tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post2170893380043153361..comments2024-02-07T16:22:39.625-05:00Comments on Jeff Jedras: Misleading and scaring Canadians on pay equityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-7626315189185214772009-02-03T12:26:00.000-05:002009-02-03T12:26:00.000-05:00jurist, I don't think I'd have to look too far to ...jurist, I don't think I'd have to look too far to say certain people are trying to equate the Liberal decision to let the budget pass as the Liberals supporting a gutting of pay equity. If been trying to avoid calling-out the NDP on this, but they have been quite vocally in the media attacking the Liberals on this, and a) implying this budget will change pay equity, and b) that Liberal passage of the budget=Liberal opposition to pay equity.<BR/><BR/>As I said, and as Ted said, the update and the budget are two different issues. We didn't oppose the update because it in they said they planned to gut pay equity. But the fact it talked about gutting pay equity, and the PS right to strike, etc., instead of providing stimulus, was an example of why the Conservatives were off base. But we opposed the update because Canadians needed stimulus now.<BR/><BR/>Are the Conservatives wrong on pay equity? Yes. On that, we are in agreement. But the fact is this budget does nothing to pay equity, and those who equate Liberal support for the budget with opposition to pay equity are just lying.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14971310821484459106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-90616226966673458512009-02-03T12:01:00.000-05:002009-02-03T12:01:00.000-05:00Excellent post, Jeff. Good catch. Don't forget the...Excellent post, Jeff. Good catch. <BR/><BR/>Don't forget the primary reason for opposing the fiscal update was that it provided NO stimulus. In addition, we had these proposals to strip democratic funding of political parties, strip public sector unions of their right to strike and threatening changes to pay equity. They were threatening because Flaherty was saying things like "we all have to tighten our belt". Pay equity, no strikes, no funding were add ons to the bigger concern that there was no help to Canadians.<BR/><BR/>The situation is the reverse now. Now, the primary reason for supporting the budget is that we need some support for Canadians now, not after another election, and the markets need some political stability. So the suggested changes to pay equity, even if they are a threat, are no where near concrete enough to not support the budget and defeat the government and go into an election, especially in these circumstances, especially when we have a chance to look at the actual pay equity proposals after committee (like sometime in 2013!).Ted Bettshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06223729391428982448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-6541279015312882932009-02-03T11:53:00.000-05:002009-02-03T11:53:00.000-05:00Jeff: That would be a fair partial response if you...Jeff: That would be a fair partial response if your post criticized the headline alone. But you instead try to paint it as "emblematic" of criticism of the Libs on pay equity - without providing even the slightest bit of reason to believe that a single sloppy headline has anything to do with the movement in support of pay equity. <BR/><BR/>As for what the Libs have acquiesced in: again, their message last month was that virtually identical language in the fiscal update constituted an attack on pay equity. Which means that if they're willing to support a budget which contains effectively the same terms, then by their own standards they're acquiescing in such an attack - regardless of the fact that the immediate attack doesn't yet result in substantive changes.Greg Fingashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01506686081291502115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-54426765424413017362009-02-03T11:32:00.000-05:002009-02-03T11:32:00.000-05:00Did I miss something jurist, or are we voting on t...Did I miss something jurist, or are we voting on the 2008 fiscal update here? I thought it was 2009, and we were voting on the budget here.<BR/><BR/>Is it fear mongering to say the Conservatives planning to introduce potentially distasteful changes to pay equity? Absolutely not. I freely encourage you to monger away.<BR/><BR/>But it absolutely IS fear mongering to say this budget, the thing we're actually voting on here, will do one thing to change pay equity. And it is crass political opportunism to say the Liberal support for this budget is acquiescing to a gutting of pay equity, for the mere sake of scoring political points.<BR/><BR/>We stood against the fiscal update for a number of reasons. Pay equity was one. It was emblematic of the Conservative non-response on the economy. If it was the only problem with the update it wouldn't have alone been reason to oppose the update, as we could have dealt with the legislation when introduced. What we couldn't deal with later was the lack of stimulus for the economy, which is why we had no choice but to oppose the update.<BR/><BR/>While this budget does have issues, it has made significant progress from the update on stimulus. And we can deal with pay equity if and when they bring it up.