ALF V1

AFL Year-end Message

Looking ahead to the New Year, it's clear the Labour movement will have a lot on its plate. New rules on drug and alcohol testing in the workplace. The potential for serious job losses in the forestry industry. And the on-going pressure on working families as wages stagnate and costs for things like utilities, tuition and insurance sky-rocket - all as the result of ill-conceived government policies.

But even though all these concerns are serious, there is another labour issue that looms larger than the rest. And that's the issue of the war the provincial government is planning to wage on Alberta nurses.

"For years now - through round after round of cutbacks, lay-offs and privatization - nurses and other health care workers have gone the extra mile. Their dedication and hard work is the only thing that has kept the system from flying apart at the seams," says Les Steel, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour.

"And how does the government plan to reward nurses for their commitment? By using legislation to force major rollbacks to their conditions of work, that's how. And, for good measure, they're threatening to disband the nurses' union if they decide to protest such heavy-handed action by going on strike. That's a pretty big lump of coal, even by this government's standards."

Alberta's 20,000 registered nurses have been attempting to negotiate a new contract for nearly a year now. Money has never been the issue - the nurses have asked only for a small cost-of-living increase. The real stumbling block has been the demands put on the table by regional health authorities through their bargaining organization, the Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta (PHAA).

The government and the PHAA want the power to force nurses into working more irregular hours and, in many cases, permanent night shifts. They also want to give managers the ability to move nurses from one hospital to another on a whim.

The PHAA set an incredibly hostile tone on the first day of negotiations last January when they warned that if they didn't get their way, they would ask the government to step in and impose a contract - in the same way the Campbell government had done with nurses in B.C. Since that time, the PHAA has stubbornly refused to show any flexibility at the bargaining table - their position today is virtually unchanged from what it was 11 months ago.

"The really frustrating thing about this whole situation is that the key positions staked out by the PHAA - the ones they refuse to budge on - don't make any sense," says Steel. "The nurses are already committed to a fair rotation of shifts, with nurses guaranteed a split of 40 percent days to 60 percent evenings and weekends. And, in the era of SARS, forcing nurses to constantly move from one hospital to another is just downright dangerous. Given how unreasonable their demands are, we're left asking: why are the government and the PHAA being so deliberately provocative? It's starting to look like they want to force the nurses into a strike so they can punish them."

Steel says that if the government thinks it can get away with bullying the nurses and forcing concessions that roll the clock back 25 years, they've got another thing coming. He says Alberta's health care system will be threatened and patient care compromised if the government goes to war with nurses. This kind of chaos won't sit well with the public - especially if the only goal is to settle some kind of political score with the nurses, he says.

"At the same time, the government has to realize that if they go after the nurses, they won't only be facing nurses. They'll be facing off against the entire labour movement and significant sections of the broader public," says Steel.

With that in mind, major unions have already begun meetings aimed at mustering support for the nurses and developing plans and strategies in the event of a strike. Many of Alberta's major unions have already agreed to participate in the support meetings - and many others are expected to get involved in January.

"A government-sponsored war on the nurses will be a disaster for all Albertans," says Steel. "It will undermine the entire health care system and seriously compromise the ability of health care workers to provide top-quality care. That's why we will try to convince members of the government in January that they have to rein in the PHAA. We will also remind them that a negotiated settlement is still within reach - and still in the public's best interests. But if it does come to a strike, we're not going to make it easy for the government. We'll stand shoulder to shoulder with the nurses. And we won't give up until the PHAA backs away from its unreasonable and deliberately provocative positions."

For further information, contact:

Les Steel, President, AFL  at 780-483-3021 or 780-499-4135

Running to stand still: How Alberta government policy has led to wage stagnation during a time of prosperity

Albertans are entitled to ask: "What's going on? How can the most productive workers in the country experience stagnant or falling wages in the middle of an economic boom? If we can't improve our real wages during a boom, when can we?"

EDMONTON - The Alberta Federation of Labour and the union representing striking A-Channel workers have jointly filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against A-Channel. The unions claim the station attempted to unfairly muzzle the strikers and stop them from communicating with the public. In particular, they say the station tried to de-rail a union-sponsored ad campaign by sending threatening letters to Edmonton area media outlets that had already agreed to run the ads.

"It's a huge irony," says AFL president Les Steel, whose organization worked with the Communication, Energy Paperworkers Local 1900 to design and launch the ad campaign.

"Here we have a company that's in the business of disseminating news and information to the public. But when it comes to news and information from its own employees, they try to throw the muzzle on. It's the height of hypocrisy."

Local 1900's chairperson Adrian Pearce echoed Steel's indignation over A-Channel's actions, adding the station was essentially attempting to coerce other media outlets into breaking contracts with the strikers - something that is clearly not permitted under Canadian civil law.

