Throwing money at problems does not solve them, good management does

It must be really difficult for the average person to understand how it is that you can throw so much money at a problem for it not to go away, as what it is with health care in Alberta these days.  The answer to these questions is about having an advanced level of understanding about management.

The Latin meaning of the word management is to “to lead by the hand” which is far more than just barking orders to your subordinates, as the definition implies a hands on approach.

Perhaps the most encompassing definition of management that I’ve seen is:

 “the process of achieving the objectives of the business organization by bringing together human, physical, and financial resources in an optimum combination and making the best decision for the organization while taking into consideration its operating environment.”

In order to understand how we got here it is important to reflect back to the dying days of the Klein administration.  In the last year to six months of that administration virtually nothing was going on as the government was enjoying the boom.  Indeed writers at the time referred to government as being in “cruise control” Interestingly it was the P.C. Party and not the electorate who ended up throwing him out in the end as many in the party felt that government was in a “state of drift”

When the “No Plan” campaign surfaced during the last provincial election and created the buzz that it did, the creators of the advertisement did not have to hold focus groups, or do market studies to come up with a slogan that would engage voters. Many in Alberta were feeling the same way at the time that the choice of slogan was made.   

The impact of that campaign on Government was significant after the Progressive Conservatives formed government yet again.  Before anybody knew it Government embarked on planning exercises throughout all levels of Government.  Everything all of a sudden was a plan, there were even “plans, to have a plan” Activities that did not even meet the dictionary definition of the word “plan” were being labeled as a plan to the point that management could not really tell why we did any planning in the first place.  Then all of a sudden plans became synonymous with change and moves were afoot to provide at least the perceptual belief that Government must have a plan because things were changing, and changing rapidly across all of government.  In the case of health care we saw first the reduction of health authorities and then the move to a superboard among many, many examples in government.

For those involved in change management in Government, or those that are skilled in the art thereof know that in order to “bring together human, physical, and financial resources in an optimum combination and making the best decision for the organization while taking into consideration its operating environment” need basic ingredients.  One such ingredient that was missing out of the Government pantry was good quality information/data. Imagine trying to plan for taxpayers funded programs and services when you don’t even have the data to carry out your duties as a manager in the spirit of the management definition above.  These experiences and the fact that our elected representatives were constantly decrying that they were surprised by whatever demographic facts in Alberta that would make itself into the news, helped create the Alberta Office of Statistics and Information (OSI) an office that was once eliminated under the Klein cuts of the early 1990’s

The “boom and bust” mentality permeates both private and public sectors in Alberta and is a key impediment for managers to truly manage in the way as the definition above directs. Conceptually what this means is that when the times are good we don’t plan, but work flat out to achieve maximum returns because we know the good times will eventually end, only to kick ourselves when the downturn comes for not using human, physical, and financial resources in an optimum combination.  This is why he hire and fire Alberta’s nurses on what seems like a drop of a dime.

Given the above what this means is that Alberta’s taxpayers will experience what seems like grossly out of step program expenditures as compared to its other provincial counterparts.  It’s a deceiving comparison as the planning and delivery regime in other provinces are not impacted by the same boom bust mentality.  By virtue of their revenue streams other provinces have far more extensive and predictable planning capacities which by experience has taught them is far cheaper in the long run as opposed to creating capacities, only to eliminate them, then to bring it back again.

The other reality that the public needs to understand is that mangers can’t really manage, but follow the direction of their political masters.  Managers get hired and fired on their ability to say “Yes Minister” not on their critical thinking or skill base.  It’s telling in my travels to see the number of important managers nearing retirement who don’t even plan to stay in Alberta, some scared off by their insider knowledge by what they might end up experiencing should they need to access government as a private individual.

Aside from what I am writing here I believe that Alberta has amazing potential. However given the dynamics as I have come to witness them, Alberta will not reach its potential until a new viable alternative to the ruling P.C’s and their style of management breaks through and forms Government.

As I have heard from other insiders it’s not about the money folks, it’s all about management, political and then operational.

A response to the P.C. Edmonton McClung resolution

It would seem that @ppilarski has brought me out of my self-imposed realm of 140 characters and into the blogosphere to debate the anti-employee resolution presented by the constituency of Edmonton McClung to the 2010 P.C. Convention in Calgary.

The resolution itself reads: 

Be it resolved that, the Government of Alberta introduce amendments to the Labour Relations Code to permit individual employees to opt out of contributing a portion of their union dues if their dues are used to fund union activities which are unrelated to the core union activities of collective bargaining and grievance administration

The resolutions booklet contains a favorable legal opinion by McLennan and Ross presumably written for Merit Contactors Association who themselves gave $32,375 to the P.C. party in annual contributions since 2004

The motivation for the resolution came as a result of the “Nooo Plannn” campaign in 2008 that was entirely funded by Alberta’s unions.

Former Premier Ralph Klein who infamous promised a “boring” election campaigns was the real reason of the move by Alberta’s unions to take such a bold approach.   

The momentum created by such ads, helped spur other unions to come on board. Some have said that the ads did not work, however it caused the P.C. party of Alberta to spend an extra million dollars from their bloated war chest to counter the message, but more importantly it created a lot of election discourse that was not promulgated by the current political establishment.  In the end voters did not see a clear alternative.  

From a labour relations perspective when employers argue for a status quo position, or a negative one, they often point to the lack of member or public engagement as pseudo acceptance of the employer’s position at bargaining.  From this perspective it is not hard to understand why Unions want their members involved in political and community life, so why would this not be consider a core activity?

Back to the resolution at hand then, there are a number of questions that remain to be answered.

Question #1 If members of unions were allowed to “opt out” of dues for activities outside of core union business, then should employees of private non-unionized employers also be allowed to opt out of deferred pay raises from employers who spend company profits to donate to political parties ?

Question #2 Who would get to define what constitutes ”core union activities” Unions would often get involved in activities that may not have obvious benefit to the union, or its members to the casual observer, however may have short and long term implications on union core business as understood by those who are deeply involved in such activities.

Question #3 What about the obligation of the impacted member who disagrees with the activities to engage their union?  Unions are democratically run with their constitutions on file with the Alberta Labour Relations Board, moreover are under the legal obligation called Duty of Fair representation and are answerable not only to its members but also the Alberta Labour Relations Board.

Question #4 What is the “Net Public Interest Benefit” of such a resolution?  Considering that at last count there were 1509 collective bargaining agreements under provincial jurisdiction (remember we have federal labour laws as well) covering a total of 407,915 employees the question of “net public interest benefit” is an appropriate test for any proposed legislation in Alberta.  Even in the favorable legal opinion provided at the end of the P.C. resolution booklet they write “provided the restrictions were reasonable ones” The test of what’s reasonable could be found on the net public interest benefit in imposing such restrictions on unions in the first place. I wonder however if the P.C. party has been in power so long it's members think it could pass anything it wants for the party interest.

Finally I want to point out that this issue has already been settled in a Supreme Court of Canada decision:  Lavigne v. O.P.S.E.U.

Justice McLachlin in particular made salient points on this issue of a guy who felt the same way as @ppilarski and took it to court:

“He is not forced to join the union; he is not forced to participate in its activities, and he is not forced to join with others to achieve its aims.”

“Nor do the amounts collected impair the ability of workers to conduct their own political expression.  To the extent that it offends workers and other forced contributors to see their monies ultimately benefit certain political causes, that harm does not warrant constitutional prohibition of political uses of extracted funds.”

As I tweeted to @ppilarski “Don't fight the unions, work with them. That would put the progressive back in the P.C. brand.”