Redford gov't screws over Provincial Employees

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by trainerdave

There is a ceiling on the amount of money you are able to make in a union vs. private sector. Basically all unions have set rates of pay which max out and have collective agreements defining those rates of pay. To many of us our employment is our work-not our job. If I wanted to have a job,where making money was my only objective-then a union position would be useless. If I want my employment to be defined by my work-as in what I do to make things better for everybody-even those who do not always appreciate it-like Nurses,firefighters,police, making sure we have clean water to drink and traffic flowing- even though they know they will never get rich; then I would work for a public sector/union job. That is why they are easier to single out-because most public servants are there for their work. Would you go to a US hospital for your medical needs? . Once everything is privatized,there is no more control by the public-only what the market will allow. If a company manages to gain control of public services then costs will not go down. They would not gain control of services to lose money. Once the private sector has been eliminated-then I guess you will "get what you pay for ". Be careful what you wish for...Money talks but has no conscience.

Wish we still had a department of highways... some of the contract crews are pathetic.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Peter Gill

Evidently you're not your own research assistant either: rectal extractions are no substitute for empirical evidence.


Montreal Economic Institute: Montreal Municipal workers work five fewer weeks a year than employees of large private corporations, and their total remuneration is $11,000 higher. http://www.iedm.org/files/note0812_en.pdf

CFIB analysis of Census 2006 custom tabulation found AB employees enjoyed a 10.2% wage advantage over equivalent private sector employees. Including benefits the difference exceeded 30% (Maller & Wong, 2008).

Public-sector workers located in Alberta enjoyed, on average, a 10% wage premium over private-sector colleagues, this based on Labour Force Survey data from Statistics Canada (Karabegović and Clemens, 2013).
Their findings replicate what has been discovered in past studies on the public sector wage and benefit premiums, including University of Toronto Professor Morley Gunderson’s seminal study (1979); Gunderson, Douglas Hyatt, and Craig Riddell (2000); Richard Mueller (2000), and more recently, Raaj Tiagi (2010).


Since the employer (taxpayer) actually contributes more than the employee, one must conclude that your contribution is a lesser pittance.
LAPP: employer 10.43% to YMPE, 14.47% above; employee 9.43%/13.47% (LAPP).
Before the current Federal reforms, the employer (taxpayer) paid 75% of PSAC contributions, it's now 60-40 taxpayer-employee (PSAC).

Alberta provincial plans are underfunded by $7.4 billion, Federal plans underfunded somewhere between $150-230 billion (CD Howe). Just who do you suppose is going to have to account for that shortfall?


Not even close. Alan Mulally in 2006 mortgaged the company to the hilt, even the blue-oval Ford symbol, to finance a turn-around. Ford asked for similar labour agreements in place at GM & Chrysler, in order to remain competitive, UAW refused. UAW was preparing to strike in 2011, hardly the model of cooperations you claim, despite Ford having the highest labour costs in the industry (Ford $58/hr, GM $56, Chrysler $49). (Bryce Hoffman, "American Icon: Alan Mulally and the Fight to Save Ford Motor Company"). Mulally saved Ford in a similar manner as he saved Boeing, in spite of and not thanks to, union labour.


Little perspective on that: a study which purports to support your pro-union stance, "How the Decline of American Unions Has Boosted Corporate Profits and Reduced Worker Compensation," points out that in 1979 American workers claimed 64% of the national income, by 2007 that had declined to 58%: a little over 2% per decade, hardly a catastrophic decline, particularly when considering the expansion of national income over that time. Workers are getting a slightly smaller slice of a much larger pie. Had the proportion stayed at the 1979 level the average worker would have retained an additional $172/year. Your great suffering is about the same as three lattes a month, poor muffin.
The Brookings Institute paper, "The Decline of the US Labour Share," provides an analysis that disagrees with institutional explanations based on the decline in unionization: "Given the existence of a substantial union wage premium, a large decline in union membership might be expected to result in a decline in the aggregate labor share. Such a decline would in turn be expected to be concentrated in the industries with the largest declines in union coverage.
To explore this possibility, we make use of data on the change union coverage rates by industry between 1987 and 2011...although there is a positive correlation between the change in unionization and the change in payroll shares across industries, the relationship is weak. The weighted least squares regression indicates that cross-industry variation in changes in unionization rates explains less than 5 percent of the variation in changes in payroll shares across industries."

