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.
Gil McGowan is president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, Alberta's largest union organization representing 125,000 public and private sector workers. This column was published in the Edmonton Journal, the Calgary Herald, Fort McMurray Today, Red Deer Advocate and Medicine Hat News
Workers should stand tall over wage demands
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 or 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 and short-sighted.
Over the past few months, this 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 business press.
One prominent columnist described unionized Alberta construction workers as among the most "coddled" in the world and called their wage demands "absurd."
Calgary Herald, Page A23, Sat Sept 1 2007
Byline: Gil McGowan
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 oilsands 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 those deemed "essential") 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 per cent a year. This might be out of line in other provinces, where the cost of living has been increasing by about two per cent annually.
But in Alberta, inflation shot up by more than five per cent in the first six months of this year -- and in June it rang in at a whopping 6.3 per cent 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 per cent represent a cut in take-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 15 years -- is it unreasonable for workers to aspire to something more than treading water?
If the working middle class can't get ahead during a boom, when exactly can they?
In response to the claim 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 overblown. 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 for $12.6 billion in profits this year -- not a record, but 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 sabres -- some of them may even take their balls and leave the sandbox for short periods. But as long as we have the resource the world wants, 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 workers are not 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 oilsands projects at once -- and the decision by the provincial government to stand passively on the sidelines.
If our leaders in government and business really want to tame the excesses of the 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 infrastructure to handle the growth.
We also need rules to ensure upgraders and refineries are built here -- as opposed to having valuable "downstream" jobs shipped down pipelines along with our oil to the U.S.
Left to their own devices, energy companies will never do this. And none of them will willingly put the public interest ahead of their 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 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 wage demands.
So what's my advice to working people?
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 economic pie.
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.
Calgary Herald, Sat Sept 1 2007
see also Edmonton Journal, Mon Sept 3 2007
By Gil McGowan
AFL President
Big chair, big decisions: Time for Stelmach to decide whose side he's on - Alberta workers or global oil companies
Just common courtesy, I told myself. Give the guy at least a day or two to settle into the big chair.
Unfortunately, events of the past week have made it impossible for me to maintain my polite silence.
It all started with Stelmach's first news conference following his come-from-behind leadership victory.
Stelmach told reporters his government will do nothing to moderate the pace of growth in the oilsands.
"There's no such thing as touching the brake," he said, adding he has faith big energy companies will "sort things out" and address concerns about over-heated development themselves.
The big problem with Stelmach's hands-off approach to development issues is that it assumes that big energy companies will "do the right thing." But it's becoming increasingly obvious that corporations doing the right thing for themselves is not the same thing as doing the right thing for Albertans.
The truth of this observation was made painfully clear only a few days after Stelmach's news conference when Synenco Energy President Todd Newton announced plans for his company's Northern Lights oilsands plant.
Instead of building their plant here in Alberta, Newton says Synenco will build it in huge pieces in Asia - China, Korea and Malaysia to be precise - and ship it by sea and river to Fort McMurray.
While Synenco will save money by using low-cost foreign labour, Alberta will loose about 1,000 high-skilled, high-wage construction jobs.
This is the part of the equation that Stelmach doesn't seem to understand.
By encouraging virtually unrestrained oilsands development, our provincial government has created an over-heated market for labour, engineering and building materials. This over-heated market has, in turn, encouraged more and more big corporations to embrace development plans that cut Alberta workers out of the picture.
Synenco is doing this with its hare-brained scheme to float an oilsands plant across the ocean. But other companies are getting in on the act, too. Citing cost concerns, major companies like EnCana, BP and Husky Oil have all decided to build plants to upgrade or refine Alberta oil outside of Alberta.
This all begs the question: what's the point of digging up and selling off our collectively-owned oil resources if the benefits are going, not to Albertans, but to people living in other countries?
It also raises important questions for our new Premier. Will he sit idly by while Alberta jobs are shipped down a pipeline? Will he look the other way while Alberta workers are quite literally being sold down the river?
During the leadership campaign Stelmach promised to revisit Alberta's ridiculous penny-on-the-dollar oilsands royalty. If he's serious, it would be a long-overdue step in the right direction.
He also said he would find some way to encourage energy companies to refine and upgrade bitumen from the tar sands here in Alberta.