"We think it's unethical for a news agency like A-Channel to try to impose censorship and attack the freedom of speech that every group is entitled to under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," says Pearce. "A supposedly 'impartial' news gathering station should know better."

Shortly before the union's ad campaign was set to begin in the third week of October, various media outlets in the city received threatening letters from Gerhard Seifner, a lawyer with A-Channel's law firm, McLennan Ross. In the letters, Seifner warned that "anybody publishing this (union) material will be sued."

The threat of legal action was taken seriously by all the targeted news organizations - but it was particularly troubling for small, independent publications like Vue Weekly.

Despite the threats, all the radio stations and all but one of the newspapers contracted by the union eventually determined the ads were legally defensible and agreed to proceed with the campaign (but not without demanding unusual guarantees from the union). The only newspaper that reneged on its ad contract with the unions (the Edmonton Journal) eventually reversed its position and agreed to print the ad.

"From our perspective, this is a clear example of libel chill," says Steel. "A-Channel was using the threat of legal action to stop the flow of information to the public. That this was one media company trying to intimidate other media companies just makes the situation that much worse. The managers at A-Channel should be ashamed of themselves."

Copies of the union's statement of claim and A-Channel's letter are available upon request.

For more information call:

Adrian Pearce, Union Chair CEP 1900 @ 428-5270

Les Steel, AFL President @ 483-3021 or 499-4135

Gil McGowan, AFL Communication @ 483-3021 or 910-1137

Les Steel, President of the Alberta Federation of Labour, November 2003

Good morning.

I probably don't have to tell you that it has not been a banner year for labour or for working people in Alberta.

That's because there has never been a banner year for labour in this province since the Socreds took power in 1934. That's a whole lot of bad years for anyone who's counting.

Alberta still has the worst labour laws in Canada. We still have the lowest minimum wage and the lowest unionization rate in the country.

Workers still cannot get their most basic rights to overtime or holiday pay actually enforced. And if they actually overcome all of the barriers and get a union, all too often they end up in vicious employer-driven first contract disputes like the one currently going on at A Channel in Edmonton.

Health care workers have had their right to belong to the union of their choice stripped away by Bill 27. And it is looking like the government is going to take a run at the nurses next year.

It's pretty obvious that working people in this province desperately need a New Democratic government. But, I can honestly say that we are no closer to one today than we were in 1971.

That's why I think it really is time for us to take stock of how labour and the party work together.

The relationship between the New Democratic Party and the labour movement is going through profound changes across Canada.

Originally, the NDP was the consequence of an alliance between the Cooperative Commonwealth and the Canadian Labour Congress. Labour was not simply a supporter of the NDP - we were a founding partner.

There were many benefits to both the labour movement and the party from this partnership.

The Party received substantial and sustained funding from a dependable source and a cadre of volunteer workers during elections. The Party also received the inside track with union activists and leaders - a sort of pipeline into the organized working class.

The labour movement received substantial legislative support protecting the rights of workers and unions in those jurisdictions fortunate enough to elect New Democrat governments.

Even at the federal level, labour got some sympathetic legislation and programs as a direct result of the popular support for the NDP and its platforms during elections.

But, as with all political alliances, there were also some problems with labour's traditional alliance with the NDP.

Many New Democrats felt that 'big labour' had too much influence on party policies and party affairs - both because of dependency on labour funding and because of the allocation of convention credentials to labour affiliates.

Further, there was a criticism that labour could not 'deliver' its members' votes in the ballot box. Finally, some New Democrats worried that the connection with unions hurt the party electorally.

From labour's perspective, there were significant problems arising from feelings of betrayal when New Democrat governments passed back-to-work legislation or failed to live up to our expectations of a 'labour' government.

There was also some suspicion that the Party saw us more as a cash cow than a partner.

I believe that the tensions between organized labour and the Party have, if anything, been increasing over time.

The breakdown of our traditional relationship is nowhere more evident than in Manitoba - where a New Democrat government basically prohibited labour funding. And I know that Alberta and other provinces are looking at similar policies.

New federal legislation has also put an end to the old style labour support for the federal party.

So, the question before us is: where do we go from here?

In the labour movement, we are seriously looking for new ways to express our political programs and principles. We are trying to find ways to mobilize labour support for the NDP in this new climate.

Right now, the Alberta Federation of Labour has politically committed itself to a program of action based upon the very successful Saskatchewan Federation of Labour's Issues Campaign.

The idea is straightforward. The trade union movement will poll our own rank-and-file members to find out exactly which issues they consider to be of paramount importance.

We will then run focus groups to find out the most effective messaging for putting forward those workers' issues as policy and program demands. Following that we will run a public campaign to place these issues at the forefront of public debate.

