Postal Strike Imminent

[bloodyminded]

It's quite simple. People in the private sector are paying the salaries of those in the public sector. We need to be able to support our government.

That has nothing to do some objective assessment of fair pay...determined by people who, in most cases, pay the least amount possible for the sake of profits. That's absurd.

At any rate, taxpayers pay the infrastructure which makes the private sector possible. So let's start choosing everybody's wages and benefits.

[Shwa]

Lol.. Only in Canada is the tax collection authority labelled the good guy CFIB considered an objective source or "reasonable measure."

There. Fixed it for you.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Shwa

[Smallc]

That has nothing to do some objective assessment of fair pay...determined by people who, in most cases, pay the least amount possible for the sake of profits. That's absurd.

The private sector isn't full of evil penny pinchers, like you seem to assume.

At any rate, taxpayers pay the infrastructure which makes the private sector possible. So let's start choosing everybody's wages and benefits.

Yes, and I support government spending and public employees. I simply don't support them getting almost 4 times as much vacation as I can take or afford to give. My parents work, about 120 hours a week each. They have for over 30 years. They have no pension, and their savings are not yet enough for them to retire (and they're good with money, I can't imagine people that aren't). Some public sector employees, like teachers, (and I substitute regularly and have worked as an educational assistant, so don't tell me I don't know what they go through), get paid a reasonable amount, but they get over two months off a year. That isn't even remotely fair.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Smallc

[bloodyminded]

The private sector isn't full of evil penny pinchers, like you seem to assume.

I said nothing about "evil," though this sort of rhetoric is always employed when I agree with capitalism's basic precepts, but don't moan gloriously about it.

(It reminds me of a debate I had once here on MLW, about torture; I quoted a CSIS memo, but accidentally forgot to include quotation marks. Instantly, I was accused of being a deranged conspiracy theorist...because they thought the words were my own.)

Of course it's full of "penny-pinchers"...good thing, too. If a company's gone public, for example, they are legally required to work for the profit of the shareholders. That's law. I just don't care for labour being the dominant target of the penny-pinching, because I have quaint ideas about human worth and dignity that happen to correlate with the higher ideals of democratic principles.

My point was that the private sector is not in every way a good model for government. That's not a radical opinion; or if it is, then how far we've fallen.

Not too long ago, such a sentiment would have been taken as a given. Lately it's starting to sound like heresy, like "radical leftism," as the precepts of Business (especially Big Business, ironically the least democratically-inclined aspect of capitalism) has become a self-evident truth to some people, obscurely related to "freedom."

Yes, and I support government spending and public employees. I simply don't support them getting almost 4 times as much vacation as I can take or afford to give. My parents work, about 120 hours a week each. They have for over 30 years. They have no pension, and their savings are not yet enough for them to retire (and they're good with money, I can't imagine people that aren't). Some public sector employees, like teachers, (and I substitute regularly and have worked as an educational assistant, so don't tell me I don't know what they go through), get paid a reasonable amount, but they get over two months off a year. That isn't even remotely fair.

But with all due respect to your aprents, if they worked, combined, 240 hours/week at a minimum wage job, they would have enough for a healthy pension and would be able to retire.

Edited June 2, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Smallc]

I said nothing about "evil," though this sort of rhetoric is always employed when I agree with capitalism's basic precepts, but don't moan gloriously about it.

You won't see me doing that, and you know that.

Of course it's full of "penny-pinchers"...good thing, too. If a company's gone public, for example, they are legally required to work for the profit of the shareholders. That's law. I just don't care for labour being the dominant target of the penny-pinching, because I have quaint ideas about human worth and dignity that happen to correlate with the higher ideals of democratic principles.

And you should know that I also share that ideas. That doesn't make it right that public sector workers, even in small rural offices, make salaries much higher than those employed in the public sector in those same rural areas.

My point was that the private sector is not in every way a good model for government. That's not a radical opinion; or if it is, then how far we've fallen.

I never said that the private sector was a good model for government. Government should not be operated like a business. That said, people in the public sector shouldn't have a right to benefits and wages that are in excess of those of most in similar positions in the private sector. You know I'm not some kind of of anti government or anti union crusader.

But with all due respect to your aprents, if they worked, combined, 240 hours/week at a minimum wage job, they would have enough for a healthy pension and would be able to retire.