But Stelmach can't have it both ways. He can't say he wants plants built here and bitumen upgraded here at the same time he argues all the important decisions should be left with energy companies.
Left to themselves, energy companies will make decisions based on what works best for them and for their global shareholders. The interests of Albertans don't even enter the picture.
Like it or not, if Stelmach is serious about getting a better deal for Albertans, what's needed is a radical shift is the relationship we have with the oil companies that exploit our resources.
As it stands right now, energy companies are the senior partners in our economy - they call the shots and we, members of the Alberta public, get some of the excess cash that spills from their overflowing pockets.
If Stelmach wants to keep the benefits of our oil resources in the province, he's going to have to engineer a role reversal. In particular, he's going to have to follow the advice of former premier Peter Lougheed who said last summer that Albertans have to start "thinking like owners" when it comes to the oilsands.
As owners, we have to remind ourselves that the oil companies work for us, not the other way around. We also have to summon the courage to promote those "hire hands" who do the job the way we want it done and "fire" those who don't. Synenco should be the first one to get a pink slip.
But it shouldn't stop there. As owners we should also be saying "no" to pipelines designed to take raw bitumen to refineries in the U.S.; we should be saying "yes" to royalties that guarantee a fair rate of return for oil companies but return windfall profits to Albertans; and we should be saying "yes" to a new system of conditional oilsands leases that grant development rights only to those companies that and build and process in Canada.
At the end of the day, what Albertans need is a champion - someone to stand up the energy companies, assert new authority and demand a better deal for Albertans.
Does Ed Stelmach have the right stuff? Will he choose to take the side of ordinary Albertans - or, by maintaining the status quo, will he side with the big energy companies?
Only time will tell - but here's hoping he surprises the general public in the same way he surprised Tory party members.
Gil McGowan, AFL President
December 2006
Increased use of guest workers wrong approach in tight labour market
For those who missed it, that was one of the rationales Solberg gave when he announced new measures aimed at making it easier for employers in Alberta and B.C. to bring temporary foreign workers into the country.
Solberg's comment was obviously meant as a joke - but the policy direction he outlined at his news conference in Edmonton is no laughing matter.
In fact, by lowering the bar for employers and making it easier for them to hire temporary foreign workers as a first choice, rather than a last resort, I'm afraid Solberg has set Canada in motion down a very dangerous road.
In particular, I'm worried the federal Conservatives are laying the groundwork for the creation of an underclass of workers in this country - a class of guest workers who won't have the same rights and protections in the workplace that Canadian workers take for granted.
I'm also worried that by making it almost laughably easy for employers to import foreign workers in an eye-popping 170 occupational categories, the Harper government is handing employers a big stick that, at least in some cases, will be used to demand concessions, displace Canadian workers and keep wages down.
Think I'mover-reacting? Consider the evidence.
Just three months ago, the manager of a nursing home in Kelowna laid off 70 personal care aides when they refused to accept major rollbacks to their wages and benefits. He is now attempting to fill the vacancies he created with temporary foreign workers -and thanks to Solberg's new rules, his job just got easier.
Similar stories are also coming out of the oil sands. I've received numerous calls from tradesmen who say their work has mysteriously dried up at the same time that their former employers have taken on increased numbers of temporary foreign workers.
So when the government says temporary workers will only be brought into the country "when there is no one available to do the job in Canada", a growing number of Alberta workers are saying that doesn't mesh with their personal experience.
None of this should have come as a surprise to Mr. Solberg and his Conservative colleagues.
The experience from other countries that have relied on "guest worker" programs to deal with real or perceived labour shortages is as extensive as it is sobering.
Countries as diverse as the United States, Germany, France, Switzerland, Kuwait and Singapore have all experimented with these programs: and they've all had to deal with the same negative effects.
Among other problems, guest worker programs have led to the establishment of ethnically-based "job ghettos"; they have sparked tension between foreign and domestic workers; and they have resulted in often rampant exploitation and of foreign workers by employers.
The big reason why programs like the one Solberg is expanding have proven to be so problematic is that they bring workers into the country on temporary basis as opposed to welcoming them as full-fledged immigrants and prospective citizens.
Landed immigrants and citizens have rights - perhaps most importantly, the right of mobility. If they don't like the way an employer is treating them or how much they're being paid, they can vote with their feet.
