ALF V1

While other politicians have been using the first few weeks of summer to hit the barbecue circuit, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach has been engaged in a much more solitary pursuit: he's been writing letters in defence of a pipeline.

The pipeline in question is TransCanada's Keystone XL, which if approved by U.S. regulators, would have the capacity to send as much as 900,000 barrels of raw bitumen from the Alberta oilsands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast each day.

Last week, Stelmach wrote letters to a number of high-ranking American officials, including U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, urging them to approve the pipeline despite concerns raised by American and Canadian environmentalists.

This week, the premier turned his attention north of the border, firing off a letter to federal NDP Leader Jack Layton.

Stelmach was apparently annoyed because Layton is opposing the pipeline on the grounds that it would result in the loss of thousands of jobs in refining and upgrading -- jobs that could have been created in Alberta, but (thanks to XL) will now be created in Texas and other Gulf of Mexico states.

Stelmach's letters to the Americans can legitimately be criticized for presenting an overly optimistic picture of the oilsand's environmental record. But it is the premier's letter to Layton that displays an even more muddled approach to logic.

Pipelines, the premier argues, provide access to markets for bitumen, thereby creating jobs for Albertans working on the extraction side of the oilsands sector.

Fair enough if all you want to do is sell raw bitumen. But if we are all agreed that creating jobs here in Alberta is a good thing, then surely creating more jobs is better -- and creating long-term jobs is better still.
Despite his claim that "the government of Alberta is strongly committed to growing and preserving Canadian jobs," Stelmach's enthusiastic support for a succession of massive bitumen pipelines (starting with Enbridge's Alberta Clipper and TransCanada's Keystone Phase I and continuing with Keystone XL and Enbridge's proposed Gateway pipeline to the Pacific) makes one wonder.

The premier seems content to settle for the short-term jobs generated by pipeline construction and the smaller number of long-term jobs generated by extraction-only developments while leaving thousands of high-paying, long-term jobs in upgrading, refining and oilsandsrelated manufacturing to the Americans and others outside Canadian borders.

Of course, Stelmach touts his Bitumen Royalty In Kind (BRIK) program as a tool for keeping upgrading jobs in the province. But the BRIK program will only make 75,000 barrels per day available for Alberta-based upgrading, a drop in the bucket of Alberta's overall oilsands production which is currently pegged at about 1.4 million barrels per day and expected to increase to three million barrels per day in 2018. Meanwhile, reports in the media tell us that oilsands-related manufacturing opportunities continue to be lost. Imperial Oil plans to bring in 200 modules made in Korea for its Kearl oilsands project, while a Montana company recently said it plans to build similar modules in Billings.

When discussing oilsands jobs, it's important to remind ourselves that the oilsands belong to Albertans. We are the owners. If there are jobs to be created -- in manufacturing, in mining or in upgrading -- then the government should ensure that as many of those jobs as possible stay here in Alberta. That is the job of government. Unfortunately, it's a job where Alberta is falling behind other provinces.

In Ontario, for example, rules governing electrical generation have been introduced that say companies cannot feed into the power grid unless 50 per cent of the generation system has been manufactured in that province. This has recently led Samsung to invest $7 billion to set up manufacturing facilities in southern Ontario to build wind turbines and solar panels, with a plan to create 16,000 jobs.

Quebec has embarked on a plan to build wind-energy facilities and has ensured that most of the equipment will be manufactured in that province. Government-owned utility company Hydro-Quebec says 60 per cent of the cost of each wind farm must be incurred in that province, meaning that wind-generation companies must have manufacturing and assembly facilities there.

What's happening in Ontario and Quebec raises the question: Why isn't the Alberta government taking similar steps to keep oilsands-related manufacturing jobs in the province? And why isn't it using regulation to guarantee Alberta-based upgrading and refining (as the Lougheed government did to create Alberta's petrochemical industry)?

The premier has the power to act for the good of Albertans. The government can set rules that require more manufacturing and upgrading be done in the province. It can also set -- and enforce -- tough standards that protect our environment and ensure our access to markets.

Instead of fighting to get bitumen across the border, let's focus on upgrading and refining the stuff here (while observing the highest environmental standards). Obviously, we're going to need pipelines to get our product to market. But the government should be making sure those pipes are carrying refined products, not raw bitumen and lost jobs.

By Gil McGowan
Edmonton Journal, Fri July 16 2010

It's hard to know where to begin in pointing out the flaws - or outright misleading propaganda - in Eric Duhaime's July 7 column blaming unions for the G20 "mess."

Unions, he says, are to blame, but he admits in his opening paragraph there was "excessive police repression."

Talk about blaming the victims!

Nothing that was done by labour-movement supporters can excuse "excessive police repression."

Excessive means to go beyond what is required.

The vast majority of protesters were peaceful, law-abiding citizens exercising their democratic rights.

If in doubt about the value of this kind of protest, I suggest a quick Google of Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi.

I'm sure Duhaime would prefer that people who disagree with public policy (or perhaps just disagree with him) stay home and shut up, but, for now, that's not the kind of country in which we live.

