The Citizen, 2007-02-22, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2007. PAGE 5.
Bonnie
Gropp
TThhee sshhoorrtt ooff iitt
What seemed a leisurely plodding
toward an October election in
Ontario suddenly has picked up
speed – it is as if someone threw some kind of
additive into the gas tank.
The pattern until recently had become
familiar and even monotonous. The Liberals
under Premier Dalton McGuinty were usually
a half-dozen per cent ahead of their main
challengers, the Progressive Conservatives, in
polls and close to the level that traditionally
secured a majority.
The Liberals were still trying to live down a
reputation for breaking promises that started
the day they were elected and reluctant to
point to their main achievement of doing more
to protect residents than any previous
government, because they fear being accused
of creating a “nanny state.”
Conservative leader John Tory was gaining
some acceptance as more moderate in style
and what little was known of his policies than
earlier, far-right premier Mike Harris. He was
still, however, very much handicapped by
memories of Harris and his slashing of
services.
The New Democrats under Howard
Hampton were regaining some respect through
winning by-elections, but still known more for
having as much difficulty surviving as
whooping cranes and in particular failing to
elect enough MPPs to be recognized as a party.
This picture has changed, first because of a
couple of new issues that combined like ham
and eggs. The Liberals announced a tiny
increase in the minimum wage to $8 an hour,
which initially provoked criticism mainly
from the NDP and labour.
It swelled to a major issue when just before
Christmas, at a time residents are encouraged
particularly to help those in need, the Liberals
and Conservatives announced together a huge
25 per cent pay raise for MPPs to $110,000 a
year and ministers to $157,000.
This contrast of little help for the lowliest
and a lot for politicians, and at Christmas,
angered a much wider audience.
News media across the province dwelled on
people unable to afford new shoes or dental
treatment and having to find their furniture in
garbage dumps. Doctors diagnosed the new
minimum wage as inadequate to provide a
nutritious diet and even Housing Minister
John Gerretsen conceded it would be
extremely difficult to live on.
More than 80 per cent of Ontarians opposed
the pay raise for MPPs in a poll and many
newspapers argued it was unfair for MPPs to
give themselves a big raise while setting the
minimum wage so low.
The Liberals quickly lost a by-election, in a
seat they previously held comfortably, to the
NDP, which opposed the wage raise and said
many who voted criticized the low minimum
wage.
McGuinty showed concern by saying future
increases in the minimum wage will raise it to
$10, but it was not much of a promise, because
he did not say when.
Finance Minister Greg Sorbara announced
he is preparing a “poverty agenda” to help the
most needy and the Liberals clearly are feeling
pressure to announce some help before the
election.
The Conservatives held on to what they had
in the by-elections, but quickly recognized
they need to do more and started screening TV
commercials long before parties normally
advertise in an election.
They feature people who have worked with
Tory in charitable causes and business saying
he is a leader, different from other politicians,
who works hard to help the less fortunate.
One aim is to show Tory, while well-off and
likely to be attacked by the Liberals for it, is
warm and caring. But the Conservative leader
still needs to show more than anything he has
policies and should not wait much longer,
because some leaders who waited until an
election have suffered.
The New Democrats have now won three
ridings from the Liberals in by-elections and
probably are still too far behind to think of
winning the election.
But they can hope, for instance, to win
enough seats to hold the balance of power if
neither of their stronger opponents wins a
majority. This election race is showing new
life and new possibilities.
Togetherness
The faults of the burglar are the
qualities of the financier.
– George Bernard Shaw
Let’s take a gander at the giant Wall
Street investment firm of Goldman
Sachs. Its bankers and traders produce
nary a hubcap, not one bar of music or a
solitary bale of hay. In Biblical terms, they toil
not, neither do they spin.
Goldman Sachs traders make phone calls,
work their Blackberrys and take lunches with
clients.
Last year their bosses voted themselves a
little Christmas bonus: $16.5 billion.
That means that each – each! – of the
company’s top dogs got to take home an extra
$20 to $25 million apiece for 2006. But hey,
the little guys at GS did okay too. In fact the
average employee at Goldman Sachs earned
$623,000 U.S. last year.
Greed – Gordon Gekko style – is viral and
it’s going around. We’re used to puck wizards
and baseball sluggers signing multi-million-
dollar contracts with Corvettes and condos
thrown in to sweeten the deal, but at least they
work up a sweat for their money. And most
sports phe-noms are looking at careers that are
10 years long, tops.
Plus their salaries are directly tied to
productivity. If Serge Slapshot starts missing
the five-hole or Big Mac McGoon stops
dinging homers it won’t be long before they
find themselves dressed in cheap suits chasing
tire kickers at Honest Harold’s Used Car
Emporium.
Our business tycoons suffer no such career
inhibitors – and their financial rewards make
the sports guys look like squeegee-clutching
panhandlers.
Consider Barry Diller. He’s the CEO of
IAC/Interactive, an entertainment
conglomerate based in California.
As head honcho you’d expect Diller to take
home a respectable paycheque – but $469
million U.S.?
That’s what he pulled down in 2006. Works
out to about $150,000 an hour.
Thing is, Barry Diller went down swinging
last year. He blew it. Shareholders in
IOC/Interactive lost nearly eight per cent
across the board on their investments.
