ALF V1

Enbridge and their supporters in the Harper and Redford governments like to claim the Northern Gateway pipeline will create thousands of jobs for Canadians.

Those claims don’t stand up to the facts.

The real story on Northern Gateway jobs – 228 permanent jobs

The Northern Gateway pipeline will create only 228 permanent jobs.  For all the millions of dollars worth of oil sands resources flowing out of Canada, we will see just 228 jobs created, most of them in B.C.

Four reasons why Enbridge’s jobs claims don’t hold water (or oil)

1.       Enbridge’s own assessment of construction work is an average of 1,850 jobs per year for three years. Enbridge likes to claim there are 5,536 “person-years” of construction employment on the line with Northern Gateway. That sounds like a lot. But when translated into numbers ordinary people can understand, it’s an average of 1,850 actual jobs per year for just three years. Those jobs are short-lived. They’re only around for three years, and then those workers will be laid off.

2.       The steel pipe needed for the Northern Gateway pipeline won’t likely be made in Canada. Sinopec – China’s state oil company – has already said they would be happy to build the pipeline, and the pipe for Keystone XL was not built in North America. Enbridge’s claims that we’d gain thousands of jobs in steel manufacturing are shaky, at best.

3.       Enbridge likes to claim there will be 63,000 person-years of employment from the Northern Gateway project. If that sounds too good to be true, it likely is. These aren’t real, guaranteed jobs. They’re a guess based on what economists call “induced” effects estimated by trying to count spinoffs. Enbridge came up with these astounding figures, but didn’t release their math to the public.

The real story on jobs – layoffs and closures at Canadian refineries a virtual certainty

The only way the Northern Gateway pipeline makes economic sense for its foreign-owned backers is if the price of bitumen goes up by quite a bit. And this would make refining oil in Canada much more expensive. In fact, Enbridge predicts we will refine less oil in 2018 than we do now. Most of that reduction will be in Western Canada. Refineries will close, and people will lose good-paying, long-term jobs.

A single refinery can employs 2,000 people for a period of 30-40 years. In other words, we could have more employment, for much longer, with real economic benefits, if we refine our oil sands resources in Canada.

An independent assessment of the number of jobs Canada could have – if we upgraded and refined all the bitumen products going down the Northern Gateway pipeline – puts the total amount of employment at 26,000 good jobs going to China.

Enbridge wants Canadians to trade 26,000 good, long-term jobs, along with all the taxes and other spinoffs that come with upgraders and refineries, for 228 permanent pipeline jobs. It’s not a fair trade.

About the AFL Northern Gateway reality check series

 The Alberta Federation of Labour is a full intervener in the Northern Gateway Pipeline hearings.

The debate around the Northern Gateway pipeline is heated, and we hear governments and industry saying all kinds of things to justify locking Canada in to being a raw resource producer, but never move up the value chain with our natural resource wealth.

“The Northern Gateway pipeline hollows out our value-added industries, imposes higher oil prices on consumers, and rewrites the rules of Canada’s oil industry. Gateway will reduce the amount of oil refined in Canada and ship thousands of jobs to China.”

- Gil McGowan, President, Alberta Federation of Labour.

This Labour Day, working Albertans have a lot to be thankful for.

We have the highest wages, the best job prospects and the highest standard of living in Canada.

So, it's entirely appropriate for Albertans to be smiling as they fire up their barbecues for the last long weekend of the summer: life here in the land of oil is pretty good.

But before we get too comfortable, it's important to recognize that not everyone is pleased with how well ordinary working people are doing.

In fact, recently disclosed documents show that some of our country's most influential CEOs and business lobbyists are asking the federal Conservative government to help them suppress wages.

This revelation comes from a Department of Finance briefing note that summarizes the proceedings of an economic policy retreat organized by federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

The retreat was held last summer and attended by a long list of business leaders and representatives from right-wing think-tanks - all eager to advise members of the Harper government on how they should take advantage of their long-sought-after majority.

The assembled business audience told the finance minister that Canadian workers are overpriced and that Canada could only become truly competitive if governments and businesses addressed the "wage differential in labour markets between countries."