In Saskatchewan, the issues campaign focused, among other things, on the critical importance of provincial crown corporations to peoples' quality of life.

Interestingly, the key issue upon which the election in Saskatchewan turned, was the debate over crown corporations.

In essence, we, in labour, are no longer trying to deliver our vote. It just didn't work for union leaders to 'tell' members how to vote. Our members resented it and just refused to listen.

Now, we are identifying workers' real issues and in effect creating political space for these issues.

It will be up to the New Democrats to take advantage of that space before and during elections - just as they did in Saskatchewan.

We are very excited about this new political action program. We are already stating our issues campaign in Alberta - and I believe that this will result in a real and impressive increase in support for the Party in the next election.

Moreover, I believe that the CLC will also be following suit at the national level.

I believe that labour - by running a more independent political action program - will renew worker support for the NDP.

We will see more trade unionists joining the NDP and working for the party during elections.

So to answer to my question: where do labour and the New Democrats go from here?

We go forward to a more effective, healthier relationship - one that will inevitably lead to the first New Democrat government in Alberta.

Thank you.

 

Les Steel, President of the Alberta Federation of Labour, October 2003

Good morning.

It's been 70 years since Alberta had a government that could even be loosely described as worker friendly - and I'm not really sure that the United Farmers government really fit that definition.

But since 1934 we've only had two parties in power in this province - the Social Credit from 1934 to 1971 and the Conservatives from 1971 on. Both of these parties have traditionally mistrusted labour and actively discouraged labour unions. They neither understood nor sympathized with working people and their aspirations, and took their direction from the corporate sector.

What this has meant for organized labour is a long difficult struggle for survival and a constant uphill battle to protect our members' rights and privileges.

During the last 32 years of Conservative rule, labour unions, labour centrals and labour leaders have tried a broad variety of approaches to the government. Some have sucked up to the government. Some have tried to join the government. Some have tried to ignore them.

None of those approaches have worked. If you suck up, they may throw you an occasional bone - but they will hold you in contempt. If you try to join them you will be incorporated and forgotten. If you ignore them, they will use the power of government to strip you and your organization of any power or gains you have gathered.

What this has left us as a strategy is to oppose the government. We have learned that the only rights we have are the rights we are willing to exercise - and that only when we are actively defending our rights do we have any voice at all in this province.

In fact, I can safely say that the only gains working people have ever made in this province were through mobilization and struggle or through the threat of struggle.

Now I know that none of this is new to Alberta nurses or to your union. Struggle is the forge that UNA was founded and tempered upon. I have set this in front of you both as a complement on your principles and steadfastness and as a warning.

The warning is simple. In any protracted struggle, there comes a time when leaders and rank-and-file members get tired and depressed - and want to consider accommodation as the price of peace.

It's like the guy standing on the street banging his head against a brick wall over and over again. When asked why he was doing it, he replied: 'I don't know, but it sure feels good when I stop.'

Unfortunately for unions, the second we stop taking on employers and bad governments we become part of the problem instead of the solution. The current attempt by the Regional Health Authorities to force UNA into binding interest arbitration is a case in point. It has become obvious to every intelligent observer in the province that Alberta's labour arbitration process is a loaded gun aimed at the trade union movement and our members.

Because the government is ultimately in control of who is named as the supposedly impartial chair of any arbitration board, the employers' votes will always outnumber labour's votes on any award. I know labour activists who will no longer sit as labour representatives on arbitration boards because they are tired of writing dissents and sick of being a party to unjust awards.

In fact, the number of arbitrations in Alberta used to run between 15 and 20 a year back in the early 80's. By the 90's that had dropped to only 2 or 3 a year - as more and more trade unions rejected the arbitration process.

UNA has led the rejection of interest arbitration in this province - steadfastly refusing to be forced to accept the contract stripping and inferior wages and benefits dictated by the process. But clearly, that hasn't stopped the eagerness of health authorities to make use of this biased process.

The Alberta Federation of Labour has being staying in close contact with your union throughout the current round of negotiations. It has become clear that the government and the regional health authorities have been planning a massive stripping of the rights and entitlements of nurses.

First there is the backhanded attempt through Bill 27 to create dissent both within unions and between unions from the forced combining of region-wide bargaining units. The Federation has worked hard to combat the worst effects of Bill 27. We created an ad hoc action committee of effected unions to build a common strategy and tactics to combat the legislation.

Most recently, we have challenged the impartiality of the Labour Relations Board in the entire process. That challenge has yet to be heard by the Board, but believe me; they are on very shaky ground here and may have all of their decisions to date in this matter overturned.