This post is long enough, MTF.

Are you aware that much of what you posted actually supports the argunment for unions?

Otherwise... try looking larger.

Those are nice studies but they do not address directly the points I made.

[Big Daddy Badger]

I thnk this one has run its course.

So to sum up for myself it would seem that some believe that unions, organized labour, strikes and protest over treatment by employers is...communism and therefore wrong....especially if the employees happen to be employed by the government.

However... bullying, and the institution of laws designed to impeded the protestations of thousands, negate the need for fair negotiation and force individuals to labour under unfair conditions and against their will...in favour of the few or worse yet... corporations both foreign and domestic.... is democracy at work and capitalism.

Interesting...

At the onset of all this the Conservatives did well by bussiness and the windfall effect also benefited labour.
Their activities in favour of bussiness were primarily aimed at things within their usual mandate...trade negotiations, regulation etc.
Where companies prospered... jobs were created and profit.

It was trickle down ecconomics and it worked for a short time....or at least it had the appearance to work.
Companies got large slices of pie and workers recieved a fair share of that.

However, over time this has morphed into an attack on voters and labour in in favour of bussiness interests whether domestic or not.
Companies are enjoying an even larger piece of pie and workers are still getting about the same size piece they had 30 years ago.

In the interim their taxes have increased considerably and so have prices.

The end result is that their piece of pie has less value than it did before and the rich got richer.
So much for the trickle down effect.

In the end what started out as good for all has become fantastic for a few and increasingly more oppressive and unfair to the many.

The writting is on the wall folks...eventually ordinary Canadians will have had enough.
Its already happening.
Not so long ago we did not have anarchist movements, the NDP could not have formed the opposition and the occupy movement did not exist.
We did not have large scale protests or demonstrations at globalization summits.
In fact...Canadians used to think those meetings were a good thing...before we understood what the globalization movement has in store for people.
Before we found that these nameless faceless globalization participants had more to say about how the country is run than we do.

Corporations are the authors of their own folly.
It baffles me that so many people who fear communism actively support intiatives that all but guarantee that people will band together in grass roots movements in their struggle against oppressive capitalists and their government lackies rather than provide incentive through fairly rewarding people who so far have faithfully served the system that they themselves support and NEED to remain wealthy.

And the threats...the empty threats.

Well..."We'll just move our shop to the third world then."

Fine... but once all of the producers and corporations have moved their companies overseas where labour is cheap and benefits are unheard of...where will they live and more importantly... who will they sell their products to?

"We'll close our doors and shut down"

Great...and then how will you make your money?

This thread at its core is about what is right and fair and reasonable.

Those like myself that tend to favour unions are not attacking rich people.
We are not jealous and nobody wants to destroy profit or see companies forced into bankrupsy.

For one thing...those bankrupsies are again.... funded by the middle class.
Who else but the middle class makes up for creditor losses when those that default pay 10 or 15% of their true debt?

All we are interested in is protecting the middle class and fairness in wages, and benefits and during negotiation.
And...representaive government for CANADIANS... not companies.

Corportaions have the right to do as they wish with respect to their product.
They can TRY to impose conditions that benefit them as they are able but achievement is not or should not be a legislated right.
They can also make poor bussiness decissions or try and screw their labour.

They do NOT have the right to expect tax payers and those elected by citizens to act on behalf of people (Canadians) to compensate them for their poor choices or to tip the balance in their favour over Canadians.
In fact... corporations have no rights within the Charter at all....although by the way the government behaves that fact is easy to forget.

