There are two ways to break a nation-crippling strike. Take an action that benefits the workers or take an action that benefits the corporation (exec/owner). The libs took actions that benefit the respective corporations. They could have instead broken the strike by stepping in on the side of workers which would have made the workers better off and broken the strike. (And earn them a lot of organic votes.)
I’ve never made the argument that the libs are the same as the reformacons and I maxed out my contribution limits to help them take power instead of PP. That doesn’t change that on the labour file they don’t act in my general interest, instead they help my boss. I should tell you a story abt how I explained a Jira epic to a gov’t lawyer so that my employer could get a subsidy. We had record profits that year.
E:
They could have instead broken the strike by stepping in on the side of workers which would have made the workers better off and broken the strike. (And earn them a lot of organic votes.)
BTW, given how popular such action tends to be if you’re not asking yourself why don’t they do it, you probably should. I began doing it over the last few years and it’s cleared up a lot of seemingly confusing things they do.
E2: Also have been on the Trudeau train almost till the end.
Okay, so sure. They’re more pro-worker then the Conservatives, but not as much as the NDP or Greens, by any reasonable metric.
I guess you could pass a you-must-accept-the-worker’s-terms legislation, although the company would have options there, including just deciding to close.
Should I ask about Jira, or would that be a self-dox?
It’s a well known American private (as-in non gov’t, but publicly traded) corpo with a Canadian sub. There’s this R&D tax credit/subsidy that’s supposed to fund novel R&D. You show novel work to the gov’t, the gov’t gives you money. I’m leading the design/dev of this software feature that’s just … a required feature for our system to do what it needs to do. It required some digging into AOSP to figure out how to do it. Something we regularly do since we develop an Android system component. We finish the feature. Lo and behold comes my boss with a corpo lawyer and says - hey look this lawyer here think this qualifies for this R&D program. We go over it. A month later the same conversation repeats before a gov’t lawyer who approves it. We did not discover an algorithm, or create something of any significant novelty, no value beyond saving cost for this corpo. We did something that many other teams do regularly. Turns out, the corpo has a whole team that asks managers regularly to submit “novel R&D work” to get subsidy money and this happens throughout the org like a clockwork. Again, this is a profitable corporation.
Why do highly-profitable, large corporations qualify at all?
Answer:
Large corporations have lots more capital to deploy into the political system to ensure they qualify. And if one gets it done, the whole class benefits. The result is, even more money from people working for a wage (salary or hourly) are shifted towards large corporate owner. Beyond what they already get over what they pay us.
There’s pretty strict donation limits in place in Canada, though. First hand, politicians spend their time trying to convince ordinary voters to vote for them, and to keep their rank-and-file party members on side and engaged.
True, which is why lobbying in Canada works through different channels. Like cushy pre/post-political jobs in the private sector. Supplying gov’ts with “experts” to hire for various roles. We already have a few of those around Carney. But one my fav examples, since I’ve been active in the net neuteality / independent ISP wars since 2007, is Ian Scott who chaired the CRTC, after working as gov’t lobbyist at Telus. But I’ll paste his foray from Wiki because it illustrates the point perfectly:
Scott was born in Montreal, Quebec. After graduating from the McGill University with an honours BA in political science in 1980, Scott joined the Competition Bureau. From 1990 to 1994, Scott worked in the telecom directorate at the CRTC.[4][5] Scott then joined the private sector, working for Call-Net Enterprises (now part of Rogers Telecom), the Canadian Cable Television Association, and Telus as a lobbyist with the title of vice-president of federal government relations.[6] Between 2007 and 2008, Scott also served as Senior Policy Advisor to the Chairman at the CRTC.[5] Prior to his appointment to CRTC, Scott was serving as the executive director of government and regulatory affairs at Telesat.[6][7]
In July 2017, Scott’s appointment as the Chairperson of CRTC was announced.[4] The announcement and Scott’s background drew concerns from consumer advocacy group OpenMedia.ca.[6][1] Scott’s five-year term began on September 5, 2017,[6] succeeding Jean-Pierre Blais in the role.[1] He was succeeded by Vicky Eatrides.[8]
In December 2019, Scott was caught drinking beer with Bell executive Mirko Bibic (then COO of Bell, currently CEO) at D’Arcy McGee’s pub in Ottawa.[9][10] This meeting took place just one week after Bell filed their appeal of the CRTC’s 2019 wholesale rates.
