All in the Interest of Justice or something ...

I seem to possess an almost unerring instinct for homing in on these kinds of stories in the daily press and it frustrates me. On the one hand they are trite and usually unimportant and yet on another level they scream out in protest with the absurdidty they represent. Yet our world seems to have acquired the ability to absorb almost any absurdidty without so much as a blink.

The most recent story to hit me between the eyes in this way was a short piece from Canadian Press that appeared in my local paper. It was the headline over it that caught my eye - "Pay equity case ending 28 years after."

If the story is accurate these are the circumstances: Apparently some 28 years ago (that makes it about 1977) some 2,000 Canada Post employees filed a pay equity complaint. The complaint ended up before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. At first I thought that the problem was that the documents had simply gotten misplaced in someone's filing system, but the truth is much stranger than that.

At least, if the complaint did get misplaced, it wasn't lost forever. No mention is made of the first 16 years or so of the complaints existence, but we are told that the case resulted in some 417 days of hearings between 1992 and 2003. The Tribunal has explained that the further two year delay in issuing its findings is due to the fact that two members of the Tribunal have had to spend time reading the documents following the hearings. However, do not fear an answer is forthcoming. A spokesperson for the Tribunal has just issued an assurance that the decision of the Tribunal will be released this fall (2005).

Now, I trust that you are curious as to what great principle in pay equity was so fundamental to the Canadian work force that it deserved 417 days of hearings and some 28 years of research and preparation. Well, you will just have to go on being curious! As though it was a mater of national security, the Canadian Press article declines to offer even a hint. The original complaint related to pay equity and beyond that the article allows only that the case is "complex." Well, it is hard to argue with that. If it wasn't when it started one can be assured that after 417 days of hearings and 28 years of cycling through through the hands of a myriad of bureaucrats it is guaranteed to have become complex.

But we are about to be rescued. A verdict will be issued. The world will be put straight and if any of the parties to the orignal complaint are still alive they can have the satisfaction of appreciating another benefit of longevity.

No hurdle is too great to prevent the working out of justice in the bureaucracies of our great land.

It is to be noted that there is a hint of confusion in the article about the actual duration of this ordeal. The headline clearly states 28 years though a spokeperson for one of the original complainants refers to waiting 22 years for a response. But what's six years when we are finally going to get the verdict of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

However, I am not considering the case to be finished just yet. The article doesn't go into it but I assume that there must be some appeal process available. After all, this is Canada!

In my spare time I am presently working on a paper that proposes a modified "Gladiator" approach to the resolution of a myriad of conciliation and labour disputes. Each side in such a dispute would be able to select a Champion from amongst their number who would seek to defeat their chosen opponent in a best of three tourney. The jousters could be offered a choice amongst such endeavours as darts, ping pong, tiddley winks and even such assertive activities as arm wrestling. The winner of the toss gets to choose the event. Within an hour or two, in a public venue, right under the eyes of all the interested parties, the whole matter could be resolved.

But it might not be resolved justly, you protest?

Well, at least it wouldn't take 28 years, I reply!

(The article in question appeared on page A12 of the Monday, August 29th., 2005, issue of the Hamilton Spectator.)

Anybody for a Beer?

I feel like a real slacker. I just saw a picture in the paper of a fellow in Edmonton with this huge stack of crated beer can empties in his backyard. According to the caption the stack represents some eleven thousand plus cold ones. The proud owner of the empties, one Lonnie Rennie, is happy to have us know that he is a good guy who recycles and that he is just waiting for the truck to pick up the over 450 cases of empties from the beer consumed by he and his friends over the past year.

My first instinct was to look to see if there was any sign of a catheter tube or plastic bag hanging from his belt. But that was before I began to get scientific about the whole thing and actually work the math.

