Working conditions in meat plants

John Oliver recently did an interesting piece on working conditions in meat-packing plants. These working conditions are broadly similar to those in Alberta plants.

These conditions are an important factor in the repeated outbreaks of COVID at these plants. Close proximity, relentless pace, and no breaks are pretty common. Workers get injured often and seriously and receive inadequate medical care. Many workers are vulnerable workers, whose residency in the country may be at risk if they get fire. Others have few options for comparable jobs.

 

Alberta’s response to COVID outbreaks in meatpacking plants have basically been ineffective (kind of like Alberta’s broader response to COVID). Which is why we’ve seen outbreaks in plants High River, Calgary, Red Deer, and Brooks. The High River outbreak was one of the largest outbreaks in Canada. Workers and their family members have died. There has been community spread due to ineffective workplace controls.

 

-- Bob Barnetson

 

 

Farm child fatality report

Back in 2015, Alberta passed laws giving farm workers basic employment rights, including making their employer subject to the ambit of the OHS Act. This reflected that farm work is very dangerous. Most of these changes were repealed in 2019 by the new UCP government, although some basic OHS rights still exist.

During the period that these laws were in full force, there was an incident on a “family farm” in southern Alberta. Laidlaw Ranching Co Ltd. began operations near Bow Island, Alberta in 1970. On the same property as the cattle ranch is a sand and gravel operation (Laidlaw Sand & Gravel Ltd.). The sand and gravel operation was the subject of 17 compliance orders between 2015 and 2020. Both companies are owned and operated by a single family.

On August 14, 2018, an 11-year-old boy (who regularly performed odd jobs on the farm) of one of the owners and a 17-year-old worker (not related to the owners) on the farming operation were hosing off concrete-pouring equipment being used to build a slab near a silage pit. This work was being performed at the bottom of hill.

Another adult worker (of the gravel company) was operating a front-end loader. The loader was poorly maintained. The operator was driving near the location where the young workers were working. When the driver tried to apply the brakes, the brakes failed to engage. The operator then tried to put the loader into reverse. This caused it to stall and made steering difficult and reduced brake functioning.

The child and worker saw the loader coming at them and ran away from of the loader’s direction of travel. At the same time, the loader veered in the same direction the child and worker had run, striking them both. The 11-year-old died while the 17-year-old suffered minor injuries. The fatality investigation report can be viewed here.

At the time, the RCMP characterized the event as an accident and were not contemplating charges (I wasn’t able to find any indication that charges had been laid later). The OHS investigation was completed and referred to Alberta Justice to see if charges were warranted. Justice declined to prosecute and, as far as I can tell, there were no charges, orders (other than a stop work and stop use orders two days after the incident), administrative penalties, or tickets issued to either the farm or the gravel operation.

I have a couple of thoughts.

First, this incident illustrates how workplace injuries and deaths are treated as less serious than injuries and deaths in other contexts. If the loader had been travelling on a roadway when the brakes failed, almost certainly there would have been charges laid and likely a civil settlement (there was a WCB claim during this year, but I cannot tell if it is related to the 17-year-old's injuries).

Second, except for the very unfortunate circumstances (whereby one of the owner’s children died), there were really no consequences for the employer as a result of this incident. Basically, the message for employers is “whaddaya gonna do?” The lack of consequences for even very serious incidents is a long-standing issue in Alberta and is likely a factor in Alberta’s high rate of work-related injury.

Third, while the application of OHS to the farm is often poo-poo’ed by agriculturalists, clearly farm work is dangerous and following OHS principles (e.g., properly functioning equipment, procedures to ensure rundowns are avoided) would have prevented this incident. Further, the notion that small farms are safe is clearly shown to be false. This farm appears to have fewer than 5 regular employees (the test for the application of many employment laws) but includes an onsite gravel operation with heavy equipment.

-- Bob Barnetson

Labour & Pop Culture: Tillsonburg

Over the holidays, I heard a Stompin’ Tom Connors song called Tillsonburg. Tillsonburg is a town located just southeast of London, Ontario and was once a centre of tobacco production. The song recounts the experience of a worker recruited for field work.

This song shines some light on why Canada continue to operate programs bringing migrant agricultural workers to Canada (now focused more on vegetable and fruit production). Essentially, workers who have options, aren't prepared to work and live in the conditions offered by agricultural operators.

While a way down in Southern Ontario
I never had a nickel or a dime to show
A fella beeped up in an automobile he said "Do you want to work in the tobacco fields of Tillsonburg?" (Tillsonburg x3)
My back still aches when I hear that word

He said "I'll only give you seven bucks a day" but if you're any good you'll get a raise in pay
Your bed's all ready on the bunkhouse floor if it gets a little chilly you can close the door

Tillsonburg (Tillsonburg x3) my back still aches when I hear that word

I'm feelin' in the morning anything but fine
The farmer said "i'm going to teach you how to brane"
He said "You'll have to dawn up a pair of oil skin pants" if you want to work in the tobacco plants of Tillsonburg (Tillsonburg x3)
My back still aches when I hear that word

Well we landed in a field that was long and wide with one whole horse and five more guys
I asked him where to find the cigarette trees
When he said "Bend over" I was ready to leave
Tillsonburg (Tillsonburg x3)
My back still aches when I hear that word

He said to pick just the bottom leaves
Don't start crawlin' on your hands and knees
Prime your load cause you'll get no pay
For standin' there pickin' at your nose all day around Tillsonburg
(Tillsonburg x3)
My back still aches when I hear that word

With a broken back from bendin' over there
I was wet right through to the underwear
And it was stuck to my skin like glue
From the nicotine tar on the morning dew of
Tillsonburg (Tillsonburg x3)
My back still aches when I hear that word

Now the nearest river was two miles from
The place where they was waitin' for the boat to come
When I heard some talk of makin' the kill
I was down the highway and over the hill from
Tillsonburg (Tillsonburg x3)
My back still aches that word

Now there is one thing you can always bet
If I never smoke another cigarette
I might get taken in a lot of deals
But I won't go workin' the tobacco fields of
Tillsonburg (Tillsonburg x2)

My back still aches when I hear that word (x3)

-- Bob Barnetson

New study on farm safety views in Alberta

A new study about safety on Alberta farms is now available. “Occupational health and safety on family farms in Alberta” was funded by the now defunct OHS Futures Grant from government. The study comprises 37 interviews with far operators, family members, employees, industry and worker groups and regulators in 2018/19 (so under the NDP’s now mostly defunct Bill 6 rules). At present, the majority of non-family employee son farms are excluded from statutory OHS, employment standards or labour relations rights.

