3 #ableg predictions for 2016

The start to a new year wouldn’t be complete without a few provincial political predictions. Here are mine – based on 2015 observations.

In 2016 Albertans will watch …

… the MLA for Calgary-Bow, Deborah Drever, welcomed back to the NDP caucus.

For many this does not seem to be ground breaking but more and more we see this independent member being treated as if she never left the caucus. Her passed private member’s bill that was supported unanimously by the NDP caucus was the icing on the cake in 2015. The bill surfaced after a summer long road trip touring non-profits supporting vulnerable women, no doubt orchestrated by the NPD caucus after our Premier gave her a special assignment. The by-election saw Deborah become a NDP campaigner. And her swearing in was attended by and cheered on by a NDP caucus leader.

But, the less obvious, is a recent community newsletter article that social media politicos are obsessing over. The story the online army of conservatives is professing is the fact that Deborah “copied” a neighbouring MLA’s monthly article. I don’t see it that way. I worked in a constituency office and we would regularly get community related copy intended for newsletters. They were written centrally and many MLA office managers, including me, used the copy to supplement articles or even simply be the entire article. So no, I’m afraid Deborah didn’t copy her neighbouring MLA, she simply used the NDP caucus communications suggested newsletter content – and that’s the story. As an independent she shouldn’t have access to those communications but clearly she does. For the record I live in her constituency and my newsletter was different than the one referenced, which does further confirm the message was indeed a centrally crafted based on specific community needs. The last sign that she is already unofficially back in the fold, and the official announcement is imminent.

… the PC Party’s most progressive voice make a bold political move.

It’s been interesting to watch the PC Party grapple with two core components of the party – conservative and progressive. In order to win back the grassroots support it has lost they have to choose which grassroots support to focus on – those that have looked to the progressive side of the spectrum and are flirting with the Alberta Party or those that looked to right and are flirting with the Wildrose and a conservative merger. In a caucus of over 60 the voices that were considered the extremes of the party were often muted because of the wide range of voice representing the center. Now, with a fraction of those voices on the bench, the progressive voices have gotten louder and so have the conservative ones – which makes the vast differences of opinions in the party more obvious.

One voice has been particularly loud in recent months – unsupportive of a merger, loud on progressive issues, and a defender of the previous government’s social policy. I believe Sandra Jansen will make a bold political move to show her true progressive allegiance. The move will either be a floor crossing to the Alberta Party, which some have already predicted, or a decision to run for PC Party leader with a platform that will attempt to sway progressives back into the fold of the party. She would be the voice of anti-conservative reunification sympathizers.

… a by-election in Calgary-Mountain View.

Tragically Albertans will have to watch a by-election in Calgary-Greenway in 2016. But I believe we will see 2 elections when this writ drops. Calgarians will also go to the polls in Calgary-Mountain View. David Swann has been a true champion for the Liberal movement in Alberta for years and has publicly acknowledged he has considered retirement in the past. As the sole member of the Liberal Party caucus one can assume that he is working long hours but with the Liberals barely on Albertan’s radars those hours may not be paying off.

Plus how could we go one year without a provincial election in our province? Seems to be one of Alberta’s new political staples. J

It will be an interesting race to watch. My prediction for a winner? The Alberta Party. I believe the Alberta Party could attract a high profile candidate, like Matt Grant, who is fresh off a high profile federal campaign, and is maintaining his election ready social media presence.

There is no doubt that this will be another interesting year … policy changes, economic diversification (or attempts at), political protests, progressive movements, and conservative realignment.

It will be a ride – so put on your seatbelts and look forward to an eventful political year.

CP

Advertisements

Guest Blog by Brian Dell: Unions Flex Muscles (again)

The following blog was posted on http://briandell.blogspot.com/ by a guy named Brian Dell, whom I have never met.  As you can see, Brian is a like-minded blogger.  I would like to thank Brian for agreeing to be a guest blogger on PCinYYC.

 

Much of what I blog about is based on well research facts – Brian presents some of these facts in his blog.  Now that I have your attention, I hope that you enjoy the continued education …. PP

 

Brian’s blog starts here ….

 

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.