Workers brought into the country under the temporary foreign worker program, on the other hand, have no such rights. In a sense, they are hostages to the employers that sponsored them - and as such they are vulnerable exploitation.
Solberg says we shouldn't worry about abuse by employers because federal regulations promise that temporary foreign workers will be paid the "going Canadian rate" and because these workers will be protected by the same employment standards systems that cover Canadian workers.
But who exactly decides the "going rate"? And does it include the value of benefits enjoyed by Canadian workers?
Also, given that Solberg has put absolutely no enforcement mechanisms in place, how can we be sure that employers aren't ignoring the rules and paying temporary foreign workers less than the minimum wage - as evidence suggests they were doing recently with imported construction workers on a Vancouver railway project?
As for Solberg's reassurance that foreign workers will be protected by provincial employment standards systems: is he kidding? Here in Alberta, we have 55 employment standards officers to police the concerns of nearly two million workers.
Even more importantly, investigations are only launched when an employee lodges a formal complaint. Does Solberg really think that any temporary foreign worker - in Canada at the pleasure of their employers - would actually ever do that?
The big irony in all this is that the current push for increased foreign workers is coming from a Conservative government that purports to be a "defender of the market".
What the market in Alberta is telling employers today is that they need to increase wages to attract and retain employees. And it's also saying that businesses should be putting some projects on hold until prices come down.
Unfortunately, Solberg only has ears for business owners who want him to intervene in the labour market. In a sense, they've convinced the government to help them defy the economic laws of gravity.
As usual, the market is the wise, all-knowing force that can't be ignored - except of course when it's actually helping average working stiffs.
So in the end, what can be done to address Alberta's tight labour market? Contrary to those who support beefed-up guest workers programs, there is no silver bullet.
Part of the answer lies in better training for Canadians to meet the demand for skilled workers and increased wages to attract people from parts of the country with higher levels of unemployment.
Another part of the answer lies in slowing the pace of development - especially in the oil sands.
Finally, any real solution needs to include increases in real immigration, as opposed to ill-conceived guest worker programs: because if foreign workers are good enough to come here and serve us coffee or build our homes, they're good enough to stay as citizens.
By Gil McGowan, AFL President
November 2006
White Powder Makes Hypocrites of Both Tories and Grits: Canada Undermines Attempt to Restrict Use of Asbestos
Banning asbestos is a no brainer, right? The versatile, indestructible insulation and construction material was the "miracle substance" of the early 20th century and is now infamous as a cancerous scourge. Most people know asbestos, with its tiny indestructible fibres, is a carcinogen. It is rigidly controlled in Alberta workplaces, and has been virtually removed as a construction building block in Canada. But someone seems to have forgotten to tell the Canadian government.
At an international conference last month, the Canadian government led a charge to prevent chrysotile asbestos from being added to a list of controlled dangerous substances. Chrysotile (or white) asbestos is the most common form of the fibre.
The conference where Canada played such a nefarious role was the most recent gathering of the Rotterdam Convention, an international environmental treaty signed by over 110 countries to regulate the trade and use of certain hazardous substances, such as pesticides and other toxic industrial chemicals.
The purpose of the Rotterdam Convention is quite modest. Passed in 1998, its job is to "promote shared responsibility and cooperative efforts" among nations in the area of hazardous chemicals and to "contribute to the environmentally sound use of those hazardous chemicals." It doesn't ban anything; it simply sets up rules to ensure buyers of certain chemicals are aware of the dangers associated with it. It is about the right-to-know.
Apparently even this is too much for Canada. In response to a motion to add white asbestos to the list of restricted substances requiring information-sharing, Canada cried foul. It led a campaign to defeat the motion. Because Rotterdam requires consensus among signing parties to enact a motion, Canada's effort was successful, despite only garnering the support of five other nations - Kyrgyzstan, Iran, Peru, India and Ukraine. The motion was deferred to a future conference. And white asbestos continues to cross borders without control.
Before you trot out your curses of Stephen Harper and his band of terrible Tories, take note that this was the third time Canada has deep-sixed a motion to add white asbestos to the controlled list. The last two times occurred under Liberal governments in 2002 and 2004. In fact, the Liberal government launched a WTO challenge against France in 1997 after it passed a law banning asbestos within its borders.
