The Alberta Teachers' Strike - yes, I support the government.
As you correctly point out, the Supremes for decades allowed governments to step in to stop strikes until they (the Supremes) decided that they (the Supremes) were wrong. Well, I think the Supremes were wrong in the last decision and correct previously but no matter, they ruled.
You (again!) very correctly further point out that the NWC was inserted in the Charter for PRECISELY this particular reason and similar reasons; but, particularly, particularly for this reason. Therefore, it is entirely rational and acceptable that the NWC was used.
As to legislating a deal. The government had previously offered arbitration if the teachers would go back to school but the teachers said, "Fuck you!" to the government and refused to go back to school. The government had said that hard caps were simply too restrictive and, further, the teachers were wanting so much more that the cost would be (as memory serves) in the range of $3 billion-ish and the government had already said that it simply couldn't afford more.
It is my memory of pretty well every deal that has been referred to arbitration that the arbitrator comes down somewhere in between the parties. In other words, if the government had offered the maximum that it could afford, they could reasonably expect an arbitrator to ignore what they could afford and require more.
So the government returned the "Fuck you" and imposed the last deal offered. With any luck (but not likely!) the teachers will learn that bargaining from a position of "Fuck you" with an employer who will not necessarily use the NWC but will use the NWC if necessary (thank you Willie King!) is not a good negotiating strategy.
My take is that the government here in Alberta did what it had to do. Further, my position is that the teachers were pissed off because they were having to work too hard - they were having to work hard but so is everyone else nowadays. Unlike some people here, but like many, many others, I think that the government did well.
Ken, I take issue with your analysis in a few places. I could be mistaken on this, but I believe the NWC was intended as a legislative safeguard in response to a court ruling, not to be used pre-emptively. Of course, it could be argued that there was basically no doubt that the court would rule in favour of the union so we might as well save some time, but I'm inclined all the same to say that I have a problem with the pre-emptive use of Section 33.
Second, the government offer of mediation was a poison pill. Accepting mediation meant taking working conditions (classroom size and complexity) off the table, handing the government (the employer) sole discretion in how much and how fast they addressed the issues. The teachers, having seen how the government has been addressing (or rather failing to address in numerous ways) these very issues, were not willing to cede that without a fight. The hard caps they proposed were just that, a proposal. Here, said the union, is a schedule spread out over 4 years that is achievable and results in us achieving a greatly improved learning environment for students. 'Fuck you' was a pretty accurate summary of the government's response.
As to the cost, that $3billion figure is a rounded-up estimate of the total cost over the life of the contract. The union said they were proposing an additional expenditure of around $500million annually and that this figure essentially would return Alberta Education expenditure to about the national average per student, when it is currently far below that, according to Fraser Institute figures.
Let's continue on with money for a moment: 'what the government can afford'. The government decided that it could 'afford' to cut its tax revenue and put itself into deficit for the next few years. So, in that context, what does 'can't afford' actually mean? It's all about choices, and you know that.
Finally, you seem to be implying that the teachers were to some degree exhibiting laziness, or buttercup behaviour. 'They were having to work too hard, oh boohoo. Suck it up! Life is hard'. But you ignore, or perhaps don't know, that the OECD recently stated that Alberta teachers are reporting among the longest hours and highest degree of professional stress in the entire world! Now, this is based on self-report, but I think there are only two ways to interpret this data: either Alberta teachers are, for some reason, the biggest babies in the entire teaching profession worldwide, or their work is exceptionally difficult. You can think the former is true, but there is better evidence that it is the latter that is.
Brian, I agree that originally many people thought that the use of the NWC would be reactive rather than proactive but, quite honestly, in my consideration of the issue over the years it seems to me that that was a misreading of matters by most folks.
Peter Lougheed, one of the creators of the NWC, [along with Alan Blakeney] used the specific example of use of the NWC in the event that the Supremes had chosen to allow certain public sector strikes under the Charter. He opined that that was a good example of where the NWC should be used.
In 2015 the Supremes reversed their previous stance and said that Saskatchewan legislation outlawing certain provincial strikes violated the Charter. Therefore, Alberta's use of the NWC was done AFTER that decision wherein the Supremes had made their opinion clear.
The government said all along that classroom size, etc. was not a position upon which it was willing to bargain. As for the complexity issue, it is my recollection that that arose due to the various "do gooder groups" [my infelicitous phrasing] who sued and lobbied to not segregate kids with special needs. No matter; the government has said that this is an issue and it will deal with it - as it offered to do during negotiations but, remember, the union said "Fuck you" to that offer.
The hard caps sought by the union would have had some real unintended consequences and I commend the government for resisting that.
Ultimately, Brian, I respectfully suggest that we agree to disagree as we both have positions which we are unlikely to modify.
Ken, I agree that we have differing positions, but I'm not quite ready to drop it. A couple of things come to mind. First, I read into your reply a significant degree of trust In the government and distrust of teachers and/or their union. I think that neither position is entirely tenable even if to a degree understandable.
I repeat that the Alberta government is demonstrably less supportive of public education than many other governments and I say that based on their absolute tight-fistedness with respect to funding, as compared to all other jurisdictions (see the Fraser Institute's most recent report on this). The worst-in-Canada level of funding, is something that makes the government's handling of this wide-open to severe criticism, and meriting of distrust in their future choices, if they are not contractually obliged to address class size (as many other provincial governments are evidently comfortable to be).
Relatedly, the ATA, which you have implied is power hungry and would abuse the system, has demonstrated moderation in simply asking that the government fund education to the same level as the national average. This hardly counts as an outrageous demand and certainly gives no indication of irresponsible conduct. Thus, although Danielle Smith often means what she says and has earned some trust, she doesn't always behave openly and honestly (do you need me to prove this?) and is not in my view to be handed a blank cheque, which basically is what she has given herself in this regard. And, although unions can absolutely be bad actors and totally unreasonable in their demands (I'm thinking of CUPW) the ATA has, by and large, done a great job of responsibly advocating for desperately needed improvements in education funding.
I'm curious about the unintended consequences you alluded to.
Brian, I have varying degrees of trust in all institutions. For example, I trust the Post Office infinitely more than I trust the federal government [bizarre comparison I know, particularly as I trust the PO to screw up - so draw your conclusions about my thoughts on the feds]. As for this Alberta government, I trust them SOMEWHAT, depending on the issue. On this particular issue, I think they should have done better but I also think that the union really didn't have the best concerns of the public at heart. Oh, I know that they said they did but, as far as I was concerned they were self-interested using the kids as a weapon. I know that some folks will violently disagree with me but there you are.
As for the comparison in funding levels, that is certainly a concern. I wrote to the government during the strike and pointed it out and said that if it was true (I didn't argue the point but "questioned" it) then would they please address why they allowed that. In turn, their only response was essentially that the statistics used are not uniform across the country according to a G & M article [I have not seen the article and, yes, stats can be confusing, but ...... awful weak argument]. I would like more amplification on this point but I am not yet able to get that additional information.
