Alberta Politics Thread v2

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm looking at that, and I wonder about the figures, they're talking about replacing all vehicles in Calgary with either electrical (light medium or heavy). Lets say that we average out that cost to $30,000 per vehicle (I'm spitballing here) but Calgary has over 1 million registered vehicles.


They're talking a overall 12 billion dollar investment to make this change but replacing over 1million vehicles would cost what $30,000,000,000,000?


They're talking about converting buses to biofuels, there is a cost to being able to create that supply.


I'm not doubting that these are probably effective steps, I'm wondering how accurate their cost model is.

[Dogbert]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

As someone who once worked for the federal government, I can confirm that public sector workers also game the system to a huge effect - they slack like crazy, clock out at exactly 37 hours a week, take a lot of sick days etc. We also had tricks employed department wide to increase pay and slack off.

In my department, I honestly believed we could cut 50% of staff and still get all our work done in a 40 hour work week.

First off, I'm not sure which department you worked for, but mine certainly doesn't build any slack into the work week. I have four projects on the go right now, with additional smaller assignments to complete once I can spare the time (not happening any time soon).

Secondly, I think it's sad that you view the fact that I generally work 37.5 hours a week and can take sick/vacation days if I need to do so as a problem. I'm likely sacrificing $15,000 to $20,000 in yearly earnings potential by working in government instead of private industry, but I wanted to prioritize work-life balance and a strong benefits/retirement package over immediate earnings, and PSAC allows me to do so. Working double the number of hours for no additional compensation and being penalized for using the benefits I'm entitled to in accordance with labour laws shouldn't be the norm.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Dogbert

First off, I'm not sure which department you worked for, but mine certainly doesn't build any slack into the work week. I have four projects on the go right now, with additional smaller assignments to complete once I can spare the time (not happening any time soon).

Secondly, I think it's sad that you view the fact that I generally work 37.5 hours a week and can take sick/vacation days if I need to do so as a problem. I'm likely sacrificing $15,000 to $20,000 in yearly earnings potential by working in government instead of private industry, but I wanted to prioritize work-life balance and a strong benefits/retirement package over immediate earnings, and PSAC allows me to do so. Working double the number of hours for no additional compensation and being penalized for using the benefits I'm entitled to in accordance with labour laws shouldn't be the norm.

While you get paid more in the private sector on a top line basis, you're compensated better in the public sector once actual hours worked and benefits are accounted for. It's not even close.

Work life balance is great and those public sector services are necessary. I'm just saying compensation is above market and there is a lot of fat in the system. Combined, core essential services that actually matter could be provided substantially cheaper.

I met my wife in the public sector and she feels the same way. It's mostly cultural workplace expectations. We always joke about how the public "service" was actually a misnomer because the pay was so good it was like the public was serving us.

You might think working more than 37.5 hours a week shouldn't be the norm and you're entitled to only work those hours. That is literally the definition of public sector entitlement. Because whether it should be the norm is a completely different question than whether it is. Working 15-25% more than required is the norm for private sector white collar professionals because that's how much work there is. Telling you manager no would have you're name up first when the time for layoffs or restructuring came. And there are no unions in the private sector that implicitly have your back on the issue.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Dogbert

. I'm likely sacrificing $15,000 to $20,000 in yearly earnings potential by working in government instead of private industry, but I wanted to prioritize work-life balance and a strong benefits/retirement package over immediate earnings, and PSAC allows me to do so.

According to Statistics Canada federal public sector employees enjoy a 30% earning premium (including benefits) to private sector workers for similar positions. I know union handouts may say differently but the numbers are what they are.

PSAC also spent over 100 million dollars advertising during the last federal election so they've got very good reasons to keep that gravy train going.

[White Out 403]

I love that decent pay and benefits is a gravy train. No one our economy is going down the toilet.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

While you get paid more in the private sector on a top line basis, you're compensated better in the public sector once actual hours worked and benefits are accounted for. It's not even close.

Work life balance is great and those public sector services are necessary. I'm just saying compensation is above market and there is a lot of fat in the system. Combined, core essential services that actually matter could be provided substantially cheaper.

I met my wife in the public sector and she feels the same way. It's mostly cultural workplace expectations. We always joke about how the public "service" was actually a misnomer because the pay was so good it was like the public was serving us.

You might think working more than 37.5 hours a week shouldn't be the norm and you're entitled to only work those hours. That is literally the definition of public sector entitlement. Because whether it should be the norm is a completely different question than whether it is. Working 15-25% more than required is the norm for private sector white collar professionals because that's how much work there is. Telling you manager no would have you're name up first when the time for layoffs or restructuring came. And there are no unions in the private sector that implicitly have your back on the issue.

