Labour & Pop Culture: Documentary on 9-to-5 Movement

Netflix is presently showing a documentary entitled 9to5: The Story of a Movement. This documentary traces the development of the 9 to 5 social movement that began foregrounding unfair working conditions for women office workers in the United States (initially in Boston) in the early 1970s. This movement was the inspiration for the 1980 comedy of the same name (which holds up pretty well and, sadly, is still topical, 40 years later).

One of the narrative arcs of the film explores how the 9 to 5 movement transitions from a social movement into a union (Local 925) as the workers sought to formalize and entrench the gains they had made. This includes following a union organizing campaign (in Cincinnati I think, but it may have been Seattle) through an initial defeat and subsequent victory. It also examines how the attack on labour by US business and government in the 1980s affected Local 925.

-- Bob Barnetson

Alberta's 2019 injury data released

Alberta finally released its annual report on injuries and fatalities for 2019. Some of the key findings are that, from 2017 to 2019:

• Lost-time claim numbers and rates are up slightly,
• Modified work numbers and rates are down some, and
• Overall, the number of disabling injuries is up slightly (likely population growth related) while the rate is down slightly. 

Industry-related data was not super surprising. Ag and forestry is the most dangerous and saw large growth in injury rates (~24%). I suspect this reflects the implementation of mandatory WCB in agriculture.

Manufacturing, processing and packaging was another sector with relatively high injury rates. We should expect this number to spike in 2020 and 2021 given the COVID waves that swept through the meat-packing plants. We’ll likely also see something similar in the public sector (particularly education and health care). We may also see this in mining, given the oilsands camp outbreaks.

There has been a long-term increase in occupational fatality rates in Alberta.


This has included a long-term reduction in the proportion of fatalities caused by motor vehicles accidents (blue bar in chart below) and an increase in workplace incidents (orange bar).

Claims related to harassment and violence doubled from 2015 to 2019. This may reflect, in part, greater awareness and acceptance of these sorts of injuries as a result of changes to the OHS Act and Code made by the New Democrats.


One of the most compelling charts is buried at the end of the document and it tracks injury rates over 10 years. Combined with the fatality rates chart above, the biggest take-away is that not much has changed. 

This suggests that the injury-prevention strategies mandated by successive Alberta governments (which have emphasized education and voluntary compliance coupled with anemic enforcement) have not really moved the needle on worker injuries or workplace safety.

-- Bob Barnetson

Why are public-sector employers “good employers”?

Source: D'Arcy Norman, Wikipedia Commons

Last week, I ran across an OHS order directed at the University of Calgary. Apparently, the U of C was found to have violated of s.391 of the OHS Code.

That section is about training workers and harassment and violence:

391. An employer must ensure that workers are trained in

(a) The recognition of violence and harassment.
(b) The policies, procedures and workplace arrangements that the employer has developed and implemented to eliminate or control the hazards of violence and harassment.
(c) The appropriate response to violence and harassment, including procedures for obtaining assistance, and the procedures for reporting, investigating, and documenting incidents of violence and harassment.

These provisions came into effect in June of 2018. The order was issued in September of 2020. I wasn’t able to find out much in terms of details, but we can make some guesses:

1. Likely the U of C hasn’t provided adequate OHS training on these hazards.
2. This order likely stems from a complaint or an injury (since random inspections are basically non-existent in Alberta). 
3. I’d also guess that this violation is likely long-standing (since falling out of compliance once an employer has set up a training system is unlikely).

This is not an issue unique to the U of C. For example, less half of the teachers in recent study by the Alberta Teachers Association indicated they had received training to managing bullying and violence.

My own university failed to provide OHS training, received an order, and then stalled responding for months. The training we were eventually provided was terrible. And a revised training developed by the joint occupational health and training committee has been waiting implementation for more than 6 months.

Widespread violations of health and safety rules by public-sector employers is often hard for people to reconcile. Aren’t public-sector employers “good employers”? I think this dissonance stems from confusing good jobs and good employers.

Public sector workers are more likely than private-sector workers to have good jobs, with decent wages, job security, benefits, pensions. (This isn’t a universal experience in the public sector, but there a definite pattern.)

These good working conditions don’t reflect employer benevolence. Rather, they reflect that unionization is high (~67%) in the public sector and union contracts limit how bad employers can make public-sector jobs.

While most public-sector collective agreements contain some language on OHS, the bulk of the rules flow from the OHS Act and Code (which is effectively unenforced in Alberta). So health and safety is an area where public-sector employers can let their true managerial colours show.