In order to drive down wages, participants advocated the introduction of American-style anti-union labour laws.

For good measure, they also called for deep cuts to public services and the introduction of two-tier health care - while at the same time asking for more corporate tax cuts.

There are at least three reasons why working Canadians should be concerned about this meeting.

First, there is no evidence that the federal government challenged the notion that Canadians are overpaid.

This is troubling because, after adjusting for inflation, wages for average Canadian workers have stagnated over the past 30 years. In fact, the share of national economy going to wages for Canada's middle class has been dropping, while the share being gobbled up by corporate profits and incomes for the wealthy has been increasing.

Even here in prosperous Alberta, nearly a quarter of all working people earn $15 per hour or less. And the average hourly wage earned by permanent, full-time workers is $27. That's the best in the country, but barely enough to afford a decent home in either Calgary or Edmonton.

If there is a problem with wages, it's not that Canadians are overpaid - it's that a growing number are not paid enough to maintain to a secure, middle-class lifestyle.

Second, working Canadians should be concerned, because the wage-suppression wish list outlined by business leaders last summer has quietly, but clearly, become a central part the federal government's agenda.

How else can we interpret the Harper government's decision to allow employers to use more temporary foreign workers and to pay them as much as 15 per cent less than Canadians?

Or rule changes that force many unemployed Canadians to take any available work after six weeks on EI, even if it pays up to 30 per cent less than their previous job?

There's also the Harper government's decision to raise the retirement age to 67 (which is obviously designed to force older workers of modest means to keep toiling away in lower-wage jobs) and their ongoing attacks on unions and collective bargaining (which are designed to undermine the ability of workers to have a say in their own wages and conditions of work).

Taken together, these policy initiatives amount to what is essentially a low wage strategy.

The third reason why working people should be concerned about Flaherty's previously secret meeting with business leaders is that it is not an isolated case.

The truth is that representatives from groups like the Fraser Institute, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Merit Contractor's Association (representing non-union construction companies) have dramatically ramped up their lobbying efforts in Ottawa and provincial capitals over the past year.

With the most ideologically conservative prime minister in Canadian history holding the reins of a majority government, they see this as their political moment.

Unfortunately for working Canadians, these lobbyists have been disturbingly effective. In addition to influencing the federal government, they've won allies at the provincial level.

For example, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall and Tom Hudak, leader of Ontario's official Opposition, have both been advocating U.S.-style union-busting laws.

Some people may shrug and say "who needs unions anyway?"

But as Nobel-prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has said, unions - as imperfect as they may be - are the only counterbalance we have to unbridled corporate power. They also provide one of the only mechanisms we have for ensuring the more equitable distribution of income necessary for the creation of a vibrant middle class.

So as working Albertans enjoy the Labour Day long weekend, it's important for them to understand that a battle of world views is raging around them.

Will the low-wage advocates who attended Finance Minister Flaherty's private policy summit win the day? Or will Canadians reassert their traditional preference for a more progressive approach - characterized by fair taxation, investment in quality education and infra-structure, and policies that see unions as vital partners in the economy?

For the sake of Canada's middle class, let's hope that the high-road vision prevails. Because if it doesn't, more of us may end up flip-ping burgers at McDonald's on Labour Day instead of flipping burgers at the lake.

Gil McGowan is president of the Alberta Federation of Labour.

The Calgary Herald, Monday September 3 2012

Op-Ed, Gil McGowan

 

This Labour Day, working Albertans have a lot to be thankful for. We have the highest wages, the best job prospects and the highest standard of living in Canada.

Life here in the land of oil is pretty good.

But before we get too comfortable, it's important to recognize that not everyone is pleased with how well working people are doing.

In fact, recently disclosed documents show that some of our country's most influential chief executives are asking the federal Conservative government to help them suppress wages.

This revelation comes from a Department of Finance briefing note that summarizes an economic policy retreat organized by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty last summer.

The retreat was attended by a long list of business leaders and representatives from right-wing think-tanks - all eager to advise members of the Harper Conservatives on how they should use their majority in Parliament.