They own their own business. That's where they spend most of the time I mentioned. At such a job, you don't get paid, and you're the one who has to take a loss often so that your employees can continue to be paid. Also, because of the compassion my father has for the people in this area (many of which are very poor) he has given away far more money than he has saved. I don't share much of that compassion though, so that's all going to be changing.

Yes, my parents make over 100K per year between them, and they aren't starving. They have close to 100K in savings, but that isn't enough, and they don't have pensions to fall back on. My point, was that they work very hard in managerial position of a $3M a year business, and the teachers next door make more money, for less work, on their dime.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Smallc

[mikedavid00]

Why do you think it's better to live in a country where most workers get almost no vacations, no sick leave, and no pensions, as well as poor pay, instead of living in a country where most workers get good vacations, good sick leave coverage, good pensions, and healthy salaries?

The reason why we don't get all these things in the private sector is because there are too many people bidding for the same job.

It's supply and demand which most of you don't understand. You could be an MRI operator. But when there are too many looking for work, the price for them go down. When employers are 'fighting' over MRI operators because there are so few, the price goes up, AND they will entice them with benefits.

The gov't 'breaks the rules' of supply and demand. They just pay everyone high for work that is basically needless and fabricated. I worked there I know. If you speak french and have a degree and you're LUCKY, you're in.

For instance - what is a firefighter worth? They aren't worth anything as it's a volunteer service in many parts of the world and there's no fires. But somehow, they are worth over 80k a year with insane pension and benefits.

Also someone said that they are paid 8-15% more. That is just a lie and number twisting. Anyone in the real world like myself just laughs at that.

How much is a ticket taker at a movie theater worth vs a ticket taker at a subway station. (yeah who remember that $100k a year ticket taker).

How much is a private daycare worker worth vs a unionized teacher who works much less hours?

How much is a newspaper delivery person worth vs a gov't protected, unionized postal worker?

How much is security guard worth as compared to a federal, unionized civil servant security guard?

So please don't insult everyone's intelligence by trying to claim that they make only 8-15% more. Anyone here who actually believes that is pretty dim and has no real world experience. I've worked at both the gov't and the private sector and have seen it all.

[bloodyminded]

You won't see me doing that, and you know that.

No, and you won't see me calling the private sector "evil." I simply don't think in those terms.

And you should know that I also share that ideas. That doesn't make it right that public sector workers, even in small rural offices, make salaries much higher than those employed in the public sector in those same rural areas.

I never said that the private sector was a good model for government. Government should not be operated like a business. That said, people in the public sector shouldn't have a right to benefits and wages that are in excess of those of most in similar positions in the private sector.

But again, why is the private sector to be the proper benchmark for everybody's pay and benefits?

Most people consider private sector pay too low (for the grunts, who virtually run the damn system). For example, the majority of the Earth's working population, whose opinion is always considered irrelevant.

You know I'm not some kind of of anti government or anti union crusader.

That's true, you're not.

They own their own business. That's where they spend most of the time I mentioned. At such a job, you don't get paid, and you're the one who has to take a loss often so that your employees can continue to be paid.

I understand, and I certainly don't begrudge anyone for the monumental work of running one's own business. My point is that this is a choice, and to say it's "not fair" seems a bit of a stretch.

Also, because of the compassion my father has for the people in this area (many of which are very poor) he has given away far more money than he has saved. I don't share much of that compassion though, so that's all going to be changing.

Yeah, I can see my father behaving in much the same way, were he to run a business.

Yes, my parents make over 100K per year between them, and they aren't starving. They have close to 100K in savings, but that isn't enough, and they don't have pensions to fall back on. My point, was that they work very hard in managerial position of a $3M a year business, and the teachers next door make more money, for less work, on their dime.

Well then, what would you suggest? That the teachers make the equivalent to your parents? Why is that the benchmark? Why not $60 000 a year between them? Why not $25 000?

Hell, my lady is a civil servant; she makes $40 000 a yr for fifty hours of high-stress (emergency services) work a week. Is that too high? Too low?

Why, or why not?

(By the way, she's constantly fielding calls from the public saying "I pay your salary!"

Well, no actually...they pay a trivial portion of it, next to nothing.)

Edited June 2, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Smallc]

But again, why is the private sector to be the proper benchmark for everybody's pay and benefits?