And this generally shows up by ignoring their obligations (because most violations don’t result in a serious injury that would attract government sanction). In this way, public-sector employers save cost (however marginal) on safety. Training is particularly easy to ignore unless, in my experience, there is a joint health and safety committee populated by knowledgeable actors who will push and prod the employer and maybe complain.

-- Bob Barnetson

Labour & Pop Culture: Good Girls Revolt

If you are looking for an interesting historical dramatization to fill you winter evenings, Amazon Prime is presently offering Good Girls Revolt, a 10-episode miniseries set in 1969 and 1970 at Newsweek Magazine.

Amazon cancelled the show after one season. But what a season it was! The show is based upon a book the chronicles a sex discrimination lawsuit by female researchers at Newsweek.  The researchers are exploited horrendously, often being more qualified and better writers than the male reporters, but paid a fraction of their wages and denied credit.

 

The most interesting part of the show is how it documents what is essentially an organizing campaign by the women to assert their rights. I can’t think, off hand, of another mainstream series that follows an organizing campaign over time. Usually collective action is framed as spontaneous or the result of a long-standing power base. 

 

In Good Girls Revolt, we get to see a group of workers create a new power base in a workplace. This includes recognizing and articulating their interests and how they differ from the interests of other workers (the men). It also engages how race and class can affect solidarity within a group. The character’s flaws and mis-steps are also realistically portrayed. 

 

-- Bob Barnetson

Labour and Pop Culture: Frankie Drake

I recently had the… opportunity?... to watch a few episodes of CBC’s Frankie Drake Mysteries series. The series centres on an all-female detective agency in 1920s Toronto (so kind of a flapper lady Matlock dealie). The series is available on Amazon Prime but perhaps also the CBC website.

Episode 2 of the first season (“Ladies in Red”) sees Frankie hired to investigate an attack on a factory owner. The owner is convinced the attack was the work of communists in his plant (that manufacturers some kind of confusing glass window product). The show makes reference to the 1919 Winnipeg strike as well as the 1920 Wall Street bombing (which may have been the work of Italian anarchists or communists… or maybe not) to explain the owner’s concerns.

The detectives’ investigations turns up a group of communists (or red sympathizers) in the plant. But their interest is mostly in world peace and perhaps in better working conditions. There is a subplot around sexual harassment and, in the end, the real villain in the plant manager who is skimming, sexually exploiting, and trying to deflect blame onto the workers.

If you can get past the many inconsistencies (e.g., the show is pretty race blind until race is a useful plot point) this episode has a positive portrayal of collective action by workers and highlights the plight of working women in urban Canada after the first war.

I have to admit, by the end I was on my phone googling. But my impression is that the episode ends with Frankie cajoling the plant owner into raising the women’s wages. This seemed very out of character and pretty Pollyanna.

-- Bob Barnetson

AU plays the victim card… again

Athabasca University (AU) is in the midst of a multi-year campaign to bust its faculty association. Its latest effort is using its power to designate who is considered an academic to propose carving out 67% of the members of the faculty association as the union heads into another difficulty round of bargaining.

AU’s de-designation efforts are going poorly. There is no plausible explanation for AU’s proposal to change bargaining unit boundaries after 35 years other than AU is seeking to strengthen its hand at the negotiating table. And AU is transparently gaslighting its staff by refusing to admit the main and obvious implications of its proposals (i.e., 67% of members will be kicked out of the union).

Not surprisingly, staff members are upset. While the results of AU’s most recent engagement survey have not yet been released, I suspect they will be much worse than last year’s, when only 43% of staff said they trusted senior administrators.

Over the past three weeks, faculty association members have been emailing Dr. Margaret Kierylo (AVP Integrated Policy and Planning) to express their concerns about de-designation. Kierylo is the main author of the policy proposal and appears to be the executive lead on the issue. While every email is a bit different, here is a typical example:

From: "Dr. Bob Barnetson" <barnetso@athabascau.ca>
Date: Thursday, June 11, 2020 at 10:22 AM
To: "Dr. Margaret Kierylo" <mkierylo@athabascau.ca>
Subject: some thoughts on your de-designation proposal

Margaret,

I hope this note finds you well.

I’m writing to you about AU’s present proposal to de-designate professionals, academic coordinators, and deans and associate deans. I previously wrote to [Provost] Matt [Prineas] about this in February, but he’s never bothered to respond.

What you are presently proposing will carve 67% of the members of my union out of the union. This is an unacceptable outcome and one effect will be to bust the union’s bargaining power. This is not how academics treat their colleagues.

I’m hopeful you might consider revising the proposed policy so as to maintain the status quo. The distress and anger this proposal is generating quite significant.

I imagine it is a bit hard to see how mad people are about this issue given that we’re all stuck at home for the next while. But, when we return to work, you’ll likely notice how straight up angry people are at the exec and at you (since you seem to be the face of this policy proposal).

