Few of us would find it easy to terminate an employee. It's not pleasant to be the one who has to undertake this role -- and nor should it be. Neither is it pleasant to be on the receiving end.

This is someone's livelihood and it's best to proceed with caution and with clear process. That's where unions -- and negotiated collective agreements -- can be a real benefit to an employer, as well as offering real protection to workers.

This issue has come to media attention recently concerning the case of Edmontonian Maia Soukonnik, who was killed by her mentally disturbed adult son in 2008. She had called 911, but the call was lost and the dispatcher may not have followed up. The dispatcher was dismissed and the Edmonton Police Association has filed a grievance against the dismissal. The issue will now go to an arbitration panel.

Any potential job dismissal will likely have boss and worker on edge, acting and reacting emotionally, with feelings sometimes overwhelming logic.

A case with tragic overtones such as this one is a perfect example and will also include outside observers and the public in those sentiments.

This is exactly why unions and employers work so hard to craft precise and clear terms, agreed upon by both sides at a time when heads are clear and emotions are calm. These policies act as a map through a minefield that allows the correct decision to be made.

The usual language in collective agreements concerning dismissal is that it must be for "just cause." It's a simple enough concept. Did the worker do something worthy of losing his job? Is dismissal justified?

A recent article by lawyer Howard Levitt in The Journal's Working section said that the "just-clause" requirement is one way unions erode employer control over the workplace.

This is far from the truth and it is disturbing to see a lawyer practising in the field so misrepresent the principle.

The just-cause element of collective agreements simply spells out the test to ensure that the employer's decision to terminate the worker is justified -- that it is a fair and reasonable response to what has happened. An employer who wants to be fair will welcome this.

If these conditions are met, the employer can relax in the knowledge that a difficult decision has been taken cautiously and that it was the right decision, not one based on anger or fear.

Employees, meanwhile, know that with this kind of process in place, they do not face the prospect of being unjustly fired and that they and their co-workers will be treated fairly.

The rigour applied to the process allows employer and employees to establish what really happened and in certain cases make changes to policy or procedures to avoid similar situations in the future. Instead of a war zone, a calm process allows for a successful resolution.

Unions are stakeholders in the workplace. They make sure that terms and conditions of employment reflect the needs and desires of the workers. They help workers feel secure and appreciated. A happy worker is, after all, a productive worker. A contract that reflects their needs encourages employees to apply and to stay put. Smart employers will recognize this and work with their unions.

Levitt's suggestion, to record all minor workplace errors, even for mistakes that may be fairly common, and his claim that workers would lie and that their unions would encourage such a thing creates a war-zone mentality.

Modern labour-relations policies recognize that these approaches are likely to create a toxic and unproductive workplace atmosphere and make having a union painful for the employer.

Levitt's advice to employers is to make the union and employees their enemy.

Although that might be good for his business, I suggest it isn't good for employers, their employees or their businesses.

Nancy Furlong is secretary-treasurer of the Alberta Federation of Labour and has been a full-time labour-relations professional since 1980. She has spent many years presenting arbitrations on behalf of unions in the Alberta labour relations community.

Edmonton Journal, Wed Jan 19 2011Byline: Nancy Furlong

The Left should remember what the Right has known for years

How ironic that the Right seems more aware than the Left of the crucial importance of unions to progressive politics. In the past, when conservatives were less aggressive, this didn't matter so much. Now, in the age of Stephen Harper and the Tea Party, the stakes are much higher.

In the USA and here in Canada under Harper (and, of course, under Brad Wall in former social democratic homeland Saskatchewan), new laws are sapping the strength and even the existence of unions, too often with little public outcry.

In Parliament, a bill is due for debate and possibly a vote this fall that could cripple unions of all sizes with expensive and nosy paperwork. National Post columnist John Ivison, no fan of the labour movement, wrote that Bill C-377 (Public Financial Disclosure for Labour Organizations) "could shatter the union business model forever."

More worrisome still are recent threats by Parliamentary Secretary Pierre Poilevre to punish the Public Service Alliance of Canada for supporting the Parti-Québecois in Quebec's provincial election by ending automatic union membership in federal workplaces under what's known as the "Rand Formula." Although the majority of workplaces are provincially regulated, this could mark the beginning of the end of Rand and drastically weaken federal public service unions.

Regardless of whether we belong to unions or work in organized sectors, these moves threaten all Canadians, yet, to date, public response has been muted. Why are these moves such a threat?

Labour is at the centre of all progressive politics

"Labour is at the centre of all progressive politics," Alberta Federation of Labour President Gil McGowan reminded in an interview following SGN's weekend conference on labour's image. "Labour is powerful. That's the reason they've targeted us, they've put the bullseye on us because they recognize we have power at the bargaining table, we have power in our communities, we have political power, and that power can be used against them. They want to undermine that power. They want to take apart civil society so they can change Canada."

Rand has been the National Citizen's Coalition's target since it was formed, under Harper and other CEOs. Conservative activists recognized then as now that unions have a regular source of income through member dues, unlike any other progressive organizations. And unions use their influence and theie money to support and promote a range of progressive causes and activists. SGNews is one of a long list of progressive projects supported very significantly by the labour movement.

Without public services, public service workers, union members, Rand, and dues — and a great many progressive projects, and the advocates who work for them, are at risk.

Since the 1980s under Reagan, US Republicans have worked to "de-fund the Left," going after advocacy groups, university student councils, progressive lawyers and legal clinics, charities, and, of course, unions.

The Harperites understand the importance of this directive better than any conservatives in Canada before them. When they had a minority government, they worked systematically to eliminate funding for any of the issues they don't like, such as feminism, environment, and social justice. Now they have a majority, they are gunning for big game — unions — and only widespread public outrage can stop them.

At SGN's workshop, speakers from the world of advertising discussed the art and science of branding and images and showed how unions could apply their knowledge through careful research and by focussing their creative efforts . The group heard that over the years, the union image has been steadily corroded by attacks that often go unanswered from right-wing interests.

"We're facing a government that's more like the Tea Party Right," said McGowan. They have a political plan, they have a communications plan, and they're targeting us. If we're going to be successful in fighting back, we have to have conversations like we had today... We have an obligation to get our act together, protect the labour movement, and also, in doing so, protect broader civil society," McGowan told us.

Conference participant David Climenhaga, of the United Nurses of Alberta (UNA), has similar concerns. "We need to respond instantly to the barrage of anti-union propoganda that we're hearing from organizations that have been set up and intelligently run in order to attack not just unions but progressive policies and the rights of working people," he told Straight Goods News. "All the time, we cede the room to them by letting them make powerful statements that are simply based on unsound research, politically motivated research, and that are in many cases outright false. They become the truth because we don't bother speaking back to them."

As a result of the constant barrage, union support has slipped and needs to be bolstered. Janice Peterson, another workshop participant from the United Nurses of Alberta (UNA), told Straight Goods News unions need to face some troubling realities. "Not only do we have a problem with public image, but we also have a huge problem with our own members. We not only have to sell ourselves to the public, we have to sell ourselves to our own members."

It's not too late for the labour movement to rebuild its image, was the message of speaker after speaker at SGN's workshop. Doing so, however, will require hard work, open minds, a lot of listening and research, and making key people in every organization responsible for a focus on improving the reputation and image of their union and unions in general.

"I loved Terry O'Reilly's presentation on rebuilding our message and repositioning ourselves," Francine Filion, of the Canadian Teachers' Federation said. "It can be done. There is a solution."

There has to be a solution, because without strong unions, every progressive cause will be hobbled.

Straight Goods News, Monday Sept 24 2012Byline: Isa Theilheimer

EDMONTON-In the aftermath of the rejection of a tentative agreement by Telus workers, the AFL sent a letter to Telus CEO Darren Entwistle urging the company to return quickly to the bargaining table. While the vote was a setback, the AFL says, the parties need to use it to make one last push for an agreement.

"The closeness of the result tells us the two parties are not very far apart," writes AFL President Gil McGowan in his letter to Entwistle. "I strongly believe that one more honest attempt to find a deal will result in an agreement that would garner majority support from TWU members."

"It is time to put egos aside," says McGowan. "Set aside the personal acrimony from this dispute and know that an agreement is in sight. It is time to get it done."

McGowan indicates that attempting to "punish" TWU members for voting no will only prolong and deepen the crisis at Telus. "Saying that the time for talking is over is exactly the wrong message to send right now."

McGowan also renewed the promise from the labour movement to support the TWU members on the picket line. We need to respect the choice of the members. Our job in the labour movement is to continue to offer whatever support we can to help them through this lock out and to help them get a fair deal."

"Alberta's labour movement continues to stand with TWU," McGowan concludes.

- 30 -

 

For more information contact:

Gil McGowan, AFL President at 780.915-4599 (cell) or 780.483-3021 (wk)

 

Marking the 7th International Day of Mourning, the Alberta Federation of Labour is asking why workplace deaths are given much lower priority than other causes of death. The AFL suggests that any other thing that killed two people a week would be called an epidemic.Sunday April 28th is the International Day of Mourning, and is recognized around the world as the day to remember workers who have been killed and injured due to work. Day of Mourning started in Canada in 1986 after the labour movement persuaded the House of Commons to proclaim the day.

"If a disease killed two people a week every year, we might call it an epidemic," says AFL President Les Steel. "There would be millions poured into research and prevention.""Last year in Alberta 118 workers were killed because of work - and that is just the official figure," Steel points out. "That is more than two workers a week. And the rate has remained that high for years now."

But, Steel points out, the Alberta government only puts $4 per worker into health and safety enforcement and prevention. By comparison, the meningitis outbreak in Alberta has killed 4 people. The Alberta government launched a $22 million campaign to immunize young people from the disease.

"Meningitis is a serious disease that deserves prompt preventative action such as immunization," says Steel. "My question is why does the death of 118 workers each year not spark the same concern?"

"The answer is that still too many people, including the Alberta government, believe that workplace accidents are just another cost of doing business. What we need is a zero tolerance policy on workplace accidents."

Steel points out that the government refuses to even lower flags to half-mast on April 28 in respect for the 118 killed workers. "We made a request to the Minister to lower flags on that day, but he refused outright. This says a lot about what kind of priority he places on injured workers."

The City of Edmonton and other Alberta municipalities regularly proclaim Day of Mourning. Flags at City of Edmonton buildings will be flown at half mast on Sunday. "I can't see why the provincial government can't do the same."

"We want to use the Day of Mourning to recommit ourselves to working for safer workplaces and an end to workplace death. We want every worker in Alberta to make it home safe at the end of the work day," Steel concludes.

For more information contact:

Les Steel, President @ 780-483-3021 (wk)/780-499-4135 (cell)

The Alberta Federation of Labour has learned the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission (AGLC) has altered its policy regarding the hiring of minors to work in bars and lounges. Effectively immediately, bar and lounge owners can apply to use 12-17 year-olds in the kitchen area of their establishments.