He slams unions for expressing their views, but conveniently fails to mention the massive sums corporations pay to lobby governments for policies that protect them, often against the interests of citizens. Nor does he mention the billions of taxpayer dollars given in corporate welfare and subsidies, or lost to corporate tax cuts.

And let's not forget all the corporate donations to political parties.
As for unionization leading to unemployment! Tell that to those Nordic countries with high unionization rates which escaped the recent recession almost unscathed while other nations were thrown into chaos.

On unionization and choice in the U.S. - what he's talking about here is "right-to-work" legislation, which in typical extreme right-wing fashion means the opposite of what it says.

"Right-to-work" laws are designed purely to weaken the labour movement and to restrict the rights of workers to associate.

It should be noted that the 22 "right-to-work" states are the most depressed economically in the U.S. and have the lowest wages.

I guess that's the model Duhaime would like Canada to follow.

It's certainly the dangerous model members of the Wildrose Alliance Party want for Alberta.

On union dues, even the Supreme Court of Canada, in a ruling last year, reiterated that having all employees pay union dues is essential, because those unions perform tasks for all employees and must have the means to carry out their duties.

As for the $1-billion security tab (some have pegged the costs as high as $2 billion), blame Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

No other country has spent this much when hosting summits, even when faced with much more in the way of protests. French President Nicolas Sarkozy says he'll do the next summit for one-tenth the cost.

Let's remember, too, that unions are democratic.

If you don't like what your union leaders are doing, you can vote them out of office.

That's because unions believe in democracy.

It's a claim Duhaime might find difficult to make, with his objection to public debate on important decisions being carried out by government leaders behind closed doors.

Toronto Sun, Thurs July 7 2010
Byline: Gil McGowan, Guest Columnist

On April 28, workers around the world participated in the International Day of Mourning -- a day set aside to remember the multitude of people killed or injured at work each year.

Here in Alberta, unions and other groups organized a number of solemn events aimed at drawing public attention to the fact that workplace fatality rates in Alberta are consistently and significantly higher than the national average.

But this year, it wasn't stories of our province's dismal experience with workplace safety that made headlines.

Instead, it was Employment Minister Thomas Lukaszuk -- aided no doubt by spin doctors from the government's notorious Public Affairs Bureau -- who grabbed the spotlight by pointing to statistics showing that the number of workplace deaths in the province had dropped to 110 in 2009 from an all-time high of 166 in 2008.

"We've made good progress reducing workplace injuries," said Lukaszuk at a news conference, suggesting it was actions taken by his government that led to the dramatic year-over-year drop in workplace fatalities.

The problem with Lukaszuk's characterization of the situation is that it whitewashes the Alberta government's real track record on workplace health and safety. It also provides a convenient excuse for the minister to do nothing in response to a recent and scathing report from the auditor general which identified "serious weaknesses" in the Alberta government's system for enforcing its own workplace safety rules.

The question that should have been asked -- but apparently wasn't -- when the minister referred to the lower fatality rates in 2009 is: Why? Did the fatality numbers really drop because the government was doing a better job of promoting workplace health and safety?

The truth is that neither Lukaszuk nor his ministry can take credit for the drop in workplace fatalities. The real reason fewer people died on the job in 2009 is that fewer people were working.

As a result of the recession, there were many fewer people working in Alberta's most dangerous industries: 35,000 fewer in manufacturing; 30,000 fewer in oil and gas; 20,000 fewer in construction.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that a smaller workforce will likely lead to a smaller number of fatalities and injuries -- even in the absence of any measures by employers and government to improve safety.

A more instructive picture of how the Alberta government is really performing on workplace health and safety is painted in a new study from the Alberta Federation of Labour entitled, Danger: Workers At Risk.

The report shows that the Alberta government employs fewer workplace safety inspectors than most other provinces and spends less per worker on workplace safety today than it did 20 years ago -- even though a much larger proportion of the provincial workforce is now employed in one of the four most dangerous industries (oil and gas; construction; manufacturing; and transportation).

Instead of patting himself and his government on the back for a job supposedly well done, Lukaszuk should have used his news conference to explain why Alberta spends less per worker on workplace safety than other provinces -- even though our provincial economy is more dramatically skewed toward dangerous industries than other jurisdictions.

He should also have explained why his government still has not responded to a year-old fatality inquiry into the workplace death of farm worker Kevan Chandler which strongly recommended that agricultural workers be granted the same protections under the Occupational Health and Safety Code as other workers.

And he should have explained why his government hasn't yet committed to implementing the recommendations of the auditor general's report which came to the shocking conclusion that the Alberta government "does not have a clear decision-making ladder for escalating compliance action from promotion and education to enforcement."

In other words, the Alberta government has not been punishing Alberta employers for putting their workers at risk, even when those employers have been found repeatedly to be in violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Code.

In the end, Lukaszuk's "don't worry, be happy" approach to workplace safety may be enough to grab the media spotlight for a few days. But it won't be enough to stop a return to unacceptably high workplace injury and fatality rates once the provincial economy starts to pick up steam again.

In fact, the number of workplace fatalities recorded in the first three months of 2010 (36 deaths) is already up dramatically compared with the first three months of 2009.

If this pace is maintained, what exactly will Lukaszuk say at next year's Day of Mourning ceremonies?

