Survey  Results

Home->Kincardine->2006->February

Fred Kirby          February 1, 2006

To some extent I agree with Lois and Gord Bradley who recently wrote an indignant letter to The Independent charging bias on the part of the paper’s writers in their reporting of Ward Three activities. There is no room for prejudice in intelligent debate. But Lois and Gordon are mistaken as to who is biased. As Gilbert and Sullivan put it, things are seldom as they seem.

No one asked for amalgamation; we all had reservations and some still have but, like it or not, it became a reality. Many made the best of the decision and many saw the positive side of a larger municipality. Those in Ward Three, for reasons known only to their psyche, fought amalgamation. Their refusal to accept amalgamation cost taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars. The cost to others, then and since, has never bothered those people. Over the years they continued to resist the amalgamation at every turn. When the municipality installed a water pipeline from the town centre, along Bruce Road 23 connecting the lakeshore subdivisions, Tiverton made such a ruckus over having to use water from the pipeline that, inadvisably, the council allowed the residents to stay on their wells. This was done even though the pipeline was to eliminate wells because of the cost of maintenance and health concerns over wells. That issue is still not resolved. Later, when council voted to dissolve the ward system, the dissenters appealed to the OMB with very mixed results.

Writing about these events does not represent prejudice. It is commentary, tough but still commentary. The bias (pre-judgment) lies with those who would not give amalgamation a chance and have fought the rest of the municipality at every turn. If we are to charge prejudice, we need to be more careful in identifying the target.

Is it biased to question why Tiverton can say no to development while homeowners between Huron Ridge and Wickham Cove have no say in the proposed development at Hartwick Farm? When a Tiverton resident tells me he wants no housing behind his place, it is an honest feeling he expresses; but what gives him any more right to make that decision than any other citizen? Where is the fairness in that? Squeaky wheels may make the most noise but where is the justice if those making the noise get their way over others? Where is the bias in witnessing the injustice?

Lois and Gordon took umbrage at the paper speaking against the decision of the OMB. Where is the bias in giving an opinion? It is the opinion of a number of people, including myself, that the OMB had one mandate and that was to determine if the process of changing the ward system was procedurally correct. The Board agreed that the process was correct, but then changed the ward system. In my opinion, the OMB exceeded its mandate when it went on to change the ward system itself. The Board overturned a democratically arrived at decision by council. Where is the prejudice in commenting on their action?

Any political writers worth their salt would be shirking their mandate if they ignored controversial public issues. In a world where the news is controlled by corporations spoon-feeding the public, citizens should be thankful there exists those with the independence to say what is necessary for the good of all. When Sam Heisz, of Inverhuron, was denied his right to speak to council, The Independent was the only paper to speak up for him. That was not bias; that was protecting a citizen’s rights. Another time The Independent was alone in standing up for Jennifer Heisz over her shabby treatment by council. Where were her supporters from Inverhuron? Where was the bias?

Citizens need to understand that standing up for fairness, rights, and democratic government under the rule of law is not always popular but is always necessary, It’s a pity more do not see that.

by Fred Kirby        February 8, 2006

Larry Kraemer, in his letter of December 14, remonstrates against my daring to suggest that, regardless of the amount of taxes paid, all citizens have an equal say in municipal business. By his own words Mr. Kraemer again shows his lack of sensitivity to democracy under the law. In his first letter to the editor, he cites the taxes paid by local enterprises as justification for a bigger say in municipal business. This time he lists the actual taxes paid as justification. That is not rebuttal; it is repetition. Mr. Kraemer still misses the point that all taxpayers have the same right to have a say in municipal business and that is why the widow in her cottage has the same right as he or the Chamber of Commerce. It has nothing to do with ‘parity’; it has nothing to do with money; it has everything to do with democracy.

Mr. Kraemer says that he and fellow Chamber members “are totally shocked that the Municipality of Kincardine would spend more than $600,000 to build a visitor information centre without a business plan.” In truth, the Chamber should be shocked that the municipality is spending more than $600,000 on a visitor information centre regardless of the quality of its business plan. The location is wrong and the cost is irresponsible. Mr. Kraemer has nothing to say about that. The issue as to where to locate the information centre has been with us since we learned the lease on the current centre was ending. Where was the public discussion then about the location and the building? The council was at fault then and still is for its lack of openness with the public. Where was the Chamber at that crucial time to ensure the public had a say in the project? Did Mr. Kraemer not care? Is the Chamber’s sole interest only in operating the centre when it is built? Mr. Kraemer speaks of shock but where was the shock when it counted? Where was the “shock” when the plans to build became public earlier last year? Nothing was heard from Mr. Kraemer; there was no public discussion. The shock, it would appear, was too small to measure.