The AFL received a copy of an email (dated March 15, 2007) widely distributed by the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association (CRFA) trumpeting the decision. An AFL staffer subsequently confirmed the change this morning with the AGLC's Executive Director of Regulatory Affairs. This follows the decision last year by the Alberta government to allow restaurants to hire 12 to 14 year-olds.

"Minors aren't allowed in bars, but they can toil away in the kitchens of bars. The logic of this is beyond belief," says AFL President Gil McGowan. "No one can convince me that a bar atmosphere is appropriate for a young teenager. Drunk patrons, worldly staff and alcohol sales add up to an adult environment, both in the bar and behind the scenes. It is no place for a 12-year old."

The AGLC indicates the change was made at the request of the CRFA due to their claims of labour shortages.

"The Alberta government has its priorities completely backward," says McGowan. "It is supposed to protect our kids, but instead it slavishly serves the self-interests of an industry with a spotty employment track record."

"Hiring 12-year olds to work in restaurants is indefensible enough. Hiring them to work in bars is a whole new level of appalling."

The AGLC says it will weigh the merits of each application, denying applications for employers who have breached their licenses in some way. "Ill believe it when I see it," responds McGowan. "Where are the checks and balances?"

"Who will stand up to protect our young people from being exploited? Clearly not the Conservative government," McGowan concludes.

- 30 -

For More InformationGil McGowan        Cell: (780) 218-9888

When the Alberta government changed employment standards rules governing 12-year olds working in restaurants last year, one of the big mysteries was "why". That question was answered today, when an official from McDonald's admitted they approached the government and asked for the change.

"It is clear today that the government - behind closed doors and without public consultation - relaxed rules protecting 12- and 13-year olds because one employer asked for it," says AFL President Gil McGowan. "It says volumes about how regulations are made in this province. If a well-heeled donor of the Conservatives asks for it - they get it."

Max Pasley Enterprises is a large donor to the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party. Between 2001 and 2004, the company donated a total of $15,000 to the party. It donated $5,000 in each of 2001 and 2004, and $2,500 in 2002 and again in 2003. Max Pasley Enterprises is one of Alberta's 50 largest companies, employing over 3,000 workers. It is McDonald's largest franchise operator in the province. Since the new rules, Max Pasley has submitted forms for over 70 adolescent workers - by far the largest number of young workers in the province.

In today's Edmonton Journal, Gavin Stafford, a senior marketing executive with McDonald's is quoted as saying that Max Pasley Enterprises and the parent company asked for the new rules. "I understood that there were people from McDonald's HR department and from Pasley Enterprises that met with, if not the minister, with somebody in the department." (Edmonton Journal, B5)

"This completes the circle," says McGowan. "An important friend of the Conservatives feels bogged down by paperwork and stringent government regulations. They approach decision-makers in the government to relax the rules. And within months the rules are relaxed."

"Albertans should be very troubled about how government policy is made in this province. Who won't they sell out to satisfy their Tory friends?"

The AFL has been a vocal critic of the rules change, arguing it leaves young workers vulnerable to unsafe working conditions and exploitation. "If the government doesn't know where the 12-year olds are working, they can't protect them," observes McGowan. The AFL is calling for a ban on employing anyone under the age of 15 in restaurants.

The rule change eliminated the requirement that an employer must seek a permit before they can hire a person under the age of 15. The extra rules limited the number of employers who wanted to hire adolescents, and ensured that Employment Standards and Workplace Health and Safety officers knew which workplaces were hiring adolescents, and could inspect them.

"This is government by pay-off. If you give enough to the party, you can change the law. Where this leaves 12-year olds and other Albertans is another question." McGowan concludes.

- 30 -

For more information call:

Gil McGowan, AFL President  @  (780) 915-4599 (cell)

EDMONTON - As of June 3, 2005, Alberta employers can now legally hire 12, 13 and 14-year olds to work in restaurants, the Alberta Federation of Labour revealed today. In a quiet policy change, implemented without public debate or discussion, the Alberta government decided to allow for a blanket exemption to the Employment Standards Code for the entire restaurant industry. Previously, a person had to be 15-years old to work in a restaurant.

"With the stroke of a pen, the government has created a new type of child labour in this province. 12-year olds can now serve you your Big Mac, or prepare your salad," says Gil McGowan. "What's next? Letting 10-year olds work on construction sites?"

"It is particularly appalling that a change of this magnitude was made without public consultation, without debate and without notice," McGowan adds.

"Allowing 12-year olds to work in restaurants is not in the child's interest, it is not in the customers' interest, and it is not in society's interest. Kids that young should be doing two things - going to school and playing," observes McGowan. "There is plenty of time in life for working, why are we in such a rush to push children into the workforce?"

McGowan said the real motivation for the policy change is clear - propping up the interests of restaurant operators.

"Restaurant employers are having a hard time finding adults willing to work for the low wages and lousy conditions they offer, and rather than raise their wages, they get the government to create a whole new pool of vulnerable workers."

The old policy prohibited children under 15 from working, except in select jobs such as newspaper carrier or odd jobs in an office or retail store. If an employer wanted to hire an adolescent (12-14), they needed to get a special exemption for that individual from the Director of Employment Standards.

The new policy now allows restaurants to hire adolescents without permission, if they meet certain safety and consent requirements. This is the first time employment standards have provided an industry-wide exemption to the age limit. (A copy of the new policy is available at www.gov.ab.ca/hre/employmentstandards.)

"The supposed safeguards are nothing of the kind," says McGowan. "They are paper tigers that will do nothing to protect these children against abuse, exploitation or danger." McGowan points out the 'requirements' are that the employer must fill out a checklist, and get the consent of the child and their parent.

"A 12-year old is not in a position to defend themselves against employer abuse. They have no way of recognizing a safety hazard, or understanding their rights," McGowan argues. "We have created a situation where young children are being put in very vulnerable positions. It's a recipe for exploitation."

"Is this the Alberta Advantage?" McGowan asks. "Child labour in our restaurants? I don't think this is what Albertans want."

- 30 -

For more information contact:

Gil McGowan, AFL President at 780.915.4599 (cell) or 780.483-3021 (wk)

 

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

As trade unionists we are currently living through a period that can best be described as schizophrenic.

It's a time of big challenges - some of the most serious we've ever faced. But, on the other hand, I believe it's also a time of new hope and new opportunities.

This afternoon, I'd like to start with the positives & and so I'll make a positive statement.

I'm convinced that we're starting to see the first tell-tale signs that the long winter of knee-jerk, business-first politics that has dominated our country since the days of Brian Mulroney may finally be coming to an end.

This may seem like a surprising claim to make - especially here in Alberta. And especially considering all the talk we've been hearing lately from our provincial government about taking away the right to strike from health care workers, imposing agreements and fining unions millions of dollars.

There is no doubt that, in the halls of power, things are as bad as they've ever been - maybe worse.

But on the ground - in communities, in homes, in coffee shops - attitudes are changing.

After Enron and Worldcom and all the other corporate scandals that have come to light over the past year, people are no longer so willing to put blind faith in the business community

Ordinary Canadians are also becoming more and more skeptical of the corporate agenda that our governments have been pursuing for the past fifteen years.

Yes, our leaders are still talking about budget cuts, privatization, wage roll-backs, down-sizing, trade deals and tax cuts for the well-off. And, yes, here in Alberta, the government seems to be rev-ing up for a war on unions.

But poll after poll tells us that ordinary Canadians are on a different page.

Joe and Jane Canadian no longer agree with the National Post and the Fraser Institute that cutting the debt and cutting taxes are the big issues. And they don't agree with the Ralph Klein's of the world who argue that unions are the root of all evil.

What people are really concerned about are things that affect their pocketbook; things that affect their communities; and things that affect their families.

In fact, Canadians are now starting to focus on many of the things that we in the labour movement have been talking about for years: things like health care; education; jobs; and the environment.

Recent polls have also shown some interesting shifts in the political landscape.

A few years ago the Reform party and then the Canadian Alliance were driving the agenda in this country. They weren't in government, but for most of the 90s they succeeded in moving the political centre of gravity in this country far to the right.

But today, according to the latest EKOS poll, the Alliance has slipped to 10 percent of popular support - down from more than 25 percent less than a year ago.

At the same time, the NDP has jumped to nearly 18 percent - from just nine percent during the last election.

Even here in Alberta - where we've basically had one-party rule for more than six decades - support for the Conservative party has notched down slightly for the first time in years.

By themselves, none of these signs can be described as revolutionary. But taken together, the signs suggest that something is going on - something is changing under the surface.

It's like the first warm day after a long winter. The snow still covers everything - but there is a steady "drip, drip, drip" that tells us that things are going to change - that the snow will be gone soon - and that the cold will soon be replaced by something more hospitable.

For those of us in the labour movement who have endured nearly twenty years of anti-union, neo-conservative winter - a spring thaw would certainly be welcome.

And that's exactly what seems to be happening. The pendulum is swinging. And this time it looks like it's swinging with us - not into us.

That's the good news. But as I said off the top, the world we in live today is not all roses.

On the negative side of the ledger, we face a number of serious challenges - some more frightening and more dangerous for our members than anything we've ever faced before.

How bad is it? To be honest, there's a whole shopping list of concerns.

Here in Alberta, the latest attack on workers and workers rights comes in the form of Bill 27 - a bill to amend the Alberta Labour Code.

We've all been talking about this Bill - but it's important to be clear about what is being proposed:

Bill 27 strips the right to strike from thousands of people working in community health care. It attacks the right of ALL health care workers to choose their own union. It denies workers access to severance pay-outs if their jobs are contracted out. It removes decision-making power from impartial tribunals like the Labour Relations Board and hand it over to the provincial cabinet And it sets up a process that will almost certainly give regional health authorities the power to impose inferior agreements on health care workers. From our perspective at the AFL, Bill 27 is just the first shot in what may turn into a war on workers waged by the Alberta government against unions in this province.

Within the next few months, we expect that teachers will also be targeted.

In an effort to weaken the ATA, this government will introduce a new law splitting ATA's union and professional functions.

And then there will be a law taking away their right to strike.

The government will use the same excuses they're using now with health care workers. They'll say that it's about protecting the public. They'll say it's about maintaining essential services.

But we all know what this is really all about. It's about power. It's about control. And it's about slapping down and punishing groups who dare to stand up for themselves.

The truth is that, in many ways, unions are the real opposition in this province.

The nurses stood up and won 22 percent for their members. The teachers stood up and won 14 percent. And it was CUPE and the hospital workers in Calgary who stood up seven years ago and stopped the Klein government from implementing the last of its planned cuts in health care.

Aside from labour, no other group in this province has dared to defy the Tories. No other group has gone toe-to-toe with them. And no other group has made them blink.

That's why unions are being targeted in Bill 27. And it's why we're all in for a fight over the next year.

We at the AFL will be working with affiliates and labour councils to help coordinate the fightback. In fact, the AFL and seven unions representing health care workers have already launched an international challenge of Bill 27 under NAFTA.

