March 31, 2016

Fed NDP now polling at lowest standing in a decade at 11.7 % support nationally EKOS Poll


Little more than a week before NDP Leader Tom Mulcair is set to face his party in a leadership review, a new Ekos poll shows the New Democrats are polling at their lowest level in more than a decade.standing at 11.7 per cent support among Canadians.

The U.S. is quietly helping Saudi Arabia wage a devastating aerial campaign in Yemen LA TIMES





Sarah Leah Whitson
One week before the Brussels terrorist attacks, a Saudi-led coalition bombed a market in Mastaba, Yemen. Although more people died in Mastaba than in Brussels — 106 versus 34 — the media and the international community in general ignored that earlier atrocity, as they've ignored most of the 150 indiscriminate aerial attacks reported by the United Nations and Human Rights Watch in the last year.
The problem, however, is worse than inattention; the West is actually supporting — by way of arms and military assistance — this all-but-invisible war.

Saudi Arabia has stated that its goal in Yemen is to restore to power President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi, who fled the capital, Sana, in the wake of a coup by Houthi militia forces, and to preempt Iranian designs to control the country. Whatever one makes of those ambitions, it's undeniable that the Saudis are violating international law as they carry out attacks with no apparent military target and use banned weapons, such as cluster bombs. Aerial strikes have hit schools, hospitals, markets and homes. According to the U.N., they account for 60% of the 3,200 civilians killed in the conflict.


It's relatively well known that the U.S. and Britain are contributing to the war effort as the lead providers of the Saudi coalition's arsenal. Saudi Arabia has been on a global arms shopping spree and is now the world's largest purchaser of weapons. It contracted for at least $20 billion in weapons from the U.S. and almost $4.3 billion in weapons from Britain in 2015. The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia's main partner in the Yemen war, is not far behind, as the world's fourth-largest purchaser of weapons, acquiring $1.07 billion from the US and $65.5 million from Britain last year.
The brutal reality is that some of these bombs have landed on innocent Yemeni men, women and children. This is why many human rights and humanitarian organizations, as well as the European Parliament, have called for an embargo on arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
What remains unknown is the exact nature of the U.S. and British military role in the Saudi campaign. The U.S. Defense Department has vaguely stated that it is providing “targeting assistance,” which as a matter of law means it is liable for unlawful strikes in which it takes part. So what, exactly, does this targeting assistance looks like? Did it assist with the strike on the market? Did it help target the Doctors Without Borders medical clinic that the coalition struck repeatedly last October? What about the cluster bomb attack on Sana University in January?


Britain, for its part, has said it is providing “military training on compliance with the laws of war” — operating out of the Riyadh Command Center — with estimates ranging widely from six to 150 trainers. But what exactly are these people doing? If they are assisting with the targeting, this could make them a party to the conflict. If they are merely offering advice, it is patently clear that the Saudis are disregarding it.
One appropriate way for the Saudis — and the U.S. and Britain — to address the streams of evidence about unlawful airstrikes in Yemen would be to support an independent, international investigation into the conduct of both the coalition and the Houthi armed group, Ansar Allah, which is currently in power in much of the country.
Member states of the U.N. Human Rights Council attempted to pursue just such an investigation, but the Saudi-U.S.-Britain trifecta effectively quashed it. Instead, they backed a “domestic investigation” in Yemen led by the quasi-exiled, Saudi-supported President Hadi. It is no surprise that the body he announced last September has made no progress The coalition also hastily announced the creation of a committee to “promote compliance with the law” but made clear that it would not investigate any alleged violations.
So even as the U.S. leads the charge for international justice against the Assad government in Syria, it turns a blind eye to or actually stymies international inquiries into abuses by Saudi Arabia.


