Party Platforms Stoke Generation Divide, Says Advocate

UBC’s Paul Kershaw: ‘opportunistic’ pitch to middle class skips over struggling young Canadians.

By Andrew MacLeod, October 16, 2015, TheTyee.ca

Paul Kershaw

‘The middle class is breaking down along age lines,’ warns UBC prof and Generation Squeeze advocate Paul Kershaw.

Many Canadians will be surprised to learn that the middle class tax cut Liberal leader Justin Trudeau keeps talking about is not for them.

“Nine in 10 Canadians think they’re going to benefit, because nine in 10 Canadians think they’re the middle class,” said Paul Kershaw, a University of British Columbia professor in the school of population and public health and the founder of the advocacy group Generation Squeeze.

While Liberal advertising, talking points and press releases promise a tax cut to help the middle class, they seldom define who would benefit.

For that, one needs to turn to the party’s 88-page platform released last week, which spells out that the 1.5 per cent decrease in the tax rate applies only to taxable individual incomes of between $44,700 and $89,401.

That means to see the maximum tax cut of $1,340, a household would have to have two earners at the top of the income bracket, or a household income of nearly $179,000. On the other hand, anyone making less than $44,700, which is most people, would see no benefit at all.

As the NDP pointed out in a press release, the Canada Revenue Agency’s figures for 2012, the most recent available, show that 67.5 per cent of taxpayers earned less than $45,000. Put another way, nearly seven out of 10 taxpayers wouldn’t benefit from the Liberals’ proposed tax cut.

The NDP also noted the irony of Trudeau promoting the plan at a campaign stop at a Toronto grocery store, an industry where the average annual salary is around $22,000.

A Statistics Canada table shows that for individuals in Canada in 2013, the median total income — the amount that half of all people earned above and half under — was $32,020.

Opportunistic pitch

Kershaw called the Liberal pitch to the middle class “opportunistic,” and said the discussion ties into a debate about whether or not the middle class is doing worse or better than it did a decade ago.

While one side says the middle class has never been better off and the other says they’re struggling, the question really depends on taking a closer look at who is doing well and is doing poorly in today’s economy.

“The middle class is breaking down along age lines,” Kershaw said. “A tax break will be too blunt to address that.”

While the country has successfully reduced seniors’ poverty in recent decades and real estate gains have swelled the net worth of longtime property owners, younger people are doing worse as a group than they were a generation ago, he said. The challenges include a job market with stagnant wages, escalating home prices and student debt taken on in pursuit of an education.

The Liberals, and the other parties should be tuning their pitches to better address the generational discrepancy, Kershaw said.

Kershaw recently crunched the numbers from the platforms of the four main parties to compare them from a generational standpoint. He presented his findings in By the Numbers: A generational guide to voting in the 2015 federal election.

“There’s a dizzying array of dueling promises made by parties,” he said. “For the average voter it’s impossible [to compare]. That’s what this report is really designed to be about.”

‘Pocket change’ for younger Canadians

Kershaw found all four parties were committed to protecting spending on retirees, even as the population of seniors in Canada swells. In comparison, he said, “All parties invest pocket change in younger Canadians.”

The Conservatives would spend the least per person over the age of 65 at $2,691, while the Liberals were the highest at $3,008, just slightly above the NDP and Greens. A big part of the spending is for health care, a system disproportionately used by older Canadians, which all the parties would maintain.

Per person under the age of 45, the Conservatives would spend $494, the NDP $822, the Liberals $835 and the Greens $1,004, according to Kershaw’s report.

Piggy bank graph

Generation Squeeze compares parties’ per-capita pledges for retirees and young people.

None of the parties is offering much of a plan to address high housing prices, a major driver of the generational divide in big cities including Vancouver and Toronto, he said. “There’s little talk in the platforms about how to resolve that issue.”

Each of the parties has its strengths, he said, crediting the Liberals for their plan to invest in infrastructure, the NDP for its plans to provide $15-a-day childcare and increase spending on Employment Insurance, and the Conservatives for efforts to control spending on health care.

