12 July 2011

Communications Pro seeks income!

I've been looking for a paying gig for a while now. (Volunteering is great but it doesn't pay the bills.) I've done the usual upload-your-resume-to-our-site (and wonder for 6 months if we receive it, looked at it, or if the network just dumped it in the recycling bin in order to save everyone a lot of bother) and so-far, it's been a fruitless activity. So I'm putting it out there for the world to see. If you think my skills can fit your needs, contact me!

Employment or contract. Free consultations.
Jeff Rose-Martland's Resume - 12 July 2011
Jeff Rose-Martland

139 Campbell Ave , St. John’s, NL , A1E 2Z7 , (709) 739-1842 , rose_martland@yahoo.ca          


-        Media professional with 26 Years combined experience [Traditional, New, and Social media].

-        Expert Social Media Marketer and Internet Content Developer.

-        11 Years experience in Public Relations and Promotions.

-        Proficient researcher with exceptional planning, organizing, and problem-solving skills.

-        Veteran of fast-paced environments who is able to achieve excellent results under pressure.

-        Accomplished and award-winning author.

-        Professional speaker who delivers messages effectively to diverse audiences.

-        Talented communications professional able to develop and execute strategies for target groups.


-      An exceptional communicator: passionate, engaging, and highly creative.  Organized and detail oriented, a dynamic individual who sets priorities and achieves deadlines.  An enthusiastic, results-oriented professional who works equally well independently or with a team.  Superior interpersonal communications skills.  Talented leader in customer service.

Professional Experience


-        15+ Years experience in promotions.

-        12+ Years experience in public relations.

-        Communications Director for Hunger-Strike Veteran Fabien Melanson, solely designed and

executed the media campaign.

-        Communications Director for Our Duty

-        Publicity director and keynote speaker for the provincial committee of the Canadian Veterans

National Day of Protest rally, 6 November 2010.

-        Developed and conducted media campaigns for advocacy, book promotion, and live



-        15+ Years experience as a writer.

-        11+ Years experience as a radio announcer.

-        3+ Years experience as frontline customer service agent in a contact centre environment.

-        Author of three books: Game Misconduct, Call Centre: The Musical, and Please Hold! Ruminations of an


-        Writing credits include The Newfoundland Quarterly, The Telegram, Broadcast Dialogue, NL Press,

Canadian Stories, The Hill Times, The Montreal Tribune, and other national newspapers.

-        Ambassador Team - Communications Sub-Team, 2006-08, Convergys Customer Management.

Responsible for creating content for monthly internal publication.


-      16 Years experience in Internet use and electronic communications

-      14 Tears experience in Social Media, from chat rooms to current trends

-      Highly skilled in the use of Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, YouTube, MySpace, LinkedIn,

EmpireAvenue and other social networks for promotion.

-      Manage online presence for freelance work, Game Misconduct (novel), and Our Duty (advocacy).

-      Social media consultant and publicist for veterans’ advocacy groups and events.

-      Manage two websites: design, generate content, basic HTML knowledge.

-      Knowledgeable of embedding techniques and multimedia site content.

-      Generate and distribute content via blog. Experienced live-blogger for events.

-      Proficient with Search Engine Optimization and Analytics.

Select Accomplishments

-      Recipient of the 2005 Percy Janes First Novel Award.

-      President of advocacy group Our Duty.

-      Provincial Coordinator 2010 Canadian Veterans’ National Day of Protest - NL.

-      Guest Panellist for the 2010 Winterset in Summer literary festival.

-      Finalist for the 2009 CBC Creative Non-Fiction Award.

-      Guest lecturer in 2009 for Henry Stewart Talks, Contact Center Management, by personal request of

Stagg, A.M. (ed.), former chair of the U.K. Contact Centre Organization

Employment History

-      FABIEN MELANSON – Communications Director, Social Media Coordinator – May 2011 – Present

-      OUR DUTY - Founder, President, Policy Analyst, Public Relations, 2010 - Present.

-      FREELANCE - Writer / Social Media Marketer, 2002 – Present.

-      CONVERGYS CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT CANADA - St. John’s, NL - Customer Service

Representative II, July 2005 - November 2008; Ambassador Team - Communications Sub-Team, 2006 - 2008.


UNITED NATIONS FISH AGREEMENT - St. John's, NL - Ministerial Driver, May 2005.

-      VOCM - STEELE COMMUNICATIONS - St. John's, NL - Announcer / Operator, 1999 - 2004.

