The Ben Mulroney Show - We're not serious enough about border security

Episode Date: December 12, 2024

Guests and Topics on Today's Show -Protecting Canada's borders requires immediate investment in CBSA officers with Guest: Mark Weber, National President of the Customs and Immigration Union -Are boomers getting a bad rap for hoarding wealth from millennials and gen Z? with Guest: Rubina Ahmed-Haq, Global News Personal finance expert  -What everyone needs to know about the Ride-Share industry in Toronto with Guest: Harrison Amit, Founder and CEO of HOVR -Tipping Isn’t about Service – It’s a Psychological Con Job with Guest: David Moscrop - political theorist, a contributing columnist for the Washington Post, and the author of Too Dumb for Democracy? If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Ben Mulroney Show, subscribe to the podcast! https://globalnews.ca/national/program/the-ben-mulroney-show Follow Ben on Twitter/X at https://x.com/BenMulroney Enjoy

Hey everybody, it's Ben Mulrooney. We had a jam-packed show today, including protecting Canada's borders requires immediate investment, our boomers getting a bad rap for hoarding wealth for millennials and Gen Z, and tipping isn't about service, it's a psychological con job.

Enjoy. Look, we've been talking a lot about the CBSA, the Customs Border Security Agency, and what it does, what it needs to do, and how it already has such an important job. But it looks like in order for us to live in a tariff-free world, we are going to require it to do far more. And the union that represents the workers of the CBSA put out a press release that says,

protecting Canada's borders requires immediate investment in CBSA officers. Absolutely. And it's a very well-written, compelling argument as to what is required to allow this organization, this vital organization to do what it does. But there's even more. It's got to do so much more. So there's so much more that needs to be done. So let's welcome it. Let's welcome to the show to continue this conversation. Mark Weber, the National President of the Customs and Immigration Union. Mark, thank you so much for being here. Thank you for having me. I got to say, I'm reading this press release, which I'm sure you've seen. But when it says, you know, PSAC is calling on the federal government to reverse planned budget cuts

to CBSA operations and immediate launch an aggressive recruitment campaign. So first of all, absolutely. But the fact that we have a budget deficit and the debt out of out of control, in other words, we've been spending money like a drunken sailor for years. And yet there were planned budget cuts to the CBSA is shows how unserious we are about the things we should be most serious about. Yeah, I don't disagree. I mean, there's planned budget cuts across the federal public service, specifically the CBSA. They're looking at saving about sixty eight million dollars. We already have significant staffing shortages. So, you know, you talk about adding security to your border. You can't do that with less people and less money. Yeah.

And there is. So why don't you tell me, because I think our listeners probably need a primer. What are the primary responsibilities and obligations of the CBSA? CBSA is responsible for border security. So that's largely what comes into Canada. And I think that's where some confusion is about the current discussion that's coming largely out of the U.S., implying that Canada is responsible for keeping things out of the U.S. The U.S. is responsible for keeping things out of the United States.

Each country is responsible for their own border sovereignty. So I think when we're talking about investing resources into keeping the United States secure. I'm not really sure I understand what that would look like, how that would work, or really that that is our mandate or job whatsoever. In an ideal world, how many more frontline officers does the CBSA need? And talk to me about sort of the technology that currently exists that we probably don't even have in our toolkit that you think we would need to really allow the CBSA to be the

fullest expression of itself. So to keep our borders secure, we're short between two and 3,000 officers. That's a huge number. Yeah. We lost about 1,100 back in 2013. We've not replaced them. Obviously, we've gotten bus 2013. We've not replaced them. Obviously, we've gotten busier. Our inland operations have increased. Those are people we need to find or remove from the country. So we are really short, and we see an agency that's really dedicated to facilitation and putting in more automated systems that are just about self-declaration, right? Our job is to keep the people and things out of the country we don't want to get in. That includes, you know, things like opioids, handguns. We know almost all come in

from the U.S. No one's going to self-declare that they're bringing that in. That takes people there to do the searches, to do the interviews. That's really what we're lacking. Mark, are you guys also in charge of the ports? We're in charge of the ports. Marine, we're looking at less than one percent. Rail, we're not looking at at all. Between ports of entry, we don't work whatsoever. We've kind of just given that over to the RCMP. We should be able to be assisting them in doing that work. We're not right now.