A change in the university’s approach would likely go a long way to attenuating this anger and bringing this issue to a productive conclusion.

If you’d like to discuss this further, I’m available at either number below.

Thanks kindly

Bob

Kierylo’s response was a boilerplate email of no real consequence. What was interesting was AU’s next move.

At the June 22 consultation between AU and its unions, AU’s labour relations consultant Abey Arnaout began the meeting by claiming that Kierylo was being harassed. Here is a near-verbatim transcript:

Abey: … Before we start, I’d like to read out a statement from the university.

Over the past week members of the university’s draft designation policy committee have received emails from their union executive. The concern we raise today is not receipt of the emails. The issue in hand is harassment, bullying, and intimidation through veiled threat by these emails.

Quotes implied to be threatening:

I imagine it is a bit hard to see how mad people are about this issue. When we return to work you will notice how angry people are university exec and at you.

One can objectively assume that this was a threat of the university community of physical harm.

We want to make it clear that intimidation, threats, harassment and bullying have no place at this university or at any workplace. We understand that the topic of designation is an important one and that members of AU’s community are passionate about it. 

Because many of these emails indicate they were directed by the union, we assume that the union is complicit in this behavior. Our union partners should not deem this behavior as an acceptable labour relations tactic. 

This may lead to disciplinary action. The university takes no issue with the receipt of emails from university members. We remind our members to engage in respectful dialogue.

So, basically, the university is alleging that my email constituted a threat directed at Kierylo. Now, if that were true, the university has an obligation to take action to protect Kierylo. This might include:

• Indicating its concern to me directly.
• Directing me not to threaten (or even contact) Kierylo again.
• Commencing a disciplinary investigation (perhaps suspending me with pay during that time) and imposing sanctions.
• Re-assigning Kierylo so she is no longer in a position to be threatened.
• Contacting the police.

AU has done none of these things. I only heard about this concern second hand when the union was trying to track down the full email to review it (AU refused to provide a copy of the email to the union). AU’s inaction suggests AU doesn’t really think Kierylo was subjected to a threat. Because, of course, she wasn’t.

What is actually going on here is that AU is losing its fight to bust the union. AU’s behaviour is threatening the interests of every member of the union and has destroyed the credibility of AU’s executive team. The result, naturally, is that the members are becoming angry and rallying around the union.

And AU doesn't know what to do about that. If AU continues with efforts to de-designate two-thirds of the union’s members, it risks additional reputational harm and a nasty legal fight as well as the possibility of job action. If AU drops its proposal, the union will claim victory and the workers will learn (once again) that resisting AU attacks pays off.

Instead of trying to resolve this self-inflicted strategic dilemma, AU has decided continue to press ahead with de-designation while trying to delegitimize the behaviours that faculty association members are using to resist AU’s union busting. A powerful person or organization false claiming to be the victim of harassment is a form of emotional manipulation.

This tactic is, however, not going to work. AU already played the victim card just last summer after it got beat up during the last round of bargaining. And, last week, it claimed that any criticism of the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) efforts was bullying. The effectiveness of claiming to be the victim declines quickly with repetition.

Further, AU’s overall credibility with staff is so low that staff disbelieve much of what AU says. This is especially the case when the facts underlying the claim don't support it. No reasonable person would find the email threatening. This is likely why AU hasn't taken any meaningful steps to “protect” Kierylo—they would face another embarrassing and expensive loss in a discipline hearing.

One result of falsely claiming to be the victim is that AU is signalling that direct pressure on senior executives causes them discomfort (i.e., is an effective tactic). If a series of very mild emails generated this kind of intemperate response, what kind of response might the union get if it amped up the pressure even slightly (e.g., flyering Kierylo’s neighbourhood)?

At this point, AU’s best out is to revise its proposed policy such that the policy that does not affect the boundaries of the bargaining unit. (AU will lose face doing that, but that’s a sunk cost at this point.) Walking away from de-designation will reduce the support the union has because its members will no longer be under immediate threat.

If AU’s executives can’t see that (or let their egos get in the way of doing that), it be up to the Board of Governors to prevent this issue from causing the institution to spin out of control. Because that is pretty clearly where things are headed.

-- Bob Barnetson

Some labour implications of the Final Report of MMIWG Inquiry

A few weeks back, the final report from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Woman and Girls was released. While I haven't finished reading the report yet, Volume 1a contains two sections of particular interest to human resource and labour relations.

The first section is a deep dive into the relationship between resource-extraction projects and violence against Indigenous women and children (starting on page 584). The report specifically examines the impact of transient (or migrant) workers on receiving communities and their citizens as well as workplace harassment, shift work, additions and economic insecurity. The nub of it is that the structure of employment associated with these projects creates and/or amplifies negative consequences for Indigenous women and children.