-      JUNO AWARDS - St. John's, NL - Offsite Performance Co-ordinator, April 2002.

-      FREELANCE - Associate Producer, St. John's, NL - Shakespeare By the Sea, 1998; Recycled Shakespeare Company, 1997-1999; Headstrong Todd Productions, 1997-1999.



College of the North Atlantic - St. John's, NL - 1989 to 1992.

-      PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT COURSES: Theatre, Video Production, Telecommunications,

Customer Communications, Others - Memorial University and Convergys Online.

Writing Samples and References Available Upon Request.

27 June 2011

Don’t Pee on Me and Tell Me It’s Raining: Why Trickle-Down Economics Doesn’t Work.

The concept of trickle-down economics has been around for years.  Its precepts are usually trotted out whenever a government is announcing huge tax-cuts to big business and the rich.  The basic idea is that companies who have more profit will spend that profit increasing the business, thereby creating jobs and improving the economy.  It works like this:

Mom and Pop own a store, which they work themselves, struggling to survive.  After a few years, profits are up, and they hire some help, creating a job.  After a few more successful years, they now have a staff of 4 (not counting themselves) and add a deli counter.  A few more years of growth, the store has become a neighbourhood supermarket employing 20. 

But now they are in a new tax bracket, which means that they cannot add the bakery this year.  In fact, it takes them 5 years to save enough to add the bakery.  The pro-tax-break people suggest that if business taxes were lower, that bakery could be added now, creating another 5 jobs.  And next year, the butcher shop.  Then the gift store.  And so on.  More profit means more money for growth and more money in the community.  After all, Mom and Pop don't want to work so hard if they can hire others.  They want to give little Tommy a summer job so he can go to university.  They like being an essential part of their community.  If they have lots of ready cash, why Mom and Pop would have the biggest store in town, employ hundreds, and stimulate the local economy!

That’s the argument.  And, as far as that argument goes, it is more or less correct.  People like to be a part of their community, want to be successful, and will turn profit into growth.  At least, Mom and Pop will.

The same is not necessarily true for big business.

Let’s say Mom and Pop have had a great business life.  They now own ten stores employing a thousand people.  Managers have been hired, so Mom and Pop don't have to work so hard.  Still, life is getting on and Mom and Pop would like to enjoy what's left of it.  So they sell their business to a national grocery Chain and move to Cottage Country.

Then the same old story continues: Chain 'consolidates' their operations by closing five of the stores and letting go 500 people, arguing that this improves their business.  Chain argues that the area really only needs five stores anyway and in reducing waste, they can provide better service.  Profits are put towards building a new, bigger store, with a restaurant and gym.  Within a few years, Mom and Pop's ten stores have become a single big-box retailer.  1000 Employees have become 150.  The promised restaurant and gym are delivered by renting space to other existing chains.  Profits are high but Tommy can't get a job.

We have seen this time and again.  The proponents of trickle-down theory use Mom and Pop to justify the plan and their logic is sound, but the effects don't ever appear to meet expectations.  Opponents to the theory never seem to be able to explain why things don't work out; at least, not in the same simple terms used by proponents.

That reason, however, really is very simple: community.

Mom and Pop, no matter how mercenary they may be, still live in the community.  They see the direct impact that their business has, both in serving the customer and in employing staff.  Mom and Pop know that closing a store will have a direct negative impact on their community.  So unless there is a really good, profitable reason for doing so, their business will remain stable or expand.  The profits Mom and Pop earn will either go back into their operations or into their own pockets - trickling back down with their personal purchases of cars, houses, and so on.  Either way, the money stays in the community.

Chain does not belong to the community.  Chain is a publicly traded company.  Its headquarters are far away, the owners are all over the world.  Investors expect to get paid.  Profits are not just for growth, they also pay the shareholders.  The people in charge do not see their impact on the community because they are not in the community.  And neither is the money.

Once ownership passes away from people living in the community, there can no longer be community responsibility.  Owners and shareholders demand ever-increasing profits.  Local services and employment are only considerations if they have an impact on profit.  Money which would have trickled down from Mom and Pop's wallets is now sent to far-away lands, to trickle into somebody else's economy.  Once the community store stops achieving high-profits, Chain will put it on the auction block and not look back.  Chain is out to make money, not friends, no matter how many charity funds it has established.

