further to the last

One regrettable consequence of my last blogpost is that a P"C" party activist or two seems inclined to think my dissatisfaction with the Wildrose Alliance somehow makes the government party a more attractive option. Let's be clear here: if there is a problem with Wildrose people making getting elected an end-in-itself instead of a means to an end, it remains a bigger problem yet with most P"C" party people. As longtime Leg watcher Marc Lisac observed in 2004:

[W]hy would anyone with a solid position in the community want to run for the opposition? The prize for election is putting up with casual insults in question period, being largely ignored by the media, watching government backbenchers earn much more money by virtue of being appointed to this agency or that board, and knowing that one's future employability outside politics is likely being impaired. The most attractive choice is to fight for a nomination in the governing party.

You have to be a saint to run for the ragged, perpetually debt-ridden shells that pass for opposition parties in Alberta. A saint, or someone with the character of a stubborn, defiant buffalo facing directly into a stiff wind coming off the mountains. Most people in public life here are neither. Contrary to the stereotype of the defiant individual, the province is full of people who take the easier path and join the party (literally and figuratively).

There is accordingly a context to my issues with Wildrose. That context includes that fact that the governing party has to take a lot more responsibility for the spending spree of the last decade than the opposition. Also, even if the Wildrose caucus successfully led an effort to kill off the restriction on teachers' right to strike, for some other planks like the right to not associate with a union and the secret ballot, it was "close but no cigar" in terms of getting them eliminated from the policy book. With the P"C" party, in contrast, you have a party that, as a government, introduced legislation that had clauses like section 29 of the Labour Code: "[e]mployees to be union members."

I have regularly returned to the issue of unions because I think how a politician is inclined to deal with this interest group is a far more revealing indicator of fiscal conservatism than nebulous talk about cutting back on spending. Remember how the unions howled at the Klein cutbacks in the mid-90s? What has changed such that spending restraint today wouldn't involve a confrontation with the unions? Premier Stelmach called the limiting of teachers' right to strike which Wildrose used to stand for "draconian," but in New York State ALL public employees are banned from striking ALL the time by section 210 of the Public Employees Fair Employment Act, more commonly known as the Taylor Law. Yet New York unions are still in the saddle. An expert panel hosted by the New York Times titled "Can California and New York be saved?" returns repeatedly to the idea that New York's new governor "has to steel himself for the long run and be prepared for the wave of ads from unions claiming the sky is falling." In Illinois where union muggings of the taxpayer are, if anything, even more egregious than in Albany or Sacramento, the Republican candidate for governor collected more than 1.7 million votes last week, losing by a thread, yet challenged the unions directly. The point being here that "draconian" is relative. As I noted in my last post, although Alberta supposedly has much in common with Rocky Mountain states like Idaho, the province allows closed shops when even the chair of the Swedish Building Workers' Union has said "closed-shop clauses [are] old-fashioned and [are] being removed" in Sweden. (As an aside, I have lived in Sweden more than a year and am a fan of much of the Scandinavian system, which in many respects is not as "left wing" as North Americans presume, e.g. a lower corporate tax rate than the UK and the USA, and perhaps the world's most radically free market in schools, schools that, by the way, privilege Christianity in the curriculum).

As I said before, the key problem is "not how much will be going to the unionized public sector per se" but how Alberta (and North America in general) decides how much is too much. Imagine an audience with some politicians on a stage in front of them. Now randomly pluck one "ordinary person" from the audience and sit them on a stool on the stage. Now invite the politicians to talk about how much that person should be paid and then vote, as an audience, for the politician who has said the most convincing thing and, by this mechanism, determine the pay. That the politicians will engage in a bidding war to pay the most should be as obvious as the fact that studio audiences invariably root for a game show contestant to win spectacular amounts of money. As much of a circus as this hypothetical scenario would be, reality is considerably worse because it isn't nearly as transparent: collective bargaining agreements are not conducted on public television.

Now having said this, if anyone should ask why I quit the Wildrose Alliance, it is not over a policy difference. Nobody gets all the policy they want out of a political party that represents a significant proportion of society. It is rather the way the party made a move that wasn't anti-any particular policy I favoured, but anti-policy period.