I think when you operate within a system (and we have to deal with the capitalist system that we're in, even if I don't always agree with it) you have to work with that system. The private sector has to do support the public sector, and the workers in each should get similar compensation for similar work. I'm not saying that public sector employees don't work hard for the most part, and I really don't even begrudge most of them for their pay, I just think that some of the benefits and retirements are out of line. I don't think most Canadians, knowing the average starting salary and benefits for Canada post workers are really feeling all that bad for them. Maybe they should, but I'm certainly not leaning that way.

Most people consider private sector pay too low (for the grunts, who virtually run the damn system). For example, the majority of the Earth's working population, whose opinion is always considered irrelevant.

You're right, it probably is. Someone who works ay business who does a similar job to what is done at Wal Mart gets $16 an hour after tax, because he's been there for 25 years. The rest get near minimum wage, but, they have very little responsibility, and so they deserve it for the most part...and it's all we can afford.

I understand, and I certainly don't begrudge anyone for the monumental work of running one's own business. My point is that this is a choice, and to say it's "not fair" seems a bit of a stretch.

A bad choice of words on my part, perhaps. Lets take my grandmother though. She makes nearly 40K per year for 28 hours of work per week, and the work, I assure you, is not very hard. Her post office is in her home. Were it to be at an actual Canada Post facility, even in a rural area, it would be substantially more pay. My mother is filling in for her because she's on sick leave and has been since October (while still doing all of the book keeping and ordering for the business, as well as working at the business Thursday, Thursday after 12, and Monday, Wednesday, and Friday after 4). She feels guilty that she can't be at the business when it is busy, because outside of about an hour a day, there's virtually nothing to do at the post office. I'm not saying that these jobs aren't important, but some of the pay and benefits are most certainly out of line. I mean, we're talking about sorting mail for less than 250 people (that's about 100 households).

I will be taking two days a week at the business now that I am a partner, in order to take some of the strain off of my parents (since my uncle and aunt, the previous partners, haven't really been there (14 hours a week) for 10 years.

Well then, what would you suggest? That the teachers make the equivalent to your parents? Why is that the benchmark? Why not $60 000 a year between them? Why not $25 000?

I'm suggesting that they work a similar amount of time to everyone else. I know they spend extra time at school after school, but they should have to do some work during summer, and spring break. Surely you would agree with that.

Hell, my lady is a civil servant; she makes $40 000 a yr for fifty hours of high-stress (emergency services) work a week. Is that too high? Too low?

That sounds reasonable. She doesn't make as much as teacher and get 14 weeks of vacation though.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Smallc

[CPCFTW]

No, and you won't see me calling the private sector "evil." I simply don't think in those terms.

No of course not!! You'd never say something like that. "Evil" is far too harsh and sinister. Perhaps

"scum" would be a far more fitting way to encapsulate the inferiority of those with a different opinion than you!

No wonder Conservatives scum like yourself want the census gone.

[TimG]

But again, why is the private sector to be the proper benchmark for everybody's pay and benefits?

Public sector contracts are something where two parties (politicians and unions) argue over how much a third party (the taxpayer) will pay for these wages and benefits. To make matters worse one party (the unions) has the power to get the other party fired. These negotiating terms ensure that the taxpayer will get screwed no matter what.

This means there needs to be an independent reference to measure the fairness of any wage settlement and the private sector offers that.

[Shwa]

Public sector contracts are something where two parties (politicians and unions) argue over how much a third party (the taxpayer) will pay for these wages and benefits.

Well ya got that wrong pretty fast.

To make matters worse one party (the unions) has the power to get the other party fired. These negotiating terms ensure that the taxpayer will get screwed no matter what.

Nope. Public sector employees, by and large, are subject to back-to-work legislation and binding arbitration. Jean Claude Parrot - does that name ring a bell Tim?

This means there needs to be an independent reference to measure the fairness of any wage settlement and the private sector offers that.

And what might that be Tim - the CFIB? How about some other fantasizing 'watchdog' like the Fraser Institute? How about the Manning Centre? Have you checked out their "reports" yet Tim? I am sure they will have some "reasonable measure" you can sink your teeth into.

[bloodyminded]

I think when you operate within a system (and we have to deal with the capitalist system that we're in, even if I don't always agree with it) you have to work with that system. The private sector has to do support the public sector, and the workers in each should get similar compensation for similar work. I'm not saying that public sector employees don't work hard for the most part, and I really don't even begrudge most of them for their pay, I just think that some of the benefits and retirements are out of line. I don't think most Canadians, knowing the average starting salary and benefits for Canada post workers are really feeling all that bad for them. Maybe they should, but I'm certainly not leaning that way.

