Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by you&me

That's just it... I wasn't looking to "debate why" with someone that misses the point so badly.

The point is, no government in the last 30+ years has made a meaningful investment to impact class sizes, whether through school construction, teacher hiring, or any combination of both. The naivety (to put it charitably) of some to think that this government - the U-####ing-CP - are going to negotiate in good faith on these points and actually stick to them is mind blowing to me.

There was never going to be any kind of debate anyway. They'll constantly ask for more and more information, and when they are presented with any semblance of a well informed argument backed with evidence they will disappear.

[Faust]

Province still full steam ahead on elevated downtown Green Line alignment:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...acks-1.7641358

[Lubicon]

Well the Province did something right. The two bridges over the Bow River in west Calgary are being named after Nathan Hornburg.

https://globalnews.ca/news/11448752/...istan-soldier/

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Depends how each individual manages their money. If you pay into a strike fund you no longer have any say in how that money is used. The alternative is keeping that money for yourself and using it as a rainy day fund, even investing it as you see fit.

For those who aren’t good at managing money a strike fund makes sense. Either way that’s a pretty personal question but I’d rather keep my money in my account instead of a strike fund.

Originally Posted by GGG

Personally I’d rather save my own emergency fund that can also be used for major car repairs, health issues, major home repairs, job loss, family member emergencies or anything else that comes up rather than save that money up within a strike fund.

Strike funds in most cases are funded with your basic dues anyways, which is why I’m surprised they don’t have one. Especially in a province where more often than not the teachers are bargaining with a government that is hostile to unions and workers in general. While you or I may be able to save well enough to have money set aside for that situation, expecting every other member of your union to do so is a pretty big gamble.

If you lose that gamble and end up in a position where you need to strike but too many people can’t afford to be out of work without any pay whatsoever you end up with far less bargaining leverage which would have a negative impact on every member of the bargaining unit including yourself. This would lead to you inevitably having less money to manage well.

If it’s a lockout the fund doesn’t work as Eric described, if they are legislated back it isn’t needed either.
This upcoming strike will have teachers legislated back to work with a week.

I don’t really follow what you’re saying about it not working during a lockout. Generally when an employer locks out its employees the union serves strike notice and vice versa. It’s always a possibility that the teachers could choose to ignore a back to work order as well. While it’s less likely to see the government lock out teachers due to the optics and political backlash, it’s not an uncommon practice by employers to pressure their employees into accepting a substandard contract by locking them out if they think a large portion of the bargaining unit can’t afford to stop working for any length of time.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the government waited at least a few weeks before legislating them back because it helps their budget while vilifying the teachers to the public.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Well the Province did something right. The two bridges over the Bow River in west Calgary are being named after Nathan Hornburg.

https://globalnews.ca/news/11448752/...istan-soldier/

As someone who went to high school and played football with Nathan, this is great news!

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

The ATA has said it will be a full scale walkout on Oct. 6. All teachers will be on strike at the same time.

Thanks for clarifying, I haven’t been following the news on this closely enough and clearly my teacher friend who told me it was just one of the major divisions was either mistaken when we spoke a while back or that announcement came out after the fact.

In any event a strike fund=better leverage.

[Locke]

You know who else liked Strike Funds? Jimmy Hoffa!

Legendary leader and supporter of the underdog worker!

[surferguy]

I had a friend mention that a potential (definitely gonna happen) strike can only last two weeks because they are an essential service.

This didn’t seem correct to me but perhaps I’m mistaken.

Thoughts?

[IliketoPuck]

Back to work legislation will minimize the length of any strike.

[puffnstuff]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/edmonton/arti...-on-trans-law/

Smith has defended the law that prohibits doctors from prescribing puberty blockers for those under 16, saying the drugs permanently sterilize children.

“I encourage you to look up what puberty is,” she said to reporters in Edmonton.

“Puberty is the process a child goes through to become sexually mature so they can have babies. Puberty blockers, by very definition, stops that process.”

The Alberta Medical Association is pushing back, saying Smith needs to do her own research.

“(Puberty blockers) don’t render a person infertile or sterile. That is not true,” said Dr. Sam Wong, president of the association’s pediatrics section.

“To say that they’re sterile is a gross overstatement, because you would never say that a six-year-old is sterile because they can’t have children ... maybe (Smith) should get her facts straight ... be less condescending.”

Wong said he’s surprised the premier made the claim again Wednesday, because she has been corrected before.

“It’s such a falsehood and misnomer. It’s quite incredible that she can get away with saying that ... I don’t know where she’s getting her medical information from, but the way she’s stating it is not true.”

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

https://www.ctvnews.ca/edmonton/arti...-on-trans-law/

Smith has defended the law that prohibits doctors from prescribing puberty blockers for those under 16, saying the drugs permanently sterilize children.

“I encourage you to look up what puberty is,” she said to reporters in Edmonton.

“Puberty is the process a child goes through to become sexually mature so they can have babies. Puberty blockers, by very definition, stops that process.”

The Alberta Medical Association is pushing back, saying Smith needs to do her own research.

“(Puberty blockers) don’t render a person infertile or sterile. That is not true,” said Dr. Sam Wong, president of the association’s pediatrics section.

“To say that they’re sterile is a gross overstatement, because you would never say that a six-year-old is sterile because they can’t have children ... maybe (Smith) should get her facts straight ... be less condescending.”