The findings include:

• There is an awareness that unsafe work is unacceptable among operators,
• Workers and farm operators have different views about the level of safety on farms.
• Fatigue is a key risk factor.
• Power imbalances in the employment relationship appear to negatively affect the safety of non-family employees. This often goes unrecognized by industry and safety professionals.
• There was general agreement that some OHS and injury-insurance requirements are necessary; employers were less supportive of rules hours of work despite the safety risk of fatigue.

Overall, this research jives with the broader body of research on farm safety. Of particular note is the impact that pressure (time, finances) have on the decision about working safely and the normalization of unsafe work (by farm operators) as just a part of the job.

This research also highlights how workers and employers see safety differently, even though they may share some of the same risks in the workplace. The impact of a lack of childcare options on the safety of children on the farm was also insightful.

Of interest on the insurance side was the devaluing of the no fault nature of WCB (i.e., the tort bar) because few operators thought they would be sued over an injury. Overall, the study highlighted that there was significantly more nuance to operator views about farm worker rights and regulations than one might thing from the reaction to Bill 6 back in 2015/16.

-- Bob Barnetson

Race, immigration status and COVID risk

There have been some really good posts about the disproportionate impact of COVID 19 on racialized and migrant workers recently.

In a post entitled Canada’s COVID-19 blind spots on race, immigration and labour, Aimee-Angelique Bouka and Yolanda Bouka flag the disproportionate number of women, recent immigrants, migrant workers and racialize Canadians who work in industries considered essential during the pandemic. These workers are at greater risk of contracting COVID in the workplace, in part, because of the exploitative employment practices common in these industries, including long-term care and meat packing.

One of their pointed questions is why do Canadians (and particularly Canadian policy makers) turn a blind eye to the employment practices that make these workers more vulnerable? They question whether part of the explanation may centre on who is at risk.

In a post entitled Coronoavirus: Canada stigmatizes, jeopardizes essential migrant workers, Jenna Hennebry, Susana Caxaj, Janet McLaughlin, and Stephanie Mayell examine the factors that have contributed to serious outbreaks among migrant farm workers in Ontario. They also explore how the workers are being stigmatized as a result, even though it is structural issues (under the control of employers (e.g., over crowded and unsanitary working and living conditions) that seem to be driving these outbreaks.

The factors contributing to these outbreaks are long-term issues with Canada’s migrant worker programs. In my view, governments’ responses have not been particularly effective. I expect the likely issue here is that there is simply no political will to impose additional costs on farmers in order to make better the lives of racialized non-citizens with effectively no labour mobility.

At present, the rate of post-arrival infection among these workers is very worrisome and the agricultural season has only just begun. Whether the federal and provincial governments will take effective action is an open question. A list of recommended actions is available here.

-- Bob Barnetson

Bill 26 strips farm workers' basic employment rights

This post originally appeared on the Parkland Institute blog.

Farm workers were granted basic employment rights beginning in late 2015 when the former New Democratic government enacted the Enhanced Protections for Farm and Ranch Workers Act (colloquially referred to as Bill 6). Farmers and conservative politicians were extremely hostile to Bill 6, asserting that basic employment rights would imperil the viability of agricultural operations. Despite the absence of evidence that Bill 6 harmed any farms, the United Conservative Party (UCP) promised to eliminate basic farm worker rights if elected.

On November 20, the Kenney government fulfilled this promise when it introduced Bill 26 (the Farm Freedom and Safety Act). This bill strips Alberta agricultural workers of many basic employment rights. Specifically, it precludes farm workers from unionizing, reduces the occupational health and safety protections for workers, makes workers’ compensation coverage optional, and expands exceptions to employment standards. These changes will be particularly harmful to women and children employed on Alberta’s farms and ranches.

Labour Relations

Bill 26 amends the Labour Relations Code to exclude farm and ranch employees from the definition of employee. This exclusion effectively precludes these workers from forming or joining a trade union. This exclusion is contrary to Section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects workers’ freedom to engage in associational activity.

In 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decided (in Dunmore v Ontario (Attorney General)) that completely excluding agricultural workers from the ambit of Ontario’s Labour Relations Act (LRA) was unconstitutional. Specifically, the vulnerable nature of farm workers means that, farm workers were “substantially incapable of exercising their fundamental freedom to organize without the LRA’s protective regime.”

If challenged, those portions of Bill 26 that exclude agricultural workers from forming or joining a union will almost certainly be struck down as unconstitutional. A Charter challenge is, however, unlikely because a challenge normally requires a factual case to get started. Specifically, it requires a live case of farm workers who have attempted to exercise their associational rights (e.g., collectively bargaining) and failed.

As far as I know, there have been no efforts to unionize or collectively bargain in Alberta’s agricultural industry. This reflects the vulnerability of farm workers as well as the small size and transient nature of most farm workforces. The exclusion of farm workers from the ambit of the Labour Relations Code by Bill 26 makes it unlikely any will try in the future because they would have no protection against termination for organizing and no capacity to strike to enforce their collective bargaining demands. This, in turn, means no challenge is likely to arise.

Injury Prevention

Although Bill 26 is silent on the matter, the government has indicated that farms will no longer be subject to the detailed safety rules set out in the Occupational Health and Safety Code. The rudimentary safety rights set out in Occupational Health and Safety Act would continue to apply.

Injury Compensation

At present, farms and ranches with paid, non-family employees must enroll their workers in the workers’ compensation system—like virtually every other employer in every industry across Canada. Workers’ compensation coverage provides wage-loss, rehabilitation, and fatality benefits to workers. Workers’ compensation also precludes workers from suing their employers if the worker is injured.

Prior to 2015, such coverage was optional and relatively few farms purchased it. Some farms purchased private injury insurance. A 2015 study commissioned by the former Progressive Conservative government found that relying on farmers to purchase private insurance left a significant number of farm workers uninsured or underinsured and the private premiums were more expensive than were workers’ compensation premiums. Private insurance also left farmers open to civil suits when injuries or fatalities occurred.

Bill 26 makes two changes to workers’ compensation. First, it allows farmers to choose to carry either workers’ compensation coverage or private insurance coverage. The scope and nature of the private insurance coverage will be determined by regulation. Consequently, the private insurance may not necessarily provide injury-compensation benefits equivalent to those provided by workers’ compensation. Workers may be required by their employer to pay a portion of private insurance premiums (often called co-pay).