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14971310821484459106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-16537422453429921282009-02-03T11:21:00.000-05:002009-02-03T11:21:00.000-05:00Wow. Just...wow.Here's the language on pay equity ...Wow. Just...wow.<BR/><BR/>Here's the language on pay equity from the <A HREF="http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2008/Ec/ecc2-eng.html" REL="nofollow">2008 fiscal update</A>:<BR/><BR/><I>The current approach to pay equity is a litigious, adversarial, complaints-based approach. Under the current approach, the Government in its capacity as the employer first agrees on wage rates with the bargaining agents and then years later is forced to top up those very settlements through pay equity complaints. Since the mid-1980s the federal government has paid over $4 billion in pay equity settlements. New complaints continue to be filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, sometimes for the same groups that have already received past pay equity settlements, representing large potential future costs to taxpayers.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, <B>the Government will introduce legislation</B> to modernize the pay equity regime for federal public sector employees, similar to the process now in place in Ontario and some other provinces. The new regime reflects the Government's commitment to pay equity. The new regime ensures that the employer and bargaining agents are jointly responsible and accountable for negotiating salaries that are fair and equitable to all employees and that are in line with wages in the internal and external workforces.</I><BR/><BR/>And here's how one noteworthy Lib blogger <A HREF="http://bcinto.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html" REL="nofollow">described</A> that intention to introduce legislation amending pay equity at the time:<BR/><BR/><I>controversial <B>attacks on</B> their opponents, on <B>pay equity</B>, and on public sector unions...</I><BR/><BR/><I>He has failed to deliver immediate and serious economic stimulus, and he has yet (to my recollection) to back down on the <B>regressive changes to pay equity</B>.</I><BR/><BR/><I>Canadians don’t like Angry Steve. He needs to admit that he made some serious mistakes, that he tried to play political games during an economic crisis, that he didn’t rise to the level of statesmanship Canadians expect, that <B>he erred on</B> the strike ban, on <B>pay equity</B>, on delaying stimulus.</I><BR/><BR/>But now that the Libs have decided to prop up Harper, it's "fear mongering" to draw exactly the same link which you and other Libs used to justify opposing the fiscal update?Greg Fingashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01506686081291502115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-41583712687214403332009-02-03T11:07:00.000-05:002009-02-03T11:07:00.000-05:00Devin, I agree the changes the Conservatives are p...Devin, I agree the changes the Conservatives are proposing raise concerns. My point is that no changes will be made by this budget, as some are implying for the sole purpose of attempting to tag the Liberals on the wrong side of this issue and score political points. Raise alarm about the Conservative plans, absolutely, but misleading Canadians to score points against the Liberals isn't advancing the issue, that's my point.<BR/><BR/>On Liberals speaking out on the issue, Michelle Simson and Ruby Dhalla do in the linked article. As for voting against the legislation when its introduced, its hypothetical at this point. We don't know what will be introduced, if it will be a confidence matter (shouldn't be imo), and what changes and amendments the opposition will make. So it's hard to say how we'd vote on hypothetical legislation but I think the broad Liberal position, as articulated by Dhalla and Simson, should provide guidance.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14971310821484459106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-90726032729315719622009-02-03T10:41:00.000-05:002009-02-03T10:41:00.000-05:00Devin, but I am sure they will. This is no reaso...Devin, but I am sure they will. This is no reason therefore not to pass the budget. It will be like so much legislation the last time around. Into the black hole of committees to be never seen again.bigcitylibhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-5470699695196956182009-02-03T10:32:00.000-05:002009-02-03T10:32:00.000-05:00I have written very critically about this portion ...I have written very critically about this portion of the budget as well (indeed, it will be the subject of my term paper in Poverty Law). I must say that although you are correct to point out that the budget itself does not contain the changes, only a promise to implement changes, there is significant cause for alarm for those who feel that women should have an effective remedy to obtain equal pay for work of equal value. The criticism is not merely political (though it has political ramifications); the criticism represents a genuine concern that a majority of Parliament has signaled its intention to abolish a woman's right to pursue pay equity claims through the CHRC. To date, I have not heard any prominent Liberal state definitively that they will oppose the legislation when it is introduced.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com