Secondly, there is the behaviour of the employer at the bargaining table. It seems to me that they are deliberately bargaining to impasse in the wild hope that UNA will ultimately agree to go the binding arbitration route. There is no other explanation for the employer sabotage of the bargaining process through ridiculous demands and unwillingness to make compromises.

If negotiations continue to deteriorate to the point where UNA is forced to take action to protect its members, I want to give you an absolute assurance that the Alberta Federation of Labour and all of its affiliates will be there to support you in your actions. We will mobilize the labour movement and act whenever and in whichever fashion your union wants.

Mobilizing Broad Social and Political Action

Supporting affiliates in struggle is one of the most important things labour centrals like the Alberta Federation of Labour do.

But as I said earlier, we also have to pay attention to the underlying causes of labour's constant state of heartburn in this province. After 70 years of conservative, pro-employer misrule in Alberta, it is little wonder that we have the worst labour laws in Canada; nor should it be any surprise that our most important public services and programs are constantly under attack and under-funded.

An underlying bias against working people has permeated every aspect of our government and, consequently, the very fabric of our society. If we are ever to get out of the constant struggle for survival that faces unions every time they go to the bargaining table in Alberta, we are going to have to get rid of this rotten government!

Unfortunately, this is something that is easier said than done. At election time, the employers' parties get the most funding. They get the support of the corporate media. And, they have developed very sophisticated polling and public relations capacities that allow them to manipulate the electorate through spin doctoring and deliberately mystifying issues.

Clearly, traditional labour approaches to politics have proven ineffective against the slick, well-funded corporate machine.

That's why we have just completely reworked our strategies for mobilizing opposition to the government. Following our last convention, the Federation has adopted an ambitious multi-pronged strategy to create change in Alberta.

In the electoral arena, we are directing our resources to a non-partisan 'issues' campaign. The idea, in a nutshell, is to make an accurate assessment of what working people really want - and to create a political demand for our issues through an aggressive public education campaign.

It will then be up to political parties to take advantage of the space created by the campaign.

The Federation also has initiatives to intervene in the broader, non-electoral arena of public opinion and public debate. We have struck four working groups to build public campaigns which should put real pressure on government from several different directions.

There will be a 'living wage' campaign designed to change the debate over minimum wage to a tangible demand for a living wage. It will involve mobilization of labour, church groups, social justice advocates and others.

We also have a working group mandated to create workers' resource centres across the province to provide broad services for unorganized workers.

We are also mapping out a long term campaign aimed at creating better labour laws in Alberta.

Finally, we are, with the Alberta Teachers' Association, working toward the launching of Public Interest Alberta - a broad coalition designed to protect the public good and to mobilize support for public services and public spaces.

The fundamental premise behind all of these working groups is build social and political alliances through action, and to create pressure for political change from many different directions. It's time we made the government react to our actions instead of us reacting to their actions.

Conclusion

As you can see, the AFL has a very ambitious agenda. We are dedicated to political change in Alberta. It is the only answer to our continued crises at the bargaining table and to the generally shabby treatment of working people in the province.

At the same time, we can and will continue to mobilize our brothers and sisters in support of unions in struggle.

I will leave you with an optimistic note. It took Albertans 37 years to get rid of the Socred government. In just 5 years time, the Tories will have been in power for 37 years. I think time is on our side.

Thank you.

 

EDMONTON - Alberta's health care system could be thrown into chaos if the province's nine regional health authorities are successful in their bid to force nurses into binding arbitration, says the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour.

"The arbitration process is a stacked deck," says Les Steel. "That's why the health authorities want it. But if they use binding arbitration to ram through a contract that nurses simply can't agree with, then there are going to be serious consequences. How can showing disrespect for front line employees be good for our health care system?"

Steel says that people who are unfamiliar with the arbitration process may think it sounds like a reasonable way to resolve contract disputes - but the truth is something different. In Alberta, arbitration panels are made up of three representatives, one chosen by the employer, one chosen by the employees and a chairman chosen by the government.
"In the case of the nurses, the government is essentially the employer, so they get two of the three seats - hardly a fair balance," says Steel.

"But it gets worse than that," he adds. "Of the 15 or 16 lawyers in the province available to act as arbitration chairs, only two or three who would be trusted by the labour movement to be truly impartial. And you can bet that those arbitrators won't be the ones chosen by government to chair the panel."

Steel says the perception of bias on arbitration panels is so strong that it is extremely rare for unions to voluntarily submit to the process. In fact, as the one-sided nature of awards has become more apparent, the number of arbitrations has dropped from between 15 and 20 a year in the early 80s to only two or three a year in the 90s.

"With a few exceptions, the only unions that accept the arbitration process are the ones forced into it by legislation, like the firefighters and police," says Steel. "UNA has steered clear of the process for more than 20 years - with good reason."

