Negotiations and their eventual agreements are supposed to be win-win propositions. But not always - if you walk into a car dealership, buy a used car, and as you drive away see the car salesman high-five-ing his colleagues and booking a Caribbean cruise - you know that negotiation was anything but win-win.

Even if you know nothing about the unfunded liability in the teachers' pension plan, it's not hard to tell if Premier Stelmach got a good deal for taxpayers in his governments new $2.2-billion (2,200-million dollars) so-called "deal" with the Alberta Teachers' Association (ATA).

"This is a good deal for teachers," said ATA local 6 union president Ron Boyce.

"The stars are aligned. This is the best deal," said Sharon Armstrong, ATA Central North District Representative.

"(O)ur profession has much to celebrate. Collectively, we have achieved our long-standing goal of ensuring the financial security of our pension plan at a reduced cost to members," said ATA president, Frank Bruseker, in a post-agreement letter to teachers.

These are the union equivalents of the used-car salesman happy-dance.

In fact, it was so clearly a great deal for teachers that over 90 per cent of ATA representatives voted in favour of ratifying the new agreement.

So, was this a win-win How did the Stelmach government do representing taxpayers in this "negotiation "

Some have suggested by paying-off the unfunded liability sooner rather than later, taxpayers will see savings, thereby making this deal a good one. While it is true paying-off this debt sooner will save money, there's nothing in this agreement with the ATA that says the government will pay it off, merely that taxpayers are taking over the teachers' payments. More importantly, there was nothing stopping the government from paying-off the taxpayers' portion ($4.4-billion) earlier or setting up an unfunded liability retirement account, like they did for the provincial debt.

In exchange for assuming what's essentially the equivalent of a new $2.2-billion debt, taxpayers got five-years of no teacher strikes, guaranteed no change in instructional hours, and linked teacher wages to the Average Weekly Earnings of Albertans index.

What's no teacher strikes worth to taxpayers

Undoubtedly teacher strikes are disruptive to student learning and parental schedules, and put pressure on our school boards and government to increase their contract offer to teachers. This is especially true if strikes happen en mass.

The Stelmach government was right to want a no-strike guarantee, but should have obtained this guarantee by following the same example set for doctors, nurses and some emergency workers, and make strikes illegal. 37 of the 50 U.S. States have done the same and banned teachers from striking.

This would have cost taxpayers $0.

What's no change in instructional hours worth to taxpayers

A reduction in instructional hours could be costly to taxpayers, as more teachers would have to be hired to complete the curriculum. However, this too could be solved through government legislation. The government has a right to mandate a certain number of hours be met and be non-negotiable.

This again would cost taxpayers $0.

What's linking teacher wages to an index worth to taxpayers

The agreement links teacher wages to the Average Weekly Earnings of Albertans index for years two through five of the deal. Between 2002 and 2007 teacher wages went up, on average, by 3.1 percent per year, whereas the Average Weekly Earnings of Albertans index increased by 2.8 percent per year. Considering nearly 80 per cent of school board budgets are consumed by teacher salaries and benefits, any savings there would translate into some savings for taxpayers. With four years of indexed wages, taxpayers may see savings of around $100-million ($0.1-billion) total.

Final assessment: costs to taxpayers - $2,200-million, benefits to taxpayers - $100-million.

The numbers don't lie, the Stelmach government signed one lemon of a deal for taxpayers.