Alberta Provincial Politics

[CalgaryTiger]

On another note... wonder how many of these will stand up to scrutiny?

‘Forever Canadian’ petition surpasses goal, collects 456K signatures

Thomas Lukaszuk, a former deputy premier of Alberta who has circulated a petition to make it official policy for the province to stay in Canada, says it has just over 456,000 signatures.

www.ctvnews.ca

Thomas Lukaszuk, a former deputy premier of Alberta who has circulated a petition to make it official policy for the province to stay in Canada, says it has just over 456,000 signatures.

The final tally is far greater than the required 294,000 signatures to initiate a possible referendum in Alberta.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

I've heard about a 20% loss rate if the petition gatherers knew what they were doing (as opposed to our new Councillor Johnston who managed a 100% loss rate on his recall petition).

 

[MichaelS]

Regarding the drama with the teachers, it will be interesting to see if the Minister of Education riding gets enough signatures to trigger a recall, and thus by-election, if the NDP can win the seat. It was a close race last time. Maybe flipping one riding would be enough for the UCP to course correct on this issue, maybe not.

The problem is though, this all takes months (years?) to get change implemented, which does nothing to alleviate the current situation. Even if a fair deal was reached through negotiations, it would have taken a long time to see results, but we would at least have a starting point. Now, most teachers would not even consider where we are as a "proper" starting point, so it will be even longer. Meanwhile, classrooms will continue to be overcrowded or filled with students who shouldn't be in there (complex cases that disproportionately take up the teachers time/resources, further limiting the eduction the rest of the class gets), and good / experienced teachers will start to leave. My wife is a teacher with about 20 years of experience, and is now sderiously considering quitting over all that has happened. She loves being a teacher, but has seen conditions deteriorate over the course of her career it has gotten to the point she feels she can't do a good job anymore, and it is now apparent that the provincial government doesn't seem to care about that.

 

[trtcttc]

You can't expect them to repeal the Alberta Bill of Rights. It was invoked to say that it doesn't apply here.

This isn't an awful deal but it doesn't move the needle at all, it is an endorsement of the status quo. If you don't know the details... I won't pretend that 12% is a great deal considering they have had multiple contracts with no raise. So 12% looks good on paper but reality for tenured teachers is that percentage is stretched over a longer term. The hiring of teachers is also something that looks good on paper but a teacher or so per school over four years, a teach/EA per student ratio should've been the measure. It wouldn't have meant waiting for school instruction it would've meant a commitment to more attention to each student. There's also the commitment to look at the complexity of classrooms, that's fine but nothing ever comes of these things. A big study was done in the early 2000s and it has collected dust on a shelf. The teachers I know will continue teaching multiple grade levels in one classroom because the students abilities vary so drastically.

Anyways... The issue is and should be how we got to a completed deal: Little, to no negotiation. A contract, twice rejected, was imposed.

I had a job where I tried to negotiate better pay and a better work/life balance, I was told it was the best they could do. I looked for new work and eventually, when I left for another job, they offered me what I asked for, it was too late. Teachers will leave or quit because of this contract; the pay and conditions are better in every other province. Student learning conditions will not improve under this contract, but who cares for most people school is childcare.

I think you mis-interpreted what I said. I meant the Notwithstanding clause does have its merits and intended purpose against federal overreach, but it should not be used to override your own provincial legislations. Because obviously, there would be no overreach.

I don't agree with legislating people back to work, but I do think we should be mandating enhanced mediation at some point. When a negotiation is at a standstill, there needs to be a way to resolve it rather than just yelling at each side their demands back and forth. In private union negotiations, the union has an incentive to work out a deal, destroying the company doesn't help union jobs either. But for public services like teachers and Canada post, the union has no incentive to negotiate since the "company" would never go bankrupt no matter how long the negotiations go. Now with the notwithstanding clause, the government has no incentive to negotiate because they can just mandate an agreement. In the end, I think we just need mediation like salary arbitration in the NHL, where both sides are bound by the outcome to force a resolution where both sides moves to meet in the middle.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

I think you mis-interpreted what I said. I meant the Notwithstanding clause does have its merits and intended purpose against federal overreach, but it should not be used to override your own provincial legislations. Because obviously, there would be no overreach.

I don't agree with legislating people back to work, but I do think we should be mandating enhanced mediation at some point. When a negotiation is at a standstill, there needs to be a way to resolve it rather than just yelling at each side their demands back and forth. In private union negotiations, the union has an incentive to work out a deal, destroying the company doesn't help union jobs either. But for public services like teachers and Canada post, the union has no incentive to negotiate since the "company" would never go bankrupt no matter how long the negotiations go. Now with the notwithstanding clause, the government has no incentive to negotiate because they can just mandate an agreement. In the end, I think we just need mediation like salary arbitration in the NHL, where both sides are bound by the outcome to force a resolution where both sides moves to meet in the middle.

I know what you meant, I didn't mean to mischaracterize what you had said just meant to add to it.

I was just saying they needed to use the notwithstanding clause because the alternative was a fight in court (which Ralph Klein lost when he tried to do this) or repealing the section of the Alberta Bill of Rights that they are invoking the clause on (imagine repealing a section of the Bill of Rights... which this is equal to just only for a certain group).

Enhanced mediation is something the ATA rightfully avoided; it only put certain things on the table. The province had the ability to send them to binding arbitration but that would've meant a ratio would've been on the table. They would afraid of what the arbitrator would've decided.

 

[lemongrab]

I think you mis-interpreted what I said. I meant the Notwithstanding clause does have its merits and intended purpose against federal overreach, but it should not be used to override your own provincial legislations. Because obviously, there would be no overreach.

Spot on

I don't agree with legislating people back to work, but I do think we should be mandating enhanced mediation at some point. When a negotiation is at a standstill, there needs to be a way to resolve it rather than just yelling at each side their demands back and forth. In private union negotiations, the union has an incentive to work out a deal, destroying the company doesn't help union jobs either. But for public services like teachers and Canada post, the union has no incentive to negotiate since the "company" would never go bankrupt no matter how long the negotiations go. Now with the notwithstanding clause, the government has no incentive to negotiate because they can just mandate an agreement. In the end, I think we just need mediation like salary arbitration in the NHL, where both sides are bound by the outcome to force a resolution where both sides moves to meet in the middle.

I think you've hit on the right idea here, but you have it backwards. The unusual thing here is that the employer wants itself to fail - or at the very least has demonstrated no interest in improving 'productivity'.

I really don't buy that private unions have any more incentive to deal than public ones. They all just want better working conditions and better pay. Especially when striking - they want and need to get back to work. I'd argue the existential threat is actually a more tangible concern to both postal workers and public teachers than most other vocations, but I think it's pretty close to irrelevant during collective bargaining.

 

[Mountain Man]

The Alberta Federation of Labour is vowing an unprecedented response, this could get interesting.