President Obama has repeatedly connected the dots between the proliferation of violent extremism and abuses by the authoritarian, unaccountable governments of the Arab world. He has had less to say about the risks created to American citizens by U.S. alliances with and military support for these governments.
But in this day and age, when it takes little training or equipment to wreak terrorist havoc in Western capitals, Obama should be very worried about the boomerang effect of such alliances. Unlawful strikes and large-scale civilian casualties are certain to foster further instability and extremism, whose effects may be felt not just in the region but closer to home too. The age of secret wars is not entirely over, but the shield of national boundaries has certainly expired.
Sarah Leah Whitson is the executive director of the Human Rights Watch Middle East and North Africa Division.
Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

Budget 2016: still waiting for the Health-care litmus test


A recent Ipos poll showed that out of a list 15 of the top priority coming into budget 2016, ‘spending more on health care’ was the top priority for Canadians. As global news reported, “A provincial breakdown of the new data showed healthcare was high across the country, with the most support in B.C. (56 per cent) followed by Atlantic Canada (44 per cent), and Alberta (41 per cent). Saskatchewan and Manitoba residents were the lowest with 32 per cent ranking healthcare spending in their top three. Quebec and Ontario residents were comparable on the issue at 39 per cent and 35 per cent.”
Coming into this budget, after a dark decade of underfunding and privatization by the Harper government, health care advocates had high hopes. The Council of Canadians has participated in the CCPA’s alternative federal budget which highlighted, “The health policy commitments of the new federal government include promises to renegotiate the Health Accord, and to increase access to home care, mental health services, and prescription drugs.”  It was our hope that robust improvements and investment in some of these areas would be included today (as the bar has been set so low you can trip over it).

Quickly after lock up was released and the finance minister tabled the 2016 budget, Ipolitics ran a story titled, “Budget kicks the health spending can down the road.” Reading through the short health section in the budget documents, the big issues and the promises the Liberals had made regarding home care and palliative care, the Canadian Health Transfer, the Health Accord and so on, have been put off until another day. There is no discussion in the budget of the Premiers unanimous calls for the federal government to cover 25% of provincial health costs (at the start of medicare this was an equal 50/50 arrangement). Post budget analysis shows that despite a Liberal campaign promise to immediately invest new money in home care services to the tune of $3 billion over four years (hopefully not at the expense of acute care which falls under the CHA unlike home care services, but I digress), Finance Minister Bill Morneau confirmed, “Tuesday the government will not be making new investments in home care, indicating the government will work with provinces and territories on the issue instead.” CUPE President Mark Hancock has stated, “This budget makes no real commitment to strengthening our public health care system.”

Unfortunately, looking at the appendix tables it becomes clear that the government’s budget projections maintain the Harper government’s reduction in health care transfers to the provinces relative to the GDP. Counter intuitively the budget states, “Starting in 2017–18, the CHT will grow in line with a three-year moving average of nominal GDP growth, with funding guaranteed to increase by at least 3.0 per cent per year.” So as opposed to a fixed 6% escalator which was included in the last health accord, health transfers to the provinces will be lower when the economy is doing worse (i.e. the time when people need health care the most). We echo the CLC statement that, “The CLC said they are disappointed by that, but hopeful that continued talks between the Health Ministers will result in new, sustained funding for health care that allows our system to meet the needs,” of Canadians.
In regards to a renegotiated Health Accord, this budget does little to make clear where we are headed. Is this government planning to reflect Canadian’s top priority and invest new money into the public system in the future, or are future budgets going to follow the template of Harper’s budgets with underfunding health services and increasing two-tiered services?  It is too early to tell, but we hope the new government follows some of the suggestions the Council of Canadians have made on this topic.

So what is in the budget regarding health? We see, “Much of the health side of the budget amounts to a collection of smaller funding initiatives — $39 million for the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement to find ways to improve the healthcare system, $50 million to Canada Health Infoway to boost e-health initiatives in Canada (like online prescriptions and tele-health) and $47.5 million a year for the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer for efforts which will ‘complement the initiatives in a new Health Accord.’ Research granting councils get an extra $95 million dollars a year in new annual funding.”  To put this in context we have an over $220 billion health care system in Canada.