Second, Bill 26 exempts any farm with 5 or fewer employees from the requirement to carry any insurance. Further, family members and workers who have been employed for fewer than 6 consecutive months do not count towards the total of 5 employees. This criterion (see Scope of Exclusions below) means that vast majority of farm workers are likely to be under- or uninsured against injury. Employers may still provide insurance or they may leave it to workers to secure their own insurance coverage.

A less obvious concern is that allowing farmers to purchase private insurance in lieu of enrolling in workers’ compensation may open the door to a greater role for private-sector insurance providers in other industries. Some US jurisdictions allow for the private provision of workers’ compensation insurance. This typically results in poor outcomes for injured workers because private providers seek to minimize claims in order to maximize profitability.

Employment Standards

In 2015, farms and ranches employing paid, non-family workers were made subject to most of the provisions in the Employment Standards Code. The Employment Standards Code sets minimum standards around wages, vacations and statutory holidays, various job-protected leaves, and the termination of employment.

Bill 26 makes two main changes. First, farms and ranches that employ 5 or fewer workers are entirely excluded from the ambit of the Code. This means that none of the basic employment rights that every other worker has apply to workers on these farms. Again, family members and workers employed for fewer than 6 consecutive months do not count towards meeting the 5-person threshold. This change has the effect of excluding most farms from the ambit of the Code (see Scope of Exclusions below) and thereby strips most employment protections from most farm workers.

The effects of this exclusion will be significant for farm and ranch workers on farms with 5 or fewer employees. For example, there will be no minimum wage, vacation time, statutory holidays, or required termination notice for these workers. Excluded workers under 18 will continue to have no limits on what sort of work they can do, under what conditions, and for how long because child labour laws don't apply. Excluded workers will have no access to job-protected parental, compassionate care, family responsibility, or domestic violence leaves, all of which are disproportionately accessed by female workers.

Employers can, of course, voluntarily comply with employment standards. But the reason governments enshrine these rights in legislation is that employers typically do not voluntarily comply with such standards. One consequence of eliminating these rights is that paid farm work will become even less attractive than it already is, thereby likely heightening the existing farm labour shortage.

Further, Bill 26 extends the definitions of agricultural operations to include mushroom farms, sod farms, nurseries and green houses. This change increases the number of workers whose rights have been taken away. The small number of farm workers on farms with 6 or more workers (and thus who continue to fall within the ambit of the Code) continue to have no protections around hours of work and rest periods, or access to overtime provisions.

Scope of Exclusions

The government has not released any public estimates of how many workers are employed in operations of five and fewer employees and, thus, will be excluded from employment standards and mandatory injury insurance. The best source of data on agricultural employment is Statistics Canada’s Agricultural Census. We can use this data to estimate the impact of Bill 26.

The 2016 Agricultural Census suggests there were 33,498 paid farm workers employed on 9,565 farms, yielding an average of 3.5 workers per farm. These workers are evenly split between full-year and part-year (i.e., seasonal) positions. Of the 9,565 farms that employed paid workers, 3,472 farms (36.3%) employed solely part-year workers. The other farms employed some combination of full-year and part-year workers.

The Census data does not perfectly map onto the categories proposed in Bill 26. For example, the Census totals include paid family members (other than owner/operators), who are explicitly excluded from the calculations in Bill 26. And the category of part-year employment does not perfectly map onto the “employed for six consecutive months” criterion of Bill 26. Further, the average number of employees is likely to mask significant differences between a small number of large and/or labour-intensive operations (with more than 3.5 workers each) and a very large number of operations with fewer than 3.5 workers each.

That said, we can draw some tentative conclusions based upon this data:

• Almost all employees on farms that employ only part-year workers will be excluded from employment standards and mandatory injury insurance because these employees will be excluded from the employee count due to the short duration of their employment and, thus, will push the farm below the “more than 5” threshold.
• Many workers on farms with at least some full-year employees will also be excluded because the farm will still be below the “more than five” threshold.

I would estimate that Bill 26 will exclude workers on 80% of farms from basic employment rights guaranteed in legislation and the requirement to have at least some form of injury insurance.

Absence of Rationale

Bill 26 will have a significant deleterious effect on farm workers, who are already economically vulnerable. Oddly, there is seemingly no compelling reason to make these changes. In the press release announcing Bill 26, the government asserts that the bill “fulfils the government’s commitment to consult with farmers and ranchers to build farm workplace legislation that works for them.”

This rationale ignores that the purpose of employment legislation is primarily to protect workers from, and attenuate the consequences of, exploitative and injurious work. Bill 26 entirely ignores the primary purpose of employment law. Instead, the government emphasizes the need to minimize the direct and indirect costs of regulation for employers in order to address the “damaging policies of the previous government to ensure sustainable farms.”

There is, however, no evidence that the provision of basic employment rights to farm workers in 2015 resulted in significant economic harm to agricultural employers. For example, there has been no change in the trajectory of farm numbers, which has been slowly diminishing since the 1940s (mostly through the consolidation of smaller, unviable farms into larger ones).

Obfuscation of Effect

The government’s press release goes out of its way to obscure the actual impact of Bill 26:

• Allowing farmers to purchase inferior or no injury insurance (thus leaving workers vulnerable to being uninsured or underinsured) is framed as “allow[ing] employers to have choice".
• The elimination of basic employment rights (e.g., minimum wage, child labour laws, job-protected parental leave) for most farm workers is framed as “reducing regulatory costs” and the practical impact on workers is ignored.
• Precluding workers from forming or joining a union (thereby violating workers’ freedom of association) is not even mentioned.
• Eliminating most detailed safety rules (which will make farms less safe) while retaining only the most rudimentary of safety rights is framed as “ensur[ing] basic safety standards on all farms”.

Overall, the government’s communication about Bill 26 has been heavily torqued and the impression it gives about Bill 26’s impact is misleading.

Analysis

Overall, Bill 26 has three broad effects. First, its strips farm workers of basic employment rights enjoyed by every other worker in Alberta. This includes the right to join or form a union, the right to be enrolled in workers’ compensation, and (for 80%) the possession of basic employment standards rights. It also eliminates the application of most safety rules.

Second, the elimination of farm workers’ right to join or form a union violates these workers’ Charter freedom to associate.