Mr. Kraemer writes the Chamber “has been working quietly for a year now trying to get local business represented” in municipal decisions where business is affected. The key word to note here is, “quietly.” Mr. Kraemer still does not understand a key principle in democratic government, i.e. public business is for the public to know when the subject is under discussion, not when it becomes a fait accompli.

Of course, any group, having a vested interest, should be given consideration in municipal projects but that should go along with full public involvement. All considerations should be open and fair. If Council has decided that the Chamber should not manage the visitors information centre then Council should make their reasons public. Mayor Sutton, Is there something wrong with that?

It is likely that the Chamber of Commerce’s proposition to administer the visiting information centre would have had public support if it has raised its voice earlier for all citizens and participated openly in public discussion. It, too, has a stake in good government for good transparent government benefits us all. Larry Kraemer did not do justice to the Chamber’s goal.

by Fred Kirby        February 15, 2006

Larry Kraemer is quoted in the paper, January 18, 2006: “council ruined its chances at attracting Wal-Mart to the municipality….” I agree with Mr. Kraemer, as does everyone, that we need to attract business but in doing so we must be far more diligent than Mr. Kraemer in seeking businesses beneficial to the municipality.

Wal-Mart is the world’s largest company. It spends millions on public relations while taking us back to nineteenth century Industrial practices.

According to the January issue of the Catholic New Times, Wal-Mart “…was recently ordered to pay $57 million in general damages and $115 million in punitive damages to about 116,000 current and former California employees for violating a state law requiring employers to give 30-minute unpaid lunch breaks to employees who work at least six hours.” Wal-Mart claims the workers agreed to waive their lunch breaks. Presently there are 40 class action suits pending against Wal-Mart for workplace violations.

But it is not just how they treat their workers in North America with low pay and scams, that brings the low prices. A sewing machine operator in a Chinese clothing factory contracted to making clothes for Wal-Mart is paid 16.5 cents US an hour and works sometimes up to 20 hours a day without overtime. That is below the legal 31 cents an hour in China. The operator, you say, can always quit the job. That is not an easy decision. It is a common practice in the Shenzhen garment factories to blacklist workers who quit over conditions. It is work or starve. Wal-Mart’s practice of obligatory long working hours and the arbitrary firing of workers who question the conditions turns workers into slaves in all but name.

There is a terrible human and social price paid so that North Americans can save a few dollars. Considering the work done by the International Labour Rights Fund fighting Wal-Mart for workers’ rights, I call any union member a scab for shopping at Wal-Mart. There is no justification to cross the universal picket line of justice and rights for oppressed workers throughout the world.

Those in business will have to use their own sense of integrity as to whether they support Wal-Mart or not. Once anyone buys into the culture of greed, there is no end they will not go to for a dollar. Tom Coughlin, vice-chairman of Wal-Mart, who made $4-million in salary and bonuses in 2005, pleaded guilty to fraud and tax charges last month. Part of the embezzled money was spent on snakeskin boots, hunting trips, and Miller Lite beer.

Wal-Mart thinks it unreasonable to pay a living wage to those who stock shelves, yet the chief executive officer was paid $17.5 million in 2004. Why should we invite Wal-Mart into our community? Why should we shop at Wal-Mart?

In her book Nickel and Dimes, the US writer Barbara Ehrenreich related her own experience of Wal-Mart, where she worked for $7 an hour. This extract describes the company’s preferred self-image.

We begin with a video, about 15 minutes long, on the history and philosophy of Wal-Mart, or, as an anthropological observer might call t, the Cult of Sam. First young Sam Walton, in uniform, comes back from the war. He starts a store, a sort of five-and-dime, he marries and fathers four attractive children; he receives a Medal of Freedom from President Bush, after which he promptly dies, making way for the eulogies. But the company goes on, yes, indeed. Here the arc of the story soars upward unstoppably, pausing only to mark some fresh milestone of corporate expansion.

1992: Wal-Mart becomes the largest retailer in the world. 1997: sales top $100bn. 1998: the number of Wal-Mart associates hits 825,000, making Wal-Mart the largest private employee in the nation. Each landmark date is accompanied by a clip showing throngs of shoppers, swarms of associates, or scenes of handsome new stores and their adjoining parking lots. Over and over we hear in voiceover or see in graphic display the “three principles”, which are maddeningly, even defiantly, non-parallel: “respect for the individual, exceeding customer’s expectations, strive for excellence”.