As for the ATA, yes, I admit that I am very jaundiced about that organization. Why? I'm sorry but I cannot discern the source of my suspicion about them. As near as I can recall, it arises from many decades of seeing the ATA act solely as a union, protecting incompetent teachers, arguing against standard testing, etc., etc. but wrapping it all up in the rubric of, "It's for the benefit of the kids" or some such. I just don't buy it; they are a labor union presenting themselves as a benevolent group acting for kids. So, am I correct? That is, of course, any person's own opinion.
You have to ask yourself who runs the school system. The teachers or the Minister of Education? Much too often the unions start thinking they want to run the place.
You have hit on the key point in why the government refused to discuss caps on class sizes; the argument is that sort of a change is so fundamental that it is a "management" prerogative and is not a negotiating item.
One can argue both sides of that but that is my understanding of the situation. To put a hard cap on class sizes would so fundamentally change the overall dynamic that, yes, the union would be running the system.
In Argentina the teachers unions took over formal control of the schools. We are more and more becoming like Latin America economically (and the US more so socially, with their strongman in chief)
I thought Jen addressed the point of teachers trying make class size a matter of their labour agreement very well. She pointed out the different groups involved in education policy and said that teachers unions were effectively trying to make their voice the one that got to dictate to all the other stakeholders and why this wasn’t right given other stakeholders include parents. I didn’t do it justice in this comment but it was was really well articulated and should be swiped for future use by many a provincial government!
I disagreed with her on this point. I don't see how teachers wanting to have a voice in a matter that affects them very closely, and which is without a doubt viewable as a 'working condition,' which all unions generally can address on behalf of their members, represents them wanting to dictate terms. The teachers made a proposal for a phased-In approach to addressing class sizes and instead of responding (negotiating) the government told them they were not going to have any say in this matter, and emphasized the point by legislating them back to work in the most peremptory and heavy-handed manner possible. It would be different to some degree If this request were unprecedented and no other teachers' union had ever even proposed it, but that is not the case. Most teachers in the other provinces have class size commitments in their collective agreements or, if they don't, they have a commitment from their employer that class sizes will be limited to a certain figure. The former (collective agreement) is preferable to the latter, but Alberta teachers have absolutely nothing, beyond a statement that the government is going to look into it. Given that the government's actions (or lack of same) are the reason things are so bad in Alberta classrooms, I think teachers can be forgiven for attempting to get a commitment.
The teachers have a contractual right to strike and are not an essential service. As an opinion piece in the Calgary Herald stated, if they are essential, how is it they don't provide their services for two months a year? The NWC is akin to clubbing baby seals and is probably a test balloon, a challenge to the SCC as there is more to come.
The unions have stated they will topple the government, so is Ms. Smith planning on becoming becoming the new Iron Lady? Alberta is the province least supportive of unions, so union busting on the table.
So, to take your logic, Gas, because teachers take the weekend off they are not an essential service.
As for clubbing baby seals [you betray your age: no one clubs baby seals any more], that is simply a weird analogy. Peter Lougheed, the father of the NWC very specifically used a public sector strike being permitted by the Supremes as an example where the NWC would be justified.
On what basis would a challenge be made before the Supremes? I just cannot imagine that there might be one.
As for the unions toppling Smith et al, go for it guys! Let's see what support the Alberta Federation of Labor gets from the private sector unions. Not much, is my suspicion.
You speak of union busting but I see no evidence that that is or will occur. If the UCP had wanted to do that, they certainly could have included that in Bill 2.
The rumour mill in Edmonton is that right to work will be brought in to protect those who refuse to put their careers in jeopardy with an illegal general struke.
Something has to give in Canada. We are so uncompetitive as a nation that continuing with this current economic framework isn't an option.
"... Something has to give in Canada ..." You are correct but I truly think that the population has gotten to the point that we are addicted to "free" bread and circuses and that no substantive change will be made.
As to the rumor mill, what you are suggesting is essentially a "conscience law" which would have the effect of making a legal strike very difficult if it was applied to all strikes. Even if it was applied only to an illegal strike it would effectively make those who did not go out on strike into scabs, the most despised of people in the labor movement.
As a result you can be certain that that would be opposed vociferously by labor. The labor movement is, of course, making loud noises right now about a general strike but I don't see that happening as so many private sector workers simply don't have the same interests, income, benefits, not to mention job protections as government employees so I suspect that a broad general strike is - to me - unlikely. A general strike of government employees is more plausible but still ...
On the other hand, an enactment of a "conscience law" might bring some of the private sector workers into the orbit of those who are arguing for a broad general strike.
If we do have an election, I wonder if the good people of Ottawa will be consistent about voting out MPs who 'haven't been there to represent the riding', given Mark Carney still doesn't have a constituency office open 6 months after the election (you can look up his profile on the Commons website, and see he doesn't have an office open. PP, on the other hand, has two offices open, even though he was only elected in two months ago).
I would give the Liberals credit for one specific reason for wanting to call an election to get a majority, even though they would never be intellectually honest to admit it if it was a reason: to get ahead of Quebec's election next year, when the Parti Quebecois are expected to come in with a majority government and immediately start putting the screws to a lot of things and causing headaches.
re:the notwithstanding clause. I feel like history is moving far too fast to stay apace with a lot of things, because just today the Supreme Court ruled a one-year minimum sentence for possession of child pornography unconstitutional. Chretien said one of the use cases discussed in 1982 with section 33 was overriding the judges if they ever went soft on child pornography, so there we go. So the Conservatives at least could have a replay of Pierre saying he would use the notwithstanding clause in the last election, but this time to actually enforce minimum sentences for child porn (I admit I don't know if that's within the part of the Constitution that can be overridden by s33). That is a very tough rhetorical argument to be against.
It is important to appreciate what the court is doing in this situation. It was not telling a Judge that the Judge could not impose a one year sentence. It was demanding that the sentence actually reflect the actual facts of the case; and holding out the possibility that there might be facts surrounding mere possession of a forbidden thing that would not warrant a one year sentence.
It was another "reasonable hypothetical" case. An 18-year old who received a nude picture of their 17-year-old partner shouldn't be liable to the one year minimum. But the man involved wasn't 18 and the pictures weren't of acquaintances. It comes down to the SCoC not wanting politicians involved in sentencing.
Yes, I think that is the outcome. Even though it purportedly recognizes Parliament's right to create the criminal offence in the first place. Or regulatory offences which have an inflexible but somewhat arbitrary trigger...like the .08 for being impaired. It still boils down to who gets to make the law. It is a similar intrusion in respect of "real life" sentences, which are very common in other jurisdictions.
-the NDP will aggressively oppose an alleged austerity budget but enough of its MPs will live up to their union roots and call in sick such that it narrowly passes
-if the right to strike were such an obvious interpretation of the right to association, why did the Supreme Court take more than 30 years to conjure it? What profound social or technological change occurred in the lead up to 2015 that precipitated the right to strike as reasonable?
