I am going to provide some policy advice that I have been providing for two years now, shortly after arriving in Alberta and seeing the real labour market concerns related to O&G workers. My summary is that the Alberta government has failed these workers. /thread https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1312088438502428673

Whenever we have economic restructuring (fishery, forestry, manufacturing, auto, O&G...) we need to ensure that we work to spread these losses across society, not just on those in the sector, and to help communities and individuals adjust.

We are 'all in this together' and we as society owe each other the respect and support during these times. Our policy system though supports people through life transitions (e.g. parenthood, sickness, old age).

Our policy system supports some people through unemployment. The only other real net though for workers facing catastrophic losses is the welfare system. But the welfare system is unbearably stigmatizing not well designed or suited for skilled, long-tenured workers.

What is missing in our support system is a resilient, responsive, comprehensive, and robust system that supports the transition of a skilled workforce in face of a significant industrial structural change without forcing them into poverty.

With skilled, long-tenured workers we need to think about two things. First, some will be close to retirement. Not close enough to retire, but close. This is where programs like bridging programs come into play. We've seen these for the phase-out of coal-powered generation.

Forestry workers are also supported in BC with such a program. The US Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance for Older Workers included such a benefit. A similar program should have been made available to O&G workers.

Such programs acknowledge that workers near retirement age will face difficult re-employment prospects due to age discrimination and some of these workers will find that the net benefits from potentially upskilling or reskilling are negative given their retirement plans.

Second, is a wage insurance program. Wage insurance is a program that insures workers who have lost long-term stable jobs against the risk of an earnings loss due to a significant labour-market disruption associated with a structural economic shock.

In the case of wage insurance, the insurable earnings loss is not due to unemployment, which the Employment Insurance system already insures against, but rather earnings losses related to the re-employment process.

Wage insurance acknowledges that skilled, long-tenured workers that have experienced a job loss due to a structural shock are likely to be able to find new employment, but they may not be able to find employment at the same level of remuneration they earned in their lost job.

This is especially true for worker in industries with above-average wages (O&G). The gap between wage levels may result in such workers remaining unemployed longer, and the longer they remain unemployed the greater the likelihood that they may not be able to make the shift.

Further, those that do accept employment at a lower wage may experience economic and personal hardship if the wage and benefit loss is substantial.

Wage insurance helps ameliorate the remuneration gap by topping up earnings in the new job with an income benefit that bridges the gap between their new earnings and some measure of past earnings for some set period of time.

For example, @MilesCorak proposes a benefit rate that is based on the earnings gap measured as the difference between the current annual income and the average income of the previous five years and with a maximum benefit duration of five years.

Wage insurance, when properly designed, helps reduce labour market scarring, prevent the erosion of job skills in a skilled work force, and support the mental health of workers in the face of a substantial shock.

Wage insurance was also a pillar in the plan supporting workers related to the phase out of coal power generation in Alberta

Ideally, we would have a general program that can kick in anytime we see such economic restructuring so that we don't have to wait around for politicians to come up with sector-specific plans.

And by ensuring that worker support programs, like the two noted above, are in place in advance of impending structural shifts can help ensure that there is the political will to not continue subsidizing economic activity that is no longer viable

I worry though with all the dithering in Alberta that the five years that have passed have permanently scarred an important segment of the workforce who continue to wait for the boom times to return and which is being promised by politicians.