This is my Summer Blog, it is active from May 01 - September 30, and will update Tuesdays and Thursdays. A blog about writing, breaking into the publishing arena, my experiences, Warhammer 40k, Warmachine, and whatever else comes to mind.
I may be able to get in trouble for this, I don't know, but when has that stopped me before?
In Canada minimum wage is 10.25$, or 10.23$ American, according to the Bank of Canada.
Now, this is a reasonable minimum wage, assuming that the worker is given adequate hours, and that he is treated well by his Boss, and his workplace environment.
Apparently, however, this minimum does not apply to Students working as a Camp Counsellor: I cannot begin to understand why. In the very near future, I will be working for the [un-named camp place] of Canada, and I will be earning less than minimum wage, and this is legal. In a 40 hour work week, I will be earning 360$. This works out to 9$ an hour, but it gets better. At the [un-named camp place] (and the job hasn't started yet, so I may be jumping the gun, but I'll update you when I know for sure) the children to counsellor ratio ranges from 6 to 1, to 10 to 1 depending on the children. What is guaranteed by the Canadian government is one half hour break for every 5 hours of work: this break is to be uninterupted, and is free time for the employee. I am wondering how I am going to find free time when I am supervising 10 children? Is there going to be another supervisor? Will these breaks be offered in shifts? Or is my break meant to be the brief period that these children are not running in circles around me?
Anyways: beyond this, I see a few more issues, and I am begining to worry about whether the [un-named camp place] offers an exploitative work environment (again, I'll offer a more clear analysis when I've been working there for a while). I am going to work from 8:30 to 5:30, 5 days a week. 9 x 5 = 45 hours a week. If I work 45 hours a week, I am making slightly less that 8$ an hour. Furthermore: I am responsible for activities, planning, and other elements of work, outside of this alloted time. These tasks include calls to parents, designing a curriculum, and dressing up for themed days. All of this, to me, casts a lot of doubt on the nature of this job, but, and here is the kicker: its the best job offer I can get this summer.
Making 8$ an hour for 45 hours is the most money I'm going to make this summer, barring a miracle. Not to mention that experience as a camp counsellor looks great on applications to teacher college. So, I'm divided: this could be a great experience, or a horrible one. I'm looking forward to working in a situation that plays to my abilities and experience working with children, but I'm also worried this job is using me. If it is using me, God knows I'll be blogging about it, and using the name of the place too.
All this being said: what the hell Canada? If 10.25$ is our minimum wage, it needs to be the same across the board, or we need to stop mis-representing it as such. As far as I am concerned, our minimum wage is 9$, or less, if this job works out to be paying me less. And honestly, I'm kind of outraged that there is any kind of exception to the minimum wage: why do we have a minimum wage if there are going to be exceptions?
I am a Canadian citizen; I've been one for a while now: the 21 years of my short life. And I'm a history student: I've looked at that murky FLQ era, and I've seen the separatist movement when it really was too violent, when it was misguided, not to say that Quebec separatism isn't misguided today, but, and here's the point: just because Quebec is our lone star state, doesn't mean they're always wrong.
Everyone is lost by now, because I'm rambling, but the point is, a lot of the NEWS covering the Quebec student demonstrations is negative. I've seen a report asking university students how they feel about the Quebec demonstrations (not the one shown above): it was an Ontario University, and the students were asked to respond to a comparison between the average cost of tuition in a year in Ontario, versus that of tuition in Quebec. The result was an incredibly bias series of responses. Because the comparison was made between the two locations, the NEWS portrayed student's responses as anti-demonstrationist: almost every student responded that the Quebec students were 'complaining', that the tuition difference implies that Quebec students should stop their demonstrations.
The catch is that though this makes Quebec look bad, it’s not the whole picture. It’s common knowledge, that in some countries, post-secondary education is free, for instance: Algeria, Argentina, Barbados, Brazil, Belgium, China, Croatia, Cuba, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Germany, Hungary, Iran, Japan, Kenya, Malta, Mauritius, Morocco, Norway, Russia, Scotland, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Brunei, Turkey, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Uruguay. What Quebec students are asking for, is no small thing, but neither is it unreasonable.
