Friday, July 11, 2008

Mormons get dragged into the 21st century...

... kicking and screaming.



A firefighter-style calendar featuring shirtless mormons has created controversy in the mormon community (surprise!). Does their bible state that men can't pose in calendars? Are they not allowed to take their shirts off? Are mormon women not allowed to view their husbands as sex symbols when they make love? Are mormons only allowed to take personality into consideration when choosing a mate?

Oh well. There's no stopping progress...

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Good news and bad news, as your Prime Minister continues to ignore democracy...

As part of a day of action across Canada, I took part in a war resisters demonstration this evening. In Toronto, we formed a human chain along University Avenue, all the way from Queen Street to the US consulate. I'm keen to hear an estimate of the numbers who turned out; standing as part of a human chain, you can't really get a feel for how large the crowd was. But it was clear to me that there is a lot of support for the cause, as indicated by the numbers of passing drivers honking horns - especially taxi drivers. Well - that, and the consistent evidence from polls which show that a clear majority of Canadians want the war resisters to be allowed to stay in Canada.

I was worried that a lot of people who had planned to come out for the demo would bail at the last minute, as word spreads that Corey Glass - whose imminent deportation was scheduled for tomorrow - has had his deportation stayed indefinitely so his appeal can be heard. The demo and the fight are no less urgent as news also spreads that war resister Robin Long has been imprisoned and is to be deported, possibly as soon as Monday. So it was great to see such a good turnout.

Our scumbag of a Prime Minister is still playing from the Bush rule book, defying the will of the people and pretending he hasn't heard of democracy. He has a mandate to implement the motion, as passed in the House of Commons, to allow the war resisters to stay.

Once again, please call and remind Harper to do the right thing.
• Prime Minister Stephen Harper (613.992.4211, pm@pm.gc.ca)
• Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Diane Finley (613.996.4974, finley.d@parl.gc.ca, finled1@parl.gc.ca).

Sunday, July 6, 2008

A Letter to the Prime Minister

Dear Mr. Harper/ Ms Finley:

Polls consistently show that the majority of Canadians want the American war resisters to be allowed to remain in Canada. As you are well aware, a majority in the House of Commons also voted to allow the war resisters to stay.

Mr. Harper, did you not once state (on April 13, 2005), in the House of Commons, "The Prime Minister has the moral responsibility to respect the will of the House"?

As a Canadian, the very least I expect is that my own Prime Minister respect the concept of democracy. That means you have a moral obligation to implement the House of Commons motion to allow the war resisters to stay in Canada, and also to stop the deportation of war resister Corey Glass on July 10.


Three days remain until war resister Corey Glass is to be deported.
Phone or email Prime Minister Stephen Harper (613.992.4211, pm@pm.gc.ca) and Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Diane Finley (613.996.4974, finley.d@parl.gc.ca, finled1@parl.gc.ca).

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

On Tipping, and Workers' Rights

As one of my first jobs, I bussed tables at a busy restaurant downtown. Although never a server myself, I worked closely with the servers, and as part of the payment structure of this particular restaurant, received a cut of the servers' tips, which - during a lunch rush with seven servers - was often substantial. In Ontario, restaurant servers can be paid below minimum wage because they receive tips to supplement their income. At restaurants that are expensive and/or busy, servers can make a great deal of money.

Working in foodservice, I became acquainted with advantages and disadvantages of this system, including: the injustice of diners who don't tip fairly (either because they are stingy or because they may be from countries where restaurant servers are not tipped); the use of tips to show appreciation or displeasure; and servers who are rude to customers and wonder why they earn less than their coworkers. (An aside: I've read that Americans think Canadians are lousy tippers. But where I worked - in Eaton Centre, where a large part of the clientele are tourists - servers regarded the American tourists as lousy tippers. Maybe it's a problem with tourists in general?)

