Bill 30 and workplace harassment and violence

Continuing our look at Bill 30 (An Act to Protect the Health and Well-being of Working Albertans), today I wanted to examine new rules about violence and harassment in the workplace.

The new OHS Act created by Bill 30 makes employers responsible for ensuring harassment- and violence-free workplaces:

3(1) Every employer shall ensure, as far as it is reasonably practicable for the employer to do so,

(c) that none of the employer’s workers are subjected to or participate in harassment or violence at the work site,

There are similar obligations for supervisors and a requirement for workers to refrain from causing or participating in this behaviour. Harassment and violence are defined this way

1(q) “harassment” means any single incident or repeated incidents of objectionable or unwelcome conduct, comment, bullying or action by a person that the person knows or ought reasonably to know will or would cause offence or humiliation to a worker, or adversely affects the worker’s health and safety, and includes

(i) conduct, comment, bullying or action because of race, religious beliefs, colour, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status, gender, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation, and

(ii) a sexual solicitation or advance,

but excludes any reasonable conduct of an employer or supervisor in respect of the management of workers or a work site;

1(yy) “violence”, whether at a work site or work-related, means the threatened, attempted or actual conduct of a person that causes or is likely to cause physical or psychological injury or harm, and includes domestic or sexual violence;

Requiring employers to prevent harassment and allowing workers to make OHS complaints if employers don’t do so is a significant change. Workplace harassment is endemic, as evident in a recent series of stories about unremediated harassment of City of Edmonton employees. Being able to file an OHS complaint gives workers a much faster remedy for harassment than using internal complaint procedures or (if unionized) filing grievances.

It will be interesting to see how OHS officers handles such complaints and how this requirement interacts with the new language around the right to refuse unsafe work. If my boss is a yeller, for example, (and mine is not!) and if that causes me significant distress, can I refuse to interact with her if her yelling has no meaningful relationship to legitimate management activities? And what if my boss is an ass grabber or a low-level racist? Will we see OHS orders that specify so-and-so is not to grab workers’ asses? Or is precluded from interacting with specific subordinates? 

How will this work in a small workplace where the boss is the owner and the boss is a serial harasser? Will OHS preclude the boss from attending the workplace? Can I refuse unsafe work indefinitely (and continue to get paid) if the boss remains in the workplace? I suspect no one has really thought this through. This is going to be super interesting and will pressure employers to act on misconduct that often just gets a pass these days.

The explicit requirement for employers to protect workers from violence addresses, in part, a 2011 case where a women was murdered by her spouse at work. Despite being aware of the threats against her, her employer took no steps to protect her. The government promised to address this issue in 2015. More recently, there was a disturbing story about assaults on City of Edmonton bus drivers.

An interesting question is how this requirement will interact with the recently legislation designed to protect gas station and convenience store staff (Bill 19). This legislation amended the OHS Code and requires employers to have so-called violence prevention plans in place. Unfortunately, these plans are really robbery prevention plans and will have little effect on violence.

As I have argued elsewhere, what Bill 19 reflects is a saw-off: the government got good press and support from industry around (long-needed) gas-and-dash legislation and, in return, took a pass on violence-prevention requirements (e.g., bullet-proof barriers for clerks) that employers opposed because they are costly.

Fast forward to Bill 30 and employers now have an obligation to take reasonably practicable steps to protect workers from violence. So will the next employer whose convenience store clerk gets killed because there were no barriers be able to rely upon their violence prevention program to evade charges under the OHS Act? Installing a barrier is a reasonable practicable step to prevent such a death even if barriers are not required by the Code. Failing to install one (even if it is not required under the Code, which sets out absolute minimums) seems to violate the Act.

One of the most interesting immediate effects of adding harassment and violence in workplaces is that these behaviours have now been identified as (1) wrongful and (2) threats to workers health. I am already hearing reports of workers reading media reports and reframing their negative workplace experiences as the fault of their employer.

Combined with the recent flurry of harassment allegations against (and consequences for) powerful actors in Hollywood, I wonder if this legislation will contribute to new norms and expectations in Alberta workplaces? The City of Edmonton’s rapid shift from denial to action on harassment being an example of how this could play out.

-- Bob Barnetson

Bill 30 and the right to refuse

This week, Alberta’s government introduced Bill 30 (An Act to Protect the Health and Well-being of Working Albertans). This legislation replaces the existing Occupational Health and Safety Act as well as amended the Workers’ Compensation Act.

As the changes in Bill 30 are significant, I’ll be making a series of posts over the next week about different aspects of Bill 30.

Today I’m going to examine the right to refuse. Under the current OHS Act, Alberta workers have an obligation to refuse unsafe work if it poses imminent danger to the worker or endanger another worker.

