Tsunami Aid, Newfoundland, McKenna, Anti-scab Laws

A global challenge

A global challenge The Gazette, Jan. 9, 05

Unimaginable and incomprehensible have become commonplace to describe the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami. They're not bad words for an event that has laid waste to coastal settlements, devastated local economies and, most significantly, claimed more than 150,000 lives.

But prodigious as the tragedy certainly is, it was neither unpredictable nor unprecedented. Now that the urgent business of immediate relief is under way - fuelled by more than $3 billion in Eastern and Western giving - it is time to ask how the destruction will be integrated into global thinking and how that thinking might change.

[. . . . ] In fact, the lesson of history is rather that massive aid combined with a sustained foreign presence is often rewarded by the hatred of the recipients. Few European intellectuals these days have fond words for the nation - the United States - that rebuilt the continent after the Second World War through the Marshall Plan. Nor is it clear that American infrastructure work in Iraq is appreciated by Iraqis.

All the same, there is an opportunity here to redefine international relations, by supplying the help that is needed and wanted and withholding the help that is not. [. . . . ]

Mark Steyn: Coalition of the giving

Mark Steyn: Coalition of the giving Mark Steyn, The Australian, Jan. 10, 05

WE have Agence France Presse to thank for both the most striking headline and photograph of the tsunami devastation. The headline was "Tsunami Devastates DiCaprio"

[. . . . ] In fairness to the Saudis, they've just upped their pledge to $US30 million. But for purposes of one final comparison, consider this: a single Saudi telethon in 2002 managed to raise $US56 million. That was for widows and orphans of Palestinian suicide bombers, those deceased as well as those yet to blow. It seems nothing gets the wealthy elite of Riyadh and Jeddah adding the zeroes to the cheques like self-detonating on an Israeli bus.[. . . . ]

There are comparisons of amounts from Kuwait, Iran, and more.




Free Newfoundland: A detailed account of the glorious day -- June 3, 2008 -- when Newfoundland finally achieved its long-sought freedom

Free Newfoundland Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, Jan. 8, 05

[. . . . ] It is no coincidence that today's stunning anti-Confederate vote comes 60 years to the day after a previous referendum on Confederation, not the one that saw Newfoundland join Canada, but the referendum seven weeks earlier, June 3, 1948, in which a plurality of Newfoundlanders voted against Canadian Confederation and for economic union with the United States.

[. . . . ] Chesley Crosbie, a pillar of Newfoundland society (and the father of John Crosbie, a future Canadian finance minister), had formed the Party for Economic Union with the United States in arguing against Confederation. But although he was well liked and respectable, he was inarticulate and his organization disorganized -- no match for the fiery rhetoric of Joey Smallwood and his well-oiled organization, its treasure chest flush with $2-million from the Canadian Liberal party.

[. . . . ] Few Newfoundlanders today doubt that, had Canada not gained control over Newfoundland's resources, Newfoundland would not only have protected its cod fisheries, it would have better protected its other resources as well. Newfoundland's price to abandon its referendum and stay in Confederation: Full control of its offshore resources and free trade within Canada, to allow Newfoundland to ship its hydroelectric power through Quebec and to the United States, without Quebec keeping the lion's share of the profits.

If Newfoundland doesn't get its price, the province will follow through on its referendum mandate and secede from Canada. After all, Newfoundlanders are convinced that mainland Canada has for 60 years been plundering their fisheries, forests, and other resources. As Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams put the injustice once the referendum results became official: "With the province's oil wealth for the first time making Newfoundland a 'have' province, we'll be damned if we're now also going to subsidize Canada's poor provinces through equalization payments." [. . . . ]

McKenna -- "still has partisan politics coursing through his veins"

The Shotgun -- Chantal Hebert on Frank McKenna's appointment as ambassador to the US

[. . . . ] Though Chantal Hebert discounts the possibility, it seems that Martin is not hesitant in sending potential leadership rivals to foreign postings, so as to get them out of his hair and keep them off-balance in planning to fulfil their aspirations

[. . . . ] Hebert, in commenting, noted,

A detour through Washington would not so much amount to a definitive decision on [McKenna's] part to put his ambitions to rest as to a signal that, despite the unrest in some Liberal quarters, the leadership of Canada's ruling party is not expected to open up for a few more years.

Perhaps that last contention about the leadership not being open for a while to come is true. But is McKenna's appointment a symptom or the cause?

Workers pay for anti-scab laws

Workers pay for anti-scab laws Norma Kozhaya and Guy Lemay, Financial Post, Jan.8, 05

Quebec, since 1977, and British Columbia since 1993, are the only Canadian provinces still burdened with anti-scab measures whose effects are far from positive, whether for the workers they were intended to protect or for the economy as a whole. In essence, and with minor exceptions, employers there can replace striking workers only with management personnel working in strike-bound establishments who were hired before the start of negotiations.

[. . . . ] By modifying the balance of power in relations between employers and unionized workers, anti-scab provisions lead to perverse effects, in particular for small -and medium-sized businesses. A multinational company hit by a strike can, for example, transfer production temporarily to another plant located elsewhere in the country or even abroad. These alternatives give it some counterweight to the economic pressure it faces because of the strike, although large companies may still be less likely to set up shop where anti-scab laws are in force.

The situation is more critical for smaller companies. They generally operate from only a single production facility, making it much more difficult for them to resist the economic pressure they face because of a strike. The result is that a smaller company will give in more easily to demands so as to avoid a strike it knows it cannot withstand. If a smaller company is nonetheless hit by a strike, it will tend to seek a quick settlement rather than a settlement that would enable it to stay competitive and survive, and to maintain the jobs it has created. [. . . . ]