We're also considering legal action in the courts here in Alberta. And we're working on a protocol that will see all of our union work together in fighting this backward piece of legislation.

The government may think they can ram this law through under the cover of the war in Iraq. They may think they can ram it through without public scrutiny and without public protest.

But today I have a message for them. We will not go quietly. We will not roll over. And will not stand idly by while the rights of our members are trampled!

I wish I could say that the bad news for workers in this province stops with Bill 27. But it doesn't.

Here in Alberta, we have a government that is literally floating on money - but they still won't spend it on our schools or on other services that really matter to people.

Instead, they want to hand our tax dollars over to investors in the private-sector by increasing the number of so-called public-private-partnerships. The record on P3s is clear - wherever they've been tried, they've failed. But this government is ignoring the evidence and they're pushing forward - even though they know P3s will cost more, delivery less and put good jobs at risk.

P3s and Bill 27 are just two items on the list of challenges we're facing.

I could add more: like a war in the Middle East that almost nobody in this world wants; like a federal government that likes to portray itself as progressive, but which has cut services to a level we haven't seen since the '50s; or like the threat posed to working people by ill-conceived international trade agreements.

The list goes on - but the point is: we have our work cut out for us.

The irony in all this is that - just as the public seems to be getting tired of the right-wing crowd - conservative governments here Alberta and across the country seem to be getting bolder. And they're getting meaner.

The big question now is how do we respond to the challenges I've just talked about - and how do we capitalize on the opportunities that come with a more progressive shift in public opinion?

One option would be to do nothing - or to do the same things we've always done.

Maybe if we simply sit tight and wait, the pendulum will swing back our way.

But then again - if all we do is wait, the pendulum may not swing at all; or it might not swing as far as we'd like it to; or might swing right past us.

As you might have guessed, we at the AFL have come to the conclusion that the labour movement has to take a more active approach.

That's one of the reasons I'm so pleased to speak at gatherings like this one. We want to spread the gospel of activism - and we want to share our ideas and experiences about what we think will work to make the labour movement stronger.

For us, it all starts with a clear vision of the role of unions.

We firmly believe that the labour movement is one of the few institutions in society that is big enough and strong enough to stand up to the corporate and political powers-that-be.

We also believe that the labour movement has an obligation to use its size, its power and its resources to not only help our own members - but also to go to bat for families, for the unorganized and for the broader communities in which we all live.

When it comes specific solutions and strategies, we don't pretend to have all the answers. But over the past seven or eight years, all of us in the Alberta labour movement have been kicked around a lot.

In the process, we've suffered a few defeats; we've enjoyed a few victories - and we've learned quite a few lessons.

Before I wrap up this afternoon, I just want to touch on the three of the most important lessons I think we've learned - lessons that we can all learn from.

First - we've learned that we can't do it alone.

Whether we're talking about an individual strike or a province-wide campaign against cutbacks, we've learned that we get better results when we have allies - especially allies from outside the labour movement.

About a year ago, Ipso-Reid released a poll that helped illustrate why building coalitions is so important.

Basically, the survey asked Canadians to rate different groups in terms of trust. Not surprisingly, politicians were at the bottom of the barrel. But union spokespeople and union leaders weren't far behind.

We may not like to admit it - but unions have a serious image problem - and a serious credibility problem. Too often we're dismissed as self-interested and out to feather our own nests.

That's why we at the AFL have made a point of building coalitions with organizations outside the labour movement - organizations that share our concerns and our priorities.

Community groups, seniors groups, student groups, religious groups, women's groups, environmental groups, health care advocacy groups, immigrant groups, anti-poverty advocates, progressive academics.

You name it - we need to forge ties and build bridges with all these groups.

And it's not just a crass attempt to steal their credibility. It's about sharing resources, sharing people power, sharing networks, sharing ideas - and working together for change.

The second lesson we've learned is that we have to do a better job of cooperating within the labour movement itself. Too often, we get trapped in silos. We keep our heads down and do our work with our own members. But the result is that we end up not seeing the forest for the trees. We also often end up recreating the wheel.

Our experience fighting Bill 11 three years ago proved this point.

The Fed could have gone off and organized its own campaign. The nurses' and CUPE and the health sciences association could each have gone off in their own directions.

But instead, we worked together as part of a broader coalition - the Friends of Medicare coalition.

The result was that, by pooling our money and our people, we were able to run a bigger, smarter and more effective campaign than we ever would have been able to pull off individually.

Over the past year, we've started to apply this logic to organizing the unorganized. In partnership with the two other prairie provinces, we're talking about establishing a central organizing school. We're even talking about joint organizing drives. So instead of competing with each other, instead of working against each other - we're working together.

That's what we mean when we talk about cooperation between unions. We think solidarity should be more than a word we sing in a song every few years at conventions.

The third and final lesson that I'd like to highlight today is that we need to get over the fear of trying new things.

When the Alberta government first started slashing in 1993, we did all the usual things. We wrote leaflets that almost no one read. We organized a few rallies that only a few hundred people attended. We sent out a few harshly worded press releases. We even circulated a petition and started a postcard campaign.

The problem was that we did exactly what Ralph Klein expected us to do - and he didn't give a crap. As long it was just the usual suspects on the Legislature steps he knew he could get away with ignoring us.

The good news is that we've finally snapped out of it. We're starting to do things more creatively and more professionally.

We've borrowed from the corporate world by using TV ads, polling and direct mail campaigns.

We've borrowed from Hollywood by rounding up real life stories of people to tell their stories to the media.

And just last month, we went back to old-style person-to-person organizing.

Through the Friends of Medicare coalition, we canvassed more than 20,000 people in Federal Health Minister Anne McLellan's Edmonton riding - and we got more than five thousand of them to sign a card saying they might not vote for her in the next election if she doesn't do something to stop for-profit delivery of health services.

The point of all this is not to illustrate how brilliant we are at the AFL. If we were really that brilliant, we wouldn't still be dealing with Ralph as Premier three elections later.

What I am trying to say is that unions can make change - even in the most inhospitable climates. We can make gains for our members and we can defend and even advance our broader social agenda.

We can do all these things by building bridges to other groups. We can do it by working together within the labour movement. And we can do it by trying new things, by working better and working smarter.

In the end, I'm convinced that we can benefit from the spring thaw that is driving Canadians away from the business-first crowd. And I'm convinced that we can beat back the attacks that are threatening our unions and our members.

The pendulum is swinging our way. If we're prepared, if we're smart, if we're creative I know we can grab on make some real headway on the issue that matter most to all of us.

As usual, CUPE will be at the forefront of all our efforts. I look forward to working with you and standing together with you in our fight to build a better Alberta.

Good luck in your deliberations. Solidarity!

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

Good morning and thank you for the warm welcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's why I'm here this morning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We both know what cold winters are like.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think there are three lessons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

We need to change - to take advantage of new opportunities and meet new challenges

As trade unionists we are currently living through a period that can best be described as schizophrenic.

It's a time of big challenges - some of the most serious we've ever faced. But, on the other hand, it's also a time of new hope and new opportunities.

On the positive side - I'm convinced that we're starting to see the first tell-tale signs that the long winter of knee-jerk, business-first thinking that has dominated our country since the days of Brian Mulroney may finally be coming to an end.

This may seem like a surprising claim to make - especially here in B.C., right in the middle of Gordon Campbell's first term.

But on the ground - in communities, in homes, in coffee shops - attitudes are changing.

After Enron and Worldcom and all the other corporate scandals that have come to light over the past year, people are no longer so willing to put blind faith in the business community.

Ordinary Canadians are also becoming more and more skeptical of the corporate agenda that our governments have been pursuing for the past fifteen years or more years.

Yes, our leaders are still talking about budget cuts. And, yes, they're still pushing for privatization, wage roll-backs, down-sizing, more international trade deals and tax cuts for the well-off.

But poll after poll tells us that ordinary Canadians are on a different page.

Joe and Jane Canadian no longer agree with the National Post and the Fraser Institute that cutting the debt and cutting taxes are the big issues.

What they're really concerned about are things that effect their pocketbook, their communities and their families.

In fact, Canadians are now starting to focus on many of the things that we in the labour movement have been talking about for years: things like health care; education; jobs and job security; the environment.

Recent polls have also shown some interesting shifts in the political landscape.

A few years ago the Reform party and then the Canadian Alliance were driving the agenda in this country. They weren't in government, but for most of the 90s they succeeded in moving the political centre of gravity in this country far to the right.

But today, according to the latest EKOS poll, the Alliance has slipped to 10 percent of popular support - down from more than 25 percent less than a year ago.

At the same time, the NDP has jumped to nearly 18 percent - from just nine percent during the last election.

Even in Alberta - home of rock steady, one-party rule - support for the Conservative party has notched down slightly.

By themselves, none of these signs can be described as a revolution. And I certainly don't think that Canadians are going to be flocking to the NDP any time soon.

But taken together, the signs suggest that something is going on, something is changing under the surface.

It's like the first warm day after a long winter. The snow still covers everything - but there is a steady 'drip, drip, drip' that tells us that things are going to change - that the snow will be gone soon - and that the cold winds will soon be replaced by something more hospitable.

For those of us in the labour movement who have endured nearly twenty years of anti-union, neo-conservative winter - a spring thaw would certainly be welcome.

And that's exactly what seems to be happening. The pendulum is swinging. And this time it looks like it's swinging with us - not into us.

That's the good news. But as I said off the top, the world we in live today is not all roses.

On the negative side of the ledger, we face a number of serious challenges - some more daunting and potentially dangerous for our members than anything we've ever faced before.

How bad is it? To be honest, there's a whole shopping list of concerns.

Starting at the level of individual unions, we all have battles with employers.

Your union, for example, is currently dealing with major layoffs at Telus. The CEO and his managers made bad business decisions and they want to make your members pay the price.

It's the same story in hundreds of other workplaces.

Managers talk about bad investments; a declining market; weak demand - and they deal with the problem by discarding workers like post-it notes or by going after things like our pensions and other benefits.

But, unfortunately, the bad news doesn't stop at the plant gate.

At the provincial level here in B.C., you've got a government that has declared open season on public services and public sector workers.

It's a familiar song to all of us in Alberta. We went through the same meat grinder eight years ago.

The big irony is that, just as the public seems to be getting tired of the right-wing crowd, they seem to be getting bolder and meaner.

Maybe Ralph can blame it on not getting enough to drink these days - and maybe Campbell is cranky because he gets too much. But either way the result is the same - they're both in a nasty mood and they both seem to really love taking it out on working people and the unions that represent them.

I wish I could say that we're just dealing with two bad apples. But the truth is that our challenges don't stop at the provincial border either - or even at the Canadian border.

At the national level, we've got a government that tries to portray itself as socially responsible - but has slashed spending on core services to levels we haven't seen since the 50s.

And at the international level, we've got a looming war in the Middle East - a war that almost no one supports - and which is already wreaking havoc on energy prices and the economy in general.

That's the list of challenges we're facing. And I could add more: like the threat posed to working people by poorly thought out international trade agreements. Or the looming crisis as employers water down our pension funds. Or the long-term implications of low unionization rates among young workers.