But if asbestos is so awful - and it is - why is the Canadian government so intent to defend its continued trade? After all, we rarely use the stuff ourselves these days.
The answer lies in the narrow self-interest of a dying, regionally concentrated industry. Canada still mines asbestos - about 250 000 tonnes of the stuff a year. The vast majority of it comes out of three mines in Quebec's Eastern Townships. The Canadian government estimates it is worth about $200 million in trade a year. The industry employs about 1 600 workers in Quebec. Canada holds the dubious honour of being the world's largest exporter of asbestos.
The appalling part is that 96 per cent of what we produce is exported to developing regions such as Africa and SouthEast Asia. We refuse to use asbestos in our own homes and workplaces but happily ship it abroad to countries with lax safety and environmental standards, putting workers and citizens in those countries at risk of cancer and other asbestos-related diseases. In my eyes, this makes us hypocrites.
More than 30 countries have banned asbestos completely, including most of the EU nations. Why? Because they know that over one million people contract asbestos-related disease each year. They know that asbestosis and mesothelioma are among the more painful and vicious cancers. They know that there is no safe way to handle asbestos. And they know there are plenty of safer alternatives available.
What they know is something our government refuses to recognize, namely that asbestos needs to disappear from human activity. We don't need it, and we definitely can't afford to keep using it.
But our government continues to be a pariah on the world stage for its defence of asbestos. It does so because it knows it will pay no political price at home. Who knows about the Rotterdam Convention? Who follows the actions of diplomats at some conference in Europe? Who cares that our hands are coated in a deadly white powder?
They do it because the corporate interests defending asbestos speak louder than Canadian citizens who care about protecting health and environment.
It's not enough to shake our heads and wag our fingers at Tory and Liberal politicians - although that is a good start. We all share in the shame that is our track record on asbestos.
Canadians should be embarrassed and offended by the position our government has taken. But we should also be ashamed we have not spoken more vociferously for an end to such indefensible actions. We should realize we are remiss for not demanding a domestic ban on asbestos in Canada.
I am angry at successive Conservative and Liberal governments for condemning thousands of workers to painful deaths at the hands of Canadian-produced asbestos. And I am hopeful that Canadians will soon awake to this hypocrisy and demand a more ethical approach to this crucial issue.
November 2006
by Jason Foster
AFL Staff
Conservatives of Convenience: Not all unions buy the logic behind joining the "Conservative Collective"
When I heard the news last week that several well-known union leaders and labour organizations were encouraging their members to get involved in the Tory leadership race - and in some cases, actually buying party memberships for them - my most prominent emotion was frustration.
What a sad commentary, I thought, on the state of democracy in our province: that people who are obviously not Conservatives feel the only way they can influence public policy is by joining a party they don't really believe in.
Don't get me wrong. On one level, I understand why people like Alberta Teachers Association President Frank Bruseker and leaders from the Alberta Building Trades Council did what they did.
After all, the Alberta Conservatives have been in power for more than 35 years and, if recent polls are any indication, there's every reason to believe they will win the next election as well.
So, if these are the people most likely to form and lead the next provincial government, why not cozy up to them?
But, from where I sit, there are at least two major problems with this line of thinking - the first being the not-so-subtle acceptance of the notion that Alberta is one-party state.
The phrase "one-party state" may make some people feel uncomfortable - but just look at the record.
Despite all the trappings of democracy (parties, elections, Question Period etc.) Alberta has for generations been missing one of the key ingredients for a true democracy - and that ingredient is change.
During the long reign of the Alberta Tories, provinces like B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario have seen their government change multiple times.
Change and democracy go hand in hand. When you lose the hope for change I would argue you lose democracy itself.
Of course Conservatives and their supporters don't see it that way.
As the leader of Alberta's largest association of unions, I too have been courted by Tory leadership hopefuls who have pedalled what I refer to as the "Borg Argument."
"Alberta has always been and always will be Conservative," they whisper. "The only real democracy that exists in the province is democracy within our party. If you want to be heard, join us. Resistance is futile."
Well, I for one am not prepared to accept the notion that it's politically futile to exercise my democratic rights outside the Tory tent. And, to take the Star Trek metaphor one step further, I'm not prepared to accept that the only way you can make a difference in this province is to be "assimilated" into the Conservative Collective.