The second section is a deep dive into the sex industry (starting on page 656), in which Indigenous women and girls are often participants. This section does a nice job of capturing the nuances of sex work and the impact Canada’s colonial legacy has on the dynamics of sex work. It also highlights the importance of an intersectional analysis when examining how individuals experience sex work.

-- Bob Barnetson

Video: Sex work and sex workers

I’m currently working with a subject matter expert to develop and launch a course about sex work and sex workers (LBST 415). I'd guess we are about a year from launch, but who knows. In the interim, this video does a nice job of introducing the topic of sex work (specific to the UK).

 -- Bob Barnetson

Research: Reproductive freedom among migrant workers

Alternative Routes just published a new article entitled ‘Bodies and boarders: Migrant women farmworkers and struggle for sexual and reproductive justice in British Columbia, Canada’. This paper examines the experiences of female migrant farm workers under the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP).

The crux of the article is that the structural features of the SAWP mean that female workers have difficulty making choices about their bodies and sexuality. These structural factors include “…include precarious legal status, poverty, lack of access to primary care services, limited knowledge of the health care system, and workplace insecurity” (p. 92). Workers' sexuality is also subject to intense surveillance (by both their employers and the state), although this surveillance does not seem to prevent their sexual harassment.

The authors document numerous acts of resistance (e.g., rule breaking, speaking out, various forms of concerted action) as these workers assert their reproductive rights. That said, it is striking how these women’s ability to control their bodies is constrained in a country that, at least theoretically, upholds women’s right to make free choices about sexuality and health care.

Among the strategies advocated by the authors are educating health care providers about the unique power relationship that exists in the SAWP program, ensuring workers can (and now they can) access the public health-care system without undue financial constraint, and severing links between the health-care and immigration systems.

-- Bob Barnetson

Labour & Pop Culture: North Country

This week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture looks at the 2005 film North Country. The film is a fictionalized account of Jenson v. Eveleth Mines (1984), one of the first successful sexual harassment lawsuits in the US.

Jenson endured harassment from male mine employees beginning when she commenced employment in 1975. Jensen’s 1984 efforts to gain redress from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights were unsuccessful and she faced further harassment in retaliation.

In 1988, she and 14 other women at the mine filed a class-action suit against their employer. As the suit progressed, Jensen resigned due to post-traumatic stress disorder. Despite an invasive discovery process, the women won. The 1995 judgment, however, was profoundly damaging to the women and they appealed the miniscule damages award. The company eventually settled in 1998 for $3.5 in damages.

It has been awhile since I’ve seen this film. But, given the recent profile of harassment in Hollywood, it might be worth watching again. Interestingly, the only other block-buster style films I could find about sexual harassment were 9 to 5 (1980), the wretched Disclosure (1994), and Horrible Bosses (2011). The latter two reverse the usual power dynamic to portray men as the victims.

-- Bob Barnetson

Harassment and HR: Whose side are you on?

The recent spate of sexual harassment allegations has triggered a couple of articles examining the role of human-resource departments. The crux of the analysis is that HR shops are intended to advance the employer’s interest. Not surprisingly, a key employer interest is mitigating liability.

When proactive measures (such as codes of conduct) haven’t been successful and a claim of harassment arises, HR shops work to contain the potential damage to the employer (often through complaint suppression). This line of analysis runs contrary to the usual picture presented of HR shops as neutral arbitrators or even a place that workers can go for help with problems.

The notion that the practice of HR is, in fact, an exercise of power over workers and in the interests of employers is generally absent from HR textbooks. This reflects that human resources is rooted in a unitarist view of the workplaces—that there are no inherent conflicts of interest in employment and that everyone is there to serve the employer’s interests. The employer’s interests are often couched as the organization’s goals, even though the goals have been developed by the employer with little consideration of the needs of other stakeholders.

One consequence of this dynamic is that HR staff often has to do things that would make most people uncomfortable. For example, they may be assigned to direct conflict into processes that delay resolution of conflict even though doing so exacerbates the impact of the harassment on the victim. Such a decision often makes sense of the employer since (absent any resolution) victims will often quit (or accept a small settlement in exchange for a gag order) and the problem goes away (for the employer, anyhow).

Some HR wonks can’t hack that kind of work and attrite out of profession (or into less conflictual HR functions—such a payroll or strategic planning). Those that stay tend to be (or become) hard cases, who are better able to manage the cognitive dissonance that goes with harming employees. This, in turn, reinforces the tendency of HR to act against the interests of a firm’s human resources.