Will he find new ways to massage the numbers to justify the status quo? Or will he finally admit that his government is not doing enough to make sure all working Albertans make it home safely at the end of their shifts?

Calgary Herald, Tues May 18 2010
Byline: Gil McGowan

On April 28, workers around the world participated in the International Day of Mourning -- a day set aside to remember the multitude of people killed or injured at work each year.

Here in Alberta, unions and other groups organized a number of solemn events aimed at drawing public attention to the fact that workplace fatality rates in Alberta are consistently and significantly higher than the national average.

But this year, it wasn't stories of our province's dismal experience with workplace safety that made headlines.

Instead, it was Employment Minister Thomas Lukaszuk -- aided no doubt by spin doctors from the government's notorious Public Affairs Bureau -- who grabbed the spot light by pointing to statistics showing that the number of workplace deaths in the province had dropped to 110 in 2009 from an all-time high of 166 in 2008.

"We've made good progress reducing workplace injuries," said Lukaszuk at a news conference, suggesting it was actions taken by his government that led to the dramatic year-over-year drop in workplace fatalities.

The problem with Lukaszuk's characterization of the situation is that it whitewashes the Alberta government's real track record on workplace health and safety. It also provides a convenient excuse for the minister to do nothing in response to a recent and scathing report from the Auditor General which identified "serious weaknesses" in the Alberta government's system for enforcing its own workplace safety rules.

The question that should have been asked -- but apparently wasn't -- when the minister referred to the lower fatality rates in 2009 is: why? Did the fatality numbers really drop because the government was doing a better job of promoting workplace health and safety?

The truth is that neither Lukaszuk nor his ministry can take credit for the drop in workplace fatalities. The real reason fewer people died on the job in 2009 is that fewer people were working.

As a result of the recession, there were many fewer people working in Alberta's most dangerous industries: 35,000 fewer in manufacturing; 30,000 fewer in oil and gas; 20,000 fewer in construction.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that a smaller workforce will likely lead to a smaller number of fatalities and injuries -- even in the absence of any measures by employers and government to improve safety.
A more instructive picture of how the Alberta government is really performing on workplace health and safety is painted in a new study by the Alberta Federation of Labour entitled, "Danger: Workers At Risk."
The report shows that the Alberta government employs fewer workplace safety inspectors than most other provinces. It also shows that the Alberta government spends less on workplace safety today than it did 20 years ago -even though a much larger proportion of the provincial workforce now is now employed in one of the four most dangerous industries (oil and gas; construction; manufacturing; and transportation).

Instead of patting himself and his government on the back for a job supposedly well done, Lukaszuk should have used his news conference to explain why Alberta spends less on workplace safety than other provinces -- even though our provincial economy is more dramatically skewed toward dangerous industries than other jurisdictions.

He should also have explained why his government still has not responded to a year-old fatality inquiry into the workplace death of farm worker Kevan Chandler which strongly recommended that agricultural workers be granted the same protections under the Occupational Health and Safety Code as other workers (most Albertans would be shocked to find out they are not already covered).

And, perhaps most importantly, he should have explained why his government hasn't yet committed to implementing the recommendations of the Auditor General's report which came to the shocking conclusion that the Alberta government "does not have a clear decision making ladder for escalating compliance action from promotion and education to enforcement."

In other words, the Alberta government has not been punishing Alberta employers for putting their workers at risk, even when those employers have been found repeatedly to be in violation of the Occupation Health and Safety Code.

In the end, Lukaszuk's "don't worry, be happy" approach to workplace safety may be enough to grab the media spotlight for a few days. But it won't be enough to stop a return to unacceptably high workplace injury and fatality rates once the provincial economy starts to pick up steam again.

Edmonton Journal, Wed May 5 2010
Byline: Gil McGowan

Polls have consistently shown that Albertans want to keep valuable oilsands upgrading and refining jobs in the province instead of shipping them down a pipeline to processing facilities in the U. S. Unfortunately, the widely-held dream of moving our province "up the value ladder" suffered two major setbacks last month.

The first came from an unexpected source: Suncor Energy.

For the past 40 years, Suncor has upgraded virtually all of the raw bitumen it extracts right here in Alberta. In the process, the company has created literally tens of thousands of short and long-term jobs for Albertans. But, Suncor CEO Rick George recently announced his company would break with tradition by exporting raw bitumen from its new Firebag 3 project to U. S. refineries. At the same time, he said Suncor's already postponed Voyageur upgrader will remain in mothballs for the foreseeable future.

George didn't even bother to mention the Fort Hills project, which Suncor has now inherited as a result of its merger with Petro-Canada. If that project proceeds, most analysts agree it will do so as an extraction-only operation.

When an industry stalwart like Suncor starts looking south of the border for processing, it's clear something significant has changed in the structure of Alberta's oilsands market. It's also clear alarm bells should be going off at the Alberta Legislature.

That brings us to this month's second setback. At almost the same time Suncor was announcing its plan to send upgrading jobs to the U. S., the government of Premier Ed Stelmach was announcing its long-awaited plan to keep upgrading jobs here.

For months now, the premier's rhetoric on this issue has been big. But the program that his government has delivered is shockingly small.
How small? According to government documents, the so-called Bitumen Royalty In-Kind program will make between 50,000 and 75,000 barrels per day of raw bitumen available for Alberta-based upgrading.

