Alberta Politics Thread

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The intent is what I see as unethical, if a company is backing a party who's platforms will negatively impact more people and programs than it will help strictly so that company will be able to make more money I don't see that as ethical. Just because something isn't illegal doesn't make it ethical, the kkk can hold a peaceful rally but that doesn't make what they are doing ethical.

And yes unions do lobby politicians as well, with the intent to help workers, their are more workers than corporations, in my view helping people while not hurting others is not unethical. Despite how things are twisted by the anti labour movement, unions are not looking to hurt companies, they simply try to keep the middle class from falling further behind, if they were out to destroy companies where would their members work?

Your setting an insanely strange double standard.

Right now with this government Notley has weekly private meetings with the head of the AUPE. He was also the key note speaker at their convention where he stated that he wanted reform so that the unions could kick the crap out of companies during a strike for a couple of weeks then arbitration would be forced, but companies wouldn't be able to lock out workers, and those were pretty much his words. So if Notley incorporates that change isn't it a bit unethical and doesn't it look like a certain amount of undue command influence?

You don't think that the Share holders would lose their mind if the company that they invested their dollars in had a strategy of intentionally hurting itself with no guarantee of change in government policies? That's kind of insane troll workers of the world logic.

With the Western feed lot scenario the company is shuttering because they can't make money in the current climate and it looks to get worse with upcoming government policies including minimum wage increases and the carbon tax. They can't see making a profit at all in the current climate. So you could argue that by shuttering until after the next election that they are hedging their bets on a government change so they can re-open.

But companies aren't obligated in any way shape or form to keep doing the status quo and take massive losses just for the workers, their first obligation isn't to the workers, its to the company and its survivability and to its shareholders or investors.

[Resolute 14]

Yup. Sorry, Iggy_oi. But if this is your honest position, then you are honestly a hypocrite.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yup. Sorry, Iggy_oi. But if this is your honest position, then you are honestly a hypocrite.

Because I think that the motives and implications of lobbying matter, that makes me a hypocrite?

[Igniter]

I work for ConocoPhillips (Yes I am still there).

The most recent round of layoffs (300 people) was not primarily to send a message to any government, Provincial or Federal, nor were they the primary cause either.

The main issue is oil prices, which any government would be struggling with right now. No one denies that.

But in a global economy, ConocoPhillips can and will choose to spend their money where they can get the best return. And right now, that is not in Canada. Recent tax increases, regulatory cost increases and ultimately pipeline uncertainty have made it more expensive to do business here, despite the exchange rate helping us out.

Salary rollbacks would do nothing for the company. They would simply be paying people less money to do nothing. Those that are left, are busy, earning every dollar they are entitled to. I have seen a lot of friends leave the company over the last 1.5 years, but salary rollbacks would have done nothing in this situation.

The industry has gone through a rough couple of years. Every dollar being spent by the company has extra scrutiny on it, and as a shareholder myself, albeit a small one, I get that. Hard choices have to be made on behalf of all shareholders everywhere.

Aside: this is what I don't get about peoples' hatred towards corporations. Yes they are designed to maximize profit. Yes a lot of rich people own large portions of these corporations. BUT, so do regular people, so do pension plans. If the company grows, I benefit too. The people that work at ConocoPhillips are still paid well for some of the most stimulating and challenging work out there.

My point to this long rambling rant is that the government is NOT the cause of the current situation. But they are NOT doing what is required to help it either. They continuing to implement ideological driven regulations and policies that are forcing companies to make tough choices. Some of these choices are laying off people, some of these choices are closing doors.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Your setting an insanely strange double standard.

Right now with this government Notley has weekly private meetings with the head of the AUPE. He was also the key note speaker at their convention where he stated that he wanted reform so that the unions could kick the crap out of companies during a strike for a couple of weeks then arbitration would be forced, but companies wouldn't be able to lock out workers, and those were pretty much his words. So if Notley incorporates that change isn't it a bit unethical and doesn't it look like a certain amount of undue command influence?

You don't think that the Share holders would lose their mind if the company that they invested their dollars in had a strategy of intentionally hurting itself with no guarantee of change in government policies? That's kind of insane troll workers of the world logic.

With the Western feed lot scenario the company is shuttering because they can't make money in the current climate and it looks to get worse with upcoming government policies including minimum wage increases and the carbon tax. They can't see making a profit at all in the current climate. So you could argue that by shuttering until after the next election that they are hedging their bets on a government change so they can re-open.

But companies aren't obligated in any way shape or form to keep doing the status quo and take massive losses just for the workers, their first obligation isn't to the workers, its to the company and its survivability and to its shareholders or investors.

So a union leader wants change to the labour laws in the province that currently has the most pro employer laws in the country? Shocking. I haven't heard or read his speach but if how you have summarized it is accurate then my guess is it's a case of reach for the stars and you might land on a mountain. Obviously they are going to try and get the absolute best for their members.

Would shareholders lose their minds if they were told that the company they were investing in was going to do something financially painful in the short term with the goal of a long term benefit? Yeah they probably would, just look at how people react to any NDP policy. But the fact is it would never be presented in such a manner.