Third, these changes will reduce costs to agricultural employers by transferring them to workers in the form of poorer working conditions. Ironically, a bill touted to “help get Albertans back to work” makes paid farm work less attractive and may further intensify the agricultural labour shortage.

In rolling out Bill 26, the government has intentionally hidden the negative consequences of the bill and ignored the absence of a defensible rationale for these changes. It is difficult to see the changes as anything other than political pandering to farm operators and their allies while punishing vulnerable workers.

-- Bob Barnetson

UCP platform will drive down wages

This post original appears on the Parkland Institute blog on April 3, 2019.

(NOTE: On April 5, 2019, after this blog was originally published, the United Conservative Party amended its platform, including changes to overtime. The revised platform indicates that the UCP would: “Reverse the change in 2018 that eliminated the option for workers and employers to develop straight time banked hours arrangements (this has no impact on overtime pay).” (p.21). Essentially, the UCP is now proposing that banked OT could be taken as straight time off, instead of at 1.5 times (as is the case now). In this way, the revised UCP proposal reduces the time workers could take off by one-third. Under the amended policy overtime that is paid out instead of taken in lieu would still be paid out at 1.5.)

The United Conservative Party (UCP) election platform contains several planks affecting employment law, labour law, and training. These changes are framed as “bring balance back to Alberta’s labour laws, restore workplace democracy, and incentivize the creation of youth employment” (p. 21). The overall effect of the UCP platform is, however, to directly or indirectly reduce workers’ wages in order to benefit employers.

Employment Law

The UCP platform promises a number of changes to Alberta’s employment laws. Employment laws are the primary source of workplace rights for the 75% of Albertans who are not covered by a collective agreement.

The most significant change is related to over-time (OT) pay. At present, workers who are required to work more than 8 hours in a day or 44 hours in a week must receive 1.5 times their normal pay for this OT work. Over-time pay is designed to dis-incentivize employers from requiring long working hours (which create a fatigue hazard) and, instead, hire more workers.

The current OT rules allow employers and workers to enter into agreements where OT is “banked”. In practice, employers can impose such “agreements” at their discretion by denying workers OT if they don’t agree to the employer’s terms. Banked OT can then be taken as paid time off or as pay calculated at 1.5 times workers’ normal rate of pay. Employers can deny employees time off in lieu of pay, thus forcing workers to take a pay out.

The UCP indicates it will allow employers to pay out banked over-time hours at “straight” time, instead of at the OT rate. This will allow employers to evade OT premiums by denying worker requests to use banked OT. Instead, employers will be able to simply pay out the OT as straight time. The result will be a significant cost savings for employers, and a significant pay reduction for workers.

For example, a minimum-wage worker (earning $15 per hour) being asked to work five 12-hour shifts, would have gross monthly earnings of $4200 under the current OT rules. Under the UCP proposal, an employer could impose an OT agreement and reduce the worker’s gross earnings to $3600 per month. This nets the employer a $600 savings per worker per month. Consequently, the UCP proposal will encourage employers to work existing workers harder, rather than hiring additional staff.

The UCP has also promised to reduce the earnings of workers who are under the age of 18 to $13/hour (from $15/hour). This plank is intended to incentivize employers to hire young workers. There is no compelling evidence that such a policy would result in employers creating additional jobs for young teens. It may, however, incentivize employers to hire young teens in lieu of older workers (who comprise the vast majority of minimum wage earners in Alberta).

Implementing a lower youth wage benefits employers. For example, assuming a 40-hour work week, an employer who replaces an older worker with someone under 18, will save $320 per worker per month. The UCP also promises to discuss reducing the minimum wage of workers who serve alcohol. This suggests a return to the two-tier minimum-wage for alcohol servers that existed under past Conservative governments.

Finally, the UCP has also promised to replace Alberta’s present laws about farmworker rights. As previously reported, this proposal will deny 70% of paid farmworkers basic employment rights as well as reducing worker access to injury compensation.

Labour Law

At present, Alberta workers are free to decide whether or not they wish to join a union, free from employer interference. If a union has the support of 65% or more of workers, they can apply for immediate certification (this is called card-check certification). If the union has the support of at least 40% but less than 65% of workers, then the Labour Board holds a vote and the majority decides whether or not to unionize. If the employer interferes in the workers’ decision, the Labour Board can automatically certify the union.

The UCP platform promises to eliminate card-check certification and make every union certification application subject to a vote. The delay inherent in mandatory votes gives employers the opportunity to pressure workers into rejecting unionization, and employer intimidation of workers during union drives is commonplace. One Canadian study found that 80% of employers oppose certification drives, 60% do so overtly, and 20% take action that is illegal (e.g., threatening or dismissing workers). Not surprisingly, card-check certification provisions dramatically increase the success rate of union drives.

The UCP platform frames eliminating card-check certifications as “restor[ing] workplace democracy” (p. 21). This attempt to equate certification votes with the electoral process ignores the fact that, when we cast a vote in a federal or provincial election, the government doesn’t spend the campaign period threatening to fire us if we vote for a different party.

Such claims also ignore that elections and union drives are fundamentally different. Government policies profoundly affect every aspect of our lives and can’t be avoided (unless we abandon our country and citizenship). By contrast, the selection of a bargaining agent affects only certain aspects of our employment and the effects (typically higher wages and greater job security) can be avoided by changing jobs.

The UCP platform is silent on two other important changes to Alberta’s labour laws implemented by the Notley government: remedial certification when employers interfere in union drives, and first-contract arbitration when employers stall collective bargaining to try and break new unions.

The UCP platform also promises to continue to require public-sector unions to provide essential services during a work stoppage in order to protect the health, safety or life of others or public order. In many cases, this entails forcing a significant portion of a union’s membership to continue to work. The UCP proposes, however, allowing public-sector employers to hire replacement workers to cover the jobs of those workers that are able to strike. This promise would fundamentally undermine public-sector union’s power to make contractual gains. Unions will probably respond to such a change by resorting to
illegal strikes.

Overall, these platform planks appear designed to reduce workers’ ability to join a union and limit the strike power of public-sector unions. These planks benefit both employers (who typically seek to avoid unions) and a UCP government (which would likely be keen to drive down public-sector wages).

Labour-Market Training

The UCP platform contends there is a need for more apprenticeship training due to retirements among skilled workers. Alberta’s occupational demand and supply model (forecasting to 2025) does not support this assertion. Instead, it predicts a surplus ofworkers in most skilled trades.