I think there is some broad agreement here that some of the benefits and retirement packages--and perhaps, here and there, some of the pay scales--are out of line. But I'm hearing a pretty general opinion on "government workers," full stop.

At any rate, I concede (and conceded earlier in the thread) that some of the overall packages don't sound quite right.

But the idea of adjusting it to private sector pay seems crazy to me. I don't know about others on this thread, but I spent my adult life doing menial, low-wage work, and advanced out of that shithole existence only a few years ago. And the fact is, the elephant in the room so to speak, is that the vast majority of private sector workers are paid slightly over minimum wage, with a few benefits that the employers are trying hard to cut (even though the benefits usually have come at the expense of slightly higher wages, which means large companises are attempting to decrease labour costs, a truism which they deny shamelessly). We have posters here saying that, in this example, menial public labourers should get what menial private labourers get.

But those private menial labourers don't think their public brethren are overpaid, so much as they think they themselves are underpaid. I'm inclined to agree.

I also agree that some businesses cannot afford much more than minimum wage; some can't even really afford minimum wage. But that isn't the majority of private sector employers (I mean in real numbers, indisputable); most of them can easily afford it.

So if we take the financial, self-indulgent choices of a tiny minority of wealthy people with political influence--owners, up-scale managers, and the top shareholders (the only ones who matter)--as the proper measurement of what everyone else should be paid too...wow. At that point, we aren't talking about oligarchy in a theoretical sense, but in a literal one. Literally, running government and the economy exactly as the unelected minority of wealthy people and their ideological defenders demand that things should be run.

You put it as a capitalist system in which we have to work...but that elides all agency. I'm talking about concrete decisions made by a fractional minority of individuals.

They simply don't get to call the shots, based on their own, privatized, bottom line.

And yes, you're right that Canadians get pissed about public wages and benefits (being often totally ignorant about them, and thinking civil servants are all scandalously overcompensated); but the public also has a deep and abiding distrust and dislike of, for example, large corporations. And that distrust and dislike is more often based on direct personal experience, rather than generalizations about "the gub'mint" about which they personally know very little (as we have discussed re other topics of people's knowledge of government). So populist opinion isn't an argument for moving in that direction, given the public's distaste for Big Business generally.

You're right, it probably is. Someone who works ay business who does a similar job to what is done at Wal Mart gets $16 an hour after tax, because he's been there for 25 years. The rest get near minimum wage, but, they have very little responsibility, and so they deserve it for the most part...and it's all we can afford.

I can totally understand this. That distinguishes it from WalMart, of course, who can well afford it, but specifically choose not to. In fact, even after 25 years, a WalMart employee will not make $16 after taxes--they wish!--because they get, on average, 30 cents raise per year, and it is not adjusted upwards when minimum wage goes up. So if you started at Walmart in 1986, at $6/hr, you would be making $13.50 before taxes.

As TimG said, since WalMart is the "industry standard" (by virtue of their success, based in part on low wages), that would be a decent measurement for remuneration elsewhere.

I think it's lunacy, but clearly there's going to be no agreement on this one.

Most people in the world I think would agree with me, and the elitists and top-down class warriors would tend to disagree.

Hence, I'm the radical!

That sounds reasonable. She doesn't make as much as teacher and get 14 weeks of vacation though.

No, she got two weeks for the first five years, and now she gets three. And that's capped, too. I don't consider it excessive at all.

And sure, I'd have no issue with teachers getting ten weeks' less vacation, personally. It'd be a pitched battle, however!

Edited June 2, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

No of course not!! You'd never say something like that. "Evil" is far too harsh and sinister. Perhaps

"scum" would be a far more fitting way to encapsulate the inferiority of those with a different opinion than you!

I think you're projecting. I actually think nothing of the kind. At any rate, the "example" you use isn't even mine!

Nice try, though.

[bloodyminded]

Public sector contracts are something where two parties (politicians and unions) argue over how much a third party (the taxpayer) will pay for these wages and benefits. To make matters worse one party (the unions) has the power to get the other party fired. These negotiating terms ensure that the taxpayer will get screwed no matter what.