But the Greens stood out for their focus on younger people, he said. They were the only party talking about student debt and they have a plan to create a youth service corps to provide job experience.

Among the other three there was much similarity, and little imagination on what would be possible to support young people, he said.

Kershaw pointed out that the Conservatives plan to collect less tax than the others, so will have less to spend. But while they would spend 10 per cent less than the other parties on retirees, their spending on young people would be 40 or 50 per cent lower.

Even people likely to benefit from Conservative tax cuts might be unhappy that their gain would be at the expense of their children and grandchildren, Kershaw said. “That’s a louder conversation we have to have in this country.”  [Tyee]

McJobs, a Launch Pad for Young Workers

Employees of a BC burger joint share hopes, fears and life lessons. Last in a series.

By Pieta Woolley, 13 Sep 2013, Tyee Solutions Society

 

Fast food worker

They can be derided as junk jobs, but for many young British Columbians, days behind a fast-food counter offer the first steps toward grown-up stability. Server photo via Shutterstock.

[Editor’s note: The Tyee Solutions Society’s Pieta Woolley has been writing about the reasons why many graduates of the provincial foster care and child protection system become homeless as young adults. As 620,000 B.C. children and teens return to school, she looks at why the “launch” from adolescence to financially-independent adulthood is proving so hard for so many — not just the most vulnerable — and some ideas about how to help. Today, Woolley explores the ups and downs of that much-maligned first-job setting, the fast food restaurant. Find the entire series here.]

The oniony, greasy smell of deep fryer oil wafts through the air-conditioned air inside the strip mall chain fast-food restaurant. Outside it’s hot and dry and the over-bright summer sun blasts the parking lot. Several cars are lined up at the drive-thru and a trickle of customers visits the counter seeking late afternoon snacks.

This joint is located at the outer reaches of the Lower Mainland, in a small city where family incomes are slightly below the provincial average (because this is a small place where privacy is scarce, The Tyee agreed to conceal the name of the location). Nearby are farms, a reserve, a mill, and the remains of several utopian communes. Life is pleasant here. People work at it. Not least, those who are working here.

The workers at this burger joint — both the Gen Y youth behind the counter, and the restaurant’s Gen X owners — represent B.C.’s uncertain future, where class, race, globalization and age all combine to tell a complicated tale. They’re not classifiable as “at risk” or “vulnerable.” Nor are they the kids who more often show up in articles about tough transitions in Canada: neither the most vulnerable, nor the young but unemployed university grads.

These are B.C.’s mainstream youth, “middle class” by family income standards.

With scant opportunities in the resource sector that traditionally offered good wages straight out of high school, how are they managing the transition from adolescent economic dependence to self-supporting adulthood?

Let’s meet some of them.

The responsible family man

It’s 4 p.m. and Grant, 25, has just finished an eight-hour shift toasting buns and frying chicken. He joins me at a table in the restaurant while his wife and kids — a three-year-old boy and a one-year-old girl — wait in their silver beater car outside. His bright blue eyes are run through with red over his scruffy young man’s beard, and his tight skin gleams. He’s chugging orange pop from a water bottle.

“I don’t see working in fast food. I see working full time,” Grant says, after telling me he’s worked here for one year this week. Before that, he’d patched together part-time jobs in a corner store, at Walmart, mowing lawns, and teaching guitar to support his family. This is the first job that’s offered him full-time hours.

“Seeing my dad with one job for his entire life, that’s how I figured out that it doesn’t matter what job you have,” he tells me. “It matters that you take care of the people you love.”

His dad worked for the mill, a once-flourishing local employer now down to a bare-bones staff. Grant would like to apply for one of its few remaining entry-level union jobs, but he doesn’t have the required high school diploma.

Shuttled with his older brother between their separated parents’ houses, he says he endured beatings from his bigger sibling during unsupervised hours. Short and scrawny as a youngster, he was an easy target for primary school peers to pick on as well, he said; it made him timid.

Then, in Grade 9, he could barely get out of bed. His body craved sleep. And food. He missed the bulk of his classes because of the symptoms of a growth spurt that added 14 inches to his height. No longer was he the smallest kid in his class, but now he was seriously behind his classmates.

