Politically Correct Speak: Women's Pay Equity

Just what the heck is "Pay Equity" for women? I hear this all the time. The Liberal and NDP benches are always claiming Harper and the Conservatives are setting back women's pay equity issues. I ran across this in a Toronto Star article today:

In this case, the Conservative attack on pay equity – the idea that men and women should be paid equally for work of equal value – provides the most telling example. Bill C-10 would end the right of federal civil servants to take pay equity complaints to the federal human rights commission. Instead, such issues would have to be dealt with as part of the normal bargaining process between union and management.

And in determining whether wage rates for men and women were fair, any arbitrator would have to take "market forces" into account.

The problem with this is twofold. First, as a federal task force wrote five years ago, collective bargaining involves tradeoffs. But a woman's constitutionally protected right to be paid fairly is hardly something that should be traded away for an extra coffee break.

Equally important is the reference to market forces. Toronto lawyer Mary Cornish points out that pay equity was designed specifically to rectify a failure in the market that permitted systemic wage discrimination against women. To turn around and subordinate equity to this same market is to negate the entire exercise.

She notes that when former Ontario premier Mike Harris made a similar attack on provincial pay equity, the courts slapped him down.

I wish they could provide specific examples of where this inequity takes place? I don't know what they mean. As far as I can tell some number cruncher came up with the stat that for average salaries, women's are 70% of men's. There are so many factors that go into that, it's meaningless to cite it. I'm sure if they did stats they could find out left handers make or less than right handers. But still they are trying silly social engineering, to bring up women's numbers. It's a fake issue. I've never met a woman who has felt they make less because they are female. There's no secret cabal of evil white men who decide that women will make less than men.

Why are we wasting time with this?

Globe and Mail Contortion Experts

These little headline gymnastics from the G & M gave me a laugh.

The headline: Duceppe trumpets coalition's strength

The sub-headline: Bloc Québécois Leader doubts Prime Minister will change tone and meet Liberal-NDP demands on budget

The opening of the article (A CP wire re-publication):

MONTREAL — Gilles Duceppe says his party's coalition with the Liberals and New Democrats is just as robust as it was before the Governor-General prorogued Parliament last month.

The Bloc Québécois Leader said he would be surprised if Prime Minister Stephen Harper changed his tone and met the coalition's demands in next week's federal budget.

I love how the G & M add in the sub-headline that these are "Liberal-NDP" budget demands, like its coming out of Duceppe's mouth. Like Duceppe and the Bloc don't have any demands and might not even be a part of the coalition. In the CP article it is quite clear that Duceppe is speaking as a member of the coalition.

Party Leader With 25% of the Seats in Parliament Sets Terms

The hubris of Michael Ignatieff comes through in this interview. Somebody must be bringing in the favors because once again the Globe & Mail fawn over him like any good PR agency should. Ignatieff warns PM against use of hardball tactics in Parliament

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has issued a warning to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he won't tolerate the misuse of confidence votes or hardball parliamentary tactics when MPs return next month to decide the government's
fate.

Hardball parliamentary tactics? As opposed to overturning an election?

“He took the wrong signal from the election. The signal he took was that he could try anything he wanted to and he grievously underestimated the Liberal Party of Canada. We've got our act together, got a leader chosen, and he can't keep making these misjudgments of the mood of the House and hope to survive.”

Iggy says Harper "grievously underestimated the Liberal Party of Canada." Oh please. The recent election was the Liberal Party's worst showing since Confederation. They are dead west of Ontario. They haven't had a majority in Quebec since the Trudeau era.

The Liberals have inked a deal with the New Democrats to take over government in a coalition, but Mr. Ignatieff has indicated he could back the budget if it delivers the appropriate economic help to increasingly anxious Canadians. The coalition came together after opposition parties were infuriated by an economic statement that, among other things, would have eliminated voter subsidies for political parties and suspended the right to strike of civil servants.

Point #1: OK. (deep breath) Globe and Mail people, one last time. The coalition deal is not just with the Liberals and the New Democrats. As we all know, the Liberal seats (77) + the NDP seats (37) = 114 seats, which is less than the 143 seats that the Conservatives have. So, to get the majority they publically signed on with the Bloc Quebecois who have 49 seats. Why do they keep pretending that the Bloc aren't part of the deal? I understand why the Liberals do that but why does the Globe?

Point #2 Does the Globe realize that eliminating voter subsidies and suspending fat cat government workers from striking is a popular move to the majority of the public?

Nonetheless, Mr. Ignatieff said liberal parties around the world are best positioned to take advantage of the current economic turmoil. International conservative leaders such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush rode the wave of looser market regulation that has been blamed for sparking the global financial crisis.

Take advantage? That's cold.... And by the way: Don't put Bush Sr., and Jr. in the same sentence as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Especially Bush Jr.

Intrigue In Ottawa

The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois have supposedly agreed to shoot-down a confidence vote on Monday.

Canada's opposition parties said Thursday they will vote against the Conservative government's fiscal update, sparking speculation the country could face another election in the midst of a global economic crisis.

I'm not going to get too excited about this because I simply don't believe it. The Liberals are leaderless and party funds are exhuasted. Canadians will be angry if they have to go to the polls again. It's all just bluster.

I welcome the Dippers and Liberals forming a coalition. Combined, they have 114 seats to the Tories 143. That means they'll have to join up with the Bloc, and no self respecting Liberal or NDP MP would want to be in government with separatists.

He might be sweating a little, but I think Harper is mostly sitting back and enjoying this.

UPDATE: Strack Attack wrote in the comments:

I'm starting to doubt my original thinking on this matter and maybe just maaaybe, the opposition is serious and will bring down the gov't. They have tabled a non-confidence motion and plan to put it in motion on Monday. Still this could merely be optics of playing tough this time around. The Tories can also avert this or postpone it with procedural tactics. Still, there seems to be some sort of agreement among the Dippers, Libs and Bloc and it appears Dion will lead it which in theory makes it all that much more plausible. Contrary to my own thinking the Libs must feel there is some sort of long term gain in doing this. I can't see them doing this for the good of the country. Who wants a flimsy coalition government lead by a guy who very few Canadians have confidence in to run our country through some of the craziest times we've had in decades? Did we not send a message saying just this a little more than a month ago??

UPDATE II: The Globe lists the opposition's gripes. This one has me hoping Harper hangs tough.

But it is the lack of movement on the economic front that both New Democrats and Liberals cited as the real impetus behind the decision to hold coalition talks. And neither party, they said, would be willing to back down unless the Conservatives do something dramatic in terms of economic stimulus — specifically help for the auto sector — over the next few days.

UPDATE III: Harper delaying the vote until December 8