This means there needs to be an independent reference to measure the fairness of any wage settlement and the private sector offers that.

It's a meaningless concoction by those who have a sycophantic relationship with private power, and a religious awe for a "free market" that doesn't even exist.

[CPCFTW]

I think you're projecting. I actually think nothing of the kind. At any rate, the "example" you use isn't even mine!

Nice try, though.

I'm glad not all of you think that way!

[TimG]

It's a meaningless concoction by those who have a sycophantic relationship with private power, and a religious awe for a "free market" that doesn't even exist.

What is your alternative then? The conflict of interest in the public sector bargaining process means we must have some other reference point to just the settlements against.

[Bonam]

I can totally understand this. That distinguishes it from WalMart, of course, who can well afford it, but specifically choose not to. In fact, even after 25 years, a WalMart employee will not make $16 after taxes--they wish!--because they get, on average, 30 cents raise per year, and it is not adjusted upwards when minimum wage goes up. So if you started at Walmart in 1986, at $6/hr, you would be making $13.50 before taxes.

Why should someone working as a cashier at Walmart be making any more than that, even if they've worked there since 1986? It's the nature of the job that is important. If someone can't rise to anything above being a cashier in 25 years of their life, well, why should anyone expect that they be paid like a professional? Walmart jobs of the kind you are talking about are for students making a living on the side, people between jobs looking for something to fill in til they can find something in their field, people working a second job to bring in a bit of extra money, etc. People making their "career" out of working minimum wage jobs are doing something very wrong.

Edited to add: I could make more than that per hour just playing computer games and selling virtual currency if I wanted to ;p Friend of mine makes ~$70k/year doing just that.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Bonam

[Smallc]

Yes, actually, I suppose the worker I'm talking about does have more responsibility than a cashier at Wal Mart.

[Tilter]

I really like the little squib on the front page of the Hamilton Spec this AM---

If the postal workers go on strike--- will anybody notice???

Edited June 2, 2011 by Tilter

[Smallc]

Those of us in rural Canada will certainly notice.

[CPCFTW]

Why should someone working as a cashier at Walmart be making any more than that, even if they've worked there since 1986? It's the nature of the job that is important. If someone can't rise to anything above being a cashier in 25 years of their life, well, why should anyone expect that they be paid like a professional? Walmart jobs of the kind you are talking about are for students making a living on the side, people between jobs looking for something to fill in til they can find something in their field, people working a second job to bring in a bit of extra money, etc. People making their "career" out of working minimum wage jobs are doing something very wrong.

Edited to add: I could make more than that per hour just playing computer games and selling virtual currency if I wanted to ;p Friend of mine makes ~$70k/year doing just that.

The problem is that we ARE paying people to be career cashiers but we label them token collectors and post office clerks and pay them 50k + benefits.

[fellowtraveller]

It does not follow that rural or remote areas would need 'massive subsidies' to get first class mail, the transport infrastructure that flies mail into Iqualuit today is not owned or operated by Cabada Post now, nor would it be tomorrow.

I don't see your point. Transporting mail there is expensive, and the cost is currently subsidized. Should Canada post be gutted, as you Cons want, the cost to transport a letter/parcel/ will skyrocket.

It is pretty simple. The cost of delivering first class mail in and between large southern centers is very profitable for Canada Post because of volume. The cost of delivering a letter to Iqualuit is more than $.57 and is essentially subsidized by the profit from first class mail elsewhere. The volume going to remote areas is miniscule, and the subsidy is small on the grand scale. It is a central argument by CPC for keeping the monopoly, is greatly overstated, and you have swallowed it whole.

The cost to Iqualuit would go up, and could easily be handled by other means for far less cost than you or CPC make out. The cost overall for first class mail would drop for the vast majority of Canadians.

[guyser]

I goofed my first response and cannot re-post its too long so I will encapsule my comments here

[quote

So the low end "gap" is about $86.00 per week salary difference and the higher end works out to be about $150.00 per week difference. Before taxes of course. Seems pretty comparable to me all within a reasonable range. In other words, no real big differences here. I am sure there are some companies that pay more for their workers than are being paid in the government. Software application developers for example. I wonder what the disparity is there?

So the public sector pays more, the bennies are better. Ok.

And I wonder Guyser, from your detailed reading of the report, does it mention that since public sector employees might tend to stay in their jobs longer, that this might have an influence on the reported pay? Probably not I bet, because that might skew the numbers a bit. Just like this does:

We do not know,but we could sepculate.