So, Mark, when you heard Donald Trump sort of levy these attacks, these criticisms on our country? Did you say, thank you. Thank you for saying what I've been saying. I mean, if some good can come from it, yes. But again, I think what he's saying is in the wrong direction. If I were to imply that the United States is responsible for keeping their handguns out of Canada, I would be told that that's crazy. Yet the argument the other way around, people seem to be giving credence, right? Yeah. We need to worry about securing our borders and keeping those things out of Canada.

Secondarily, that will, of course, help the United States, because you'll see some of those people who now get into Canada eventually go into the U.S., not be allowed in here. So secondarily, the knock on effect will be beneficial to our neighbors to the south. But it's not our job to keep their borders safe. Now, how long? Let's say the $68 million cut is reversed. Let's say the CBSA receives a windfall from the government, more money coming in for recruitment, technology, all this stuff. How long before this new improved version of CBSA is up and running? Because you can't just turn it on, flip a switch, and all of a sudden these new employees are frontline officers. They got to go through training. Yeah, it takes time. We'd need a new training facility. We only have one that could pump out under 600 a year. That barely covers attrition. That would be step one.

Takes a long time to train, to become a full officer. We'd need an order in council dating back from 1932 to be repealed, which would allow us to work between ports of entry, which is really our legal mandate. That's work that we should be doing. We don't. And again, but we need the agency to stop focusing on increasing automation and stop this constant focus on getting people and goods through

as quickly as possible, irregardless of the security concerns, right? Yeah. You need to be there to do the searches and do the interviews. We're there to keep people safe. We're not doing that if we're waiting for people to self-declare. So I've got to ask, because I have to assume that when you hear about these cuts, when you mention to the government, you know, we can't train these new people fast enough to keep up with attrition and retirement.

It seems to me that it's been falling on deaf ears for years. But have things changed since the tariff threats of Donald Trump? Do you all of a sudden have more interested parties on the other side of the table? We've reached out to the minister. We've reached out to the premier. So far, no, we're not hearing change. We hear plans around putting RCMP cadets at the border. We're already at the premier. So far, no, we're not hearing change. We hear plans around, you know, putting RCMP cadets at the border. We're already at the border. We can do this work between the ports of entry. We want to do it. In terms of resources, I'm not hearing of more money being thrown at us.

You know, I hear plans around drones and helicopters. I don't know who would be operating those, and I don't know who would be on the ground to do the interdiction, even if the drones found something. We're desperate to get people at the front line and to be able to fulfill our mandate. I think one of the fundamental issues is these meetings are happening exclusive of anyone who's ever worked at a border. CBSA upper levels of management, the premiers, none of them have worked at a border understand how interdiction works or what our jobs or responsibilities or even legal mandates are. It's very concerning that we're, you know, the people who have the expertise and know what to do are kind of on the sidelines that their fingers crossed.

Well, sadly, sadly, it seems, Mark, that my worst fears are being confirmed that, you know, this looming threat, it could cause an existential, it's an existential threat to our economy, these 25% tariffs. And it doesn't seem that the leadership at the top is taking it seriously enough. They're not moving with enough volatility to make anything real happen in time to stave off the reality of these tariffs. I mean, our worry is that we see border theater, right? If we're really worried about security, we know exactly what is needed. Everyone does.

You need people. You need to do the interdiction. You need to do the searches. You need to do the interviews. You've got to stop focusing on relying on self-declaration and automating, automating, automating everything. So if the ultimate plan is to pour money into more machines without the people there, that is exactly what border theater is.

Well, look, I have to assume that certain technologies are good. Like when I'm crossing the border with my Nexus card, you know, that's a good use of technology. But I guess because of technologies like that, we've, we've gone whole hog and said, well, if that's good, if, if, if, if what's good for the goose is good for the gander, let's just put that sort of technology across all the silos. Exactly. And then you wonder how things get in, they get in. I mean, if everyone is allowed to just come in and self-declare, you can't do that.