Recently, I met friends for dinner and drinks on a patio at a pub. The place wasn't full, but it was busy with a large party inside. Our server was polite and amiable, but... absent. Throughout the night, we had to flag him down for every request or refill; he was completely cooperative, but not attentive. He did the bare minimum; at no time did he check in to see how we were, ask how our food was, or find out if we wanted anything else.

A little background here: all five of us are socialists, and are well aware of the struggle for workers' rights. Many socialists will support workers' rights unconditionally. So at the end of the night, when I suggested an adequate but not generous tip, one of my friends pointed out that restaurant servers are underpaid, and that the tip should not be contingent on the quality of service. I was caught off guard by this view, but becoming involved in activism in general has taught me to challenge and question the same old opinions I have held for many years. Should servers be given a standard tip, regardless of how they perform their duties?

Pro
• Consider other professions: lawyers, doctors, teachers, non-commissioned sales people, plumbers, and construction workers, to name a few. All are paid a standard salary - some with performance-based perks (as a private school teacher, I received some pretty nice gifts at xmas and year-end). But none are dependent, daily, on their customers' - or anyone else's - behaviour, for their pay. Why should restaurant work be any different?
• Servers' tips are frequently divided, with shares going to other employees who don't have contact with the customers. Should cooks or dishwashers be punished because the server might be incompetent?
• Should a worker in a shitty job in a shitty workplace be punished for being unable to smile? The right-wing viewpoint that anyone in capitalist society can climb to the top doesn't jibe with the reality of the worker living below the poverty line (often an immigrant, or a single mother - or both) who works two or three jobs to make ends meet, and doesn't have the time or resources to hit the pavement to find something better.

Con
• There is a class of worker - typically actors or college students - who may also need their money for basic living expenses, but who come in with certain expectations and perhaps a sense of entitlement as to what they "deserve" out of life. This is a gross generalization, but what I refer to is the type of person who can easily look for a different line of work if need be. They are not desperate to make ends meet, and often their income is blown on luxuries. A number of people I've worked with spent much of their disposable income on recreational drugs. It is often this type who seem to think the tip at the end of the meal is mandatory, rather than voluntary. That very attitude is something that gets my back up, and leaves me struggling to decide how much to pay at the end of the meal.
• The system is imperfect, but so are many of our society's structures. Those who take on a job as a restaurant server know at the outset what the payment system entails, and have to realize that the gratuity portion of their income is never guaranteed.
• If every customer paid a full 15% to every server, regardless of quality of service, it would remove any incentive for servers to do their jobs well.

Back to the case of my recent pub night: it could be that management erred by not ensuring enough staff were on duty, in which case it is the management that should be blamed for poor service, and not the servers. (It seemed to me that the restaurant was well staffed.) But a short-staffing situation can be partly rectified if the server explains the situation to the customer, which I have witnessed on occasion, and a warning to the customer can be very good PR: it sets up the customer's expectations in advance, calls attention a difficult situation, and prevents the build-up of resentment through the stay.

This past weekend, we had an annual Pride pub meet (at the same pub every year). The place is always busy on Pride Saturday, and there is never enough staff. Yet a friend commented on the fact that he has noticed how the staff are always cheerful despite conditions, and the service is always more than adequate. In addition to being gay-friendly, they are always efficient and more than accommodating to help us squeeze a large group onto their busy front patio. For this kind of service, I am always happy to tip generously. Shouldn't there be a distinction for this kind of service?

In thinking this through over the last week or so, what I realize is that there are two situations: the underpaid worker who needs the tips for actual survival, vs. the young, able-bodied person who seeks a server position with the specific intent to earn part of their income tax-free, and is not willing to adjust behaviour to the often heavy demands of such a job. It's not that hard to recognize the distinction between the two. I already make a point of generously tipping the former in most cases, although I'd still have trouble leaving a full tip if the service were really nasty. In the case of the latter, though, I am not convinced that anyone deserves to be given the free "pass go and collect $200" card.

I don't think we should follow tradition for its own sake. In an imperfect system, I think I've settled on a happy medium. But I'm open to other ideas...

