Unusual for me, I finished Christmas shopping Wednesday, a full ten days before Christmas. Gifts are wrapped, put away, and I'm ready to contemplate the new year.
Neither Guildford nor Central City Shopping Centres seemed very crowded. In fact, I kidded the salesperson at the Bay at Guildford for the lack of staff. Whatever happened to holiday hiring? Much of the merchandise at the Bay was 40%-50% off (genuinely so, compared to other years, not just marked up to be marked down), but still little traffic.
The new 212,000 square foot Wal-Mart Super Centre at Guildford is now open, but not accessible from the main mall. It has a separate parking lot and entrance, and maybe that is part of the reason for fewer shoppers. I predicted a year ago when construction began that the new store (now including a large grocery section) would negatively impact the other businesses in the mall. We'll have to wait and see, but I'm not sure how stores can survive if they are empty during the Christmas season.
I had an afternoon dental appointment at Central City on Thursday, and it seemed empty as well. I had a laugh at Lucinda's jewelry, promoting everything at 80% off. The merchandise should have been flying off the shelves. Instead only one sales clerk, looking a bit forlorn. The only business with steady traffic seemed to be Tim Hortons, which always has a lineup. People do like to eat. I took home half a dozen doughnuts myself.
I'm not sure how the economic slowdown has impacted North Surrey. No new businesses are opening up, but then hardly any have closed. In the past, growth has been more dynamic, at least variable. Maybe just a sign of a maturing neighborhood.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Disciplining Staff
The knives seem to be out for Joe Paterno. We are rapidly learning about all of his shortcomings; things that were known for years, but no one was able to speak up, because of the mysterious power that he possessed at Penn State. We now know that he used off-colour language; told the odd tasteless joke; refused to retire when asked. Wow! Forget the good things he might have done: visiting kids in the hospital, contributing to the library, encouraging athletes to study. He's now a target.
Maybe he knew more about the child molestation scandal at Penn State than we know. Or maybe he heard rumours or noticed that his assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, was too attentive to young boys. But rumours, denied; or a coach being interested in young boys are not enough to file a police complaint. What do you usually do in these situations? Maybe talk to the employee, sound him out, give some advice, and discuss with your superior. In this case, Sandusky initially left his coaching position. Later, when more serious charges became known, Paterno referred the matter to the athletic director. Obviously, from what's now happening, he should have done more.
We had a wellness program at my workplace. Ideally, staff and management worked together to promote a healthy environment. From the standpoint of physical health, it worked well. We had little illness due to colds or flu or "calling in sick"; by far the greatest problem was stress. Sometimes staff had personal/relationship problems at home; sometimes conflicts arose in the workplace; sometimes underlying, emotional/psychological problems were triggered. We could refer staff to an occupational health doctor, if we felt that their conduct warranted it.
A fellow who worked at a downtown district office once complained to me that he didn't like working with social service clients; that he found it stressful. I offered him a position in our accounting office, thinking this might suit him better. A mistake. John soon transferred his stress to others, who became uncomfortable working with him, because of his erratic behaviour. He once stormed into my office just before lunch, handed in his resignation, on the grounds that he could no longer work with his co-workers, because their standard of performance was too low. Maybe I should have accepted it; but after lunch, he came back and sheepishly asked for his letter back, and I gave it to him. Eventually staff became concerned whether they were safe and started to turn their desks around, so that they could watch the door, in case he totally lost it. We sent him to occupational health for evaluation, were told that he wasn't dangerous, and that we should be more "sensitive" to his needs. Finally, when he put his supervisor on four months stress leave, my manager drew the line, kicked John out, and told Personnel to place him somewhere else. The point of this is that employees in public service positions have quite a few rights, and it is not a simple thing to discharge an employee without good cause, once they have passed a probationary period.
Over the years, I saw that an employee would be charged and fired for stealing money. Other offenses more or less had to be endured until a series of incidences indicating unsuitability for the job were established. This process included a letter of expectations, coaching, written reprimand, and suspension, before someone could be discharged. Usually, the problem employee would adjust or find other employment before this played out.
Maybe we'll find out that Paterno was more interested in "protecting the Penn State brand" than doing the right thing. The list of people I've stuck up for also includes Al Campanis, Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder, and Helen Thomas, all of whom said "dumb" things, and lost their jobs; but I thought were victims of "political correctness" and should have been allowed to explain themselves after some reflection.
