Nationalizing temp/casual labour agencies?

41 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jacob Richter
Nationalizing temp/casual labour agencies?

There is growing "casualization" of labour to the point where some economists have described it as a "commodity" in the sense of business lingua: a good or service supplied without qualitative differentiation, such as natural resources.

There is discussion on this problem in Germany and Japan, for example, although not so much in North America. On the left itself, there is talk of the precariat.

However, I'm interested in solutions instead of endless discussions on problems. Could every single temp agency be taken into public ownership so as to tackle the problem of structural and cyclical unemployment?

With legislation and regulation around gainful wages and working conditions, extra supports for temp workers, and especially rules allowing temp workers the right to refuse lousy wages and/or working conditions (especially unsafe working conditions), could such public ownership be in the fact the modern means to Hyman Minsky's realization of zero unemployment structurally and cyclically by means of expanding public services to fully include employment of last resort for consumer services?

E.Tamaran

There's a "Labour Ready" on my route to school. Every morning you'll see groups of men waiting for the doors to open, trying to get a job for the day. It's sad really.

milo204

on one hand i feel sorry for people who need to do temp work. it's better than nothing, although they are underpaid and obviously given minimal rights in the workplace.  The problem for me is it seems like an unnecessary middleman who skims off the top of your pay and basically takes advantage of people who are desperate for work.  It reminds me of the the movies, where a bunch of people crowd around at a construction site to get work for the day and most are turned away while they fight amongst themselves for to catch the bosses eye.

they're like the payday loan companies.  I knew a friend who got temp work at an IBM office and he was getting paid about 50% less than the regular staff who did his exact job, with the hope that if they keep you longer than a couple of months IBM would hire you and you'd get full wages.

big surprise they decided to get another temp worker instead.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

precariat = precarious proletariat.  As Huck Finn once remarked, "I been there before."

bruce_the_vii

I worked for temp agencies a couple of times. They match people that need some extra money with employers. People in the cities of Canada can generally get a minium wage job if they look around so the agencies are for the people at loose ends. I don't think they are particularly a problem.

Jacob Richter

I corresponded with a sympathetic non-Marxian economist on this, and he didn't like the idea of taking every single temp agency into public ownership  ("seizing private property") so as to tackle the problem of structural and cyclical unemployment a la Minsky's public employer of last resort for consumer services.  He said that such a government program would establish a base wage, working conditions, and work hours so that all private temp agencies would have to compete with that.

A Marxist comrade also agreed with him, saying that he clearly right if one is concerned only with protecting temp workers.

bruce_the_vii

The problem of unemployment is treated with hysterics. Actually you can generally get a minimum wage job except at the start of a deep recession. The churn in employment is extremely high, Statistics Canada posts hirings annually at as much as 29% of the jobs total. An unemployed person can find work if he persists because of the turn over. So actually temp agencies aren't exactly employers of last resort, they play this filler roll. In a bad economy people actually drop out of the labour force which is social shock absorber for the rest.

That's not to say unemployment isn't terrible for a family with bills to pay and a minimum wage job is not that helpful. I'm just saying temp agencies aren't really the worst employers.

I also worked as a computer programmer at skill tech agencies. There's a temp agencies association and lots it's members are skilled work. There work goes down in a recession. Young people can get an eyeful of how an industry works by working temp.

 

 

triciamarie

The solution is to regulate these usurious fuckers right out of business.

triciamarie

Temp agencies have completely taken over the unskilled labour jobs in industry. Now, older workers and those without education or English language skills have very limited opportunity of finding stable employment -- and god forbid they should ever require accommodation, eg for a work injury, because theyèll be out on their ear. This is a major factor in the precipitous decline in union membership in the private sector over the past 15 years.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Didn't manpower once basically do what the temp agencies are doing now? In that capacity, it seems that the industry has been de-nationalized (privatized).

triciamarie

I was pretty young then but if Ièm not mistaken, Manpower was for short-term casual employment contracts. Temp agencies -- despite the name -- now regularly employ workers for years at a time, often on the same contract.

seventiesguy

more regulation, more regulators, more cost, more taxes - that will surely improve the lot for those whose circumstances lead them to choose this employment.  The root problem is the already high cost of living that forces people to look to these agencies and the high cost of doing business that forces employers to go this route.  The driving force behind both of these problems - too much government in our lifes.  Regulation, nationalization and other knee jerk responses are short sighted.  Not that Sarah from winterland and her tea sippers are the answer but some rational application of some teeth to existing legislation (minimum wage and employment standards) would be more productive.

triciamarie

Seventiesguy, I am not clear who you think should apply teeth to the legislation.