Wong said he’s surprised the premier made the claim again Wednesday, because she has been corrected before.

“It’s such a falsehood and misnomer. It’s quite incredible that she can get away with saying that ... I don’t know where she’s getting her medical information from, but the way she’s stating it is not true.”

Always so confidently stupid.

I wonder what she thinks 'beta blockers' do.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

You know who else liked Strike Funds? Jimmy Hoffa!

Legendary leader and supporter of the underdog worker!

Umm…what’s your argument here? It’s gonna be fun either way

[Looch City]

On that same line of thinking, birth control should also be banned because you know...it stops the process from women having babies!!11

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by surferguy

I had a friend mention that a potential (definitely gonna happen) strike can only last two weeks because they are an essential service.

This didn’t seem correct to me but perhaps I’m mistaken.

Thoughts?

If they were essential they wouldn’t be able to do a full strike so I’m pretty sure they aren’t classified as such.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Always so confidently stupid.

I wonder what she thinks 'beta blockers' do.

They obviously turn people into alphas. Duh..

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Strike funds in most cases are funded with your basic dues anyways, which is why I’m surprised they don’t have one. Especially in a province where more often than not the teachers are bargaining with a government that is hostile to unions and workers in general. While you or I may be able to save well enough to have money set aside for that situation, expecting every other member of your union to do so is a pretty big gamble.

If you lose that gamble and end up in a position where you need to strike but too many people can’t afford to be out of work without any pay whatsoever you end up with far less bargaining leverage which would have a negative impact on every member of the bargaining unit including yourself. This would lead to you inevitably having less money to manage well.



I don’t really follow what you’re saying about it not working during a lockout. Generally when an employer locks out its employees the union serves strike notice and vice versa. It’s always a possibility that the teachers could choose to ignore a back to work order as well. While it’s less likely to see the government lock out teachers due to the optics and political backlash, it’s not an uncommon practice by employers to pressure their employees into accepting a substandard contract by locking them out if they think a large portion of the bargaining unit can’t afford to stop working for any length of time.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the government waited at least a few weeks before legislating them back because it helps their budget while vilifying the teachers to the public.

Well since a strike fund is not being built on current dues, your dues would have to go up in order to fund that.

The flip side of your argument is that it can be each individuals duty to their union to be in a financial position to strike. Like it was mentioned before, I believe you are in a much stronger position by keeping that money yourself and using it for any situation that may arise (strike, house repairs, vet bills etc) instead of pigeonholing that money into a fund you cannot access and may never use. Either way that money will be withheld / put aside and those who are in tougher financial positions will be feeling that pinch.

We just have different views on how that money should be handled. The weakest people financially should be encouraged to save better, rather than dragging the rest of the union down because of their situation / choices.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Well since a strike fund is not being built on current dues, your dues would have to go up in order to fund that.

Not necessarily. Like I said I don’t know where the ATA spends or invests their money but it’s possible that funds could be reallocated if the members wanted to create a strike fund.

The flip side of your argument is that it can be each individuals duty to their union to be in a financial position to strike.

You’re of the opinion that a strike fund wouldn’t help with that?

Like it was mentioned before, I believe you are in a much stronger position by keeping that money yourself and using it for any situation that may arise (strike, house repairs, vet bills etc) instead of pigeonholing that money into a fund you cannot access and may never use.

We just have different views on how that money should be handled. The weakest people financially should be encouraged to save better, rather than dragging the rest of the union down because of their situation / choices.

In a perfect world I would be inclined to agree with you. But how does that strategy work out in the real world? It doesn’t, and in the meantime both the good savers and not so good savers reduce their bargaining leverage which over the long run likely suppresses their wages more than the cost of investing in a strike fund. Like any investment there are risks either way, even if for an investor as good as you.

[Arsenal14]

For what it's worth I've heard that some locals may have strike funds even if the ATA doesn't, though they won't be enough to cover everyone and will focus on teachers with higher needs (i.e. families where both parents are teachers). This is not official, I'm not a teacher nor do I play one on TV.

[Duruss]

Originally Posted by Looch City

On that same line of thinking, birth control should also be banned because you know...it stops the process from women having babies!!11

The Christo Fascists do want that.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Not necessarily. Like I said I don’t know where the ATA spends or invests their money but it’s possible that funds could be reallocated if the members wanted to create a strike fund.



You’re of the opinion that a strike fund wouldn’t help with that?



In a perfect world I would be inclined to agree with you. But how does that strategy work out in the real world? It doesn’t, and in the meantime both the good savers and not so good savers reduce their bargaining leverage which over the long run likely suppresses their wages more than the cost of investing in a strike fund. Like any investment there are risks either way, even if for an investor as good as you.

Can you post some sources where a union with no strike fund has built one based on entirely reallocated dues? I’d be interested in reading that.

And this entire scenario depends on the mandate of the membership, should a union cater to the lowest common denominator? That’s the memberships choice. Would you vote for a MoS with the coworker who is an alcoholic gambling addict in mind? Or would you vote for what is best for the future members? Or would you vote with your best interests since you are reflective of a part of the membership?

I’m of the belief that voting for a MoS is a personal choice to accurately represent the mandate of the membership, but a strike vote should be done with the long term interest of the union in mind.