Clearer discussion of this dynamic might help human-resource students make more knowledgable choices about the kind of career they want going forward.

-- Bob Barnetson

Bill 30 debate a disaster for UCP

Last week, Alberta finally passed Bill 30 (An Act to Protect the Health and Well-being of Working Albertans). I’ve written about the changes to the OHS Act here and here as well as the changes to workers’ compensation here, here, and here.

The debate about Bill 30 was pretty boring until last Tuesday. The United Conservative Party (UCP) spent most of its time trying to doom Bill 30 to a slow death in committee. You read see the debate in Hansard. The UCP advanced several arguments.

Not Enough Consultation
Basically the opposition argued that there hadn’t been enough consultation about the Bill. This ignores that the OHS consultation included 1,300 online surveys, 90 written submissions, 200 stakeholders participating in face-to-face consultations. The WCB consultation went on for more than a year and included 1,700 questionnaires, 200 written submissions, 67 workbook responses, hundreds of stakeholders in various face-to-face consultations, and then the 60 responses to the WCB review panel's report.

A variant on this critique was that there is no need to rush Bill 3 through. According to UC MLA Mike Ellis:

As the minister so enjoys pointing out, the OH and S Act came out when Wayne Gretzky was a rookie and when cellphones did not exist. Syncrude had opened its mine. Minister, what is the rush? As for the WCB, the minister kindly pointed out that the last comprehensive review of the act occurred 15 years ago. Once again, is there a need to rush and force it through in days? I think not, Mr. Speaker. (p. 2217).

It is a bit rich for a former Tory MLA to claim there is need to hurry modernizing the OHS Act (which isn’t working very well) after his former party left it largely untouched since 1976. Those who depend upon the Act to protect them at work might well want some action after 41 years of being maimed and killed on the job. Premier Notley basically said as much during the debate:

This is about the members opposite not wanting to take these important steps forward to protect workers, to protect their families, and to keep them safe. That is the decision that is being made here right now by the members opposite as they engage in these ridiculous conversations about the need to delay. (p. 2249)

Overall, this line of attack was profoundly underwhelming and runs contrary to the facts.

Safety Costs Too Much
The opposition then made several attempts to say that, “sure, safety is important, but who will think about the bottom line!?!” For example, UCP MLA Grant Hunter stated:

Safety measures sure can be expensive, and joint committees are no exception. All training for committee members is required by this bill to be covered by the employer. Workplace training for employees is usually covered at the expense of the employer, primarily because the knowledge and skills acquired will go to the long-term benefit of the business. However, committee members are entitled to an annual maximum of 16 hours of training at the expense of the employer for a committee that will only reduce workplace efficiency and fail to improve the safety of the workers. (p. 2133)

This argument has the virtue of being an honest portrayal of employer objections to safer workplaces. I’m less convinced that trading worker safety for profit is in the public interest or is a good position for a political party to stake out (pro-tip: workers are also voters).

Split the Bill
The UCP complained Bill 30 was too complex for them to understand. Some of their troubles may stem from the UCP’s inability to manage its caucus budget and the resulting layoff of most of their staff. I know how tough it is when you have to do your own research and read legislation yourself.

I do have some sympathy for this argument in that big bills tend to obscure changes. I have much less sympathy for the UCP, given that their party is led by a former Harper cabinet minister and that government used omnibus legislation to ram through changes all the time. Sauce for the goose and all.

Workers Are Stupid
Rather disappointingly, UCP MLA Prasad Panda suggested that asking employers to ensure their workplaces are safe was unfair because workers are stupid:

Now, Madam Speaker, as Forrest Gump used to say, “Stupid is as stupid does.” As much as we want to legislate stupid away, stupid is as stupid does, and accidents will happen on work sites when workers are not paying attention or are not careful and not thinking things through. This Bill 30: the core principle of this bill is that all work-site parties have a responsibility for the health and safety of all workers. I completely agree with that. However, Bill 30 puts significantly more responsibility on employers. (p.2276)

Okay, wow. I had thought this would be the low point in debate. But then shit got real for the UCP.

UCP House Leader Sacks Worker for Complaining About Sexual Harassment
Last Tuesday, the Edmonton Journal ran a story about UC House Leader Jason Nixon. A 2008 BC Human Rights Tribunal had found that one of Nixon’s employees at a safety company was sexually harassed on the job in 2005. When she complained, Nixon (eventually) terminated her employment. She was awarded $32,000 in damages.

The details of the harassment are awful. The harasser watched porn in front of victim. He slapped her on the butt and told her to dress sexier. And he offered her dope, lingere, and new tires in exchange for sex (the good ole boy trifecta).