Steel says that the health authorities know all about the pro-employer tilt of most arbitration panels - and he says that's why they've "deliberately sabotaged the bargaining process."

"They've made ridiculous demands and they've refused to compromise," he says "For example, they want the right to force nurses to work permanent night shifts; and they want the right to move nurses from one worksite to another at will. They know they'd never be able to get these things through honest negotiations - that's why they're trying to force UNA into arbitration."

Given these realities, Steel says that it's "dishonest and self-serving" for the health authorities to say that negotiation have failed and that binding arbitration is the only solution.

"Negotiations have failed because they made them fail - because they wanted them to fail," says Steel, adding that the health authorities are probably hoping to use the confusion caused by the Bill 27 process (which basically threw out all contracts in the health sector) to roll back the clock on Alberta nurses.

But Steel says the health authorities should be careful for what they wish for.

"Even if they succeed in using the arbitration process to impose a backward contract on the nurses, they may end up paying a high price," he says.

"At the very least they will poison the work atmosphere within the health care system - to the detriment of both employees and patients. This is the kind of thing that could drive nurses out of the province or into early retirement. And it's certainly not going to help attract new people to work in the Alberta health care system. Any government that really wanted its health care system to work well wouldn't allow this to happen. It's a recipe for disaster."

For more information call:

Les Steel, AFL President    @ (780) 483-3021   or   (780) 499-4135 (cell)

Gil McGowan, AFL Communications  @ (780) 483-3021   or   (780) 910-1137 (cell)

After nearly two years of on-again, off-again support for a major review of old WCB cases, the Alberta government has finally agreed to open the books on previously rejected claims covering thousands of injured workers.

This is clearly a victory for all those workers who have been unfairly denied benefits. But given the government's track record on this issue, we can't assume it's a done deal. We need to watch them like hawks and make sure they don't try to wiggle out of the commitments they've made.

The provincial government first announced a sweeping package of reforms to the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) two years ago. Establishing a tribunal to review old cases was a major part of those reforms - but the idea was shelved by Human Resources Minister Clint Dunford as a result of intense lobbying from business.

Thanks to some very effective campaigning by injured workers and unions, the tribunal is a "go" again. But even though the government has finally agreed to do what it promised to do in the first place there's every reason to worry that the business community and reluctant members of the Tory cabinet will find other ways to make the tribunal a "toothless tiger."

Let's not forget that at one point, Dunford suggested the tribunal could make decisions without offering cash awards. The idea was that injured workers would get the satisfaction of knowing they were right, but they wouldn't get any real financial compensation for their injuries.

It's those kinds of ineffective half-measures that we still have to guard against.

Appointments to the new tribunal will also be crucial - the process will be a sham if injured workers and the labour movement aren't given some say in who sits on the panel.

As AFL president Les Steel said after the government made its long-awaited announcement on the tribunal: "There are a lot of people in the business community who don't want this panel to do its job. If some of those people are appointed to the tribunal, then the whole process will be a farce. That's why we need a say in appointments."

The bottom line is that the government is still not enthusiastic about the tribunal. That's why it's too early to celebrate. Labour activists have to remain focused and vigilant until this baby is actually delivered.

Gil McGowan, AFL Executive Staff
September 2003

Les Steel, President of the Alberta Federation of Labour, August 2003 (Oslo, Norway)

Good morning and thank you for the warm welcome.

As you've already heard, my name is Les Steel and I'm president of the Alberta Federation of Labour.

For those of you who've never been to Canada, I'd like to start my presentation this morning with a quick geography lesson.

Canada, as you know, is the big, cold country that sits at the top of North America. It stretches from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific in the west and the Arctic Ocean in the North.

Alberta is in the western half of the country. It's where the prairies meet the Rocky Mountains.

Alberta is the petroleum capital of Canada. It's home to the Calgary Stampede. And it's where Wayne Gretzky first made his name as a hockey star.

Of course, we're not all Gretzkys. Most Albertans - like most Norwegians - have to work for a living. And that's where the AFL comes in.

Our federation represents 41 Alberta unions and 120,000 unionized workers in both the public and private sectors.

Like unions here in Norway, our first priority has traditionally been to protect and improve working conditions for our members.

But over the past ten years or so, our attention has turned to a much broader fight.

In particular, we've been engaged in a battle to preserve many of the core social programs that previous generations of Canadians fought hard to establish.

So far, our biggest fight has involved our national public health care system, which we call Medicare.

Canadians cherish Medicare. It's one of our proudest achievements - and it's something that many Canadians hold up as a defining characteristic of our country.

But despite the overwhelming support that Medicare consistently receives from the public, for most of the past decade it has been threatened with death by a thousand cuts.

And nowhere in the country has the attack on public health care been more focused and more determined than in Alberta.

