Alberta government thread

[Altair]

And then this action in regards to the ongoing health care probe. I do caution people to read the whole article as there is more to it than just the "gotcha" headline in terms of process but still questionable.

Alberta to search for a new auditor general even as Wylie offers two-year extension | Globalnews.ca

The Alberta NDP is accusing the governing UCP of getting rid of the provincial Auditor General before he can complete his investigation into a government health care scandal.

globalnews.ca

I said it before and I'll say it again.

Most corrupt government in Canada.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Class size and composition is a management right (power) and doesn't belong in contracts. Principals in particular require the power to shuffle sizes to accommodate fluctuations in cohort population, unbound by fixed limits.

Public needs should not be held hostage for compensation gains. Governments should disallow it if providers cannot restrain themselves. People undertaking careers to serve public needs - what used to be called "professions" - ought to understand there are implied sacrifices, including giving up the right to withhold labour.

It should be obvious by inspection that the long run of time during which public agencies could push their gains above the averages for the economy as a whole has ended. Nor can we afford every desirable improvement (eg. smaller class sizes in schools, home delivery for mail). The sum of services is being squeezed out by payroll costs, taxpayers facing current housing costs cannot tolerate tax increases (which would have practical upper limits anyways and would tend to depress economic growth), and governments are borrowing alarming amounts.

Fiscal and economic stresses are only likely to worsen, which means the eventual snap back will only be harder if people don't stop over-demanding.

 

[lenaitch]

Class size and composition is a management right (power) and doesn't belong in contracts. Principals in particular require the power to shuffle sizes to accommodate fluctuations in cohort population, unbound by fixed limits.

Public needs should not be held hostage for compensation gains. Governments should disallow it if providers cannot restrain themselves. People undertaking careers to serve public needs - what used to be called "professions" - ought to understand there are implied sacrifices, including giving up the right to withhold labour.

It should be obvious by inspection that the long run of time during which public agencies could push their gains above the averages for the economy as a whole has ended. Nor can we afford every desirable improvement (eg. smaller class sizes in schools, home delivery for mail). The sum of services is being squeezed out by payroll costs, taxpayers facing current housing costs cannot tolerate tax increases (which would have practical upper limits anyways and would tend to depress economic growth), and governments are borrowing alarming amounts.

Fiscal and economic stresses are only likely to worsen, which means the eventual snap back will only be harder if people don't stop over-demanding.

But what's to prevent every public service job from turning into a sweat shop? The wisdom and good graces of the employer? There was a time in this fair land when the majority of public sector jobs were unorganized. Pay was middling but they had pensions and benefits when a lot of population didn't, and pretty much a job for life so long as they didn't royally screw up (even then, . . . ).

I'm not a fan of the right to strike in the public service. It holds a monopoly on what services it provides. But the alternative has to be at least some form of mandatory arbitration.

I don't know much about life as a teacher, but more and more it seems society is foisting a lot of non-educational responsibilities into the system. This includes integrating students with special needs and requirements into regular classrooms. That, in and of itself, is a worthy endeavour, but it falls on top of the overall class size and often comes without specialized assistance.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There was a time

That time has passed. Government could basically say, "Going forward, all contracts will be COLA to a ceiling of 2%", or "gains/losses will be coupled to median non-governmental employment gains/losses". Very few other things need to enter contracts, especially if you understand that some things are "negotiated" in by ideologically sympathetic governments to provide future "tradesies" points when the government for (mostly) political reasons doesn't want to be seen handing out wage gains right now (ie. in the middle of a recession and/or period of high unemployment).

mandatory arbitration.

Never. It's a whipsaw game. It'd be practically impossible to stop arbitrators from looking outside government, and maybe even across governments, and you'd have unions throwing money to buttress apparently unrelated causes that are intended to provide benchmarks for future arbitration.

I don't know much about life as a teacher, but more and more it seems society is foisting a lot of non-educational responsibilities into the system.

That's partly imposed and partly self-inflicted. They don't want to be baby-sitters, but some do want to be social engineers.

This includes integrating students with special needs and requirements into regular classrooms. That, in and of itself, is a worthy endeavour, but it falls on top of the overall class size and often comes without specialized assistance.

Here I part company with most people. Frequently disruptive students don't belong in mainstream classrooms. As I've written before, the kids subjected to the interruptions and disruptions and lack of attention by teachers otherwise occupied are paying a "learning tax". Elementary class sizes, for example, could be a lot larger (by 25% or more), which would ease the shortage-of-teachers strain. I advocate a utilitarian approach to public education which for the overwhelming majority of students delivers a literate and numerate - or foundations-of-trade-prepared - adult at the end and ensures that the brightest in particular are well-prepared for highly demanding academic work and subsequent contributions back to society.

 

[HavokFour]

The AUPE vote has concluded.

At this rate the entire Province is going to end up striking.

Union representing 16,000 Alberta nurses and healthcare staff vote 98 per cent in favour of striking

Alberta Union of Public Employees (AUPE) representing nurses and health care staff say 98 per cent of members have voted to strike.

edmontonjournal.com

 

[lenaitch]

"Going forward, all contracts will be COLA to a ceiling of 2%", or "gains/losses will be coupled to median non-governmental employment gains/losses".

Seeing as another term for a labour contract is 'collective agreement', it doesn't sound like you would be leaving much to negotiate. What you are offering is closer to an 'at will' employment.