The business audience told Flaherty that Canadian workers are overpriced and that Canada could only become truly competitive if the government addressed the "wage differential in labour markets between countries."

In order to drive down wages, participants pushed for American-style anti-union labour laws. They also called for deep cuts to public services and two-tiered health care - while asking for even more corporate tax cuts.

There are reasons why working Canadians should be concerned about this meeting.

First, there is no evidence that the government challenged the notion that Canadians are overpaid.

This is troubling because, after adjusting for inflation, wages for average Canadian workers have stagnated over the past 30 years, while corporate profits and incomes for the wealthy have increased. Even here in prosperous Alberta, nearly a quarter of all working people earn $15 an hour or less, not nearly enough for a decent home in Edmonton or Calgary.

Second, Canadians should be concerned because the wage suppression wish list outlined by business leaders has quietly, but clearly, become a central part the federal government's low-wage agenda. How else can we interpret the Harper government's decision to allow employers to use more temporary foreign workers and to pay them as much as 15 per cent less than Canadians?

Or rule changes that force many unemployed Canadians to take any available work even if it pays up to 30 per cent less than their previous job?

There's also the Harper government's decision to raise the retirement age to 67 and its ongoing attacks on unions designed to undermine the ability of workers to have a say in their own wages and working conditions.

Finally, working people should be concerned that Flaherty's secret meeting with business leaders is not an isolated case. The truth is that business leaders and groups like Merit Contractors (representing non-union construction companies) have ramped up their lobbying across Canada. With the most ideologically conservative prime minister in Canadian history leading a majority government, they see this as their political moment.

Some people may shrug and say "who needs unions anyway?"

But as Nobel-Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has said, unions are the only counterbalance we have to unbridled corporate power. They provide one of the only mechanisms we have to build and maintain a vibrant middle class.

So as working Albertans enjoy the Labour Day long weekend, it's important for them to understand that a battle rages around them.

Will the low-wage advocates who attended Flaherty's private policy summit win the day?

Or will Canadians reassert a traditional, progressive approach - fair taxation, investment in quality education and infrastructure, and policies that see unions as vital partners in the economy?

For the sake of Canada's middle class, let's hope that the high road vision prevails. Because if it doesn't, more of us may end up flipping burgers at McDonald's on Labour Day instead of flipping burgers at the lake.

Gil McGowan is president of the Alberta Federation of Labour

The Edmonton Journal, Mon Sept 3 2012
Byline: Gil McGowan

After a bumpy ride this summer, Enbridge will face a tough grilling this week on its $6 billion Northern Gateway project as public hearings enter their final phase in which interveners can challenge the company's evidence.

Enbridge will square off with unions and First Nations while big oilsands players, including MEG Energy, Cenovus, Suncor, Nexen and Total appear in a joint witness panel. The Alberta government is also prepared to appear for the "questioning" phase of the federal Joint Review Panel hearings to examine the economic benefits of the proposed $6-billion pipeline project to carry Alberta bitumen to Kitimat on the coast of British Columbia for export to China.

Critics like the Alberta Federation of Labour will argue Canada's refining industry will shrink — with a loss of 8,000 jobs expected — if the pipeline project goes ahead and diverts bitumen feedstock to China. Opponents will also argue there is plenty of room in existing pipelines to handle growing bitumen exports.

Enbridge, however, is " very confident" going into the hearings as it will finally have a chance to respond to critics, says spokesperson Ivan Giesbrecht, noting the company will speak Tuesday.

"This is our first chance to speak; it's going to be a rigorous questioning and we welcome that," Giesbrecht said. "We really feel the project will benefit both provinces and Canada. It's an opportunity for Canadians to listen in on a very democratic process."

Enbridge is also required, by noon Tuesday, to submit a highly critical U.S. report on the 2010 Michigan pipeline spill that saw 12,000 barrels of heavy oil spill into Kalamazoo River from its pipeline. Initially, the federal review panel said it would not take the report, but reversed its decision mid-August.

Enbridge's project — twin pipelines, with one to carry 585,000 barrels of diluted bitumen west and another to carry the diluent — faced growing resistance, starting in late July when B.C. Premier Christy Clark raised the stakes. Her province will not approve the pipeline unless B.C. gets a share of the increased revenues Alberta will gain from shipping more bitumen, she said.