You see, I first saw the reference to one year and immediately, without even thinking about it, knew that represented 30.136986301 plus beers per day. However, objectivity began to filter in and I remembered the mention of friends. There appear to be five other individuals on the back porch of the house, way down at the other end of the long line of stacked up cases. Now with six consumers that brings it way, way down to only 5.0228 (again instantly computed) cans per person per day. Of course, that still means working at it seven days a week and no time off for holidays (though somehow I expect with these guys that consumption actually goes up on holidays).

Now I got out my magnifying glass and strained my eyes to try to tell what these guys were drinking. It's a newspaper photo so resolution is a challenge. However, I could read a few labels on the ends of the cases in the foreground. There seemed to be quite a few cases of Canadian, some Ice, some Coors Light (gotta watch the waistline) and at least one case of Kokanee.

I suppose that if someone insisted I could drink five cans of beer a day, but I am not at all sure that I would want to do it in the constant company of five other people who were also each drinking a minimum of five cans a day. Somehow I think that I would lose my party spirit by about the end of the first week.

It seems obvious to me that these guys are in desperate need of a change of brand. I love beer. I really enjoy drinking it. However, for me the pleasure is in savouring it not swilling it. It doesn't really get better after the third bottle - you just think that it does.

Anyway, if Lonnie or any of his friends want to e-mail me I would be happy to suggest any one of forty or fifty brands from around the world which have a capacity to satisfy before they stupefy.

Much Ado About Nothing

Unemployed Y2K alarmists may be on the brink of another 15 seconds in the limelight.

My recurring gripe about the way the media routinely tries to make alarmist news out of nothing has been triggered yet again.

A headline on page 11 of my local paper today shouts, "Technology worries over time change: Earlier start to daylight time could pose problems." Then about 25 column inches are devoted to trying to whip up concern about the dire technological consequences that may flow after President Bush signs new US energy bill adjusting the starting and ending dates for Daylight Saving Time.

Despite the bold headline the Associated Press article by Anick Jesdanun really fizzles. The five industry and technical sources quoted all fail to substantiate the headline. The bottom line is that come 2007 some poor souls who fail to manually reset their VCRs may, as a consequence, miss an episode of their favourite soap opera that they hoped to tape while they were out playing bingo. Big deal!

(This AP article was carried in the August 8th. issue of the Hamilton Spectator.)

"Full Restitution"

As one who favours restitution as part of the consequence for financial impropriety, I was grateful to see that justice was being done in the recent case of Kirk Shelton, former vice-chairman of Cendant Corporation.

According to a recent Associated Press story U.S. District Judge Alvin Thompson not only sentenced Mr. Shelton to 10 years in prison he also ordered him to make “full restitution.”

The unique feature of the story is that the accounting scandal that Mr. Shelton has now been found guilty of perpetrating was, at the time the charges were laid, believed to be the largest case of accounting fraud in the country. The total damages for which Mr. Shelton was found to be liable amounted to a whopping 3.27 billion dollars.

Without batting an eyelash the Associated Press reported that “Judge Alvin Thompson ordered Shelton to pay $3.27 billion to Cendant, including an initial payment of $15 million by October and $2,000 a month once he is out of prison.”

While the restitution may be "full" the payment plan is surely the easiest one ever devised. Assuming that Mr. Shelton meets his $18 million installment in October he then has relief until his jail term is over. Hopefully he will get out a bit early so that he can get on with the "full restitution" part of things. At $2,000 a month he will only be paying back $240,000 a decade. At that rate, with well over $3 billion to pay back by installments, the full restitution will not be complete until sometime well past the year 3250 A.D. (and that's without interest).

Now the article didn’t happen to mention Mr. Shelton’s age but I hardly think that he is going to live long enough to make the final payment. What’s wrong with this story? Are the figures cited in the AP story wildly inaccurate? Did I get confused in the decimal places in trying to figure it all out? Or, is even to mention the words “full restitution” in the context of this case to turn the whole proceeding into a mockery of justice?

(This AP story was carried in the August 4, 2005, edition of the Hamilton Spectator.)