Editorial: Myth-busting

EDITORIAL Unions: Three myths

The achievements of public health care, the Canada Child Benefit and more generous maternity provisions notwithstanding, Canada has largely ignored more progressive European policies. This has been especially true since the 1980s, following the adoption of free trade agreements. This, even though unions have been critical allies for our collective well-being, negotiating higher wages, better and safer working conditions and fair working hours. Unions are even advantageous for your health, as our commentary from Dr. Dennis Raphael and Jessica Muller shows in this issue.

Three myths about unions deserve to be debunked.

Myth 1: Unions are no longer relevant

Unions are more relevant than ever. The voices saying otherwise belong to corporatefriendly interests elated by record-breaking shareholder profits. Historically, unions negotiated pension plans, medical coverage, equal pay for equal work and health and safety programs among other benefits. Since corporations are more powerful than ever, unions are needed more than ever to represent workers’ rights.

Myth 2: Unions are too strong

The proof that unions aren’t “too strong” is in the globalized pudding, considering Canadians have been putting up with low wages for decades now. “Too strong” more accurately refers to corporations, which have succeeded in increasing their profits while driving down wages for all workers. Even Canada’s largest unions are a shadow compared to Amazon, Walmart or Suncor.

Myth 3: Lower wages are needed to save jobs

People often say unions cause companies to relocate because wages are higher here. Demanding lower wages here to compete with lower wage levels elsewhere is a race to the bottom. Unions fight for fair and reasonable living wages everywhere. Standing together for higher wages for average people — not profits for corporations — is the answer. We must reduce the power of corporations and their hold on government policy.

LETTER SPOTLIGHT

Why city and not municipality?

First, I wish to commend Kirk Winter for a very well written article. (Amalgamation 20 Years Later, Jan. Advocate).

My wife and I moved to the then-Somerville Township approximately 18 months pre-amalgamation and remember the upheaval and protests very well after Professor Kitchen’s report.

One question that I wish Kirk had posed to Kitchen for the article, which has bugged me for these past 20 years, is why did he chose the descriptor “city” for the new single-tier municipality’s name when we are so rural and have cows, and horses and chickens everywhere you turn?

The communities of Chatham and Kent (and surrounding area) in southwest Ontario were amalgamated into a single-tier government in 1998 and were re-constituted as the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, not the city of, or the town of, or the community of … but simply the generic non-city, non-urban, non-rural classification of “municipality.”

If Kitchen had proposed the amalgamated area to be styled the Municipality of Kawartha Lakes at least some people would have been a lot less hostile to the outcome. I personally never use “city” even when writing to the city, be it a bureaucrat or politician. I always use “municipality” in oral and written dealings.

Lawrence E. Barker, Fenelon Falls