At first glance, those figures may sound impressive. But compared to the increasing volume of raw bitumen being exported by companies like Imperial, EnCana, Conoco Phillips and Husky, it's clear that the BRIK program amounts to little more than a drop in the bucket.

In fact, if the program actually reaches its upper threshold, it would represent only about six per cent of the 1.2 million barrels per day produced from the Alberta oilsands. To put it another way, 75,000 barrels per day will, at most, provide feedstock for one new upgrader--and a small one at that.

The image that comes to mind is of someone trying to stop a torrent with a tin cup. The big irony here is that it was the Progressive Conservatives themselves who unleashed the torrent they are now trying to contain.

Some might argue that the Tories are simply bystanders watching helplessly as market forces make it more economical for energy firms to do their upgrading and refining south of the border. But this argument ignores the fact that government policies have an often decisive impact on the shape of markets.

In the case of Alberta's upgrading industry, the decisive moment came when the Klein and Stelmach governments decided to support the construction of massive pipelines designed to transport vast quantities of raw bitumen from Alberta to U. S. refineries. As a result of these pipelines (another of which is up for approval in September), refineries in the American Mid-West and Gulf Coast have been increasingly able to replace declining supplies from Mexico and Venezuela with heavy oil from Alberta. This, in turn, has increased the price that a barrel of raw bitumen can fetch and has dramatically narrowed the price differential that has traditionally existed between bitumen and conventional oil.
On the surface, this may sound like good news for Alberta. Who could complain about getting more for the oil we sell?The problem-- which, the provincial government either ignored or doesn't understand --is that when it comes to the oilsands, our domestic upgrading and refining industries rely on the price differential between bitumen and conventional oil to remain viable.

In other words, access to cheap feedstock is our competitive advantage, one that the Conservative pipeline policy is undermining.

So, Suncor's recent announcements shouldn't be seen as a surprising betrayal. Instead, it's simply the logical result of changes set in motion by the provincial government's one-price policy. In this context, the government's BRIK program starts to look more like a PR effort aimed at appeasing Albertans who were never consulted about the government's real policy, which in practice (if not word) focuses on raw exports.

The most frustrating part of this story is that there is a proven policy model that could have been employed to keep value-added jobs in the province.

In the '70s, the Lougheed government successfully used a mix of regulation and direct government investment to upgrade natural gas, and create a value-added petrochemical industry. A similar approach could have been taken with the oilsands.

So, will we learn the lessons of Lougheed?

Or, will upgrading and refining join the ever-growing list of industries that Canadian leaders have needlessly sacrificed on the altar of free market purity?

It's too early to tell . . . but the window of opportunity is closing.

Calgary Herald, Thurs Aug 6 2009
Byline: Gil McGowan

In some ways, it's appropriate that the Labour Day holiday marks the last long weekend of summer. Let's face it, while some of us are lucky enough to have jobs that we find fulfilling, a bit of time off to spend with friends and family is always welcome. We work to live, not vice versa.

That's why Canadians have come to expect that, when their working days are over, they can look forward to retirement-- a time to relax and enjoy the leisure they've earned through years of labour.

Unfortunately, these expectations are beginning to seem unrealistic for many. Canada's pension and retirement income system is in a shambles, and with a growing number of baby boomers reaching retirement age, the stage is set for a crisis of poverty among senior citizens.

The figures speak for themselves. According to investment industry analysts, Canadians are currently on track to replace only 50 per cent of their pre-retirement income once they retire. The situation in Alberta is even worse, with retirement savings that will provide only about 45 per cent of pre-retirement income.

Since pension experts agree that to retire without a drop in living standards requires about 70 per cent of pre-retirement earnings, it's clear that Canadians, and Albertans in particular, are going to face serious problems when they reach the end of their working lives.

Why this shortfall? Canada's retirement income system rests on what have become known as the Three Pillars: public pensions (the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security), workplace pensions offered by employers, and individual savings.

Unfortunately, the second pillar--workplace pensions --has been in decline for the last two decades. During this period a growing number of companies have decided that they no longer want to bear the cost of providing a retirement income for their employees.

According to government figures, in 2008 only 40 per cent of Canadian workers belonged to an employer-sponsored pension plan, and in Alberta the figure is just 33 per cent. This decrease in pension coverage is bad news, because a good workplace pension is an efficient and cost-effective way of saving for retirement.

The alternative to an employment-based pension is, of course, individual savings through a tax-exempt Registered Retirement Savings Plan. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that RRSPs just aren't getting the job done for most Canadians.

There are several reasons for this. Faced with the stagnating real income and the reality of financial ups and downs, few working people are able to make regular contributions at a high enough level to generate the savings needed to support retirement.

Even for those able to keep up their contributions, it's hard to invest these savings in a way that generates a reasonable rate of return, especially when stock markets are as volatile as in recent years. Furthermore, most RRSP funds are invested in mutual funds, and the mutual fund industry in Canada charges some of the highest administration fees in the industrialized world. These fees eat away at investment returns, even when economic times are good.