Unfortunately, whether they intended to do it or not, that's the message that Bruseker and the others union leaders are sending both to their members and the general public.
By joining the Tories, they are saying, at least implicitly, that resistance IS futile; and, as a result, they're making it more likely that the Tory one-party state will hang on, no matter how unhealthy that might be for our democracy.
That brings me to the second reason why I won't be using my office to encourage involvement in the Tory leadership race.
While I whole-heartedly support and defend the right of individual union members to belong to the parties of their choice, I oppose giving institutional support to the Conservatives because they are NOT really the "big tent" party they're pretending to be.
Union members should not forget that this is the same party and the same government that rolled back public sector wages in the mid-90s and imposed hiring freezes on nurses, teachers and other public servants - freezes that are now coming back to haunt us all.
It is the same government that has repeatedly thumbed its nose at public opinion and pushed the envelope on private health care. It is the same government that has consistently under-funded our schools, municipalities and post-secondary institutions; and which has left a legacy of huge infrastructure, social and environmental deficits.
It is also the same government that decided to essentially give our oil sands away at a ridiculous royalty rate of one penny on the dollar; and which continues to turn a blind on energy companies that want to mine our oil sands but have no intention of upgrading it or refining it here.
Finally, this is the same government that created and maintains the most restrictive, pro-employer labour laws in the country; and which has not be afraid to use its legislative power to intervene and tip the playing field even more dramatically in favour of employers - as they did in the case of the Horizon oil sands project near Fort McMurray.
After looking at this sorry record - and recognizing that five of the nine contenders for the Tory leadership were Klein-era cabinet ministers - I would argue that the Tories simply haven't earned the support of working people in this province.
Sure, we can wine and dine candidates. We can write cheques to the party. We might even be able to extract a few vague promises.
But, our money will never be more than a drop in the bucket compared to the flood coming from high-rolling corporate donors. And even more importantly, money and memberships will never trump the deeply ingrained ideological distrust most Conservatives feel for unions and the issues we care about.
At the end of the day that's the most frustrating part of this whole affair: the Tories know who they are - and they're not a "worker-friendly" party. There is no reason to believe that a few memberships sold here and there will make the leopard change its spots.
Calgary Herald, Sat Oct 21, 2006, Page A29
By Gil McGowan, AFL President
The sky isn't falling on Alberta's labour market - yet
When it comes to discussions about the labour force in Alberta, it's hard not to be reminded of the old children's fable, Chicken Little.
No matter who you talk to - in government, business or media circles - they all seem to be saying "the sky is falling."
But is the situation really that bad? Is the future prosperity of Alberta really at risk?
The short answer is: no - at least not yet.
It's true, of course, that high commodity prices have led to unprecedented levels of investment in Alberta. And it's also true that the rapid pace of economic growth has created a very tight labour market.
However, many of the worst predictions about labour shortages are based on questionable assumptions.
Like the assumption the Alberta economy will continue to grow at its current blistering pace; or that workforce participation rates will decline and that current levels of migration to Alberta from other provinces will remain roughly the same.
As with any prediction, overly pessimistic assumptions lead to overly pessimistic conclusions.
Business pundits also hit a sour note when they sound the alarm about wage inflation in Alberta.
After more than twenty years of income stagnation, pardon me for asking an obvious question: aren't wage increases a good thing? What's the point a strong economy if it doesn't bring an improved standard of living?
It's also important to note that higher wages aren't just good for workers. Good wages lure people. So, if employers want to convince more Canadians to take jobs in Alberta, higher wages should be seen as part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Having said all that, while the problem may not be as bad as some of the doom-sayers would have us believe, there still is a problem.
Several large oil companies - most notably Husky Energy - are now musing aloud about building new oil sands upgraders in the U.S., instead of Alberta. And they're pointing to Alberta's tight labour market as the reason.
At the same, time there is no doubt that the booming energy sector has created a problem by "poaching" employees from other parts of the provincial economy.
So how do we build a "Goldilocks" labour market - one that's not too hot, and not too cold? The answer comes in two steps.
First, we have to come to grips with a basic question: is there such a thing as too much growth?
The "labour shortage" crowd assumes that Alberta should keep growing at its current break-neck pace. But do we really need to build all these projects at once?