With the project stuck in political hot water, B.C. newspaper tycoon David Black stepped in with a proposal for a $13-billion refinery in Kitimat as a way to bring economic benefit to the province. The oilpatch was not keen on the idea.

Meanwhile, Enbridge came under fire for a smaller spill in late July in Wisconsin. It also hit rough water when it posted a map of the Douglas Channel route into the Kitimat port that left out many islands, rocks and narrow channels that make the route particularly difficult to navigate. Around the same time, the company also announced $500 million in improvements to pipeline safety for the Northern Gateway pipelines which start in Bruderheim northeast of Edmonton. Those include increasing the thickness of the line by 20 per cent, adding 50 per cent more shut-off valves and increasing inspections by 50 per cent.

Company officials said such improvements are meant to respond to concerns raised by First Nations and other members of the public during a federal review that started six months ago.

The federal review panel is jointly operated by the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

The Alberta government remains firmly committed to the project to diversify markets for bitumen, said Tim Markle, spokesman for Alberta Energy. Oilsands producers will only get higher world prices when they have access to Asian markets, said Markle, noting the price differential is up to $20 a barrel.

The province will be represented at the hearings by Christopher Holly from Alberta Energy and Skip York of Wood Mackenzie Consulting, the consulting company which predicted the province will lose $72 billion over nine years if the pipeline is not built.

Gil McGowan, leader of the Alberta Federation of Labour, disputes the province's figures.

"We think this project will kill more jobs than it will create," said McGowan, noting that Enbridge's own figures estimate a four-per-cent reduction in refining capacity by 2018 in Canada as a result of the pipeline.

"This isn't just about losing value-added jobs in the future, it's now becoming clear that existing jobs in the refining sector are also threatened," McGowan said.

He said "we will be raising questions" that there is no agreement in the evidence of the proposed pipeline's impact on refining jobs in Alberta.

Oilsands producers will get higher prices for their product in Asia, but that will only be temporary, McGowan said, noting that China's industry is state-run so there is no real market pricing.

In a report for Forest Ethics Advocacy, David Hughes, a former geologist with the federal government, says the price differential will be eliminated when the glut at Cushing, Oklahoma in the U.S. Midwest is relieved.

"Once it gets to the Gulf coast, the oil can go around the world and they will be forced to pay world price and that's important," said Hughes, adding that could eliminate the need for the Northern Gateway.

Meanwhile, Canadians should talk about whether "we should liquidate our energy resources to sovereign countries like China" or look at longer-term strategies for national energy security, he added.

The hearings begin Tuesday at 2 p.m. at the Holiday Inn at 4485 Gateway Blvd. They run until Saturday Sept. 9, then resume again Sept. 17 at 9:30 a.m. for ten days at the Westwood Inn at 18035 Stony Plain Road.

In November, hearings continue in Prince George to deal with pipeline safety and later in Prince Rupert to deal with marine issues.

Last week, just days before the hearing, Enbridge received approval from the Energy Resources Conservation Board Alberta for a new 400,000-barrel-a-day pipeline to bring bitumen from Fort McMurray to its Edmonton hub. The company says the new Woodland pipeline project is not connected to the Northern Gateway.

Global News, Monday September 3 2012

Some of my younger readers may not realize this, but when I was a kid growing up in British Columbia in the 1950s, there was a holiday at the end of the summer called "Labour Day" on which Canadians celebrated the vast contribution of working people to the past, present and future of our great country.

Unions, groups of working people who pooled their modest individual strength to bargain collectively and ensure that a fair share of the great wealth they created ended up in the hands of ordinary families, would sometimes gather for picnics on this holiday, which was tinged with true patriotism, and sing songs.

One of those songs, a particular favourite in those long-ago days, went like this: "It is we who plowed the prairies; built the cities where they trade; Dug the mines and built the workshops, endless miles of railroad laid; Now we stand outcast and starving midst the wonders we have made; But the union makes us strong...."

Well, those days are gone -- the part about "but the union makes us strong," anyway -- and I can almost hear many of you, dear readers, silently mouthing "Thank God!"