Increasing the number of qualified workers will, however, further loosen the labour market, likely driving down wages. While he was the federal Minister of Immigration, Kenney used fears of labour shortages to flood Alberta with temporary foreign workers. This, in turn, meant employers did not have to increase wages or improve working conditions in order to attract workers.

The UCP proposes to “solve” this imaginary skill shortage by expanding trades training opportunities, including for high-school students. This promise ignores that:

• high-school students in Alberta’s current Registered Apprenticeship Program face high levels of injury and low levels of retention, and
• there is high attrition among apprentices, in part because only 1 in 5 employers that use skilled trades people offer apprenticeship opportunities.

Overall, the UCP’s platform attempts to solve a non-problem by increasing training capacity. This approach has been demonstrably ineffective for decades because it ignores the barrier posed by employers’ unwillingness to provide apprentices workplace experience. If successful, the main beneficiary of the UCP’s training planks will be employers, who will be able to pit surplus workers against one another and drive down wages.

Conclusion

The UCP’s claim that it will “bring balance back to Alberta’s labour laws, restore workplace democracy, and incentivize the creation of youth employment” (p. 21) is false. Instead, the UCP’s platform will increase employer profitability by lowering wages.

Specifically, the UCP’s platform will:

• Directly reduce the wages of young workers and workers who are required to work over time.
• Increase employer interference in workers’ decisions about unionization in order to reduce unionization rates and thereby, indirectly, drive down wages.
• Flood the labour market with skilled workers (in response to an imaginary skill shortage) and thereby, indirectly, drive down wages.

-- Bob Barnetson

UCP pledge to repeal Bill 6 would endanger farm workers

Note: This post originally appears on the Parkland Institute Blog on March 21.

Among the United Conservative Party’s (UCP) agriculture-related election platform is the pledge to repeal 2015’s Enhanced Protection for Farm and Ranch Workers Act (more commonly referred to as Bill 6).

This UCP proposal would roll back the employment rights of workers in one of Canada’s most dangerous industries.

Bill 6 background

In late 2015, Alberta’s NDP government extended basic workplace rights to paid, non-family farm workers. This legislation triggered outrage among Alberta farmers and ranchers, who (incorrectly) predicted that it would cause the demise of family farms.

It took nearly three years to operationalize all of the changes due to extensive consultation with the agricultural community. Bill 6 eventually provided for mandatory workers’ compensation coverage, access to unionization and collective bargaining, and modified employment standards and occupational health and safety rules.

The best-documented change is mandatory workers’ compensation coverage. In 2018, 4,009 employers enrolled their workers in workers’ compensation, up from 1,756 in 2015, when participation was still voluntary. In 2018, 16,767 workers filed 818 injury claims, up from 339 injury claims in 2015.

Prior to the passage of Bill 6, approximately half of farm workers’ occupational injuries would have either been claimed under private insurance or simply not claimed at all.

UCP policy platform

As part of its announced election policy platform, the United Conservative Party (UCP) has promised to "immediately launch comprehensive consultations" about farm worker rights, followed by the repeal of Bill 6 and the enactment of what the party calls the Farm Freedom and Safety Act.

It is unclear if further consultations would yield a significantly different outcome, especially since large producer groups support the current arrangement.

It is also difficult to reconcile the UCP’s claim that the Farm Freedom and Safety Act would be meaningfully driven by consultation when the UCP has already pre-determined at least two features of the act:

1. farmers will be able to purchase private injury insurance for their workers (rather than being required to join the workers’ compensation system), and
2. agricultural operations that have three or fewer paid, non-family employees over a substantial portion of the year will be exempt from the ambit of employment legislation.

UCP rationale

The UCP’s rationale for its agriculture platform is that the industry is in trouble, claiming that "since the NDP came to office, employment in Alberta’s agriculture sector has fallen by 19 per cent. That’s 11,300 jobs that no longer exist."

Albertans should be cautious about accepting the UCP’s assertion that NDP policies have caused massive job losses for three reasons.

First, agricultural employment has been declining for decades. While fewer Labour Force Survey (LFS) respondents reported that their primary job is in agriculture, that does not necessarily indicate that they no longer work in the industry—farming may just no longer be their primary occupation.

Second, the LFS surveys 1,500 Albertans and extrapolates from their experiences to the population of 3.288 million Albertans who are aged 15 years and older. The LFS’s agricultural data is based upon answers from approximately 30 people. If five of those respondents experienced non-representative changes in their employment, this would change the number of reported agricultural workers by 11,000. The change reported by the LFS was not replicated in the 2016 Agricultural Census. The Ag Census (which looks at change over a longer period of time) found less than half of the 19 per cent decline in employment that the UCP claims.

Third, the entire job loss identified by the UCP was recorded in 2016 (with small increases in agricultural employment since then). The only Bill 6 changes in effect in 2016 were mandatory workers’ compensation and a very small number of health and safety rules. These changes are unlikely to have any meaningful effect on farm employment. (Statistics Canada also made methodological changes to the LFS in 2015–16, but it's difficult to tell what effect those changes might have had.)

Overall, the UCP is likely overstating the true change in agricultural employment. Specific to Bill 6, the UCP is also likely confusing correlation (two things happening at the same time) with causation (one thing causing another).

Effect of the UCP policy

Research on workers’ compensation in the US suggests that allowing farmers to purchase private injury insurance (in lieu of workers’ compensation board coverage) will result in injured farm workers receiving worse benefits. Essentially, private insurers minimize payments to workers in order to generate a profit for their investors. Injured workers often have little capacity to resist this treatment because of their vulnerability.

Private insurance companies are also more likely to engage in "creaming" behaviour, in which they choose to insure only those agricultural operators with low claims rates. This behaviour, in turn, incentivizes farm operators to pressure injured farm workers to not report injuries. Claims suppression transfers medical costs away from the farmer and onto taxpayer-funded health-care and income-support systems.

It is difficult to know the full effect of the UCP’s promise that it would excuse farms with three or fewer paid employees from the ambit of "employment laws" while also "ensur[ing] basic safety standards" are met. Based on the 2011 Agricultural Census, it appears that only the largest 10 per cent of agricultural operations routinely employ more than three workers. These operations account for about 30 per cent of all agricultural work.

What this means is that the vast majority of paid, non-family farm workers would likely be denied basic employment rights under the UCP proposal. Put another way, this proposal is a stealth attack on the basic labour rights of most farm workers in Alberta.