Certainly most skilled tradesmen would prefer to have twenty years of stable employment rather than seven or eight years of frantic development followed by a jobs bust.
More reasonably paced development would also allow public infrastructure to catch up with growth; it would reduce the energy sector's "poaching" of workers; and it would make it easier to address the environmental concerns associated with oil sands development.
The good news is that the Alberta government has control of policy levers that could make this happen.
For one thing, they could simply stop doling out oil sands leases like they were water.
In addition, the time has clearly come to revisit Alberta's infamous one-percent oil sands royalty. This corporate give-away is over-heating the Alberta economy. And with oil at $70 a barrel, such "investment incentives" are obviously no longer needed.
Given the strong international demand for oil, even if steps were taken to slow the pace of development, the Alberta economy would still remain strong - we'd just be replacing a "runaway freight train" with one that chugs along more happily.
That leads to the second part of the equation.
If the freight train can be brought under control, then we can move past panicky "quick-fix" solutions like dramatically increased use of temporary foreign workers and instead focus on the kind of longer-term solutions that Alberta really needs.
For example, we should be tapping the labour force potential of aboriginal communities; increasing permanent immigration levels; and using government programs and incentives to convince workers to move from high unemployment regions like Newfoundland to low unemployment regions like Alberta.
Most importantly, any serious labour force development plan can't ignore the issue of apprentice training.
We'll never be able to keep up with demand for tradesmen unless employers actually provide jobs for apprentices. And that's the problem - even in Alberta's hot economy where so many employers are crying "labour shortage" - employers are not holding up their end.
According to the Construction Owners Association of Alberta, there are more than 20,000 "trades" employers in the province - but only 11,000 have actually taken on apprentices. This helps explain why less than half of young Alberta apprentices complete their training in the prescribed timeframe.
The perversity of this situation cannot be over-emphasized.
The businessmen who say they can't find skilled workers and who are calling for permission to import thousands of guest workers are often the same ones who helped create the problem by not taking on apprentices. Clearly, this has to change.
In the end, policy makers looking for ways to deal with Alberta's labour market woes need to re-learn the lesson of the Chicken Little fable: don't panic.
What Alberta needs is to carefully apply the brakes on future oil sands development. We also need measured reforms in areas like training and education.
Gil McGowan, AFL President
July 2006
It's not racism, it's union-busting
When it comes to public debates, one of the oldest tricks in the book is to attack your opponent's character and question his motives. If you can paint the other guy as a villain, then people are less likely to hear his arguments -- let alone be swayed by them.
That, unfortunately, is what has been happening as more and more Albertans join the debate over the use of temporary foreign workers in our province's oilpatch.
Recently, former Calgary mayor Al Duerr weighed in with a guest column in which he accused union leaders of making comments with "racist overtones." He argued that one of the main reasons unions oppose a plan by Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. to employ hundreds of temporary foreign workers on its huge Horizon project near Fort McMurray is because those workers are Chinese.
Aside from being entirely offensive, Duerr's comments are simply wrong. Alberta unions are pro-immigration and vehemently opposed to racism. Like most other Canadians, we value diversity and actively promote tolerance in the workplace and the broader community.
We also support changes to our immigration system that would give a higher priority to immigrants with backgrounds in the construction trades.
As a labour leader, I am proud of the strong and well-documented leadership role that Canadian unions have taken in the fight against racism.
The real reason we oppose the use of temporary foreign workers on the Horizon site is because of the union-busting labour relations practices adopted by Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.
From the outset, CNRL has been trying to find ways to build the Horizon project without having to work with Alberta's traditional building trades unions.
This goal was clearly laid out in company documents filed with the provincial government and in at least one internal company memo that was leaked to our office. Of course, there is no law saying that a company has to work with unionized contractors. However, there are laws saying construction jobs must first be offered to Canadian workers before they are filled by temporary foreign workers.
CNRL may indeed have exhausted the pool of available non-union construction workers. But instead of biting the bullet and offering work to unionized contractors working under collective agreements, they have gone straight to the option of temporary foreign workers.
In essence, company managers are ignoring a viable and experienced pool of qualified workers -- union workers -- right in front them.