Today, our Tea Party of Canada government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper is dedicated to signing "trade agreements" that ensure high-paying Canadian jobs are exported as quickly as possible to more efficient foreign jurisdictions, such as China, the role of public education is well on its way to being outsourced to corporate shills, and the final long weekend of our short Canadian summer is devoted to what might be called the Twenty-four Hour Hate, a day-long frenzy of official and media sponsored loathing for the weakened vestiges of the labour movement.

Oddly enough, though, this occasion is still known as "Labour Day."

And so it is that, here in Alberta, today we celebrate Labour Day 2012 (the year that, ironically under the circumstances, marks the centenary of the foundation of the Alberta Federation of Labour) not only with the traditional publication in the media of "studies" by right-wing think tanks that "prove" how we'd all be better off if there were no unions, no pensions and no public health care, but with a new poll that purports to show everyone is in agreement that unions are at best an irrelevant anachronism, at worst a menace.

OK, enough sarcasm... You may have seen a reference to this poll in the media, though. Indeed, if you are one of the few Albertans remaining who still gets your news from the print media or its online offshoots, you could hardly avoid it. The opinion survey was conducted by Leger Marketing for a group called the Merit Contractors Association, which describes itself as "the voice of open shop construction in Alberta."

The poll purports to show, in the words of Merit President Stephen Kushner, that "today's workers want ... more flexibility and freedom of choice in whether they should be part of a union and compelled to financially contribute to all union activities."

These answers were elicited from Leger's self-selected online sample of 501 respondents by asking questions clearly designed to make unions look bad, thereby leading respondents to the obvious "correct" conclusions about how to deal with that badness. In this regard, it would be fair to call Leger's misleading conclusions the results of a push-poll, designed to produce the desired responses, and not a legitimate measure of pubic opinion.

It is easy, for example, to get poll respondents to say they support "transparency" of union finances -- a position for which an argument can be made.

Likewise, though, I can guarantee you that it would be similarly easy to get like results in a poll asking about the benefits of financial transparency for governments, private corporations doing business with the public, public and private employers during negotiations, far-right "think tanks" and, just for one more example, non-union construction employers' lobby groups. A good argument can be made for these points as well -- one that would naturally prompt a certain degree of disagreement from all of these groups.

Similarly, I could use push-poll questions like Leger's to elicit responses that would let me confidently state that a majority of Canadians, including members of management, support a ban on corporate political donations and an end to charitable status for corporate think tanks that engage in constant political advocacy. Yadda-yadda.

Be that as it may, the Merit Contractors are virulently anti-union smaller construction firms that get together to pool their strength and lobby collectively (you know, like a union) for laws that would make it much more difficult for unions to organize Merit employees and represent union members effectively, and as a necessary sideline to persuade the public that this is a good idea.

Merit's website shows a weird picture of a guy wearing a construction helmet with a baby strapped to his chest, possibly a hint of some upcoming Merit campaign against child labour laws. Who knows? It is to be hoped profoundly that the guy in the picture is related to the baby, and that he's not holding a hammer in his hand.

At any rate, for all their rhetoric about "choice," "freedom" and "mandatory union dues," not to mention their alleged concern for the rights of working people, I think it's fair to say that Merit members' principal interests in this are avoiding the inconvenience of dealing with unions generally and more specifically finding a way to compete with larger, often more successful unionized contractors.

If they can recast their competitive struggles as a fight for "worker rights," and see the imposition of legislation that also makes it harder for their chief competitors to operate as they do now, perhaps they can increase they market share.

So there is little merit, as it were, it complaining about Merit's constant anti-union yammering. This would be an effort akin to politely asking your dog to stop yapping when the postman comes to the door.

Likewise, there's not much to gain in attacking the Fraser (so-called) Institute's preposterous faith-based claims everything's better with anti-union cotton-belt-style "right to work" legislation in place when, as Antonia Zerbisias put it in an excellent Toronto Star column yesterday, "the evidence is just about bulletproof: When union membership thrives, so does the middle class."