And that is why trickle-down economics does not work.  A large corporate entity has no morals, no ethics, no responsibility, and no sense of community.  It cannot have those things because it is not a person.

One thing we know works is regulation.  Regulation forces corporations to at least act like they care.  For example, if government offers tax-creaks to companies which contribute to local charities, then by-golly, companies start building playgrounds, buying medical equipment, and writing cheques.  Remove those tax incentives and watch the swing-sets rust.  That is an indisputable fact: corporations only behave responsibly when it serves their interest.

Unlimited growth is not in their interest.  Mom and Pop will roll-over their profits in a quest to become bigger and better and more important.  They get visceral pleasure from being important to their community.  Corporations do not get that pleasure.  They only get profit.  The bigger the company, the less likely it is to expand further, and corporations are massive companies.  They don't want another 1% of the local market if it means losing 2% profit for the next year; 2% less money for their shareholders.  Expecting a corporation to behave like a person is like expecting a rock to fly: pretty silly.  Yet this myth is what we are constantly sold by the proponents of trickle-down economics.

Since they can only adequately prove trickle-down theory as applied to mid-size and smaller companies owned by individuals, then logic dictates that the tax breaks should go to those companies in order to stimulate growth.  As we can show that big business only acts with community responsibility when regulated, then any tax breaks applied to corporations should reward for community action.  Rather than giving tax cuts in the hope that big business will create jobs, why not give breaks for the jobs they create?  Give breaks for charity, employee profit-sharing, money spent within the community.  Apply tax penalties on funds transferred out to corporate head-quarters.  Reward good behaviour; penalize bad; just as you would teach a child to become a good person.  Giving rewards and expecting the corporation to figure it out on its own is no way raise a good corporate citizen.

26 June 2011

On Exposing the Vancouver Rioters

(This was sent to Cross Country Checkup today.) 

The issue of naming rioters has become convoluted because of the shaming.

Initially, the point of posting videos and pictures online was to identify riot participants.  That is a perfectly reasonable response by Citizens who watched the G20 riot last year.  Canadians watched as those who looted and destroyed property went unidentified; observed the number of ‘responsible’ people who stood by and let such destruction happen.  During the past year, we have become more aware of a ‘somebody else’s problem’ attitude rampant in our society, where we expect the police to do all the work and blame them for their lack of success.

The posting of these images as an attempt to identify participants is a good way for Citizens to help our police do their jobs.  As citizens, we are not only entitled to look after our communities, but we are also required to do so.

Shaming, on the other hand, is taking control back from our trusted legal institutions.  It is too easy for a picture to be misinterpreted and incorrect conclusions drawn.  The Riot Couple appeared to be engaging in sex when in fact, the woman was injured and her boyfriend assisting her.  This is why we have experts to investigate.  The gathering of information by the public is helpful, but leave the actions to the experts so that justice will be served and we will live in a fair society.

Jeff Rose-Martland
Our Duty

Longtime-Nowrite: Why I Suck At Blogs

It's now becoming July and it's been ages since I wrote anything on here.  Not that I haven't been writing, just that I have been writing elsewhere.

As every writer will tell you, if you are actually writing-writing, that is, work writing, then you don't have much creativity left for updating blogs.  Add to that my work with Our Duty, veterans, the election campaign, and about a dozen different things, and finding inspiration for a blog is very difficult.

Also, I have never quite been sure what the point of a blog is.  Surely, no one is interested in my minute-by-minute day (and those that are can watch me on facebook).  I'm not much of a journal keeper and mostly my inspired rantings wind up in my writing.

But lately I have found a need to express my opinion on a bunch of items in the news, my thoughts of Canadian society, and generally do some soap-box ranting.  So what better place for that then here?  (I think I may have figured out the point of a blog after all).

So there will be some posts coming (until I get busy elsewhere again, I suspect).

04 March 2011

Women's Group Blocks Equality

Ref: CBC's On the Go

Here's some information about me, to give you an idea where I am coming from: I was raised by two working parents, where both cooked, both did housework, both did home repairs, both chopped firewood. There was no 'man's-work, women's-work' in our house. There was just work. I have worked side-by-side with women and men in retail, warehouse, technical theatre, broadcasting, and call centres and throughout that work, it has never even occurred to me that there is a difference between the sexes, as far as work is concerned. Physically, I have worked with strong women and weak men. I have worked with creative men and non-creative women. What has always mattered most to me is a person's ability to do the job, not their gender.