Iwant Liberty

Temp agencies play a very important role:  providing employment for those that are looking for work, and those that need temporary labour.  There's nothing wrong with that and it's incomprehensible how one would think the government can do *everything else on the planet* AND run a temporary employment agency!  I worked for them in the past.  They're great.  God help us if we think the government can do a better job!  Government bureaucrats are imbeciles, what makes one think they are so GREAT AT EVERYTIHNG THEY DO???!!!!

Cueball Cueball's picture

There is more government in our lives than ever before. It's just that they don't call it government anymore because its all privatized social infrastructure like CAS, as one example. We still pay for it, plus premiums for the "service".

Corporate taxes are lower than they have ever been and lowering them has had no impact on the health of manufacturing sector. None of that helped capital flight, whatsoever. Indeed, corporate welfare and tax cuts have encouraged capital flight. All that has happened is that public service has been downloaded onto individual tax payers, and they are feeling the pinch. Half the time this money is just shuffled off to fix up badly managed corporations, such as the auto-giants.

As I just pointed out, Manpower used to perform the function of connecting temporary workers with employers as a government service, and during that time, the Canadian economy was five time healthier than it is now. Now it is on life support, buoyed by fortunes government and union pension funds.

The free market "no tax" solution has failed. And has failed miserably. Temp agencies should be banned. A single not for profit government agency to should connect the unemployed with the labour market. The fact is that all these companies do is add cost to the labour by taking a commission on it.

Iwant Liberty

Cueball wrote:

There is more government in our lives than ever before. It's just that they don't call it government anymore because its all privatized social infrastructure like CAS, as one example. We still pay for it, plus premiums for the "service".

...

The free market "no tax" solution has failed. And has failed miserably. Temp agencies should be banned. A single not for profit government agency to should connect the unemployed with the labour market. The fact is that all these companies do is add cost to the labour by taking a commission on it.

I thought I had imbibed way tooo much when I read the first half of your post, then I red the second part and my brain just about exploded.  I worked for a temp agency, and THEY WERE GOOD!  Did you ever work for one, hmmm????!!!!

Cueball Cueball's picture

Good at what? taking 30% commission on a wage? It's the 21st Century version of a pickup truck standing at the side of the road picking up migrant labour to work in the fields, except that in the latter case there is no middle man.

Jacob Richter

Cueball wrote:
As I just pointed out, Manpower used to perform the function of connecting temporary workers with employers as a government service, and during that time, the Canadian economy was five time healthier than it is now. Now it is on life support, buoyed by fortunes government and union pension funds.

The free market "no tax" solution has failed. And has failed miserably. Temp agencies should be banned. A single not for profit government agency to should connect the unemployed with the labour market. The fact is that all these companies do is add cost to the labour by taking a commission on it.

Define "connect."  There's a spectrum.  One end of this is Hyman Minsky's realization of zero unemployment structurally and cyclically by means of expanding public services to fully include employment of last resort for consumer services - to the point of having jobs for providing childcare, cleaning streets, etc.  The other end is merely what government-administered employment search agencies do now.

A publicly-owned temp monopoly could divert most of that added employer cost of labour towards the employees themselves, since labour is the one and only non-natural source of value production.

Iwant Liberty

So what's wrong with 30%?  If they're charging too much then a competitor will charge 20% and they'll go out of business.  That's not ideological.  It's called economics. 

Anyway, I know I'm viewed as some kind of lunatic... but basic economics is not a capitalist plot.   Socialist, captitalis... all the "ists" cannot avoid the reality of production and consumers.  It's basic stuff.

Now, yes indeed I am "ANTI-BIG GOVERNMENT".  When I think about Pro Big War or Pro Big Intrusion or Pro Big Corporate Welfare or Pro Big Military or Pro Big Poverty I am repulsed.

Government is the greatest threat to livelihood.  But that's for another thread I suppose.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Iwant Liberty wrote:

So what's wrong with 30%?  If they're charging too much then a competitor will charge 20% and they'll go out of business.  That's not ideological.  It's called economics.