In February 2022, Scott faced calls to recuse from files related to internet competition due to alleged bias, after the meeting with Bell executive resurfaced.[11] The call for recusal was refused by CRTC.
Just farcical.
That’s not to say that corpos don’t organize individual financial contributions to parties too. They do that. They also pay for attending “dinners” and whatnot. But the revolving door method is just as, if not more important.
E: This process is also involved in what policies politicians propose to voters. These days they rately come from union leadership’s laundry list. Instead they come from sets of policies corpos have the capital to develop and … suggest to politicians. Often via corporate-funded think tanks, if not via lobbyists.
E2: By capital I mean all sorts of capital, not just financial. Political, social capital, etc.
There are two ways to break a nation-crippling strike. Take an action that benefits the workers or take an action that benefits the corporation (exec/owner). The libs took actions that benefit the respective corporations. They could have instead broken the strike by stepping in on the side of workers which would have made the workers better off and broken the strike. (And earn them a lot of organic votes.)
I’ve never made the argument that the libs are the same as the reformacons and I maxed out my contribution limits to help them take power instead of PP. That doesn’t change that on the labour file they don’t act in my general interest, instead they help my boss. I should tell you a story abt how I explained a Jira epic to a gov’t lawyer so that my employer could get a subsidy. We had record profits that year.
E:
BTW, given how popular such action tends to be if you’re not asking yourself why don’t they do it, you probably should. I began doing it over the last few years and it’s cleared up a lot of seemingly confusing things they do.
E2: Also have been on the Trudeau train almost till the end.
Okay, so sure. They’re more pro-worker then the Conservatives, but not as much as the NDP or Greens, by any reasonable metric.
I guess you could pass a you-must-accept-the-worker’s-terms legislation, although the company would have options there, including just deciding to close.
Should I ask about Jira, or would that be a self-dox?
Avoiding as much self-dox as possible:
It’s a well known American private (as-in non gov’t, but publicly traded) corpo with a Canadian sub. There’s this R&D tax credit/subsidy that’s supposed to fund novel R&D. You show novel work to the gov’t, the gov’t gives you money. I’m leading the design/dev of this software feature that’s just … a required feature for our system to do what it needs to do. It required some digging into AOSP to figure out how to do it. Something we regularly do since we develop an Android system component. We finish the feature. Lo and behold comes my boss with a corpo lawyer and says - hey look this lawyer here think this qualifies for this R&D program. We go over it. A month later the same conversation repeats before a gov’t lawyer who approves it. We did not discover an algorithm, or create something of any significant novelty, no value beyond saving cost for this corpo. We did something that many other teams do regularly. Turns out, the corpo has a whole team that asks managers regularly to submit “novel R&D work” to get subsidy money and this happens throughout the org like a clockwork. Again, this is a profitable corporation.
Wow, that is a pretty low bar. Technically, you did do some research and develop something, I guess.
I wonder if it’s as easy for a startup or individual to apply. If not, there’s the bad environment for innovation and competition you hear about.
I have a better / easier to answer question:
Why do highly-profitable, large corporations qualify at all?
Answer:
Large corporations have lots more capital to deploy into the political system to ensure they qualify. And if one gets it done, the whole class benefits. The result is, even more money from people working for a wage (salary or hourly) are shifted towards large corporate owner. Beyond what they already get over what they pay us.
There’s pretty strict donation limits in place in Canada, though. First hand, politicians spend their time trying to convince ordinary voters to vote for them, and to keep their rank-and-file party members on side and engaged.
True, which is why lobbying in Canada works through different channels. Like cushy pre/post-political jobs in the private sector. Supplying gov’ts with “experts” to hire for various roles. We already have a few of those around Carney. But one my fav examples, since I’ve been active in the net neuteality / independent ISP wars since 2007, is Ian Scott who chaired the CRTC, after working as gov’t lobbyist at Telus. But I’ll paste his foray from Wiki because it illustrates the point perfectly:
Just farcical.
That’s not to say that corpos don’t organize individual financial contributions to parties too. They do that. They also pay for attending “dinners” and whatnot. But the revolving door method is just as, if not more important.
E: This process is also involved in what policies politicians propose to voters. These days they rately come from union leadership’s laundry list. Instead they come from sets of policies corpos have the capital to develop and … suggest to politicians. Often via corporate-funded think tanks, if not via lobbyists.
E2: By capital I mean all sorts of capital, not just financial. Political, social capital, etc.