Nixon then fired the single mom of three just days before Christmas and sent her termination letter to the harasser. And he declined to participate in the human rights case. Beneath these facts, there is a complex subcontracting arrangement in the background that resulted in Nixon’s company being pressured to fire the victim. So basically profit trumped protecting the worker.

The #ableg twitter feed went basically insane in its condemnation of Nixon. Here are two illustrative examples:




The NDs also lost no time calling for the UCP to remove Nixon as house leader (the UCP did not) and went after him in Question Period. This response collectively reflects both the heinous nature of Nixon’s behaviour and that Nixon had previously argued against Bill 30 (which includes new protections against harassment).

For example, he stated “The right way to deal with it is to get the industry to address it, to work through their safety associations … and they will do it. They’ve already proven it.” I wonder if Nixon knows what "proof" means?

Reporters grilled Nixon mercilessly about the apparent hypocrisy of arguing against legislation around sexual harassment while (somehow) forgetting his own company's egregious behaviour:

Reporter: Jason, you’ve been convicted by a tribunal, they have found you guilty of firing somebody who was sexually harassed. And that never popped into your head when you talking about the rules on sexual harassment in the House, that’s what you’re telling us today? 

Nixon: No it did not. 

Reporter: It just blanked right out.

Nixon also told the Journal that “Any time we’ve made large advancements on occupational safety, it’s been driven by industry.” This statement is, of course, laughably wrong.

Nixon later attempted to clarify his comments in the Legislature (see p. 2506) However, this scandal was so politically toxic that the UCP decided not to further extend the session with additional debate.

The UCP's unwillingness to further debate Bill 30 (presumably to avoid more political damage) undermines their already weak critique of the Bill. Were there really problems with Bill 30? Or was the UCP just grand-standing on behalf of employers?

Their behaviour suggests the latter. Hopefully voters will remember in 2019 whose side the UCP took when the government tried to improve injury prevention and compensation for Alberta workers.

-- Bob Barnetson

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

Employers whine about first OHS review in 41 years

Last week, Alberta announced a review of its occupational health and safety system. Alberta has not done a comprehensive review of its OHS system since it was created in 1976. 

Not surprisingly, employers representatives (such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses) were quick to whine about the government reviewing whether it is possible to make workplaces safer and reduce injuries and fatalities for the first time in 41 years. 

According to the government press release:

The review will examine the OHS Act, as well as compliance, enforcement, education, engagement and prevention efforts in Alberta’s OHS system. It will also clarify employer and worker responsibilities, improve worker engagement and maintain Alberta’s strong focus on illness and injury prevention.

There is both a discussion paper and an online survey. Opportunities to submit feedback close on October 16. The discussion paper hints that mandatory joint health and safety committee and greater government enforcement are under consideration. The paper also suggests a need to create (and disseminate) more robust data about occupational injury.

Based on what we have seen from Alberta’s government so far, it is likely that the whatever OHS changes occur will be along the lines of bringing Alberta’s legislation back into the Canadian mainstream. Some specific issues we may see swept into these changes include violence (or, at least, robbery) prevention in gas stations and convenience stores, anti-harassment provisions, and OHS regulations for farm and ranch workers.

-- Bob Barnetson

Research: Psychological OHS risks for long-term care workers

Ageing International just recently published an article about the experiences of Canadian long-term care workers with psychological health and safety on the job provocatively entitled “We’re told, ‘Suck it up’.”  The article examines the experiences of workers in four provinces with work overload, low worker control, discrimination, and disrespect.

Interviews with 87 staff at eight long-term care homes (two each in BC, MB, ON, and NS) were used in the study. The research revealed that workers face significant psychological harm from unremediated hazards, employers and regulators don’t “see” the hazards causing the harm very clearly, and workers are largely left to deal with things on their own (which is itself a psychological hazard).

The voices of the study participants are powerful. They clearly note that employer staffing decisions take a significant toll on both the staff and on patient care.

[W]e’re told ‘Suck it up. It’s your job.’ And that’s so frustrating because that’s not my job. It’s not my job to come to work and expect to be punched in the face. You know, it’s not my job to come to work and expect to be hurt because you didn’t staff the building properly so now I can’t take care of my own family. You know what I mean? (CCA, Manitoba) 

Okay, well we’re short two CCAs and one LPN and…we as nurses care for two houses, you know, we care for all these people with only three [staff]… . There’s just nobody to help and there’s nobody to cover, right? So you just basically go through a shift hoping you’re going to have a good shift and nothing big happens because if it does, I mean you have to deal with it. But there’s nurses here that go without breaks because you just don’t have the time. A lot of nurses go without breaks and that’s again cause for burnout, right? (LPN Nova Scotia)

[The] ratios are key because every nurse and LPN and care aide wants to give amazing care and that’s why we have so many leaving the profession, right? It’s because the ethical and moral distress that you cannot do your job the way you’re supposed to be doing your job and you’re just trying to just make it through the day. So if there was funding put into having, you know, the appropriate ratios then yeah, of course it would work. It would be amazing wouldn’t it? (RN British Columbia)

As the Points West Living lockout in Cold Lake moves past 150 days, it is important to reflect that a significant issue is the workers’ demand for mandatory staffing levels such that the employer can’t run short-staffed if someone calls in sick or goes on vacation.

