Labour relations in Canada

Disclaimer: The following may seem unfair, biased and/or plain wrong to some of you. Feel free to comment and let me know.

I am sure those of you who read the newspaper, watch the news on TV, listen to the radio, or generally interact with other people are well aware of the Air Canada and Canada Post strikes in recent weeks.

The issues seem to be largely framed as either money-grubbing unions putting a stop to productivity in Canada or money-grubbing corporations trying to step on the little guy. In my opinion both sides are oversimplifying a challenging issue and reinforcing entrenched views that bring the issues farther away from resolution rather than closer.

Public sympathies seem to varry according to who you talk to, but unless you are reliant on air travel or mail delivery for time-sensitive or work-related issues, it is likely that you may have only barely noticed the effect of the strike. I know for myself it mostly just means less junk mail and waiting a little longer to get the things I ordered on Ebay.

However, apart from the effects of the disruption there is a much larger, fundementally more challenging issue that I believe will increasingly be affecting employers and employees in almost all fields. The crux of both strikes seems to be mostly based on the issues of defined benefit pension plans, retirement ages, and two-tiered wage systems.

Let me not pretend that any of these issues are simple or have a single answer, but as a broad generalization most Canadian employers, both goverment and private, are moving from defined benefit (You contribute x now, you get y later) to defined contribution (you contribute x now, you get whatever x is worth later) systems, assuming they continue to have a pension system in place at all.

The labor reaction to this seems to be that employers are taking advantage of recent economic weakness to claw back the benefits that unions have fought so hard for over the years. The corporate reaction is that as people continue to live longer and the demographic trends advance to a point where there are less active workers than current retirees in a given company, the math simply does not add up anymore to continue promising these plans that cannot realistically be paid in perpetuaty.

For the most part, it seems to me that both sides have a point, however it is not possible for both to get what they want. The best compromise I can conceive of is to try to gradually implement the change in a transparant way so as to set expectations for those younger workers that they will need to carry more of the weight of their retirement while not pulling out the rug from under those older workers who have been promised one system most of their working lives only to be suddenly told that it is changing to another.

The unfortunate fact is that for most companies, the only real choice is to reform pensions now or face bankruptcy (or in the case of crown corporations, higher taxes) in the future. There is, in most cases, no magical pot of money that employers are sitting on that could be used to fund these increasing obligations. Even to maintain current benefits would often require increased productivity at a rate that is entirely unrealistic.

While I take no particular position on the government's role in legislating back-to-work bills, I do think that until both sides come to the table with these unfortunate realities in mind we will continue to see standoffs in increasly more sensitive industries. I sincerely hope that a dose of pragmatism can be taken by both parties.

Two paths to a digital future

Over the last few days in particular, and for much longer in a vaguer sense I have been increasingly considering the digital ecosystems that we inhabit. While there are a number of different companies and services vying for influence it seems that two juggernauts in particular come to the forefront.

I refer to Apple and Google, two companies that increasingly both define and expand our digital existences. While both companies share a number of similarities, among them starts in Silicon Valley, roots in making things work better, not to mention almost cult-like followings; they seem to represent almost polar opposite philosophical approaches to how we should perceive, consume, desire, and innovate.

To my mind Apple, and by direct extension Steve Jobs, takes on the role of benevolent dictator guiding us through a walled garden of shiny, beautiful products that "just work", removing all of the hassles and much of the learning curve so typical of most technology. Conversely, Google and its founders take a rather different, I would argue more democratically-inspired approach. Invariably it leads to an ecosystem that is at once chaotically messy while being wildly successful. Google will release half-cooked products that remain in so called beta for years while they gradually smooth out imperfections through feedback from the masses while Apple will release each product once fully-formed as a marvel of engineering perfection.

Both companies have fanatically devoted followers, from those who line up outside their local big box store for the dramatic release of Apple's latest product to those who zealously preach the virtues of Google's "Don't be evil", open-source philosophy. Moreover, each company espouses a different set of ideals. Apple caters to those who want simple, beautiful and contained; an environment in which Uncle Steve ensures that everything is seamless and you are protected from the great unknown. Google meanwhile, through its signature product of search, invites you into the same great unknown with passion, unafraid to experiment and very often take the wrong path in order to reach sucess.

This philosophy is played out in all of their product iterations, but perhaps most apparent in the relatively new domain of smart phones. While Apple arguably created the category with its release of the Iphone which was immeasurably different from anything that came before, Google responded with its release of the Android operating system for mobile phones that has been taken up by countless manufacturers and is currently the most used system, even if its growth has been as messy as it has been fast. Apple's App Store provides a currated shop of applications that have passed muster by Apple's gatekeepers, ensuring that the products live up to Steve's high standards, but occasionally excluding products for less clear reasons as well. Google's store, in contrast, sets almost no barrier to any would be developers and as result contains every kind of software imaginable, good, bad, and ugly.

It remains to be seen which, if either of these titans prevail in the future, whether the world ultimately prefers the expensive, luscious world of Steve Jobs that asks little of its consumers except to stay inside its walls, or the free, chaotic world of Google that offers nothing but choices with no guarentee of safety and no hand to guide one through the dizzying maze. As the world becomes increasingly immersed in the digital realm it will be telling to see whose world we choose to live in.

The place of protest in politics

Those of you who pay attention to the news in Ottawa may be aware of the actions of Brigette DePape, a Senate page, during the throne speech.

It seems that Miss DePape took the opportunity of being in the media spotlight to voice her opposition to the Harper government by displaying a placard shaped as a stop sign that read "Stop Harper". She was soon after removed from the Senate chamber and has allegedly been fired, according to media sources.

The question that this brings to my mind is two-fold. First, to what extent is protest appropriate in the forum of the Senate chamber, and second, if miss DePape has indeed been fired, is that a just recourse for her actions?

Miss DePape has apparently issued a statement outlining her concerns regarding Harper's government and referencing "a Canadian version of an Arab Spring", juxtaposing the acts of people protesting despotic rulers in the middle east to the democracy that we enjoy in Canada.

While I happen to disagree with Miss DePape's contention that "Harper's agenda is disastrous for this country", I do not dispute her right to voice her concerns, indeed it is one of the valued privileges of our democracy. The question is whether interrupting a speech by the democratically-elected leader of our nation is the appropriate means of voicing these concerns.

To my mind, firstly, it sets an ill-advised precedent: if the Senate is to become a forum for the unstructured and unorganized voices of the Canadian people rather than a place from which to conduct the business of governing, it will without a doubt decrease the already strained civility both in the chamber and in parliament at large. Conversely, Miss DePape obviously felt that her views were not being heard in other forums and certainly must have been aware of the likelihood of her dismissal and the loss of the valuable opportunity to work in the Senate page program.

I think ultimately the former must trump the latter; despite her intent and ambition, such breaches in both decorum and process cannot be sanctioned. Further, I think that while firing her may be a harsh response to a well-intentioned action, it likely sets the appropriate deterrent for anyone in the future who might consider a similar choice.

That being the case, what is the appropriate forum for political dissent? To my mind there are any number of forums, from conventional protests, to letters to the editor of newspapers, to political rallies all of which could garner equal media attention. We are fortunate to be afforded these and many other opportunities by virtue of living in what I believe to be a vibrant democracy, one that can radically change the face of parliament in a single election.

Miss DePape, I commend your passion and concern for our future, though I encourage your continued studies so as to perhaps better discern the differences between protesters taking to the streets to overthrow a despot and a Senate page interrupting the business of a democratically-elected government.

As always, I welcome comments, critiques and dialogue.