Maybe he knew more about the child molestation scandal at Penn State than we know. Or maybe he heard rumours or noticed that his assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, was too attentive to young boys. But rumours, denied; or a coach being interested in young boys are not enough to file a police complaint. What do you usually do in these situations? Maybe talk to the employee, sound him out, give some advice, and discuss with your superior. In this case, Sandusky initially left his coaching position. Later, when more serious charges became known, Paterno referred the matter to the athletic director. Obviously, from what's now happening, he should have done more.
We had a wellness program at my workplace. Ideally, staff and management worked together to promote a healthy environment. From the standpoint of physical health, it worked well. We had little illness due to colds or flu or "calling in sick"; by far the greatest problem was stress. Sometimes staff had personal/relationship problems at home; sometimes conflicts arose in the workplace; sometimes underlying, emotional/psychological problems were triggered. We could refer staff to an occupational health doctor, if we felt that their conduct warranted it.
A fellow who worked at a downtown district office once complained to me that he didn't like working with social service clients; that he found it stressful. I offered him a position in our accounting office, thinking this might suit him better. A mistake. John soon transferred his stress to others, who became uncomfortable working with him, because of his erratic behaviour. He once stormed into my office just before lunch, handed in his resignation, on the grounds that he could no longer work with his co-workers, because their standard of performance was too low. Maybe I should have accepted it; but after lunch, he came back and sheepishly asked for his letter back, and I gave it to him. Eventually staff became concerned whether they were safe and started to turn their desks around, so that they could watch the door, in case he totally lost it. We sent him to occupational health for evaluation, were told that he wasn't dangerous, and that we should be more "sensitive" to his needs. Finally, when he put his supervisor on four months stress leave, my manager drew the line, kicked John out, and told Personnel to place him somewhere else. The point of this is that employees in public service positions have quite a few rights, and it is not a simple thing to discharge an employee without good cause, once they have passed a probationary period.
Over the years, I saw that an employee would be charged and fired for stealing money. Other offenses more or less had to be endured until a series of incidences indicating unsuitability for the job were established. This process included a letter of expectations, coaching, written reprimand, and suspension, before someone could be discharged. Usually, the problem employee would adjust or find other employment before this played out.
Maybe we'll find out that Paterno was more interested in "protecting the Penn State brand" than doing the right thing. The list of people I've stuck up for also includes Al Campanis, Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder, and Helen Thomas, all of whom said "dumb" things, and lost their jobs; but I thought were victims of "political correctness" and should have been allowed to explain themselves after some reflection.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Workplace Misconduct
After forty-six years on the job, Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno is fired, because he failed to report to the police alleged sexual abuse of young boys by an assistant no longer working under him. Apparently, he did report the situation to his superior, the athletic director. Maybe there's more to it, but this seems a bit harsh.
What do you normally do when you become aware of improper/possibly illegal conduct in the workplace? You evaluate the source and bring it to the attention of your superior. He may or may not act on it; but how far does your responsibility go if he doesn't? Do you go to his boss? Do you go to Human Resources? When do you take it upon yourself to contact the police?
Over the years, I've witnessed lots of improper conduct. Not assaults on children, but claims of sexual harassment, prohibited sexual use of e-mail, violations of labour laws, dishonest competitions, etc. I've taken these up with my superior. He, in turn, may take them up with his superior, with personnel, or ignore them. Doing more may invite some risk.
A co-worker once complained to me that she wasn't being paid overtime for hours worked in a week after forty-eight, as required by the Ontario Hours of Work Act. I asked my boss about it and was told it was none of my business. I brought it to the attention of the Employment Standards Branch of the Ministry of Labour, who said they didn't believe me, and only the victim could file a complaint anyway. I contacted the Canadian Labour Congress about union representation and told the staff what was going on. I was fired, although my employer said that I quit. I was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits for having "quit". It may seem humorous today, but filing complaints is a tricky business.
I've participated on employment interview panels, where it was obvious that a candidate had been given answers in advance. I once brought this to the attention of my boss, making him quite unhappy, because the person in question was the best friend of his assistant, who had typed the questions. A waste of time, but it was a public service position.
Claims of unwanted sexual attention are usually dealt with by a discussion with the parties involved, some direction as to future conduct, and possibly a reprimand. They are not always clear cut; one party pleads innocence; and they end up being monitored for future behaviour.
Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain insists that four complaints of sexual harassment brought against him are all false, and that he can't recall the incidents, although there were financial settlements in two of the cases. Those coming forward are now subject to additional harassment and hate mail. Making any form of negative allegation against those in more powerful positions is always perilous. They tend to be believed or the issue is dismissed to the accuser's detriment.
So we'll see what happens to Joe Paterno. If he didn't report the situation when he first knew about it, he would be failing his responsibility and deserves to be fired. But if he reported it and trusted others in higher positions to follow through, I have sympathy for him..
What do you normally do when you become aware of improper/possibly illegal conduct in the workplace? You evaluate the source and bring it to the attention of your superior. He may or may not act on it; but how far does your responsibility go if he doesn't? Do you go to his boss? Do you go to Human Resources? When do you take it upon yourself to contact the police?
Over the years, I've witnessed lots of improper conduct. Not assaults on children, but claims of sexual harassment, prohibited sexual use of e-mail, violations of labour laws, dishonest competitions, etc. I've taken these up with my superior. He, in turn, may take them up with his superior, with personnel, or ignore them. Doing more may invite some risk.
A co-worker once complained to me that she wasn't being paid overtime for hours worked in a week after forty-eight, as required by the Ontario Hours of Work Act. I asked my boss about it and was told it was none of my business. I brought it to the attention of the Employment Standards Branch of the Ministry of Labour, who said they didn't believe me, and only the victim could file a complaint anyway. I contacted the Canadian Labour Congress about union representation and told the staff what was going on. I was fired, although my employer said that I quit. I was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits for having "quit". It may seem humorous today, but filing complaints is a tricky business.
I've participated on employment interview panels, where it was obvious that a candidate had been given answers in advance. I once brought this to the attention of my boss, making him quite unhappy, because the person in question was the best friend of his assistant, who had typed the questions. A waste of time, but it was a public service position.
Claims of unwanted sexual attention are usually dealt with by a discussion with the parties involved, some direction as to future conduct, and possibly a reprimand. They are not always clear cut; one party pleads innocence; and they end up being monitored for future behaviour.
Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain insists that four complaints of sexual harassment brought against him are all false, and that he can't recall the incidents, although there were financial settlements in two of the cases. Those coming forward are now subject to additional harassment and hate mail. Making any form of negative allegation against those in more powerful positions is always perilous. They tend to be believed or the issue is dismissed to the accuser's detriment.
So we'll see what happens to Joe Paterno. If he didn't report the situation when he first knew about it, he would be failing his responsibility and deserves to be fired. But if he reported it and trusted others in higher positions to follow through, I have sympathy for him..
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Occupy Surrey
Former U. S. Presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush spoke this morning at the Surrey Regional Economic Summit held at the Sheraton Guildford Hotel in Surrey, British Columbia. 
Previously, Amnesty International had announced that Canada should arrest President Bush for war crimes when he came to Surrey. As a result, some of the Greater Vancouver "Occupiers" arrived to demonstrate against Bush's appearance. The location is five minutes from my house, so I ventured up to take a few pictures.
There were plenty of police on site, just to make sure that no one thought about rushing into the hotel and upsetting the conference, chaired by Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts and attended by BC Premier Christy Clark.
Over the years, the police have gotten smarter about controlling crowds wanting to convey a message. Although lined up in front of the Sheraton, they didn't object to demonstrators taking over the westbound traffic lane and provided flaggers to slow the traffic going eastbound.
Years ago, stepping off the curb might have resulted in action with the baton. Today, the demonstrators and the police stood pretty much next to each other, each content to let the other fulfill their mission.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Taxes and Social Equity
I don't really mind paying my taxes. I can afford them; and I feel an obligation to pay my share for public services. Of course, taxes should be fair and equitable, meaning that those who benefit should pay and those who have more should pay more. They should also be collectible.
Taxes in the U. S. are a big issue, largely because of a sense that they are not fair and equitable. Apparently, 47% of American households pay no income tax, creating a resentment among the "53%" who do. Having spent my life with others who worked and paid taxes, I was somewhat surprised to hear this. Canada Revenue Agency was immediately questioned and assured the public that only 34% of Canadians didn't pay, being primarily those earning minimum wage, part-timers, students, seniors on pension, and the disabled. This figure seemed more reasonable and not much more was heard about it.
