AHS wildcat strike

[killramos]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Rainn is best of the homonyms.

I’ve always been a fan of Rayne myself

[msommers]

Nein

[SKR]

I'll throw in a vote for Megan Rain.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

$4.7 billion dollar hand outs to the oil industry that create zero jobs also add up. A $30 million/yr "war room" that does nothing and is un-foip-able adds up. Paying Matt Wolf over $200,000 a year to sit on his fat ass and tweet the Premier's talking points adds up. Paying Stephen Harper's son $100,000/yr while he sits at grad school in New York adds up. It's not supposed to be a career for the majority, but for some that $22.30/hr might be the best job they can get with their qualifications/skills/etc. Not everyone can be an engineer/doctor/accountant. If everyone could then we would have no one to pick up our garbage, or in this instance be a custodian at the hospital. Just because you work a "average" job doesn't mean you should be cast into poverty. Is a $5/hr savings for contracting everything out worth it?

I'm so sick of these tired ol false dichotomy arguments from the left. Just because someone is in support of the public sector being influenced by market factors like every other business in existence. Does not automatically mean they want to suck off Jason Kenney. I would guess a fair share of us here support slashing government spending right across the board, especially in regards to all the things you mentioned. Just because Kenney is being wasteful with spending in other areas, I'm certainly not going to just say "Oh well, fuck it all then, burn it to the ground and spend every last dollar of my grandchildrens future"

[The_Rural_Juror]

I feel that we should let Jesus run the show instead of these unnecessary left and right conflicts.

[AndyL]

Personally I love the argument of "we handed them a 4.7billion $ tax break"

Anyone want to venture how much just in employment taxes the oil industries send to government monthly? Never mind leases, property taxes, royalties etc etc etc. Keeping some of those dollars here in Alberta when they're all looking to move hq somewhere less business unfriendly only makes sense.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

why is it everything the ucp does to reign in spending comes back to the war room or a hand out to the oil industry? Everytime i see an ndp supporter try to defend their position it comes to name calling and this same old argument. You did not dissapoint.

How do people continue to justify over spending in every industry? Why is the public sector any different then the private sector?

More importantly how can ndp supporters be against reasonable cost savings? Do you think money grows on trees? Let me guess you'll support more taxes on the private sector to continue the public sector gravy train?

Cutting over a billion dollars annually in tax revenue to add to the deficit, only to try and scrape it back with cutting wages and benefits to low income people (who will basically be passed onto the social system anyway in some form or another) would paint the picture that motivations are somewhat misaligned. After all this we still haven't gotten back to the starting line. Costs went up for the individual taxpayer, services cut, now low income jobs are being cut, AISH benefits reduced, doctors being pushed out, education being made more expensive, and the deficit got larger. It got larger even before Covid came along. So people keep talking about how we need to cut costs and why this stuff is justified, but we haven't even gotten to the NDP's part of the deficit, we're still trying to wipe out what the UCP has added to the deficit.

[g-m]

That's because we pay more per capita than any other province for health care and we have worse service. I'm sorry but something needs to change and it's going to piss off some people currently riding the gravy train. Oh but think of the poor workers!

No sympathy

[kertejud2]

is a $19-22/hr job considered a gravy train?

More of a Ramen Railroad, no?

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

is a $19-22/hr job considered a gravy train?

More of a Ramen Railroad, no?

When you put it in perspective of the worker, who knows they are worth 15$, but getting 22$. It probably does feel like a gravy train when you're making 10 grand extra a year than all your friends.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Cutting over a billion dollars annually in tax revenue to add to the deficit, only to try and scrape it back with cutting wages and benefits to low income people (who will basically be passed onto the social system anyway in some form or another) would paint the picture that motivations are somewhat misaligned. After all this we still haven't gotten back to the starting line. Costs went up for the individual taxpayer, services cut, now low income jobs are being cut, AISH benefits reduced, doctors being pushed out, education being made more expensive, and the deficit got larger. It got larger even before Covid came along. So people keep talking about how we need to cut costs and why this stuff is justified, but we haven't even gotten to the NDP's part of the deficit, we're still trying to wipe out what the UCP has added to the deficit.

The existence of deficits is a pre-condition for solving a spending problem. It's unfortunate that it needs to be this way, but it is what it is.

[gwill]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Cutting over a billion dollars annually in tax revenue to add to the deficit, only to try and scrape it back with cutting wages and benefits to low income people (who will basically be passed onto the social system anyway in some form or another) would paint the picture that motivations are somewhat misaligned. After all this we still haven't gotten back to the starting line. Costs went up for the individual taxpayer, services cut, now low income jobs are being cut, AISH benefits reduced, doctors being pushed out, education being made more expensive, and the deficit got larger. It got larger even before Covid came along. So people keep talking about how we need to cut costs and why this stuff is justified, but we haven't even gotten to the NDP's part of the deficit, we're still trying to wipe out what the UCP has added to the deficit.

I had friends crying over the ucp plan to review aish. The point of the review was to make sure the money went to those who actually need it not those who didn't want to work or abuse the system... this makes perfect sense. Anyone with half a brain would agree.

I bet you can guess some of my friends argument. If Kenny can give a 4.7billion hand out then he can support the poor. Others immediately attacked me for hating the poor all because I said the review makes perfect sense.