On the other hand, Leger's role in conducting this push poll and its assistance with Merit's efforts to publicize it is more troubling since, at least up to now, the company had a reputation as a serious polling firm.

I wonder if Leger would be interested in doing a parallel -- and methodologically similar -- poll on how many Albertans (including, say, management employees) support the full disclosure of company financial information, especially during union negotiations? They might also ask how many Albertans want their tax dollars to subsidize excessive contracts with private companies, large executive bonuses and severance payments, or any advertising, including glossy corporate and government brochures.

You get the idea. Probably almost all of Leger's respondents would agree with the conclusions suggested by my questions too -- assuming they're worded much like those in the Merit push poll.

Of course, it might be little harder to generate all the nice uncritical publicity enjoyed by the Merit Contractors in the Calgary Herald if you were publishing a dubious push-poll that didn't mesh so nicely with the Herald's decision-makers' own opinions and their recent history of ugly labour relations.

Oh well, never mind. Later today, from 11:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., the Edmonton and District Labour Council will hold its annual Labour Day picnic at Giovanni Caboto Park. Rain or shine, this popular event will attract a huge throng of Edmonton's many unemployed and working poor citizens, hardship that stubbornly persists despite Alberta's seeming economic prosperity.

My guess is that most Canadians, polled about this informal annual charitable effort by unions and their members, would strongly approve.

I wonder what they would say if they knew the proposals pushed by the Merit Contractors and their ilk would make it illegal?

Happy Labour Day!

Rabble.ca, Mon Sept 3 2012

Byline: David Climenhaga's blog, Alberta Diary.

Edmonton - September 1, 2012 - From September 6 to December 21, a new exhibit at the Provincial Archives of Alberta salutes the achievements and sacrifices of Alberta's working men and women.

The People Who Built Alberta: A Centennial for Alberta Workers examines labour's role in the growth and prosperity of the province. Beginning with First Nations social economies, it traces working life through the periods of agricultural settlement, railway building and the coal economy, to the present.

The People Who Built Alberta was designed for the archives by the Alberta Labour History Institute, as part of Project 2012, the centennial celebration of the Alberta Federation of Labour. Artifacts accompanying display panels have been provided by the Royal Alberta Museum.

Project 2012 also includes a series of history booklets for schools and the general public, a series of short workers' history videos, a new Alberta labour history published by Athabasca University Press and a provincial tour by Alberta folk-singer Maria Dunn.

The public is welcome to celebrate the opening of the exhibit on Wednesday, September 5, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Provincial Archives of Alberta. Seating is limited; please RSVP by calling 780-427-1750 (dial 310-000 for toll-free access within Alberta) or emailing [email protected]

The Provincial Archives of Alberta is owned and operated by Alberta Culture and is located at 8555 Roper Road (corner of 86 street and 51 avenue) in Edmonton. It is open Tuesday to Saturday from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. with extended hours on Wednesday to 9 p.m. Admission is free.

Ourhome.ca, Saturdau, September 1, 2012

Swiss Chalet case shows how employers can use weak laws to rip-off workers

EDMONTON – Alberta's poorly written minimum wage laws are subject to abuse, says Nancy Furlong, Secretary Treasurer of the Alberta Federation of Labour, and Doug O'Halloran, President of the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 (UFCW 401).

"Employers are taking advantage of weak two-tiered minimum wage laws to rip off the lowest-paid workers in Alberta," says Furlong. "A case before the Alberta Labour Relations Board (ALRB) shows how unscrupulous employers can classify minimum-wage earners as 'liquor servers,' even though they rarely if ever serve booze, in order to pay them the lower of the two minimum wages."

The case, brought to the ALRB by UFCW 401 on behalf of workers at the West End Swiss Chalet in Edmonton, centres around the employer's attempt to pay workers the liquor servers' minimum wage of $9.05 an hour, rather than the general minimum wage of $9.40 an hour (will increase to $9.75 on September 1), though they rarely, if ever, serve alcohol. The $9.75 minimum wage allows for the 'occasional' service of liquor, which is precisely the situation of the workers at Swiss Chalet.

