Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by 14Roman14

Was Doug Schweitzer a good representative? I know my MLA rarely responds to any of my concerns and was a yes man to anything Kenney said regardless of the concerns of his constituents? There are 5 UCP MLA’s all within 15 minutes of Calgary - Elbow. Hopefully one of them should be useful enough to help with any issues anyone should have.

That said you are not wrong that there should be a representative. Hopefully some good candidates run for the next election and you get an MLA that listens and represents their constituents well. We’ve had way to many head nodders who govern for the party, not the people they represent.

You complain your own MLA doesn't respond and yet you think other UCP MLAs will somehow represent non-constituents.

Sure MLAs are yes-men, especially on province-wise issues. But Most MLAs will at least deal with local stuff for their own members.

And Schwietzer was a competent MLA and Cabinet Minister at least, as far as UCP talent goes.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Requiring all holidays to fully paid out to part time staff whether they were supposed to work that day or not.

That seems like it addresses abuse by employer. And I don't think it's part of the statute which deals with unions.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Requiring all holidays to fully paid out to part time staff whether they were supposed to work that day or not.

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That seems like it addresses abuse by employer. And I don't think it's part of the statute which deals with unions.

GioforPM beat me to it.

That has nothing to do with Unions, it’s like arguing the $15/hour minimum wage was to appease Unions.

Any actual examples where they went “too far” on labour code changes relating to Unions?

Honestly the changes they introduced relating to Unions only impacted workplaces where the employees wanted to form a Union so I’m a little confused as to why people whose workplaces weren’t impacted at all by it would be opposed to those changes.

[Knut]

Doug Schweitzer personally responded to me on multiple occasions about things. I even gave him a suggestion when he was heading up the department looking to develop new ideas in Alberta and he said him and his team are going to look into it as an idea.

I have also recieved responses in the past from Kent Hehr, Joan Crockett and Richard Gottfried. Maybe it how you are approaching the MLA/MP that is the problem with getting a response.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by 14Roman14

Fair enough. You are right. I am more of a supporter than I was of Kenney or Notley, thus the counter view of most on this thread. I was neutral on her but now as Premier, am willing to give her a chance as I do see some good that she offers that others in the past didn’t.

It's nice that you believe in 17th chances like Ken Holland, but Day 1 was already a disaster. Shirley she'll nail it with her 18th chance, though.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Hmm... Not sure what you mean. The Supreme Court is effed for all eternity - seems pretty successful to me. If you mean they still routinely lose elections, I guess, kinda.

Which was the direct result of winning that 2016 election that I said was the exception. If not for the blatant attempts to rig things in their favour, they wouldn't win much of anything consequential, and that's even more true when they go full MTG. Not a lot of places where that sort of thing plays well. Also, even that Supreme Court thing actually seems to be hurting them right now, since the Roe overturn is going to motivate a lot of people to vote them out.

Usually, based on the history of how these things swing back and forth, the Dems would be set up to get absolutely annihilated in these midterms coming up but based on some of the results leading up to it (like Ryan beating Molinaro) it may not be quite the bloodbath one would normally expect. The fact that the MTGs and Gaetzes of the world can comfortably hold their ridings isn't really significant if their existence allows Democrats to win elections elsewhere by pointing at them and going, "look at these horrendous insane a-holes who share a party with my opponent, is this what you want?"

Anyway, here (hopefully) endeth the digresssion into American politics in the Alberta politics thread.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Requiring all holidays to fully paid out to part time staff whether they were supposed to work that day or not.

That's not exactly true...it's only if that employee has worked 5 of the last 9 of that particular day

https://www.alberta.ca/general-holidays-pay.aspx

So if you work most Mondays or most Fridays, and a holiday falls on one, you get holiday pay. If you don't frequently work those days, you don't get paid.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Which parts were a little far?

I did not like the card-based certification based on 65% support without a vote.

Also, automatic certification due to unfair labour practices.

Those two, in my opinion, were a bit much for my taste - but understandably, they exist in other provinces.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I did not like the card-based certification based on 65% support without a vote.

Also, automatic certification due to unfair labour practices.

Those two, in my opinion, were a bit much for my taste - but understandably, they exist in other provinces.

I’d be interested to hear why you oppose those measures.

While argument could be made that card check certification wouldn’t be necessary if there were sufficient penalties in the code to actually deter employer interference rather than encourage it, the fact that you also oppose automatic certification as a remedy when an employer is found guilty of interference(which I believe only happened once while the legislation was in effect) suggests to me that you may be more concerned with preventing people from being able to exercise their rights to join a Union than you are with protecting workers from unfair treatment, which is what the labour code is intended to do.

Whether it be through card check or automatic certification the employees still have the final say on whether or not they want a Union to represent them. Nothing in the legislation prevents employees from decertifying if they wish to do so.

[nik-]

Who are the people that actually support this trash heap of a politician? Ugh, she's so ####ing lame.

Enough with the hicks having so much say in our government imo.

[belsarius]

Yeah, I think I'm done listening to the excuse that "proportional representation gives too much power to the extremes".

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’d be interested to hear why you oppose those measures.

While argument could be made that card check certification wouldn’t be necessary if there were sufficient penalties in the code to actually deter employer interference rather than encourage it, the fact that you also oppose automatic certification as a remedy when an employer is found guilty of interference(which I believe only happened once while the legislation was in effect) suggests to me that you may be more concerned with preventing people from being able to exercise their rights to join a Union than you are with protecting workers from unfair treatment, which is what the labour code is intended to do.

Whether it be through card check or automatic certification the employees still have the final say on whether or not they want a Union to represent them. Nothing in the legislation prevents employees from decertifying if they wish to do so.

Given some union tactics in terms of getting people to sign up for a card, i think there should still be a certification vote to allow those card-holders to vote under secret ballot. Getting the card is one thing, voting is different - or at least it should be.

The unfair practices = remedial certification was certainly rare (and determined by the ALRB as an egregious stick), but again there should still be a vote. Also, it really turned some certification drives into a question of baiting a company into doing/saying the wrong thing while threatening the push for remedial legislation.

For big companies with their own LR specialists, or lawyers on speed-dial, its totally fine; but i have seen some small businesses get pushed around with the threat of remedial certification.

In the end, the ALRB holding back the remedial certification rod was predictable and competent; but it could have been abused in some circumstances.

Again, I didnt think these issues were egregious as they are found in other legislation in Canada; but, at the time, I thought it was a bit much (i was doing management-side labour work at the time as well )

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

https://twitter.com/user/status/1579907138302115840

I guess my (reasonable) request that she act normal was too much.

[DownInFlames]

Now she’s pandering to the knee fetishists! Does her wickedness know no bounds?

[Muta]

Spoiler!

Anti-vaxxers / sympathizers, COVID deniers and a Premier pandering to these uneducated dunderheads are ####ing embarrassing to this province and this nation.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

I guess my (reasonable) request that she act normal was too much.

The tragedy in this picture is that her legs aren't nearly as smooth as her brain.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

https://twitter.com/user/status/1579907138302115840

Apparently this is the same thing Gondek tweeted after she was elected. Not sure if Smith is trying to troll her or what. Strange tweet.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1452696916332978176

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

OK now who's weird. What are those shoes Jyoti?!

[Tron_fdc]

Fluevogs?

Edit: Yep

https://www.fluevog.com/shop/6284-du...=true&show=all

[calculoso]

Interesting strategy… wonder who falls for it

https://twitter.com/user/status/1580209409703444480