Not just "conjure it", but actually reverse a number of cases which decided the precise opposite. The NWC has been unnecessarily raised to iconic status. For example, if there is a 5-4 decision on a Charter point there is obviously a good argument for reaching the alternative result, and from this perspective, it is merely Parliament or a Legislature stepping in to put its weight behind that legislative choice - as the principle of parliamentary supremacy dictates. Which is to say: the representatives of the voters who are responsible for creating the legislation, are the forum in which, should they so choose, that legislation should be interpreted and applied. NOT the American model, whose workings we can see south of the border, where there is no safety valve to preserve the rights of the people to have the last word on what the law will be.
One way to tell that there is an election coming is that journalists - Jenn included - are dragging out the "Poilievre is mean and has no policies" bullshit again.
Jenn says Poilievre is still struggling to find a narrative and a minute later Matt talks talks about Poilievre saying the kids have suffered enough. You don't hear what you don't want to hear, Jenn.
It seems extremely far fetched that we'll have an election over the budget. But I am intrigued by the story Liberals apparently expect us to believe if there is one:
Canadians have blown the chance to give the Liberals the majority they deserve three times, and the solution is that Liberals need to be more arrogant. So they are proposing a budget to the minority Parliament to which they were elected the day before yesterday, having made no visible efforts whatsoever to negotiate with or to accommodate in any way any of the other parties.
What's in this budget? Themes! We will spend less, but also more, only on "investment". What is "investment"? It was Trudeau's word for the good spending. Now it means the REALLY good spending. So, capital? Not just capital; the definition exists only in the voluminous mind of Mark Carney, and you must wait to see... no, better yet, accept it on faith.
Why must we spend less? Because some previous government put us on a profoundly unsustainable fiscal and economic path. Best not to think about the details.
How will we spend less? Prioritizing! But what will Carney cut? Well, he'll fully fund dental care, pharmacare, daycare, and the school lunch program. Um, those don't sound like cuts? YOU DARE TO QUESTION THE WORLD'S GREATEST EXPERT????
By doing this, Liberals will balance the operating budget, a thing only defined in Mark Carney's voluminous brain. A metric so foreign to prior planning that Carney's own platform costing couldn't hazard a specific estimate of what the current operating deficit even was.
But opposition parties, having been engaged in no negotiations at all, have unconscionably failed to support this. They defied the World's Greatest Expert. They lack true faith. For this, Canadians must be punished with an election, and Liberals rewarded with a majority.
I continue to be frustrated by the US-CA trade discussion (all around). The fundamental issues is POWER!
And not that Canada doesn't have any and should just rollover. Rather, that we need to be aggressively accumulating power to give us both as much leverage in US negotiations but also to buffer effects from US aggression.
Whether or not we run ads, or the Lib vs Con approach to a trade deal, is IRRELEVANT. Its driving me crazy!
We need to be approving major projects left, right and center. We need to turf all the regulatory, provincial, and First Nations hurdles to project development. We need to make clear that if you want to build a pipeline (of anything) east, west, or to the moon its already approved. We need to remove inter-provincial trade barriers yesterday. And if the Fed just has to squash it and fight it out in the courts, go ahead. We need to wield S33 like a cudgel if the courts get in the way. (Luckily they're busy reducing sentencing for child porn). We desperately need foreign investment to build and yet we're driving it all away (accelerated by decisions like Cowichan).
I get that the Line and many readers, on the face, agree. But the problem is we're talking about stuff that is so irrelevant - the Ford ads don't matter either way because whether they piss off the US or not, they don't change our negotiating position. Ford accomplishes nothing either way. The Con vs Lib public position is irrelevant - "elbows up" or "rollover" yields the same result.
Matt and Ontarians should be ripping Ford for not doing anything to strengthen the economy. Jens criticism that some Cons want to roll over is irrelevant because the question isn't "WHAT IS THE PUBLIC FACING POSITION?" it's "WHO IS GOING TO AGGRESSIVELY BUILD CANADIAN ECONOMIC POWER?" If its the Cons, then the fact they want a more conciliatory position with the US doesn't matter.
Power matters! And we are refusing to both wield and build our own. We don't have any RIGHT to sovereignty, we need to fight for it!
And if we're not going to fight? Then the Con position IS the right one because we're so weak that begging for mercy is the only smart thing...
"We need to be approving major projects left, right and center. We need to turf all the regulatory, provincial, and First Nations hurdles to project development. We need to make clear that if you want to build a pipeline (of anything) east, west, or to the moon its already approved. We need to remove inter-provincial trade barriers yesterday."
This should be the obvious answer to anyone with a pair of firing neurons. Unfortunately Liberals care more about catering to a voting coalition consisting of various combinations of the dumbest, morally worst, least productive, and most easily manipulated people in the country, and as a result can't act on any of this.
Harper was far too timid. He failed to understand how badly the next Liberal government would rig the system to keep a CPC 'aberration' from happening again. He therefore went too slowly and didn't address a lot of issues in attempt to play nice and not scare people too much. Well he's still vilified as the boogeyman despite being objectively the best manager of this country in living memory.
Now we need someone willing to take a flamethrower to scared institutions like the Charter, the Supreme Court, bilingualism, Quebec special status, the Senate, single payer healthcare, "reconciliation," and multiculturalism. Even the most extreme version of Poilievre that exists only in the nightmares of downtown Toronto CBC watchers would not go far enough to do what is needed to make this country function properly again.
I think this could only happen once a) conditions deteriorate to the point that we descend into tangible poverty and disorder personally affecting everyone, and b) the boomers all die.
You need both the boomers to die and for Wall St bond traders to turn the screws on Canada. Even then I wouldn't discount an Argentinian style money printing fiesta.
The Americans have imported Latin American style social problems and we have imported Latin American style economic problems (and class entitlements).
Concur wholeheartedly. And the Carney “list” of projects to approve “quickly” doesn’t cut it - most of these are already approved or waiting investor approval, nothing to do with the federal government (who needs to just get out of the way) - We need mass new projects, and exports, and people working for serious dollars to gain any type of leverage in the US/Ca trade dispute not to mention mass benefit for Canadians and Canada.
China just got a deal today -- maybe not a great deal, but something anyway, e.g. access to advanced U.S. semiconductors, which for them is crucial. But not to worry, Canada isn't alone. Brazil also doesn.t have a deal, but it does face 50% tariffs on all its exports to the U.S.
The rumour mill at the Alberta Legislature is saying that right to work is coming next. Most likely in response to the former NDP candidate union boss calling for a general strike. As per usual in Canada, a general strike is to the advantage of the old to the detriment to the young workers.
Remember, a general strike would be illegal and grounds for permanent dismissal with cause. Right to work allows those workers to leave a union (via not being compelled to pay dues) that they don't believe in.
As for the right to strike but not the right to not give money to a union, that is just Quebecois style collectivism being imprinted onto a more individualistic culture and that just doesn't jive.
Essential workers, professionals and those in prestige roles should never be allowed to strike. Striking is for private sector labourers and these are professionals with tenure. If accountants and engineers aren't allowed to strike along with doctors and lawyers, why are public sector teachers and nurses allowed to?