No. That isn't the way it works. The idea that businesses don't co-operate to establish "industry standards" that benefit them, or form consortiums, or that capital does not conglomerate to create monopolies is simply false. Competition in the market, when it does work, actually works to consolidate capital in the hands of a few by eliminating the competition -- they are then in position to charge what they like.

What you are talking about is not economics. It's a fantasy world where mom and pop family businessess endlessly circle each other in a capitalist perpetual motion machine. It is fine, in theory, in a grade twelve "home ec" class, and I am all for it. But the world simply doesn't work that way in a macro-economic sense.

Let me know when you open your automobile plant.

jas

triciamarie wrote:

I was pretty young then but if Ièm not mistaken, Manpower was for short-term casual employment contracts. Temp agencies -- despite the name -- now regularly employ workers for years at a time, often on the same contract.

Yes, something I learned just this week, in my first encounter with the critters. I kept wondering why they wanted to find a permanent placement for me, when i really just want some spot work. Then I figured it out. One temp placement was with the federal government which would pay the agency $17-something (probably a little low, for the feds) an hour, and the agency would pay me $11.25, basically earning $6 for every hour I worked. They would be extracting almost $50 per day from my labour for a one-time placement, over a five-month contract period. I could not believe my ears.

If temp agencies are not allowed to ask for fees from temp workers they place, how is this any different? I was thinking of looking into this.

Bacchus

Hmm thats low Jas. I worked for a temp agency and for 12/hr they charged like 25/hr so they too like 13/hr for their employees labour

6079_Smith_W

Before anyone even thinks about going after temp agencies I would first go after the people who skim from the other end - the payday loans people, who actually ARE in the usury business.

I haven't worked through temp agencies, but I have worked with people who have on jobs where I was on call. They absolutely do serve a purpose. How is a factory going to deal with unloading semiloads of fabric that arrive at irregular times? Most can't keep 10 guys on call for a job that might happen twice a month. THey arange it through a labour place.

And I have friends who prefered to work through temp agencies  because they preferred the freedom.

And as for cutting out people who skim money off of a person's labour, there isn't too much that we buy that doesn't have some value added attached to it. It's a fee for a service, and so long as it is at a fair rate, there is nothing wrong with it.

If there's a problem, regulate it., or try to set up a free service. Don't try to have the government duplicate it.

jas

Well, in the placement offered to me, it was a five-month--actually six-month contract. The federal government already has an inventory system for temporary fill-in work. Why would they need a temp agency? And what a waste of value.

Payday loans are a different kind of usury, but it's all usury. The point we're making here is that it's not a fair rate, smith.

And Bacchus, that's outrageous. You must have really been in a fix to put up with that. How long was that placement for?

 

 

Bacchus

I worked IN the temp agency. I was looking for work and while applying for a job, the temp agency interviewing me offered me a job instead. I took it and was there about 4 months before I took a job in the area i was looking.

 

The only good thing about it was I got first jab at a new job and when the office temps came in for their checks (gorgeous young women) but I couldnt stand the place.  Did you know they take 10-20% of a jobs yearly salaray as their commission? They wanted me to stay and even other recruitment agencies (when I was being interviewed for a job for their clients) offered me work even though I though I sucked at it, getting them 2 permanent jobs and 2-4 temps jobs a month for the agency was apparently very good.

 

But a real slave trader like atmosphere there. Depressed the fuck out of me

6079_Smith_W

@ jas

Those that are at a truly unfair rate should be compelled by legislation to pass on a fair wage. (on the other hand, one assumes employers also pay a small premium for the convenience of the service - arranging workers on call, and taking care of payroll and CPP -  so that breakdown of $25 isn't all just "stolen wages").

Another, better way is to not wait until hell freezes over for the government to do something, but rather to outdo them through competition - do the same thing, cheaper, or on a volunteer basis. Involve businesses which are more worker-friendly and create a real positive alternative.

I'm just speaking against the notion that it should be entirely shut down or taken over, and that a work agency is by definition usury. In other businesses they are called agents, and some of them actually do work for their money.

jas

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ jas

Those that are at a truly unfair rate should be compelled by legislation to pass on a fair wage. (on the other hand, one assumes employers also pay a small premium for the convenience of the service - arranging workers on call, and taking care of payroll and CPP -  so that breakdown of $25 isn't all just "stolen wages").