A change in B.C. graduation requirements, which would have forced him to re-take much of Grade 9 as prerequisites, thwarted his effort to catch up and finish high school. He gave up.

By 19 he was working part time, building model war figures and learning to play guitar. He was also drinking too much. After a roommate kicked him out, he moved in with his girlfriend. Within a year she was pregnant. He married her “officially” before she gave birth, and after their son was born the couple held a proper wedding, so she could wear a traditional wedding dress.

Recently, Grant says, they took on five roommates to make ends meet, bringing the total house count to 10. That includes his dad, who lives downstairs and pays half the mortgage after helping them with a down payment. It’s too tight, Grant notes — a mistake he says he hopes not to repeat.

So far, Grant says, he’s learned three things.

First, he’s not good with money. Working at the corner store, he believed he figured out how to win at Keno, and spent his evenings playing and, surprisingly, winning. In six weeks, he claims, he’d collected more than $3,000, which he blew on several generous presents.

Second, his only regret is not learning to play the guitar earlier. He loves it, he’s good at it, and he writes his own songs. And, he believes, it would have helped his popularity and cut down on the bullying in high school.

Third, he believes that greater social problems stem from his generation’s working poverty. Youth can never strike out on their own on part-time wages. Forced to exchange dependence on their parents for dependence on roommates, he thinks, he and his peers enjoy no chance for self-discovery or self-definition.

Going back to school is not on his to-do list, even though he knows how many jobs are closed to him for lack of graduating. “I didn’t enjoy high school,” he says. “It’s like piano lessons. I use the skills I learned, but I don’t plan on continuing.”

From the outside, Grant’s life may seem precarious, even short-sighted. But that misses too much. Instead, the young family man has built a life around music, steady work, the dignity of responsibility, and an appreciation for being surrounded by people who love him.

The quiet Aboriginal superstar

Rose, 20, meets me at a coffee shop on her way out of town. She’s jangling a handful of keys: one of them is to her new basement suite three hours away. She’s on her way to move in. Petite with a broad, soft face and very straight, thick hair, Rose is no-nonsense. She’s about to enter her second year in indigenous studies at a Victoria college, aiming for a degree in social work. Her boyfriend — and roommate — is studying indigenous business leadership.

Growing up on the reserve, Rose was surrounded by peers who weren’t as driven as she was. Now, she says, many of them are floundering: not skilled enough to find decent work, but too frightened to leave home for school.

So what made the difference between her and her peers?

“I think it just has to do with their parents. Mine made sure we were awake, and that we were getting ready for school. They drove us to school if we missed the bus. In First Nations communities, a lot of parents are too involved in their own life to think about the kids,” she says without judgment.

Rose’s mom went to college; she’s a kindergarten teacher. Her father works as a logger and serves on the band council. Both of her older sisters went to university. Her younger brother is planning to get his bachelor of sciences.

Rose, who was a very shy child, credits some of her willingness to pursue a life off the reserve to an exchange program in Grade 9. She was chosen to live overseas with a French family. Succeeding in such a profoundly different environment and forming a bond with her host family, she recalls, allowed her to open up. After graduation, she returned and stayed with her French family for the entire summer.

“I feel like growing up happened really fast,” she says. “I didn’t have time to process it. After Europe, I came back just in time to move out [for first year at college]. I didn’t even have the chance to say goodbye to friends.”

She’s spent this summer as a cashier, and saved every minimum-wage penny. Between her summer earnings, shared rent, and the grants her Indian status allows her, she’ll manage to scrape by at school. But money is much tighter now than when her sister went to college — on the same grants — 15 years ago, she explains. “I just pay for food and rent and laundry, and that’s about what it covers,” she says.

For Rose, working in fast food is about more than money. Dealing with people when their order is wrong and they get mad forces her “to think about what to say, about how to fix things,” she says.

It’s a skill she expects to need in her planned career. Rose’s aunt is a social worker on the local reserve, and has warned her it can be very stressful.