The rationale for this exclusion centres on the notion that farms face different operational demands than other businesses, but rules currently in effect already balance the practical realities of farming against the need for meaningful workplace rights in one of Canada's most hazardous industries. This shouldn't be surprising given that the regulations were developed following an 18-month consultation with industry-dominated technical working groups following the outcry over Bill 6.
Analysis

If implemented, the UCP proposals would significantly reduce the workplace protections available to this vulnerable group of workers. The result will likely be a higher level of injury and worse benefits in the event of an injury. In effect, the UCP is trading farm workers’ economic security and health and safety in order to increase the profitability of agricultural producers.

The underlying rationale for these changes—that increasing farm worker rights has somehow contributed to declining agricultural employment—is also suspect. Declining agricultural employment is most likely related to longer-term trends, such as increasing farm size and mechanization.

More likely, this policy plank is an attempt by the UCP to capitalize on the anti-NDP sentiment that lingers in the wake of the introduction of Bill 6 in the early months of the NDP's mandate. It is also notable that many producer groups do not support rolling back farm worker rights, and that a law excluding most farm workers from basic workplace rights would be open to a constitutional challenge, although it is unclear who would fund such a challenge.

-- Bob Barnetson

On the Move: Stories of Mobile Work

One of the long-term research projects I’ve been involved with is the On the Move partnership, which examines economic-related geographic mobility (ERGM). The project is wrapping up and two new knowledge translation activities have recently rolled out.

The first is another episode of Ideas on CBC radio. This episode reports some of the findings of the series and the link includes other episodes of Ideas that have covered the project. These include the experiences of young migrant workers in Banff and live-in caregivers in Fort McMurray and the impact of the wildfire.

The second is a set of stories produced by the Alberta team which captures the stories of migrant workers in Alberta. There are stories of Indigenous, interprovincial, and international migration. My own work has mostly been with international workers and the stories (which are composites) reflect that:

• Carlos: A Gautemalan temporary foreign worker in the meatpacking industry who transitions to permanent residency.
• Anong: A Thai worker comes to Canada and experiencing human trafficking.
• Eugene: A Ukrainian migrant worker who stays on after his work permit expires and becomes undocumented.
• Gabriela: A Mexican agricultural worker struggles to assert her reproductive rights on a mushroom farm.
• Ashok: An Indian migrant worker struggles to work and live in rural Alberta.
• Reyna: A Filipina caregiver flees the Fort McMurray wildfire and sees her dreams of family reunification put on hold. 

These stories highlight the exploitation and vulnerability of migrant workers. It is not that they lack agency or understanding, but they are trapped within profoundly exploitative immigration regimes. These stories will be included as learning elements in a new course I'm writing, LBST 325: Mobile work and migrant workers.

-- Bob Barnetson

Alberta's new child-labour laws don't apply on farms

Photo: Christian Fischer

In early December, Alberta rolled out new rules regulating the employment of children. As January 1, 2019, the rules are this:

• Children 12 and under cannot be employed except in artistic productions and then, only with a permit and parental permission. These new rules raise the minimum age of employment from 12 to 13.
• Teens aged 13 and 14 can work in a small number of listed occupations during limited hours, both of which are largely unchanged from the Tory years. They can also perform other work with a permit from Employment Standards
• Teens 15 to 17 can perform basically any job, but there are a small number of restrictions on hours of work.

Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) rules also require all employers to have a hazard assessment that identifies hazards and how they will be controlled.

Overall, not much has changed except that the 12-year-olds are no longer allowed to work.  There is also some fancy dancing around the issue of teens who are self-employed contractors, the upshot of which basically permits kids of any age to participate in casual babysitting, snow shoveling, and lawn mowing but precludes such work as regular employment for those under 15.

These rules are better than earlier proposals that would have allowed 13 and 14-year-olds to also perform light janitorial work, grounds-keeping work (including using powered equipment), light assembly work, and painting—all of which are jobs that would expose teens to significant hazards.

The most troubling part of this announcement is the note that none of these rules apply to children or teens employed on farms and ranches. I was not able to find a copy of the new Employment Standards Regulation, but I did confirm this with the ES call centre.

Practically, what this means is that there are still no rules around child employment on farms and ranches. This is a broader exception than that which has been enacted in others branch of Alberta employment law following Bill 6, which typically excludes paid family members from the ambit of certain laws but includes non-family farm workers. So not only can farmers and ranchers employ their own children on their farms, they can employer other people's children as well.

It is stunning that a New Democrat government would exclude perhaps the most vulnerable group of workers in one of the most dangerous industries in Alberta from its new child labour laws. While there are lots of safe(ish) jobs on farms and ranches (such as the near-apocryphal collecting-eggs-with-grandma example that is always trotted out), it is dangerous for children to be proximity to many kinds of farm work (as evidenced by blind equipment run-downs and drownings).

The absence of child labour laws on farms means that a farmer could hire a 9-year-old to drive a grain truck, a 10-year-old to transfer grain to a silo using an auger, an 11-year-old to clean a silo, a 12-year-old to herd a dozen 1300lb dairy cows, a 13-year-old to operate a legacy potato-sorting machine with no safeguards, and a 14-year-old to run a posthole digger of a chain saw.

In theory, the employer is supposed to do a hazard assessment (at least for non-family employees), which would flag these jobs as inappropriate for such young workers. But most Alberta employers don’t comply with that requirement, so it won't protect children. And, sure, workers can refuse unsafe work. But children simply aren’t going to recognize and refuse unsafe work--which is, of course, why we have child labour laws in the first place.

So the result of the government’s decision to exempt farms from child labour laws is going to be children placed in hazardous employment situations, some of whom will be maimed and killed as a result. 

Perhaps these children would be maimed and killed even if the laws prohibited dangerous farm work (which is why we need stepped-up enforcement). But at least then the government wouldn’t be sanctioning and indeed normalizing work that will lead to the injury and death of children.

-- Bob Barnetson

What would UCP labour policy entail?

With a provincial election expected in the spring of 2019, it is useful to consider what labour policies Alberta’s United Conservative Party (UCP) might advance if they are elected. Analysis is made tricky because, (1) while the UCP passed policy at a convention (which should be binding on the party due to Jason Kenney’s grass-roots guarantee), (2) Kenney announced “he holds the pen” on policies after the convention passed some super embarrassing ones.

To try and get a handle on what UCP labour policy might look like in practice I have canvassed Hansard and media statements, UCP policy statements, and social media postings. I’ll limit this post to changes to issues associated with the Employment Standards and Labour Relations Codes.