The list goes on - but the point is: we have our work cut out for us.

The big question now is how do we respond to the challenges I've just talked about - and how do we capitalize on the opportunities that come with a more progressive shift in public opinion?

One option would be to do nothing - or to do the same things we've always done.

Maybe if we simply sit tight and wait, the pendulum will swing back our way.

But then again - if all we do is wait, the pendulum may not swing at all; or it might not swing as far as we'd like it to; or might swing right past us.

As you might have guessed, we at the Alberta Fed have come to the conclusion that the labour movement has to take a more active approach.

That's one of the reasons I'm so pleased to speak at conventions like this one. We want to spread the gospel of activism - and we want to share our ideas and experiences about what we think will work to make the labour movement stronger.

For us, it all starts with a clear vision of the role of unions.

We firmly believe that the labour movement is more than a collection of service groups. We are one of the few institutions in society that is big enough and strong enough to stand up to the corporate and political powers-that-be.

We also believe that the labour movement has an obligation to use its size, its power and its resources to not only help our own members - but also to go to bat for families, for the unorganized and for the broader communities in which we all live.

When it comes specific solutions and strategies, we don't pretend to have all the answers. But over the past seven or eight years we've been kicked around a lot. In the process, we've suffered a few defeats; we've enjoyed a few victories - and we've learned quite a few lessons.

This morning, I just want to touch on the three of the most important lessons we've learned - lessons that we think all unions can benefit from.

First - we've learned that we can't do it alone.

Whether we're talking about an individual strike or a province-wide campaign against cutbacks, we've learned that we get better results when we have partners - especially partners from outside the labour movement.

About a year ago, Ipso-Reid releases a poll that helped illustrate why building coalitions is so important.

Basically, the survey asked Canadians to rate different groups in terms of trust. Not surprisingly, politicians were at the bottom of the barrel. But union spokespeople and union leaders weren't far behind.

We may not like to admit it - but unions have a serious image problem - and a serious credibility problem. Too often we're dismissed as self-interested and out to feather our own nests.

That's why, in Alberta, we've made a point of partnering with organizations outside the labour movement that share our priorities.

Community groups, seniors groups, student groups, religious groups, women's groups, environmental groups, health care advocacy groups, immigrant groups, anti-poverty advocates, progressive academics.

You name it - we need to forge ties and build bridge with all these groups.

And it's not just a crass attempt to steal their credibility. It's about sharing resources, sharing people power, sharing networks, sharing ideas - and working together for change.

The strength of coalitions was really brought home for us in the battle against Bill 11, the Klein government's private health care law.

The protests against that law were historic in their size and scope. Literally thousands and thousands of people who had never protested before came out and joined us.

Another example of the strength of coalitions was our experience organizing protests against the G-8 last summer in Calgary. Thanks to the work of a very broad coalition of groups, we were able to organize a major counter summit and sustain major protests for nearly a week - all in Canada's most conservative city.

But, as was the case with Bill 11, the coalition was what made the difference.

So, for us, in many ways it's the oldest lesson of the labour movement: that we're stronger if we stand together. And we're stronger yet if we reach beyond our own unions and our own labour circles into the broader community.

The second lesson we've learned is that we have to do a better job of cooperating within the labour movement itself. Too often, we get trapped in silos. We keep our heads down and do our work with our own members. But the result is that we end up not seeing the forest for the trees. We also often end up recreating the wheel.

Once again, our experience with Bill 11 proved this point. The Fed could have gone off and organized it's own campaign. The nurses' and CUPE and the health sciences association could each have gone off in their own directions. But instead, we worked together as part of a broader coalition.

The result was that, by pooling our money and our people, we were able to run a bigger, smarter and more effective campaign than we ever would have been able to pull off individually.

Over the past year, we've even started to apply this logic to organizing the unorganized. In partnership with the two other prairie provinces, we're talking about establishing a central organizing school similar to the one set-up by the Fed here in B.C. We're even talking about joint organizing drives. So instead of competing with each other, instead of working against each other - we're working together.

That's what we mean when we talk about cooperation between unions. We think solidarity should be more than a word we sing in a song every few years at conventions.

The third and final lesson that I'd like to highlight today is that we need to get over the fear of trying new things.

When the Alberta government first started slashing in 1993, we did all the usual things. We wrote a leaflet that almost no one read. We organized rallies that only a few hundred people attended. We sent out a few harshly worded press releases. We even circulated a petition and started a postcard campaign.

The problem was that we did exactly what Ralph Klein expected us to do - and he didn't give a crap. As long it was just the usual suspects on the Legislature steps he knew he could get away with ignoring us.

For two years, we were like Bart Simpson in that episode where he keeps touching the hot burner and saying 'ow'. We didn't learn. We kept doing the same things over and over again even though they didn't work.

The good news is that we finally snapped out of it thanks to a wildcat health care strike in Calgary. Several thousand people walked off the job spontaneously to protest cuts and contracting out. We mobilized the community. We mobilized the churches. People started honking their horns. They started bringing coffee and donuts to the picket lines. Right in Ralph Klein's home base.

And you know what? As a result of that strike - and all the support we mobilized in the community - the Klein government stopped cutting: at least in health care. They said they would never blink - but they canceled more than half a billion dollars in planned cuts.

Since then, we've done other things that have helped us win victories.

We borrowed from the corporate world by using TV ads, polling and direct mail campaigns. We borrowed from Hollywood by rounding up real life stories of people whose health had been compromised because they couldn't afford private MRIs. And just last month, we went back to old-style person-to-person organizing.

Through the Friends of Medicare coalition, we canvassed more than 20,000 people in Federal Health Minister Anne McLellan's Edmonton riding - and we got more than five thousand of them to sign a card saying they might not vote for her in the next election if she doesn't do something to stop for-profit delivery of health services.

The point of all this is not to illustrate how brilliant we are in Alberta. If we were really that brilliant, we wouldn't still be dealing with Ralph as Premier three elections later.

What I am trying to say is that unions can make change - even in the most inhospitable climates. We can make gains for our members and we can defend and even advance our broader social agenda. We can do it by building bridges to other groups. We can do it by working together within the labour movement. And we can do it by trying new things, by working better and working smarter.

In the end, I'm convinced that we can benefit from the spring thaw that is driving Canadians away from the business-first crowd. I'm convinced that unions like yours can make Gordon Campbell blink here in B.C. just like we made Ralph blink in Alberta. And I'm convinced that you can take Telus on and win a better deal for your members.

The pendulum is swinging our way. If we're prepared, if we're smart, if we're creative I know we can grab on make some real headway on the issues that matter most to all of us.

Thank you.

 

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

Good morning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

 

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

Good morning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mobilizing Broad Social and Political Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Thank you.

 

Gil McGowan, President of the Alberta Federation of Labour, December 2, 2005

Two-and-a-half years ago, the Alberta government made some sweeping changes to the labour laws covering health care workers in this province.

The government tried to argue that Bill 27 was nothing more than administrative house-keeping. They said it was about simplification, streamlining and efficiency.

But from our perspective, it was something much more serious. It was a law essentially drafted to force concessions from health care unions that the regional health authorities had been unable to win at the bargaining table.

Bill 27 allowed the government to tear up dozens of freely negotiated contracts covering the pay and working conditions of tens of thousands of health care workers.

It forced unions into run-off votes, denying many workers the right to choose the union they actually preferred.

And it removed the legal right to strike from thousands of union members in areas like Community Health, Mental Health and Extended Care - without even attempting to justify how it would threaten the public interest if a speech pathologist, physiotherapist or community health nurse walked a picket line.

We've had our share of anti-union labour laws thrown at us in the province - but Bill 27 has to rank among the worst.

Our concerns about the substance of the law were profound - but we also had serious concerns about the process.

In particular, we were concerned about the role employers may have played in introducing, designing and drafting the legislation.

In an attempt to substantiate these concerns we filed a series of Freedom of Information requests with the Department of Health and Wellness, the Department of Human Resources and Employment and the Labour Relations Board.

The responses we received to these requests only heightened our concerns. The Health department and the Human Resources Department disclosed boxes of documents - most of which turned out to be innocuous. But from the LRB, we got nothing.

The Board refused to release any documents, saying they were all covered by exemptions within the FOIP act.

This blanket refusal, coupled with a few hints from documents from Health and Human Resources, raised a number of red flags for us. In particular, we started to suspect that we had stumbled onto something even bigger than what we had initially thought. We had been worried about the government cozying up with employers. But now we started to have grave concerns about the role that the Labour Relations Board in the whole process.

As we all know, the LRB is the quasi-judicial board that over-sees the administration and application of labour laws covering unionize workplaces in Alberta.

It is the referee, the traffic cop, the court of appeal in matters of labour relations.

It is also - and this is crucial - supposed to be independent and impartial. And by independent, we mean arms-length from government and free from influence by either the unions or the employers that appear before it.

However, at least when it came to Bill 27, the more we learned, the more it appeared that the Board's independence had been compromised. In particular, we were getting hints that the LRB was taking a direct role in drafting Bill 27.

We had no smoking gun. But, if it was true that the Board was working with government on Bill 27 this was very serious & because the LRB would have crossed an important line & they would have gone from interpreting the law, to writing it.

The LRB and Clint Dunford, who was Minister of Human Resources at the time, essentially said we were paranoid & that we were chasing shadows.

While Dunford admitted that there might have been some consultation on technical matters, the he said emphatically that the Bill was written by the politicians, not the LRB. In fact, in one newspaper article that we've included in your information package, he is quoted as saying the board had no role in drafting Bill 27.

But we weren't satisfied with those reassurances.

We had a hard time believing that the LRB had no documents related to Bill 27 or that all of them were covered by FOIP exemptions. So we did what was our right to do & we appealed the whole case to the information commissioner's office. And then, we waited.

And that's where things stood until late last week. On the evening of Wednesday, November 23, our lawyer received a letter and a few documents from the information commissioner's office - you'll find them in the package we've prepared for you.

There are only a few short documents here. But they prove what we have suspected all along & namely, that the independence of the LRB was compromised during the Bill 27 process.

What these documents show is not only that the LRB was playing an active role in drafting labour laws that they where only supposed to be policing and interpreting & the LRB was also actively working with employers to determine what the law should look like.

In the e-mail, dated March 11, 2003 and labelled number 50 by the information commissioner, Bruce Baugh (who is a government lawyer whose job it is to write legislation) says he has followed instructions from LRB Vice-chair Les Wallace.

And in the e-mail dated March 4, 2003 and labelled number 95 - Les Wallace himself provides an outline of what he says Bill 27 should look like. And he goes further. He says he has consulted with Damien Bailey, a senior lawyer from the firm McLellan and Ross - who act as counsel for a number of major health authorities. In particular, Wallace says he had discussions with Mr. Bailey about how the section of the regulation dealing with severance should be worded.