They do NOT have the right to turn our own police forces against us while they meet in places like Toronto to discuss how corporations and governments can better control and manipulate people.

Workers also have the right to do as they wish with respect to their product.
They have the right to make decissions that are aimed at benefiting them and they can also make poor choices if they wish.
They do have the right to access the safety net as we all pay for that anyway.
And lets be fair... the d=safety net for the unemployed is not nearly as cushiony as the safety net that companies seem to have.
People do not maintain the lifestyle of the rich and famous while on UIC or welfare... but executives still get bonuses from companies that fail to profit....again at the expense of tax payers.

All of us should be outraged that we are paying a higher percentage in tax than the millionaires and billionaires in our midst and that we are spending more of those tax dollars supporting corporations regardless of how competenet their managment than we are supporting people who actually need help.

All of us should be outraged that our governmnets ...elected by Canadians are consistently serving corporations better than and at the expense of ordinary Canadians.

All of us should be very concerned that along with the subject legislation by the Alberta government we have also seen a general errosion of individual rights, the bending or manipulationg of environmental laws, the muzzeling of watchdogs and scientists, the de-funding of education, the violation of individual rights, the proroguing of parliament, cronyism, invasions of privacy, attacks against the only non-corporate owned news service in the country and attempts to undermine the governmental process and the C of R&F by the very people that we hired to protect those things.

The playing field needs to be leveled.

While I agree that Communism is something to be wary of so is Fascism.
The problem is that many of us are so distracted by the Red scare that they have failed to notice that Fascism has been advancing steadily.

People fear the liberals and recall Trudeau but the honest truth of it is that the only lasting and tangible thing (in the here and now) that Trudeau did to bugger us on points of rights was to toss the BNA (along with English Common Law) and deliver the Charter.

Using that no federal government in the history of Canada has done more to attack our rights than Harpers and if we flipped our provincial government for that of Quebec 20 or so years ago...we'd probably be happier today.

Rant out.

[Sneeze]

Where does this garbage about millionaires paying less percentage of tax than middle income people come from?

The dividends on my investments are taxed at the same rate as a millionaire.

My capital gains are looked at in the same way by Revenue Canada.

Federally the tax rate is progressive - more you make the higher bracket you are in.

My company pays corporate income tax at the same rate as their companies.

What the heck are you guys talking about?

Yes - in some situations involving the Cayman Islands, Bitcoins and creative book keeping these guys are paying less percentage tax than I am. But that's not the rule - its the exception.

Misinformation - or what am I missing?

[Dakota369]

Originally Posted by Sneeze

Where does this garbage about millionaires paying less percentage of tax than middle income people come from?

The dividends on my investments are taxed at the same rate as a millionaire.

My capital gains are looked at in the same way by Revenue Canada.

Federally the tax rate is progressive - more you make the higher bracket you are in.

My company pays corporate income tax at the same rate as their companies.

What the heck are you guys talking about?

Yes - in some situations involving the Cayman Islands, Bitcoins and creative book keeping these guys are paying less percentage tax than I am. But that's not the rule - its the exception.

Misinformation - or what am I missing?

They are probably getting personal taxes mixed up with corporate taxes. If a company gets big enough they tax breaks or incentives, particularly from municipalities or provinces to locate their production facilities, and head offices there. They still pay significant amounts in taxes, while bringing employment to an area which is the trade off.......



My guess at least.

[Wild&Free]

Well said BDB, though in Canada a Corporation is a Person for all intensive purposes. They have the same rights as any other person guaranteed by the charter.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...article613901/

[TBD]

I was having lunch with one of my favorite clients last week and the conversation turned to the government's recent round of tax cuts. '"I'm opposed to those tax cuts," the retired college instructor declared, "because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that's not fair.'" "But the rich pay more in the first place," I argued, "so it stands to reason that they'd get more money back."


I could tell that my friend was unimpressed by this meager argument. So I said to him, "let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand." "Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59."


The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so now the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.


Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" "That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."

