice to 2 hours by blaming the public.
According to union leader Bob Kinnear, "We have assessed the situation and decided that we will not expose our members of the dangers of assaults from angry and irrational members of the public". It seems that members of the transit union had seen an increase in threats and abuse from passengers.
What Kinnear didn't mention how unprofessional his union members have been acting. Every day I take the subway and every day I pass TTC employees "manning" the entrance to the platform. In the morning, I am greeted by employees slouching and yawning in the seat. (Not that they even bother to show up some days.) In the evening, I walk past employees who are either busy chatting with their friends or slouching in the seat. I have heard the line about what happens to a person's attitude when you put a person in uniform, but I never assumed that it applied to the burgundy suit of TTC ticket collectors.
And don't get me started on the snotty, condescending tone the subway car operators use when addressing customers getting on and off the trains at Bloor. Here's a newsflash, idiots -- using a sarcastic tone to tell us what we already know is not going to earn our cooperation. And threatening to keep the train at the station until you get your way (which I actually heard one operator say this past week) is certainly not going to gain our respect. Nor, for that matter, will the rudeness that TTC employees show to people who do not speak English as a first language.
Now, I am in favour of people getting decent wages. However, I am also in favour of people bringing something to the table, especially when discussing a new agreement. The reportage on the negotiations concentrated entirely on what the union wanted from the TTC; it never mentioned what the union was going to bring to the table. (And that bullshit public relations campaign claiming that each TTC employee was worth a million dollars to the city's economy does not count. It proves that the union is as adept at manipulating statistics as any government organization, but it does not count as anything more than that.)
Maybe if the transit union started thinking about its customers rather than just mouthing platitudes about them, we wouldn't be so bothered by the fact that unskilled, unprofessional people with bad attitudes are upset with wages that are higher than a good many of the people who ride the TTC.
For the past couple of weeks the union had been talking big about how they would give the public 48 hours notice before starting the strike. Tonight, however, they have justified reducing this notice to 2 hours by blaming the public.
According to union leader Bob Kinnear, "We have assessed the situation and decided that we will not expose our members of the dangers of assaults from angry and irrational members of the public". It seems that members of the transit union had seen an increase in threats and abuse from passengers.
What Kinnear didn't mention how unprofessional his union members have been acting. Every day I take the subway and every day I pass TTC employees "manning" the entrance to the platform. In the morning, I am greeted by employees slouching and yawning in the seat. (Not that they even bother to show up some days.) In the evening, I walk past employees who are either busy chatting with their friends or slouching in the seat. I have heard the line about what happens to a person's attitude when you put a person in uniform, but I never assumed that it applied to the burgundy suit of TTC ticket collectors.
And don't get me started on the snotty, condescending tone the subway car operators use when addressing customers getting on and off the trains at Bloor. Here's a newsflash, idiots -- using a sarcastic tone to tell us what we already know is not going to earn our cooperation. And threatening to keep the train at the station until you get your way (which I actually heard one operator say this past week) is certainly not going to gain our respect. Nor, for that matter, will the rudeness that TTC employees show to people who do not speak English as a first language.
Now, I am in favour of people getting decent wages. However, I am also in favour of people bringing something to the table, especially when discussing a new agreement. The reportage on the negotiations concentrated entirely on what the union wanted from the TTC; it never mentioned what the union was going to bring to the table. (And that bullshit public relations campaign claiming that each TTC employee was worth a million dollars to the city's economy does not count. It proves that the union is as adept at manipulating statistics as any government organization, but it does not count as anything more than that.)
Maybe if the transit union started thinking about its customers rather than just mouthing platitudes about them, we wouldn't be so bothered by the fact that unskilled, unprofessional people with bad attitudes are upset with wages that are higher than a good many of the people who ride the TTC.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Another Sign of the Season
I was on my way to a much delayed dental check up earlier today when I came upon another sign of the changing seasons. A number of students were moving out the Ryerson University student residences.