We've done some digging - and the section of Bill 27 they were talking about is the one that took away severance pay from a large group of Mental Health workers, who at the time were represented by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees.

From our perspective, this is nothing short of a scandal.

What's happened here is that, the LRB abandoned its independence. It's supposed to be an independent, third party arbiter - but it allowed itself to essentially become another branch of government.

And even worse, it took advice and direction from employers who had a vested interest in watering down contracts for health care workers.

This is a clear violation of the central role of the Labour Relations Board. And it is a clear conflict of interest.

All of us in this room understand why all of this is upsetting for the labour movement. But for members of press let me use a sports analogy.

Here in Edmonton, we've just watched our football team win the Grey Cup. How would Eskimo fans feel if there were ten seconds on the clock, Edmonton is third and goal - and then the referee goes to the Montreal bench to consult on a crucial penalty call.

That's what's happened to union and working people in this case. The referee is helping the other side to win.

The government passed one of the most sweeping - and we would argue damaging and unfair - pieces of labour legislation in Alberta history. And, instead of remaining impartial, the LRB has consulted with the other team.

In effect, the Labour Relations Board has put itself in the position of writing the law to reflect the interests of employers and government, and then they've gone on to sit in judgement of that same law.

Unions in this province appear before the Board every day.

But, given these revelations, how can we have any confidence that we will be treated fairly? How can we have any confidence that the Board will be fair and impartial? How can we have any confidence that the referee is not working for the other team?

These are deeply troubling questions. And honestly, until such a time that confidence can be restored in the true independence of the board, there will be a crisis in labour relations in this province.

With that in mind - and in an effort to restore the confidence in the LRB that is necessary to make the system work - the AFL has called for a public inquiry.

We don't want an internal investigation or a review that's conducted behind closed doors.

We want an independent body to look at these documents and the many others that are clearly out there, but haven't been released. We want someone who can call witnesses and subpoena evidence. In short, we want a thorough, public investigation. And we want changes to make sure something like this never happens again.

This is a stain on our labour relations system in Alberta. The good news is that the problem is now out in the open. Now all that's need is the political will to deal with it and restore confidence in the system.

 

Speech by Gil McGowanAt "End the Drought!" Campaign LaunchCalgary, August 20, 2005

Good morning. My name is Gil McGowan and I'm president of the Alberta Federation of Labour.

For those who are not familiar with our federation, we are the umbrella group representing unions in the province.

More specifically, we represent 29 unions in both the public and private sectors, who, in turn, represent about 120,000 Alberta workers.

But this morning, we're not here to talk about our members. We're not here to talk about those who are already represented.

Instead, we're here to talk about a forgotten group of workers.

We're here to talk about a group of people who are at the heart of our province's traditional economy, but who have been abandoned on the margins of our legal system.

The group that I'm talking about, of course, is farm workers.

In an effort to bring Alberta farm workers 'in from the margins' the AFL has decided to designate August 20th as Farmer Workers Day. This will be the first of what we hope will become an annual event.

We're also here to launch a lobbying campaign aimed at shining a public spotlight on the problems faced by farm workers in Alberta.

In particular, it is our intention to educate members of the Legislative Assembly and convince them to update the workplace laws governing farm workers so that they better reflect the realities we face in the 21st century.

In many ways farm workers have been enduring a drought when it comes to legal protections; that's why we're calling the plan we're unveiling today the 'End the Drought' campaign.

To help me launch this campaign this morning, we've invited two special guests.

To my left, we have Eric Musekamp. Eric is President of the Farmworkers Union of Alberta, or FUA for short.

For several years now, Eric has been a lonely voice trying to draw attention to the plight of farm workers. With this event today, we are signaling that Eric will no longer be alone in his work: the broader labour movement is also taking up the cause.

Our other special guest is Stan Raper. Stan is the Agriculture Worker Coordinator for the United Food and Commercial Workers union. UFCW has taken the lead among unions in organizing farm workers in Canada, and Stan has been the man directing most of that important work.

As far as the agenda for this morning goes, we'll break our presentation into four main sections.

First, I will outline the nature of the problem facing farm workers in Alberta, and I will talk about what our Federation plans to do about it.

Second, Eric will talk about what it's like to actually be a farm worker here in Alberta in 2005, and why, from his perspective, legal changes are so desperately needed.

Third, Stan will provide us with a national perspective on the issue of workplace protections for farm workers. In particular, he'll tell us about some of the progress that's been made in other provinces; progress which highlights just how much ground farm workers here in Alberta still have to make up.

Fourth, and finally, we'll open the floor for questions, and afterwards, we'll all make ourselves available for one-on-one interviews.

So who are we talking about when we talk about farm workers and just how bad are things for them?

As it stands right now, there are about 12,000 people working as farm or agricultural employees in Alberta.

About 25 percent of these people work on a temporary or seasonal basis. And about 300 are classified as foreign or migrant labourers.

But the rest - the vast majority - are full-time, permanent workers who make their homes in our communities.

Some of them work in nurseries and market gardens. Some of them work in mushroom farms or greenhouses.

But the majority work in animal production. You'll find them working on ranches, in huge hog barns and on sprawling feed lots around the province.

When it comes to the challenges these workers face, it can be boiled down simply.

The problem in a nutshell is that farm workers in our province are excluded from almost all of the legal, workplace protections that other Albertans take for granted.

Other workers are covered and protected by laws like the Employment Standards Code, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Workers' Compensation Act and the Labour Code.

These laws provide the basic legal framework of protections that most working Albertans take for granted. They guarantee rights and provide a safety net.

But farm workers here in Alberta fall outside that legal framework. They have no safety net.

More specifically, farm workers are either fully or partially excluded from all of the laws I've mentioned and denied the protections that those laws provide.

As a result, if you're a farm worker in Alberta today you work in an extremely insecure environment.

You're excluded from most provisions of the Employment Standards Code - so you have no protection when it comes to things like hours of work. You're not guaranteed a minimum wage. You're not entitled to overtime. You don't get statutory holidays or vacation pay.

If you're a farm worker in Alberta, you're also excluded from the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Workers Compensation Act. So you don't have the right to refuse unsafe work and, in most cases, you're not entitled to compensation if you're injured on the job.

If you're a farm worker in Alberta, you're also excluded from the Labour Code. So you don't have the right to join a union. You don't have the right of association that's guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and which is, or will soon be, available to farm workers in every other province.

As a result of all these exclusions, Alberta is once again, at the back of the pack when compared to other provinces. Farm workers here in our province have fewer rights and fewer workplace protections that their counterparts in any other part of the country.

We have fewer employment standards protections for farm workers; we are the last to recognize farm workers right to organize; and we are the only province that has not committed to including farm workers in health and safety legislation.

So, Alberta may be number one in oil, gas and cattle - but we are dead last when it comes to protecting the rights and interests of farm workers.

That's why we're here today. And that's why we're launching our campaign to 'End the Drought' for farm workers.

The work that these workers do is valuable. It's also often hard and dangerous. And we believe they deserve the same kind of legal protections that are available to other Albertans working in other sectors of the economy.

Defenders of the status quo will say that agriculture is a special case. They will say that the rules in place for other workers are not appropriate for farm workers.

A generation or two ago that may have been the case. Back then, that majority of agricultural production in Alberta came from family farms - where the workers were usually the farmers themselves or members of their families.

But today, the small family farm is being pushed aside by agri-business. More and more of our agricultural products are being produced by corporations on factory farms.

Green Acres is being replaced by Hogs-R-Us.

As a result, farm workers are not relatives or friends of the family, they are employees. And the employers are not struggling small farmers, they are profitable corporations.

As employees, we think that farm workers should have the same rights as other employees in the province. As profitable corporations, we think big agricultural employers should have the same obligations to their workers as other employers in the province.

To put it simply, farming in Alberta has changed, and we think the law needs to change to reflect those changes. It's time to end the drought in legal protection for farm workers.

And it's time to end the free ride for agricultural employers.

In terms of the nuts and bolts of our campaign, we've produced a leaflet that we plan to distribute around the province. We're going to be holding town hall meetings in in targeted communities. And we're going to be lobbying the Human Resources Minister and other MLAs.

Our goal is to bring our farm labour laws into the 21st century, and we're going to make it really easy for our politicians.

We're not asking for the moon. All we want is four small amendments to four pieces of Legislation. It's work that the government could accomplish in a day or two if there was a will.

At this point, we remain optimistic. From our perspective the need for these changes is clear. It simply no longer makes any sense to leave farm workers out in the cold.

We hope the government will see basic inequity and injustice here - and we hope they will do the right thing and make sure farm workers are no longer relegated to the status of second class citizens.

Kerry Barrett, President of the Alberta Federation of Labour, February 2005

Good afternoon. My name is Kerry Barrett and I'm here to bring greetings on behalf of the Alberta Federation of Labour's Executive Council.

The Federation represents about 120,000 members from many different unions in this province.

At one time or another, we've all suffered the frustration and anger that comes from dealing with a stubborn employer.

So, we understand what you're going through right now - and we want to assure you that both as unions and as individuals, we are prepared to anything and everything we can to help you get a fair collective agreement.

The struggle that you're having with Telus is one that is going on in many sectors of the economy.

On one side, we have a company that is worth billions - and is the dominant player in its industry in western Canada. On the other had, we have you, the workers, who have made the company strong.

The mangers of Telus have made big mistakes, they've made bad investments and they've consistently focused on short-term self-interest over the real long-term best interests of the company.

But who gets the blame for managements' failures? And who has to pay the price, in terms of lay-offs, pay cuts, reduced benefits? It's not the guys on top, it's not people like Darren Entwhistle.

Instead, it's people like you, the people who actually do the work.

That's what this dispute is really about. And it's the same kind of dispute we in the labour movement are dealing with in so many sectors.

The good news is that you've been taking action. You've stood up for a fair and equitable deal for all Telus employees & and you've won a few rounds at the CIRB.

Obviously, the company's latest tactics are frustrating. If they put half as much effort into negotiating as they put into fighting there our employees, a deal would have been reached long ago.

But that's the way too many managers approach labour relations these days. They dig their heels in, they try to divide people they try to starve us out. It's all part of the play book.

But you know? Even in this hostile climate, unions like yours can win. Other unions and other workers have faced down tactics like this and still emerged with good agreements. I am confident that you will do the same.

In conclusion I'd just like to say two things. First, our federation's convention is coming up here in Edmonton in May.

I'm looking forward to seeing many of you there and celebrating what I'm confident will eventually be a victory for you and TWU.

Second, and more importantly, I want to make sure you know that - whatever happens - they rest of the labour movement is behind you.

The locations and the employers' names may be different, but we're all in the same boat, facing the same challenges. Whatever we can do to help, we'll be there for you.

Good luck with your fight. And thank you for this opportunity to talk to you today. Solidarity!

 

Gil McGowan, President of the Alberta Federation of Labour, June 29, 2005

We're here today because a crime has been committed.

Laws that were supposed to protect workers have been broken.

Rules that were supposed to compel companies to honour the contracts they sign were trampled on.

