The Titan Arum Blooms: Alberta Election on May 5th

[Blader]

^^^
To add from that:
http://abacusdata.ca/albertas-electi...dp-say-voters/

The Upshot?

This election is one of the most fascinating ones to have happened in Canada in recent times. These results indicate it was less about the economy than one might have expected, and while it resulted in the election of a female Premier, gender per se did not appear to play a big role in the outcome.

It was a “change from something” rather than a “change to something” election, and also more about the qualities people were looking for in a leader than specific policy ideas. Those who voted NDP clearly warmed to Rachel Notley, while many others who left the PC’s for the Wildrose were expressing disappointment in Jim Prentice.

While there was a fair bit of anger, there was also a considerable measure of hope. Inasmuch as 60% didn’t vote NDP but only 25% are unhappy with the outcome, this challenges any notion that Alberta is today a place where partisanship and ideology are deeply rooted: most seem quite open to trying a different approach. Clearly, WRP and NDP voters had different priorities, but for most voters, if not for the most partisan of voters, these seem to be differences of degree more than fundamental direction.

- See more at: http://abacusdata.ca/albertas-electi....OOzGCSJ1.dpuf

[Loco101]

I believe that it was in the 1989 and 1993 provincial elections in Alberta that most voters didn't vote conservative yet the PCs still managed to win both times. It showed that many Albertans are willing to vote differently and are not loyal to conservative parties if there is anger and it happened before but the votes weren't distributed properly to defeat the PCs.

[kwoldtimer]

When will Notley be announcing her cabinet and when will the new government be installed?

[bulliver]

MLAs will be sworn in May 26. Unsure when cabinet announcement will be.

[Loco101]

Probably the next day?

[Nelju]

Rachel Notley's government must review high salaries at agencies, critics say
Agriculture Financial Service Corp. President paid $670,000 a year


Critics say the new government of premier-designate Rachel Notley should immediately rein in extraordinary salaries at Alberta's publicly funded agencies and expose them to scrutiny through the province's so-called sunshine list.

Annual reports show:

AFSC paid President Brad Klak a total, including salary and benefits, of $670,000 in 2013-14 — more than triple the salary of Alberta's premier;
Klak's compensation jumped from $573,000 in 2011-12 to $671,000 in 2012-13, an increase of nearly $100,000;
Seven AFSC executives were paid between $237,000 and $384,000 in 2013-14;
The CEOs of Alberta Innovates' four branches received between $338,000 and $479,000 in total compensation;
Six executives at the Alberta Innovates - Bio Solutions branch received total compensation of between $154,000 and $242,000;
Seven executives at the Technology Futures branch of Alberta Innovates were paid a total of between $272,000 and $364,000.

Wildrose Leader Brian Jean said the salaries reveal a "total disconnect" between the reality of Alberta's taxpayers — many struggling to make mortgage and vehicle payments due to the oilpatch downturn — and the boards of these government agencies.

Through freedom of information, CBC News obtained expenses claimed by some Alberta Innovates executives.

One receipt from the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel details a lavish meal for former Alberta Innovates - Technology Futures CEO Gary Albach and board members Stephen Lougheed — son of Peter Lougheed — Tom Corr, Amit Monga and Ken McKinnon. Also in attendance were unidentified board members of the Alberta Enterprise Corp., a venture-capital fund owned by the Alberta government.

The receipt shows the meal started with martinis and single-malt Scotch. During the meal of bison, prime rib and halibut, the board members enjoyed nearly $450 worth of wine, including two cabernets at $140 a bottle.

"Have you ever ordered a $140 bottle of wine?" Jean asked.

"But they think they can get away with doing this kind of stuff on the backs of taxpayers that are working so hard for their money and (the board members), bluntly, have no respect or regard for them at all," he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...-say-1.3077734

[1overcosc]

Fiscal conservatives love to rant and rave about salaries & expense claims by senior public servants, but salaries & expenses claimed by comparable executive positions in the private sector are even bigger. Yes, private sector salaries are not paid by taxpayers (although, you are indirectly paying for them through costs of goods), but you need to offer these public sector executives good salaries to compete with the comparable private sector jobs.

It's all good and dandy to say "Cut hospital director salaries to no more than $100K!" but if you do that, then those directors will just leave and get $500K/year jobs in the private sector which they are equally qualified for. You're then left with only the bottom of the barrel willing to work public sector, thus degrading the quality of management. This is actually one of the main reasons why private sector businesses tend to be so much more efficient and smooth-running than government.

[jmt18325]

I think that bigger problem is actually the lower level public servants.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

I think that bigger problem is actually the lower level public servants.

I'm not too familiar with Alberta government, but if it's anything like the federal government, then this statement is definitely true. It's all the low level staff like secretaries, assistants, and paperwork pushers making salaries far beyond (in many cases like 30%-40%) market levels that drive up the wage bill, not executives who are actually paid less than comparable private sector positions.