Then, the nine men surrounded the tenth man (the richest one, paying the most) and beat him up. The next night the richest man didn't show up for dinner, so now the nine men sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!

"And that, folks is how Canada's progressive tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean."

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by TBD

I was having lunch with one of my favorite clients last week and the conversation turned to the government's recent round of tax cuts. '"I'm opposed to those tax cuts," the retired college instructor declared, "because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that's not fair.'" "But the rich pay more in the first place," I argued, "so it stands to reason that they'd get more money back."


I could tell that my friend was unimpressed by this meager argument. So I said to him, "let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand." "Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59."


The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so now the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.


Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" "That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."

Then, the nine men surrounded the tenth man (the richest one, paying the most) and beat him up. The next night the richest man didn't show up for dinner, so now the nine men sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!

"And that, folks is how Canada's progressive tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean."

Yup, that's why when we cut taxes for the rich we suffer. It takes a larger portion of tax revenue away then cutting taxes to middle and lower income earners.

[mac10]

She managed to place 2 MLA's into the house 2 days after she came up with the bright idea of the new bills

150k a year yet the people who actually make this province run are screwed for another 4 years!!

[Clgy_Dave2.0]

Originally Posted by mac10

She managed to place 2 MLA's into the house 2 days after she came up with the bright idea of the new bills

150k a year yet the people who actually make this province run are screwed for another 4 years!!

aaaaaand # 21 lol....wanting to post up a B&S ad, Mac10? Post count completed.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by mac10

She managed to place 2 MLA's into the house 2 days after she came up with the bright idea of the new bills

150k a year yet the people who actually make this province run are screwed for another 4 years!!

What does the radio spot say ?

Got to live within out means ?

Another $300,000 in salary plus added pension and assistants and offices. Probably $500,000 or more at the end. Way to do as I say not as I do Redford.

[trainerdave]

What about the folks who look after enforcing conservation on the resource we all are so passionate about. Anybody notice how the numbers of Albertans pursuing this resource have grown by several times in the last 50 years. These are government of AB employees. Haven't we all noticed how few and far between they have become. I think we all know how stretched they are. They are overworked and underpaid as it is. Good luck finding people to replace them. Good luck finding a whipping boy when all the resources have been poached, logged out and overdeveloped. Maybe instead of protecting the resources they should instead sell them and make something important like more money in the private sector. Why would anybody want to look after Albertans when they could just focus on themselves? We need to stick together to look after our resources. Do you work at a company that has a collective pension plan, medical plan, progressive discipline and benefiits. Guess what; you are basically a union. You know why this thread has carried on so long? Because people who work for you care about you. It's the craziest thing , I know... Enjoy it while you can, because our government puts buisness first, and they are setting such a fine example that people are starting to do the same. Enjoy the race to the bottom line, not the finish line.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Sneeze

Where does this garbage about millionaires paying less percentage of tax than middle income people come from?

The dividends on my investments are taxed at the same rate as a millionaire.

My capital gains are looked at in the same way by Revenue Canada.

Federally the tax rate is progressive - more you make the higher bracket you are in.

My company pays corporate income tax at the same rate as their companies.

What the heck are you guys talking about?

Yes - in some situations involving the Cayman Islands, Bitcoins and creative book keeping these guys are paying less percentage tax than I am. But that's not the rule - its the exception.

Misinformation - or what am I missing?

We used to have a progressive tax...the more you made the more you paid.
Now it is capped.

So the more you make the more you pay untill you make 200 thousand IIRC... and then you pay the same percentage no matter what you earn over and above that.

But... people in that tax bracket also tend (more often than most) to benefit from accountants, lawyers, shelters, company cars, expense accounts, stock options and bonuses paid by corporate welfare.

The result is that most millionaires manage to avoid personal income tax altogether.

Some folks get that a bit confused.

Those that pay...pay the same percentage as folks that are upper middle class... but many pay almost nothing at all.

Looking for an example?
Old man Irving....at least until he got snowed in at the airport.

