The basic gist of it -

"I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It's purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them. If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client's success or progress was not part of the thought process at all.

It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as "muppets," sometimes over internal e-mail. Even after the S.E.C., Fabulous Fab, Abacus, God's work, Carl Levin, Vampire Squids? No humility? I mean, come on. Integrity? It is eroding. I don't know of any illegal behavior, but will people push the envelope and pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client's goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact."

When is our labour movement going to start fighting back?

Two key goals were to get people thinking about corporate tax cuts and test the use of social media. We seem to have succeeded on both fronts and the learning about social media will be extremely valuable.

If you're interested in hearing about what we've learned, please give me a call in a week or two. Right now we're focused on keeping the ball rolling.

Phil

"Tories may be born not made, claims a study that suggests people with right-wing views have a larger area of the brain associated with fear," The Daily Telegraph reports. "Scientists have found that people with conservative views have brains with larger amygdalas, almond-shaped areas in the centre of the brain often associated with anxiety and emotions. On the other hand, they have a smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life. The 'exciting' correlation was found by scientists at University College London who scanned the brains of two members of parliament and a number of students."

My favorite --

Unions raise productivity on average by up to 24% in manufacturing, 16% in hospitals, and 38% in construction. Union workers have higher professional standards because unions increase opportunities for worker training. Many even offer their own training programs.

Canada discovers trickle-up economics

There was always skepticism about claims that, as the rich became richer, income would "trickle down" to others. What wasn't perhaps foreseen was that the trickling would actually be in the other direction, and that it would be more of a torrent than a trickle.

But the evidence is now clear. Over the last three decades, the tables of the rich have overflowed, with barely any scraps falling off. On the contrary, there's been a massive transfer of income and wealth from Canada's middle and lower class to the rich.

The result is that Canada has become a highly unequal society.

This is bad news, since a growing body of empirical evidence shows that extreme inequality has a clearly negative effect on a wide range of health, social and economic problems, as well as undermining democracy.

While some degree of inequality is inevitable and even desirable (allowing bigger rewards for those making bigger contributions), the level of inequality that exists today in the Anglo-American countries -- the United States, Britain and Canada -- is extreme, and almost unique in the advanced world.

This is a dramatic departure from the far greater equality that prevailed in the U.S. and Canada in the early postwar years -- from 1945 to about 1980 -- when the benefits of economic growth were more widely shared.

In the 1950s and 1960s, for instance, the real median family income in Canada was growing fast enough to double every 20 years. Since 1980, it has barely grown at all.

Middle class families have only managed to maintain their standard of living by working much harder than their parents, typically relying today on two incomes instead of one.

Meanwhile, at the top, things have been hopping. Indeed, virtually all the income growth in the last 30 years has gone to the top.

As a recent study by economist Armine Yalnizyan of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives documents, the top-earning 1 per cent of Canadians almost doubled their share of national income, from 7.7 per cent to 13.8 per cent, over the past three decades.

And the higher up the food chain, the bigger the gains. The richest 0.01 per cent -- those now earning on average $3.8 million a year -- more than quintupled their share of national income.

All this can be captured vividly by imagining a "national income parade," a concept developed by Dutch statistician Jan Penn to measure income inequality.

Everyone in the country marches in the parade, with heights determined by incomes, starting with the shortest (poorest) citizens and ending with the tallest (richest). What is striking is how low to the ground almost everyone in the parade is -- except for a small number of giants at the end.

If we compare the Canadian income parade of the late 1970s to today's parade, we find very little difference -- not much has changed, that is -- except at the very end.

In the 1970s parade, the final marcher towers above his fellow citizens, measuring more than 200 feet tall, about one-sixth the height of the CN Tower. In today's parade, however, the head of the final marcher is no longer visible to marchers on the ground; even if they proceed to the CN Tower viewing deck, they're not even up to his knees.

The massive upward flow of income has largely been invisible to the public, even though it may well amount to the most significant change in Canadian society in decades.

The impact on Canada's social fabric is huge and likely to grow. Recent research -- particularly the work of British epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett -- shows that less equal societies almost always have more violence, more disease, more mental health problems, higher infant mortality rates, reduced life expectancies, as well as less social cohesion. The effects are most pronounced at the bottom, but are evident throughout the society.