Our provincial and federal governments seem to have bought into CNRL's approach. By granting permits to CNRL and its contractors under the Foreign Temporary Worker program, they are actively helping CNRL bypass unionized Alberta contractors. In a sense, they are aiding and abetting in a campaign to bust unions.
The obvious question is why the company is going to such lengths to avoid working under existing collective agreements.
Other oilsands developers -- most notably the OPTI-Nexen consortium that is developing the Long Lake project near Fort McMurray -- had originally joined CNRL in trying to build their project non-union. But when they ran into a shortage of labour, they turned to the traditional unionized building trades. And the project is on time and on budget.
Instead of trying to paint hard-working Alberta tradespeople as intolerant rednecks, we should be asking if it's appropriate for our governments to be in the business of helping companies to bust unions.
The bottom line is that there is more than enough work to go around in Alberta's booming energy sector -- and there is no good reason to exclude unionized tradespeople and the contractors they work with. So let's put all these anti-union, Rambo-style management games aside -- and get on with the business of building Alberta's future prosperity.
Calgary Herald, Sun May 7 2006
Byline: Gil McGowan
Real Issue is union-busting, not racism
When it comes to public debates, one of the oldest tricks in the book is to attack your opponent's character and question his motives.
If you can successfully paint the other guy as a villain, then people are less likely to hear his arguments - let alone be swayed by them.
That, unfortunately, is what has been happening as more and more Albertans join the debate over the use of temporary foreign workers in our province's oil patch.
Last week, for example, former Calgary Mayor Al Duerr weighed in with a guest column in which he accused union leaders of making comments with "racist overtones."
In particular, he argued that one of the main reasons unions oppose a plan by Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. to employ hundreds of temporary foreign workers on it's huge Horizon project near Fort McMurray is because those workers are Chinese.
Aside from being entirely offensive, Duerr's comments - and the comments made by other observers who have attempted to paint Alberta unions with a racist brush - are simply wrong.
Alberta unions are pro-immigration and vehemently opposed to racism. Like most other Canadians, we value diversity and actively promote tolerance in the workplace and the broader community.
We also recognize that Canada is a country built by immigrants. We even support changes to our immigration system that would give a higher priority to immigrants with backgrounds in the construction trades.
As a labour leader, I am proud of the strong and well-documented leadership role that Canadian unions have taken in the fight against racism.
So why, if unions are so supportive of immigration, are we opposed to the use of temporary foreign workers on CNRL's Horizon site?
The short answer is that our beef is not with individual temporary foreign worker, no matter where they come from.
What we're really opposed to are the union-busting labour relations practices adopted by one company - Canadian Natural Resources Limited.
From our perspective, ever since it was granted approval to develop the Horizon site, CNRL has been trying to find ways to build its project without having to work with Alberta's traditional building trades unions.
This goal was clearly laid out in company documents filed with the provincial government and in at least one internal company memo that was leaked to our office.
Of course, there is no law saying that a company has to work with unionized contractors. However, there are laws saying that construction jobs must first be offered to Canadian workers - including unionized Canadian workers - before they are filled by temporary foreign workers.
That's the problem. CNRL may indeed have exhausted the pool of available non-union construction workers. But instead of biting the bullet and offering work to unionized contractors working under existing collective agreements, they have gone straight to the option of temporary foreign workers.
In essence, company managers are crying "labour shortage" while intentionally ignoring a viable and experienced pool of qualified workers - union workers - right in front them.
One of the most frustrating aspects of this whole situation is that our provincial and federal governments seem to have bought into CNRL's approach.
By granting permits to CNRL and its contractors under the Foreign Temporary Worker program, they are actively helping CNRL bypass unionized Alberta contractors. In an important sense, they are aiding and abetting in a campaign to bust unions.
The obvious question that needs to be asked - and one which I think CNRL investors should be asking - is why the company is going to such lengths to avoid working under existing collective agreements.
Other oilsands developers - most notably the OPTI-Nexen consortium that is developing the Long Lake project near Fort McMurray - had originally joined CNRL in trying to build their project non-union.
But when they ran into a shortage of non-union labour that caused huge delays, they turned to the traditional unionized building trades. As a result, that project is now on time and on budget.
That's why all these arguments about "racist overtones" are so frustrating - they obscure the real debate.
Instead of trying to paint hard-working Alberta trades people as intolerant red necks, we should be asking if it's appropriate for our governments to be in the business of helping companies to bust unions.