In the case of the Alberta teachers strike, does anyone consider what might happen if the NWS Clause wasn't used to protect the integrity of legislation and get kids back in classrooms?
For those who may be undecided, look eastward to Saskatchewan and see how things played out with Bill 137/Parent's Bill of Rights unfolded. A legal challenge was immediately filed and even though the NWS Clause was used to protect Bill 137, the case still plods through the courts.
This has become the new template for aggressive enforcement of progressive politics. When Provincial Governments become a lightning rod by having to choose between the greater public interest and trampling deeply held views by those on the left things get very messy and fast.
The teachers in Alberta are struggling to cope with clogged up classrooms full of children who have no English or French language skills. This is a disaster on many fronts and needs addressing but litigating the issue is no solution either. Some good faith needs to be put forth by all sides of the debate.
After several weeks of growing annoyance, I was all ready to finally issue my “Let Jen finish three sentences without interruption” challenge, but then we got to the Alberta teacher’s strike and she was actually allowed to speak largely uninterrupted for several minutes, and not have to repeatedly stop to regain her train of argument after a inane quips at random moments.
Admirable restraint in this episode, Matt. Kudos where it’s due, and hope to hear more of it in future.
1. The NWC was warranted and needed to legislate them back to work.
2. The use of the NWC to impose a contract was a major own goal. There’s kind of no coming back for the UCP on this one with a massive base of voters. This was to the progressive class in AB the same as the Emergency Measures Act being invoked on the Convoy. As someone who leans conservative, I don’t support the imposition of a contract, it makes me a bit queasy. For someone who leans progressive though, fuck me are they are angry - and it’s understandable. I did not support the teachers strike overall. And the quiet dirty secret is most parents didn’t either. It was parochial, political and self indulgent. It seriously hurt kids and families, and this was not given anywhere close to the gravity it demanded by either the teachers or the ATA. It wasn’t a good look. The ATA clearly did not seriously try to avoid a strike either, their negotiation strategy could only be described as delusional and incompetent. This said, I would have preferred a mandated 3rd party arbitration settlement to what happened - it would have shown at minimum some degree of respect for the teachers (who do deserve our respect, whatever their collective foibles and follies may be). Instead. They were humiliated… Beyond the offense to dignity of this, it’s also just not a good idea to humiliate an adversary.
3. JG is bang on to call out the distinction between private and public unions. These are not even close to the same thing. Public sector unions are despised by everyone except raging progressives ,and maybe 65% of their membership. You cannot convince me (and neither will Gil McGowan) that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, men and women who work 10 and 4 shifts in the freezing North of AB, see themselves as comrades in arms with a bloated and inefficient public service working plush and benefit rich downtown office jobs. Ahh.. I don’t know if you’ve hung out with any blue color Albertans recently. But they don’t exactly love progressive politics. Nor do they see themselves as victims in this whole paradigm. Nor do they fear the UCP.
It seems to me that the nature of the Trump administration's views on foreign relations were obvious well before the U.S. ambassador's ill-tempered outburst. Trump wants submission, the bended knee. It seems to me that the details of any trade agreement are secondary to the symbolism of the other party to Trump. This is in line with what Alex Muir wrote on The Line yesterday, an excellent piece.
So how should Canada respond? There are difficult tradeoffs between patriotism and jobs/standard of living. But one thing seems clear to me: Canada should speak with one voice, or at least in a coordinated fashion. We should not have the federal government and various provincial governments working at cross purposes. In the best of times, our lack of unity would be foolish. Now, it could be catastrophic. Could someone please tell our leaders?
My God, this is such an important observation. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would have ever thought a convicted felon, pussy grabbing old goat might possibly be someone to negotiate with. And yet we ran an election where the ballot question was just that: who is best negotiate with Trump? It is a dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb question and we should have been far more strategic that to suck up to the man. Everything has changed since the pandemic.
All I know for me is this: Unless Canada matures from moral actor to strategic actor, someone else will decide its future for us.
It was the one issue where it didn't matter one bit who was governing Canada.
Trump is going to do whatever he is going to do. You can't predict what is going to set him off or what he will respond well to, as nobody seems to be able to pick apart the unique ratio of deliberate calculation and genuine crazy that randomly goes into each of his decisions. Yet our mainstream media insisted this was what the election was about and that Mark Carney was the one who would be best at managing a completely chaotic and unmanageable leader.
And this, yes, incredibly dumb metric will continue to be applied against a theoretical "worse" outcome that partisans are "sure" Poilievre would always achieve. Take a look at the G&M comments section to find the most stupefied partisan zombies, viewing even Carney's failures as some kind of strategic 4D chess... just like arguments Trump's followers apply to him I might add.
"Trump wants submission, the bended knee." That is your opinion. What if he really wanted us to slow down the flow of fentanyl and criminal migrants? Smith had success by strengthening Alberta's southern border and by negotiating like an adult.
What if he is worried about our government's cozy relationship with the China, with whom the US might soon be in hot war? Either we get we join in that war on the US side or we become the 51st state. There is no other choice for the US. Panama, Greenland and Canada are all platforms from which the US can keep Chinese ships out of the Atlantic.
I'm wondering what Jen thinks can be done about the state of public sector labour relations. I agree that public and private sector unions are different in important ways, but, and Jen acknowledged this, without collective bargaining, there is no method for employees to assert themselves in seeking good working conditions. Teachers were the particular subject of this part of the podcast and I want to ask specifically what she thinks should be done differently in public education labour relations. Teachers deprived themselves of paycheques to demonstrate how strongly they object to the working conditions their employer has forced on them. Jen seemed to be saying that the union shouldn't have the power to demand to be a party to an agreement about these working conditions, or did I misunderstand? What was clear to me was that the Alberta government did not want to be contractually obliged to address these issues. They wanted wiggle room and the ability to kick the can down the road. Surely that's their bad, especially since, as the ATA pointed out, teacher working conditions in this scenario affect children negatively.
No one is entitled to a job and teachers do not run the workplace. If they don't like their jobs people need to quit. Get out of the way for someone who doesn't mind the job as it is.
The Alberta Teachers' Strike - yes, I support the government.
As you correctly point out, the Supremes for decades allowed governments to step in to stop strikes until they (the Supremes) decided that they (the Supremes) were wrong. Well, I think the Supremes were wrong in the last decision and correct previously but no matter, they ruled.
You (again!) very correctly further point out that the NWC was inserted in the Charter for PRECISELY this particular reason and similar reasons; but, particularly, particularly for this reason. Therefore, it is entirely rational and acceptable that the NWC was used.
As to legislating a deal. The government had previously offered arbitration if the teachers would go back to school but the teachers said, "Fuck you!" to the government and refused to go back to school. The government had said that hard caps were simply too restrictive and, further, the teachers were wanting so much more that the cost would be (as memory serves) in the range of $3 billion-ish and the government had already said that it simply couldn't afford more.
