Restaurants Canada, an association representing
restaurateurs, has recently begun distributing this handbill in places like Tim
Horton’s. The gist is that the moratorium on temporary foreign worker (TFW)
permits in the food services sector is problematic for restaurants and
restaurateurs want the ban lifted.
The handbill advances two specious arguments.
The first is that TFWs can only be hired when restaurateurs
have exhausted efforts to recruit Canadians. The media coverage that lead to
the moratorium on TFWs in the food services sectors demonstrates this claim is
false. The current system has essentially non-existent oversight (which is the
fault of the federal government) and TFWs are hired in the restaurant industry when there are Canadians
willing an able to do the work (which is the fault of profit-maximizing
employers).
The second is that TFWs are necessary to staff
restaurants; in their absence, some restaurants would have to reduce their
hours or close their doors. By avoiding this outcome, TFWs help protect
Canadian jobs.
This statement is trickier to untangle.
The assertion that “no TFWs means few hours and closures” is
not necessarily true. Employers can almost always induce workers who are
sitting on the sidelines (in a specific jurisdiction or elsewhere) to join the labour
force if the wages and working conditions are right. A look at unemployment among marginalized groups (aboriginal, disabled) and other provinces suggests that lots of potential workers available. But, higher wages and
better working conditions raise labour costs which reduces restaurateurs' profits.
It **may** be that some restaurants will end up going out of
business without access to TFWs. But if a business can’t afford to pay its suppliers (including its
workers) a competitive price, isn’t this a sign that the business is not viable? And won’t any
displaced Canadian workers then find employment at another restaurant (which
will pick up the customers from the closed business)?
This self-correct dynamic (which is called "the free market
at work") highlights the devious nature of the assertion that “TFWs protect
Canadian jobs”. On the surface, TFWs do protect specific Canadian jobs by allowing otherwise
unprofitable businesses to suppress wages via access to additional workers.
But people change jobs all the time. The real question is whether a moratorium on TFWs will result in long-term job losses among Canadians.
Eliminating employer
access to TFWs may well cause a period of disruption, with some Canadian
workers changing jobs. But, if restaurant really do hire TFWs only when there
are no Canadians, then all of these displaced Canadians should be able to find
work. And, when this period of disruption settles out, both wages and working for Canadians are
likely to be better (because scarce employees have more bargaining power).
What this campaign is really about is minimizing labour
costs for restaurateurs by giving employers access to a larger labour pool.
To be fair, continued access to TFWs in the food service
industry mean (1) restaurants are open longer hours and (2) the price of a meal
will be lower.
But, the framing of this campaign doesn’t lead to a meaningful
debate about the relative merits of migrant workers, low wages, cheap food and 24-hour
cheeseburgers.
Instead it seeks to raise anxiety about the (false) spectre
of fewer (lousy) jobs and pressurize the government to allow employers access
to low-cost workers.
-- Bob Barnetson
2 comments:
Deleted idiot spammer.
Post a Comment