As a result of these violations of the rules, these failures to observe the letter and the spirit of the law, jobs have been lost, careers have been interrupted, families have been forced to endure unexpected and undeserved economic hardship.

To make matters worse, the villains in the story didn't act alone - they had accomplices.

And those accomplices were people who - in theory at least - the workers were supposed to be able to rely on.

Unfortunately, this is not some prime-time crime drama that you might see on TV. This is real life.

The bad guys in this story are the managers at Finning - and their accomplices are the Labour Relations Board and the provincial government.

We're all familiar with what's gone on here.

The business we see in front of us today is a testament to the mean-spiritedness of one employer and the complete inadequacy of our province's labour and labour relations institutions.

Finning bankrolled OEM. Finning owns most of the stock in OEM. Finning provided OEM with most of its business.

But the Labour Relations Board, in its wisdom, says OEM is different from Finning and is not bound to honour any of the contracts negotiated by Finning.

They also saw nothing wrong with OEM signing a new deal with CLAC even before this building was finished - and even before workers had been hired.

How much can you trust a so-called union that is hand-picked by the employer?

We all know this is a shell game. For all intents and purpose, OEM is Finning. All that's happened is that they've moved down the street and put up a new sign.

The goal of this superficial identity change has been clear from the beginning. This wasn't about contracting out or doing business differently. This was about breaking a duly negotiated contract. This was about breaking a real union and replacing it with a lap dog association that was more to the employers liking.

One important point that needs to be made is that these kinds of tactics would not have been allowed in any other Canadian jurisdiction.

In any other province, Finning would have been slapped down, found in violation - and you would be working inside as proud members of IAM.

Even here in Alberta, the law says that employers can't simply change their address or change their name to get rid of a duly elected and duly constituted union.

But our government wrote its laws badly and they tipped the playing field in favour of the employer. And our Labour Relations Board has abandoned all pretext of being object - they've bent over backwards and tied themselves in knots trying to find ways to justify what Finning has done.

The LRB is supposed to be a watchdog. But it's clear they're a lap dog - one that Finning has on a very short leash.

So where do we go from here? The message that we need to send today is that we're not giving up. IAM is continuing to fight this unjust situation in the courts. The AFL and all of our affiliates will continue to support them in that effort.

But we have to go further. If we let Finning get away with this, it's just a matter of time before another employer tries the same shell game.

So we need to support IAM. We need to fight CLAC whenever they slither out from under their rocks. And we need to make this a political issue - so working people understand that this is what Tory government brings us.

Today, they were supposed to be having a grand opening here. Ralph Klein was supposed to be in there celebrating with corporate types who have broken the letter and spirit of Alberta law - the laws that the Premier is supposed to protect and uphold. But they're not inside. We chased them away. That's a step in the right direction - but we still have a lot more chasing to do.

In conclusion, I want all of you to know that the AFL and the rest of the labour movement are behind you in this fight.

We all have a stake - because if Finning is able to get away with this kind of union-busting - then no working people in this province are safe.

That's why we're here for you today and that's why we'll continue being with you as you continue your fight.

Good luck and thank you.

 

Gil McGowan, President of the Alberta Federation of Labour, November 14, 2005

Good morning and welcome.

My name is Gil McGowan and I'm the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour.

We're here today largely because of a strike that captured public attention not only here in Alberta, but across the country.

It was a strike that shocked us; angered us; and pulled at our heart strings.

It was also a strike that did not have to happen. In fact, it was a strike that would not have happened in almost any other Canadian jurisdiction.

The strike I'm talking about, of course, is the strike that recently came to an end at the Lakeside meatpacking plant in Brooks.

For those of us in the Alberta labour movement, the Lakeside strike was significant because it was about rights that most working people take for granted.

Like the right to go to the bathroom when you need to.

Like the right to see a doctor when you're injured on the job.

Like the right to actually get paid for all the work you do.

But the Lakeside strike was also important because it highlighted a major weakness in our province's system of labour laws.

In particular, the Lakeside strike reminded us of what happens when you have laws with loopholes.

It reminded us of what happens when you have laws that ignore easy-to-predict problems - and laws that don't give people "on the ground" the options they need to deal with problems.

That's why we're here today - to talk about the lessons of Lakeside - and how we can learn from those lessons.

The big lesson that we think needs to be taken from the experience at Brooks is that we need some form of first contract arbitration here in Alberta.

It's commonly known in labour relations circles that first contracts are the most difficult contracts to negotiate - mostly because the two sides haven't built a relationship. They haven't yet found ways to live together and to prosper together. This often leads to hostility and conflict.

Recognizing this problem, most provinces have adopted laws that provide for an independent third party to step in and settle first contract disputes when they've bogged down and have the potential to get dangerous.

The federal labour code makes provisions for first contract arbitration. So do the labour codes in B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island.

Eighty percent of Canadians live in jurisdictions that have first contract arbitration. Only Alberta, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick don't have it.

The reason so many provinces have chosen to adopt these laws is because they make sense - and because they work.

I think we can all agree that the goal in labour relations should be to settle disputes and reach fair agreements without recourse to nasty strikes. If that's the goal then the record from provinces that have first contract arbitration speaks for itself.

In 2002, the last year for which complete statistics are available, 41 first-contract strikes were avoided in B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario alone. 41 strikes that could have been ugly like the strike at Lakeside didn't happen because of first contract arbitration.

The really frustrating thing about our Labour Code here in Alberta is that it actually encourages confrontation. Under the Alberta Code, if no collective agreement has been reached 10 months after a union has been certified, an application to decertify that union can be filed. So for employers who want to bust the union, all they have to do is drag their feet in bargaining, wait for the clock to run out, and then push for a decertification vote.

Union members know this - so when they strike for a first agreement, those strikes tend to be even more bitter and acrimonious than usual because they are literally strikes for survival.

First contract arbitration would allow us to avoid this kind of bitterness and conflict. It would promote negotiation and discourage confrontation.

That's what happens in provinces that have first contract laws. Just knowing that an arbitrator could step in and impose a deal, encourages the parties to negotiate. In the 41 cases I mentioned earlier of strikes that had been avoided in other provinces, 31 were actually settled through negotiation after the arbitration process had been started because the parties wanted to avoid an imposed deal.

So the evidence shows that first contract arbitration works and makes good policy sense. But, you know what? It also makes good politics.

Near the end of the Lakeside strike, the AFL and the United Food and Commercial Workers commissioned a large province-wide poll of 800 Albertans.

The results of that poll are in your press kit. What it showed was that 61 percent of Albertans supported the idea of bringing first contract arbitration to Alberta. Even among self-identified Tory voters, more than 60 percent said they either supported or strongly supported the idea.

So when people ask me: can we avoid future Lakesides? I say: you bet we can!

There's a mechanism out there that we know can help us cool temperatures in first agreement disputes. It's been tested and proven in other provinces. And it's supported by the majority of people here in Alberta. First Contract Arbitration is a good idea whose time has come. All that's missing is the political will to put it into practice.

If we had first contract arbitration in Alberta we could have avoided Lakeside.

We could have avoided the $1.8 million tab for policing.

We could have avoided the picket line clashes.

We could have avoided the smash-up derby that almost killed the union president.

We could have avoided the anxiety and financial losses sustained by the ranching community.

We could have avoided splitting the town of Brooks down the middle.

And it's not just about Lakeside. Over the past few years there have been other nasty first contract disputes that also could have been avoided. Like the Shaw Conference Centre Strike in Edmonton. Like the Calgary Herald strike in Calgary.

The bottom line is that our labour law is broken and it needs to be fixed. If we don't seize this opportunity and take advantage of the momentum that's been building behind the idea of bringing first contract arbitration to Alberta, then it's not a question of "if" we're going to see more Lakesides, it's just a question of "when."

That's why the Alberta Federation of Labour is launching this campaign today. It's a campaign that's supported by most of the major unions in the province including, to name just a few: the United Food and Commercial Workers, who represent the workers at Lakeside; the United Nurses of Alberta; the Health Sciences Association of Alberta; the Canadian Autoworkers; the Communication Energy Paperworkers union; the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Alberta Teachers Association and the Alberta Building Trades.

Starting today, we will be running radio ads across the province urging our provincial government to bring first contract arbitration to Alberta.

We will be distributing leaflets to the public. We will be meeting with groups outside the labour movement and urging them to get on board. We will be talking to the media. We will be lobbying MLAs.

The good news is that we've off to a running start. As most of you know, some members of government are already talking about first contract arbitration.

Lyle Oberg has said it might be a good idea. Premier Klein said it might be a possibility. And just last Thursday I met with Human Resources Minister Mike Cardinal and he gave me his personal commitment that public hearings will be held on the issue.

I've also been given a date in February to appear before the government's standing policy committee on Education and Human Resources to make the case for first contract arbitration.

All of this is encouraging. But, given this government's track record on labour issues, we know we can't simply wait for members of cabinet to do the right thing.

The only reason first contract arbitration is even the table right now is because Lakeside was on the front page almost constantly for more than a month. Politicians move when they feel the heat - and with this campaign we hope to keep the heat on.

In the end, what we're asking for is a relatively small change. We've included excerpts from other provincial labour codes in your press kits - so you can see that this issue can be dealt with in as little as half a page. With the Legislature reconvening tomorrow, I can't think of a better time to fix the problem that has been so dramatically highlighted for us by the strike at Lakeside.

First contract arbitration won't eliminate all strikes. But it will help us avoid some of the worst strike - the ones most likely to spill into the streets and onto the front pages.

It's a small change, but one that - if implemented - could go a long way to promoting workplace peace in the province. And that's a goal we think is worth striving for.

Given the lessons that we've learned from Lakeside, we think the time has come to fix about Alberta's broken labour law. The time has come to support the change that brings workplace peace. The time has come to bring first contract arbitration to Alberta.

Thank you.

 

Gil McGowan, President of the Alberta Federation of Labour, October 11, 2005

Good afternoon. Welcome to Alberta and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

I'm here today as a spokesperson for the Alberta Federation of Labour is Alberta. The AFL is Alberta's largest labour organization, representing over 115,000 workers and their families.

As it stands now, only about 10 per cent of our members work under federal jurisdiction. But in many ways the Federal Code sets a bar for provincial codes - so our interest in this review is not narrow.

Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I want to begin by commending you on the extensive and exhaustive process that's been established for this review.

You've taken the broad view. You have allowed for a wide ranging discussion on the role of employment standards in the 21st century. You have reached out to stakeholder groups and formally included them in the process. You haven't rushed. You have taken the time to conduct a truly rigorous and thorough review. And you are in the process of conducting public hearings across this province and across the country.

The federal process stands in marked contrast to what's happening here in Albert. As you probably know, our provincial government just completed a review of our employment standards code - and it could not have been more different from what you're doing.

Instead of the broad view, our review was narrow and careful stage-managed. Instead of consulting with all stakeholders, our government only met with business. Instead of public hearings, we got a hastily thrown-together on-line questionnaire.