For whatever reason, an elected provincial politician, Doug Griffiths, wanted to talk policy, not politics, and Wildrose Executive Director Vitor Marciano (with the possible agreement of others) decided to try and make money for his party off of the uninformed grassroots using that very fact. Talking policy instead of politics is what my whole motivation has been since I left Ottawa's policy shops. Politics is a means to an end. If the end is to try scare politicians like Griffiths out of saying what he has been saying, I'm working for the wrong team. It's as simple as that, really.

Former minister Allan Warrack's comments about bringing an HST to Alberta on Alberta Primetime last Monday hit almost all the bases in terms of a concise defence of the idea. The segment quite likely would have never occurred, and Professor Warrack thus not have been given a soapbox, had Griffiths not made the effort to push the debate into the general culture. Wildrose not only failed to play enabler with respect to bringing a conversation to Albertans that I've made it something of my personal mission to bring, Wildrose actively contributed to trying to marginalize the conversation as unacceptable.

British Columbia doesn't have anything like Alberta's royalty revenues yet, as of this coming January, the corporate tax rate is no higher (10%) than in Alberta and a person earning $45 000 would pay almost $1000 less in income tax in BC than in Alberta. BC's tax on carbon does not bother me at all since I haven't owned a car for more than 8 years and the policy makes it that much less likely that BC would be targeted by a hostile foreign public relations campaign. This while BC, population 4.5 million, spends $40.6 billion and Alberta, population 3.7 million, spends $39.3 billion. The BC deficit is furthermore far more manageable. Calgary-based George Koch, writing in Alberta Venture in October, noted that "we Albertans seem a complacent lot, addicted to our government entitlements," and lamented the lack of leadership, observing that "[f]or the wilful leader, public support is a bank to draw on rather than just a wave to ride." With the exception of people like Doug Griffiths, Alberta's politicians all seem to be out surfing.

UPDATE:

Apparently I'm not alone in terms of general frustration. Mike Moffat from Western, Stephen Gordon from Laval ,and Andrew Coyne have been referring to each other's work for a while now and they are all unimpressed with the direction of Canadian politics.

PC Alberta AGM weekend: unions flex muscle (again)

Section 29 of the Alberta Labour Relations Code explicitly allows unions to demand collective agreements whereby "all the employees... are required to be members of a trade union." Only employees who convince the Labour Relations Board that their "religious belief" prohibits them from being a union member are exempt from this coercion, in which case an employee could potentially get his or her union dues directed to a charity instead of the union.

When Edmonton McClung introduced its motion to bar unions from forcing Albertans to pay dues that are then used for political purposes, the constituency association noted that Alberta is one of the few jurisdictions in the world that denies individual employees the right to opt out of having to pay mandatory union dues that are then used for political messaging.

In early 2008, in the lead up to the March 3 provincial election, an outfit calling itself "Albertans for Change" but in fact run by union bosses ran a series of TV and radio attack ads paid for by forced union dues. When the Merit Contractors Association and the National Citizens' Coalition called attention to the fact that this astroturf group was using mandatory dues for activities unrelated to the core union activities of collective bargaining and grievance administration, the Alberta Federation of Labour responded saying Merit Contractors and the NCC were "simply trying to further their union busting agenda" and cited a 1991 Supreme Court of Canada case, Lavigne v. OPSEU. However, Mr Lavigne was not a member of and not required to join a union, unlike the case in Alberta where union membership is often forced. Indeed, when the Canadian Civil Liberties Association intervened in the case to support the union position, the CCLA concluded that "Lavigne's protection is in his right to join or not to join" a union. Remove that protection and the Lavigne case is distinguishable.

Alberta Union of Public Employees spokesman David Climenhaga trotted out the "but the courts say" argument on his personal blog after the Wildrose Alliance AGM earlier this year to contend that passing a particular "right to work" law would be "a pointless gesture." The McClung members who proposed the motion here anticipated this sort of retort, however, by attaching a legal opinion solicited by Merit Contractors from a Calgary law firm.

I might add that, in specific response to blogger Ken Chapman's claims that the facts cited by the motion's supporters were "unsubstantiated" and in need of "proof," the union practices at issue here are prohibited in New Zealand, Australia, the United States, and the 47 countries of the Council of Europe. While far left Canadian judges like Claire L'Heureux-Dubé have held that freedom of association implies no freedom to not associate, Article 20(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly affirms that negative right: "No one may be compelled to belong to an association."

