April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[TurnedTheCorner]

Finally picked up a 587 area code number that had called three times within the last 24 hours. Turned out it was some Wild Rose phone something something. **** off and leave me alone.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

I think that one of the unintended consequences of the WRP's reduction in salary and tweaking of the pension on the public service will be that the Government will be a less attractive place for people to work.

Thus you will end up with a less capable workforce...

That isn't good for anyone...

Welcome to labour economics 101. The reason AB has the highest paid civil servants is because the labour market is so tight. Government and private sector compete for skilled workers. If one is offering significantly less than the other then you have problems. The fact that this basic issue is lost on most voters is just damn depressing.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Well they've started by wanting to reduce cabinet salary (30%) , MLA salaries (5%) and pensions (65%) . Leading by example, as they should.

Then, I would expect they would follow the lead of most multinational companies whereby they initiate a new defined contribution pension and discontinue the outrageous defined benefit programs. Of course, they can follow the lead of the federal Conservatives who are operating on the same principles and also phasing out these expensive and unsustainable pensions that are the hallmark of public union bargaining.

Honest question here, but which pension are they looking to reduce by 65%? I think that I missed that one?

I would doubt that any party wants to run the risk of eliminating those pensions at this point. That isn't on the table and if it were then you would see a huge anyone but Wildrose campaign. Imagine the backlash if your employer tried to change the rules when you were/are roughly 10 years from retirement, especially in a province which has enough money to send everyone a cheque for $300/year because they have no idea what else to do with that money.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

I think that one of the unintended consequences of the WRP's reduction in salary and tweaking of the pension on the public service will be that the Government will be a less attractive place for people to work.

Thus you will end up with a less capable workforce...

That isn't good for anyone...

I'm going to offend some people with this, but that's already the case. With the economy the way it is in Alberta, a government job is already much less desirable for capable people. The job marketplace is a self-selection process where on the whole those who worry about getting laid off in bad times seek refuge in the union-friendly public service. Unfortunately for government these are the same people you don't want working for you if you want to actually get things done or do things more efficient.

Heck I notice a huge difference in quality of people between small and large private industry companies. The more useless people seek the safest jobs at the bigger companies. Government jobs are a step even further in that direction.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

I think that one of the unintended consequences of the WRP's reduction in salary and tweaking of the pension on the public service will be that the Government will be a less attractive place for people to work.

Thus you will end up with a less capable workforce...

That isn't good for anyone...

Beyond that, you also have costs relating to having to train and re-train what will likely be less qualified workers, plus a decrease in the quality of government offered services will only anger the public. More than anything we just need to cut the fat and be more efficient with the dollars that go to public service.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I'm going to offend some people with this, but that's already the case. With the economy the way it is in Alberta, a government job is already much less desirable for capable people. The job marketplace is a self-selection process where on the whole those who worry about getting laid off in bad times seek refuge in the union-friendly public service. Unfortunately for government these are the same people you don't want working for you if you want to actually get things done or do things more efficient.

Heck I notice a huge difference in quality of people between small and large private industry companies. The more useless people seek the safest jobs at the bigger companies. Government jobs are a step even further in that direction.

Even if I agree here, is that really a road we want to pursue for people such as teachers or nurses? They have a significant impact on our overall quality of life and I think that would be foolish.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

Interesting question. I guess it depends on which of the PC Candidates win their riding and which lose. I could see someone like Morton jumping ship, but I can't see any of the newer candidates (such as McIver or Jansen) jumping ship.

There was an article in the Herald on Saturday about 'three unnamed disgruntled PCs' disappointed in when Redford called the election, etc., I could see those three MLAs jumping ship, if they're elected. But one has to wonder if the Three MLAs in question are ones that are more ticked off that it's not a cake walk through the election or are in danger of losing their seats.

It's funny how you assume any of these people will actually be elected.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

I think that one of the unintended consequences of the WRP's reduction in salary and tweaking of the pension on the public service will be that the Government will be a less attractive place for people to work.

Thus you will end up with a less capable workforce...

That isn't good for anyone...

Wait, are you saying that lower pensions for government jobs are going to encourage the less capable/useless people to leave - and be forced to find work in the private sector workforce?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Slava

Honest question here, but which pension are they looking to reduce by 65%? I think that I missed that one?

I would doubt that any party wants to run the risk of eliminating those pensions at this point. That isn't on the table and if it were then you would see a huge anyone but Wildrose campaign. Imagine the backlash if your employer tried to change the rules when you were/are roughly 10 years from retirement, especially in a province which has enough money to send everyone a cheque for $300/year because they have no idea what else to do with that money.

I think he is referring to the plan to reduce MLA pensions. Although it isn't technically a pension any more it is now called a transition allowance and they want to reduce it quite a bit and provide a cap. I think the plan will do well to discourage career politicians. I haven't heard anyone talk about eliminating public sector pensions. I don't think you can win a campaign if that is a platform as you are right, the blow back would be immense. Even then, I don't think it would be possible or even fair to eliminate a pension that both the government and the workers have been contributing to. At best, you could try to change the portion of each contribution during the next negotiation as I think the Federal government is planning.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Wait, are you saying that lower pensions for government jobs are going to encourage the less capable/useless people to leave - and be forced to find work in the private sector workforce?