In regards to First Nations health the government plans to invest $270.2 million over five years to expand and enhance health facilities in First Nations communities (no word on if these will be P3 contracts or not); budget documents show that a sum $82 million to be spent in the first two years. Nishnawbe Aski Nation Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler (who’s jurisdiction includes the Kashechewan First Nation that is currently undergoing a health crisis) stated on twitter that, “$82M/year for 2 yrs won’t go far enough to address current need for health facilities in FN communities.” Scholar and activist Pam Palmater, who spoke at the Council of Canadians 2015 AGM, highlighted on twitter that, “Almost no investment on health care generally. To cover gap in FN health funds DOUBLE current budget needed. Looks like crises will worsen,” and that, “2M per year for mental health in First Nations is 3k per First Nation. Less than a dollar a person. That won't address suicide crisis.”

 For discussion regarding funding for safe water on reserves, which has a major health impact, I will leave that analysis to the Council of Canadians amazing water campaigner Emma Liu. For nutrition issues CPJ has highlighted that, “the government has also committed to expanding the Nutrition North program by investing $64.5 million over five years to ensure nutritious food reaches northern communities. We hope that the program will also be improved so that it is more effective in reaching this goal.”

APTN has  provided analysis stating, “The federal budget unveiled by the Justin Trudeau Liberal government Tuesday failed First Nation children and families, says Cindy Blackstock, the tireless children’s advocate behind the successful human rights complaint against Ottawa over its underfunding of child welfare services on-reserve... On the surface, the Liberal budget commitment to invest $634.8 million for child welfare on reserves appears like a big figure, but scratch a little and a different reality emerges. The number is spread out over five years, with the largest amount appearing in the fiscal year after the next federal election which is scheduled for the fall of 2019.” This is one of the many social determinants of health that needed to be addressed and fully invested in.  Further Blackstock has stated that, “the budget document is as clear as mud in explaining how it plans to implement these proposed reforms. She said it doesn’t come close to meeting the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) calls to action, which listed reforms to the child welfare system as a top priority. ‘This falls far short,’ said Blackstock. ‘It doesn’t provide a clear pathway as to how they are going to achieve that within the confines of the (Canadian Human Rights Tribunal) order.’”

In regards to trade the budget stated, “The Government recently completed the final steps of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. Canada and the European Commission are committed to swift ratification so that our citizens can quickly reap the benefits of this high-quality agreement. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would offer opportunities to grow Canadian trade with Asia Pacific countries, enhance North American production and improve job quality in Canada.”  These deal will have a massive impact on our health care, increase costs and create a policy chill for new initiatives (like a full and comprehensive national pharmacare plan).  The Council of Canadians has written extensivelyon this issue in regards to health and new analysis from allies continues to emerge that these are net-negative deals for the health of our nation.
Overall, much of the talk following the budget will no doubt be right wing hyperbole and defrosted talking points regarding ‘reckless spending’ by the Liberals. Unfortunately this has the double effect of limiting important discourse on the budget and making it look more progressive than it is. The $29.4 billion deficit sits at around 1.5% of Canada’s GDP, which is much less than the 3.5% of GDP deficit the Harper government put out in one of their budgets. This budget also comes at a time when interest rates in Canada and around the world are at record lows.  Lastly, it is important to put spending into context and check it against government spending as percentage of GDP over time. The first fiscal plan included in the budget ends, “in the year 2020-21, with federal spending at one of the lowest rates in the past 65 years—15.1% of GDP, slightly higher than 2014-15’s all-time low level of 14.2%.”
What is worrying overall, and specifically for health care in Canada, is the continuing trend we are seeing to marginally invest in our social safety programs.  Spending on social programs isset to rise to just 14.6% of GDP one year from now (in the 1970s this was around 20%). We are not seeing a turnaround in the downward spiral, but at best a brief flatline before they fall back down to 2015 levels by 2020. This comes at a time when the health of Canadians is getting worse, make no mistake about it. 1 in 7 Canadian children live in poverty (this rate places us 15 out of 17 similar nations). In Canada, 30,000 people are homeless on any given night, with an estimated 50,000 hidden homeless. Roughly 40,000 Canadians die prematurely each year as a result of social inequality (equal to 110 Canadians dying a day). To be fair the new Child Canada Benefit and the improvement to the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors are a couple of positives steps the individual level to affect the SDOH, but this shouldn’t be confused with investing in the social programs we all use as a community.