And then on the other hand, worry about the epidemic of gun violence in our larger cities and the opioid crisis. And we could go on about societal issues that we know come from outside of Canada. You can't have it both ways. Mark Weber, national president of the Customs and Immigration Union. This was an eye-opening conversation. I want to tell you that I appreciate the work that your members do. I thank you for your service. It's important work, and I wish it was more respected by the people who can show you respect by upping the ante on your budget. Welcome to Kidsplain, where kids explain how underfunded our schools are. Let's take a call from a listener. Kelly, are you there? Hi. I was wondering why I get less

one-on-one time with my teachers. Great question, Kelly. It might have something to do with the fact that we have 3,500 fewer teachers under Doug Ford. Ugh, that sounds about right. Want to help support students and teachers? Visit nomore.ca. That's K-N-O-W-M-O-R-E dot C-A. A message from the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association. And now is a segment where I'm going to turn into an old man yelling at clouds. I'm a Gen Xer, so I'm sort of in the middle of a civil war between boomers and millennials and Gen Z. Where you've got these young kids who are struggling. They're really having a hard time making ends meet,

leaving their parents' basement, even affording enough to rent their own apartment. And they look to boomers who have paid off their homes. Some of them have cottages. And they don't see these guys getting out of the way and sharing what they got. And so Rubina Ahmed-Haq, Global News personal finance expert, And they just don't they don't see these guys getting out of the way and sharing what they got. And so Rubina Ahmed Haque, Global News personal finance expert, is joining me for a conversation on how maybe the facts on the ground don't shouldn't translate into this hate on for boomers.

Rubina, welcome to the show. Thanks for having me. So, Rubina, besides what I said, what are some of the core, strongly held beliefs by the younger generation about those boomers? There's this meme that went around, Ben, I think last year, where it's, you know, seniors dancing at what looks like maybe a senior's home or maybe a dance for seniors. And the caption was, look at my boomer parents dancing because they bought their home, their $3 million homes for a bucket of raspberries in the 1960s. I think that there is definitely a misnomer because the economy has changed so much. You can't really compare what was happening in the 60s and 70s or 80s even to now. Interest rates were much higher back then. Jobs, people were different when it came to the jobs. They stayed in jobs for a long time.

They had different job security. And there was a robust middle class that could afford a lot of things that right now are quite unaffordable for some. And there's definitely this divergence happening of the haves and the have-nots, where some people have so much money, young and old, and the others are continuing to struggle and make payments. But it is frustrating. You know, I think that when you go back and look at home prices compared to salaries, that a single salary could afford a pretty decent home in the early 80s. And that's just not the case anymore. And Rubina, I wonder why the boomers get saddled with the ire.

Explain to me how the young people could logically get from, I can't afford a house, to looking at somebody who bought their house 30, 40 years ago and say, you're the problem. So they're definitely not the problem. And one thing that is a fact is that there is going to be a trillion dollar transfer from this extremely rich generation,

which is the boomers and their cottages and the homes and everything that you talked about is going to be inherited by the very group that gripes about the boomers. That doesn't mean they're not allowed to gripe about them. And that is going to create a whole different economy when that money is transferred. So these homes that were bought, you know, my parents bought a home in Scarborough for $78,000 back in 1978. It's definitely worth a lot more than that now. And they're just sitting on it. And a lot of times I've said to them, you should move and let a family move in here, but they want to stay. So I think my frustration sometimes with older, like the boomers, and I think this comes from my own relationship with my parents, is that you need to move out of this house. This house is too big for you.

We have a house. It's too much house. That's what they say. Too much house. Yeah. So I think young people do have a point that whereas the older generation, maybe generations before the boomers, you know, lived with family members or lived in nursing homes or frankly passed away, people are living longer, people are living longer in the home that they raised their families in. And that's kind of creating this sort of this effect where homes that normally would have been able to be available for young families to buy are just not coming available. And life just seems getting more expensive. And Rubina, you make a really good point. The fact that people are living longer, right?

And so someone used to pass away at 70. You're living to 95 now. And so that house that would have come up on the market after somebody passed away, they're sticking around and they're setting their ways and they ain't going anywhere. And there's no rule that says they have to get out of the way for younger people. And they're living well. So, you know, that argument that, you know, you should be in a care home or you should be in a place where, you know, you can get help immediately. That doesn't work when the person is completely of sound mind and is able to do everything on their own.