-- Bob Barnetson

Labour & Pop Culture: Code Monkey

This week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture features “Code Monkey” by Jonathan Coulton. This song extends the “tech worker” theme we saw last week in Stan Roger’s “White Collar Hollar” but is more modern in its views.

Code monkey is a derogatory term for computer programmers (“Code monkey: go for brains!”). In this song, the singer is a Code Monkey with a fairly unsatisfying job and a jerk for a boss. There is a humorous “lives of quiet desperation” element to the song:

Have boring meeting with boring manager Rob
Rob say Code Monkey very diligent
But his output stink
His code not functional or elegant 

What do Code Monkey think
Code Monkey think maybe manager oughta write goddamn login page himself
Code Monkey not say it out loud
Code Monkey not crazy just proud

So why does Code Monkey stay? Well, the song also treads into the difficulty territory of office crushes. While the song doesn’t go there, you have to wonder what the “front desk girl” thinks of Code monkey’s affections.

There are multiple version of Code Monkey. The video is of an uptempo version. There is, however, a simply beautiful acoustic version on this page (scroll down to Code Monkey Save World Unplugged and click Code monkey to listen).



Code Monkey get up get coffee
Code Monkey go to job
Have boring meeting with boring manager Rob
Rob say Code Monkey very diligent
But his output stink
His code not functional or elegant

What do Code Monkey think
Code Monkey think maybe manager oughta write goddamn login page himself
Code Monkey not say it out loud
Code Monkey not crazy just proud

[chorus]

Code Monkey like Fritos
Code Monkey like Tab and Mountain Dew
Code Monkey very simple man
With big warm fuzzy secret heart
Code Monkey like you
Code Monkey like you

Code Monkey hang around at front desk
Tell you sweater look nice
Code Monkey offer buy you soda
Bring you cup bring you ice
You say no thank you for the soda 'cause
Soda make you fat
Anyway you busy with the telephone
No time for chat

Code Monkey have long walk back to cubicle
He sit down pretend to work
Code Monkey not thinking so straight
Code Monkey not feeling so great

[chorus]

Code Monkey have every reason
To get out this place
Code Monkey just keep on working
To see your soft pretty face
Much rather wake up eat a coffee cake
Take bath, take nap

This job fulfilling in creative way
Such a load of crap
Code Monkey think someday he have everything even pretty girl like you
Code Monkey just waiting for now
Code Monkey say someday, somehow

[chorus]

-- Bob Barnetson

Harassment as an OHS issue

A private member’s bill (Bill 208) has been introduced in the Alberta Legislature that amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act to prohibit workplace harassment. Chapter 6 in the OHS textbook Jason Foster and I just wrote provides some useful context on harassment and bullying.

Bill 208 defines harassment as “any inappropriate conduct, comment, display, action or gesture by a person” that constitutes a threat to the health or safety of a worker based on either a protected ground or which “adversely affects the worker’s psychological or physical well-being and that the person knows or ought reasonably to know would cause a worker to be humiliated or intimidated.”

The Act places some parameters around instances of conduct the adversely affect a worker’s well being. It notes harassment can comprise “repeated conduct, comments, displays, actions or gestures” or “a single, serious occurrence of conduct, or a single, serious comment, display, action or gesture, that has a lasting, harmful effect on the worker.” Reasonable action by the employer related to the management of workers or the worksite is not considered harassment.

The short of the rest of the obligations are that employers must now have and enforce policies around workplace harassment. (How this works if the employer is the harasser is an interesting question... .) If an employee believes the employer has botched the investigation of a workplace harassment complaint they can report the matter to Occupational Health and Safety and OHS will investigate.

Workplace harassment and bullying appears endemic. A 2014 panel study suggests 23% of workers have been bullied at work. There is a higher 2012 stat (45%) floating around, but the methodology gives me the willies so I’m going to go with this more conservative number.