"Servers at Swiss Chalet serve chicken and ribs, not martinis and scotch," says Doug O'Halloran, President of UFCW 401. "But the employer is demanding that they accept the lower wage, the one for workers who frequently serve booze. The employer is prepared to lockout these workers in order to get his way and pay them a lower minimum wage than they're entitled."

"There are nearly 26,000 Alberta workers earning minimum wage and only a small minority – like the workers at this Swiss Chalet - have the protection of a union," says O'Halloran. "If one dodgy employer has figured out a way to screw these workers out of $0.35 an hour, you can bet that there are dozens, maybe even hundreds, of other employers doing the same thing."

"There should be one wage for all minimum wage earners in Alberta, one that allows them to earn enough to stay out of poverty," says Furlong. "An all-party committee of the Legislature in 2010 also recommended that there be one wage for all minimum-wage earners, but the government caved to the restaurant lobby and ignored that advice."

"Now the chickens have come home to roost. Employers in the restaurant industry are using the government's shoddy laws and lax enforcement to swindle the lowest-paid workers in the province."

See AFL Backgrounder on Minimum Wage

-30-

MEDIA CONTACTS:

Douglas O'Halloran, President, UFCW 401, 403-861-2000

Nancy Furlong, AFL Secretary Treasurer, 780-720-8945

The Alberta Federation of Labour

Edmonton Journal

Published: Friday, August 31

100 YEARS OF STRUGGLE

100 YEARS OF SOLIDARITY

Edmonton Journal 2012

A group representing Alberta's non-unionized construction industry hopes the results of a new survey will convince the government to make changes to the province's labour laws.

Merit Contractors Association, which represents more than 1,300 "open shop" or non-unionized construction industry employers prov-incewide, wants the Redford government to make good on one of the promises it made during the election campaign. As part of their 2012 election platform, the PCs proposed introducing legislation making it mandatory for trade unions to disclose their annual financial statements to their members. They also proposed to give union members the right to opt out of any portion of union dues that fund activities unrelated to collective bargaining.

Peter Pilarski, Merit Con-tractors Association's vice-president for southern Alberta, said he believes changes to legislation are important because employees are fed up with having their union dues used to make political contributions or support certain social causes. During the 2008 provincial election campaign, for example, a series of anti-Conservative attack ads were paid for by "Albertans for Change," a coalition of the Alberta Building and Trades Council of Unions, the Alberta Federation of Labour and the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees. In Ontario's 2011 election campaign, a coalition of unions dubbed "Working Families" spent $2.1 million on ads attacking PC leader Tim Hudak.

"If belonging to a union and paying union dues are a condition of employment for me, I should have some rights as to where that money's going. The feeling I think Canadians have is they don't have those rights right now," Pilarski said.

A survey commissioned by Merit Contractors and released by the organization today seems to indicate support for Pilarski's premise. According to the survey, conducted by Leger Marketing, only 35 per cent of the 501 employed Albertans interviewed believe union dues are well-spent, while 41 per cent do not. Seventy-two per cent of respondents believe union members should have the right to opt out of certain union activities, while 63 per cent think unionization itself shouldn't be mandatory in any workplace and employees should have the option of opting out entirely.

The survey results are based on 501 online interviews with employed Albertans.

Martyn Piper, executive secretary treasurer of the Alberta Regional Council of Carpenters and Allied Workers, said his union already makes its financial information fully available to its members and he has no problem with the idea of a provincial law requiring that type of disclosure from all unions.

What he is opposed to, however, is the premise of Bill C-377, a private member's bill currently before the federal House of Commons which would require unions to make all of their financial information publicly available online. He said that level of disclosure would jeopardize the privacy of everyone from pension fund recipients to vendors and contractors.

"It's our members who should know how the finances are spent," Piper said. "Do we want the rest of the world to know what we do with our finances? I don't think any organization wants that, either personally or professionally."

Piper disagreed with the idea that people should be able to opt out of certain portions of their union dues, arguing unions make their decisions democratically and members - just like in any other organization - must abide by the will of the majority. He said those who don't want to be unionized at all are free to choose an alternative workplace.

Piper added he believes advocates of such legislation are unfairly putting unions in a bad light.