The other issue in the U. S. is that the wealthy don't pay an equitable share, because of low tax rates and available deductions. I noticed that Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest men in the U. S., reportedly pays a lower marginal tax rate (17.5%) and a lower percentage of income (about 10%) as taxes than I do. My enthusiasm waned a bit, but then maybe he gives a lot to charity.
Of course, I feel that I justly should pay. I read a survey, however, than only 18% pay all of their income taxes, because it's the right thing to do. 32% pay out of fear of being caught cheating. (Fair enough; I have to own this, too.) But then another 38% cheat to some extent; and 12% completely evade taxes. Statistics like this may not be terrible, but they definitely make me think another system might be fairer.
The real need is to maintain a middle class with productive, well-paying jobs. When there is a growing economy, there is better feeling towards the Government, less pressure to cheat, less concern about the "lazy" unemployed, less resentment of the wealthy, and fewer demands that immigrants be deported.
One effect of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement is to give an alternative to the "Tea Party". While the "Occupiers" concerns are amorphous, multiple, and social, they contrast to the "Tea Party" approach of reaction, self-absorption, and individualism. The "Tea Party" resents paying taxes; the "Occupiers" want a more equitable society. The "Occupiers" are resented by the established players as a threat to their control.
For the time being, the "Occupiers" are being tolerated with the belief that they will die out. It will be interesting to see if a movement generated by the social media can expand and have a permanent impact, potentially creating a fairer, more accessible, democratic, inclusive, and equal society.
Taxes in the U. S. are a big issue, largely because of a sense that they are not fair and equitable. Apparently, 47% of American households pay no income tax, creating a resentment among the "53%" who do. Having spent my life with others who worked and paid taxes, I was somewhat surprised to hear this. Canada Revenue Agency was immediately questioned and assured the public that only 34% of Canadians didn't pay, being primarily those earning minimum wage, part-timers, students, seniors on pension, and the disabled. This figure seemed more reasonable and not much more was heard about it.
The other issue in the U. S. is that the wealthy don't pay an equitable share, because of low tax rates and available deductions. I noticed that Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest men in the U. S., reportedly pays a lower marginal tax rate (17.5%) and a lower percentage of income (about 10%) as taxes than I do. My enthusiasm waned a bit, but then maybe he gives a lot to charity.
Of course, I feel that I justly should pay. I read a survey, however, than only 18% pay all of their income taxes, because it's the right thing to do. 32% pay out of fear of being caught cheating. (Fair enough; I have to own this, too.) But then another 38% cheat to some extent; and 12% completely evade taxes. Statistics like this may not be terrible, but they definitely make me think another system might be fairer.
The real need is to maintain a middle class with productive, well-paying jobs. When there is a growing economy, there is better feeling towards the Government, less pressure to cheat, less concern about the "lazy" unemployed, less resentment of the wealthy, and fewer demands that immigrants be deported.
One effect of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement is to give an alternative to the "Tea Party". While the "Occupiers" concerns are amorphous, multiple, and social, they contrast to the "Tea Party" approach of reaction, self-absorption, and individualism. The "Tea Party" resents paying taxes; the "Occupiers" want a more equitable society. The "Occupiers" are resented by the established players as a threat to their control.
For the time being, the "Occupiers" are being tolerated with the belief that they will die out. It will be interesting to see if a movement generated by the social media can expand and have a permanent impact, potentially creating a fairer, more accessible, democratic, inclusive, and equal society.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Pandering to the Right
Fortunately, when it comes to Republican Presidential debates, I can switch to another channel or find something useful to do. I've tried watching a few times, but my tolerance (even pretending that it's only entertainment) runs out after a few minutes.
Whether it's Rick Perry (Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme; If you think I can be bought for $5,000, I'm offended); Newt Gingrich (Building a mosque anywhere near the Twin Towers site is Muslim "Triumphalism"); Rick Santorum (I believe American "Exceptionalism" should guide the world); Herman Cain (Wouldn't appoint a Muslim to his cabinet; Blacks are "brainwashed" into voting Democratic); Ron Paul (If you can't afford health insurance, you may die, but that's the risk you take); or Michele Bachmann (The Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery; Jesus Christ is the creator of the Universe!; Giving adolescents vaccine for cervical cancer causes mental retardation); they seem to be a group out of touch with any progressive thinking.