Much of this stems from the fact that the executives are generally non-unionized, whereas the rest are. In fact, public sector unions are usually quite anti-executive pay--a rare area in which public sector unions & fiscal conservatives agree.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Fiscal conservatives love to rant and rave about salaries & expense claims by senior public servants, but salaries & expenses claimed by comparable executive positions in the private sector are even bigger. Yes, private sector salaries are not paid by taxpayers (although, you are indirectly paying for them through costs of goods), but you need to offer these public sector executives good salaries to compete with the comparable private sector jobs.

It's all good and dandy to say "Cut hospital director salaries to no more than $100K!" but if you do that, then those directors will just leave and get $500K/year jobs in the private sector which they are equally qualified for. You're then left with only the bottom of the barrel willing to work public sector, thus degrading the quality of management. .

Which leads to poor quality public services, which is then used to justify their elimination or privatization. Self-fulfilling prophecy!

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Fiscal conservatives love to rant and rave about salaries & expense claims by senior public servants, but salaries & expenses claimed by comparable executive positions in the private sector are even bigger. Yes, private sector salaries are not paid by taxpayers (although, you are indirectly paying for them through costs of goods), but you need to offer these public sector executives good salaries to compete with the comparable private sector jobs.

It's all good and dandy to say "Cut hospital director salaries to no more than $100K!" but if you do that, then those directors will just leave and get $500K/year jobs in the private sector which they are equally qualified for. You're then left with only the bottom of the barrel willing to work public sector, thus degrading the quality of management. This is actually one of the main reasons why private sector businesses tend to be so much more efficient and smooth-running than government.

Some public sector jobs may have lower salaries than comparable jobs in the private sector but the public sector also have very good pension plans, usually better job security, annual leave and sick leave, health benefits and numerous other benefits.

I know of people who have chosen to take lower paying jobs in public sector due to the benefits they receive. I know of a couple who are both engineers, he has his own company and his wife works in the public sector. While he makes very good money with his company - she could also work there or retire - the benefits she receives in the public sector is still a big help for them.

[khabibulin]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I'm not too familiar with Alberta government, but if it's anything like the federal government, then this statement is definitely true. It's all the low level staff like secretaries, assistants, and paperwork pushers making salaries far beyond (in many cases like 30%-40%) market levels that drive up the wage bill, not executives who are actually paid less than comparable private sector positions.

Much of this stems from the fact that the executives are generally non-unionized, whereas the rest are. In fact, public sector unions are usually quite anti-executive pay--a rare area in which public sector unions & fiscal conservatives agree.

While the executives (and many other "exempt" staff) are not protected by the Union, wage increases for executives are usually matched to what is negotiated by the "rank and file". So if the negotiated increase is 1%, someone making $40K gets a $400/year raise. The executive making $200K gets a $2000/year raise.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

Some public sector jobs may have lower salaries than comparable jobs in the private sector but the public sector also have very good pension plans, usually better job security, annual leave and sick leave, health benefits and numerous other benefits.

High level private sector executives get all of this too, save for the padlocked job security.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

High level private sector executives get all of this too, save for the padlocked job security.

Federal government executives (EX) have better job security that those in the private sector, but it's not padlocked like it is for unionized public servants.

[Boris2k7]

This is merely anecdotal, but someone with my qualifications and experience (3-5 years of experience, science and technical) can get an equivalent job in the public sector for about 1.5x of my hourly rate.

... and I want that goddamn job.

[niwell]

At my level I would probably make about the same if not a bit more in the private sector. I enjoy my job though and not really sure I would want to. At a level or two up I would be making more in the private sector. But again, likely wouldn't enjoy the type of work as much (one can only write so many proposals…).

As others have alluded to it's really the entry level staff in the public sector making more. Once you reach the professional level it changes quite a bit. And yes, there are those positions that seemingly make a ton. But that's so they can actually be competitive with what one would make in a large company. And don't kid yourself, those positions are a LOT of work. I see the crazy amount of time my ADM puts into his job and it pales in comparison to the heads of commissions etc.

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

High level private sector executives get all of this too, save for the padlocked job security.

Depending on what kind of level you're at that's probably true.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

High level private sector executives get all of this too, save for the padlocked job security.

Except for the pension part, in all likelihood. Althoguh they may have some type of RRSP or profit sharing plan to help compensate.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

(although, you are indirectly paying for them through costs of goods)

But you can choose, if you wish, to not pay for that, by opting for used goods or goods from a better-managed company.

It's a lot less easy to choose to legally be in a less wasteful / less gluttonous jurisdiction for tax purposes (even though it's doable, especially when you're not really attached to your previous one).

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I think our generation and younger is less prone to pearl-clutching anyway. That whole type of reaction to "scandal" was based on the expectation of 1950s-style suburban fascade. If people simply don't give a shit, it doesn't matter - and it already doesn't for the younger generations. Media consumption patterns - especially print - will continue to cater to those old enough to care about such things for a long time yet. But that ship is sunk.

You (and several others) were saying?

I'm seeing quite a lot of pearl-clutching going on this morning in Calgary. And it sure doesn't seem to be the older generation freaking out today.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ucus-1.3084083