Currently, I am a stay-at-home-Dad (homemaker it would be in game show land). My wife works; I look after our son.

On The Go interview with Daphne Hart of the Women in Resource Development Corporation

Things to listen for:

Ted's statistics about women earning less than men. The comparison he cites is for full-time employment, i.e., men working 40 hours a week earn more than women earning 40 hours a week. The implication of this statistic, as cited, is that women earn less than men for doing the same work. In fact, this disparity does not arise directly from gender differences, but from job differences. The fields in which the majority of women are employed - retail, clerical, caring professions - are lower paid careers. Men working in those fields receive exactly the same pay. Some content that these job are low-paying because they are traditionally women’s work. Others, me included, maintain that this is because, as a society, we do not value that work. But whatever the cause, Ted's presentation of those statistics is misleading and implies widespread gender bias where none exists.

Daphne's anecdotes about women being passed over in favour of men, implying that this is something that only women face. Daphne's presentation focuses on how to get women working in skilled trades, with statements implying that men don't want women on the job site and that companies don't want to hire them. What she totally neglects is the lack of women going into training for these trades. While she doesn't actually use the word 'equality', she clearly sends the message that women are being kept down by men. She also clearly says that companies need to prioritize the hiring of women. In other words, hire women because they are women. Is that not every bit as biased as not hiring them because they are women?

My Reaction

NOTE: When I was listening to the On The Go interview, I was taking the snowblower to my driveway. So initially, I wasn't paying rigidly close attention to Daphne's message. Second, I didn't actually catch her name or her groups name. After the fact, I couldn't find out either, but I assumed the speaker was with Women in Non-Traditional Employment Roles (WINTER). Obviously, this is incorrect, but I don't feel it negates any of my arguments.

If you want a specific comment for WDRC: presumably most of the administrative assistants in Resource Development are women. What is the WDRC doing to encourage more men to enter that field?

Ingrid Fraser reads my email
(And does an amazing job with it!)

Text of Email:

Dear Ted,

I listened with interest to your interview regarding Women in Non-Traditional Roles. And, I must admit, with a certain amount of disgust.

As long they focus solely on one gender, this organization is actually perpetuating inequality. They are drawing a line between women and men, continuing the gender division, not eliminating it. If they are serious about equality, then what is this organization doing to promote men in non-traditional roles? Does the organization think to promote the cause of men who wish to be nurses, or kindergarten teachers, or daycare workers, or florists? Or are they operating on the assumption that a man can get any job he wants?

If so, then they are very mistaken.

I myself have been denied jobs in service and retail sectors because they only hire women. Gender bias goes both ways. My son’s kindergarten teacher is male and interacts wonderfully with the children. Yet his colleagues are almost apologetic when discussing him. Their tone, and sometimes statements, say ‘Yes, the teacher is a man, but he’s a good teacher,’ as if this is a shameful fact or his gender needs to be justified to some.

We, as a society, can not truly embrace equality so long as groups such as this one continue to divide us by our gender. If this organization was actually working towards equality, it would be called People in Non-Traditional roles.

Best Regards,
Jeff Rose-Martland

The Following Day...

According to Ted, my email helped set off a 'firestorm of reaction'. The call they played, apparently supporting me, didn't. It was a guy who seized the opportunity to rant about how everyone would like to stay home with the kids but men have to go off to Alberta and work. Well, I heartily disagree with that. I know plenty of women who hate staying home with the kids. I enjoy it, but its hard work and annoying and not everyone is cut out for it.

Besides, my point has nothing to do with who does what. My point is that if we are truly going to have equality between the genders, then we have to stop thinking of the sexes as different. When sorting job applications, no one should be thinking 'man...woman...man..." no matter what the job is. This should be the goal of these groups: the achievement of equality where all that matter is job skills, not sex. By promoting the advance of a single gender, these organizations stand in the way of that achievement.

Not to mention that should one attempt to start a group dedicated to the advancement of men, I suspect there would be massive hue and cry about sexism and possibly charges for violating the Charter of Rights.

Busy with the Veterans

If you've been trying to follow this blog and discovered that I haven't been updating, here's why:  Since September 2010, I have been involved in lobbying for veteran's benefits.  See htttp://ourduty.org for what I've been up to.  This is a very important issue and it more or less pushed writing to the background.  As I am trying to keep that lobbying separate from my other concerns, there's not a whole lot here about it.

Meanwhile, a new issue has arisen!  See next post.