35(1) No worker shall 

(a) carry out any work if, on reasonable and probable grounds, the worker believes that there exists an imminent danger to the health or safety of that worker,
(b) carry out any work if, on reasonable and probable grounds, the worker believes that it will cause to exist an imminent danger to the health or safety of that worker or another worker present at the work site, or
(c) operate any tool, appliance or equipment if, on reasonable and probable grounds, the worker believes that it will cause to exist an imminent danger to the health or safety of that worker or another worker present at the work site.

Bill 30 replaces that and establishes a right to refuse unsafe work (which is the Canadian norm):

31(1) Subject to this section and section 5, a worker may refuse to work or to do particular work at a work site if the worker believes on reasonable grounds that there is a dangerous condition at the work site or that the work constitutes a danger to the worker’s health and safety or to the health and safety of another worker or another person.

There are two significant differences. The first is that Bill 30 re-frames refusals as a right instead of as an obligation. While the effect of this reframing is minimal, it sends an important message: a safe workplace is a worker’s right. For a long time, Alberta’s lax enforcement of its OHS laws have created an acceptance that it is okay to trade worker safety off against employer profitability. Setting out safe workplaces as a right serves an important normative function.

Second, Bill 30 dispenses with the qualifier in the current Act that unsafe work must pose an imminent danger in order for a worker to refuse it. In the current Act, imminent danger is defined as;

35(2) In this section, “imminent danger” means in relation to any occupation
(a) a danger that is not normal for that occupation, or
(b) a danger under which a person engaged in that occupation would not normally carry out the person’s work.

This definition limits refusals to situations where a worker faces an unusual danger. Regular dangers don’t qualify. This definition allowed employers significant wiggle room when confronted with a refusal and makes it harder for workers to resist unsafe working conditions.

For example, repetitive motions are a normal part of cashier work. The danger they pose is that they lead to repetitive strain injuries (e.g. carpal tunnel). Under the old Act, repetitive motions is a normal danger and there would be no right to refuse. Under the new Act, I would suggest a refusal is possible. This ought to motivate employers to better address hazards that have been built into the production process.

The new language also contemplates a role for joint health and safety committee members in investigating refusals and it requires the employer to disclose the hazard to any other worker directed to do the work. This reduces the ability of employers to leave hazards unremediated by just asking some other worker to do the unsafe work (a common employer tactic).

Three quick observations:

1. Unsafe work is a common thing. A recent study I have completed with two colleagues suggests that about 16% of Alberta workers face one or more instances of unsafe work each year.
2. A frequent employer argument against refusals is that workers will use refusals mischievously or unions will weaponize refusals to achieve collective bargaining aims. There is no evidence to support these claims. In act, our study suggests that workers dramatically under-refuse unsafe work, refusing only 33.6% of instances when they are exposed to unsafe work.
3. Changing Alberta’s “git’er dun” culture (where unsafe work is an accepted norm) will require significant efforts to educate employers and workers about this new right as well as meaningful enforcement when employers illegally) retaliate against workers who refuse (which happens in about 20% of refusals).

Overall, this amendment to the OHS Act is a significant improvement in the legislative language around refusals. Whether it will meaningfully affect Alberta workers is an open question that will depend upon the government’s efforts to education and enforce the law.

-- Bob Barnetson

Research: Cannabis on workplace injury

In June of 2018, the federal government is expected to legalize pot. Many employers have, in the past, expressed concern about the safety effects of drug use in the workplace. And there is ongoing litigation about mandatory random drug testing at a worksite in Fort McMurray.

The Institute for Work and Health has very helpfully posted some preliminary information about the state of research on the effects of cannabis on work safety. IWH researchers do high-quality work and are currently doing a systematic review of the research on the effects of various drugs on workplace injuries, deaths and near misses.

While the review has not yet been completed, the authors have shared some preliminary findings:

1. There are no published studies on the effects of legalized recreational cannabis on workplace outcomes. This is important because employers must typically demonstrate some minimal level of proof to support policies such as random drug testing.

2. The broader evidence of cannabis use on workplace outcomes (e.g., attendance, turnover, injuries) is highly conflicted and no conclusions can yet be drawn. This suggests that the popular perception of pot as problematic may be incorrect. There is also no data about the incidence of workplace cannabis use.

3. The evidence on cannabis use in safety sensitive positions is mostly based on studies of driving behaviours. Extrapolating these studies to other safety-sensitive jobs is likely analytical over-reach.

4. Cannabis-use testing does not establish impairment (whereas testing for alcohol can do so). This poses a major barrier to research and practice.

This kind of research is helpful because it demonstrates that the current state of knowledge about the workplace effects of legalizing dope is very limited.