Perhaps most striking is the finding that people in less equal societies have reduced social mobility. In fact, there's little upward mobility today in the United States. Those wanting to give their children a chance to actually live the American Dream are better off moving to Sweden.

There's also evidence linking extreme inequality with serious economic problems. The level of inequality reached in 2008 was virtually identical to that of 1929, suggesting that large concentrations of wealth at the top create a dynamic leading to reckless financial speculation and Wall Street crashes -- with their devastating consequences of recession and unemployment.

But perhaps the most important impact of concentrated economic power is on democracy. As the great American jurist Louis Brandeis put it: "We can have democracy . . . or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few. We cannot have both."

Efforts to limit the political influence of the wealthy -- such as the tighter campaign contribution laws brought in by the Chrétien government -- are useful, but can't deal with the scope of the problem.

The wealthy exert influence not just through campaign contributions, but at every stage of the political process: in the forming of political parties, the writing of party platforms, the selection of candidates, the drafting and amending of legislation, not to mention the shaping of public opinion through think-tanks and media ownership.

The wealthy also often employ a form of blackmail, either directly or indirectly threatening they'll leave the country if governments don't capitulate to their demands for lower taxes. While it's hard to imagine political leaders caving in to similar threats from other groups -- say, electricians or teachers -- the sheer economic power of the wealthy seems to quickly bring governments to heel.

Oddly, there's been little probing of why income has gone so heavily to the top in recent years.

It's hard to find any justification for the fact that, while the average CEO was making about 25 times the average worker in the late 1970s, today's average CEO makes roughly 250 times the average worker.

Certainly there's no evidence that today's CEOs or other top-earning Canadians are any more talented, productive or hard-working than their 1970s counterparts.

The change is often attributed to "globalization," although this fails to explain why it hasn't happened in other advanced nations that also compete successfully in the global economy -- like Germany, Japan and the Scandinavian countries.

A more likely explanation is that the rich have used their clout to get governments in the United States, Britain and Canada to change the rules, redirecting economic benefits to themselves.

They convinced governments, for instance, to alter the rules governing executive stock options, making them much more lucrative. (Although only about one-third of Canada's top corporations were using stock options early in the 1990s, they were all were using them by the end of the decade. The value of stock options for Canadian CEOs exceeded their salaries by 300 per cent.)

The rich also managed to use their control of corporate boards to push up executive compensation. Since corporate boards are largely made up of corporate executives, a decision to raise the salary of an individual CEO helps set a higher standard for executive pay generally, benefitting all board members.

"They have a conflict of interest, since they have a stake in high financial salaries," notes Richard Posner, a critic of today's executive compensation (and also, incidentally, the judge who recently turned down Conrad Black's U.S. legal appeal).

The rich also greatly enriched themselves by convincing governments to lower their taxes. Whereas the top marginal tax rate -- the rate paid on income above a certain level -- averaged 80 per cent in Canada in the early postwar years; it is now just 46 per cent (39 per cent in Alberta).

It was argued that lower taxes would encourage better performances at the top, increasing overall economic growth.

But that didn't happen. On the contrary, economic growth rates were higher in the early postwar years -- roughly twice as high -- as they've been since 1980.

This suggests that higher taxes on the rich -- like those in the early postwar era -- do not discourage economic growth.

In fact, the introduction of an inheritance tax in Canada (like ones that exist in almost all advanced nations) would enable Ottawa to collect enough revenue to create educational trust funds for all Canadian children, thereby significantly improving national productivity.

Yet anyone advocating higher taxes on the rich is quickly denounced by groups like the right-wing Fraser Institute. Mark Milke, a commentator with the institute, dismisses concerns about rising inequality in Canada as merely the product of envy, or what he calls the "green-eyed beast."

As the rich manage to direct more and more of society's resources toward themselves, the appropriate response for the rest of us, apparently, is to celebrate their good fortune.

Linda McQuaig is co-author, with Neil Brooks, of The Trouble with Billionaires, published by Viking Canada. Her column appears every other Tuesday.