The European Council of Human Rights, perhaps the most famous of the Council of Europe's bodies, ruled in 1981 by an 11 to 3 vote that a 1975 agreement between British Rail and three trade unions requiring union membership as a condition of employment violated Section 11 (freedom of association) of the European Convention on Human Rights (to which all Council members are a party). The 2006 case Sørensen & Rasmussen v. Denmark made it clear that a "closed shop" is still in violation even if it were made clear to a prospective job applicant in advance that union membership would be a condition of employment. "[T]here is little support in the Contracting States for the maintenance of closed shop agreements," the Court added. The 2007 decision Evaldsson et al v. Sweden prohibited the use of union dues from non-members for non-bargaining (ie political) purposes, with the Court disapprovingly noting that "they had to pay the fees against their will to an organization with a political agenda."

Although it is currently the case that in the United States unions can spend a member’s dues on politics, members have the right to opt out, a right that is currently denied in Alberta. Unions are currently in a panic about Republican gains in elections tomorrow because of fears that the GOP will change the obscure opt out procedure to an opt in requirement for dues union leaders want to spend on politics.

At this weekend's PC Alberta AGM, union supporters tried to shout down opponents. When the vote was taken, it appeared close enough that some called for a count, a contention supported by the Edmonton Journal which described the margin as "narrow", but the moderator dismissed a count as unnecessary and the union supporters declared victory. According to CTV, "[d]ozens of people, apparently union members, bought party memberships specifically for that vote and defeated the motion much to the dismay of many long-time party members." The number of "Ten Minute Tories" might well have been significantly higher. In 2006, the Journal reported that a coalition of unions "apparently plans to buy as many as 10,000 Tory memberships" to get their man into the premier's chair. As it is, the current chair of the government caucus, Robin Campbell, is a former union boss. South of the border in New Jersey, the AFL-CIO spends a quarter million per year running a "candidate school" to get their (Manchurian) candidates elected, and with considerable success given that this union school "has groomed more than 160 current officeholders."

I nonetheless take some comfort in the fact a few grassroots PC members came to the AGM prepared to get their battle on against this economic phenomenon known as a labour supply monopoly or, in popular parlance, a union. At the Wildrose Alliance AGM during the summer, there was essentially no floor battle to speak of since the unions had, in effect, pulled off an inside job. After cordial meetings with Alberta unions during the months leading up to the AGM, floor-crossing MLAs Rob Anderson and Heather Forsyth spent essentially all of their microphone time on the convention floor lobbying for closed shops and the killing of party planks like the one that protected "the democratic right to a secret ballot," thus precluding the need for more transparently union-affiliated speakers to make the case. Party leader Danielle Smith, who had previously had her own tête à tête with AUPE's boss (photo above at right), told media outside the convention room that the union coddling constituted a display of "sophistication."

I relate the disturbing ties between the Wildrose caucus and union lobbyists in order to note that apparently every elected politician is either running scared from the unions or in their pocket. In the US, the Associated Builders and Contractors (a merit shop coalition) noted a study last year that found that union slush funds had contributed more than $1 billion to contract bidding schemes that increased the cost of construction projects for taxpayers. The equivalent slush funds in Alberta, known as MERFs or "Stab funds", were finally targeted by the Alberta government in 2008 by Bill 26, which also aimed to put a stop to the union practice of "salting" (having their people respond to hiring ads and then, after having been hired just in time to vote to unionize, walking off the job to leave the employer both short manpower and unionized). The schemes Bill 26 corrected were so outrageous the union bosses knew they could not organize popular protests against the bill, but provincial lawmakers were still so afraid of union muscle they passed the bill as the very last measure of the spring 2008 sitting and at 3:15 AM in the morning. Legislature personnel were furthermore so intimidated that security guards at the Leg were placed on high alert.

There are four major political parties in the province (five if you include the Alberta Party) and the leadership and/or caucus of none of them seems prepared to make an issue out of the fact that Alberta tolerates closed shops where Europeans do not, and that provincial legislation adds insult to injury by allowing unions to pile mandatory dues to be used for political lobbying on top of mandatory membership. The PC members who voted against the McClung proposal giving workers a right to opt out of having mandatory dues used to fund leftist causes are ultimately traitors when you consider the fact that in 2008 such money was used to fund a media assault on the PC Party, but "traitor" implies an allegiance that can be betrayed.

