Quote:
Originally Posted by #-3
Why would any employer ever agree to that?
GDP is an aggregate, and does not match any individual industry perfectly, it also pre-supposes that the salaries either started at the right level or were to low to begin with. Maybe the salaries were fair or more than fair in a particular negotiation for whatever reason, and a market adjustment downwards (relative to inflation) is needed to create what would be a fair deal for both sides. Maybe the governments/businesses ability to collect revenue relative to inflation does not keep pace, and they literally cannot afford to match (this is basically what happened when the NDP was in power, and the teachers did accept that). Maybe for whatever reason there are a plethora of qualified and willing people in the labour pool, and the market just doesn't value that particular workforce at the level it did before, letting the employer in the case of teachers offer a lower salary, hire more teachers, and offer a better more personalized product to the students.
I am not sure any of those are the case in this negotiation, but as the province or employer in general it would be insane to lock yourself into that type of agreement.
|
It's quite common for most trade unions to have annual CBA negotiations that account for inflation, amongst other things.
This isn't that hard.
The provincial government is simply playing hardball with the union because it is in their interest to do so, and generally speaking, gaslighting everyone into ignoring the real issue:
Alberta's public education system used to be considered one of, if not the best, in the world. And now due to systemic underfunding, and a focus on privatization, our education system has slipped substantially.
Public education is an investment in the future prosperity of the province. By choosing as a province to underfund it, we are choosing to risk those future prospects.
And to echo Troutman's earlier post - a less educated electorate is inherently more malleable and easily manipulated.