Everyone turned the argument away from what it was. Reviewing Aish to make sure it goes to those who truly need it is something everyone should be happy for.

Sadly like everything it turned into Kenney is coming for you and your kids next. Watch out.

I'm curious no matter how minor the cost savings are the NDP make it as though the world is ending. Wheres the solutions to cost savings? Oh that's right the NDP's only concern is spending more money with our unions.

[kertejud2]

The UCP cut revenue by over a billion dollars a year, and increased spending at the same time.

Cutting a program that they hope will save $400M by 2023 (most coming from not paying for capital upgrades that weren’t budgeted for anyway), but increased spending by $400M per year until 2023.

But yeah it’s about making cuts and balancing the budget.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The UCP cut revenue by over a billion dollars a year, and increased spending at the same time.

Cutting a program that they hope will save $400M by 2023 (most coming from not paying for capital upgrades that weren’t budgeted for anyway), but increased spending by $400M per year until 2023.

But yeah it’s about making cuts and balancing the budget.

Too simplistic.

You need to judge spending cuts on a relative level. A spending increase of $400MM is better than a spending increase of $600MM for instance.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Too simplistic.

You need to judge spending cuts on a relative level. A spending increase of $400MM is better than a spending increase of $600MM for instance.

A $400M spending increase is also, importantly, not a spending cut at all. Particularly when running on nominal spending cuts (0.2% cuts per year for 4 years). Balancing budgets by keeping spending increases relatively lower is basically what spawned Trudeau’s “budgets balance themselves” line so sure, roll with that if you want.

When the goal is to balance the budget and eliminate debt, changes to revenue also have to be considered since any revenue reduction eats away at the effectiveness of cost savings. If that isn’t the goal and the goal is simply to reduce costs, then an increase in costs is really out of whack.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A $400M spending increase is also, importantly, not a spending cut at all. Particularly when running on nominal spending cuts (0.2% cuts per year for 4 years).

When the goal is to balance the budget and eliminate debt, changes to revenue also have to be considered since any revenue reduction eats away at the effectiveness of cost savings. If that isnÂ’t the goal and the goal is simply to reduce costs, then an increase in costs is really out of whack.

Not necessarily. If you're on track to increase spending by 600 in a year and instead you trim that spending to only an increase of 400 then you have made progress towards a balanced budget. Individual budget cuts are not rendered unhelpful simply because of ballooning spending in other areas of the budget

An effort to reduce a spending problem still takes time.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not necessarily. If you're on track to increase spending by 600 in a year and instead you trim that spending to only an increase of 400 then you have made progress towards a balanced budget. Individual budget cuts are not rendered unhelpful simply because of ballooning spending in other areas of the budget

An effort to reduce a spending problem still takes time.

Except they werenÂ’t on track to increase spending by $600M, they were planning to reduce spending by $100M (Early Feb budget announcement). Then increased it over $400M (late Feb budget announcement). By the time the budget was ready to pass, the deficit was higher than the previous NDP one.

You can make up numbers if you want to make it seem like the promised spending cuts being Smaller spending increases arenÂ’t that bad, itÂ’s just not grounded in reality. When combined with the predicted tax revenue shortfall of over a billion dollars (which didnÂ’t include the royalty revenue shortfall since the budget was based on $58 WTI), itÂ’s like theyÂ’re not trying to deal with the deficit at all.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Except they werenÂ’t on track to increase spending by $600M, they were planning to reduce spending by $100M (Early Feb budget announcement). Then increased it over $400M (late Feb budget announcement). By the time the budget was ready to pass, the deficit was higher than the previous NDP one.

You can make up numbers if you want to make it seem like the promised spending cuts being Smaller spending increases arenÂ’t that bad, itÂ’s just not grounded in reality. When combined with the predicted tax revenue shortfall of over a billion dollars (which didnÂ’t include the royalty revenue shortfall since the budget was based on $58 WTI), itÂ’s like theyÂ’re not trying to deal with the deficit at all.

Well, they certainly are not being effective as they could be at it, as you point out. I'd prefer they were even more aggressive at cutting spending.

[e31]

This whole situation is a symptom of a widespread personel problem in AHS. Blaming any governmental effort to drive change is foolish, since the buttons and levers they push cannot cut out the cancer that is an entited unionized employee with seniority. Ask any AHS employee their favourite trick, whether it may be creative scheduling to get more hours marked as OT, or taking extended vacations in excess utilizing sick days. Those who work an honest job in healthcare end up carrying a burden much greater than necessary, causing burnout which in a roundabout way costs the system even more.

[zechs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

why is it everything the ucp does to reign in spending comes back to the war room or a hand out to the oil industry? Everytime i see an ndp supporter try to defend their position it comes to name calling and this same old argument. You did not dissapoint.

How do people continue to justify over spending in every industry? Why is the public sector any different then the private sector?

More importantly how can ndp supporters be against reasonable cost savings? Do you think money grows on trees? Let me guess you'll support more taxes on the private sector to continue the public sector gravy train?

Maybe I am getting my Beyonders mixed up, but gwill appears to have the most confusing ideals/beliefs of anyone on this site.

I don't have anything else to add, you're just a rare breed.

As to the union nonsense, unions in general are pretty awful. And considering how much wages have come down private sector, there needs to be a drop in public sector wages. It's actually a bit astonishing to hear that people with no education and just doing cleaning are getting paid $23/h with full benefits and a pension.