Employment Standards

Effective October 1, the Notley government will have increased Alberta’s minimum wage to $15 an hour—an increase of about 50% since 2015. The UCP (and its predecessor parties) have opposed this increase in the Legislature, variously asserting:

1. Employers oppose it
2. It will cause job losses and prices to rise, and
3. It does not reduce poverty.

Kenney has been quiet on this issue (he likely wants to prevent the New Democrats from using the spectre of a minimum-wage rollback against him in te upcoming election). Kenney’s only comment in the Legislature was negative:

Mr. Kenney: …What do you think a 50 per cent increase in the minimum wage results in? Well, according to the Bank of Canada 60,000 job losses across the country. According to the C.D. Howe Institute 25,000 job losses in Alberta. Think about how – oh, my goodness – when New Democrats get on their moral high horse and pretend they have a monopoly on compassion, and then because union bosses tell them to, they bring in a policy that, according to the think tanks will kill 25,000 jobs for immigrants and youth. Where is the compassion for those who lost their jobs, Mr. Speaker? There is none. There’s no regard. (2018.04.05, p. 433).

The assertion that rising wages kill jobs seems to resonate with many Albertans. This may explain Kenney’s use of this narrative, despite there being limited and declining support for this position in the economics literature and good evidence that sectors that pay the minimum wage are experiencing growth in Alberta.

The NDs do not appear to have indexed the minimum wage to inflation (gotta save something for the 2019 campaign!) so a UCP government could freeze the minimum wage simply by taking no action to increase it. Over time, inflation would erode its value. Whether a freeze would satisfy the business lobby and more right-wing UCP members is unclear. While Kenney may be coy on a reduction now, as we’ve seen with Doug Ford, once in office, seemingly anything goes.

The Notley government has made a large number of minor changes to the Employment Standards Code. The UCP policy resolution promises a full and detailed review to ensure Alberta’s laws are comparable with other jurisdictions and make “workplaces safe and competitive”. Given that the recent changes to the Employment Standard Code were mostly about bringing it into line with other jurisdictions, I suspect such a review would identify few areas for change. It would be politically for the UCP to easier to just (further) lax enforcement of the law.

It is likely that the UCP would roll back the application of many employment standards to Alberta’s farms and ranches. Agriculture industry associations have indicated they do not support a full rollback (although I imagine they could be talked into some rollbacks…), perhaps because this would jeopardize the funding base of their new safety association.

Kenney’s response?

"What we hear from Alberta farmers loud and clear, not professional lobbyists but regular hardworking people in agriculture, is that this bill is a massive cost driver for them it is unnecessary red tape."

I suspect a significant rollback of farm-workers’ rights across all domains of labour policy would be in the cards. If done carefully, it should be possible for the UCP to prevent a successful constitutional challenge of such a rollback.

Labour Relations

The labour record of the Harper government (in which Kenney was a senior cabinet minister) was deeply regressive. It included:

• back-to-work legislation, 
• legislated settlements in anticipation of work stoppages, 
• over-riding negotiated agreements, 
• eliminating card-check certification, 
• prohibitions on unions assisting women to make pay equity complaints, and mandating onerous union financial disclosures. 

Many UCP members are stridently anti-union. While the party has declined candidate nominations from those espousing that “unions are evil” and that “we should really ban all unions”, those sentiments run deep in the party. Even the most cursory glance at UCP social media accounts (such as Kenney’s Facebook page) yields lots of examples:

The UCP policy document specifically identifies eliminating the recent re-introduction of card-check certification processes and returning to mandatory votes. The evidence on this is unambiguous: giving employers time to interfere in workers’ decisions about whether or not they want union representation (via a mandatory vote) results in more employer interference, fewer certifications, and fewer union drives. Basically, it is an anti-union policy dressed up in the clothes of democracy and would almost certainly be implemented under the UCP.

Kenney has also promised to scrap remedial certification power for the Labour Board revoked. At present, the Board can certify a union if the employer poisons the well through unfair labour practices. Under previous Conservative governments, the only remedy the Board could offer was another drink from the same well (which, of course, is no remedy at all). First contract arbitration would also likely hit the skids.

The UCP policy document also proposes “giv[ing] individual members of labour organizations the right to determine whether or not their mandatory union dues are used to fund political activity and social advocacy.” The reason to pay attention to this proposal is that it is closely associated with the right-to-work movement, whereby union security clauses (which require every worker to pay union dues, because they benefit from a union contract) are profoundly limited or forbidden.

Right to work laws were on the agenda at the UCPs policy convention and appear to be supported by the riding associations of sitting MLAs. These so-called “right-to-work” laws are an effort to undermine the financial security of the union (which, in turn, limits its ability to oppose the employer). They also divert union resources from fighting the employer to collecting dues. About half of US states have right to work laws. Research on their effect is mixed, with results often confounded by other factors.

Overall, a UCP government is likely to make a concerted effort to tip the playing field back in favour of their corporate buddies. This is likely to have a negative effect on the wages and working conditions of Albertans, particularly low-wage Albertans.

If I have time, I’ll have a gander at what Alberta might expect in terms of UCP policy on workplace injury prevention and compensation, immigration, and training as well as the tone of public-sector labour relations.

Update October 15: Kenney recently indicated he would freeze the minimum wage, look at implementing a two-tier wage (based age),and rollback other labour law changes made by the NDs. So, pretty much what you'd expect.

-- Bob Barnetson

Farm injury data supports mandatory safety rules and injury compensation

(This post previously appeared on the Parkland Institute blog.)

In 2016, workers’ compensation coverage for paid, non-family farm workers became mandatory in Alberta. This change was part of a sweeping and controversial reform of employment law in agriculture enacted by Bill 6 (Enhanced Protection for Farm and Ranch Workers Act) in late 2015. Prior to 2016, workers’ compensation coverage was optional and only about half of agricultural employers enrolled their workers in it.

One effect of this long-standing exemption from workers’ compensation was that comprehensive statistics about occupational injury (which are most often derived from injury claims data) were unavailable for agriculture. We now have two and a half years of claims data available, and this data reveals some interesting things about occupational injury among paid farm workers in Alberta.

The data

The following analysis uses 2017 data (the last full year available) from the Alberta Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) about the agriculture and forestry industry. (The data for 2018 shows similar patterns but is incomplete.) I have removed from this data set all claims made by workers in logging, timber management, and riding academies as these sub-industries are not agriculture as we commonly understand it. I have also removed two small agricultural sub-industries (agri-tourism and llama/alpaca producers) for which 2017 claims data was unavailable, likely due to small numbers. These industries have an estimated total of five employees, so the effect of their removal is insignificant.