Yes, perhaps for very short term, but I think anything over 2 weeks lessens the middle work that the temp agency does and the percentage extracted can be accordingly reduced. Ten to 15% would seem reasonable.

jas

Bacchus wrote:

The only good thing about it was I got first jab at a new job and when the office temps came in for their checks (gorgeous young women)

Oh, I see. Smile

Quote:
  Did you know they take 10-20% of a jobs yearly salaray as their commission?

What I don't understand is why anyone would take a permanent job through a temp agency, why an employer would hire someone "permanently" through such an arrangement, and why workers and employers wouldn't simply come to their own arrangement, cutting out the middle man.

Bacchus

jas wrote:

Bacchus wrote:

The only good thing about it was I got first jab at a new job and when the office temps came in for their checks (gorgeous young women)

Oh, I see. Smile

Quote:
  Did you know they take 10-20% of a jobs yearly salaray as their commission?

What I don't understand is why anyone would take a permanent job through a temp agency, why an employer would hire someone "permanently" through such an arrangement, and why workers and employers wouldn't simply come to their own arrangement, cutting out the middle man.

 

Thats easy. Companies use them because they dont have a specific 'HR' dept for hiring or cannot spare the time to do interviews. Some of them are hirign technical stuff and its more useful to use the agency for the initial weeding out  giving them specific skills to look for or specific tests to use for weeding.  People apply for permanent jobs through temp agencies because generally you cannot tell its a temp agency until you go there for the interview and besides if its a job you want, then you go through them. The original company is contractually obligated NOT to go any other route once they have signed with an agency. (unless its another agency, some companies use several agencies at the same time for the same jobs)

6079_Smith_W

Indeed. I'm not arguing with the fact that some of them are making a healthy living off others' work.

bruce_the_vii

Tempory placement in Ontario is up from $1.5 billion a year in 2000 to $4.4 billion in 2004. In Toronto you can actually see the growth. There are all these employment agencies around with big signs up "jobs". I read there are 500 agencies in Toronto alone. Basically they are now micro-businesses.

 

There's an association of Temp Agencies in Canada.

http://www.acsess.org/

 

 

These temp agencies charge a fee and they have management costs. The idea that the managment cost should be small is idle talk. You look at any business that you have ever worked for and there is all this support and managment overhead. It at least doubles costs of labour. Get use to it, everything costs and the arithmetic of it is sometimes daunting.

 

Similarily the idea that there should be zero stuctural and cyclical unemployment isn't common sense. Nothing is 100% efficient, why would the government be able to fine tune the labour force to 100% effeciency.

 

 

 

 

Jacob Richter

bruce_the_vii wrote:
Tempory placement in Ontario is up from $1.5 billion a year in 2000 to $4.4 billion in 2004. In Toronto you can actually see the growth. There are all these employment agencies around with big signs up "jobs". I read there are 500 agencies in Toronto alone. Basically they are now micro-businesses.

Micro-business competition isn't the answer. 

Quote:
These temp agencies charge a fee and they have management costs. The idea that the managment cost should be small is idle talk. You look at any business that you have ever worked for and there is all this support and managment overhead. It at least doubles costs of labour. Get use to it, everything costs and the arithmetic of it is sometimes daunting.

Of course they have management costs.  Nobody here denies that.  What you conveniently ignore is economies of scale, which reduces management costs per unit of good produced or service provided. 

Quote:
Similarily the idea that there should be zero stuctural and cyclical unemployment isn't common sense. Nothing is 100% efficient, why would the government be able to fine tune the labour force to 100% effciency.

That's liberal, progressive, and even social-democratic welfare myopia at its finest.

Structural and cyclical unemployment act as downward pressure on wages or as sticks with which to beat workers to work harder, depending on your political POV.  Why would the government do so?  Because it's the only organizational entity that can.

bruce_the_vii

Economies of scale? The entire bottom of the economy is fragmented into rather too many little shops. They are all inefficient of labour, rent, capital and taxes. Economies of scale are reached in big business by "mergers and aquistions" but so far everyone overlooks the bottom is fragmentized.  

And good luck with selling that "the labour market should be 100% efficient 100% of the time".

 

siamdave

Solutions. Within the capitalist system, there are no solutions. What is happening is exactly what they want, they have been running the show almost without opposition for the last 30 years, petitioning malevolent masters for 'please sir just a bit more' is simply legitimizing and perpetuating the system.