Like how can I, you tell an adult that they need to sell their home. So a lot of times I've had this conversation with my 82 year old dad and he's he's like kind of got that attitude. Who are you to tell me what to do with my money in my home? Look, your dad is 82, which means he was born right after like probably during world war two,

which means his first few years of his life were not easy. He lived through hyperinflation in the 70s, massive unemployment. We had huge debts and deficits. Life was not all roses for boomers. And there's this misnomer that they were born, every single one of them was born with a horseshoe where their sun don't shine.

And now they're being unfair, doubly unfair. A, they got super lucky, and now they don't want to share the wealth. And it's a hell of a narrative to fight against. I mean, I think this has always been the struggle between the young and the old. Like, we look back and say, oh, life was so easy for you.

You could do things so much easier. But then if you actually were to go back to that life, maybe that wouldn't be so easy for you to understand how difficult it was. I mean, my parents came here as immigrants to the country, had to build everything from scratch. They didn't have anybody to rely on. And so that's not an easy existence. That's a really difficult thing to do.

You talked about my dad during World War II. I mean, he literally moved during partition from one country that was being broken up into two to another country as a refugee. So, you know, people did not live easy lives. Boomers lived through two major world wars and the Cold War and all these other things that happened. So it's more recognizing as a young person the reality that we are in, managing those expectations. You can't say, oh, well, my parents bought a house that was affordable at young and Eglinton back in the seventies. I should be able to do that's not reality anymore. Homes have gone up in value, right? So I think that's what really needs to be the message is that, you know, you have to work

in the economy that you are in. That's just, that's just facts. And Rubina, how much of the pressure that the young people are feeling this negative downward pressure that they're feeling, the feeling that they have no going to cut this and cut that and unleash the entrepreneurial spirit and make it easier to start a business and open a business and make a business prosperous and keep more of your own money and keep your powerful paychecks. All those buzzwords. Let's say he's able to do all those things. Does that make life better for these kids? I don't know if it makes life better, but it definitely does not mimic what was around in the 70s and 80s. That's what they think it's going back to, because that's the opposite of what was happening back then.

Back then, you know, we had social, robust social services, where, you know, if you needed help, there were so many different government programs that were in place to help you. If we're going away from that, then young people cannot say, why didn't we have it the way our parents did? Because, again, it's a different economy. I think young people are very entrepreneurial. I think technology has made it possible for anybody with any idea

to create something from the comfort of their own home. And so to make that more attainable and to be able to keep more of those profits, if it is your idea and your business and your hard work, I think will definitely spur younger people, but it's going to be a different economy. And we don't know exactly what that's going to look like until it happens. I would,

I would take issue with just one thing you said, Rubina, you said that technology has made it so that you can create a business and anything you want from the comfort of your own home. Sadly, these young people do not own their own home, so it's in the comfort of their parents' basement. Yes, or their parents' guest room, yes. But I can only imagine the anxiety that somebody feels

and the disappointment that no matter how hard they work, they still feel that homeownership is unattainable. So I do appreciate the frustration and the need to direct that frustration somewhere. Of course. And, you know, it's just like anything else where if you if you expect everything to always be the same, then nothing really moves forward. It's about adjusting, you know, like a lot of young people have moved out to smaller places. You know, if you look at Toronto, a lot of my friends have moved out to places like Guelph and if you look at Toronto, a lot of my friends have moved out to places like Guelph and Brantford and beyond,

and they're loving it out there. When Uber arrived in Toronto, it dropped like an atom bomb, changing everything we knew about how we'd get around the city. It was a massive shift that the cab industry had to deal with. It's had implications for public transit,

for literally every aspect of our lives. But since it came, it showed up, it was supposed to be a hero. I believe it's a villain now. And it's the question of how much is too much is something that's been dominating the city hall for the last few days. And in a surprise move, Mayor Olivia Chow sent a plan to cap the number of Uber and Lyft drivers operating in Toronto back to the drawing board. She said it wasn't good enough. So in a report released last week, city staff recommended limiting how many drivers could work for ride-hailing companies at just over 80,000. That's the number of licensed rideshare licenses by the municipality.