"The problem is people don't understand us and they don't make any attempt to understand us," he said. "There are always people who want to attack unions, but at the end of the day, to what end?"

In spite of what was proposed in his party's campaign platform, deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk said the government has not yet made a decision on whether or not to amend Alberta's labour laws. He said he will soon be inviting both sides - employers' groups and union officials - to sit down and discuss how to keep Alberta competitive while growing the labour force at the same time.

'Both sides have ideas on how to accomplish that, but those ideas are not always parallel," Lukaszuk said. "There is a balance there, and that means that either one of those two visions cannot be adopted holus-bolus."

Labour Study

Conducted by Leger Marketing, based on 501 online interviews with employed Albertans

- (results weighted by age and gender to ensure demographic representation)

- Percentage of respondents who agreed with the following statements:

- Union dues are well-spent - 35%

- Union dues are not well-spent - 41%

- Employees should have the ability to opt out of non-core union activities - 72%

- Unionization should not be a mandatory condition for employment and that employees should be able to opt out of all union dues - 63%

- Workers should be able to obtain financial information about their union - 94%

- It should be mandatory for all unions to publicly disclose their finances - 86%

- Unions have a positive role in ensuring job security - 81%

- Unions are relevant today - 40%

- Unions were once relevant, but aren't anymore - 45%

 

The Calgary Herald, August 31, 2012

Byline: Amanda Stephenson

 

Lack of protection for Alberta farm workers was highlighted Aug. 20 by Alberta's New Democrats and the Alberta Federation of Labour.

The two groups used the occasion of the AFL-designated Alberta farm workers day to urge the provincial government to extend occupational health and safety laws and workers compensation benefits to farm employees.

NDP agriculture critic David Eggen said his party issues the call every year to increase standards under which farm workers can be protected.

"It's very dangerous work and farm workers are not being protected with the basic rights that other workers have here in the province of Alberta," Eggen said at a Lethbridge news conference.

"They're far behind the rest of Canadian farm workers. It shows callous disregard to an important sector of our population."

Shannon Phillips, AFL director of policy analysis, said previous Progressive Conservative governments have explained lack of farm worker protections as a way to avoid intrusion on family farm operations.

"We find that excuse to be just that," said Phillips, adding the explanation is a red herring for government failure to provide adequate worker protection.

"There is no excuse any more. And we also have a premier on the record saying that she is going to do this."

In her leadership campaign, Alberta premier Alison Redford said farm laborers should have protection.

However, no changes have been made to legislation since Redford's election earlier this year that would affect farm worker status.

Phillips said many farms are large commercial operations with workplaces like any other, so workers deserve the same protections offered in other sectors.

In a later interview, Eggen echoed those opinions.

"The large farms that have been amalgamated into companies and corporations now need to be the very first up to give full rights to their workers," he said. "In regards to smaller operations, we can have a differentiated approach, with the provincial government providing some of those premiums to the smaller operators. Large corporate farms need to pay full freight on their workers' rights and compensation immediately."

Eggen and Phillips noted recent evidence that the province no longer tracks and reports farm worker fatalities. Queries were instead directed to dated data on the Canadian Farm Injury Reporting website.

However, agriculture ministry spokesperson Stuart Elson said Aug. 23 that 2011 farm injury and fatality statistics would be posted within a few days.

"We just want to make sure we are respecting the privacy of the families, but we're actually going to be putting up some updated stats."

He said concerns were raised about the level of detail in Alberta farm fatality reporting, so the process was reviewed.

"We will be posting it pretty quickly.

At the news conference earlier in the week, Eggen expressed concern about lack of available 2011 data.

"I think the statistics have been embarrassing, quite frankly. We have seen historically 160 deaths here in the province of Alberta around farm workers since Alberta started to keep the statistics."

Alberta is the only province that excludes farm workers from occupational health and safety laws and from regulations governing hours of work, overtime and vacation pay.

Phillips said the matter has been studied for years by successive PC governments but with no action taken.

"This thing has been studied and studied and studied to death. Over the nine years that the provincial government said they were consulting on this topic, 160 people died."

The Western Producer, Friday August 31 2012