Imagine what Diller would get paid if he
was good at his job.
It’s a familiar story. Bob Nardell, chairman
and CEO of Home Depot recently stepped
down, dragging a suitcase containing his
severance package – $210 million U.S. Under
his stewardship Home Depot’s market
capitalization fell by nearly $6 billion.
Don’t think this is just an Ugly American
phenomenon. Before the first coffee break of
the first working day of this year, Canada’s top
execs had already hauled in more than their
average workers would earn in all of 2007.
That’s right. By 9:46 a.m. of Jan. 2 (the first
working day of 2007) Canada’s top 100
private-sector chief executive officers had
already raked in $38,010. That’s more than the
average Canadian working stiff makes in a
year.
And it’s not just the private sector. Hydro
One, the crown corporation responsible for
delivering electrical power in Ontario, is still
wiping congealed omelet off its face following
a dust-up with Tom Parkinson, ex-CEO of
same.
As head honcho of the corporation,
Parkinson received $1.6 million a year in
salary and bonuses. He even had personal use
of a Hydro One helicopter and a free first class
return air ticket to Australia once a year.
Unfortunately, Parkinson craved more. He
was turfed after trying to slip $45,000 worth of
expenses through on an underling’s credit
card.
Although ‘turfed’ is perhaps too harsh a
word. Mister Parkinson’s fall from grace was
cushioned by a $3 million severance package,
courtesy of Ontario taxpayers.
Nice non-work if you can get it.
Something is happening here. Something
uncomfortably close to watching urban looters
at work, or rats deserting a foundering ship.
Hugh Mackenzie, an economist with The
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says
“How can somebody possibly be worth that
amount of income and…if those people are
taking that much money out of the company or
out of the economy, what does that mean for
what’s left for the rest of us?”
Even more important – how do they get
away with it? How do these greedheads
manage to scoop everything but the office
stapler on their way to the exit?
A Dobermanesque lawyer would help, I
suppose. But Barry Diller – the guy who
creamed off $469 million U.S. while guiding
IAC/International to a year in the red? He’s got
an even better ace up his pinstriped sleeve.
Diller holds 56 per cent of the voting stock
in IAC. “In effect he chooses his own board,”
says an observer, “and thus he chooses the
members of the compensation committee who
decide his pay.”
Ah yes. Much easier to rob a candy store if
you happen to own it.
Arthur
Black
Election race showing new life
Asimpler time. I remember it. I grew up
in it. It was a time, when even strangers
were friends, when our doors were
never locked and when the long evening hours
were spent with those you loved.
In my early years I remember our family at
the end of a day’s toil in labour or education,
gathering together around the dinner table. It
was a crowded, boisterous room; our family of
five had burgeoned with the addition of three
boarders.
There was talk and there was laughter. As a
little mite, in a realm where the next youngest
had attained the glorious status of adolescent, I
often felt left out of this little communal
society, but was nonetheless enthralled by the
good-natured jibes and conversation happening
around me. Even now, in reflection, I see
nothing but conviviality.
That importance of time together as family
went beyond the dinner table obviously. I
remember filling down time with trips to
grandparents. Then after my sister married
there were regular visits to her new home for
family suppers.
When it was eventually just Mom, Dad and
me, Sunday afternoons were special passed
pleasantly with long, lazy drives. Even the dog
got in on the act as he happily rode with me in
the backseat along these country road sojourns,
while Mom and Dad chatted and sang to the
tunes on the radio, tuned with a bow to my
preference, to 1050 CHUM.
Perhaps, time has glorified the memories.
Yet, as those pictures are so strong I have to
believe they were the norm rather than the
exception. The images exemplify my ideal of
family time.
They are images of a simpler era. In the rush
of today’s world, where families are often
separated by miles, getting together isn’t as
easy as it used to be.
Even for those still living together under one
roof, time with loved ones is lessening.
According to a Statistics Canada survey in
2005, on average workers are spending 45
minutes less with their families during
workdays than in 1985.
That year I was at home catering to the needs
of my young family. The oldest two were
already reaching towards independence. They
had their circle of friends and their own
interests. Most of my time was spent burning
energy, fueled by the action of a three and a
four-year-old who kept me moving and
entertained.
It was a typical household kept busy with
music lessons, baseball, nursery school, play
dates, cooking, cleaning, etc., etc., etc. From
the start of the day there were seldom moments
when life wasn’t busy. Yet, I recall times with
each of my kids throughout a day when it was
just us.
And suppers were reminiscent of those from
my past. Most evenings, our family sat down
around the dining room table and talked, about
our days, about our problems, about the good
stuff. The discussions weren’t always friendly.
Sometimes they were borderline bizarre;
talking with children can take you into some
interesting directions. I’m glad we took those
times, because the years took the opportunities
away pretty quickly.
Don’t let life cheat you of time together with
family, either one-on-one or en masse, sharing
stories, interests and troubles.
It’s a shame that outside influences have cut
into what has always been limited opportunity
even more than before. Take every moment
you can while you can.
Other Views Greed appears to be going around
Eric
Dowd
FFrroomm
QQuueeeenn’’ss PPaarrkk
You can complain because roses have
thorns, or you can rejoice because thorns
have roses.
– Ziggy
Final Thought