This is not all that different from what we know about other forms of drug use in the workplace. The short of that is that there is little evidence linking drug use (as distinct from alcohol use) to increased injury rates (which surprised me) and there is little evidence suggesting that random testing reduces injury rates (less surprising if there is no relationship between drug use and injury to begin with).

That absence of evidence has not stopped employers from advancing mandatory drug testing policies (which workers and unions have resisted). You can read about a 2012 dust-up on this issue here.

Employers typically argue that, despite the lack of evidence to support their policies, they have an obligation to ensure workplace safety and, thus, they have to do something. Setting aside their assumption that there is a problem (which the evidence suggests there isn’t), the idea that employers ought to act to make workplaces safer based only on suspicion of harm is an interesting one.

This approach resonates with the precautionary principle in occupational health and safety, which states that, where an employer believes that a workplace substance or process may cause harm, then it should be up to the person advocating for the substance or process to prove it does not cause harm.

Interestingly, employers have generally resisted the precautionary principle when it might apply to the potentially toxic substances or process they choose to expose workers to. Given this, that they suddenly (and narrowly) laud the precautionary principle around drug testing ought to be viewed with suspicion.

If employers are truly motivated to make workplaces safer, then they ought to be come to the table and make a trade: workers might agree to having their privacy breached if, in exchange, the employer agreed to imposing the same standard on the substances and processes (e.g., shift work) that they subject workers to.

I’ll believe that when I see it.

-- Bob Barnetson

PS. Although it is irrelevant to the argument I’ve presented above, please note that (1) I don’t use pot, (2) I have never used recreational drugs (in 1989, I had 10 narcotic-based painkillers prescribed for a tooth absence but that was not recreational!), and (3) I’m pretty ambivalent about legalization. I disclose this to forestall the (shitty) arguments that arose that last time I wrote on this subject essentially accusing me of using my position to advance my own (presumably wild!) drug use.

Labour & Pop Culture: Mathematics

This week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture is “Mathematics” by Mos Def. The song engages the disenfranchisement of non-whites in contemporary America, with particular attention to the high level of incarceration among these groups.

The analytical meat of the song is its interrogation of the factors that help explain this dynamic. They include poverty, systemic racism, and (perhaps) the profit-motive of prison labour. For example:

When the average minimum wage is $5.15
You best believe you gotta find a new ground to get cream
The white unemployment rate, is nearly more than triple for black
so frontliners got they gun in your back
Bubblin crack, jewel theft and robbery to combat poverty
and end up in the global jail economy

I couldn't find a video for this song but there is a good audio version below.



[Mos Def]
Booka-booka-booka-booka-booka-booka
Ha hah
You know the deal
It's just me yo
Beats by Su-Primo for all of my peoples, negroes and latinos
and even the gringos

Yo, check it one for Charlie Hustle, two for Steady Rock
Three for the fourth comin live, future shock
It's five dimensions, six senses
Seven firmaments of heaven to hell, 8 Million Stories to tell
Nine planets faithfully keep in orbit
with the probable tenth, the universe expands length
The body of my text posess extra strength
Power-liftin powerless up, out of this, towerin inferno
My ink so hot it burn through the journal
I'm blacker than midnight on Broadway and Myrtle
Hip-Hop past all your tall social hurdles
like the nationwide projects, prison-industry complex
Broken glass wall better keep your alarm set
Streets too loud to ever hear freedom sing
Say evacuate your sleep, it's dangerous to dream
but you chain cats get they CHA-POW, who dead now
Killin fields need blood to graze the cash cow
It's a number game, but shit don't add up somehow
Like I got, sixteen to thirty-two bars to rock it
but only 15% of profits, ever see my pockets like
sixty-nine billion in the last twenty years
spent on national defense but folks still live in fear like
nearly half of America's largest cities is one-quarter black
That's why they gave Ricky Ross all the crack
Sixteen ounces to a pound, twenty more to a ki
A five minute sentence hearing and you no longer free
40% of Americans own a cell phone
so they can hear, everything that you say when you ain't home
I guess, Michael Jackson was right, "You Are Not Alone"
Rock your hardhat black cause you in the Terrordome
full of hard niggaz, large niggaz, dice tumblers
Young teens and prison greens facin life numbers
Crack mothers, crack babies and AIDS patients
Young bloods can't spell but they could rock you in PlayStation
This new math is whippin motherfuckers ass
You wanna know how to rhyme you better learn how to add
It's mathematics

[Chorus: scratched by DJ Premier (repeat 2X)]

"The Mighty Mos Def.."
"It's simple mathematics" -> [Fat Joe]
"Check it out!"
"I revolve around science.."
"What are we talking about here?"

.. "Do your math" -> [Erykah Badu (2X)]
.. "One.. t-t-two.. three, four" -> [James Brown]
.. "What are we talking about here?" ..