By putting these figures in a historical and contemporary context it shows that while this budget is being framed as for the middle class, it does not rebuild the public social safety nets -like medicare- that Canadians (including the middle class) depend upon. Compounding the matter this comes at a time when the wealth gap between the working class and the rich is growing with the wealthiest 20% now control nearly 70% of all wealth in the country. The top 10% own almost half of all wealth. This income gap has accelerated in the last 10 years, the wealth of the top 10% of Canadians increased by 42%. And what is the result? Poor men and women are, respectively, 67 and 52% more likely to die each year than their wealthy counterparts. Real change would be investing in our social services like public health care and not being afraid to raise the revenues needed (or just start closing things like the $750 million CEO stock option tax loophole this budget kept and the finance minister stated won’t be touched in future budgets).
At best this budget has kept our public health care system on life support for the time being, but has not provided the treatment it desperately needs.  The ‘real change’ litmus test has yet to be met in regards to health care, and we will have to wait and see what the outcome of Health Accord discussions will hold for the future.  With this being said, many of the policies and budget lines revealed today do point to a need to have a ‘health in all policies’ approach implemented in Canada. From international trade issues to funding for First Nations communities, and everything in between, we need to address the impact policy choices have on the health of our nation.  It is also clear that a shift needs to occur from an individualistic approach to health, to a population health approach.  This would result in an investment into the social security nets and programs we all use and need throughout our lives. As writer Michal Rozworski astutely points out, “this budget reads like new technocratic consensus...  The decades-old framework — low taxes on business and the rich, targeted rather than universal social services, and government that doesn’t challenge the structural conditions that create inequality — remains in place... with this budget the Liberals have rolled back Harper but left Chretien and Martin untouched.”

Council of Canadians campaigners comment on Trudeau' Budget: Federal budget falls short on promises


http://bit.ly/1q6bV0T
Emma Lui, Michael Butler, Andrea Harden-Donahue

The Council of Canadians is giving mixed reviews to the federal budget released earlier this week.
Vancouver-based water campaigner Emma Lui writes, "Budget 2016 allocates $2.24 billion over the next five years for improving on reserve water and wastewater infrastructure and waste management. $141.7 million will go to improving the monitoring and testing of on reserve community drinking water over the next five years. Averaged out, that’s $448 million which is close to the $470 million that the Alternative Federal Budget and Assembly of First Nations have called for. 

But like some of the funding in the budget, it is back-end loaded.  In year one, the government will spend $296 million and in year two, $322 million. Compared to Harper’s annual $165 million this is a definite improvement. But it still falls short of what was called for in the Alternative Federal Budget. The National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems commissioned by the Harper government called for $1.2 billion to have then-Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada meet its own protocols."

For further commentary from Emma on the budget in relation to municipal water and wastewater infrastructure, ocean and freshwater science and research, restoring freshwater protections, Great Lakes protection, please see her Council of Canadians lukewarm on water funding in federal budget blog.

Toronto-based health care campaign Michael Butler notes, "Reading through the short health section in the budget documents, the big issues and the promises the Liberals had made regarding home care and palliative care, the Canadian Health Transfer, the Health Accord and so on, have been put off until another day. There is no discussion in the budget of the Premiers unanimous calls for the federal government to cover 25% of provincial health costs (at the start of medicare this was an equal 50/50 arrangement). Post budget analysis shows that despite a Liberal campaign promise to immediately invest new money in home care services to the tune of $3 billion over four years, Finance Minister Bill Morneau confirmed, 'Tuesday the government will not be making new investments in home care, indicating the government will work with provinces and territories on the issue instead.'"

Michael highlights, "Unfortunately, looking at the appendix tables it becomes clear that the government’s budget projections maintain the Harper government’s reduction in health care transfers to the provinces relative to the GDP. Counter intuitively the budget states, 'Starting in 2017–18, the Canadian Health Transfer will grow in line with a three-year moving average of nominal GDP growth, with funding guaranteed to increase by at least 3.0 per cent per year.' So as opposed to a fixed 6% escalator which was included in the last health accord, health transfers to the provinces will be lower when the economy is doing worse (i.e. the time when people need health care the most)."