Free tuition in five years. I haven't heard a better idea, in a very, very long time, especially not out of the Harper administration. Harper (and I'm not saying he's the only one, but he's sure as hell letting this happen) seems to think that 30 Billion Dollar Planes, are a greeeeat idea. This, instead of modernizing our education. Bread or guns is what it always comes down to, and honestly: we don't need guns, we can't afford guns, and I, for one, don't want guns.
It even looks Phallic.
This guy does, and at the beginning of his argument, well, it sounds reasonable: why not have the best, if we are going to modernize our air-force? The problem is, this is all about - excuse my language for a second - our need for a larger military penis, a penis that we can do nothing with, but thrust down the throat of others.
We don't need these jets, for two reasons:
First: we are not a military power. Back in WWII, sure, we were maybe one of the top 10 military forces, maybe not even then, but it made sense to have a military back then. It doesn't now. We are peace-keepers, and these planes are weapons of war.
Second: these are not transports. These are not long range fighters. These are jets, meant to be launched from aircraft carriers, or which, we have three. The range on the F-35, according to Wikipedia, is 2,220 km. The length of Canada? Oh, about 5000 km. So, here we have a jet, that can't fly across our country, that can't carry anyone, and doesn't put out forest fires. What do we need? Money for education. Money for healthcare. Money for anything but this BS.
There are others, there are so many others, who welcome these jets, who see a lack of military power as a weakness in our national defence. Let me throw something out there for you. Two situations, if you will.
Russia is evil, don't you know that?
The Big Military Power: Let’s say we're in a Call of Duty game, which we aren't, and Russia is at war with us, which it isn't. Or China, or Korea, or any of those other scary video game bad-guy countries. Well, what do they do? Do they nuke us? Do they invade? Do our 35 jets hold them at bay? The answers, in order: Yes, they could nuke us. Yes they could invade. No, our military, modernized, or not, couldn't stop them. This is why we have allies: this is why Canadians are friendly. We aren't fighters when we're off the ice, and honestly, these jets aren't going to make a difference if one of the big military powers has its eyes on invading, which, quite honestly, they don't, can't (without a huge international outcry), and won't.
The Little Military Power: I'm talking terrorism here: this is the real threat (not that I'm worried about it, but if something is going to go horribly wrong in Canada, it’s going to be from a source like this, rather than the unrealistic options listed above). Terrorism doesn't care if we have jets. A bag of anthrax, an IED in a crowded building, or a maniac with a gun, are not things that a jet can stop. As a matter of fact, a forest fire is not something these jets can stop. The oil crisis, the economic crisis, and global warming, are not things these jets can stop. Our healthcare problems, our idiot government, and honestly, opposing military forces, are not things these jets can stop.
You give me a reason to have these jets, and I'll give you a dozen more not to have them. You call national defence a reason, and I'll toss your argument out on its ass. It’s an out-dated notion: we could compete militarily, but why should we when we already compete, well, in the international arenas, on things that actually matter. Here's what I propose: we need to pull out of this Jet thing, we need to pay whatever severance is required to stop the acquisition. Other countries have already pulled out of the agreement (from Wikipedia):
"Italy became the first country to announce it was reducing its overall fleet procurement, cutting its buy from 131 to 90 aircraft. Other nations reduced initial purchases or delayed orders, while still intending to purchase the same final numbers. The United States canceled the initial purchase of 13 F-35s and postponed orders for another 179. Britain cut its initial order and delayed a decision on future orders. Australia decided to buy the Boeing Super Hornet as an interim measure until the F-35 is ready. Turkey also cut its initial order of four aircraft to two, but confirmed plans to purchase 100 F-35As. The Netherlands and Norway were considering their options and may cut or delay their orders."
Honestly, we need to drop out of this program, take the money (minus the money we are going to lose for dropping out) and invest it in our future, which, I believe, is education, healthcare, and technology. We don't need planes unless those planes are going to save someone, put out a forest fire, or transport food and people.