“I just want to help people in any way I can,” says Rose. “I want to be remembered by the way I helped even one person in a significant way.”

The once competitive gymnast hopeful

Immediately after her last shift ever, Maria, 19, shed her drive-thru head set and polyester uniform, got into denim short-shorts and a violet top, and ran across the parking lot to visit her boyfriend, a barista at Starbucks. She graduated high school with the class of 2012, and has been working the take-out window ever since.

But next week she’s off for an eight-month esthetics course: hair styling, massage, skin care, make-up and nails. It’s a ticket to travel and work anywhere, even at resorts, she says. She doesn’t know how much esthetics pays, but she doesn’t care either. It’s fun work. She loves fashion.

Maria’s parents divorced when she was six. Her father is a paramedic and her mom a medical secretary. They pushed their kids to succeed. Maria’s older brother has his carpentry ticket.

At age six, Maria began a competitive gymnastics career that took her within sight of the national team. She was a favourite coach at the club and it was a great job, for a while.

Then one day two years ago, dismounting off the parallel bars, she landed with a straight leg and hyperextended her knee. It was never the same. Now, a build-up of knee cartilage means her competitive years are over.

“Everyone thought I’d be a teacher,” she said, mentioning jubilantly that she’d loved high school. “I was a really good gymnastics coach. But after six years, I was sick of teaching.”

Esthetics, a practical career that suits her interests — with a short and affordable course — appeals now. This fall, Maria and her boyfriend will both be going to the same school, where he’s planning to become a nurse.

“Moving away from home is scary,” she reports. “Oh my god! Sometimes I wonder what I am doing. I had a hard time after I graduated. I didn’t know what to do. Taking a year off really helped.”

Salaries tend to be dismal for estheticians, especially without advanced training. But it’s likely Maria will figure that out and jump to the next thing — and probably nail her landing.

The last lucky generation

The chain restaurant franchise belongs to Nadia and Mike. They’re both 38, and have three kids, the oldest one in university. That’s right: spring break of her Grade 12 year, Nadia had her first baby.

It was 1992. Despite the socially dreaded “teen pregnancy,” and unlike Grant, Rose or the other kids who work for them now, Mike and Nadia were making enough back then to start an independent life.

To take care of his new family Mike got a job at the mill. The money was great: he was pulling in $3,000 a month, after taxes, with no post-secondary school. Nadia stayed home to look after their daughter. For a time, life was straightforward.

Then Mike got laid off.

The duo moved across the Lower Mainland so Mike could go to school. She worked as a cashier in a fast food restaurant while he finished his accounting diploma. Money was tight and their family support was 200 kilometres away.

At 18, Nadia clued in to how important income is to family stability. “I realized what money stress is,” she says. “Do I hate you [Mike]? Or is it just money stress?”

Even after her husband started working for the federal government, their finances were stretched to the limit. Between rent, utilities, groceries and one car, every penny disappeared.

“This was in the era before credit cards and cell phones [were universal accessories]. Things were simpler then,” says Mike. He notes that his young employees spend heavily on cell phones and travel, luxuries that were beyond his dreams until recently. “Now there’s all that money that just pours out on a daily basis.”

Two more kids later, the young family moved home to this small city where houses are cheaper and opportunity wide open. In 2007, they bought the restaurant franchise.

A front-row seat to Gen-Y angst

At an age when many Vancouver parents are strolling their first baby around the Seawall in a Bugaboo, Mike and Nadia are nearing the finish line. At work however, they feel they’re perpetually parenting their motley crew of late teens and aspiring young adults.

It’s a very different generation from their own, they report, with very different struggles. For one thing, Nadia says, “When I started working, whatever your boss asked you to do, you did… I asked one new employee to do the dishes the other day. He said, ‘No, I don’t feel like it.’

“We fired a kid recently; he said he’d rather argue with us about his job than actually work.”

Firings are rare, though. Nadia and Mike see their role as many teens’ first boss to be one of mentorship. But Nadia has had to pull back in frustration from her initial impulse to help the most troubled kids.