I’d be interested in hearing an explanation on what exactly you’re trying to suggest in the bolded portion.

I think the hypocrisy of having previously enjoyed the benefits of working in the public sector only to put down current public sector workers for enjoying/expecting the same benefits is pretty self evident, so there’s no real need to discuss that part of your post.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

According to Statistics Canada federal public sector employees enjoy a 30% earning premium (including benefits) to private sector workers for similar positions. I know union handouts may say differently but the numbers are what they are.

PSAC also spent over 100 million dollars advertising during the last federal election so they've got very good reasons to keep that gravy train going.

To be specific, what year was this study conducted and is this standard across the country? Because it probably isn't that high when compared to Alberta private sector equivalents as opposed to, say, New Brunswick.

Either way, I don't think I've ever met anyone who went into the public sector to earn big bucks - rather, it was for the type of work available and the stability involved.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

According to Statistics Canada federal public sector employees enjoy a 30% earning premium (including benefits) to private sector workers for similar positions. I know union handouts may say differently but the numbers are what they are.

PSAC also spent over 100 million dollars advertising during the last federal election so they've got very good reasons to keep that gravy train going.

Link?

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Link?

I'll bet it's fraser institute/CFIB and will be dismissed as hogwash anyway.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

According to Statistics Canada federal public sector employees enjoy a 30% earning premium (including benefits) to private sector workers for similar positions. I know union handouts may say differently but the numbers are what they are.

So what you’re saying is that employees in the sector where 74% of the workforce is unionized are compensated 30% more than employees in the sector where only 16% are unionized. Hmmm. Makes you wonder whether it’s a matter of public sector workers being overpaid or private sector workers being underpaid due to a having lower levels of union membership. The fact that the gap in compensation is growing as union membership in the private sector declines seems to suggest the latter.

PSAC also spent over 100 million dollars advertising during the last federal election so they've got very good reasons to keep that gravy train going.

Wow you’ve really raised the bar to new heights as far as presenting blantantly false information is concerned. You’re claiming PSAC spent 9 figures on advertising when they didn’t even come close to spending 8 figures.

If unions are as bad as you try to make them out to be, why do you feel it’s necessary to make things up to attack them? The truth should speak for itself, should it not?

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

I'll bet it's fraser institute/CFIB and will be dismissed as hogwash anyway.

Well then its not according to StatsCan, but even if it is the Fraser Institute it still deserves a read, even knowing that they tend to leave gaps in their methodology when it doesn't support their conclusion. It's no different than reading anything out of the Suzuki Foundation, there are points to glean from the information, but I tend to not take their conclusions at face value.

It was the benefits part that I was hoping would be included in a link because I haven't found a good source that breaks down the public service benefits into a quantifiable figure for comparison. I doubt it also breaks out private employer benefits such as profit sharing or company vehicles as most of the information on Labour surveys don't ask questions in depth enough for that analysis.

[PepsiFree]

I’ve made my feelings on unions well known, but I do wonder why some are so obsessed about added benefits in the public sector vs private.

I get that it’s “our tax dollars,” but is that it?

I mean, if you think the jobs are better why not just work in the public sector? If the pay is that much better, is it attracting the best talent available for those positions? If so, isn’t that a good thing? If not, why not?

I work in the private sector, but have a couple of friends working in the public sector, we have different benefits (they have better vacation, more job security, but don’t get bonuses, networking and personal growth opportunities, or big company parties) but their jobs also seem a lot more stressful than mine.

A lot of that comes down to the nature of the position obviously, but if you could work in the public sector, why don’t you? If you can’t, why not?

[AFireInside]

I don't agree with you on unions, I think they are incredibly important and beneficial to workers, but you've made some good points.

I've worked with for a couple levels of government and for private industry. The stats don't even back up what he's saying. The Fraser Institute has the difference in Alberta being 9% and I don't believe that includes bonuses which most government workers do not get, and I don't think it includes things like company vehicles either. When I worked in the government my brothers bonuses were anywhere from 10 - 30% of my yearly salary.

I've never come across anyone scamming a way to maximize pay. I'm my many years of government work I stayed late nearly ever single day, generally an hour extra at minimum, unpaid. This is not an exaggeration. Not everyone did this but it isn't unheard of. As far as sick days go most people on my teams didn't take more than 5 or 6 sick days/year. I would have actually preferred if they took more because I don't enjoy getting sick.

Comparing job to job in these scenarios is also questionable. Entry level in the private industry is often affected by how much you negotiate. In public you start at a set amount meaning it's more than difficult to take advantage of younger workers. If half of those entering a private industry job don't really negotiate well they will be paid less. If some don't push for a raise or a promotion they may make less. There is a wider gap between high and low earners in private industry.

