Letter to my dentist

Dear Dr. Lekic,

I am writing to inform you of my disappointment at the tactics employed by your current office assistant. I have been a good client of yours for the past several years and I have always been satisfied with your work and the work of your hygienists and previous office staff. However the aggressive and unwarranted methods of your current office help deserve mention.

A few months ago I booked a tentative Saturday appointment with your office. The condition of this, to my understanding, was that I would respond with a verbal confirmation when your assistant called me back later in the week. I did not respond to the message left by your assistant which to my mind means I was not prepared to make the appointment. Your assistant insists that this booking was already confirmed when in fact we agreed otherwise.

Following this the assistant claimed I owed $50 for a missed appointment, a fee she later said she was willing to waive if I booked another appointment. The fact that she was willing to waive the fee shows me that she either feels a certain degree of culpability, or is deviously attempting to retain my business through coercion. Either way I fully intended to re-book, despite the fact that I was in a sense being blackmailed, but circumstances made that difficult for me, and I no longer have the time for a cleaning.

I am planning to move very shortly and so I called again to ask for my records. When I made the request your assistant reasserted the claim that I owe you a fee of $50 and said my records will not be released without it. Dr. Lekic, this is an unjustified fee in light of the understanding between myself and your assistant with regard to the appointment in question. It raises concerns about your practice in my mind and I am tempted to raise these problems with your association. Furthermore, despite the fact that you are very talented dentist and employ a really good hygienist I cannot recommend your services to any of my friends and associates in the future based on the actions of your office help. I urge you to resolve this issue by allowing me to access my records without having to pay the $50 your office claims I owe.

Sincerely,

Letter to The Walrus:Second-person perspective=pretentious

Dear Walrus,

In the last few months I've read a couple of articles in your magazine written from a second person perspective. I don't know if the authors of these pieces (Mark Kingwell, Does Obama Change the Game and Chris Turner, An Inconvinient Talk) think this is a clever device, or novel way to approach their subject but from my point of view writing in this manner is extremely distracting. Although some excuse can be made for Kingwell's piece, wherein he is imagining the thoughts of another person, the article by Turner simply replaces the "I" with a "you" for no apparent reason. I found both of these articles extremely pretentious, an adjective that sadly is becoming an apt descriptor for your magazine more and more as time goes on.

The English language is an extremely malleable beast, and that's part of what makes it so fascinating to use and to study, but when one is writing journalistically it is important to be clear and to use direct language. Replacing the more accepted first and third-person perspectives may seem like a good idea to a writer who is seeking a unique voice, but in the end it is a meaningless contrivance that ads an unwarranted layer of confusion and affectation.

EI Fails Seasonal Workers

As published in today's Free Press

One of the major issues facing our national government in the most recent session of Parliament is the need to reform the Employment Insurance scheme. This need arises mainly due to the massive layoffs in manufacturing in Eastern Canada and the resource-based jobs that have suffered in the West due to a worldwide recession. But equally important is the need to establish a new set of guidelines for seasonal employees like myself, who because of the nature of our work are sometimes forced to play it fast and loose with Employment Insurance regulations.

For the last two years I have worked as an educational assistant at a local high school. The work itself is difficult at times, but also highly rewarding. The primary problem with it is that it is not paid like a full-time job and therefore it can be a difficult way to make a living wage. Fortunately, the government recognizes the value of this work and allows EAs and other seasonal school employees to collect EI benefits; but because the EI system is a one-trick pony our group of workers, once laid-off, are considered to be job-seekers. We are required to pretend as though we are actively looking for work lest we have our benefits denied, or worse, face prosecution. But this provision is entirely unnecessary given that we already have good jobs. The only thing it accomplishes is creating a big hassle for everyone: employers must shuffle through insincere resumes, claimants are barred from conducting other useful pursuits over the breaks and enforcement of these regulations creates a strain on the resources of HRSDC.

I don't have a problem with looking for part-time work over the summer, or even seeking a regular part-time job to supplement my income, but that should be strictly my choice. I am capable of improving my lot in life through hard work if I care to, but I find it illogical to insist I be looking to replace a job I enjoy and am highly qualified for simply to satisfy a mandatory requirement that blindly disregards the nature of my employment.

I wish it were possible to receive a decent full-year contract for my work. My teacher colleagues get monthly paycheques whether or not school is in session. But school divisions are always looking to cut costs and have managed to cook up a good deal with the feds whereby my salary is supplemented by Employment Insurance once the work runs out.

This situation, though far from ideal, ensures that my employer can retain an experienced and professional staff without having to constantly replace workers from a less-qualified base of applicants, for an annual income that would be otherwise far less palatable.

Workers in other fields may or may not have sympathy with my cause, but I would argue that the value of the work EAs produce, though it will not appear as an immediate gain to the GDP, is integral to the smooth functioning of our school system and the children we are preparing for work and life tomorrow.