The couple has hired several former and current foster kids, but none stayed long. Nadia recalls one young woman whom she hired in spite of a pierced and shabby appearance. She kept the teen on even when she showed up drunk for several shifts. Nadia finally had to let the girl go when she punched through a window at the restaurant after a fight with her boyfriend — but only after she drove her ex-employee to the hospital.

They hired another young man in the foster care system, but his home life was so unstable he wasn’t reliably appearing at work, and they eventually lost track of him. Yet another foster kid started work, but stopped showing up for her shifts.

She says they’ve also seen an influx of job applicants with autism and other diagnoses: ADHD, epilepsy, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. Some have worked out as employees. A cook in his mid-30s has Asperger’s syndrome, which they’ve been able to help him manage at work. Another older employee, a former foster kid, overcame fetal alcohol syndrome to become a manager, but was eventually let go when his own alcoholism affected his work.

But in Nadia’s view, simply getting kids working — especially in a busy, typical first job — would go a long way to getting Gen Y past its failure to launch.

“It teaches them how to manage their money, what life is like, it gets them over the idea that life is easy,” she notes. “The school system and parents can do a better job, simply by letting them fail every once in a while.”  [Tyee]

Ikea face-off in Richmond marked by fourth contract offer rejection

 

By Tom Sandborn   Published August 21, 2013 http://thetyee.ca

Unionized workers locked out of the Richmond Ikea since May have unanimously rejected a fourth contract offer from the company, while other unions are calling for a boycott of the store at the centre of the dispute, as well as one in Coquitlam.

Ikea has been embroiled in a bitter labour fight with its Teamster employees at the Richmond outlet since May 13. The powerful firm reported US$32 billion in revenues last year.

Ikea management tabled a contract offer during mediation this July that was rejected by the union in a unanimous “no” vote. Three other offers from the company have been rejected by membership over the course of the dispute.

Meanwhile, an internal hearing at Teamsters local 213 stripped membership from 32 Ikea employees who broke with their union and chose to work behind picket lines.

Teamster business agent Anita Dawson said in its latest offer, Ikea pulled back from some of its earlier “backward bargaining”, a strategy the company employed earlier in the dispute that involved gradually removing elements from its offer as the dispute continued.

The company also pulled back from its insistence on establishing multi-tiered wages, Dawson said, but the offer was still too weak to satisfy workers.

In June, Dawson told The Tyee that the company’s proposed contract at that time “included a tiered wage system which will see some existing employees getting reduced wages and benefits.” 

Ikea spokeswoman Madeleine Lowenborg-Frick said the Ikea Richmond store “has consistently been the lowest performing store in Canada, specifically having the lowest productivity while having the highest staff costs.

“IKEA provided the union with an amended proposal on July 17, eliminating the two-tier wage system, which was the primary barrier that brought the parties into mediation. The proposal allowed IKEA to address the union’s expressed leading concern, while also addressing the store’s poor performance,” she wrote in an email.

Lowenborg-Frick explained that the company’s last contract proposal made most of the possible wage increases contingent on the Richmond store hitting new productivity targets.

Ikea is missing the point, Dawson said.

“The company did table another offer on July 24 that did not have a two tier, but this offer was unanimously rejected by the bargaining unit because the only guaranteed wage increase for employees with four or more years of service was 1.5 per cent in the first year. Nothing guaranteed in subsequent years,” Dawson said in an email.

“For employees with less than four years of service, the offer did not have a two-tier wage system, but it only guaranteed two per cent a year on the start rate until the wage got to current max. This means that it could take decades to reach top rate, i.e. if you start at $12 an hour at two per cent a year, it would take 23 years to get to $19.45.”

Tom Sandborn covers labour and health policy beats for the Tyee. He welcomes your feedback and story tips at tos65@telus.net.

– See more at: http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2013/08/21/Richmond-Ikea-Dispute-Update/#sthash.Lt6Ftul3.dpuf

What legislation will ‘die’ when Harper prorogues Parliament?

By Kelsey Johnson    
http://thetyee.ca       Published August 19, 2013

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s decision to ask the Governor General to prorogue Parliament until sometime in October will mark the end of several controversial pieces of legislation.