[Mos Def]
Yo, it's one universal law but two sides to every story
Three strikes and you be in for life, manditory
Four MC's murdered in the last four years
I ain't tryin to be the fifth one, the millenium is here
Yo it's 6 Million Ways to Die, from the seven deadly thrills
Eight-year olds gettin found with 9 mill's
It's 10 P.M., where your seeds at? What's the deal
He on the hill puffin krill to keep they belly filled
Light in the ass with heavy steel, sights on the pretty shit in life
Young soldiers tryin to earn they next stripe
When the average minimum wage is $5.15
You best believe you gotta find a new ground to get cream
The white unemployment rate, is nearly more than triple for black
so frontliners got they gun in your back
Bubblin crack, jewel theft and robbery to combat poverty
and end up in the global jail economy
Stiffer stipulations attached to each sentence
Budget cutbacks but increased police presence
And even if you get out of prison still livin
join the other five million under state supervision
This is business, no faces just lines and statistics
from your phone, your zip code, to S-S-I digits
The system break man child and women into figures
Two columns for who is, and who ain't niggaz
Numbers is hardly real and they never have feelings
but you push too hard, even numbers got limits
Why did one straw break the camel's back? Here's the secret:
the million other straws underneath it - it's all mathematics

[Chorus]

[closing scratch] "Mathematics.."

-- Bob Barnetson

Bill 6 OHS recommendations

In late October, Alberta released for public comment the reports of four working groups that examined the application of occupational health and safety rules for paid employees in the farm and ranch sector. The reports are available here. Feedback is due January 15.

The reports make a large number of recommendations (mostly to adopt the existing rules in the OHS Code). There has been some media coverage of the recommendations, mostly centering on seatbelts, subsidies and bathrooms.

I think there are two really interesting issues that are, so far, below the radar. The first is the recommendation (across all Working groups reports but especially group 6) that the government established an industry safety association. My understanding is that the AgCoalition (perhaps through a separate society) is positioning itself to be this association. Whether the AgCoalition (which finds most of its support among large producers) would be successful in engaging smaller operators is an open question. Another interesting question is the degree to which farm workers would have any meaningful involvement in such an association.

The recommendation also suggests that the association be government funded. One effect of government funding is that often constrains the desire and ability of the funded group to act in a partisan manner. This happens through a couple of mechanism. First, the group becomes dependent on government largesse (as well as subject to regulation) so open opposition entails more risk. Second, individuals within the organization start to buy into the goals and norms of workplace safety, particularly over time as the safety keeners tend to persist and eventually dominate the organization.

It will be fascinating to see if a political saw-off emerges, wherein the Ag Coalition gets government funding and, in turn, basically accepts Bill 6 as a done deal. There was a very interesting interview on Alberta Primetime a few weeks back where Lynn Jacobsen (President of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture) was asked about the UCP’s pledge to repeal Bill 6:

I guess I’m getting tired of everybody playing politics around this issue. I think that statement is directed related to politics and is not related to some facts and what is actually going on in the agricultural community.

…What we have found out… before we had this legislation, farms in Alberta didn’t have a lot of coverage for their workers. We did some straw polls… and it seemed like maybe 30-35% of producers had any type of protection for anybody working for there. That is a huge issue that we don’t want to go back to.

People without coverage and basic legislation they have to follow and rules and workmen’s comps—people lose their farms over accidents and that. We don’t want to go back to that era.

…I think it is a little foolish of the opposition parties to say we’re just going to cancel it because it is an attack on farmers. Really it isn’t an attack on farmers. It is maybe bringing labour on our farms up into the 20th century.

The AFA has always been a bit more reasonable on farm safety than other groups, but this still seemed like a real softening of resistance among a key producer group.

The other issue will be around legacy equipment. Both Working Groups 3 and 4 are recommending that farm equipment in operation one year after any change to the OHS Code is made (so-called legacy equipment) should be exempt from certain requirements. The key requirements are around equipment being operated, modified or otherwise used in compliance with manufacturer’s specification (although this legacy issue comes up in a couple of places, such as having adequate roll-over and falling object protections and safeguards).

This is a complicated issue because farms operate equipment that may not have manufacturers specs, may have been modified contrary to them, may be used in ways not anticipated by the manufacturer (similar to off-label use of drugs), may be home built, or may be subject to “emergency repairs” in the field during a busy season. There is also a sense that manufacturer specs are often very conservative because they are a means by which manufacturers avoid liability if something goes wrong.

Particularly worrisome was Working Group 4’s recommendation for legacy exemptions on roll-over protections and falling objects protections on mobile powered equipment (e.g., tractors) as well as safeguards on equipment. Basically, this recommendation would mean farms could continue to use equipment of questionable safety until it breaks down.