And the plan was set to go to council for final approval next week. Now, at executive committee yesterday, the CEO and founder of a startup competitor to Uber called Hover spoke in defense of a cap and put his own Toronto spin on things. Toronto's private transportation market involves over currently 80,000 drivers, many of them struggling to earn a fair wage. Currently, there are too many drivers chasing too few rides, resulting in reduced pay and unnecessary

congestion. Simply maintaining a driver cap at around 80,000 preserves a broken status quo, one that forces drivers below minimum wage and crowds the streets, which slows down our city. We propose setting a meaningful driver cap between 30 and 40,000 drivers. All right, that was Harrison Amitt, as I said, the founder and CEO of Hover. Very pleased to welcome him to the show. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I am an advisor to Hover, but I believe that this is a great company that's going to do great things and very proud to share the microphone with Harrison. Harrison, welcome to the show. Hey, Ben, thanks for having me on. Okay, so a lot of people are going to say, okay, there's 80,000 licenses out there and you want to cap it at 40. Explain.

Yeah, for sure. I mean, I want to make one point super clear. There's actually more licenses than that because the current system requires a driver to have a separate license for each company that they choose to work for, which is the only industry that's regulated in this way where an independent contractor is required to have a separate license to do the same work for different companies. So first and foremost, the fact that they would cap licenses would only entrench a monopolistic system because obviously our competitors have been around for much longer than us, and we would have to wait for new licenses to become available. So we want to cap the number

of drivers, and we want the drivers to own their own license. And having 40,000 drivers on the road versus 80,000 drivers, Ben, is a simple solution to a lot of the city's problems. Actually, you make a good point there that if you cap the number of licenses, then someone would have to drop their Uber license for something to free up for a competitor to enter the market. It's decidedly anti-competitive. Absolutely. Yeah, no, we need to move to a one driver, one license system, which is exactly how the taxi system works. The taxi drivers get a license. They work for whatever brokers they want. Real simple. Nothing new here. And we expect that municipal licensing and city council will have actually resent the recommendations to include this as we brought it up the other day in front of executive committee. Well, that was going to be my next question.

You waited a long time to speak in front of the executive committee. What sort of reaction have you gotten from the powers that be on your position? I think it's been well received in general. I mean, it's about logic, right? It makes sense. We're reducing redundancies. We're saving drivers hundreds of dollars per year, renewing separate licenses for separate companies. And we're making it easier for everybody. And we're setting the stage for an open and free market. And you mentioned hundreds of dollars a year. Give me

a sense of how much one of these licenses costs. Give me a sense of how hard it is to jump through the red tape and jump through all the different regulatory hoops to get a license. Yeah. So the way that it looks like right now is that we have to, you know, collect a number of different documents from drivers, including criminal background checks, which we 100 percent encourage and vehicle safety checks. And all these things are necessary. It's just they're not necessary for each and every company. It's the exact same work. They're on the road at the exact same times. It's just a redundancy. And some of these documents like the vehicle safety check can cost one hundred dollars. So if there's two companies, three companies, four companies or more in the future, we're going to see an unreasonable amount of burden passed on to the driver for the, you know, yeah, it doesn't add up. I think a lot of people listening probably have no idea that they

have to go out and get a separate license for each each company. I think they would just assume because logically to to the average person, it just makes sense. You get one license. I don't care if I'm in a Lyft, a Hover, or an Uber as a consumer. I'm using an app to get in a car to take me from point A to point B. So why should the onus and the burden, financial burden, be placed on these people that everybody already acknowledges are being financially pinched by the rideshare companies? I completely agree with you, Ben. I mean, again, one license, one driver, and then capping the number of drivers is going to result in a better industry for everybody and a better experience for riders as well. I mean, again, let's just use some simple logic. Imagine taking 40,000 vehicles off the roads in Toronto. I mean, rideshare has been accounted for about 15% of overall congestion. So let's cut that in half.