It is my memory of pretty well every deal that has been referred to arbitration that the arbitrator comes down somewhere in between the parties. In other words, if the government had offered the maximum that it could afford, they could reasonably expect an arbitrator to ignore what they could afford and require more.
So the government returned the "Fuck you" and imposed the last deal offered. With any luck (but not likely!) the teachers will learn that bargaining from a position of "Fuck you" with an employer who will not necessarily use the NWC but will use the NWC if necessary (thank you Willie King!) is not a good negotiating strategy.
My take is that the government here in Alberta did what it had to do. Further, my position is that the teachers were pissed off because they were having to work too hard - they were having to work hard but so is everyone else nowadays. Unlike some people here, but like many, many others, I think that the government did well.
Ken, I take issue with your analysis in a few places. I could be mistaken on this, but I believe the NWC was intended as a legislative safeguard in response to a court ruling, not to be used pre-emptively. Of course, it could be argued that there was basically no doubt that the court would rule in favour of the union so we might as well save some time, but I'm inclined all the same to say that I have a problem with the pre-emptive use of Section 33.
Second, the government offer of mediation was a poison pill. Accepting mediation meant taking working conditions (classroom size and complexity) off the table, handing the government (the employer) sole discretion in how much and how fast they addressed the issues. The teachers, having seen how the government has been addressing (or rather failing to address in numerous ways) these very issues, were not willing to cede that without a fight. The hard caps they proposed were just that, a proposal. Here, said the union, is a schedule spread out over 4 years that is achievable and results in us achieving a greatly improved learning environment for students. 'Fuck you' was a pretty accurate summary of the government's response.
As to the cost, that $3billion figure is a rounded-up estimate of the total cost over the life of the contract. The union said they were proposing an additional expenditure of around $500million annually and that this figure essentially would return Alberta Education expenditure to about the national average per student, when it is currently far below that, according to Fraser Institute figures.
Let's continue on with money for a moment: 'what the government can afford'. The government decided that it could 'afford' to cut its tax revenue and put itself into deficit for the next few years. So, in that context, what does 'can't afford' actually mean? It's all about choices, and you know that.
Finally, you seem to be implying that the teachers were to some degree exhibiting laziness, or buttercup behaviour. 'They were having to work too hard, oh boohoo. Suck it up! Life is hard'. But you ignore, or perhaps don't know, that the OECD recently stated that Alberta teachers are reporting among the longest hours and highest degree of professional stress in the entire world! Now, this is based on self-report, but I think there are only two ways to interpret this data: either Alberta teachers are, for some reason, the biggest babies in the entire teaching profession worldwide, or their work is exceptionally difficult. You can think the former is true, but there is better evidence that it is the latter that is.
Brian, I agree that originally many people thought that the use of the NWC would be reactive rather than proactive but, quite honestly, in my consideration of the issue over the years it seems to me that that was a misreading of matters by most folks.
Peter Lougheed, one of the creators of the NWC, [along with Alan Blakeney] used the specific example of use of the NWC in the event that the Supremes had chosen to allow certain public sector strikes under the Charter. He opined that that was a good example of where the NWC should be used.
In 2015 the Supremes reversed their previous stance and said that Saskatchewan legislation outlawing certain provincial strikes violated the Charter. Therefore, Alberta's use of the NWC was done AFTER that decision wherein the Supremes had made their opinion clear.
The government said all along that classroom size, etc. was not a position upon which it was willing to bargain. As for the complexity issue, it is my recollection that that arose due to the various "do gooder groups" [my infelicitous phrasing] who sued and lobbied to not segregate kids with special needs. No matter; the government has said that this is an issue and it will deal with it - as it offered to do during negotiations but, remember, the union said "Fuck you" to that offer.
The hard caps sought by the union would have had some real unintended consequences and I commend the government for resisting that.
Ultimately, Brian, I respectfully suggest that we agree to disagree as we both have positions which we are unlikely to modify.
Ken, I agree that we have differing positions, but I'm not quite ready to drop it. A couple of things come to mind. First, I read into your reply a significant degree of trust In the government and distrust of teachers and/or their union. I think that neither position is entirely tenable even if to a degree understandable.
I repeat that the Alberta government is demonstrably less supportive of public education than many other governments and I say that based on their absolute tight-fistedness with respect to funding, as compared to all other jurisdictions (see the Fraser Institute's most recent report on this). The worst-in-Canada level of funding, is something that makes the government's handling of this wide-open to severe criticism, and meriting of distrust in their future choices, if they are not contractually obliged to address class size (as many other provincial governments are evidently comfortable to be).
Relatedly, the ATA, which you have implied is power hungry and would abuse the system, has demonstrated moderation in simply asking that the government fund education to the same level as the national average. This hardly counts as an outrageous demand and certainly gives no indication of irresponsible conduct. Thus, although Danielle Smith often means what she says and has earned some trust, she doesn't always behave openly and honestly (do you need me to prove this?) and is not in my view to be handed a blank cheque, which basically is what she has given herself in this regard. And, although unions can absolutely be bad actors and totally unreasonable in their demands (I'm thinking of CUPW) the ATA has, by and large, done a great job of responsibly advocating for desperately needed improvements in education funding.
I'm curious about the unintended consequences you alluded to.
Brian, I have varying degrees of trust in all institutions. For example, I trust the Post Office infinitely more than I trust the federal government [bizarre comparison I know, particularly as I trust the PO to screw up - so draw your conclusions about my thoughts on the feds]. As for this Alberta government, I trust them SOMEWHAT, depending on the issue. On this particular issue, I think they should have done better but I also think that the union really didn't have the best concerns of the public at heart. Oh, I know that they said they did but, as far as I was concerned they were self-interested using the kids as a weapon. I know that some folks will violently disagree with me but there you are.
As for the comparison in funding levels, that is certainly a concern. I wrote to the government during the strike and pointed it out and said that if it was true (I didn't argue the point but "questioned" it) then would they please address why they allowed that. In turn, their only response was essentially that the statistics used are not uniform across the country according to a G & M article [I have not seen the article and, yes, stats can be confusing, but ...... awful weak argument]. I would like more amplification on this point but I am not yet able to get that additional information.
As for the ATA, yes, I admit that I am very jaundiced about that organization. Why? I'm sorry but I cannot discern the source of my suspicion about them. As near as I can recall, it arises from many decades of seeing the ATA act solely as a union, protecting incompetent teachers, arguing against standard testing, etc., etc. but wrapping it all up in the rubric of, "It's for the benefit of the kids" or some such. I just don't buy it; they are a labor union presenting themselves as a benevolent group acting for kids. So, am I correct? That is, of course, any person's own opinion.
So, ultimately, yes, we do disagree.
You have to ask yourself who runs the school system. The teachers or the Minister of Education? Much too often the unions start thinking they want to run the place.
You have hit on the key point in why the government refused to discuss caps on class sizes; the argument is that sort of a change is so fundamental that it is a "management" prerogative and is not a negotiating item.
One can argue both sides of that but that is my understanding of the situation. To put a hard cap on class sizes would so fundamentally change the overall dynamic that, yes, the union would be running the system.