The death of Stephen Murray Gibson illustrates the consequences of a permanent exemption around meeting manufacturer specs and other standards. Gibson was killed in 2015 after getting entangled in an unshielded power take off (PTO). (A PTO is a drive-shaft that spins at high speed to transfers power from an engine to some other equipment.)

Fatigue was probably an issue in this fatality (he had been working 28 straight days). But an important root cause was the unguarded PTO. According to the fatality inquiry:

Mr. Hamilton bought from a neighbour a 40- or 50-year old grain roller and PTO. The roller had three safety shields on it; the PTO, although it would originally have had a safety shield, at the time Mr. Hamilton acquired it, did not. No manual came with the equipment, either.

Given that farm equipment can often stay in use for decades, recommendations allowing continued non-compliance around legacy equipment are a recipe for exposing generations of farm workers to unremediated hazards that will kill some of them. I can’t imagine the government going for that. Yet, bringing unsafe equipment up to code (or replacing it) will entail significant costs. If the government declines this recommendation, I suspect there will be a lot of complaining.

One option it to create a grace period (to spread costs over time). Another is to provide some sort of safety subsidy programs to help offset the cost of compliance (Working Group 5 suggests this for roll over protection). Subsidies are common in agriculture (e.g., crop insurance) but, like government funding of ag associations, they often have other implications. For example, they (at least implicitly) require farmers to recognize the government’s authority over matters of farm safety. And they give governments leverage that may moderate farmers’ behaviour.

It will be very interesting to watch these two issues play out over time.

-- Bob Barnetson

Labour & Pop Culture: Supply and Demand

This week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture is “Supply and Demand” by Amos Lee. The song is about the tendency of people to construct their lives around their occupations and the impact this has on them. For example, a study out of Ohio found women working more than 60 hours per week had triple the risk of life threatening illnesses.

The message of the song is that:

Somethin' gotta give with the way I'm livin'
Seems I'm gettin' down everyday
The more I strive, the less I'm alive
And seems I'm gettin' further away
…
Yeah baby I need a plan to understand
That life ain't only supply and demand

The sentiment here is fine and all, but I wonder if the notion that self-reflection is a cure-all for over work is a bit facile. Certainly becoming aware that we’re working too much and might better spend our time doing other things is nice.

But there are lots of concrete reasons people work more that they’d like, such as declining real-dollar wages, a lack of permanent jobs, and growing economic insecurity. Pop culture—which is embedded in a capitalist economy—rarely problematizes the structural outcomes of capitalism.

Instead, it tends to individualize responsibility. Like this song suggesting workers need to change their behaviour. I’m sure the warehouse guy in this video would like to work less:

Well your wife and your baby you tell them yeah well maybe
I'll meet y'all at a weekend resort
Put your eyes on the prize and you can realize
Your little girl's life's so short

But can he? And what kind of profound political and economic change would be required for a manual labourer to earn a living wage?

There doesn’t appear to be an official video for this song so I found this fan-made video. Note the lip-syncer is not Amos Lee.



Somethin' gotta give with the way I'm livin'
Seems I'm gettin' down everyday
The more I strive, the less I'm alive
And seems i'm gettin' further away

Oh well all my superstitions and my crazy suspicions
Of the people that I care about
I been doin' more screamin' than I been doin' dreamin'
And I think it's time I figured it out

Yeah baby I need a plan to understand
That life ain't only supply and demand

I been goin' joggin' in the park after dark
Draggin' 'round with me my ball and chain
Took southern skies to make me realize
That I'm causin' myself this pain

The woman that I'm lovin' yeah I'm pushin' and shovin'
Getting further on by the day
And I can't understand how the heart of this man
Ever let it end up this way

Yeah baby I need a plan to understand
That life ain't only supply and demand

When the road gets dark and lonesome dear
You can find me here
But honey you don't know where I am
You need a friieend yeeaahh

Life ain't easy in fact I know it's sleazy
When you're the big man in town
Shakin' religions and makin' decisions
You never get slow on down

Well your wife and your baby you tell them yeah well maybe
I'll meet y'all at a weekend resort
Put your eyes on the prize and you can realize
Your little girl's life's so short

Brother you need a plan to understand
That life ain't only supply and demand
Yeah sister you need a plan to understand
That life ain't only supply and demand

Hey, you better figure it out now
You know you ain't comin' back down, yeah
You better figure it out now
You know you ain't comin' back down

-- Bob Barnetson

BC report highlights rampant wage theft, broken system

The BC Employment Standards Coalition released a report this summer entitled “Workers stories of exploitation and abuse: Why BC Employment Standards needs to change.” BC’s laws governing the terms and conditions of use had been significantly degraded through legislative and regulatory change by the former Liberal government.