Since the election of 1993 which brought the current Conservative government to power in Alberta, our provincial health system has endured unprecedented budget cuts; massive lay-offs and a growing number of attempts to privatize services.

The good news today is that many of the worst cuts have been reversed - thanks in large part to public protests organized by unions and other community groups.

But we're still dealing with a serious shortage of hospital beds and a chronic shortage of trained health care workers.

Even more significantly, our provincial government hasn't retreated when it comes to privatization. Despite widespread public opposition, they've handed over huge swathes of our health care system to the private sector - and they're continuing to chip away at the foundations of everything that's left.

That's why I'm here this morning.

I'm here to talk about our experience with so-called market-based health care reforms. I'm also here to talk about our campaigns to reverse the cuts and stop privatization.

Most importantly, I'm here to share with you a few lessons that we've picked up along the way - lessons that might prove useful in your campaign to protect the public health care here in Norway.

Making comparisons between nations is always a tricky thing - especially when those nations are on different continents, and have different cultures, languages and histories.

Comparison can also be tricky when you're talking about something as complex and dear to our hearts as health care.

But despite the distance and all other things that separate us, I think there are at least two reasons why our experience in Alberta has relevance here in Norway.

The first reason is that, if you think about it, Norway and Alberta actually have a lot in common.

We both know what cold winters are like.

We both have a lot of land and relatively few people.

We both have abundant petroleum resources that have strengthened our economies and given us the ability to pay for high-quality social programs.

And, at least for the moment, we both have tax-financed health systems that guarantee our citizens access to quality care when they need it and regardless of their ability to pay.

So, in many ways, when we compare health care in Alberta with health care in Norway, we are comparing apples with apples, not apples with oranges.

The second, and probably more important, reason why I think our experiences are relevant here in Norway is that they are hardly unique.

The truth is that Canada is not the only country that swallowed the bitter medicine offered by advocates of market-based health care reform.

Neo-liberalism has been a wave rolling across the globe for more than twenty years now.

Like a virus, it started with Margaret Thatcher in Britain in the seventies. Ronald Reagan allowed it to spread to the U.S in the early 80s. And in the late 80s and early 90s it took hold in places like New Zealand and Canada.

In many ways, the fact that the privatization wolf is only knocking on your door now is a testament to your good sense and the strong foundations you've built for your public health system.

When I look back on the past ten years of struggle that we've had in Alberta and compare it to the privatization onslaught that has taken place in other countries since the late 70s, the thing that strikes me is how similar the experiences have been.

Whether it's Canada, Britain or New Zealand, it seems that the privatizers have followed roughly the same three steps to push their agenda.

The first step has always involved fear-mongering. In particular, the privatizers attack the credibility of the public sector and sow doubts about its efficiency, its affordability and its ability to provide quality service.

In Alberta, our government spent years trying to convince people that our public health care system is unsustainable.

Despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary, they told Albertans that costs were spiraling out of control. They said health care was swallowing an ever-increasing share of the provincial budget. And they warned that the aging population would bankrupt the system.

As recently as two years ago, our provincial premier was telling every reporter who would listen that the cost of Medicare in Alberta had doubled and that drastic measure needed to be taken to "save the system" from itself.

This kind of fear mongering led naturally to the second step. After manufacturing a crisis and attempting to convince people that a huge problem exists, the market boosters presented the solution - and surprise, surprise, it happened to be the market.

For conservatives, privatization is the cure-all. Markets, they say, will reduce cost, improve efficiency, and increase choice for patients. They even go so far as to say that privatization can help save public health care by "relieving pressure" on the public system.

In Alberta, as in other jurisdictions, the government moved very quickly from bad-mouthing the system to parceling out pieces to the private sector.

The first things to go were the so-called secondary services in hospitals, like the laundry, janitorial and food services.

But our government wasn't content to stop there. They also handed over almost all hospital laboratory service to for-profit companies. And they actively encouraged entrepreneurs to set up private surgical suites to perform things like cataract surgery and private diagnostic imagining services that charged patients between one and three thousand dollars for things like MRI and CT scans.

At the same time all this was happening, our government laid the ground work for more sweeping privatization by introducing legislation that would pave the way for investor-owned hospitals.

In many ways, this piece of legislation - which the government had the nerve to call the Health care Protection Act, or Bill 11 for short - was the straw that broke the camels back. After years of going reluctantly along with the government, Albertans finally started to protest. The Bill was eventually passed, but not before we organized the largest demonstrations in our province's history.

That leads us to the third step. When confronted with large scale public opposition, privatizing governments often start playing games with language.

The point here is for the privatizers to reassure the public and hide their true intentions.