Frankly, in comparison to the federal review, our review comes across looking like an amateurish, one-sided, ham-handed embarrassment.

So thank you for taking the time to do your review the right way. You won't hear this said in Calgary often: but at least when it comes to these kinds of reviews, the Alberta government could learn a thing or two from the federal government.

On the subject of expectations and stereotypes, there are a lot of unfair stereotypes about Albertans. We don't all drive pick-up trucks with gun racks in the back; we don't all have pump-jacks in our back yards - and we're not all cut from the same monolithic political cloth.

However, there is one stereotype that unfortunately holds true. We do have some of the worst labour laws in the country.

As a labour activist and president of the AFL, I have seen the effects of poorly written, lop-sided and rarely enforced labour laws first hand. And it's not a pretty sight.

Just in past six months, the Alberta government watered down its Employment Standards Code to allow 12 year olds to work in restaurants; they've signed permits allowing people with disabilities to be paid less than the minimum wage; and they refused to enforce their own rules when it found the a midway company at the Edmonton Klondike Days exhibition violated the Code repeatedly.

The Alberta Employment Standards Code is full of holes; it offers too little protection for workers, and rests on an almost non-existent enforcement regime; and it is widely ignored, even mocked, by employers.

Why am I spending so much time talking about the Alberta Code? Well, because in several important respects, the federal code is not much better.

Take the issue of compliance, for example. According to recent audits, of which I'm sure you are familiar, only 25% of employers under the federal jurisdiction are in compliance with the provisions of Part III. One in four. Here in Alberta, similar audits have never been done - but the results would probably be similar, if not worse.

My question is this: what is the point of having legislated protections if the majority of employers ignore them? And, what is the point of amending and updating those protections if there is no enforcement?

From our perspective, laws and regulations mean nothing if they are not reflected in the day-to-day of real Canadian workers, in real Canadian workplaces.

In order to change this dismal situation, I think it's important to understand how we got here.

To put it simply, over the past 25 years, I think that governments in Canada, at both the provincial and federal levels, have been seduced by the pro-business crowd; they have forgotten why we have labour laws; and they have lost sight the role government needs to play in the labour market.

During the 80s and 90s the employment standards agenda largely became the business agenda. Deregulation replaced rules. Self-regulation and voluntary compliance replaced enforcement. And "flexibility" replaced worker protection as the main policy goal.

But in all these changes we've lost our way.

Labour standards are more than just words on a dusty page. They are an expression of our values - about what we will and won't accept and how we think our fellow citizens should be treated in the workplace.

Labour standards are also a recognition of the inherent power imbalance exists between employers and workers. The employment relationship is not a contract between two equal parties. For reasons of law and basic economics, most of the power rests with the employer.

That's why we have employment standards: to protect the weaker party in the contract, to ensure that the power imbalance cannot be misused to exploitative extremes.

We as a community have a right to express our moral disapproval on certain actions. For example, we have decided that child labour is not appropriate, and so have outlawed it. We have decided people deserve a day of rest each week. We have decided certain days should be days off for everyone.

Labour standards legislation is the vehicle through which the will of the public expresses itself. It is our way to ensuring that workplaces meet the moral and ethical expectations of the community around them.

I have seen nothing in the past 20 years that makes me think that workers are any less in need of protection than they were in previous generations. In fact, I think the opposite is true, with the rise of more precarious and contingent forms of work, I think, in many areas, there is more potential for abuse than in the past.

This review provides an opportunity to turn things around. It provides the federal government with a chance to find its way again and restore its commitment to protecting Canadians in the workplace and upholding our values as a community.

Today, I want to urge the federal government to become a leader in the area of labour standards. You can and should set an example for provinces like Alberta by showing them that you can protect workers without undermining economic prosperity.

While Alberta permits 12-year olds to work, you should prohibit it. While Alberta refuses to offer compassionate leave or family responsibility leave, you should provide it. While Alberta continues to let its minimum wage drag near the bottom of the pack, you should step forward boldly with a strategy for a Living Wage.

And, most importantly, while Alberta continues to run away from enforcing its own laws, you should step up and send the message that the rules must be taken seriously.

If you take strong steps to revitalize federal labour standards, I strongly believe you will quickly be copied. Other provinces will be watching, and when they find out that you can shore up labour standards without negatively affecting business, they will join in.

I have no doubt there will be some initial outcry from employer lobby groups when you try to toughen rules and bolster enforcement. But you need to ask for proof of hardship.

When Alberta recently increased its minimum wage by $1.10 an hour, many employer groups were saying this was too much. The end result? The economy barely felt it. A significant number of workers received a raise and no employer laid off staff, no employer significantly increased prices. The system absorbed it.

When you raise the bar for everyone equally, no competitive disadvantage is created. What happens - miraculously - is that the new requirements quickly become the new norm. I believe this is what will happen with improved labour standards.

Don't be afraid of pro-rated benefits for part time workers. Don't be afraid of allowing workers to refuse overtime. Don't be afraid of increased vacation entitlements. These are practical ideas that reflect Canadian values. Be a leader. Be the example that everyone else looks at.

The federal government has the ability to reinvigorate employment standards. And if they do, millions of Canadians will thank them for it.

Thank you for your time.

 

Gil McGowan, President of the Alberta Federation of Labour, October 28, 2005

Hello and welcome.

As many of you know, my name is Gil McGowan, and I'm president of the Alberta Federation of Labour.

I'd like to begin this afternoon by thanking all of you for taking the time to attend this reception.

I know we have a jammed packed agenda and every spare minute is precious; so we appreciate you making the effort to squeeze us in.

I'd particularly like to welcome all the delegates from the government and business communities.

Some people joke that we come here first for the food and the scenery and only second for the discussion.

But for me, there simply aren't enough opportunities for dialog between our two solitudes.

I sincerely believe that by meeting like this and getting to know each other face-to-face we can more effectively make strides towards that elusive goal of workplace harmony.

Of course, harmony is not the word that many would use to describe what's going on in Alberta today.

And that's why I've arranged to have this talk this afternoon.

In many ways, what we're seeing around the province right now is a story of stark contrasts.

On one hand, here in Alberta in 2005, we have it all.

Our economy is literally floating on a sea of oil dollars. Demand for what we produce is strong and getting stronger. Profits are up, unemployment is down and our provincial treasury is bursting at the seams. It's hard to imagine how our economic prospects could be brighter.

During times like these, Albertans should be comfortable and confident. We should be looking to the future with hope. We should be dreaming big. We should building schools and hospitals. We should not only be maintaining the social programs we have, we should be enhancing them.

Many around us are indeed living the Alberta dream. But for many others, it's a different story.

Instead of comfort and confidence we get picket lines. And instead of enhancing the programs we have, we get 12-year-olds at work and Premier's Klein's Third Way for private health care.

That's the face of the other Alberta; and it's the face that many of our members are struggling to deal with today.

Military metaphors are often over-used by leaders & but it's hard for those of us in the labour community not to describe what's been happening over the last six months as a war.

It's a war with many fronts.

Telus. CBC. Lakeside. Finning. Casino Calgary.

Never before in Alberta history have so many workers, from so many different unions and so many different sectors of the economy been on the picket line at the same time.

It would be one thing if all these strikes were simply about wages; about workers trying to get a bigger piece of Alberta's expanding economic pie.

But they're not. Each one of these labour disputes are about much more fundamental issues.

In the case of both Telus and Finning, for example, it's about contracting out and job security.

In both cases we have companies that are hugely successful. Telus dominates the telecommunications market in western Canada. And Finning is the leading supplier of heavy equipment to Alberta's booming oil industry. These are companies that measure their profits, not in millions, not in tens of millions, but in hundreds of millions.

And yet, despite their market dominance and despite their profits, many of the people working at these companies feel insecure.

And they feel insecure with good reason: Telus has laid off thousands and they've been dipping their toe in pool of foreign outsourcing. And Finning has already contracted out or spun off whole divisions at the expense of hundreds of jobs.

So the fight at Finning and Telus and the CBC has not been about nickels and dimes: it has been about fighting for careers rather than contracts; and about stopping the disappearance of stable, family-sustaining jobs.

The strike at Lakeside Packers in Brooks and Casino Calgary are also about bedrock issues of fairness.

Just last weekend I spoke with a women on the Casino Calgary picket line who has worked as a dealer at the Casino for 25 years. When she started in 1980, she made $7.00 and hour. Today, 25 years later, she makes $7.80 and hour. 80 cents in 25 years.

To make matters worse, while I was standing there, the casino owner's son pulled up in his Hummer and sneered at the picketers.

It was one of those moments of clarity. Here, on one hand was a group of struggling minimum wage workers, and there, on the other hand, was some driving a vehicle that costs more than any of the workers could make in ten years.

It's a similar situation in Brooks.

You've already heard from the Lakeside workers themselves last night, so I won't belabour the point. But I'll say this.

This is a strike about the most basic issues. It's about right most Albertans take for granted: like the right to go to the bathroom when you need to; like the right to see a doctor when you're injured; like the right to actually get paid for all the time you work.

To illustrate how bad things are there, I'll tell you two quick stories.

First, one of the strikers told me about an incident when one of the beef carcasses, weighing hundreds of pounds, fell off the assembly line on top of a worker. The managers rushed in quickly: but not to help the injured worker. They were there to pick up the meat.

The second, story I'll tell you is about a practice that sounds like it comes right out of some south Asian sweat shop. It's called gang time and it happens every day at Lakeside. Basically what happens is that Lakeside stops paying people when they stop slaughtering cattle.

The only problem is that it's an assembly line operation, so it takes some time for the last animal to make it's way from the killing floor to the end of the line. And for all that time, as much as an hour at the end of each shift, the workers along the line are not getting paid.

Lakeside's parent company Tyson Foods has been brought up on charges and convicted of this practice in the states. But it's also happening here.

This is why some of the workers talk about how working at Lakeside is like slavery. Many of them have come from desperate war-torn countries & they come to Canada full of hope and this is how they are greeted.

Now, I don't want to paint all of Alberta business with the same brush. The truth is that the vast majority of employers in the province are good employers and the vast majority of business people in the province are people of good conscience.

But, in the spirit of openness, I have to tell you, when we in the labour movement look at what's going on, we come away feeling deeply troubled.

We're fighting for job security during strong economic times when insecurity should be the last thing on our minds.

And we're fighting battles for basic fairness and respect that most people thought were won a generation ago.

As president of the AFL, I'm often asked: what's going on? And why is all of this happening now.

In nutshell, I think it's a problem of limits, or more precisely, the lack of limits.

Think of it this way. Ours is an individualistic society, where we are generally free to choose how we live our lives and that's a good thing.

But even in this free society we have limits, we have boundaries.

Some of them are legally codified: you can't steal, you can't speed, you can't break into your neighbour's house and help your self to his new plasma TV. But some of our boundaries are strictly social. For example, it may not be illegal to make a pass at your best friend's wife, but generally speaking, we know it's something we shouldn't do.