The point about core services being provided cheaper isn't clear cut either. There is lots of information that shows that privatization often costs more in the long run. There some areas that could be privatized but it is silly to state that all services can be provided for less.

People choose to work private because the reward is higher. You can move up and make significantly more. In public you can move up but the pay isn't drastically different.

I find it amusing that someone that worked in public industry is criticising the hours worked. Working 40 hours a week isn't something anyone should strive for or be criticized for not wanting to do . Getting only 2 weeks of vacation after working somewhere for 10 years isn't something to strive for its pathetic as far as I'm concerned. Honestly it comes across as a bitter post.

Every single job I've ever worked had cuts that COULD be made.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’ve made my feelings on unions well known, but I do wonder why some are so obsessed about added benefits in the public sector vs private.

I get that it’s “our tax dollars,” but is that it?

I mean, if you think the jobs are better why not just work in the public sector? If the pay is that much better, is it attracting the best talent available for those positions? If so, isn’t that a good thing? If not, why not?

I work in the private sector, but have a couple of friends working in the public sector, we have different benefits (they have better vacation, more job security, but don’t get bonuses, networking and personal growth opportunities, or big company parties) but their jobs also seem a lot more stressful than mine.

A lot of that comes down to the nature of the position obviously, but if you could work in the public sector, why don’t you? If you can’t, why not?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Dogbert

First off, I'm not sure which department you worked for, but mine certainly doesn't build any slack into the work week. I have four projects on the go right now, with additional smaller assignments to complete once I can spare the time (not happening any time soon).

Secondly, I think it's sad that you view the fact that I generally work 37.5 hours a week and can take sick/vacation days if I need to do so as a problem. I'm likely sacrificing $15,000 to $20,000 in yearly earnings potential by working in government instead of private industry, but I wanted to prioritize work-life balance and a strong benefits/retirement package over immediate earnings, and PSAC allows me to do so. Working double the number of hours for no additional compensation and being penalized for using the benefits I'm entitled to in accordance with labour laws shouldn't be the norm.

I'm confused, which is it?

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by belsarius

It was the benefits part that I was hoping would be included in a link because I haven't found a good source that breaks down the public service benefits into a quantifiable figure for comparison. I doubt it also breaks out private employer benefits such as profit sharing or company vehicles as most of the information on Labour surveys don't ask questions in depth enough for that analysis.

For sure, I hear you there. Something else to note is the pension adjustment at tax time. This can lower a worker making 100k into 80k territory.

There are also rrsp options (not matched) which are available as well.

Many private companies have done away with cars, profit sharing, and other benefits that are not gold plated.

[CaptainCrunch]

Sounds like an announcement is coming soon from Notley on cutting production


https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/albe...tley-1.4196127


Hold on to your butts if you work in Oil and Gas.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Sounds like an announcement is coming soon from Notley on cutting production


https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/albe...tley-1.4196127


Hold on to your butts if you work in Oil and Gas.

A forced production cut is good newsfeed you aren’t Suncor, Imperial or Husky. The lawsuits that follow will be interesting and could be costly to the provonce. However with the price at $17 a 10% production cut only needs to drive the price up by $1.70 to make all the non-integrated producers better off.

I honestly don’t know where I stand with government intervention like this. It’s likely a positive short term but it is dangerous form an external investment standpoint.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GGG

A forced production cut is good newsfeed you aren’t Suncor, Imperial or Husky. The lawsuits that follow will be interesting and could be costly to the provonce. However with the price at $17 a 10% production cut only needs to drive the price up by $1.70 to make all the non-integrated producers better off.

I honestly don’t know where I stand with government intervention like this. It’s likely a positive short term but it is dangerous form an external investment standpoint.

That ship has well and truly sailed.

[DiracSpike]

It makes me quesy but ultimately the right thing to do I think. As Locke mentioned, Canada being a reasonable place for investment is basically done, and this contagion of over production has now effected all grades of oil and every producer, extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures.

Love to see the reaction out East though:

"Alberta institutes nearly unprecedented nuclear option of production cuts in order to save tens of thousands of jobs on top of the 100,000 already lost"

*shrug* who cares lets talk about 3000 people losing their assembly line jobs in Oshawa.

[Fuzz]

I will say that it was nice to see CBC last night on The National bringing some attention to this. Another one this morning:


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...923771?cmp=rss


This kind of thing was needed 3 years ago, but I guess better late than never. Hopefully they keep it up. I think a big part of the lack of concern from the rest of the country is that they have no knowledge of what is going on, not that they don't care. That was the impression I got on my last visit to Ontario, anyway.