For additional analysis from Michael, please see his Budget 2016: still waiting for the health care litmus test blog.
And Ottawa-based energy and climate justice campaigner Andrea Harden-Donahue writes, "The Council of Canadians, alongside many voices, has been calling for an elimination of subsidies to the fossil fuel sector for years. Canada publicly promised to phase out these subsidies along with other G20 nations in 2009. In its 2015 report, Oil Change International and Overseas Development Institute found Canada provides $1.8 billion CAD in federal subsidies yearly to fossil fuel producers. Further, Export Development Canada, owned by our government, provides as much as $6 billion yearly to energy producers. Budget 2016 was a lost opportunity to redirect funds from climate change causing industries to climate solutions. There was nothing in the budget cutting back these significant subsidies."
Andrea highlights, "The budget also did not remove a capital cost allowance for controversial liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects that have the potential to balloon BC’s climate pollution, along with raising other serious environmental and social concerns."
For further commentary from Andrea on the budget in relation to funding for environmental assessments, green infrastructure investments, and more, please see her Budget 2016 on Pipelines, Green Infrastructure Spending and Climate blog.
For commentary on the federal budget from allies including Unifor, CUPE, and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, please click here.

Trump Way to the Left of Clinton on Foreign Policy – In Fact, He’s Damn Near Anti-Empire, by GLEN FORD, Black Agenda Report

March 30, 2016

On the appeal of Trump to the déclassé American White woring class

On appeal of Trump to the déclassé US White woring class
"The issue of protectionism versus free trade [re: the USA] is complicated, but the class aspect cannot be denied. For people with stable incomes, it can be advantageous to import goods produced in low-wage countries or to use services provided by workers from those countries. But for those who would otherwise produce those goods or provide those services, that competition is a problem, and they are bound to respond favorably to Trump’s speeches in favor of protectionism and of limiting immigration.
The intellectual left (who mostly enjoy stable incomes, for example in universities) has totally ignored this problem by viewing the issue solely in moral terms: wouldn’t it be marvelous to live in a world open to others, without racism or discrimination?

In short, the message to the white worker who lost his job as a result of delocalizations, with no better prospect than delivering pizza, that he should be delighted to live in a multicultural world where one can eat sushi, listen to African music and take vacations in Morocco. He is told that he must absolutely not make any racist, sexist or homophobic remarks, that gay marriage is a huge progress and that the ideal society is not one aiming at relatively equal conditions for all, but rather an “equal opportunity” society in which there is no limit on economic inequalities so long as they do not result from discriminations against minorities. All is well if one can find a good number of women, blacks and homosexuals among the billionaires.
That is essentially the way of thinking that has dominated the left for decades. The working class has been totally forgotten, most of all the white working class which, as Chomsky recently stressed, is the big loser in all this wonderful globalization – so much so that its life expectancy has begun to decline, more than any other ethnic group in the United States."

March 29, 2016

Trudeau’s shameful BDS stand gives carte blanche to Israel






Here’s a Middle East multiple choice question for you (warning: one of these will get you condemned by the government of Justin Trudeau).
Would you rather that the Palestinian people 1) once again take up armed struggle in order to end Israeli occupation of their land or 2) pursue a non-violent strategy of Boycott, Divestiture and Sanctions (BDS) until such time as Israel recognizes the rights of the Palestinian people?

Advocating a return to the use of violence against Israel may or may not get you condemned by the prime minister. But it is definitely not OK to advocate for the non-violent BDS campaign. This was made clear by the government’s support of a Conservative resolution opposing the campaign “which promotes the demonization and de-legitimization of the State of Israel,” and called upon the government “to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.”

This is a sickening violation of Canadians’ basic rights enshrined by Justin’s father 35 years ago. As the NDP’s Thomas Mulcair (who once described himself as an “ardent supporter of Israel”) said, the resolution “makes it a thought crime to express an opinion.” The NDP and the Bloc, joined by three Liberals, voted against the resolution.