Some of the students congregated in groups whose main purpose appeared to be to hug each other. Others were trying to balance the conflicting demands of moving their possessions out of their rooms while not been overly embarrassed by the parents who were there to help them move. There was even one brave lass whose approach to moving was to carry as much in her arms as she could and to pray that her forward momentum would carry her all the way down the street to her car.
It brought back memories of my own university days and it was as much a sign of spring's arrival as the open roof of the Skydome.
Some of the students congregated in groups whose main purpose appeared to be to hug each other. Others were trying to balance the conflicting demands of moving their possessions out of their rooms while not been overly embarrassed by the parents who were there to help them move. There was even one brave lass whose approach to moving was to carry as much in her arms as she could and to pray that her forward momentum would carry her all the way down the street to her car.
It brought back memories of my own university days and it was as much a sign of spring's arrival as the open roof of the Skydome.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
No Strike!!!
I am glad to hear that the TTC and the union were able to come to a tentative agreement and avert the strike that was scheduled to begin tomorrow. As one of the millions of riders of the TTC, I would have been sorely inconvenienced had the strike occurred. Good work to the negotiators on both sides.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Right or Right?
If you've ever doubted that Canada is different from its neighbour to the south, perhaps a law enacted in Florida this week will convince you.
On April 15th, Governor Charlie Crist signed the Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008. The law allows employees and customers with permits to carry concealed weapons to store firearms in their vehicles while locked on company property. The law forbids most business holders from restricting concealed-permit holders from storing guns in their parked vehicles even if the parking area is accessible to the general public. Certain employers (including schools, nuclear power plants, and prisons) are exempt from the law.
Even though Florida is now the sixth US state* to enact such legislation, it did not have an easy time getting passed. The business community and the National Rifle Association scrapped it out for years before the bill action became law.
Interestingly enough, the legal challenge is likely to be on constitutional grounds since it is an infringement on the private property rights of business owners as enshrined in both the United States and Florida constitutions. That should be an interesting match up: private property rights versus the right to bear arms.
* In case you are wondering, the other five states are Alaska, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. The Oklahoma law is currently in the appeal process in the US Court of Appeals.
On April 15th, Governor Charlie Crist signed the Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008. The law allows employees and customers with permits to carry concealed weapons to store firearms in their vehicles while locked on company property. The law forbids most business holders from restricting concealed-permit holders from storing guns in their parked vehicles even if the parking area is accessible to the general public. Certain employers (including schools, nuclear power plants, and prisons) are exempt from the law.
Even though Florida is now the sixth US state* to enact such legislation, it did not have an easy time getting passed. The business community and the National Rifle Association scrapped it out for years before the bill action became law.
Interestingly enough, the legal challenge is likely to be on constitutional grounds since it is an infringement on the private property rights of business owners as enshrined in both the United States and Florida constitutions. That should be an interesting match up: private property rights versus the right to bear arms.
* In case you are wondering, the other five states are Alaska, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. The Oklahoma law is currently in the appeal process in the US Court of Appeals.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
It's Here! It's Here!
To everything there is a season. After one of the worst winters on record, we seem to have a new season too. Today was a beautiful 23 degrees Celsius (or 73 American), making it the warmest day in a sunny week. Spring, it would appear, has come.
Personally, I like the snow. I like the crispness of the air. I like the way the blues and whites reflect light. I like the way that snow looks under streetlamps, as if someone had spilled a sack of diamond dust on a white ceramic floor. But enough, as they say, is enough and I am quite happy to walk around the streets of Toronto sans overcoat and gloves.
Personally, I like the snow. I like the crispness of the air. I like the way the blues and whites reflect light. I like the way that snow looks under streetlamps, as if someone had spilled a sack of diamond dust on a white ceramic floor. But enough, as they say, is enough and I am quite happy to walk around the streets of Toronto sans overcoat and gloves.
Friday, April 11, 2008
I'm Back -- And This Time It's Personal
That's right, folks, I am back and boy am I pissed off!
I have spent the last four or five months watching the governing Conservative Party act like a bunch of bullies and frankly I am getting tired of of what passes for a commitment to democracy in the halls of Parliament.