I think when you reduce things like that it is usually the more capable employees who leave and find work elsewhere. Although that might be a boon for the private sector (having a bunch of skilled and capable people entering the workforce) so you may be on to something.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

Even if I agree here, is that really a road we want to pursue for people such as teachers or nurses? They have a significant impact on our overall quality of life and I think that would be foolish.

I wasn't really arguing the Wildrose position there. Of course cutting salaries will make things worse in key service areas because it would just enlarge the differential between private wages and opportunities and public. The point just had to be made that no one should expect too much out of the civil service.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I think he is referring to the plan to reduce MLA pensions. Although it isn't technically a pension any more it is now called a transition allowance and they want to reduce it quite a bit and provide a cap. I think the plan will do well to discourage career politicians. I haven't heard anyone talk about eliminating public sector pensions. I don't think you can win a campaign if that is a platform as you are right, the blow back would be immense. Even then, I don't think it would be possible or even fair to eliminate a pension that both the government and the workers have been contributing to. At best, you could try to change the portion of each contribution during the next negotiation as I think the Federal government is planning.

That's correct, they are referring to transition allowance. IIRC they did away with pensions and replaced it with transition allowance. There are some MLA's who will still get both (Kowalski for example)

Current transition allowance is 3 months (based on the highest paid months) per year of service with no cap.

Wildrose proposal 1 month per year of service with a 12 month cap.

Liberal proposal 1 month per year of service with an 8 month cap.

This is only for MLA's. Public service workers still have regular pension plans and I'm not aware of any party proposing changes to those.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Honest question here, but which pension are they looking to reduce by 65%? I think that I missed that one?

I would doubt that any party wants to run the risk of eliminating those pensions at this point. That isn't on the table and if it were then you would see a huge anyone but Wildrose campaign. Imagine the backlash if your employer tried to change the rules when you were/are roughly 10 years from retirement, especially in a province which has enough money to send everyone a cheque for $300/year because they have no idea what else to do with that money.

Jeesh, you mean changing pensions like every employer in North America has done in the past 20 years outside of governments? Simple, you either reform or you go bankrupt. Except governments never go bankrupt, they go into debt. You argument that we have money so we should just spend it all is the very definition of socialism.

Wildrose has promised reform to pensions through transition allowance payment changes, and reduction of severance packages. They've even proposed legislation for this in the past. I know you irrationally hate everything and anything wildrose but the facts are there.

[Tinordi]

Governments do go bankrupt actually.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Governments do go bankrupt actually.

Those gold plated greek government jobs with huge pensions look great right about now....

[Senator Clay Davis]

So long as a government has collateral (like for us oil), bankruptcy is truly impossible. Greece has.....Coliseums? Hence why they are bankrupt.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Jeesh, you mean changing pensions like every employer in North America has done in the past 20 years outside of governments? Simple, you either reform or you go bankrupt. Except governments never go bankrupt, they go into debt. You argument that we have money so we should just spend it all is the very definition of socialism.

Wildrose has promised reform to pensions through transition allowance payment changes, and reduction of severance packages. They've even proposed legislation for this in the past. I know you irrationally hate everything and anything wildrose but the facts are there.

While I'm all for reducing entitlements and clawing back on what the government does for everyone for long-term sustainability and competitive purposes, I still look down on proposals that would essentially rip up old agreements and replace them with new ones for existing civil service employees. Is it fair for the Wildrose types to hum and haw over the Stelmach PCs ripping up existing (existing at the time) Oil Sands agreements for existing projects over royalties and then proceed to do exactly that with existing government employees?

Bottom line I think the principle of the government living up to agreements has to cut both ways for both individuals and corporations. If they want to make a change in pensions it should be go-forward for new employees only, so that those who sign up for the job know exactly what they're getting into and those who planned their life around the old arrangement can continue to count on it.

If we were in a different situation where the government would be bankrupt and no one would get any pension unless reforms were made, then maybe an 'Air Canada like situation' would be necessary. With no government debt, a small deficit, and a small Heritage and Sustainability Fund, it's hardly at the point where the government has to start balking on it's obligations to survive.

[MoneyGuy]

Question here for First Lady and other Wild Rose supporters. I don't know if this has been discussed as I hav only been reading parts of this thread.

Now that the WR party looks to be in pretty much a dead heat with the Tories, how able are they to actually take power, form an effectrive government and name a cabinet? That's what worries me. I just don't see them being ready to take power, should they actually pull this off. That's what I think will enable the PCs to pull this out. Uncertainty!

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Now that the WR party looks to be in pretty much a dead heat with the Tories,

I'm not saying that isn't true but lets wait for more than one poll to show a trend.

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

how able are they to actually take power, form an effectrive government and name a cabinet? That's what worries me. I just don't see them being ready to take power, should they actually pull this off. That's what I think will enable the PCs to pull this out. Uncertainty!

The same thing was said about The federal Conservatives, probably the federal Liberals back in 1993 and probably the Lougheed Conservatives. There will no doubt be some growing pains, eventually regimes have to change.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Certainly lacking in past governing history and just general political inexperience may hinder the Wildrose. I just hope people take the time to review their platform and make an informed decision for the Wildrose rather than simply voting against the PCs. Change for the sake of change is one incredibly stupid concept.