Premier’s ally faces questions about lobbying
Now I have to be very careful here since the temptation to go after Ken Dobell is very strong. But he can afford lawyers and I can’t, so I am going to be circumspect.
The use of the word “ally” is interesting. Maybe the CBC feel the need to be overly cautious too. It is not the word that springs to my mind. The role of Ken has been somewhat more proactive, I think. Formerly the City Manager of Vancouver he was hand picked to be Translink’s first CEO. And then he was summoned to become the Premier’s most senior Civil Servant. The role that Humphrey Appleby filled to Jim’s PM? No, I don’t think so. Eminence gris might be closer to the mark, I think. Besides I think that the conventions that the right wing follow in Canada are now much closer to Washington DC than London.
Policy advice to premiers is naturally one of those areas where the Freedom of Information Act does not reach, so the precise relationship is always going to be a matter of speculation. But Ken has since moved on and has picked up a number of new jobs.
It would seem that the questions now being raised are likely to be dismissed as a “technicality”. A matter of timing, no more. But questions have been asked before. Back in January he was explaining to the Globe and Mail that he was not in a conflict of interest
“There are multiple hats, and it’s quite true I have to take one off and put on other one, but that’s not atypical for people that are in this kind of a role,” he said in an interview yesterday, adding that he still sees himself “in a broad sense” as a public servant and that he does not act for private companies.
… his work for the province on softwood lumber, coastal forest and matters related to the Pacific Gateway initiative “is unlikely to involve any city [of Vancouver] issues. However, there may be a perceived conflict that should be addressed.”
Since the Pacific Gateway is going to dump a heck of a lot more car traffic on east Vancouver streets the use of the word “unlikely” is … erm … surprising.
Of course, for those of us some years younger, who have been the victims of age discrimination for some years, it might be heartening to see the number of appointments someone over compulsory retirement age can collect.
UPDATE More details in the Friday Vancouver Sun
and on Charlie Smith’s blog
Age the biggest hiring barrier, survey finds
Age the biggest hiring barrier, survey finds
Britain has just introduced stiff legislation dealing with this issue. It is going to be a long haul to get this concern dealt with seriously here. For one thing, it is almost impossible to prove. In the job application scenario, for example, the vast majority of resumes go into the trash, so how do you establish that age discrimination is at play? One job adviser seriously suggested leaving out dates on job applications. That gets you dropped automatically, I would have thought, on the grounds that the applicant must have something to hide. “Over qualified” is the most common excuse, which is code for “we can get someone younger and cheaper”. Even once you become willing to take much less than you are worth, you don’t usually get much further than a polite telephone call - if you are lucky. Even places which bitch and complain amongst themselves about the difficulty of getting good staff have a hard time accepting that someone over 55 can actually be a useful employee. And most job adverts say that only the successful will get a reply and ask for no phone calls. So there is no way that they are going to discuss with the unsuccessful why they were not considered.
The odd thing is that many employers will use fear of being sued as the reason. But the law is only open to those that can afford it. There is no point at all having an open and shut case. The employer has more resources than the plaintiff and can keep a case going with a wide range of tactics to exhaust the resources of their opponents. And legal aid has been effectively shut off for civil suits, the human rights commission being a shadow of its former self.
For many people in this province “full employment” rings hollow. They want a permanent full time position with benefits. They are forced by market conditions to take part time, low paid, no benefit positions and often work at multiple jobs just to make ends meet. Not to mention those who become “contractors” or “consultants” - paid by the task and not well at that in most cases, with absolutely zero job security. And often they are skilled and qualified people, kept in these positions by restrictive practices in the self regulated professions and unionised environments.