When Harper et al were still the loyal opposition, one frequently heard rumblings of a "democracy deficit" in parliament. The Prime Minister's Office, or so the story went, had centralized so much power under the various Liberal incumbents that the Prime Minister of Canada now has more direct power than the President of the United States. Under the Tories, however, Members of Parliament would become relevant again, Senators would serve a viable purpose, and politicians of all stripes would cooperate and sing Kumbaya as a new golden age of Canadian democracy unfolded.
Now, I haven't been to Ottawa in over a decade, but I can pretty well guarantee you that you won't be hearing Kumbaya anytime soon. In fact, the only singing you are likely to hear is the Liberal caucus singing The Death March every time He Who Passes For A Leader enters the room, but that is something for a future post.
The reason I am mad enough to start up this blog again is Bill C-10, particularly Section 120. C-10 is an omnibus bill -- a technical phrase for tacking on a whole bunch of garbage that one wants to enact into law but which is so contentious (and, often, mean-spirited) that the only way you can pass it is by attaching it to a law that no opposition parties can defeat without looking like mother-hating baby-killers. It is a notorious tactic for people who are so scared of losing a free vote that they do not have the balls, guts, or backbone (take your pick) to propose it as a separate bill.
This particular omnibus bill is designed to amend the Income Tax Act, which probably does need amending. Unfortunately, the Tories have added in a bunch of amendments which are assaults on free speech and therefore do not belong in a democratic society.
In particular, Section 120 would allow the Heritage Minister to pull tax credits from production if the Minister determined them to be "contrary to public policy". The Minister and, presumably, his or her henchmen would create guidelines to identify topics that should not receive taxpayer funding. Television programs or films that contravene the guidelines would risk having its tax credits withdrawn. They might even be asked to repay funding that was already received.
In effect, the government would be denying access to tax credits to anyone who expressed a viewpoint that differed from the authorized version of acceptable content. Think of this as a made-in-Canada version of the Hays Code, albeit a version that was introduced 78 years later. If you want to look at it a different way, the government wants the power to censor productions that do not meet its definition of good taste or political correctness.
The Tories, of course, deny this. The Heritage Commissar, I mean Minister, Josee Verner claims the bill "has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with the integrity of the tax system. The goal is to ensure public trust in how tax dollars are spent." Well, Minister Verner, putting limits on artistic expression and free speech does not increase this member of the public's trust in how you are spending his tax dollars.
I am not surprised that some people have praised the legislation. I would never have expected groups like the Canada Family Action Coalition or Real Women of Canada to oppose any legislation that would put a muzzle on anyone who does not support their "traditional" value system. Nor am I surprised that Canadians Concerned About Violence In Entertainment would come out in favour of this. I just don't think they have the right to limit the rights of others to address serious matters.
I have to wonder if any of these proponents of Bill C-10 have ever read any good novels or seen any good television or movies, because if they had they might realize that the world is a complex place. Now, I do not advocate casual violence. I do not encourage abuse of alcohol, tobacco, narcotics, or prescription drugs. I oppose racism in all its forms, sexism, religious bigotry, and attacking people because of their sexuality.
I also oppose a simplistic mindset that refuses to accept the fact that one can include any or all of these themes in a movie without being "contrary to public policy". Especially in a diverse, multicultural democracy. Which Canada is. Or so I thought.
Here are just a few works that address issues which would not be eligible for tax credits were they to be filmed under the proposed rules:
I have spent the last four or five months watching the governing Conservative Party act like a bunch of bullies and frankly I am getting tired of of what passes for a commitment to democracy in the halls of Parliament.
When Harper et al were still the loyal opposition, one frequently heard rumblings of a "democracy deficit" in parliament. The Prime Minister's Office, or so the story went, had centralized so much power under the various Liberal incumbents that the Prime Minister of Canada now has more direct power than the President of the United States. Under the Tories, however, Members of Parliament would become relevant again, Senators would serve a viable purpose, and politicians of all stripes would cooperate and sing Kumbaya as a new golden age of Canadian democracy unfolded.