Instead of a media based campaign to get out their message on the value of public services and tax fairness, they're trying to create a word of mouth campaign. "Champions of Change" are out spreading the word to individuals and small groups and the website has tools and resources to help anyone promote the cause with friends, family and co-workers.

It's a strategy that the U.S. Republican party uses. They have training camps for believers that teach them how to promote conservative politics and values in their daily life. But it's only one part of much broader program that involves think tanks, message management, media networks such as Clear Channel radio and Fox News, and advertising when it's needed. That means that the individuals who are spreading the word one-on-one are constantly reinforced by a much bigger communications/propaganda program. That gives them confidence and a more receptive audience.

All Together Now doesn't appear to have all that extra support for its Champions of Change. It makes their job harder and I hope their enthusiasm doesn't flag. This type of campaign can be a long haul.

Visit the site. It has a lot of thought provoking info. My favorite part is a piece by Ish Theilheimer from StraightGoods. Check it out.

The site will help low income families take advantage of the $2,000 Canada Learning Bond made available by the Federal Government through Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RESPs). Currently, less than 20% of eligible families apply for this no-strings-attached funding.

Creating the site in 14 languages was a challenge but I think the experience will be applicable in much of our work. Both union member and public campaigns, especially in Toronto, are going to have to go this way to remain effective.

If you have any way of spreading the word about SmartSaver, it would be much appreciated and could make a real difference. Research indicates that children with even a small amount set aside for education are much more likely to go on to post-secondary education.

The Canada Learning Bond is available to families with net incomes below $40,900. It provides an initial tax-free grant of $500 for the RESP of every child born in 2004 or later whose family qualifies for the National Child Benefit Supplement and $100 for every following year, up to a total of $2,000.

Families don't need to put any money into the RESP to receive that bond money; they just need to set up an RESP and apply.

For many unions, buying media space is a once in a while thing and they can't be expected to be media experts. But that's no reason to pay more than you have to.

Here are the best ways to reduce the cost of media -

1. Accredited advertising agencies like us get a 15% commission from the media when we buy. It doesn't cost you more. The media just give us 15% of what they would charge you if you went to them directly. The thing is, if it's a fairly simple media buy, 15% is way more than we need to pay for the work involved. We often take less than 15% and give the difference back to our clients. A few per cent on a media buy can make a real difference. So ask your media buyer what commission they're making.

2. Negotiations can make an even bigger difference than commissions. When you ask the media for a price, they give you their published rate card rate. But when you approach them with money in your hand and ready to buy, negotiating can make a huge difference. In the example above, the Star would have told us something around $60,000 but we knew that was just the starting point. We negotiated $40,000 and passed the savings along. On other occasions we've been able to get bonus time or space at no additional cost. Not everyone can negotiate. It takes strong relationships with the media and the fact that we buy quite a bit of media gives us the ability to get the best deals. So ask your media buyer what discounts they're able to negotiate and make sure they pass them along to you.

3. As a not-for-profit you're entitled to an automatic discount with many media. Be sure to ask for it.

4. Print media have significant volume discounts and your volume can be calculated over a year. If you have two or more campaigns during a year, make sure you get pricing based on the total amount you're buying.

5. Try and book your media early. Sales reps, especially in radio, jack up their rates as their inventory sells out and for last minute bookings.

6. Ask for seasonal discounts. Outdoor advertising should be cheaper in the winter. TV should be a little cheaper in the summer.

I hope this helps you at some point in the future. If you have any media planning and buying coming up, feel free to give me a call and I'll do my best to save you some money.

The decision-making process is a lot more democratic, which can be time-consuming and at times frustrating, but is usually a good thing in the end.

And the time lines are usually a lot shorter, which doesn't give you as much think time as you'd like, but certainly gets the adrenaline pumping.

But the big difference is you. Every single union person we've worked with is doing what he or she does because they believe in it. They believe in their union, their members' rights, fairness, social justice...the whole package. And that is incredibly inspiring.

A communications person in the cell phone business would be just as happy to be flogging pizza, diapers or beer. But you're different.

Thanks for that.