A major component of our job is establishing relationships with students and creating a consistency in our approach with them so that they can grow and achieve with proper guidance. The idea that we should be out looking for another job over the weeks of Christmas holidays or spring break is completely absurd given these conditions. Perhaps the notion that we seek work over summer is more logical, but the market for summer jobs is dominated by (and often subsidized strictly for) students, and most jobs have already been awarded by the start of our layoff period in July.

A more constructive approach to the dilemma posed by Employment Insurance's regulations would be to allow workers like myself to pursue some kind of volunteer or community work rather than going through the charade of looking for a job we have no intention of undertaking. As a person who works with emotionally troubled and developmentally delayed kids, I have a wealth of skills that could be otherwise employed over the summer months. If I were freed from the demand that I be searching for work I don't need, I could be continuing to contribute to society rather than having to answer bi-weekly questionnaires designed to test whether I deserve the stipend I require or waiting endlessly to talk to an agent when I unintentionally failed to cross a "T" or dot an "I."

The government must create more flexibility within the EI system and provide recipients with more options for receiving benefits than currently exist.

The system itself was developed with a very singular set of assumptions that are often contrary to the circumstances of seasonal workers and even to the workers who do need career change assistance.

The bad news is that this seems like a monumentally difficult task given the great diversity and unpredictability of paid employment within the Canadian economy; the good news is that this is one bit of work that all major federal parties seem intent on tackling.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition July 20, 2009 A11

An appeal letter to HRSDC about my EI claim

Today I opened a letter from the government telling me that my claim for benefits over spring break (actually, this is time I would use as part of the two-week "waiting period") had been denied because I was dumb enough to admit that I hadn't looked for work, instead of just B.S.ing. Here is my response:

To Whom It May Concern,

I wish to appeal the decision of HRSDC regarding my ineligibility for benefits for the week of April 30–May 4, 2009. The basis for this appeal rests on information provided to me verbally from an agent at your office, and on the illogic of the rules of Employment Insurance as it relates to seasonal employees of school districts.

I was informed by a source in your office (sorry I didn’t write down the name) that the core issue for qualification was whether I was available to be contacted and/or accept a job offer and return to work within 24 hours. As I explained to this person I most certainly could have made this hypothetical move if it were to arise. I had a cell phone with me the entire time and was near enough to an airport to return to Winnipeg, or any city in Canada for that matter if the need arose. However, as I shall explain below, there was really no need for this because I was set to resume work within the week.

The purpose of my original letter was to clarify the guideline that I must be actively looking for work in the period wherein I was laid-off, an action I was planning on, but failed to accomplish because I spent the time looking after my nephews instead of making phone calls. If you feel the need to deny me because of this I feel that you should do so with a better understanding of my situation because frankly your system was not set-up with workers of my kind in mind and I feel like this is just one example of how you fail to represent our interests.

I am an employee of a school division who experiences regular, predetermined layoffs due to the nature of my job. The government has graciously allowed people of my class to collect benefits during these periods, making what I consider to be a very important job a viable career alternative for a lot more qualified people. Without EI benefits our jobs would be harder to fill because we are paid on an hourly basis and do not get enough hours in a year to maintain a decent standard of living. Although summer jobs and part-time work are a possibility for some there are many employers who cannot work around the pre-existing commitment school workers have to their permanent “seasonal” jobs.

Despite the fact that I have a job I will be returning to in very short order I am expected to be looking for work over the brief periods in Winter and Spring where I experience mandatory lay-offs. I can’t think of any reason why I would leave a secure job I love half-way through the school year to work somewhere else, but your system is set up to assume that I would and should be considering this. The stipulation that I be: “ready, willing and capable of working each day, Monday through Friday during each week of this report” is irrelevant because there was no work available for me to engage in at that time.

I wrote to you to confess that I hadn’t the time to participate in this charade mostly out of fear that you would somehow discover that I hadn’t done it and fine me for it. But honestly do you want to punish me because I should have been out pounding the pavement over the March break knowing I’d be back at work in a week?

With the approval of your department our group of employees has been allowed to use the school breaks in December and March towards the waiting period we must serve before collecting benefits. In my mind this approved way of getting us onto the roles is a tacit admission that the nature of work is important to Canada economically and socially and that we are deserving of EI benefits. The stipulation that we be actively looking for work during these periods make no sense given the value of the work we produce. Would you want experienced Educational Assistants who have formed relationships with vulnerable students moving out of their jobs midway through the year to be replaced by people who may or may not be qualified?

You must grant me an exception for the week of April 30–May 4, 2009 because the stipulation you would use to deny my claim is counter to the spirit of the agreement held between your department and workers in my field. The fact that these stipulations exist in law can be traced to the impossibility of drafting legislation that can predict and protect the complex nature of seasonal work across our economy. Although the intent of the condition that workers actively continue their search for work is laudable it is an inherently illogical provision for workers in my circumstance. Most commonly school workers like myself simply agree to the statement with our noses held and hope not to get hassled about if a review of their claims should occur. We all know this requirement is a canard in our case, and quite frankly, so do you.

Please do not deny me the benefits I need and deserve because I was unable to look for work during the week I was off from a job that I had was expected to return to after a five day break, it is cruel and unjustifiable in light of the facts.