The report tells the stories of 145 BC workers whose employers violated their rights or made their lives difficult because BC workers lack certain rights. The most common issues flagged included wage theft (e.g., improper pay, no OT, improper termination, illegal deductions), abusive and unhealthy workplaces (e.g., discrimination, harassment), and scheduling violations (e.g., no breaks, long hours, reduced hours, compulsory OT, scheduling changes).

The stories of wage theft are the ones that will resonate the most with readers. While some stories are of straight up non-payment, it is subtler forms of time and wage-premium theft that the most common:

Brad is a delivery drive and glass installer for a national auto glass company. He stated that because of a significant workload increase, he and his co-workers must start work 20 to 30 minutes early every day without pay. They also have to forego coffee and lunch breaks in order to complete their daily assignments.

John worked in a professional office and was not being paid for overtime. He was given more work than could be handled during normal hours and was expected to stay late to finish it. He was given a company cell phone and expected to be available 24/7. While on vacation, John completed eight hours of unpaid work using a laptop computer that he was asked by his employer to take with him.

Megan is a software developer for an engineering company. When she works overtime, she only gets paid her regular rate of pay. Alternately, she can choose to bank overtime for days off, hour for hour. Megan’s employer also requires her to be available for work at all times, but she is not paid for being on-call. She has reported for work within four hours of a call but only been paid two hours for the call-in. She does not receive overtime pay while working on-call during a weekend. Megan raised the issue of on-call and overtime pay with her employer, but was told there is no overtime pay for extra hours or for on-call extra hours.

Mel is a delivery driver for a retail and wholesale meat company. He reported that all of the employees at his company are “treated like shit” and expected to work for free after the 4 p.m. quitting time. Mel refuses to work overtime for free, but his co-workers regularly stay late without compensation (some of them work from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m. without overtime pay).

Mel is familiar with the ESB website but decided the process of filing a complaint was “not worth it,” and that he would not want to sit down with his employer to discuss his complaint. Mel thinks the process should change. (p. 26)

BC’s rules around child labour have been even worse than Alberta’s and the result has been serious injury to young workers:

Justin was 12 when he started a job at an auto salvage company. On his first day, he was stacking car batteries and battery acid spilled on him, soaking through his clothes and burning his chest. He received no medical treatment on the worksite and was told to keep working. He still has scars on his chest from the acid burns.

Cara has permanent disabilities in her back and wrists from working with animals when she was 13. Cara’s employer blamed her for incurring injuries and promptly fired her. When Cara’s mother complained, the employer paid Cara some compensation for the injuries. However, Cara was not rehired and the employer never filed an injury report. Four years later, Cara still has debilitating pain and avoids using one of her hands.

Cory was 13 when he started working. He was hired to work construction cleanup at ap- proximately 35 hours per week. Though the law requires an employer to obtain a letter of permission from a parent before hiring someone under the age of 15, Cory’s parents weren’t asked for such a letter. Corey was promised a video game as payment, which he never received. On one occasion, he fell through scaffolding and landed one story below. Corey’s boss offered him a beer. He was in pain for about a week, and no WorkSafeBC accident report was filed. (p. 32)

The stories of temporary foreign workers employed on farms and as domestics are also worth a read. Finally, the report touches on how worker-hostile the employment standards claim process is in BC:

Bianca was a manager in the kitchen operated by Compass Canada at Hudson’s Bay. Her employer was not paying her for all the hours she worked, nor were they paying her over- time pay. She raised the issue many times with her employer but was told not to worry and that she would be looked after. Bianca finally quit and filed a complaint with ESB. She was required to participate by phone in a mediation with her employer and an ESB officer. Bianca’s employer kept giving “low ball” offers to try to get her to settle. When she did not accept any of the offers, the officer told her she should settle and stop wasting everyone’s time. Bianca refused to settle and a hearing was scheduled.

The employer did not show up for the first hearing date. At the second hearing, the employer did not bring the paperwork they had been asked to bring. During the proceedings, the officer treated Bianca with disrespect. He often turned his back on her, and referred to her, when speaking with the employer, as “she” and “her,” but never by name. The officer got into arguments with the complainant. She was finally pressured into settling for less than what was owed to her. It took months to reach this settlement. “After the hearing I went outside and cried,” said Bianca. “I was so intimidated and furious and disappointed with how I was treated.”

“I would tell people not to bother filing an employment standards complaint unless they have a lawyer,” said Bianca, when asked for advice to give other workers. “They will just end up frustrated and even more angry. The system is not made for solving violations. The self-help kit is designed to intimidate people and it is difficult to understand.” (p. 51).