Under parliamentary rules, 19 government bills will die on the order paper in either the House of Commons or the Senate.

Among the pieces of legislation affected by the impending prorogation are the Senate Reform Act, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, and the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, all of which have been met with varying degrees of criticism.

Delaying the return of Parliament also means the slates of the various standing committees have been wiped clean. This means the revision of the First Nations Elections Act and the Combating Counterfeit Products Act have been terminated, at least for the time being.

Studies by committee into questions surrounding animal welfare, bee health, infrastructure and the state of Canada lobster industry will also grind to a halt. The rules do not allow committees to sit when Parliament is prorogued.

While the bills have theoretically died on the order paper, the government could make a motion to reintroduce the legislation at the stage it was at before prorogation. In order to do that, however, it must get unanimous consent.

Otherwise, the legislation must begin the process all over again. Since the government has a majority, it is likely the legislation the government wants to reintroduced will be fast-tracked through debate.

As for private member’s bills, they are not affected by prorogation. They will automatically be reintroduced at the last stage reached in the House of Commons via a specific standing order.

Kelsey Johnson reports for iPolitics, where this article first appeared.

Advocates take Harper to court over ‘pattern of muzzling’ energy critics

By David P. Ball
Published August 14, 2013    From:  http://thetyee.ca

One of Canada’s top constitutional lawyers is taking the Conservative government to court over increasing restrictions on who can speak at energy board hearings — and what they are allowed to say.

Decrying federal changes to the National Energy Board Act as a “chilling effect” and “breach of constitutional free speech,” Clayton Ruby launched a court challenge yesterday on behalf of ForestEthics Advocacy, an organization he chairs.

The lawsuit, which has not yet been given the go-ahead by a judge, is challenging increased limits on who can address the board on applications for such projects as oil sands pipelines. The reforms force participants to prove they are directly impacted by a project, for instance if it crosses their property.

“This is part of a pattern of muzzling to keep the Canadian public from getting concerned,” Ruby told The Tyee. “These are vital issues, and the government wants as little discussion about them as possible; they want silence… you can no longer talk about certain subjects, they narrowed the scope of what you can say, they will not hear you if you are indirectly affected, and the process requires a nine-page application form, even for a one-page submission.”

Ruby cited as proof of the “muzzling” rules barring citizens from discussing climate change or impacts of the oil sands in general during pipeline or tanker hearings, even when they transport bitumen proven to escalate greenhouse gas emissions.

Compared to the more-than-thousand submissions to the board’s Enbridge Northern Gateway hearings — completed earlier this year, and almost exclusively in opposition — current hearings into the Line 9B oil sands pipeline through southern Ontario allowed only 175 submissions, despite blockades and growing public protest. 

But Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver retorted that the board has not impinged on free speech, since it “permits submissions from individuals impacted by the project.”

“The democratic right to express a public opinion is honoured in Canada,” Oliver said in an emailed statement. “The board must hear from those who are directly affected and may choose to hear from those with information or expertise relevant to the scope of the hearing.

“Focusing submissions ensures the review is informed by the facts material to the scope of the hearing and protects it from being used as a tool to delay decisions. This concern arose in the context of the Northern Gateway hearing when over 4,000 people registered to be heard, but only 1,179 actually showed up at the hearings.”

Oliver came under fire in 2012 when he accused some Northern Gateway critics of being “foreign-funded radicals” in a widely reported open letter. That allegation started a firestorm where organizations such as Tides Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation were ordered to appear before a Senate committee in Ottawa and faced tax scrutiny over their pipeline advocacy.

Ruby described the government’s approach as creating a “chill effect on free speech,” because small organizations are scared of losing their charitable status, and increased hearing restrictions will dissuade citizens from participating.

“These hearings — which they view as troublesome — will no longer cause them any trouble,” Ruby claimed. “They’ve turned the National Energy Board from a final decision-maker into an advisory board. The final decision is now made by Mr. Harper and his cabinet, not by the board.”

David P. Ball is a frequent contributor to The Tyee.