The bottom line is that there is more than enough work to go around in Alberta's booming energy sector - and there is no good reason to exclude unionized tradespeople and the contractors they work with.
So let's put all these anti-union, Rambo-style management games aside - and get on with the business of building Alberta's future prosperity!
Calgary Herald, Sat July 8 2006, Page A20
By Gil McGowan, AFL President
When will we learn? Day of Mourning remembers 143 Alberta workers killed last year
Every year Albertans, along with hundreds of thousands of people around the world, mark April 28 as the International Day of Mourning. It is a day to remember the needless loss of life at work and to reflect on what we can do to prevent such tragedies.
It is important to take time to stop and remember. But for those of us who have worked on occupational health and safety for many years, April 28 has also become a day of great frustration.
Things are not getting better. In fact they are getting worse. We aren't learning any lessons from the loss of life.
Signs of Alberta's latest economic boom are everywhere - new construction, industry expansion, job openings popping up like dandelions. But with the boom we also see an increase in injuries and deaths. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) reports that last year there were 170,000 recorded accidents in Alberta - a rate of almost 500 per day.
In this boom employers are scrambling just to keep up with the demand. Focus is on getting the work done. Unfortunately, safety is one of the first corners cut. Far too often I hear the excuse "there isn't enough time to do things safely".
Cutting corners during a boom is one problem. The other is when the boom ends. In tougher times, companies tighten their belt, and safety is one of the first budget items cut. Safety is deemed too expensive.
It makes one ask, when is the right time to make safety a priority?
The picture is even worse than official records indicate. Cancer caused by workplace exposure to cancer-causing substances like asbestos, benzene or carbon affects thousands of workers - and their suffering is not recorded by the WCB or the provincial government.
According to WCB statistics, the WCB accepted 29 new claims for work-related cancer and recognized 38 fatalities due to occupational cancer in 2005.
However, the Alberta Cancer Board estimates that 8% of all cancers in Alberta are work-related. This means over 1,000 new cases of work-related cancer are diagnosed and more than 400 workers die of occupational cancer each year.
Fewer than one in ten occupational cancer fatalities are recognized by the WCB. I consider this a moral outrage.
What about the government? Isn't it their job to protect worker safety? You may have seen the government's ads with pictures of workers doing unsafe things with the word "stupid" in big print. The government's response to the rash of workplace injuries is to call workers "stupid".
The government's main job is to enforce the Health and Safety Act, which lays out rules every employer and worker are supposed to obey. Except that there are fewer than 90 enforcement officers to inspect more than 150,000 workplaces in Alberta. There is no way a handful of officers can keep an eye on even a small fraction of Alberta workplaces. As a result, enforcement is virtually non-existent.
The government refuses to publish the names of employers with the worst safety records so workers can protect themselves. They refuse to prosecute any but the most serious infractions.
The end result? The number of deaths keeps climbing.
We have created a system designed to save money rather than save lives.
The incentives in the system are cost-based, rather than safety-based. Employers earn WCB premium reductions for reducing the amount of time workers lose at work due to accidents. Employers can minimize disruptions to productivity through modified work and case management.
In both cases, an employer can save significant money without actually making their workplace any safer. Implement an aggressive modified work program - which gives injured workers alternative work to perform - and watch your WCB costs drop. However, you can achieve the goal without a single accident being prevented.
Government regulations are quite detailed at protecting workers from falls or collisions. But the lack of enforcement undermines their effectiveness. And the regulations are virtually silent in protecting workers from exposure to chemicals that will lead to cancer down the road.
Workers have an important role in working safely. They need to work safe, and watch out for co-workers. But there is only so much a worker can do to prevent accidents. Workers don't have the power to lower fugitive benzene emissions, or reduce their exposure to damaging noise or other hazards. That power rests with employers and the government.
And employers and the government simply aren't prepared to take the bold steps necessary to bring a halt to workplace death. As a consequence, every year we are forced to remember increasing numbers of workers killed because of work. And every year we fail to learn the lesson of 143 workers dying needlessly because we put our priority on profit rather than people's lives.
Time to heed the lesson. Time to get serious about stopping the scourge of workplace death.
Jason Foster, AFL Executive Staff
April 2006