It is worth noting that “Since 2000/2001, the number of branch offices has been reduced from 17 to 9 (a 47 per cent reduction), and the total number of branch staff has been reduced from148 to 74 (a 50 per cent reduction). At the same time, total employment in BC has increased by 23 per cent, and the number of establishments with employees has increased by 25 per cent.” (p. 53)

Overall, the report suggests three things: (1) BC’s Employment Standards are inadequate, (2) what standards there are routinely violated by employers to minimize labour costs, and (3) BC does a very poor job of enforcing the standards. An open question is whether BC’s recently elected New Democratic government will do anything meaningful about it.

-- Bob Barnetson

Labour & Pop Culture: Midnight regulations

This week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture is “Midnight Regulations” by Alexisonfire. This song appears to be about the pressure—both economic and moral--that workers find themselves in at work:

Burned his candle down
Working to make ends meet

And

They say just to hold onto your hope
But you know if you swallow your pride
You will choke

Now I may be missing something here around the use of midnight regulations. My understanding of midnight regulations is at they are rules enacted by US agencies by an outgoing president in order to box in his/her successor. I don’t quite see the link, but perhaps this is a nod to ability of the powerful to manipulate the future of workers with no accountability for the consequences?

And now he's hanging on
To his final stitch of faith
So, here's to all the years
Of deaf ear fallen prayers
Rich men behind closed doors
Are trying to keep him in his place

The most melodious version of this song is here. The only video I could find is this live, sharper-edged interpretation from (I think) the band’s final tour.



I find myself concerned
For the common man, these days
Evil are the minds
That push the divide
Forced to live a life
In fear that his future is on the wane
Midnight regulations
Midnight regulations

Burned his candle down
Working to make ends meet
But what can be done
About the way things have become
Fingers to the bone
Ready to admit defeat
Midnight regulations
Midnight

Brother! There is no charity
For the common man
When he is in need of relief

And now he's hanging on
To his final stitch of faith
So, here's to all the years
Of deaf ear fallen prayers
Rich men behind closed doors
Are trying to keep him in his place
Midnight regulations
Midnight regulations

Oh, all you common men
You need to fight for a new way
Old hearts, we need to mend
It's time to start again
Palace walls dismantled
Brick by brick, you will have your day
Midnight regulations
Midnight

Brother! There is no charity
For the common man
When he is in need of relief

They say just to hold onto your hope
But you know if you swallow your pride
You will choke

Brother! There is no charity (there is no charity)
For the common man
When he is in need of relief (when he is in need)
Brother!
Brother!
Men!
Men!
Midnight Regulations
Midnight,
Midnight regulations

-- Bob Barnetson

Bill 19 a missed opportunity on violence prevention

Last week, Alberta introduced and passed (!) Bill 19, An Act to Protect Gas and Convenience Store Workers. This legislation requires customers to pay before pumping in an effort to prevent gas-and-dash injuries as well as increases employers’ obligations around staff safety. Unfortunately, Bill 19 was only a half-measure that leaves workers vulnerable to other, more common forms of workplace violence.

The pay-before-you-pump requirement is long overdue. BC enacted Grant’s Law in 2005 and, in doing so, eliminated gas-and-dash deaths. Interestingly, last autumn’s consultation on this legislation revealed that 77% of filling stations already had this technology in place. In this way, pay-before-you-pump is another instance of the law catching up with practice. And this practice benefits employers by reducing theft. That said, this is laudable move by Alberta’s New Democratic government.

The majority of Bill 19, however, is focused on setting out requirements around violence prevention in convenience stores and gas stations. Stats on violence-related injuries are hard to find (and, notably, aren’t a part of the background info on Bill 19). Last autumn’s consultation suggested there were 83 employee assaults resulting in lost-time claims from 2011 to 2015. And, more broadly, there were about 750 victims of crime in this sector (victims include workers and bystanders) in 2012. One implication is that in-store violence is a much numerically larger issue than gas-and-dash.

BC’s legislation requires employers to choose among three options if they employ retail workers between 11 pm and 6 am:

1. Assign two employees to the job.
2. Install a physical barrier between the worker and the public.
3. Implement a violence protection program (e.g., time locked safe, good visibility, video surveillance, emergency transmitter).

Most employers have opted for option 3 because it is the cheapest and least disruptive option. Option 3 has been the norm for bigger retailers at least as far back as 1989, when I was an overnight gas jockey. Alberta’s legislation requires employers to only comply with option 3—basically legally mandating the best practices common 30 years ago.

The weakness of this approach is that it is basically a robbery-prevention program, rather than a violence-prevention program. Certainly, robbery prevention programs will have some spill over effect on violence (as some violence occurs during robberies). What stats are available on violence in convenience stores (and they are poor) from the US suggests that only 20% of homicides have a robbery connection.

We also know that robbery-prevention programs don’t necessarily prevent violence. For example, the existence of a robbery-prevention program did not prevent the deaths of two Edmonton Mac’s employees in 2015, who were killed after being robbed for what little cash was in the till. Barriers might well have prevented these deaths.