For these and other reasons, RRSPs just aren't fulfilling their mission. The proof is in the pudding: a Statistics Canada study published last year shows that, for families whose main income earner is in the crucial 54-to-65 age group (in other words, people on the verge of retirement), only 65 per cent have RRSP savings, and the median value of these RRSPs is just $55,000. That level of savings isn't going to provide a dignified retirement for anyone.

Government leaders and pension advocates have admitted these problems and various remedies have been proposed. The governments of Alberta and B. C. have begun to explore a supplemental pension plan (to supplement the existing Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security) tentatively called the ABC (Alberta-B. C.) pension plan. While this proposal represents an honest attempt to address the looming crisis in retirement incomes, the design of the proposed ABC Pension is fundamentally flawed, and will not be able to do solve the current problem.

Put simply: the ABC Pension suffers from some of the same problems that have hampered individual RRSPs. Participation will not be mandatory, even though this is the only way to guarantee that most workers will actually get a pension. The plan's proposed design also exposes individual participants to the risk of falling financial markets and low interest rates (lower interest rates make a pension more expensive). Finally, the suggested contribution rates (essentially, the rate at which participants save for retirement) are much too low to provide sufficient pension income.

The good news is that there is a better way. There is already a pension plan in Canada that provides almost universal coverage and a guaranteed benefit level --the Canada Pension Plan. The CPP is an extremely efficient plan, with very low investment and administration costs. The problem is that the level of benefit is far too low to provide for a comfortable retirement. So, instead of inventing a new, inferior supplemental plan, all that really needs to be done is significantly expand the CPP.

Of course, raising the level of CPP benefits will cost money but, unlike the costs associated with the ABC Pension plan, this will be money well spent. Since the CPP already has the tools needed to collect contributions and pay out benefits, the increase in costs will go almost entirely to higher benefits, rather than to administration. Unlike an Alberta-B. C. plan, the CPP is also portable from coast, to coast to coast. The CPP alone is capable of providing seamless coverage to working people all across Canada, and doing so at a reasonable cost.

This Labour Day, Canadians should throw their support behind the growing movement for fundamental pension reform based on expansion of the CPP. With reform, the dream of retiring with dignity can be realized by all Canadians, instead of only a privileged few.

Calgary Herald, Page A11, Mon Sept 7 2009
Byline: Gil McGowan

The Labour Day weekend offers Albertans one last gasp at summer before the busy times of fall are upon us. And we should all take a well-deserved rest. When you work hard, like Albertans do, you deserve a moment to relax and appreciate your hard work.

I only wish I could say the same thing for the Alberta government. On the employment standards file, their inaction has become an embarrassment.

The Employment Standards Code is the law that sets up the basic protections for workers in the workplace, setting such things as minimum wage, hours of work, vacation entitlement and so on. Alberta's Employment Standards Code has remained essentially unchanged since 1988.

The workplace has evolved significantly in the last 20 years, but our law has not. The government recognized how out-of-date the legislation is and back in 2005 launched a massive consultation to revamp the code.

Yet, nothing came of it. Not a single amendment. Not a single improved provision. Complete inaction. The consultation just faded away.

Admittedly, employment law can be controversial. Employers and workers have justifiably different visions of what the code should look like. So maybe the government decided to avoid the heat and leave it as is. A little cowardly, maybe, but understandable given how politics works.

However, the Alberta Federation of Labour recently received a document through Freedom of Information that suggests government inaction cannot be pinned on Alberta's workplace participants.

We fought for two years to get access to a public opinion survey conducted during the consultation about what employers and workers thought about the employment standards code. The Commissioner ordered its release this summer. The fact the government witRating 2eld for more than two years a document as simple as a poll is a telling statement about accountability and freedom of information in this province, but that is another column.

The results of the survey, which randomly polled 400 employers and 400 workers across Alberta, are surprising. On most issues raised, employers and workers agreed on what needed to happen, and overwhelming the message is that our basic employment laws need to change.

For example, 77 per cent of employers and 82 per cent of workers said that the code should provide for unpaid general leave for workers needing to tend a family emergency, attend a funeral or care for a sick relative. A majority of both groups (56 per cent and 68 per cent, respectively) believe workers should be paid for statutory holidays, even if it falls on their day off. Neither provision is in the code currently.

The agreement even extended to the so-called "controversial" issues such as 12-year-olds working and farmworker exemptions to the code.

Albertans will remember that in 2005, the Alberta government changed the rules to allow children as young as 12 to work in restaurants. A majority of both employers (56.5 per cent) and workers (50.2 per cent) stated they thought the government was going in the wrong direction on this issue -- saying that kids as young as 12 were too young to be employed. It is particularly interesting to note employers were more opposed to 12-year-olds working than workers were.

In the case of farmworkers, the Employment Standards Code currently excludes this group of workers from most protections. Farmworkers have no right to a minimum wage, to limits on hours of work, to overtime pay or to statutory holiday pay. They also are not protected by the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Only 15 per cent of employers and 16 per cent of workers believe these exemptions are fair. The vast majority of Albertans want some or all of the exclusions removed. In other words, Albertans appreciate that farmworkers have as much right to basic protections as the rest of us. The poll also revealed Albertans want some consideration for family farms, demonstrating they know the difference between a small family operation and a big industrial farm.

