Climate change and safety: treeplanters and wildfire smoke

A few weeks back, the Tyee ran a story on the effect of increasing levels of wildfire smoke on tree planter OHS. This story is interesting because it looks at the effect of climate change on worker safety.

There are several reasons why this particular hazard and worker group are worth examining:

• Intensity of exposure: Tree planters often work in close proximity to wildfires and their work is physically demanding (increasing respiration and heart rate). Consequently, they are likely to have one of the highest intensities of exposure to wildfire smoke.
• Duration of exposure: In addition to long working days, most tree planters live in camps (e.g., tents) and lack any respite from the smoke in their off hours. This means these workers have a much longer duration of exposure than, say, a worker who might face dust in the workplace but then go home to clean air at the end of the day.
• Lack of specific controls or OELs: There are no specific occupational exposure limits (OELs) for wildfire smoke and general OELs for dust were not designed with wildfire smoke (which has very tiny particles) in mind.
• Latency: Injuries due to inhalation often have long latency periods and murky causality, thus the link between the work exposure and the ill-health can be hard to see.
• Proxy for nonworkers: The exposures experienced by tree planters can be useful in predicting larger population effects caused by increased wildfire effects (essentially the dangerous working conditions experienced by these workers create a natural experiment).
• Compliance: PPE slows tree planting work. Tree planters are generally paid on piece-rate basis. This pay structure basically forces tree planters to trade off their own health against their need to earn an adequate income and almost certainly reduces compliance. Contractors also have production targets, which means they too have an incentive to trade worker safety for profit.

A notable take-away from the article is the complete lack of a regulatory response to the risk posed by wildfire smoke. WorkSafeBC acknowledges the risk but can’t be arsed to issue any directives. Alberta’s OHS minister couldn’t even be bothered to respond to the reporter. This likely reflects regulatory capture of regulators by the forestry industry.

By contrast, Oregon and California require air quality monitoring and the availability of respirators when air quality gets to a specific point. This doesn’t mean these controls are adequate, but they are at least something.

-- Bob Barnetson

Labour & Pop Culture: Laying Pipe

In honour of Alberta’s efforts to expand the extraction of carbon-dense bitumen (thereby accelerating climate change) by forcing a pipeline through unceded Indigenous lands (so much for a more respectful relationship with Indigenous peoples), this week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture is “Laying Pipe” by David Wilcox.

I can’t really think of a song that better sums up Alberta’s oil and gas industry and the degree to which Alberta's government is beholden to it. On one level, the song is about men working hard in blue-collar jobs (e.g., drilling for oil, installing sewers, making steel) in an industry where everybody they know also works:

My daddy worked construction
My brother too
He got me in the union
I'm payin' my dues

The job is tough and socially disruptive, but it has its rewards (a boy’s gotta eat, after all):

I don't mind working
If the money's okay
I take the night shift
I sleep all day

On another level, the song is a paean to misogyny—which is deeply embedded in the culture of the upstream oil-and-gas industry. The singer has a gold-digging women that he’s gotta keep in sparkly bobbles:

Oh but the woman I love
Has expensive taste
She's never satisfied
The latest things
A diamond ring
A car with an ultra-glide

Why?

Well, so he can get laid. The whole song is really a clumsy metaphor for screwing women (watch the video):

I'm layin' pipe all night long
Layin' pipe
I'm workin' so hard
I'm layin' pipe
All night long
Layin' pipe
To satisfy that woman

As long as one’s getting some, who cares about anything else? Which pretty much sums up Alberta’s efforts to force a pipeline through BC.



My daddy worked construction
My brother too
He got me in the union
I'm payin' my dues

Oh but the woman I love
Has expensive taste
She's never satisfied
The latest things
A diamond ring
A car with an ultra-glide

I work so hard
Payin' for all that stuff
Eight shifts a week
It's never enough

I'm layin' pipe all night long
Layin' pipe
I'm workin' so hard
I'm layin' pipe
All night long
Layin' pipe
To satisfy that woman

I don't mind working
If the money's okay
I take the night shift
I sleep all day

Dust and mud is in my blood
Underground cable in my way
I punch a clock and start my rig
Don't know how deep I might have to dig

I wish I had a million dollars
To buy her everything she needs
She'd only come back for more and more and more and more and more and more and more

I'm layin' pipe
All night long
Layin' pipe
I'm working so hard
I'm layin' pipe
All night long
Layin' pipe
To satisfy that woman

I put the pipe in
I pull it out again
My back is so sore
I can't work much more
I can't get my traction
The ground's too wet
I take a ten minute break
Ah smoke a cigarette
I don't mind the night shift
The cool breeze when the sun goes down
Winter time the ground is hard
Take twice as long to drill down

I'm layin' pipe
All night long
Layin' pipe
I'm working so hard
I'm layin' pipe
All night long
Layin' pipe
To satisfy that woman

-- Bob Barnetson

Did Bill 6 destroy Western Feedlots? Probably not.

One of the bigger Alberta news stories last week was the announcement that Western Feedlots will close by early 2017. At three sites, Western Feeders employs about 80 staff and has the capacity to finish 100,000 cattle. According to the company’s announcement:

Western’s shareholders chose this course of action due to the current high risk/low return environment in cattle ownership, which is inconsistent with shareholder objectives. In addition to strong headwinds in the cattle industry, the poor political and economic environment in Alberta are also contributing factors to this decision.

The major factor that appears to be driving this closure is a significant decline (~30%) in the price of slaughter-weight cattle. A fed steer brought in about $3000 last year and now sells for $2000.

Basically, a shortage of cattle drove up prices over the past two years. Producers responded by increasing the supply and, consequently, the price dropped (there are other factors at play but this is basically micro-economics 101). The lag time involved in finishing cattle means that feedlots are now forced to sell finished cattle at a significant loss (one number I saw was $500-600 per head).