Mandatory coverage makes occupational injuries more visible

Not surprisingly, making workers’ compensation mandatory has increased participation in workers’ compensation for paid farm workers. In 2017, 3,847 employers enrolled their employees in workers’ compensation. This is up from 1,756 employers at the end of 2015, when participation was still voluntary. As of 2017, approximately 11,141 employees had guaranteed wage-loss, medical-aid, and vocational-rehabilitation benefits if they were injured on the job. (Comparator data for 2015 was not available.)

Again, not surprisingly, there was an increase in injury claims by agricultural workers between 2015 and 2017. In 2017, there were 738 injury claims made by farm workers and accepted by the WCB. In 2015, the WCB accepted a total of 339 injury claims by farm workers.

The doubling in claims between 2015 and 2017 is broadly commensurate with the increase in employers who enrolled their employees in workers’ compensation. Prior to 2016, approximately half of farm workers’ occupational injuries would have either been claimed under private insurance or simply not claimed at all (with the costs of the injury absorbed by the health care system and/or workers themselves). Essentially, mandatory workers’ compensation has made the existing level of occupational injury in agriculture more visible.

Claims data still under-reports injury numbers

While mandatory workers’ compensation has made agricultural injuries more visible, it is important to be mindful that workers’ compensation claims represent a minority of all occupational injuries. Research in Alberta has confirmed significant under-claiming of compensable injuries, a trend found across Canada and in other countries.

Workers’ compensation claims are supposed to be filed for injuries that require treatment by a doctor, modified work duties, or time off beyond the date of injury. Other, typically minor, injuries are not reportable.

Province-wide, workers only file claims for only about 30% of reportable injuries. Under-reporting reflects a combination of factors:

• some workers are unaware of their rights,
• some workers don't think their injuries warrant reporting, and
• some workers are pressured by their employer not to report, while other workers fear retaliation for doing so.

Additionally, some injuries—such as occupational illnesses—also have long latency periods, and workers may be unaware that their illness was caused by a long-ago occupational exposure.

Of the 738 accepted agricultural injury claims in 2017, 409 were disabling injury claims (meaning the worker was injured seriously enough to require time off work or modified duties). The remaining 329 claims would entail only medical-treatment costs.

Accounting for unreported disabling injuries in agriculture suggests the true number of injuries is likely to be in the range of 1,200 disabling injuries per year. That is to say, roughly 1 in 9 farm workers is likely going to experience a serious occupational injury each year.

Extrapolating from this number suggests the total number of agricultural workers who experienced a major or minor injury in 2017 is likely to be about 3,750—or about 1 in 3 farm workers. We should be cautious using this number because it is an extrapolation, but it sounds about right. That 1 in 3 farm workers experiences an injury is higher than the Alberta average (which is about 1 in 5), and likely reflects the greater risk of injury in agriculture than in other industries.

The most serious injuries are lost-time injuries (where the worker required time off from work). In 2017, there were 321 accepted lost-time claims in agriculture for a total of 11,821 days of missed work (an average of 36.8 days per injury). The agricultural sub-sectors where the most disabling injuries occurred are those that typically involve working with large animals (e.g., feedlots, beef and hog production, stock yards, and dairy farms).

Implications of mandatory workers’ compensation in agriculture

The decision by the Alberta government to make workers’ compensation coverage mandatory for paid, non-family farm workers has had three significant implications.

First, the high level of injury among Alberta farm workers is now more visible because the main source of administrative data about occupational injuries (i.e., workers’ compensation claims) is more comprehensive. This data broadly mirrors what we see in other provinces in terms of the risk of injury for farm workers (i.e., higher than in most other industries) and the main sources of agricultural injuries (e.g., contact with animals and equipment).

Establishing clear evidence about the dangerous nature of agricultural work in Alberta will be important if the United Conservative Party wins the 2019 election and Jason Kenney follows through with his promise to repeal the Enhanced Protection for Farm and Ranch Workers Act. Such evidence can then be used to bolster a constitutional challenge(using Sections 7 and 15 of the Charter) to excluding farm workers from the ambit of workers’ compensation and occupational health and safety (OHS).

Second, workers are now more likely to get adequate compensation for occupational injuries than they were prior to 2016. While the WCB is not a perfect organization, the benefits it provides to workers are superior to the laissez-faire arrangements that existed under the previous Progressive Conservative government. For example, a 2015 report commissioned by the former PC government revealed private insurance was both unevenly provided and often inadequate in terms of the benefits it provided to injured workers.

Requiring employers to carry workers’ compensation insurance ensures that the cost of injury is being borne by those who are responsible for the injuries, instead of externalizing the cost onto taxpayers and/or workers. At the same time, mandatory workers’ compensation frees employers from additional liability associated with occupational injuries.

That said, under-reporting of injury remains an issue. Additional efforts to make farm workers aware of their rights and the long-term importance of filing claims will be necessary to address under-reporting. It will also likely prove necessary for the WCB to meaningfully address claims suppression by employers.

Third, the high rate of injury for farm workers suggests that requiring employers to abide by Alberta’s Occupational Health and Safety Code (effective December 1, 2018) is a reasonable and necessary requirement. While the application of the OHS Code has been contentious (and in some ways it is under-inclusive), the decision to apply the code represents a significant improvement in protections for farm workers.

The effectiveness of the OHS Code at reducing the number of agricultural injuries will turn upon the vigor of government enforcement. Recent research suggests that only half of Alberta employers are compliant with the most basic OHS requirements. This reflects that employers presently face little risk of being caught breaking the rules and, if they are, little risk of meaningful sanction. Additional enforcement resources will be required.

In additional to meaningful enforcement, it will be necessary for the government to educate farm workers about their safety rights and how to use them. While industry safety associations tend to do a good job in helping employers to understand their OHS obligations, these associations tend to ignore the needs of workers. This educational work will fall to the government and/or community groups.

Overall, despite the near-hysterical reaction to Bill 6, the implementation of mandatory workers’ compensation coverage has yielded significant improvements in injury surveillance and compensation. WCB data also provides evidence that supports the subsequent implementation of occupational health and safety rules. Notable by its absence is any evidence that extending basic workplace rights to farm workers drove even a single producer out of business.

-- Bob Barnetson