In Argentina the teachers unions took over formal control of the schools. We are more and more becoming like Latin America economically (and the US more so socially, with their strongman in chief)
I thought Jen addressed the point of teachers trying make class size a matter of their labour agreement very well. She pointed out the different groups involved in education policy and said that teachers unions were effectively trying to make their voice the one that got to dictate to all the other stakeholders and why this wasn’t right given other stakeholders include parents. I didn’t do it justice in this comment but it was was really well articulated and should be swiped for future use by many a provincial government!
I disagreed with her on this point. I don't see how teachers wanting to have a voice in a matter that affects them very closely, and which is without a doubt viewable as a 'working condition,' which all unions generally can address on behalf of their members, represents them wanting to dictate terms. The teachers made a proposal for a phased-In approach to addressing class sizes and instead of responding (negotiating) the government told them they were not going to have any say in this matter, and emphasized the point by legislating them back to work in the most peremptory and heavy-handed manner possible. It would be different to some degree If this request were unprecedented and no other teachers' union had ever even proposed it, but that is not the case. Most teachers in the other provinces have class size commitments in their collective agreements or, if they don't, they have a commitment from their employer that class sizes will be limited to a certain figure. The former (collective agreement) is preferable to the latter, but Alberta teachers have absolutely nothing, beyond a statement that the government is going to look into it. Given that the government's actions (or lack of same) are the reason things are so bad in Alberta classrooms, I think teachers can be forgiven for attempting to get a commitment.
The teachers have a contractual right to strike and are not an essential service. As an opinion piece in the Calgary Herald stated, if they are essential, how is it they don't provide their services for two months a year? The NWC is akin to clubbing baby seals and is probably a test balloon, a challenge to the SCC as there is more to come.
The unions have stated they will topple the government, so is Ms. Smith planning on becoming becoming the new Iron Lady? Alberta is the province least supportive of unions, so union busting on the table.
So, to take your logic, Gas, because teachers take the weekend off they are not an essential service.
As for clubbing baby seals [you betray your age: no one clubs baby seals any more], that is simply a weird analogy. Peter Lougheed, the father of the NWC very specifically used a public sector strike being permitted by the Supremes as an example where the NWC would be justified.
On what basis would a challenge be made before the Supremes? I just cannot imagine that there might be one.
As for the unions toppling Smith et al, go for it guys! Let's see what support the Alberta Federation of Labor gets from the private sector unions. Not much, is my suspicion.
You speak of union busting but I see no evidence that that is or will occur. If the UCP had wanted to do that, they certainly could have included that in Bill 2.
The rumour mill in Edmonton is that right to work will be brought in to protect those who refuse to put their careers in jeopardy with an illegal general struke.
Something has to give in Canada. We are so uncompetitive as a nation that continuing with this current economic framework isn't an option.
"... Something has to give in Canada ..." You are correct but I truly think that the population has gotten to the point that we are addicted to "free" bread and circuses and that no substantive change will be made.
As to the rumor mill, what you are suggesting is essentially a "conscience law" which would have the effect of making a legal strike very difficult if it was applied to all strikes. Even if it was applied only to an illegal strike it would effectively make those who did not go out on strike into scabs, the most despised of people in the labor movement.
As a result you can be certain that that would be opposed vociferously by labor. The labor movement is, of course, making loud noises right now about a general strike but I don't see that happening as so many private sector workers simply don't have the same interests, income, benefits, not to mention job protections as government employees so I suspect that a broad general strike is - to me - unlikely. A general strike of government employees is more plausible but still ...
On the other hand, an enactment of a "conscience law" might bring some of the private sector workers into the orbit of those who are arguing for a broad general strike.
Interesting times.
If we do have an election, I wonder if the good people of Ottawa will be consistent about voting out MPs who 'haven't been there to represent the riding', given Mark Carney still doesn't have a constituency office open 6 months after the election (you can look up his profile on the Commons website, and see he doesn't have an office open. PP, on the other hand, has two offices open, even though he was only elected in two months ago).
I would give the Liberals credit for one specific reason for wanting to call an election to get a majority, even though they would never be intellectually honest to admit it if it was a reason: to get ahead of Quebec's election next year, when the Parti Quebecois are expected to come in with a majority government and immediately start putting the screws to a lot of things and causing headaches.
re:the notwithstanding clause. I feel like history is moving far too fast to stay apace with a lot of things, because just today the Supreme Court ruled a one-year minimum sentence for possession of child pornography unconstitutional. Chretien said one of the use cases discussed in 1982 with section 33 was overriding the judges if they ever went soft on child pornography, so there we go. So the Conservatives at least could have a replay of Pierre saying he would use the notwithstanding clause in the last election, but this time to actually enforce minimum sentences for child porn (I admit I don't know if that's within the part of the Constitution that can be overridden by s33). That is a very tough rhetorical argument to be against.
It is important to appreciate what the court is doing in this situation. It was not telling a Judge that the Judge could not impose a one year sentence. It was demanding that the sentence actually reflect the actual facts of the case; and holding out the possibility that there might be facts surrounding mere possession of a forbidden thing that would not warrant a one year sentence.
It was another "reasonable hypothetical" case. An 18-year old who received a nude picture of their 17-year-old partner shouldn't be liable to the one year minimum. But the man involved wasn't 18 and the pictures weren't of acquaintances. It comes down to the SCoC not wanting politicians involved in sentencing.
Yes, I think that is the outcome. Even though it purportedly recognizes Parliament's right to create the criminal offence in the first place. Or regulatory offences which have an inflexible but somewhat arbitrary trigger...like the .08 for being impaired. It still boils down to who gets to make the law. It is a similar intrusion in respect of "real life" sentences, which are very common in other jurisdictions.
Two points:
-the NDP will aggressively oppose an alleged austerity budget but enough of its MPs will live up to their union roots and call in sick such that it narrowly passes
-if the right to strike were such an obvious interpretation of the right to association, why did the Supreme Court take more than 30 years to conjure it? What profound social or technological change occurred in the lead up to 2015 that precipitated the right to strike as reasonable?
Not just "conjure it", but actually reverse a number of cases which decided the precise opposite. The NWC has been unnecessarily raised to iconic status. For example, if there is a 5-4 decision on a Charter point there is obviously a good argument for reaching the alternative result, and from this perspective, it is merely Parliament or a Legislature stepping in to put its weight behind that legislative choice - as the principle of parliamentary supremacy dictates. Which is to say: the representatives of the voters who are responsible for creating the legislation, are the forum in which, should they so choose, that legislation should be interpreted and applied. NOT the American model, whose workings we can see south of the border, where there is no safety valve to preserve the rights of the people to have the last word on what the law will be.
One way to tell that there is an election coming is that journalists - Jenn included - are dragging out the "Poilievre is mean and has no policies" bullshit again.
Jenn says Poilievre is still struggling to find a narrative and a minute later Matt talks talks about Poilievre saying the kids have suffered enough. You don't hear what you don't want to hear, Jenn.