Okay, but I got to ask the tough question. Harrison, I got to ask the tough question. You got 80,000 people with licenses. Whose licenses do you take away? So the reality of the market is that 26,000 drivers, out of that 80,000 drivers, are making up about 80% of all the rides. So those are the full-timers. That means that there's around 54,000 drivers are making up about 80% of all the rides. Like, so those are the full timers.

That means that there's around 54,000 part-time people on the road. That's the problem. So, you know, through attrition and through the industry turnover, it's maybe not a well-known fact, but of course we're very aware of it. There's about a 96% turnover rate in the industry. So if you just put a cap on the amount overall, and you close the loopholes for electric and accessible, I mean, like I said, saying that electric vehicles can be above the cap is just a loophole, right? And we're not going to

solve the problem of driver wages and lowering congestion. So if we focus on the full-time people, put a cap forward that responsibly allows for the city to have a great on-demand transportation system. Over the course of time, it'll naturally reduce and shed down to the numbers that could support the demand side of on-demand transport. Originally, Olivia Chow's idea was going to move to City Council for final approval next week. When do you think this is going to be resolved?

That's a great question, but if I had a crystal ball, I'd give you some insight, but I don't necessarily have any insight as to when it'll be resolved. What I'm hoping for is that we can be a much more meaningful part of the conversation, not just a three-minute sound bite at an executive committee meeting, but that the city reaches out in a meaningful way to speak to the local hometown company that's trying to do right by the drivers and the riders, provide a better experience for everybody in Toronto. Harrison Ammitt, the founder and CEO of Hover, thank you very much for joining us, my friend, and important. I'm glad your voice is being added to the conversation. Thank you, Ben. I appreciate the space. Tipping. It can make people's blood boil.

It feels like it's not an option anymore. I remember when I was a kid, I remember when I was in university and we'd go out with friends. I had a hard and fast rule. I believed that a tip was a demonstration of appreciation of good service. Good service is really the key component there. There's a service being provided and you say, thank you by tipping. But now there's a whole bunch of scenarios that have popped up recently where I don't even see a whole lot of service being provided and yet I'm being asked to tip and I'm expected to tip. It's a mild annoyance for me.

But our next guest has written a piece on the Walrus called Tipping Isn't About Service, It's a Psychological Con Job. We welcome David Moskrop, politics writer and author of Too Dumb for Democracy to the show. David, tell us how you really feel. Well, for a small tip, let's say 25%, I'd be very happy.

Yeah. I remember back in the day when I would have the most incredible meal at a restaurant. And yeah, a 25% tip was on the table if it was life-changing service. And I felt good doing it. But now there are certain scenarios where you're automatically asked to tip a minimum of 18% or 20%. Yeah. And I want to start by saying that I'm not arguing that we ought to stick it to workers. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

I'm arguing what's happened is, especially with these new point-of-sale technologies, is that you've had a tip inflation, so tips are higher. You've had tip creep, so you're seeing that at new places, including like mechanics and dry cleaners and even self-checkouts at grocery stores, which is why. It's so weird. And it's so weird. And it's putting the pressure on the consumer

to tip and pay for people to survive the day rather than employers. And you're right. I know, because we talk about it on this show all the time, that life is increasingly unaffordable. And I hear in the service industry that servers depend on their tips. But now it seems like it's something that is everywhere. And you say that it goes deep into psychology as well.

Yeah. So the point of sale machines, those little machines they hand you at the coffee shop or the restaurant or whatever have changed me because there were back in the day you'd have to write out the tip yeah you'd have to do the math try to figure it out you all weren't carrying supercomputers in our pockets right it's actually really tricky and it's i remember sometimes i would i would i would tip a little higher if it just made the math easier on me. That's right. You like tip the tax and maybe round up, something like that.

You came up with little secrets, little heuristics. But now at the point of sale machine, the employers get to program them, right? And they can give you three choices, for instance. And maybe 15% is the low end now and 20 is the high end but the way our psychology works is we kind of have an anchor and we tend towards the middle and think okay well i'm gonna i don't want to be a cheapskate i'm not going to go overboard but i'm going to hit this middle number and the middle number is creeping up so that it might be 18 or 20 and previously that didn't exist but the machines have made that possible. Then you'll let the market decide. You'll let the customers decide whether that new price where there is no tipping is worth it given the entire experience of walking into the store and the service that you get and the quality of the food that is handed back to you.