Lockstep with the Israel lobby
That the Liberal government is so in alignment with Israel lobby groups raises a number of questions: Just who actually makes Canadian policy towards Israel? Did Trudeau think this through at all – such as, is this in Canada’s interests? But perhaps more to the point, is it even in Israel’s interests? Does the Trudeau government have some brilliant ideas about how to get Israel to the bargaining table? Or does it believe the current situation doesn’t need resolving? It smacks of political cowardice. It’s as if Stephen Harper still rules the day on this critical foreign policy issue. Indeed the resolution reflects Harper’s declaration that criticism of Israel’s government is the “new anti-Semitism.”

We are left to wonder whether the Trudeau government can imagine any action by Israel that would cause it to “condemn” its government rather than its critics. And to wonder whether it seeks to further polarize the region or help cooler heads prevail. Giving carte blanche to the actions of Israel’s increasingly extremist government simply reinforces its determination to never negotiate and to keep pushing the envelope, whether it’s building new settlements or slaughtering civilians in Gaza. Against that prospect, how many parliamentarians have even the slightest clue what the Palestinians are seeking through the BDS campaign? Do they know its origins?

As stated by movement leaders, Israel must:
End its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantle the Wall; Recognize the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and Respect, protect, and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties, as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

This latter demand is hotly rejected by Israel even though Jews from literally anywhere in the world have, through the 1950 Law of Return (to Israel and now the occupied territories) the same right.

The roots of BDS
The BDS campaign (which boycotts only goods made in the occupied territory) was inspired by the successful boycott and sanctions campaign that finally brought an end to South African apartheid – a campaign, incidentally, given a major boost by none other than then prime minister Brian Mulroney. 

The BDS campaign was launched in 2005 by 170 Palestinian civil society groups representing virtually every sector of Palestinian society “including all political parties, unions, refugee networks, NGOs, and organizations representing Palestinians living under occupation, in Israel, and in exile.” 
The decision was rooted firmly in a commitment to non-violence and in international law regarding the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory.
Israel’s occupation is routinely compared to apartheid by Israelis – and not just critics of the government. Michael Ben-Yair, Israel’s attorney general from 1993 to 1996, wrote:

We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories …. We developed two judicial systems: one – progressive, liberal in Israel. The other – cruel, injurious in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture.

Other senior Israeli political figures agreed. Shulamit Aloni, education minister under Yitzhak Rabin, and former prime minister Ehud Barak both made the comparison. Ehud Olmert, another former PM, declared: “If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights…the State of Israel is finished.” With the two-state solution on life-support – and no pressure on Israel from the West to revive it – the situation so feared by Olmert is arguably already here.

In fact, the BDS campaign may be Israel’s best hope to avoid Ehud Olmert’s nightmare. Perhaps that is why Israel’s extremist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is so determined to fight BDS. In a 2014 speech to the powerful pro-Israeli U.S. lobby group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), he referred to the BDS campaign 18 times, calling on American Zionists to “fight back” against BDS advocates.

Waning support for Israel
The BDS campaign might not worry Netanyahu so much if it weren’t for the fact that Israel now ranks near the bottom of the pile when it comes to world opinion. A BBC poll in 2013 interviewed more than 26,000 people in 25 countries and found only 21 per cent of participants had a positive view of Israel, while 52 per cent viewed the country unfavourably. Only Iran, Pakistan and North Korea fared worse. In just the last year, the percentage of Americans viewing Israel favourably dropped dramatically from 70 per cent to 59 per cent while positive attitudes towards Palestinians jumped from 17 per cent to 24 per cent.

Justin Trudeau and his government could not be more mistaken if they believe they are doing Israel a favour by supporting the repugnant Conservative thought crime resolution. Every time a Western government turns a blind eye to Israeli apartheid it reinforces that system by signalling to Netanyahu that he can do whatever he pleases.


By steadfastly denying the apartheid reality in Israel, successive Canadian governments in fact betray the long-term of interests of that country – not to mention, of course, those of millions of Palestinians.