Too bad the Conservatives can't see the difference.

I could go on and on with evidence from the poll, but the overall message is clear -- Albertans want the government to move on updating the code and fixing its more glaring inequities. So why haven't they?

I don't believe governments should govern by poll, but this is not a case of being driven by polling. The changes Albertans are asking for also make good sense. They are fair and reflect the modern realities of work in Alberta. And how often do you get employers and workers agreeing about things?

On the issue of employment standards, Albertans are way out in front of their government. The Conservatives need to snap out of their summer slumber and fix the Employment Standards Code. We need to see amendments to the code in the upcoming fall sitting.

It is time to bring our code into the 21st century and up to the level that Albertans expect.

Edmonton Journal, Mon Sept 1 2008
Byline: Gil McGowan

If anyone is "over the barrel" at the bargaining table, it's Big Oil, not Albertans

I agree and would add that the Premier should also start thinking like a negotiator.

Unfortunately, as our province's leading man in what is essentially a crucial set of negotiations over the price of our collectively-owned resources, Stelmach has so far failed to inspire confidence.

He doesn't seem to grasp the notion that the goal of negotiations is to get the best possible deal for his side (Alberta citizens) no matter how many feathers that might ruffle on the other side (Big Oil).

In particular, Stelmach seems to be falling into the trap that swallows up many rookie negotiators who mistakenly believe that negotiation automatically means "cutting it down the middle."

Big Oil has exploited this weakness admirably.

By inundating Albertans with an almost daily barrage of hysterical reports and dire predictions, they have successfully established their stated position (that Alberta can't afford any major royalty changes) as one pole in the debate and the recommendations of the blue-ribbon Royalty Review Panel as the other pole.

The problem with this is that the panel recommendations were already a compromise between what the panelists thought Albertans deserved and what they thought industry would be willing to pay. So any move to "cut it down the middle" would, in the memorable words of one of the panelists, be a "compromise on a compromise."

This tactic of taking extreme positions in order to "move the goalposts" at the bargaining table is the oldest trick in the book - yet the government seems to be falling for it.

The truth about negotiating is that compromise is sometimes necessary - but not always.

It depends on your goals and, even more importantly, your bargaining power.

When it comes to the royalty debate, the government's goals should be clear.

Both the royalty panel and the Auditor General have demonstrated that, when compared to the citizens of other oil-rich jurisdictions, Albertans are not getting their fair share.

In fact, both the panel and the auditor proved that Alberta has forgone literally billions of dollars in potential revenue over the past decade - revenue that could have (and many would argue, should have) been used to help our schools, hospitals and communities cope with the pressures of growth.

That leaves us with the crucial question of bargaining power. On this score, it seems Big Oil has, once again, bamboozled the Premier into thinking they have us over a barrel.

As a labour leader, I would be the first to raise the alarm if I thought thousands of jobs might actually be lost in Alberta. But, I frankly don't buy Big Oil's scare tactics - and neither should the government.

We in the labour movement have sat across the bargaining table from many of these energy corporations - and we've seen these kinds of threats and ultimatums before.

Based on that experience, we feel the questions the Premier should be asking is not: "Would job losses be bad?" Of course they would be. The real question is: "Are the threats being made by industry credible?"

Looking at the world energy market and Alberta's increasingly important role in it, I think it's clear that Big Oil would never leave the province - even if all of the royalty panel's recommendations were implemented.

They won't leave because what really matters when it comes to investment decisions is price - and the price for oil is clearly going nowhere but up.

They won't leave because other oil-producing jurisdictions have also been raising their royalty rates - often much more dramatically than what's being proposed here in Alberta.

They won't leave because, the royalty panel's recommendations aren't really that radical - for example, they keep in place the infamous penny-on-the-dollar royalty for oil sands and guarantee that more than 80 percent of gas wells will pay lower royalties at current prices.

Finally, they won't leave because about 80 per cent of the world's proven petroleum reserves are under the control of national oil companies - and thus out of reach of reach for Big Oil. Unless they want to get out of the oil business altogether and start manufacturing toothpaste, Alberta is one of the few places left for them to invest.

Taken together, all of this is called bargaining power. If anyone is over a barrel, it's Big Oil.

Alberta's bargaining position is so strong, in fact, that we should ask for more than what was proposed by the royalty panel, not less.

One obvious target would be the one-cent oil sands royalty, which is an unnecessary incentive when oil is trading at $90 per barrel.

Another target could be the panel's proposed "upgrader royalty credit."

Most Albertans agree that steps are needed to stop unrefined bitumen from being shipped to upgraders and refineries in the U.S. But is the best way to encourage domestic upgrading really to provide billions of dollars in public subsidies to developers?

Wouldn't it be cheaper and more efficient to simply impose export regulations favouring local upgraders, as former Premier Lougheed did in the 70s to promote the development of a homegrown petrochemical industry?

The bottom line is that even if the government acts aggressively on royalties, Big Oil will continue to invest in Alberta because there's still be lots of money to be made - and because there's nowhere else for them to go.