In the same vein, here in Alberta - when it comes to the way employers deal with their workers - I would make the argument that there is a problem with limits. Specifically, I think there is a problem with both the codified rules and the less formal cultural and social limits that put boundaries on what is acceptable and what isn't.

On the legal side, we have a weak labour code that makes it hard for unions to organize and bargain and which fails to give our labour board the powers that other provincial labour boards have to promote fair bargaining and discourage unfair practices.

We also have a weak employment standards system that sometimes sounds good on paper but is not backed up with an effective enforcement mechanism.

These weak laws open the door for some businesses to behave badly, and, as we seen, some of them do exactly that.

On the social side, we also have a business culture that too often says "anything goes."

We all know that some companies are behaving badly. But too often our leaders in other business and government circles turn the other way.

As someone once said to on the picket line in Brooks: It's like someone is getting beaten up in the alley and instead of helping, people close the blinds and turn up the stereo."

That's what happens when you don't have appropriate limits. In the broader society, when limits break down, we end up with people behaving badly; maybe not everybody, but some people.

In the same way, without appropriate limits in the business world, some businesses cross over the line of what's acceptable.

In nutshell, that's what I think explains the explosion of labour unrest in the province this year. It's a story of weak limits. And it's a story about corporations behaving badly.

The thing about weak limits is that they are really in no ones best interests. Our members don't want to be on the picket line. It's costly, it's disruptive and, especially when it comes to things like the situation in Brooks, it gives the entire Alberta business community a black eye.

So I have a modest proposal. I would like to see the labour movement and the responsible majority of the business community work together at promoting a package of more appropriate labour standards.

We're not asking for the moon.

On the legal side, what we need is first contract arbitration, so that employers can't simply ignore the democratically expressed will of their employees.

Dozens of strikes were avoided in other provinces last year because of first contract arbitration. If we had it here, there would be no strike at Brooks. The time for first contract arbitration in Alberta has come.

We also think that the Labour Board needs some of the powers that were stripped from it in 1988. In particular, we think they need the big stick of automatic certification. Charges of bad faith bargaining mean nothing if there is no effective deterrent.

When it comes to employment standards, we could go on all day. But at the very least, we need a more aggressive approach to enforcement. Giving employment standards officers the power to issue tickets, as opposed to always having to go through the courts would be an important first step.

On the social side, we'd like to see is leadership from government and the business community & we need to identify standards of what's acceptable and what's not.

We talk about promoting best practices - that's great - but I think we should also be talking about identifying and actively discouraging worst practices.

So, when some corporation behaves badly - when something dark slithers out from under a rock - we don't want them to be greeted by silence. Instead we want them to be greeted by the law, and the full blown and actively expressed disapproval of not only the labour movment and civil society, but also the Alberta corporate community.

Finally, on the subject of contracting out and job security, which is at the heart of so many of our disputes, we'd like to see some movement from the business community.

Providing employees with decent working conditions and some measure of job security should not be seen as a straight jacket that undermines profit, but as a cost of doing business.

To conclude, I'd just like to remind you of what we all know. We are living through a period of great prosperity. We can make the argument that Alberta today is one of the most prosperous jurisdictions, not just in Canada, but the entire world.

But, and here's the really important point: the only real way that most ordinary Albertans share in the Alberta Advantage is through their jobs and the wages they earn. If those wages are stagnant or declining, if those jobs are insecure, then those people are not sharing in the Alberta Advantage.

And the implications are serious; if our companies in Alberta can't provide some measure of security; if careers are really being replaced by contracts, if job security has become a quaint notion from the past, then where does that leave us?

Without being too melodramatic, I think that what's at stake is nothing less that the future of our middle class.

If even here in Alberta the Wealthy people don't have security, can't take mortgages, can't save for kids education, then we really have a problem.

It's not enough to think, some one else will provide the good jobs; if we all think that the next guy is doing it, one day we'll wake up and wonder where the middle class went.

The fact that so many people are not being treated better, the fact that we're allowing some corporations to behave badly even during a time of unprecedented prosperity, is a black mark on Alberta.

I think we can do better. Given prosperity, I know we can do better. Maybe, by working together, we can get the ball rolling.

 

Gil McGowan, President of the Alberta Federation of Labour, Tuesday, April 3, 2007

Just under four years ago, the Alberta government introduced and passed a controversial law that radically altered labour relations in the health care sector.

Bill 27 allowed the government to tear up dozens of freely negotiated contracts covering the pay and working conditions of literally tens of thousands of health care workers.

It also forced unions into run-off votes, denying many workers the right to choose the union they actually preferred.

And, finally, it removed the legal right to strike from thousands of union members in areas like community health and mental health - without ever attempting to justify how the public interest would be threatened if a speech pathologist or a physiotherapist or community health nurse walked a picket line.

Our concerns about the substance of the law were profound. In many ways, it was the most blatantly anti-union piece of legislation introduced by an Alberta government in more than 20 years.

But in addition to being strongly opposed to what the new law said and what it meant for health care workers in this province, we were also deeply troubled by the process that led to its introduction.

In particular, we were concerned about the role that the Alberta Labour Relations Board played in drafting the law.

The Labour Relations Board is supposed to be the impartial referee in all labour relations matters. It is supposed to be free from influence from both employers and unions. And it is supposed to be independent from government.

However, in the case of Bill 27, it became clear to us that the boundaries between the board and the government had become dangerously blurred.

In the process, we felt that the Board's ability to act as an independent and impartial third party had been compromised.

Our concerns about the LRB's role in Bill 27 prompted us to file numerous freedom of information requests aimed at getting a clearer picture of what really happened behind the scenes between government and the Board.

It also prompted two major unions - the United Nurses of Alberta and the Communications, Energy Paperworkers - to launch legal action.

In September of 2004, Justice Watson of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the unions' application for a judicial review of Bill 27 - not because their arguments lacked merit, but because so much of their case rested on things that had gone on behind closed doors. We simply did not have enough evidence.

However, in the months following the lower court decision, the evidence that had been missing started to pile up. As a result of freedom of information requests launched by the Federation of Labour, a picture of what happened in the run-up to Bill 27 began to emerge.

That picture featured a government, who was also the employer - either directly or through the Regional Health Authorities it created and appointed - using its legislative power to force concessions on health care workers that it couldn't win at the bargaining table. It featured a Labour Board helping the government draft a law which they knew would be used against health care workers. And it also featured Board officers sitting in judgment on cases involving the law they had just helped write.

The new evidence that we managed to gather - and the picture that evidence painted - caused unions across the province to ask a very fundamental question: how can we possibly have confidence appearing before a tribunal that had so clearly worked with a major employer to undermine the rights and interests of a large group of workers?

How could we possibly trust a referee who had been working with the other team?

Today was supposed to be our first day at the appeal court. We were eager to have our day in court and, as a result of the new evidence, we were confident about the outcome.

But instead of appearing before the appeal panel, we are here to respond to a major new development.

Earlier this morning the Labour Relations Board released a new protocol designed to more clearly define future interactions between the Board and the government.

The protocol begins by asserting that the only way for the Board to maintain the confidence of the parties appearing before it is to defend its independence from employers, unions and government.

It goes on to say that it is the responsibility of the government, not the Board, to develop policy and draft labour legislation.

It acknowledges that in some cases the government may approach the board for narrow technical advice on legislation or regulations. But it puts strict boundaries on what this kind of consultation would involve.

Most importantly, the protocol guarantees that all interactions between the board and government on either legislation or regulation will be fully and publicly disclosed.

No more veil of secrecy. No more backroom meetings. No more government behaving as if the Board is merely a branch of one of its departments. No more guessing about what's going on behind closed doors.

The protocol also guarantees that, in those cases where the board does give technical advice, the board officers involved will not be allowed to sit in judgment on the laws or regulations they gave advice on.

It also puts restrictions on the role of outside legal counsel - so they can't act for employers one day and as advisor to the board the next.

With this document, the Alberta Labour Relations Board has gone from having essentially no clear internal rules dealing with its independence from government to having some of the best rules in the country.

We may still have some of the worst labour laws in Canada - and we do. But this protocol makes it clear that the Board's only role will be to interpret those bad laws, not help write them.

The importance of this change cannot be overstated. In a province where working people can't count on the Legislature to consistently protect their rights in the workplace, at the very least they have to have confidence that the referee isn't working against them as well.

The Board now has the tools to say "no" when the government comes calling. They now have the tools to tell say to the government, "we won't help you with your dirty work."

We expect the Board to aggressively use these new tools when appropriate.

We also have expectations for government. Now that clear boundaries have been set, we expect the government to respect those boundaries and to not compromise the independence of the board.

As a result of this new protocol, which has been signed by the Board chair and all the vice-chairs and which will be signed by all future vice-chairs, we at the Alberta Federation of Labour, the United Nurses of Alberta, and the Communication Energy Paperworkers union have collectively decided to withdraw our court appeal.

We have pursued this case tenaciously for the past four years. We have invested significant amounts of time, money and resources. And we have persevered in the face of efforts to discourage us.

But our goal was never to put trophy heads on our wall. Our goal was to improve public policy. Our goal was to defend and guarantee the independence of the Labour Board from undue influence from government and employers. And our goal was to restore confidence among all those who have to appear be before the Board.

Looking at the protocol released by the Board today, we are satisfied that our major goals have been achieved. As a result, we see no reason to proceed with the court case.

From our perspective, this is a victory for working people because we can now have more confidence in the tribunal that hears our concerns and complaints.

It is a victory for the Labour Board itself because it more clearly defines and defends its independence from government.

And it is a victory for the broader public because it sets in place a new model for governance which we think can and should be adopted by other public boards and agencies.

If the Stelmach government is sincere in its efforts to promote transparency and accountability, we think this protocol is a very good place to start.

Building a better model of governance - one that the public can really have confidence in - was our goal from the start.

That's why, last year, we at the AFL commissioned an expert study on the situation related to Bill 27. That study was done by Professor Lorne Sossin, a highly respected authority on administrative law from the University of Toronto.

It's clear to us that the Board took Prof. Sossin's recommendations to heart.

Prof. Sossin talked about the importance of maintaining a clear distance between government and administrative tribunals such as the LRB. He talked about the importance of rules to guarantee that distance. And he talked about the importance of transparency and full public disclosure.

The board may not have used the exact words proposed by Professor Sossin, but the spirit of his recommendations has clearly been given life in the Board's protocol.

As a result of these new rules, the Board has gone a long way to reestablishing confidence among the public and stakeholders.

Obviously, we would have been happier if Bill 27 had never been introduced. But we can't re-write history. We can, however, make sure that we don't repeat it.

If these rules had been in place four years ago, the government would not have been able to enlist the Board in its campaign to gut health care labour laws. We may still have gotten those laws - but their introduction would not have triggered a crisis in confidence in the Labour Board.

With the Board's new protocol, we consider our case against the Board's conduct on Bill 27 closed.

We can now turn our attention where it really belongs - to the bad laws we have on the books and to the government that has passed those laws and still defends them.