Now, I haven't been to Ottawa in over a decade, but I can pretty well guarantee you that you won't be hearing Kumbaya anytime soon. In fact, the only singing you are likely to hear is the Liberal caucus singing The Death March every time He Who Passes For A Leader enters the room, but that is something for a future post.
The reason I am mad enough to start up this blog again is Bill C-10, particularly Section 120. C-10 is an omnibus bill -- a technical phrase for tacking on a whole bunch of garbage that one wants to enact into law but which is so contentious (and, often, mean-spirited) that the only way you can pass it is by attaching it to a law that no opposition parties can defeat without looking like mother-hating baby-killers. It is a notorious tactic for people who are so scared of losing a free vote that they do not have the balls, guts, or backbone (take your pick) to propose it as a separate bill.
This particular omnibus bill is designed to amend the Income Tax Act, which probably does need amending. Unfortunately, the Tories have added in a bunch of amendments which are assaults on free speech and therefore do not belong in a democratic society.
In particular, Section 120 would allow the Heritage Minister to pull tax credits from production if the Minister determined them to be "contrary to public policy". The Minister and, presumably, his or her henchmen would create guidelines to identify topics that should not receive taxpayer funding. Television programs or films that contravene the guidelines would risk having its tax credits withdrawn. They might even be asked to repay funding that was already received.
In effect, the government would be denying access to tax credits to anyone who expressed a viewpoint that differed from the authorized version of acceptable content. Think of this as a made-in-Canada version of the Hays Code, albeit a version that was introduced 78 years later. If you want to look at it a different way, the government wants the power to censor productions that do not meet its definition of good taste or political correctness.
The Tories, of course, deny this. The Heritage Commissar, I mean Minister, Josee Verner claims the bill "has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with the integrity of the tax system. The goal is to ensure public trust in how tax dollars are spent." Well, Minister Verner, putting limits on artistic expression and free speech does not increase this member of the public's trust in how you are spending his tax dollars.
I am not surprised that some people have praised the legislation. I would never have expected groups like the Canada Family Action Coalition or Real Women of Canada to oppose any legislation that would put a muzzle on anyone who does not support their "traditional" value system. Nor am I surprised that Canadians Concerned About Violence In Entertainment would come out in favour of this. I just don't think they have the right to limit the rights of others to address serious matters.
I have to wonder if any of these proponents of Bill C-10 have ever read any good novels or seen any good television or movies, because if they had they might realize that the world is a complex place. Now, I do not advocate casual violence. I do not encourage abuse of alcohol, tobacco, narcotics, or prescription drugs. I oppose racism in all its forms, sexism, religious bigotry, and attacking people because of their sexuality.
I also oppose a simplistic mindset that refuses to accept the fact that one can include any or all of these themes in a movie without being "contrary to public policy". Especially in a diverse, multicultural democracy. Which Canada is. Or so I thought.
Here are just a few works that address issues which would not be eligible for tax credits were they to be filmed under the proposed rules:
- The Englishman's Boy, a powerful novel that was recently aired as a magnificent two-part miniseries on the CBC. There is abuse of corpses, assault and battery, gang rape, and genocide.
- The Wars, the novel by Timothy Findley, that includes a scene of homosexual sex at a brothel, violence towards rabbits and horses, and several suicides.
- A History of Violence, David Cronenberg's dark masterpiece which is filled with casual violence, matter-of-fact portrayal of prostitutes, and a horrifying, hypnotic knife-wielding ballet between naked mobsters in the shower of a Turkish bath.
- The Boys of St. Vincent, the classic but controversial docudrama about the physical and sexual abuse of orphan boys at the hands of Roman Catholic clergy.
I suppose, though, that there is one silver lining if the bill becomes law. It's been a while since I read my Bible, but I seem to recall rapes, murders, incest, violent attacks, genocide, religious persecution, witchcraft, and other activity which surely would never meet the Minister's guidelines. If the bill passes, I reckon I will be spared the indignity of having to see Biblical bio-flicks financed using credits paid for by good Canadian taxpayers like me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)