Playing this kind of hard-ball with the province's dominant industry may make some people feel a little queasy. But it worked for Premier Lougheed in the 70s; it worked for Alaska's Republican governor last year; and it's working for Newfoundland's Conservative premier Danny Williams right now.

So instead of dismissing the royalty panel's proposals as unwarranted "government intervention," Albertans should look at them for what they really are: good business and the bare minimum we should accept for the sale of our assets.

Calgary Herald, Wed Oct 24 2007, Page A19
Gil McGowan, AFL President

As the clock ticks down towards Premier Ed Stelmach's pivotal announcement on energy royalties, many groups and individuals have been urging the government to heed former premier Peter Lougheed's advice to "think like an owner."

I agree and would add that the premier should also start thinking like a negotiator.

Unfortunately, as our province's leading man in what is essentially a crucial set of negotiations over the price of our collectively owned resources, Stelmach has so far failed to inspire confidence.

He doesn't seem to grasp the notion that the goal of negotiations is to get the best possible deal for his side (Alberta citizens) no matter how many feathers that might ruffle on the other side (Big Oil).

In particular, Stelmach seems to be falling into the trap that swallows up many rookie negotiators who mistakenly believe that negotiation automatically means "cutting it down the middle."

Big Oil has exploited this weakness admirably.

By inundating Albertans with an almost daily barrage of hysterical reports and dire predictions, they have successfully established their stated position (that Alberta can't afford any major royalty changes)
as one pole in the debate and the recommendations of the blue-ribbon royalty review panel as the other pole.

The problem with this is that the panel's recommendations were already a compromise between what the panellists thought Albertans deserved and what they thought industry would be willing to pay. So any move to "cut it down the middle" would, in the memorable words of one of the panelists, be a "compromise on a compromise."

This tactic of taking extreme positions in order to "move the goalposts" at the bargaining table is the oldest trick in the book -- yet the government seems to be falling for it.

The truth about negotiating is that compromise is sometimes necessary -- but not always.

It depends on your goals and, even more importantly, your bargaining power.

When it comes to the royalty debate, the government's goals should be clear.

Both the royalty panel and the auditor general have demonstrated that, when compared to the citizens of other oil-rich jurisdictions, Albertans are not getting their fair share.

In fact, both the panel and the auditor proved that Alberta has forgone literally billions of dollars in potential revenue over the past decade -- revenue that could have (and many would argue, should have) been used to help our schools, hospitals and communities cope with the pressures of growth.

That leaves us with the crucial question of bargaining power. On this score, it seems Big Oil has, once again, bamboozled the premier into thinking they have us over a barrel.

As a labour leader, I would be the first to raise the alarm if I thought thousands of jobs might actually be lost in Alberta. But, I frankly don't buy Big Oil's scare tactics -- and neither should the government.

We in the labour movement have sat across the bargaining table from many of these energy corporations -- and we've seen these kinds of threats and ultimatums before.

Based on that experience, we feel the question the premier should be asking is not: "Would job losses be bad?" Of course they would be. The real question is: "Are the threats being made by industry credible?"

Looking at the world energy market and Alberta's increasingly important role in it, I think it's clear that Big Oil would never leave the province -- even if all of the royalty panel's recommendations were implemented.

They won't leave because what really matters when it comes to investment decisions is price -- and the price for oil is clearly going nowhere but up.

They won't leave because other oil-producing jurisdictions have also been raising their royalty rates -- often much more dramatically than what's being proposed here in Alberta.

They won't leave because the royalty panel's recommendations aren't really that radical -- for example, they keep in place the infamous penny-on-the-dollar royalty for oilsands and guarantee that more than
80 per cent of gas wells will pay lower royalties at current prices.

Finally, they won't leave because about 80 per cent of the world's proven petroleum reserves are under the control of national oil companies -- and thus out of reach for Big Oil. Unless they want to get out of the oil business altogether and start manufacturing toothpaste, Alberta is one of the few places left for them to invest.

Taken together, all of this is called bargaining power. If anyone is over a barrel, it's Big Oil.

Alberta's bargaining position is so strong, in fact, that we should ask for more than what was proposed by the royalty panel, not less.

One obvious target would be the one-cent oilsands royalty, which is an unnecessary incentive when oil is trading at $90 per barrel. Another target could be the panel's proposed "upgrader royalty credit."

Most Albertans agree that steps are needed to stop unrefined bitumen from being shipped to upgraders and refineries in the U.S.

But is the best way to encourage domestic upgrading really to provide billions of dollars in public subsidies to developers?

Wouldn't it be cheaper and more efficient to simply impose export regulations favouring local upgraders, as Lougheed did in the 1970s to promote the development of a homegrown petrochemical industry?

The bottom line is that even if the government acts aggressively on royalties, Big Oil will continue to invest in Alberta because there's still lots of money to be made -- and because there's nowhere else
for them to go.

Playing this kind of hard-ball with the province's dominant industry may make some people feel a little queasy.

But it worked for Lougheed in the '70s, it worked for Alaska's Republican governor last year, and it's working for Newfoundland's Conservative Premier Danny Williams right now.

So instead of dismissing the royalty panel's proposals as unwarranted "government intervention," Albertans should look at them for what they really are: good business and the bare minimum we should accept for the sale of our assets.