It seems extremely far fetched that we'll have an election over the budget. But I am intrigued by the story Liberals apparently expect us to believe if there is one:
Canadians have blown the chance to give the Liberals the majority they deserve three times, and the solution is that Liberals need to be more arrogant. So they are proposing a budget to the minority Parliament to which they were elected the day before yesterday, having made no visible efforts whatsoever to negotiate with or to accommodate in any way any of the other parties.
What's in this budget? Themes! We will spend less, but also more, only on "investment". What is "investment"? It was Trudeau's word for the good spending. Now it means the REALLY good spending. So, capital? Not just capital; the definition exists only in the voluminous mind of Mark Carney, and you must wait to see... no, better yet, accept it on faith.
Why must we spend less? Because some previous government put us on a profoundly unsustainable fiscal and economic path. Best not to think about the details.
How will we spend less? Prioritizing! But what will Carney cut? Well, he'll fully fund dental care, pharmacare, daycare, and the school lunch program. Um, those don't sound like cuts? YOU DARE TO QUESTION THE WORLD'S GREATEST EXPERT????
By doing this, Liberals will balance the operating budget, a thing only defined in Mark Carney's voluminous brain. A metric so foreign to prior planning that Carney's own platform costing couldn't hazard a specific estimate of what the current operating deficit even was.
But opposition parties, having been engaged in no negotiations at all, have unconscionably failed to support this. They defied the World's Greatest Expert. They lack true faith. For this, Canadians must be punished with an election, and Liberals rewarded with a majority.
It's just crazy enough to work.
I continue to be frustrated by the US-CA trade discussion (all around). The fundamental issues is POWER!
And not that Canada doesn't have any and should just rollover. Rather, that we need to be aggressively accumulating power to give us both as much leverage in US negotiations but also to buffer effects from US aggression.
Whether or not we run ads, or the Lib vs Con approach to a trade deal, is IRRELEVANT. Its driving me crazy!
We need to be approving major projects left, right and center. We need to turf all the regulatory, provincial, and First Nations hurdles to project development. We need to make clear that if you want to build a pipeline (of anything) east, west, or to the moon its already approved. We need to remove inter-provincial trade barriers yesterday. And if the Fed just has to squash it and fight it out in the courts, go ahead. We need to wield S33 like a cudgel if the courts get in the way. (Luckily they're busy reducing sentencing for child porn). We desperately need foreign investment to build and yet we're driving it all away (accelerated by decisions like Cowichan).
I get that the Line and many readers, on the face, agree. But the problem is we're talking about stuff that is so irrelevant - the Ford ads don't matter either way because whether they piss off the US or not, they don't change our negotiating position. Ford accomplishes nothing either way. The Con vs Lib public position is irrelevant - "elbows up" or "rollover" yields the same result.
Matt and Ontarians should be ripping Ford for not doing anything to strengthen the economy. Jens criticism that some Cons want to roll over is irrelevant because the question isn't "WHAT IS THE PUBLIC FACING POSITION?" it's "WHO IS GOING TO AGGRESSIVELY BUILD CANADIAN ECONOMIC POWER?" If its the Cons, then the fact they want a more conciliatory position with the US doesn't matter.
Power matters! And we are refusing to both wield and build our own. We don't have any RIGHT to sovereignty, we need to fight for it!
And if we're not going to fight? Then the Con position IS the right one because we're so weak that begging for mercy is the only smart thing...
"We need to be approving major projects left, right and center. We need to turf all the regulatory, provincial, and First Nations hurdles to project development. We need to make clear that if you want to build a pipeline (of anything) east, west, or to the moon its already approved. We need to remove inter-provincial trade barriers yesterday."
This should be the obvious answer to anyone with a pair of firing neurons. Unfortunately Liberals care more about catering to a voting coalition consisting of various combinations of the dumbest, morally worst, least productive, and most easily manipulated people in the country, and as a result can't act on any of this.
I obviously think there's a lot of truth in what you're saying.
At the same time, a lot of these problems predate the Liberals. They poured gasoline on it and have no interest it seems in actually fixing it.
There's a lot of stuff though that Harper didn't fix either. Or in my home province of BC we had a long conservative government that was the same.
And I don't know what to do with it because it seems almost spiritual, or almost buried into the psyche of Canadians. That this is all fine.
Harper was far too timid. He failed to understand how badly the next Liberal government would rig the system to keep a CPC 'aberration' from happening again. He therefore went too slowly and didn't address a lot of issues in attempt to play nice and not scare people too much. Well he's still vilified as the boogeyman despite being objectively the best manager of this country in living memory.
Now we need someone willing to take a flamethrower to scared institutions like the Charter, the Supreme Court, bilingualism, Quebec special status, the Senate, single payer healthcare, "reconciliation," and multiculturalism. Even the most extreme version of Poilievre that exists only in the nightmares of downtown Toronto CBC watchers would not go far enough to do what is needed to make this country function properly again.
I think this could only happen once a) conditions deteriorate to the point that we descend into tangible poverty and disorder personally affecting everyone, and b) the boomers all die.
You need both the boomers to die and for Wall St bond traders to turn the screws on Canada. Even then I wouldn't discount an Argentinian style money printing fiesta.
The Americans have imported Latin American style social problems and we have imported Latin American style economic problems (and class entitlements).
And you'll have the huge problem of underfunded entitlements as those boomers die. Very hopeless.
Sadly concur. Seems to require a mass recession/depression plus boomers + death event.
Concur wholeheartedly. And the Carney “list” of projects to approve “quickly” doesn’t cut it - most of these are already approved or waiting investor approval, nothing to do with the federal government (who needs to just get out of the way) - We need mass new projects, and exports, and people working for serious dollars to gain any type of leverage in the US/Ca trade dispute not to mention mass benefit for Canadians and Canada.
China and Canada are the only countries without some kind of deal sooooooo why can’t we? We’re special?
Supply management, I would guess, which also prevented the UK deal.
China just got a deal today -- maybe not a great deal, but something anyway, e.g. access to advanced U.S. semiconductors, which for them is crucial. But not to worry, Canada isn't alone. Brazil also doesn.t have a deal, but it does face 50% tariffs on all its exports to the U.S.
So who has done best at avoiding sanctions? That'd be Smith, who quickly strengthened the Alberta border and went to negotiate with Trump.
Who did worst? Carney, who vacillates between elbows up stupidity and abject sycophancy without stopping in the middle to negotiate.
Supply management has to go, but it can't go until Carney uses "orange man bad" to win a majority.
You need to just look and see who are the electoral bases of both Smith and Carney to find your reasons why.
The rumour mill at the Alberta Legislature is saying that right to work is coming next. Most likely in response to the former NDP candidate union boss calling for a general strike. As per usual in Canada, a general strike is to the advantage of the old to the detriment to the young workers.
Remember, a general strike would be illegal and grounds for permanent dismissal with cause. Right to work allows those workers to leave a union (via not being compelled to pay dues) that they don't believe in.
As for the right to strike but not the right to not give money to a union, that is just Quebecois style collectivism being imprinted onto a more individualistic culture and that just doesn't jive.