Dear Youth: Capitalism offers you a shit future - Work and the Precariat










Posted: Updated: 





TORONTO — They're part-time employees without health benefits or pensions who work split shifts at a number of different locations each week. From one paycheque to the next, their income fluctuates, as do their hours.
These aren't workers hustling behind fast-food counters or holding down other McJobs. They're aspiring librarians, often with at least one master's degree.
A university degree is not a get-out-of-jail-free card from the perils of insecure employment. Precarious work, often associated with service-sector jobs, is spreading to jobs that were once considered realms of stable employment with benefits and pensions to boot.

maureen oreilly toronto public library
Maureen O'Reilly, a librarian and president of the Toronto Public Library Workers Union, poses for a portrait in Toronto on Thursday, March 24, 2016. (Canadian Press photo)
"This type of employment has increasingly become the norm," said Wayne Lewchuk, a McMaster University economics and labour studies professor, who co-authored a recent report on the impact of precarious work.
More than 40 per cent of people employed in the knowledge or creative sectors are in precarious or vulnerable work, according to the report. More than one quarter of precarious jobs require a university degree.
Aspiring librarians, for one, have felt the erosion of permanent employment for positions demanding a high education level.
"They're basically trapped in entry-level jobs," said Maureen O'Reilly, a librarian and president of the Toronto Public Library Workers Union. "They're still waiting many, many, many, many, many years to get a full-time job."
The average wait time for someone to be hired as a full-time librarian with the Toronto Public Library is a decade — and that's for applicants who already have a foot in the door working other jobs at the library.
Eunice Rodrigues, who holds two university degrees, works part-time as a page. She anticipates it will be another three or four years before she snags an elusive full-time librarian job, Rodrigues says in a video commissioned by the union to highlight their workers' employment issues.
It took Jorge Guevara 11 years to work his way up to a part-time library assistant position, he says in the video. He's also hoping to move up to a full-time librarian gig.
Like Rodrigues and Guevara, more than half of the Toronto Public Library Workers Union members are precariously employed, said O'Reilly, adding the situation is similar in libraries across much of Canada.
"This is a very stressful way of leading a life."
Earlier this month, the Toronto union voted in favour of strike action, if necessary. The union is currently embroiled in contract negotiations with the library board, hoping to secure a wage increase and address this increasing precarity.
Libraries are not the only impacted workplace.
Newly certified teachers have been struggling to get a foothold into school boards for years in Toronto, said Sachin Maharaj, a teacher working towards his PhD in educational policy at the University of Toronto's Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
In 2012, Ontario introduced legislation requiring public school boards to fill vacancies based on teacher seniority. New teachers must usually complete some supply and contract work before applying for full-time positions.

Coupled with teachers' colleges churning out more graduates than teachers needed 
and declining school enrolment, "it's just a really bad picture for teachers," Maharaj said.
When Maharaj graduated with a teaching degree some eight springs ago, he started a full-time teaching job the following fall. Now, that would never happen, he said.
A 2015 Ontario College of Teachers survey on transitions to teaching shows some of the employment pressures easing, but overall a teachers' college graduate's job prospects appear grim.
Many teachers starting their careers still experience months or years of under-employment, according to the report. More than half of first-year teachers in the province supplement their teaching income with other jobs like tutoring or retail work.
Universities, media organizations, hospitals and governments have also increasingly moved toward more precarious contract employment, Lewchuk said.
This new normal is hurting the businesses and employees alike, he said.
Corporations that don't commit to their employees can expect similar loyalty from their workforce, he said, resulting in higher labour turnover.
In the long run, the company is likely to have less skilled workers since firms don't tend to provide substantial training to short-term employees, said Lewchuk. Eventually, that will make positions higher on the corporate ladder difficult to fill.
Employees without stable jobs and consistent income, on the other hand, he said, can be anxious and delay life's milestones, like marriage, home ownership or starting a family.
"This is a very stressful way of leading a life," he said.

Featured Story

Dejemos que la izquierda de Estados Unidos tenga cuidado! por Andrew Taylor 23.06.2021

La Administración Biden ha habilitado una nueva "Iniciativa contra el terrorismo doméstico" para defender "The Homeland"...