Calgary Herald, Wed Oct 24 2007
Byline: Gil McGowan

This Labour Day, wage-earning Albertans should resolve to grab a bigger piece of our province's economic pie, says union leader

It was only a matter of time.

Whenever the economy heats up, business people reward themselves with bigger salaries and hefty bonuses.

"We've earned it," they tell themselves as they put orders in for the latest BMW status symbol or the newest gas-guzzling monster SUV.

But when ordinary, wage-earning workers begin asking for a bigger piece of the pie, they're usually denounced as greedy, selfish and short-sighted.

Over the past few months, this old double-standard has re-surfaced with a vengeance in Alberta.

As groups of unionized workers - from nurses and paramedics in the public sector to construction and energy workers in the private sector - have tabled aggressive contract positions, a wounded cry of protest has gone up from corporate boardrooms and the business press.

One prominent columnist described unionized Alberta construction workers as among the most "coddled" in the world and called their wage demands "absurd."

A short time later, a well-known business professor and an influential energy industry analyst both warned darkly that the wage demands being advanced by Alberta workers threaten to drive up inflation, undermine our province's "business-friendly" reputation and scare away oil sands investment.

One B.C.-based construction boss went so far as to say that unionized workers were "holding a loaded gun" to the head of Alberta's economy and that all workers (not just "essential" public sector workers) should be stripped of their right to strike.

In the face of these kinds of verbal assaults, some working people might start wondering if, just maybe, the bosses are right. But they shouldn't allow themselves to be sucked in by all the hype and mock indignation.

The truth is that the wage increases being sought (and won) by unionized Alberta workers have been reasonable, fair - and entirely appropriate.

In most cases, unions have been asking for increases of between five and seven percent a year. This might be out of line in other provinces, where the cost of living has been increasing by only about 2 percent annually.

But in Alberta, inflation shot up by more than five percent in the first six months of this year - and in June it rang in at a whopping 6.3 percent over the cost of living in June 2006. That's three times higher than the national average.

In this climate, wage increases of anything less than five or six percent represent a cut in real taken home pay and purchasing power.

Given the unprecedented growth in the Alberta economy - and the fact that inflation adjusted wages have remained essentially flat for the past fifteen years - is it unreasonable for workers to aspire to something more than simply treading water?

If the working middle class can't get ahead during a boom, when exactly can they?

As far as claims go that wage increases will drive up inflation or discourage investment, two things need to be said.

First, growing unionized wage demands haven't caused Alberta's overheated economy - they've been a response to it.

If the only way the boom can be sustained is by convincing workers to take cuts to their inflation-adjusted take-home pay, then the boom is probably not sustainable.

Second, threats about "capital flight" are over blown. Even factoring in rising costs for things like labour and building materials, the Conference Board of Canada projects that the Canadian oil industry is on track to $12.6 billion in profits this year - not a record, but still very healthy.

What really determines whether energy companies invest in Alberta is not labour costs - it's global demand and international prices for oil.

As Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams recently demonstrated, in a world of rapidly disappearing "cheap" oil and galloping demand from monster economies like China and India, energy companies will (however reluctantly) pay more for the privilege of exploiting publicly-owned energy resources.

Oil executives may bluster and rattle their sabers - some of them may even take their balls and leave the sandbox for short periods. But as long as we have the resource that the world wants under our feet, they'll be back.

Having said all that, union members and leaders agree that inflation is a real concern for Albertans. It bites into both corporate profits and individual workers' standard of living.

But it's not workers who are causing the problem - they're just trying to avoid being swamped by the rising economic tide.

The real cause of overheating in the Alberta economy is the decision by energy companies to develop an unreasonable number of oil sands projects at once - and the decision by the provincial government to stand passively on the sidelines and simply let that happen.

If our leaders in government and business really want to tame the excesses of the Alberta economy, then what we need - as former Premier Peter Lougheed has urged - is a plan to regulate the pace of development so that it doesn't outstrip the ability of our labour force or community infrastructure to handle the growth.

We also need rules to ensure that upgraders and refineries are built here - as opposed to having valuable "down-stream" jobs shipped down pipelines along with our oil to destination in the U.S.

Left to their own devices, energy companies will never do this - none of them will voluntarily move to the back of the line. And none of them will willingly put the Alberta public interest ahead of their narrow corporate self interest. Only government can effectively play the role of referee, traffic cop and steward of the public interest.

Unfortunately, our barely visible premier, Ed Stelmach, has made it clear he has no plans to "touch the brake" or address the energy industry's Wild West approach to development.

This stubborn refusal to stand up for the public interest may cause the Alberta's economic house of cards to come tumbling down. But let's be clear - that collapse will be the result of business and government policy failures, not the result of wage demands from workers.

So what's my advice to working people as they return from the Labour Day long weekend? Don't be afraid to use the power that the market is giving us to drive hard bargains and grab the biggest piece possible of Alberta's growing economic pie.

As market-loving business people might admit themselves, smart people take advantage of market conditions to get the highest possible returns. The labour market is a market like any other, so we'd be suckers if we fell for corporate guilt trips and missed out on this opportunity to make gains.

Edmonton Journal, Mon Sept 3 2007
Gil McGowan, AFL President