Saturday, June 28, 2008

Day of Action: July 2

The majority of Canadians support the Iraq war resisters' bid to stay in Canada. The majority in parliament voted to allow them to stay. Yet Stephen Harper has not moved to implement the motion. Doesn't he believe in democracy?

It was our actions - phone calls to Stephane Dion and Liberal MPs - which finally got the Liberals onside in this fight, which led to the victory in the House of Commons. Now, we need to do the same with Harper and the Conservatives. And the clock is ticking: Corey Glass is scheduled to be deported on July 10th, unless we can move the Conservatives to act.

I made my first phone call to Stephane Dion during the earlier campaign, and was surprised at how easy it was. Someone took my comments and said they would be passed on. They didn't ask me for any personal information. The call was over in about a minute.

On July 2, please call! It can make all the difference. Tell them to:
• stop deportation proceedings against Corey Glass and all US Iraq war resisters, and
• implement the motion adopted by Parliament to allow US Iraq war resisters to apply for permanent resident status.

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Diane Finley:
• Ottawa office 613.996.4974
• constituency office 519.426.3400
• minister@cic.gc.ca
• finled1@parl.gc.ca

(Thanks to Laura at wmtc for the information.)

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Introducing John McCain

For those of you like me - for whom any tv appearance by American Republican politicians necessitates changing of the channel to anything else (even desert-island reality tv) - you may not have listened closely to John McCain. One thing is certain: if McCain gets into the white house, depite the damage he'll do, he will provide us with four more years of Bush-style amusement. Take a look here (it's just over 3 minutes), and in particular, note his comments about the economy in the second half.




Yike.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Happy Pride!

As Pride Week begins in Toronto, I have to comment on a recent incident in the music world. Last week, at a concert in Norway, a spectator threw a shoe at Queens of the Stone Age frontman Josh Homme (is that really his name?). He responded by calling the spectator a "chicken shit fucking faggot". After news media labelled him "homophobic", he released a statement which the media referred to as an "apology", but which in reality is anything but. In his words:

"My gay family & friends, as well as myself, KNOW I am not a homophobe. For years now I've known gay is not a choice; one's skin color doesn't determine one's intelligence level; & red hair doesn't mean you're someone's stepchild. You see, it's not the words, it's their intent. I never said, nor suggested, that being gay is wrong, but apparently, based on your outrage to my flu-infused rant, you do!"


Blaming illness, he launched this rambling rant (the above is just a short sample) against the critics who called him "homophobic". He also plays the "I have gay friends" card, and attributes the criticisms to being PC, implying that on this basis, the entire issue can and should be dismissed.

The thing is, the key to the problem is right in his statement: "it's not the words, it's their intent". Homme intended to insult and degrade the spectator, and he used the word "faggot" to do so. When you use a derogatory term like "faggot", you derogate the people it refers to, and for no reason other than that they are gay. The implications of the word do not vanish simply because you say you mean well, or because you have friends who are gay.

Homme says all the right things - that being gay is not a choice, that being gay is not wrong, and that it is genetic (something we are all increasingly aware of - see the latest news about the study of brain symmetry in gay men and straight women). And I do accept that he is not to be lumped into the category of men who physically attack gays. But his words indicate a disconnect - one that his gay friends would do well to note.

The gay community long ago took ownership of the word "faggot", in retaliation for its use as a slur. Gays can use the term without negative connotation, and sometimes with affection. Straights with close ties to the gay community can sometimes use the word in the same sense, but its use in this sense can be easily misunderstood and should be done with extreme caution.

The sad thing here is that Homme is concerned only with attacking his critics, instead of dealing with the people who have been offended - some of whom are undoubtedly his fans. Would it have killed the guy to have simply acknowledged that he had hurt some people, and to have said he was sorry?

And for those who are still unsure: if he had used the word "nigger", we wouldn't even be bothering to have this debate.

Have a good Pride Week.