I don't understand why we've made our lives this complicated. It's an historical accident. And it's like one of those things that once it's established, it's really hard to undo because you're right. Japan doesn't tip. Australia doesn't tip. Denmark doesn't tip. But we've inherited this tradition from the United States, from the United Kingdom that's grounded in medieval history of tipping. And so there's a good argument saying, yeah, build it all into the price, let people decide, take the pressure off the consumer and leave it to the business. People can make up their mind.

And look, Australia seems to get on just fine. Denmark gets on just fine. Japan gets on just fine. We could too. But no one in this country wants to be the first person to do that because they don't want to raise their prices. David, what you've done with this piece is you've taken a snapshot of where we are today, but this is an ever evolving situation. Where does this go next? Where does the, this is wild. This is wild. And it seems to, when you're tipping or you're asked to tip in a store that has no employees, you know, that things are out of control. So where does this go

next? Yeah. Can you imagine, again, you walk into a self-checkout, you do all the work, it's miserable, you can't figure out the thing, a little klaxon goes up, and then at the end of it's like, would you like to provide the machine a tip? No, I'd like to throw the machine through the window. So I think there is a growing backlash to this because people are saying, enough, enough of the tip creep, enough of the tipflation.

I'm certainly not tipping a computer. I've had enough. Yeah. And so I worry, though, that this is going to affect workers who aren't getting a sufficient wage, but who now are going to be getting sufficient tips. Yeah. So that's something to watch really, really carefully because there's going to be a lot of people who are struggling to make it through the day. We're going to get caught in the middle of this. And you know, actually, you make a very good point because I think a lot of us, you know,

there's certain stores out there, and I won't name them, but there's certain stores that when you go to the checkout, they would ask you if you would like to donate to their in-house charity. And for the longest time, I always felt really bad about saying like I would say yes most of the time. Then I realized, wait, I'm doing their job for them. I'm they take the money I'm giving them. They say, look how generous we are with the money other people gave us. And and so I stopped doing it.

And I think there might be this psychological Rubicon that if we cross it, if they if they push too hard, it's going to start getting a lot easier to just press no tip because we're fed up. And I've done that in some cases where I think it's appropriate. I don't want to think someone needs it. I go to 18% kind of as a rule, but I'm, you know, I'm not doing that at a self checkout. That's for sure. And just down in self checkout for all its evils has made it easier to say no to giving that money to the in-house charity that they're using to line their goodwill line.

When I had that psychological awakening, I was so angered that the wool had been pulled over my eyes for so long. But my point is, I emotionally disconnected from what they had originally been able to emotionally extort from me. And my fear is if this tip creep and tipflation keeps continuing, then even though I know that these people depend on tips, that a lot of people will emotionally disconnect from the empathy that they feel for these workers. And they're just going to say, nope, nope, nope, every single time. And you're going to find it'll be the worst version of the law of diminishing returns yeah i worry about that too especially in the context where we're still struggling through a cost of living crisis right housing crisis etc etc etc right because ultimately we have to take care of people who are

doing the work and who need to make it through the day. But we, the consumers are often those same people on the other end of the bargain. And you're right. People are, I've had enough. They're checking out the poll, telling us they're angry and someone's got a gift. And we also,

lastly, and I only have about 30 seconds left, but we also don't know what the bargain is on the other side. I'm giving you 18%, but I don't know if you guys are pooling tips or sharing tips or whether the boss gets some of it. I don't know any of that stuff. Exactly. And there's a lot of hinky businesses out there, especially in the food service industry, where they're doing dodgy things with those tips.

Hey, David Moskrop, thank you so much. The article is in The Walrus. Tipping isn't about service. It is a psychological con job. Thank you so much for joining us, in The Walrus. Tipping isn't about service. It is a psychological con job. Thank you so much for joining us and enjoy the rest of your day. Thanks very much. Thanks again for listening to the podcast. We hope you enjoyed it. We hope to see you again tomorrow with another loaded edition of The Ben Mulroney Show.