Albertans are entitled to a political alternative. The NDP accordingly has a good excuse for, say, not supporting the 29 Old Dutch employees whom the UFCW union and the Alberta Labour Relations Board say should be fired for refusing to pay union dues. For 38 years the UFCW and Old Dutch collective bargaining agreement provided for a voluntary dues check off. In the wake of a lengthy labour dispute, however, UFCW demanded that the dues be made mandatory. Even though mandatory dues are virtually cost free to employers, Old Dutch did not agree. The obvious solution in the union's view then became getting the government to step in and amend the Alberta Labour Code. This summer, the Stelmach government indicated that it would side against the 29 workers. Perhaps the Wildrose Alliance could have said something about this instead of going on about legal disputes in other provinces.

shifting the spectrum

My last post noted Andrew Coyne's contention that "All [the Conservatives] have done is shift the spectrum further and further to the left."

With this in mind let's revisit the successful move to kill the Wildrose policy plank that called for "restor[ing] education as an essential service under the Labour Code ensuring no child's right to an education is denied by school strikes or lockouts."

During the 2001 British Columbia election campaign, the BC Liberals promised to restore education as an "essential service" in order to "prevent immediate and serious disruption to the provision of educational programs." On May 16 of that year Liberal candidates captured 77 out of 79 seats in the provincial legislature. The new Gordon Campbell government then acted on this promise and made other changes to the Labour Code to the applause of the province's business community.

During the 2007 Saskatchewan election campaign, Brad Wall's Sask Party promised to bring in "essential services" legislation. On November 7 of that year, Wall and his party won a clear majority of the seats and a majority of the popular vote. Moreover, a poll in early 2008 found that "two-thirds of Saskatchewan people support the government's proposed essential services legislation." While this legislation did not deal with teachers per se or ban strikes outright, it applied to "government, Crown Corporations, universities and SIAST, health employers and municipalities." The president of the Saskatchewan Government and General Employees’ Union (SGEU) deplored what he considered to be “definitely the worst essential services legislation in Canada."

At the same time, the Wall government amended the Trade Union Act to require a "Mandatory secret ballot certification or decertification vote." The Wildrose policy platform similarly says that

a Wildrose government will extend to workers the democratic right to a secret ballot vote on labour organization certification under the Labour Code and ensure that the same rule apply for de-certification as for certification

However, at last month's Wildrose AGM, of the 450 votes counted at that meeting, just 56% of (presumably committed, since most of them traveled to Red Deer) card carrying Wildrosers supported keeping this plank. This while 67% of polled Saskatchewan citizens of all political affiliation supported the Sask Party's labour policy. Premier Brad Wall continues to bask in popular support.

What the Wildrose caucus, which led the charge on these union coddling moves, has managed to do is render labour policy that is government policy in both of Alberta's neighbours fringe policy in Alberta. Premier Ed calls quashing teachers' right to strike "draconian" and Wildrose agrees, never mind that Wildrose was polling ahead of the premier's party at the time he leveled the charge.

Given this, how is one to argue with Ted Morton, whose party has presided over the erosion of Alberta's competitiveness relative to its neighbours, when he claims that Wildrose is in basic agreement with his party as far as policy goes ("We all believe in the same thing and want the same results")?

Ignatieff proposes unraveling of 1996 EI reforms

Michael Ignatieff's call for a loosening of federal Employment Insurance eligibility requirements is a remarkable policy reversal for the Federal Liberals.

This is the first serious policy proposal from Ignatieff that is clearly and demonstrably wrong. For supporting argument, see all the Finance Canada research from the mid-90s on the subject of EI reform. As Finn Poschmann and William Robson at the CD Howe Institute noted in 2006, "payments to workers who routinely work less than a full year are undermining a decade-old effort to remake EI as an insurance backstop against unexpected and temporary unemployment" [as opposed to supplementing regular income]. The government's own EI Monitoring and Assessment Report asserted in 2005 that while "we can conclude that the 1996 reform led to significant savings amounting to billions of dollars ... certain elements of the reform have been undone" (Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 93).

Apparently it falls to Iggy to complete the unraveling of those hard-won reforms.