At last year’s consultation, employers resisted the requirement to install barriers because of the expected cost and operational impact (e.g., it interferes with workers perform other duties like cleaning and stocking). Indeed, the convenience-store lobby led the charge in BC to weaken Grant’s Law in 2012 and allow the substitution of a robbery-prevention program in lieu of barriers or two staff members.

Alberta’s decision to adopt the weakest of BC’s three options leaves convenience-store and gas-station workers at significant risk of workplace violence. These changes appear consistent with the Notley’s government’s “getting to average” pattern on labour legislation, wherein the limits of employment law changes appear to be the rules that are already widely adopted elsewhere (apparently, even if they don’t really work).

Since most major gas and convenience-store chains already comply with these rules, there is going to be little employer push back on the changes. Indeed, there is going to be praise. For example:

“Pre-payment eliminates the risks associated with fuel payments, and we applaud the government for taking this important step to protect attendants and the public. We believe this is the right thing to do – and so do the people working at our stations.”
Lawrence Richler, vice-president, Canadian Products Marketing, Husky Energy Inc.

“A safe store environment is paramount to 7-Eleven Canada and we believe pre-payment of fuel purchases will improve employee and public safety in Alberta. For many years, 7-Eleven Canada has run an employee safety program similar to the safety plan announced today. It stems from our commitment to our employees and the communities we serve.”
Doug Rosencrans, vice-president and general manager, 7-Eleven Canada

Yet praise from industry (which has been spared significant costs) does not necessarily mean that the government got the balance right. Under Bill 19, vulnerable workers remain vulnerable to workplace violence. Overall, this is missed opportunity to put worker safety before employer profitability. Even the usually supportive Alberta Federation of Labour issued a press release noting this gap in the NDs' bill.

I suspect the NDs know Bill 19 is a half measure (or they got really bad policy advice). And that is why they are pushing the gas-and-dash narrative (which is a clear win for workers and an easy sell) while downplaying (and, frankly, misrepresenting) the so-called violence-prevention measures.

-- Bob Barnetson

Labour & Pop Culture: Links on the Chain

This week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture is “Links on the chain” by Phil Ochs. This song was originally released in 1965 and is a rebuke to trade unionists who failed to support the civil rights movements.

The song starts by noting that organized labour (which was a powerful force in the 1960s) had to fight for recognition against the forces of the state and employers. Yet, once accepted (more or less), powerful actors declined to support the civil rights movement.

Oh, the black man was a rising fast, racing from the shade
And your union took no stand and your union was betrayed

Ochs points out that civil rights activists used many of the same tactics as early labour activists to seek accommodation of their interests. Yet unionists did not act in solidarity, in part because they feared (or were told to fear) for the expansion of the labour pool that equality might bring.

And the man who tries to tell you that they'll take your job away
He's the same man who was scabbing hard just the other day
And your union's not a union till he's thrown out of the way

This is a very critical song (Ochs opens the song by condemning homophobia… in 1965!) that holds lessons for today’s trade unionists about the importance of solidarity across traditional divisions.



Come you ranks of labor, come you union core
And see if you remember the struggles of before
When you were standing helpless on the outside of the door
And you started building links
On the chain, on the chain
And you started building links
On the chain

When the police on the horses were waiting on demand
Riding through the strike with the pistols in their hands
Swinging at the skulls of many a union man
As you built one more link
On the chain, on the chain
As you built one more link
On the chain

Then the army of the fascists tried to put you on the run
But the army of the union, they did what could be done
Oh, the power of the factory was greater than the gun
As you built one more link
On the chain, on the chain
As you built one more link
On the chain

And then in 1954, decisions finally made
Oh, the black man was a rising fast, racing from the shade
And your union took no stand and your union was betrayed
As you lost yourself a link
On the chain, on the chain
As you lost yourself a link
On the chain

And then there came the boycotts and then the freedom rides
And forgetting what you stood for, you tried to block the tide
Oh, the automation bosses were laughing on the side
As they watched you lose your link
On the chain, on the chain
As they watched you lose your link
On the chain

You know when they block your trucks boys by laying on the road
All that they are doing is all that you have showed
That you gotta strike, you gotta fight to get what you are owed
When you're building all your links
On the chain, on the chain
When you're building all your links
On the chain

And the man who tries to tell you that they'll take your job away
He's the same man who was scabbing hard just the other day
And your union's not a union till he's thrown out of the way
And he's choking on your links
Of the chain, of the chai
And he's choking on your links
Of the chain

For now the times are telling you the times are rolling on
And you're fighting for the same thing, the jobs that will be gone
Now it's only fair to ask your boys, which side are you on?
As you're building all your links
On the chain, on the chain
As you're building all your links
On the chain

-- Bob Barnetson