Workers are not a companies first obligation, their first obligation is sustainability, the sad part is they don't seem to take into account that the overall economic health of the area where they operate is what will make their business sustainable in the long run. So when companies cry foul over having to pay people a living wage(which $15/hour still falls short of IMO) because it will put them out of business, I have a hard time feeling sorry for them. If the only way they can make money is by keeping the people who work for them in poverty they are not making an overall positive contribution to the economy.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Igniter

But in a global economy, ConocoPhillips can and will choose to spend their money where they can get the best return. And right now, that is not in Canada. Recent tax increases, regulatory cost increases and ultimately pipeline uncertainty have made it more expensive to do business here, despite the exchange rate helping us out.

Salary rollbacks would do nothing for the company. They would simply be paying people less money to do nothing. Those that are left, are busy, earning every dollar they are entitled to. I have seen a lot of friends leave the company over the last 1.5 years, but salary rollbacks would have done nothing in this situation.

I hope people can see the link between this and my point on how job losses can create political pressure to create more favourable economic policies and tax breaks for businesses.

Thank you for your insightful post, glad to hear you're still employed.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So a union leader wants change to the labour laws in the province that currently has the most pro employer laws in the country? Shocking.

Naw, unions are making sure they've got their fingers in the day to day running of the government. They lost their minds when resource royalties panel didn't fall their way and they were clear that they were gearing up to freak at their next regular scheduled backdoor influence meeting. On the flip side, I wonder if the Syncrude CEO has regular meetings to make sure the education and nursing union wages are held in check.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/01/30...royalty-u-turn

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

If the only way they can make money is by keeping the people who work for them in poverty they are not making an overall positive contribution to the economy.

Ah, I haven't seen this in the thread for a while. The "companies deserve to die" & "good, these people in oil and gas deserve to lose their jobs".

It's pretty good though, I think we are just getting trolled. Or not, it's why I still caution people when they are hopeful for the next election. Lots of people like this and there can certainly be another NDP government and we'll be in 70ish billion debt in a just a few more years.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Igniter

My point to this long rambling rant is that the government is NOT the cause of the current situation. But they are NOT doing what is required to help it either. They continuing to implement ideological driven regulations and policies that are forcing companies to make tough choices. Some of these choices are laying off people, some of these choices are closing doors.

I think the part that gets lost in all of this is that the long term goal of these actions is to put us in a better position down the road so we don't end up in the same situation where one industry collapsing cripples the entire province. Think of what Detroit might look like today if 50 years ago someone said hey let's try to get away from relying on the automobile industry to carry us.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Naw, unions are making sure they've got their fingers in the day to day running of the government. They lost their minds when resource royalties panel didn't fall their way and they were clear that they were gearing up to freak at their next regular scheduled backdoor influence meeting. On the flip side, I wonder if the Syncrude CEO has regular meetings to make sure the education and nursing union wages are held in check.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/01/30...royalty-u-turn



Ah, I haven't seen this in the thread for a while. The "companies deserve to die" & "good, these people in oil and gas deserve to lose their jobs".

It's pretty good though, I think we are just getting trolled. Or not, it's why I still caution people when they are hopeful for the next election. Lots of people like this and there can certainly be another NDP government and we'll be in 70ish billion debt in a just a few more years.

You are quoting articles from a newspaper that employs Rick Bell and Eric Francis for editorial pieces, yet I'm the one who's trolling? Just because I don't agree with your position?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Because I think that the motives and implications of lobbying matter, that makes me a hypocrite?

Because you are indicating that only the motives and implications of certain parties lobbying matters.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You are quoting articles from a newspaper that employs Rick Bell and Eric Francis for editorial pieces, yet I'm the one who's trolling? Just because I don't agree with your position?

Are you saying he was misquoted or the article falsifies what was said on record? I admit that I don't really track the media and personas in terms of their political leanings very much. But I would be surprised if the newspaper purposely falsified what they said and published it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...view-1.3427814

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...estion-results

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Because you are indicating that only the motives and implications of certain parties lobbying matters.

That's not at all what I'm saying. It's what the motives are that matters. In politics you will never satisfy everyone. My view is that if corporations lobby politicians to make changes that benefit 1% of the voting public while neglecting its major impact on programs and policies that benefit the other 99% it is less ethical than a union lobbying for changes that will have a benefit to the 99% while having a lesser overall impact on the other 1%. Again, unions do not want to put employers out of business, they are simply trying to make sure the middle class doesn't get left the scraps of the economic landscape that they drive. A strong middle class is good for the economy so at the end of the day everyone benefits.

[puckedoff]

Yeah oil companies employing thousands of people doesn't do any good for any one.


/ I still feel like iggy is just trolling us here with the 'companies lay off people for political pressure lol....

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

That's not at all what I'm saying. It's what the motives are that matters. In politics you will never satisfy everyone. My view is that if corporations lobby politicians to make changes that benefit 1% of the voting public while neglecting its major impact on programs and policies that benefit the other 99% it is less ethical than a union lobbying for changes that will have a benefit to the 99% while having a lesser overall impact on the other 1%. Again, unions do not want to put employers out of business, they are simply trying to make sure the middle class doesn't get left the scraps of the economic landscape that they drive. A strong middle class is good for the economy so at the end of the day everyone benefits.