Bike scofflaws vs. car culture

As Published in Today's Free Press

5/07/2009 1:00 AM

There's been a lot of discussion lately about just where bikes belong in Winnipeg's future. The provincial and municipal governments have promised to add a corridor for cyclists along the new bus-way being built in south Winnipeg. Activists are upset that the route will be spliced by a dangerous four-lane underpass, but overall the inclusion of such amenities for cyclists shows that our city is forward-thinking. Or does it?

Currently, the idea of cycling in Winnipeg remains a risky proposition for the majority of would-be bike commuters. They are afraid for their lives because some drivers claim the road as their inherent right, and use intimidation to enforce their opinion. As a cyclist I have been cut off, told off and nearly sideswiped on numerous occasions -- not to mention the time I was dangerously assaulted with an ice-cream treat hurled from a vehicle at high speed. That incident might have caused permanent paralysis if the force from the projectile had not been absorbed by my helmet.

Recent comments online have provided some insight into why drivers feel as though their rights to the road are predominant, but for the most part their justifications are built on ignorance rather than fact. For instance, some drivers claim that their insurance and licensing premiums are paying for the roads and that permits them greater entitlement. But according to Manitoba Public Insurance, none of the licensing and insurance fees go toward infrastructure; rather, the fees are used to pay out claims and maintain reserve funds.

Other drivers believe the gas taxes they pay are the reason they should be given exclusive use of our roads, but this rationalization is indefensible. Would anyone argue that a person who smokes should be given greater access to hospitals because he contributed more to health care through tobacco taxes? When it comes to community property, we are all granted equal access with no regard for individual contributions. A cyclist is still a taxpayer and has every right to use the roads in all seasons without fear of retribution.

However, I must admit that some of the arguments made by indignant motorists are justifiable and point to areas where cyclists must accept the criticism and act to improve their behavior.

While every year sees more and more cyclists who follow the laws on Winnipeg streets, these individuals are still the exception rather than the rule. The majority of cyclists act as though the laws of traffic were written for someone else. They insist on the right to use the road only to blatantly abuse it, or seek amnesty on the sidewalks only to terrorize pedestrians.

It is unfortunate that cyclists cannot be held to a higher standard with respect to the laws they regularly violate. With cars we have the disincentive of impoundment, fines, increased insurance premiums and even imprisonment if the vehicle is being operated dangerously.

Bicycles are cheap to acquire, easily repaired without a claim and can be quickly ditched if they become a liability. There is simply not enough law enforcement available to really patrol bikes, especially since they constitute such a small threat to public safety in comparison to motor vehicles. Nonetheless it is essential that cyclists do obey the laws of traffic because it is the only way to claim true equality on the street.

Arrogant riders who regularly goad drivers and pedestrians make the streets more dangerous for all of us. Most drivers are annoyed to some extent when cyclists dart wantonly through controlled intersections or pass them along the curb at stop lights. To some people this is a clear indication that cyclists cannot be trusted on the streets and therefore are not welcome. Sadly, others use this disrespect for the law to justify the treacherous games of terror that they engage in when confronting riders on the streets.

It is no longer acceptable to cling to the tyranny of the motorized majority that has created such a powerful and presumptuous car culture in Winnipeg. Times are changing and drivers must recognize the right of cyclists to exist in Winnipeg in all seasons. But cyclists cannot demand equality without concessions of their own. Riders must grow up and acknowledge it is their responsibility to show the same manners on the road they demand from drivers.

Mutual respect must be the code adopted by drivers and cyclists going forward. It is wonderful that our city is finally building the infrastructure that will support a greater cycling community, but even with a vast network of trails, bicycles will still need to access city streets regularly. A course of civility is the only way to ensure that future harmony is possible among the currently divergent groups.

I like to debate

This is my response to a letter published in today's paper. Here's the original letter:

How can you allow Gwynne Dyer to get away with false statements such as "by 1939 almost everybody agreed that the world had been wrong to blame the First World War on Germany."

It is genuine, recorded knowledge, that Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany approved "The Schlieffen Plan" in 1897. Look it up at the library; it's there for all to see.

The only problem with Germany's invasion of France, in 1914, was that the Schlieffen Plan called for German troops to march "unopposed, through Belgium" on their way to "invade and conquer" France, which Schlieffen had calculated they could do in two weeks time ifthey followed his plan. The recorded historical fact is that Belgium refused to comply with that request but the Kaiser and his boys ordered it to take place anyway, regardless of Belgium's opposition. That resulted in the 1914-1918 conflict.

Germany, most definitely, "started" the Great War of 1914 to 1918.

Ian C. Thomson

Winnipeg

RCK says:

Determining who started a war is not always as cut and dry as deciding who fired the first shot or mounted the first invasion. There were a complex set of factors that started WWI, and although Germany was responsible for it's fair share the rest of the Great Powers were also deeply committed to fostering the animosity that fermented into war. The statement that Ian C. Thomson labels as false is an opinion that is shared almost universally by historians—it's possible that he has been snooping around in the wrong part of the library.