This is where we're at right now in Alberta. Our government now says that it was misunderstood. They say they never really wanted to privatize health care. Instead they say they've merely been looking for alternative funding mechanisms. Or they say all they want to do is build partnerships with the private sector to deliver services within the public system.

The problem with all of this is that it's just new wrapping on the same old package. Public-private partnerships may not be quite the same thing as the wholesale privatization that exists in the United States - but it's still privatization.

So far, we in Alberta have had some successes and we've had some failures when it comes to dealing with our government's privatizing agenda in health care. As I mentioned earlier, many of the deepest spending cuts to our public system have been reversed, largely as the result of the many protests organized by unions and our partners in the community.

After years of rapid decline, we are now spending as much on a per capita basis on health care was we did in 1993. It may not sound like much, but from our perspective, that's a step in the right direction.

We've also succeeded in rolling back some privatization initiatives. For example, after running a high-profile public campaign exposing how private MRI clinics were blocking access to quick diagnosis for seriously ill Albertans, the government agreed to buy more MRI machines and run them within the public system. They even agreed to reimburse hundreds of people for the MRI and CT scans they had to pay for in the private system.

Another success we've had has more to do with what hasn't happened than what has. Two years ago, the Alberta government released a long-awaited study called the Mazankowski report which outlined plans for taking privatization in health care to the next level. In particular, it called for caps on the amount of public insurance people could have - and it opened the door for the introduction of American-style private health insurance.

The good news is that the government has not moved towards implementing either of these recommendations. In fact, even though the Mazankowski report was billed as the government's blueprint for health reform in the 21st century, almost none of it major suggestions have been acted upon.

The reasons for this are mainly political. The government has simply failed to convince Albertans to that further privatization is either prudent or desirable.

So what can you here in Norway learn from our experience in Alberta?

I think there are three lessons.

The first is don't give up without a fight.

In many ways, the deck was stacked against us in Alberta.

Historically, ours has been the most conservative province in the Canada. And Albertans like to think of themselves as free enterprisers - so you might think they would all be won over by free market argument.

But what we discovered is that even conservative voters can be persuaded of the benefits of public health care and the pitfalls of privatization. But it doesn't happen overnight - and it doesn't happen without effort and planning.

The second lesson that we learned is that there is no stronger weapon than the truth.

The advocates of privatization can sound pretty slick when they talk about the magic of competition and incentives.

And they can be persuasive when they list all the supposed weaknesses of the public system.

But private health care has a track record - and it's not a particularly impressive one.

So every time they ran down the public system and extolled the theoretical virtues of privatization, we answered back with facts.

When they implied that costs in the public sector were spiraling out of control, we showed that they we in fact stable.

When they said the private sector was cheaper and more efficient we presented evidence from around the world that it was more expensive and less efficient.

When they argued that privatization would improve access for patients, we demonstrated from experience that the opposite was true.

The good news for those of us who believe in public health care is that the verdict on privatization is in. It's been tried and it's failed. Those are the facts.

In many ways, the arguments in favour of privatization in health care are like the arguments used by the U.S. government to justify war in Iraq - they have the ring of truth, but once you scratch the surface, they have no substance.

The bottom line is that both public and private health care have a track record - but don't assume that everyone know it. As advocates of public health care it's up to us to put the good news on the table. If we do, the facts we speak for themselves.

The third and final lesson that can be taken from the Alberta experience is to involve the broader community.

Unions in our province made a decision at the beginning of our campaign to swallow our organizational pride and work in coalition with churches, seniors citizens, students and other groups in the community.

It was an important decision for us, because by ourselves, the government could afford to ignore us. But they couldn't completely ignore the other in our coalition.

This will be true here in Norway. The bigger tent you build the more power you will have politically.

Having said all that I'd like to conclude today by saying how optimistic I am about the prospects to preserving public health care in your country.

Conservatives may control your parliament today - and they may be toying with some free market notions. But it's going to be hard for them to make the case for privatization.

We now have more than 25 years of experience from around the world showing that privatized health care actually costs more and delivers less.

We're also now living in a post Enron world. Given all the examples of corporate wrong-doing that have come to light over the past few years, it's going to be harder than ever to convince people that it make sense to entrust our health to the private sector.

Here in Norway you also have the advantage of prosperity. Thanks to your oil reserves - which, by the way you've managed much better than ours in Alberta - your conservatives cannot argue that public debt is a problem and they cannot realistically claim that your health system is unsustainable.

From where I stand, the real danger for Norway may be complacency. You have a strong tradition of social responsibility; you have all the facts on your side and you have the resources to afford high quality health services. But don't under-estimate the privatizers - they have a product to sell and they can make it sound like the answer to all your problems.

The trick for you is to prick the private balloon and let the hot air out. You have to shine a bright light into the dark corners of any and all private health care proposals. And you have to expose these proposals for what they really are - self-interested sales pitches.