Public sector employees stay longer because they like riding the gravy train. The private ones like to move up and find something better. The public sector likes the pay and especially the benefits like the generous retirement plan, The private sector has to go for more to be able to have more come retirement.

I doubt either of us know.

Of course you simply can't make a comparison between a "director general" or any other government executive class employee now could you? Because if they did, then the "average" would be way off the scale wouldn't it? Don't dare compare the pay scale of a national or multinational CEO or CFO with "similar" "skill sets" of Deputy Ministers or departmental CFO's because then the difference would be in the range of a piddly few grand a year, it would be in the order of hundreds of grand per year and, in some cases, over a million.

Why on earth wouldn't the 'Canadian Federation of Independent Business' make the same comparisons of private executives with public sector executives. Can you rationalize this obvious ommission from their data? CFIB don't lobby do they?

Un fair comparison either way. Private is for profit, public isnt. Risk vs reward.

Really? They are "living large" on $86.00 to $150.00 extra per week before taxes? Are they buying Porches and mansions and eating caviar every week?

Nothing like a lil hyperbole thrown in for good measure I guess

Fair enough, living large ...how about retiring large and generously?

$350 -$600 per month is a lot of money when you are on the low side in private sector....add in the pension and other perks and well.....

No, it seems if anyone is living large it is the executive class of private industry where the wage gap between the top earners and the low level workers fuels "reports" from "idependent businessmen" that say it all isn't fair because the low level public sectors employees make slightly more than their own workers. The absence of this data is very telling.

Private industry is a profit making enterprise. Dont make it, see ya later. Not so much in the public sector.

So, since there is no real difference in wages,

Except there is.

then the problem really must be all those benefits - you know - those extras - that were negotiated in good faith by unions and government management (i.e. director generals and above) through a perfectly legal process called 'collective bargaining.' What does the CFIB report have to say about this?

No doubt they were negotiated in good faith, I would not nor have I categorized it any differently.

But negotiating using someone elses money is pretty easy. Negotiating in the private sector is a ton harder since profits have to be maximized.

OMG! 2%-13% difference! Fire them all! They get an extra couple of days leave!

You can be jocular all you want but the fact remains the difference is always in favour of the public and thousands of people would be happy to get a raise of 2-13%. Dont discount that fact.

Nevermind that services to Canadians are legislated by law, that greedy clerk in Revenue Canada handling tax payments to Canadians likely makes $86.00 more per week and has a couple more days off than the clerk at Mutual Insurance who is trying to find a way to avoid paying their client an insurance payout.

A couple more days off, hours that are rigid......seems it would make some in the private sector happier.

Trust me, no clerk anywhere , Mutual Ins or not, has anything to do with denying a claim. Apple to orange.

And let's not forget, we simply cannot compare the wages and benefits of that CEO of Mutual Insurance with the Deputy Minister of Revenue Canada because it would be totally unfair for all those Mutual Insurance workers slaving away at their petty occupations wishing they were in their dream job at Revenue Canada.

One has a duty to raise revenue, find new streams of revenue and to grow the business.

The other one has all the revenue given to him, finds some more in the same pockets by digging deeper and has no competition of any kind anywhere in this country.

One has a networking calendar full of night time engagements, weekends working , travelling or in meetings.

The other has no business engagments at night,no travel , meetings of course, but on the whole, hardly comparible.

[RNG]

Those of us in rural Canada will certainly notice.

Interestingly enough (to me) I will not be impacted at all. All my bills come via e-mail. I pay them via the internet, either to the vendors website or through my bank internet access. My investment statements etc. are via the internet. My CPP and OAP are direct deposit. So who cares?

[Smallc]

Interestingly enough (to me) I will not be impacted at all. All my bills come via e-mail. I pay them via the internet, either to the vendors website or through my bank internet access. My investment statements etc. are via the internet. My CPP and OAP are direct deposit. So who cares?

It won't affect me personally that much, but it will affect many people. My GST (the last year I'll get that) comes in the mail yet, and I had just applied for a BMO Air Miles Master Card, so I won't get that or even find out what's happening with that. Also, I was waiting for a skin for my iPhone, a radio mounting kit for my car, and a replacement power adapter from Apple...so I guess it will actually have a pretty big effect.