Putting bandaids on any of the endless suppurating wounds caused by this malignant cancer in our society is pointless and worse, wasting time that ought to be spent doing more useful things designed to get this cancer out of our system altogether.

Brief overview perspective: Capitalism, as a political-economic system, sees 'labour' as simply another resource to be exploited to the full. This means, among other things, a large pool of unemployed workers at any given time to provide downward pressure on the wages of the employed workers. Unemployment, or people with part-time or low paid jobs, is not 'a problem' in capitalism - it is systemic. Maxing the exploitation. 

In any **true** social democracy, work, like most everything, is arranged otherwise. Capitalist profit is not a factor. Surpluses accrued from modern technology and efficiency become part of the public wealth, providing things and security for all. In a true democratic socialist society, there is no 'unemployment' - the concept is not really meaningful - there is X amount of work to be done, and that work is divided amongst all citizens. It is a cooperative concept, rather than competetive - not all people do exactly the same work, not all people get exactly the same rewards - but all work, and all are taken care of. Almost all people have much less work than in a capitalist society, and are much better taken care of, in terms of having security for basic needs.

A dream? Maybe - but right now through passivity we are the enablers of the capitalist dream of dominance and opulence for the few - why not become the subject of our own dream of democracy and freedom and prosperity for all?

Gandhi - Democracy: a good idea. You should try it some time.

jas

Thoughts:

1) Workers should not be accepting assignments for which they are being grossly underpaid, certainly not for the longer term. (Imo, this actually should apply to the regular labour market as well. We aren't going to see fundamental change until people simply stop accepting the conditions being imposed.)

2) Push the agencies' profit margin back onto the employer hiring their services to make it very expensive for companies and orgs to use temp agencies.

and/or

3) Legislate a limit to what percentage can be extracted by agencies and to limit the length of term of assignments.

bruce_the_vii

siamdave wrote:

Solutions. Within the capitalist system, there are no solutions. What is happening is exactly what they want, they have been running the show almost without opposition for the last 30 years, petitioning malevolent masters for 'please sir just a bit more' is simply legitimizing and perpetuating the system.

Putting bandaids on any of the endless suppurating wounds caused by this malignant cancer in our society is pointless and worse, wasting time that ought to be spent doing more useful things designed to get this cancer out of our system altogether.

Brief overview perspective: Capitalism, as a political-economic system, sees 'labour' as simply another resource to be exploited to the full. This means, among other things, a large pool of unemployed workers at any given time to provide downward pressure on the wages of the employed workers. Unemployment, or people with part-time or low paid jobs, is not 'a problem' in capitalism - it is systemic. Maxing the exploitation. 

In any **true** social democracy, work, like most everything, is arranged otherwise. Capitalist profit is not a factor. Surpluses accrued from modern technology and efficiency become part of the public wealth, providing things and security for all. In a true democratic socialist society, there is no 'unemployment' - the concept is not really meaningful - there is X amount of work to be done, and that work is divided amongst all citizens. It is a cooperative concept, rather than competetive - not all people do exactly the same work, not all people get exactly the same rewards - but all work, and all are taken care of. Almost all people have much less work than in a capitalist society, and are much better taken care of, in terms of having security for basic needs.

A dream? Maybe - but right now through passivity we are the enablers of the capitalist dream of dominance and opulence for the few - why not become the subject of our own dream of democracy and freedom and prosperity for all?

Gandhi - Democracy: a good idea. You should try it some time.

Be reminded that Canada is an immigration country as the general long term problem is labour shortages.  We have imported millions of immigrants in the last generation as there is a surplus of jobs. Most all the posters at Babble are highly supportive of immigration, which is the national economic model - not capitalism. The economy is substantially centrally planned in Ottawa with immigration designed to maximize both growth and benefits.

Cueball Cueball's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Before anyone even thinks about going after temp agencies I would first go after the people who skim from the other end - the payday loans people, who actually ARE in the usury business.

I haven't worked through temp agencies, but I have worked with people who have on jobs where I was on call. They absolutely do serve a purpose. How is a factory going to deal with unloading semiloads of fabric that arrive at irregular times? Most can't keep 10 guys on call for a job that might happen twice a month. THey arange it through a labour place.

And I have friends who prefered to work through temp agencies  because they preferred the freedom.