Essential workers, professionals and those in prestige roles should never be allowed to strike. Striking is for private sector labourers and these are professionals with tenure. If accountants and engineers aren't allowed to strike along with doctors and lawyers, why are public sector teachers and nurses allowed to?
Re: NWS Clause v. the right to strike
In the case of the Alberta teachers strike, does anyone consider what might happen if the NWS Clause wasn't used to protect the integrity of legislation and get kids back in classrooms?
For those who may be undecided, look eastward to Saskatchewan and see how things played out with Bill 137/Parent's Bill of Rights unfolded. A legal challenge was immediately filed and even though the NWS Clause was used to protect Bill 137, the case still plods through the courts.
This has become the new template for aggressive enforcement of progressive politics. When Provincial Governments become a lightning rod by having to choose between the greater public interest and trampling deeply held views by those on the left things get very messy and fast.
The teachers in Alberta are struggling to cope with clogged up classrooms full of children who have no English or French language skills. This is a disaster on many fronts and needs addressing but litigating the issue is no solution either. Some good faith needs to be put forth by all sides of the debate.
There is ZERO percent the Dippers (enough to have it pass) will not support the Budget.
An election would probably oblierate what remains of their party.
Reality is a bitch.
After several weeks of growing annoyance, I was all ready to finally issue my “Let Jen finish three sentences without interruption” challenge, but then we got to the Alberta teacher’s strike and she was actually allowed to speak largely uninterrupted for several minutes, and not have to repeatedly stop to regain her train of argument after a inane quips at random moments.
Admirable restraint in this episode, Matt. Kudos where it’s due, and hope to hear more of it in future.
On the point of the AB teachers strike.
1. The NWC was warranted and needed to legislate them back to work.
2. The use of the NWC to impose a contract was a major own goal. There’s kind of no coming back for the UCP on this one with a massive base of voters. This was to the progressive class in AB the same as the Emergency Measures Act being invoked on the Convoy. As someone who leans conservative, I don’t support the imposition of a contract, it makes me a bit queasy. For someone who leans progressive though, fuck me are they are angry - and it’s understandable. I did not support the teachers strike overall. And the quiet dirty secret is most parents didn’t either. It was parochial, political and self indulgent. It seriously hurt kids and families, and this was not given anywhere close to the gravity it demanded by either the teachers or the ATA. It wasn’t a good look. The ATA clearly did not seriously try to avoid a strike either, their negotiation strategy could only be described as delusional and incompetent. This said, I would have preferred a mandated 3rd party arbitration settlement to what happened - it would have shown at minimum some degree of respect for the teachers (who do deserve our respect, whatever their collective foibles and follies may be). Instead. They were humiliated… Beyond the offense to dignity of this, it’s also just not a good idea to humiliate an adversary.
3. JG is bang on to call out the distinction between private and public unions. These are not even close to the same thing. Public sector unions are despised by everyone except raging progressives ,and maybe 65% of their membership. You cannot convince me (and neither will Gil McGowan) that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, men and women who work 10 and 4 shifts in the freezing North of AB, see themselves as comrades in arms with a bloated and inefficient public service working plush and benefit rich downtown office jobs. Ahh.. I don’t know if you’ve hung out with any blue color Albertans recently. But they don’t exactly love progressive politics. Nor do they see themselves as victims in this whole paradigm. Nor do they fear the UCP.
There will be no general strike.
It seems to me that the nature of the Trump administration's views on foreign relations were obvious well before the U.S. ambassador's ill-tempered outburst. Trump wants submission, the bended knee. It seems to me that the details of any trade agreement are secondary to the symbolism of the other party to Trump. This is in line with what Alex Muir wrote on The Line yesterday, an excellent piece.
So how should Canada respond? There are difficult tradeoffs between patriotism and jobs/standard of living. But one thing seems clear to me: Canada should speak with one voice, or at least in a coordinated fashion. We should not have the federal government and various provincial governments working at cross purposes. In the best of times, our lack of unity would be foolish. Now, it could be catastrophic. Could someone please tell our leaders?
My God, this is such an important observation. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would have ever thought a convicted felon, pussy grabbing old goat might possibly be someone to negotiate with. And yet we ran an election where the ballot question was just that: who is best negotiate with Trump? It is a dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb question and we should have been far more strategic that to suck up to the man. Everything has changed since the pandemic.
All I know for me is this: Unless Canada matures from moral actor to strategic actor, someone else will decide its future for us.
It was the one issue where it didn't matter one bit who was governing Canada.
Trump is going to do whatever he is going to do. You can't predict what is going to set him off or what he will respond well to, as nobody seems to be able to pick apart the unique ratio of deliberate calculation and genuine crazy that randomly goes into each of his decisions. Yet our mainstream media insisted this was what the election was about and that Mark Carney was the one who would be best at managing a completely chaotic and unmanageable leader.
And this, yes, incredibly dumb metric will continue to be applied against a theoretical "worse" outcome that partisans are "sure" Poilievre would always achieve. Take a look at the G&M comments section to find the most stupefied partisan zombies, viewing even Carney's failures as some kind of strategic 4D chess... just like arguments Trump's followers apply to him I might add.
For me it also points to journalistic laziness.
"Trump wants submission, the bended knee." That is your opinion. What if he really wanted us to slow down the flow of fentanyl and criminal migrants? Smith had success by strengthening Alberta's southern border and by negotiating like an adult.
What if he is worried about our government's cozy relationship with the China, with whom the US might soon be in hot war? Either we get we join in that war on the US side or we become the 51st state. There is no other choice for the US. Panama, Greenland and Canada are all platforms from which the US can keep Chinese ships out of the Atlantic.
I'm wondering what Jen thinks can be done about the state of public sector labour relations. I agree that public and private sector unions are different in important ways, but, and Jen acknowledged this, without collective bargaining, there is no method for employees to assert themselves in seeking good working conditions. Teachers were the particular subject of this part of the podcast and I want to ask specifically what she thinks should be done differently in public education labour relations. Teachers deprived themselves of paycheques to demonstrate how strongly they object to the working conditions their employer has forced on them. Jen seemed to be saying that the union shouldn't have the power to demand to be a party to an agreement about these working conditions, or did I misunderstand? What was clear to me was that the Alberta government did not want to be contractually obliged to address these issues. They wanted wiggle room and the ability to kick the can down the road. Surely that's their bad, especially since, as the ATA pointed out, teacher working conditions in this scenario affect children negatively.
No one is entitled to a job and teachers do not run the workplace. If they don't like their jobs people need to quit. Get out of the way for someone who doesn't mind the job as it is.
No one should ever feel entitled to a job.
I suggest the height of one's elbows is directly proportional to the security of one's personal finances.
The boomer with a pension is much more secure than an auto-assembly-plant worker, forestry worker, steelworker, or canola farmer.
Doug Ford's outbursts are emotionally satisfying for some (boomers, etc.) and potentially terrifying to others (auto-worker with a mortgage).