Nevermind that corporations are not lobbying or making public declarations to interfere in public wage negotiations (as opposed to the reverse). But sure, I guess I'll play along. You are stating that:

- Corporations lobby only to the benefit of the 1%.
- Corporations are in fact able to force the government to neglect all programs that might help the 99% (more than 4 million people) and actively do so.
- Unions lobby only to help the 99% (again, all 4 million people) and not just help their membership.
- Unions have determined what the middle class is and are actively and consciously looking to help them (however that is defined and nevermind the rhetoric of them "only getting the scraps")

You are saying it is good that the unions are doing something unethical because it is less unethical given the potential hypothetical alternative which is predicated on all of those absolute and unlikely assumptions and statements above.

Do I understand your claim correctly?

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Yeah oil companies employing thousands of people doesn't do any good for any one.


/ I still feel like iggy is just trolling us here with the 'companies lay off people for political pressure lol....

I don't think he is of that capacity, sadly.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I think the part that gets lost in all of this is that the long term goal of these actions is to put us in a better position down the road so we don't end up in the same situation where one industry collapsing cripples the entire province. Think of what Detroit might look like today if 50 years ago someone said hey let's try to get away from relying on the automobile industry to carry us.

If they were doing things to actually develop other industries, that would be something we could all get behind.

But simply crushing your dominant industry probably isn't the best way to try and diversify the economy.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But simply crushing your dominant industry probably isn't the best way to try and diversify the economy.

To be fair, many of their tax increases, costs increases (wages and carbon) are not just actively targeting and hurting one particular industry. It's making it tougher across the spectrum of various industries and businesses in this province.

But yes, it is a silly way to go about running a government. It's like having two children, one of whom isn't doing as well as the other in school. Solution is to chain the better performing child into the basement, lock the door and reduce their food and water. Continue for 4 years and viola! Both children are now performing more equally and your family legacy is more solidified!

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Nevermind that corporations are not lobbying or making public declarations to interfere in public wage negotiations (as opposed to the reverse). But sure, I guess I'll play along. You are stating that:

- Corporations lobby only to the benefit of the 1%.
- Corporations are in fact able to force the government to neglect all programs that might help the 99% (more than 4 million people) and actively do so.
- Unions lobby only to help the 99% (again, all 4 million people) and not just help their membership.
- Unions have determined what the middle class is and are actively and consciously looking to help them (however that is defined and nevermind the rhetoric of them "only getting the scraps")

You are saying it is good that the unions are doing something unethical because it is less unethical given the potential hypothetical alternative which is predicated on all of those absolute and unlikely assumptions and statements above.

Do I understand your claim correctly?

No clearly you do not understand correctly, lobbying is not unethical, frankly every voter is essentially lobbying to some degree, that's how officials are elected, they make promises based on voters needs. The unethical part is when it is done in a manner where people will have to suffer hardship in exchange for the financial gains of a few. Yes if the middle class gets some breaks that costs businesses, that creates hardship on those businesses, but that is where you have to ask yourself who is more able to absorb the hardship and is the costs to businesses going legitimately put them in the red, or simply lower the number in black.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

That's not at all what I'm saying. It's what the motives are that matters. In politics you will never satisfy everyone. My view is that if corporations lobby politicians to make changes that benefit 1% of the voting public while neglecting its major impact on programs and policies that benefit the other 99% it is less ethical than a union lobbying for changes that will have a benefit to the 99% while having a lesser overall impact on the other 1%. Again, unions do not want to put employers out of business, they are simply trying to make sure the middle class doesn't get left the scraps of the economic landscape that they drive. A strong middle class is good for the economy so at the end of the day everyone benefits.

In the case of our oil companies what is good for them in general is good for most Albertans. For example a Carbon tax is good for no one now but may be good as part of a long term fight against carbon emissions. But it certainly isn't good now.

Government Unions need to be differentiated from Private sector unions. A government union wants to get as much for its people as it can regardless of the situation in the province. Would all of the province be better off if the AUPE all took 10% wage cuts. Absolutely. Is the union going to do it. Of course not.

In any in demand government job if they care about the province they should lower the wage for that job until qualified people won't apply.

Government unions certainly do not represent the interests of all citizens and personally the CEO of Sumcors interest likely line up a lot closer than my interests in terms of what policy would benefit me.

I like private sector unions because if they get too greedy their are consequences, strikes cause real damage to companies. And good private unions are incentivized to make profits for companies. The government just needs to let these companies fail if their unions try to destroy them. You need to keep the hazard or they just become like the government ones.

Right now I suspect the private sector unions (trades) and the Ceo of suncor are pretty much in line. Get pipelines built and quit making projects more expensive.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

I don't think he is of that capacity, sadly.

Random internet poster who disagrees with another poster goes from debating to insulting, in your experience have you found this practice particularly productive?