[Wazy.338]

Originally Posted by Icatchfish

good, Its about time. I don't understand why civil servants make 30% more than people in the private sector yet have better pernsion and better benefits.

going on illegal strikes and holding tax payers hostage is becoming pretty common these days

30% more? Buddy you aint got a clue

[mally]

This was an attack on blue collar workers
Nothing else

[6.5 shooter]

Flat tax 20% no matter how much you make...seems fair to me.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by 6.5 shooter

Flat tax 20% no matter how much you make...seems fair to me.

I agree with that. The problem is all the businesses thr have already paid for their own favours would be highly upset.

[Donkey Oatey]

Judge grants injunction on Bill 46.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...61535280,d.cGU

Some pretty strong language in the decision against the government.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

Judge grants injunction on Bill 46.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...61535280,d.cGU

Some pretty strong language in the decision against the government.

Pretty sure I said this will lose in court. I'm syprised it happened this fast though.

[Sledder1]

And now the tax payer gets to pay for all those high cost govt lawyers as the govt appeals this losing endeavour. Thanks Redford you c word.

[Big Daddy Badger]

I just don't know how much longer this thread will survive.
Its got to be tough for a lot of guys here...torn between their dislike of unions and of Redford.
Of course given enough time I'm sure that someone will try to cobble together a way to blame em both.

That should be entertaining.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

I just don't know how much longer this thread will survive.
Its got to be tough for a lot of guys here...torn between their dislike of unions and of Redford.
Of course given enough time I'm sure that someone will try to cobble together a way to blame em both.

That should be entertaining.

That's been going on for 13 pages already.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Sledder1

And now the tax payer gets to pay for all those high cost govt lawyers as the govt appeals this losing endeavour. Thanks Redford you c word.

I'm not a lawyer but the law is pretty clear from what I remember. It was a Supreme Court case from the BC nurses. The decision is the government must not bring in changes or force workers back to work by legislation. The Redford government has to have read the same as me.

[ali#1]

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

Sep 6, 2007

It's not often that labour celebrates a decision by the courts, but a June 8th ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, in a case involving health care unions and the British Columbia government, is a notable exception. Proclaiming collective bargaining as a "constitutional right" supported by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court has rendered a landmark decision that deserves the attention and acclaim that it is getting in labour circles around the country.

This awkwardly named case, "Health Services and Support Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, 2007 SCC 27," the outcome of which was a surprise to many in the labour movement, may well turn out to be one of the most significant rulings on labour rights for Canadian
workers in the 21st century.

The lengthy decision written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Louis LeBel is 135 pages long, but it is well worth the read for its analysis and review of the history of the Court's thinking on freedom of association and collective bargaining.

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION

In an important reversal, the Justices declared that earlier Court decisions refusing to recognize freedom of association as including the right to collectively bargaining "do not withstand principled scrutiny and should be rejected." In breaking from these earlier 1987 decisions of the Court referred to as the "labour trilogy," the Court declared that the Charter is "a living document" that "grows with society and speaks to the current situation and needs of Canadians."

This sudden recognition by Canada's highest court of collective bargaining as a fundamental right may breathe new life into ailing labour rights in Canada. As well, it may put provinces and the federal government, always quick to introduce legislation limiting and undermining collective bargaining rights of workers, on notice that the Court has a new-found appreciation of the role of collective bargaining in promoting the core values of "human dignity, equality, liberty, respect for the autonomy of the person and the enhancement of democracy."

In making their case for collective bargaining, McLachlin and LeBel quote Harvard Law Professor Paul Weiler on labour relations in B.C. in the 1970s. According to Weiler, "collective bargaining is not simply an instrument
for pursuing external ends, whether these be mundane monetary gains or the erection of a private rule of law to protect dignity of the worker in the face of managerial authority. Rather, collective bargaining is intrinsically valuable as an experience in self-government.

[ETOWNCANUCK]

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/02/1...-down-by-court



http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...923/story.html


Some good news and a step in the right direction. Hopefully some good will come out of it.