Based on what I've seen at this conference so far, I'm confident you will be up to the challenge.

 

After nearly two years of on-again, off-again support for a major review of old WCB cases, the government has finally agreed to open the books on previously rejected claims covering thousands of injured workers.

"This is clearly a victory for all those workers who have been unfairly denied benefits," says AFL president Les Steel.

"But given the government's track record on this issue, we can't assume it's a done deal. We need to watch them like hawks and make sure they don't try to wiggle out of the commitment they've made to injured workers."

The provincial government first announced a major package of reforms to the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) two years ago. Establishing a tribunal to review old cases was a major part of those reforms - but the idea was shelved by Human Resources Minister Clint Dunford as a result of intense lobbying from business.

Even though the government has finally agreed to do what it promised to do two years ago, Steel says he's still worried that the business community and reluctant members of the Tory cabinet will find a way to make the tribunal a "toothless tiger."

"At one point, the minister suggested that the tribunal could make decisions without offering cash awards," says Steel. "The idea was that injured workers would get the satisfaction of knowing they were right, but they wouldn't get any real financial compensation for their injuries. It's those kinds of ineffective half-measures that we still have to guard against."

Steel says appointments to the new tribunal will also be crucial - and he thinks the process will be a sham if injured workers and the labour movement aren't given some say in who sits on the panel.

"There are a lot of people in the business community who don't want this panel to do its job," says Steel. "If some of those people are appointed to the tribunal, then the whole process will be a farce. That's why we want a say in appointments."


For more information call:

Les Steel, AFL President   @ 780-499-4135 (cell)

Gil McGowan AFL Communications @ 780-910-1137 (cell)

The "pie-that-was-heard-across-the-country" may have been delivered to Premier Ralph Klein early last week - but it had been in the oven for a long time. And the Premier himself had a hand in mixing the ingredients.

That was the assessment from Alberta Federation of Labour president Les Steel after learning of the now notorious "pie-tasting" incident involving the Alberta Premier and three Calgary students.

"For the past week, the papers have been filled with indignation about the so-called attack on our Premier," says Steel.

"Conservative politicians and pundits have whipped themselves into a frenzy debating whether the perpetrators should be jailed, publicly flogged or run out of the province. But what nobody is talking about is why the pie was thrown in the first place and what it says about the levels of frustration and alienation being felt by many Albertans - especially young people."

Steel says that incidents like the Stampede pie-throwing are predictable in a province where the wishes of significant sections of the population are routinely ignored and where legitimate expressions of dissent are often met with hostility, contempt or derision.

"In a lot of ways, we have a feeble political culture here in Alberta - one that pushes too many people to the margins," says Steel.

To illustrate his argument, Steel points to the Klein government's policies on education, deregulation and university funding.

"We've got a government that forced power deregulation on a public that didn't want it. We have a government that claims it can't afford to maintain our education system even though we've recorded years of multi-billion-dollars surpluses. And we have colleges and universities that are being priced out of the reach of more and more of our young people.

"To top things off, when people raise concerns about these things, they're either met with smug indifference or dismissed as 'left-wing nuts.' In this environment, is it any surprise that young people might feel a need to send a message to the Premier and blow off a little steam?"

As a leading member of a group that is also routinely ignored and vilified by the government, Steel says he shares the frustration felt by the pie throwers - though he says his "weapons of choice" will remain the pen and the picket sign.

In addition to sympathizing with the frustration that may have led to the pie-throwing incident, Steel says he's worried the pie throwers themselves may become victims on the way to the court house.

"It's Stampede time in Calgary, and judging by the overblown reaction to this incident that we've seen so far, I'm worried that these young people are going to be stampeded into an unfair and inappropriately harsh legal circus," says Steel.

"That's why we've decided to set up a legal defense fund for the pie throwers. We don't think charges should have been laid at all. But if there is going to be a trial, we want to make sure these young people aren't sacrificed to make some kind of harsh political point. This was just a prank - and we want these kids to get a fair trail."

People interested in supporting the defense fund can send their contributions to directly to the Alberta Federation of Labour's office in Edmonton c/o the "Justice for Pies" defense fund.

Steel says that any funds collected, but not needed for the defense, will be donated to homeless shelters around the province, including the Herb Jamieson Centre in Edmonton - site of Premier Klein's notorious late night visit with the homeless.

"The goal of this would be to remind Albertans that they were lenient and understanding when the Premier stepped over the line with homeless people at the Herb Jamieson Centre in Edmonton," says Steel. "So we would like to see the same spirit of understanding embraced when dealing with the three Calgary students."

For more information, call:

Gil McGowan, AFL Communications at 780-483-3021 (wk)  or  780-910-1137 (cell)