“Respect for the individual” is where we, the associates, come in, because vast as Wal-Mart is, and tiny as we may be as individuals, everything depends on us. Sam always said, and is shown saying, that “the best ideas come from the associates” – for example, the idea of having a “people greeter”, an elderly employee (excuse me, associate) who welcomes customers as they enter the store.

Three times during the orientation which began at three and stretches to nearly eleven, we are reminded that this brain-storming originated in a mere associate, and who knows what revolutions in retailing each one of us may propose? Because our ideas are welcome, more than welcome, and we are to think of our managers not as bosses but as “servant leaders”, serving us as well as the customers.

Of course, all is not total harmony, in every instance, between associates and their servant-leaders. A video on “associate honesty” shows a cashier being videotaped as he pockets some bills from the cash register. Drums beat ominously as he is led away in handcuffs and sentenced to four years.

The theme of covert tensions, overcome by right thinking and positive attitude, continues in the 12-minute video entitled “You’ve Picked a Great Place to Work”. Here various associates testify to the “essential feeling of family for which Wal-Mart is so well known”, leading up to the conclusion that we don’t need a union. Once, long ago, unions had a place in American society, but they “no longer have much to offer workers”, which is why people are leaving them “by droves”. Wal-Mart is booming; unions are declining: judge for yourself.

But we are warned that “unions have been targeting Wal-Mart for years”. Why! For the dues money of course. Think of what you would lose with a union: first your dues money, which could be $20 a month “and sometimes much more”. Second, you would lose “your voice” because the union would insist on doing your talking for you. Finally, you might lose even our wages and benefits because they would all be “at risk on the bargaining table”.

You have to wonder – and I imagine some of my teenage fellow orientees may be doing so – why such fiends as these union organizers, such outright extortionists, are allowed to roam free in the land.

Source: Le Monde diplomatique, p. 11, January, 2006

Wal-Mart uses in Orwellian newspeak in conditioning of new employees. This is the language of modern dictatorships as found in Communism and National Socialism (Nazis). At the entrance to the Auschwitz death camp was the sign, “work makes one free.” It is the language of brain washing and, unfortunately, it is successful in too many instances.

by Fred Kirby                  February 22, 2006

To-day is for congratulations. A word of appreciation for a job well done goes to the municipal staff and volunteers who served bottled water during the recent boiled water advisory. They were well organized and the line of cars moved quickly, no waiting or stepping out of the car. Through inclement weather, volunteers and staff were pleasant, polite, and efficient. These are ordinary folk who make a community work and I applaud them.

We should not forget John Satosek of Canadian Tire who quickly arranged for 5,600 cases of bottled water to be donated from Foundation for Families, a charity supported by Canadian Tire, and handed out at his store. Thank you, John, for your initiative in an emergency.

Young people always bring out the best in me and keep me going. George Guerette, a student at KDDS, is the first Canadian student to be heading to Washington, D.C. to participate in the Presidential Classroom Scholars Program. Chosen in part for his essay on preserving the heritage and way of life of the rural area, George is a young man who will make a difference for good in this disheartening world of ours. We need bright and concerned youth to work for justice in the political arena.

And hats off to Cara Pennington at Sir Wilfrid Laurier University! Cara received the Chancellor’s Scholarship Award as a first year student for outstanding academic achievement and extra-curricular activities. Cara is in Kinesiology and Physical Education; her goal is to teach Phys Ed at secondary school. Cara’s keen interest in inclusive education is close to my heart. With values like that combined with her academic abilities, wherever Cara goes the world will be better for her being there. I wish her well.

Then there are the two KDDS students who picked up the torch from the Spectacular Vernacular and started ‘The Knightly News’ February 1. Beverley Anger and Jacquie Bruggeman are two grade twelve students who saw a need and responded. I hope the students at KDDS will support the new monthly paper; it is their voice. Beverley wants to be an elementary school teacher and will take with her an interest in politics and sensitivity for the environment. Jacquie is heading for medicine. Like the International Amnesty leaders at KDDS, Andrea Paquin and Kirsten Grohs, Beverley and Jacquie will bring energy and hope to our tired society. They too may join the circle of Young Knights who have gone forth with good hearts and fine minds to work, each in his or her own way, for a better world.

I am proud of all the Young Knights. We all should be.