And as for cutting out people who skim money off of a person's labour, there isn't too much that we buy that doesn't have some value added attached to it. It's a fee for a service, and so long as it is at a fair rate, there is nothing wrong with it.

If there's a problem, regulate it., or try to set up a free service. Don't try to have the government duplicate it.

Why duplicate, when you can simply eliminate it and have the government do the same job, more accountably and more efficiently? All this is way to complex. Adding regulation in order to solve the problem of private enterprise ends up increasing the size of government bureaucracy, even though you are maintaining the fiction that you are decreasing the size of government. The taxpayer has to pay for the regulators.

Better, just to have the regulators do the job based on the social objectives you intend; helping people find jobs, as opposed to making profits for the company and its owners.

This is the whole problem with privatized "social services" they don't actually decrease government size, they just appear to do so. At the same time the objective of those providing the "social service" is NOT to provide the service, but to make a profit. This factor always ends up distorting the end point product. Much better just to do this kind of thing in-house, where first and foremost the object of the people providing the service, is providing the service.

6079_Smith_W

@ Cueball

Well that would be the question - whether government can do it more efficiently. I know there are some areas - like utilities, insurance, or some other specific service - where it can and usually does.

I am not so sure that is the case in a field like employment agencies, which has a lot of specialized niche markets. It is usually in businesses like that that the monolithic approach of govenrment control starts to show cracks.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

I think its pretty damn obvious after 30 years of privatization that the government is more efficient, especially when you take into account social benefits that acrue that do not even appear in discrete profit/loss accounting of company operations. The fact is that any bureaucracy creates inefficiencies in direct relation to the size of the bureaucracy, this is generally compensated for by the factors relating to having an economy of scale.

Certainly, wages are higher in the public sector for front line workers. This is often used as an example of inefficiency for some reason that I don't understand, since better distribution of wealth has net social benefits, aside from the simple company balance sheet. Indeed, the fact that upper level management in the public service is usually lower than that in the private sector means that the overall benefit of having lower paid front line staff is reduced substantially because the upper levels of private sector management are paid substantially more than their public sector counterparts. That isn't even counting profit, much of which isn't re-introduced into the local economy, even though it is suggested that profit will be used to invest further in the economy, there seems to be little evidence for this actually happening -- witness the fact that the Ontario manufacturing sector has simply not recovered after the shock of Free Trade, even though corporate taxes in Ontario are exceptionally low.

Furthermore, the government has little ability to direct reinvestment of private sector profits, whereas they do in public sector enterprise. For example, Toronto Hydro is an important revenue stream for the City of Toronto, one that contributes substantially to paying for essential public infrastructure.

Another benefit of more evenly distributed wealth, is the fact that this promotes the small business economy, since it flows more capital into basic necessities, retail, home construction and commodity distribution services.

Ultimately both the private and public model of enterprise produce inefficiencies, it is just that we find them in different places in the system.

6079_Smith_W

@ Cueball

I agree with all that, actually, and as I said, I am completely in favour of public ownership where it is appropriate (and for me that means most things to do with utilities, social welfare and infrastructure).

In this case.... it could work, and it would certainly put some abusers out of commission. But rather than have them cry foul over government interference, I still think there is much more satisfaction to be had in beating them at their own game.

I think hell will freeze over before any level of Canadian government does anything on this. On the other hand, there are already community groups which have informal job boards, and I am sure if someone wanted to get serious about it they could put a dent in their business by setting up a non-profit or co-operative alternative. And besides, I think a grassroots network approach would be more successful in an area like this

If people who want to work invest a commission and even invest a few hours of office time for every week or so of wages I think there would be more than enough to do the same thing with more return to the workers.

Beat them fair and square, and any complaints they might have will be pretty hollow. And it would be much more satisfying to workers, business and the community as a whole to have something they built and run themselves. If the current for-profit businesses are abusing the system it shouldn't be a problem to do the same thing more efficiently, and if it is set up by a community group, invest any profits back into the local community.

Most importantly, it would be under local control - not a govenrment program that could just be shut down if they ever change their mind.

 

Evening Star

Cueball wrote:

As I just pointed out, Manpower used to perform the function of connecting temporary workers with employers as a government service, and during that time, the Canadian economy was five time healthier than it is now.

Man, this is for real?  That's really depressing.