Western Feedlots noted it will be maintaining its equipment. This suggests the operation may re-open when economic circumstances change. Indeed, a temporary closure may be the most sensible option available: as long as prices keep falling, feedlots will keep taking losses.

There has also been significant speculation that Alberta’s recent changes in labour law and its intention to introduce a carbon levy have also contributed to the closure. The company itself as much as said this with its mention of a “poor political and economic environment in Alberta”. The argument goes that the industry has low profitability (averaging $18/head or somewhere around 1%) and thus has limited capacity absorb cost increases.

The Alberta Cattle Feeders Association is estimating the carbon tax will add $6-7 in cost per head. The only certain cost of providing agricultural workers with basic employment rights are WCB premiums. These sit between $2 and $3/$100 of payroll (I can’t estimate the per head cost because there are too many unknown variables). There may be other costs depending upon the government’s decisions around what portions of the Employment Standards Code and which occupational health and safety rules apply to farms, but none of that is clear.

Edit: The Herald published a story Friday night where one operator estimates WCB costs at $2/head and overall profitability at $20-$30/head.

I’m increasingly sympathetic to the cost-price squeeze faced by commodity producers. That said, I’m pretty skeptical that closure is really (or even marginally) due to WCB premiums and a future carbon levy. The driving factor seems to be free-falling commodity prices in a low-margin industry.

For the sake of argument, though, let’s momentarily accept that WCB premiums and the carbon levy are the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back, making this operation unprofitable. What does this say about Western Feedlots (or, if you accept the canary-in-the-coal-mine argument being advanced online, the entire agricultural industry)?

In short, it says that these businesses are only viable when they can externalize the cost of production onto others. These externalities are borne by employees in the form of uncompensated injuries and poor working conditions, and by society (and the planet) in the form of unsustainable carbon emissions.

I don’t accept the camel and canary arguments, but, if we do, then we should ask if it is in the public interest to have such businesses continue. In a truly free market (which truthfully account for the true cost of production), shouldn’t they go out of business as unprofitable?

I don’t say that to be nasty (I feel quite badly for the 80 workers who will be out of work). But a business that is only viable if it can harm others isn’t one that’s existence is in the public interest.

And, before we accept the “and so it begins!” catastrophizing being bandied about by opponents of Bill 6 (and other government initiatives), it is worthwhile thinking through what is actually happening and ask ourselves if the rhetoric around this closure is accurate.

-- Bob Barnetson

Labour & Pop Culture: And we thought the nation state was a bad idea

This week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture is Propagandhi’s 1995 song “And we thought the nation state was a bad idea”. This is a thrashy (and rather preachy) song that I don’t much care for musically. But the lyrics highlight how bad employment is a consequence of the political economy.

Born, hired, disposed.
Where that job lands, everybody knows.
You can tell by the smile on the CEO,
Environmental restraints are about to go. 

You can bet laws will be set
To ensure the benefit
Of unrestricted labour laws,
Kept in place by displaced government death squads.

These verses highlight that allowing (and indeed facilitating) employers to make decisions that negatively affect workers and the environment is a choice by the state. Different economic and political decisions would yield very different workplaces.

That we have the rather unjust laws that we have suggests collusion (of some kind) between corporate and governmental actors to the detriment of the public interest. The consequences of this arrangement are covered up by corporate media.

Overall, this is fairly sharp critique of the political economy of western democracies. In a weird coincidence, Propagandhi will be playing the Starlite Room in Edmonton on February 9th.



"Publicly subsidized! Privately profitable!"
The anthem of the upper-tier, puppeteer untouchable.
Focus a moment, nod in approval,
Bury our heads back in the bar-codes of these neo-colonials.

Our former nemesis, the romance of the nation state,
Now plays fundraiser for a new brand of power-concentrate.
Try again, but now we're confused; what is "class war"?
Is this class war? Yes, this is class war.

And I'm just a kid.
I can't believe I gotta worry about this kind of shit.
What a stupid world.

And it's beautiful,
No regard for principle.
What a stupid world.

Born, hired, disposed.
Where that job lands, everybody knows.
You can tell by the smile on the CEO,
Environmental restraints are about to go.

You can bet laws will be set
To ensure the benefit
Of unrestricted labour laws,
Kept in place by displaced government death squads.

They own us.
They own us.
Produce us.
Consume us.

They own us.
They own us.
Produce us.
Consume us.

Can you fucking believe?
What a stupid world.

Fuck this bullshit display of class-loyalties.
The media and "our" leaders wrap it all up in a flag, shit-rag, hooray.

-- Bob Barnetson

Research: Climate change and OHS

An emerging area of scholarship in occupational health and safety (OHS) is the impact of climate change on workplace safety. I ran across two articles that touched upon this recently.

“Climate change and occupational safety and health: Establishing a preliminary framework” summarizes the research from 1988 to 2008 to identify seven categories of climate-related OHS hazards. While no new or climate-unique hazards were identified, the article nicely explains how climate change may intensify or expand existing hazards. Overall, a solid grounding in the topic. 

More relevant for Canadian readers is “Climate change and occupational health and safety in a temperate climate: Potential impacts and research priorities in Quebec, Canada”. This article identifies five major areas of potential interaction: heat waves/temperature increases, air pollutants, UV radiation, extreme weather events, and vector-borne disease. These hazards are most likely to affect “outdoor” industries (construction, agriculture, forestry, fishing, transport, outside municipal workers). There was also some suggestion that climate change might affect workplace physical plants negatively, thereby creating hazards through degradation.

A useful website this topic is Working in a warmer world: What do we need to know?

-- Bob Barnetson