Of course, they are pandering to the extreme right of the Republican party, and the extremes frequently win primaries, although their candidates generally fail in general elections. But what if one of these actually became President? The United States has had weak Presidents in the Nineteenth Century, but has never had a blatantly unqualified person in the Twentieth. At some point there is a risk of nullification by the public, refusing to accept the election results (as the Southern States did after the election of Lincoln).
The Republicans have two mainstream (and qualified) choices in Mitt Romney and John Huntsman. Romney is not the choice of the "Tea Party", having shifted on a number of issues after being Governor of Massachusetts; and Huntsman is unable to attract much support, having been President Obama's Ambassador to China.
It's been a sour summer listening to these people, including the "debt ceiling" spectacle. I realize that I can ignore them, but it almost means blocking out the U. S. news.
Whether it's Rick Perry (Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme; If you think I can be bought for $5,000, I'm offended); Newt Gingrich (Building a mosque anywhere near the Twin Towers site is Muslim "Triumphalism"); Rick Santorum (I believe American "Exceptionalism" should guide the world); Herman Cain (Wouldn't appoint a Muslim to his cabinet; Blacks are "brainwashed" into voting Democratic); Ron Paul (If you can't afford health insurance, you may die, but that's the risk you take); or Michele Bachmann (The Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery; Jesus Christ is the creator of the Universe!; Giving adolescents vaccine for cervical cancer causes mental retardation); they seem to be a group out of touch with any progressive thinking.
Of course, they are pandering to the extreme right of the Republican party, and the extremes frequently win primaries, although their candidates generally fail in general elections. But what if one of these actually became President? The United States has had weak Presidents in the Nineteenth Century, but has never had a blatantly unqualified person in the Twentieth. At some point there is a risk of nullification by the public, refusing to accept the election results (as the Southern States did after the election of Lincoln).
The Republicans have two mainstream (and qualified) choices in Mitt Romney and John Huntsman. Romney is not the choice of the "Tea Party", having shifted on a number of issues after being Governor of Massachusetts; and Huntsman is unable to attract much support, having been President Obama's Ambassador to China.
It's been a sour summer listening to these people, including the "debt ceiling" spectacle. I realize that I can ignore them, but it almost means blocking out the U. S. news.
Friday, September 16, 2011
La Paz - Historic Place
The United Farm Workers Union headquarters at Keene, California, Nuestra Senora Reina de La Paz (Our Lady Queen of Peace), has been added to the National Register of Historic Places. Union founder Cesar Chavez worked and lived there from 1971 until his death in 1993.Originally a tuberculosis treatment centre, the property was purchased and donated to the Union in 1970. I was a volunteer at the Union headquarters in Delano in April 1971 when Cesar decided to move the central Union offices to La Paz.
The site wasn't much. It had an administration building, a small hospital, a dining room, a couple of houses, and a few small cottages. A few trailers were brought in for married couples. Staff moved into the hospital; spent a week painting; and set up the Union administration, legal, boycott, accounting, and data processing offices, as well as the Robert F. Kennedy Farm Worker Medical Plan.
There wasn't any money for improvements. Cesar was very sensitive about appearing to be benefit personally from the Union, and La Paz was left in a fairly primitive condition. There were vague plans about transforming the property into a retreat for farm workers, but that was for some time in the future.
Today, La Paz is somewhat changed. The National Chavez Centre includes a visitors centre, conference facilities, a museum, monuments, and gardens. The walks are paved and there are stone benches. Nice facilities, perhaps what Cesar would have wanted, but I wonder what the cost has been. One thing Cesar was very opposed to was creating a cult of personality around him. Once, Ben Maddock at the print shop in Delano produced a badge with Cesar's picture on it, framed with "Boycott the Hell Out of Them". Cesar became angry when he saw it and made Ben destroy the badges. He said that the Union was about farm workers, and the last thing he wanted was to give the impression of self-promotion.
 |
| Cesar Chavez Gravesite |
I'm not suggesting that there is anything excessive about what's been done at La Paz. However, when you have nice facilities and start paying staff good salaries, it may be harder to recruit volunteers and maintain grassroots support. The social and economic justice aspect diminishes, and the organization starts looking like a business. There is also some irony in making a modern facility a historic site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)