In theory, Bill 208 provides a new avenue for redress (especially for non-unionized employees) around harassment. I’m not an expert in workplace bullying, but I have seen a fair bit (both at when I worked at the Labour Board and as my union’s grievance officer). The questions I have about this (quite laudable) legislation are:

1. Bullying or tough management: As Jason and I wrote, “The line between “tough” management and “bullying” management can be difficult to ascertain, especially if the bullying takes the form of misuse of managerial prerogatives such as scheduling, work assignments, and the like.” And, “Some researchers suggest that employers may overtly or covertly encourage bullying by managers as a way to maximize the work the employer can extract from its workers.” (p.132) The note in the OHS Code that “reasonable actions by the employer” related to management do not constitute harassment will likely means “smart” bullies will be able to evade sanction. 
2. Penalties: Alberta does a poor job of penalizing OHS offenders (e.g., prosecutions and fines are down over time), which may (partly explain) its very high rate of injury. If a worker complains and an OHS officer finds the employer botched the harassment investigation and issues an order that the employer ignores (or otherwise subverts), what happens? In theory, the OHS officer can push for an administrative penalty (i.e., a fine). There is no data I can find on how often Alberta issues these. I would guess there is little prospect of meaningful penalties so employers are most likely to create a policy (e.g., by downloading one from the web) and otherwise ignore the new requirement.
3. Enforcement: Alberta has about 130(ish) OHS officers for 160,000(ish) employers. This level of resourcing is inadequate to meaningfully enforce the existing OHS laws. Consequently, OHS focuses its efforts on big-ticket items (e.g., fatalities, repeat offenders, bad industries). Absent more resources, it is unlikely harassment will get much attention unless there is a complaint. Complaints are, frankly, unlikely. Workers aren’t stupid and will see that employers’ ability to argue “tough management” combined with the absence of meaningful penalties means this Bill creates a right to be free of harassment that they will not be able to realize. This is the same dynamic that drives workers to not refuse unsafe work or report wage theft: they know there is little chance their report will help them out and it may make things worse.

To be fair, this Bill serves an important hortatory and educative purpose: it publically condemns this behaviour and says it is up to employers to stop it. But to make real change in the workplace is going to require government enforcement activity.

As a trade unionist, I wonder if this Bill gives firmer footing for work refusals when there is significant harassment? Specifically, could a group of workers (unionized or otherwise) collectively refuse to work for a harassing boss (i.e., wildcat) and claim such action is protected action under the OHS Code? And how would this play out in a small workplace, such as a restaurant or retail operation?

-- Bob Barnetson

Labour & Pop Culture: Friday Night

This week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture heads back to the classic rock vault to find “Friday Night” by Loverboy. I couldn’t find a video to share, although the link above will take you to an audio recording of the song.

This song valorizes the weekend as a relief from the drudgery of work. Here, as Mike Reno tells it, he’s worked very hard for a jerk in order to afford to ride a motor cycle that allows him to escape the horror of his job:

I've been bidin' my time, listen to the Boss man scream
Workin' forty hours, payin' for this dream machine

What’s interesting is that that even classic rock bar bands intuitively understand Marx’s theory of alienation. Here, I’m going to crib from Wikipedia:

The theoretic basis of alienation, within the capitalist mode of production, is that the worker invariably loses the ability to determine life and destiny, when deprived of the right to think (conceive) of themselves as the director of their own actions; to determine the character of said actions; to define relationships with other people; and to own those items of value from goods and services, produced by their own labour.

So basically, forced to work in a job designed to steal the maximum surplus value from his work, Reno becomes alienated from work and working and seeks periodic escape on a “high-heeled Venus, doing twice the speed of light.” And who said classic rock can’t teach us anything…


Burning up the miles, there's a full moon out tonight
I've got a high-heel Venus, doing twice the speed of light
Crank it up through the gears--see what she can do
Women and cars--everything they say is true

Stand in line--No! No!
Wasting time--No
Friday night, Friday night
I just got paid--no sleep 'til Monday
Friday night, Friday night
Who cares, it's only money

I've been bidin' my time, listen to the Boss man scream
Workin' forty hours, payin' for this dream machine
'Cause I'm living proof--every mad-dog has his day
I'm going to find me a woman--head out on the Old Highway

Stand in line--No! No!
Wasting time--No
Friday night, Friday night
I just got paid--no sleep 'til Monday
Friday night, Friday night
Who cares, it's only money

I've been bidin' my time, listen to the Boss man scream
Workin' forty hours, payin' for this dream machine
'Cause I'm living proof--every mad-dog has his day
I'm going to find me a woman--head out on the Old Highway

Friday night, Friday night
Friday night, Friday night
It's only money
Friday night, Friday night
I just got paid, no sleep 'til Monday
Friday night, Friday night
Who cares it's only money

Friday night, Friday night
Friday night, Friday night
It's only money
Friday night, Friday night
I just got paid, no sleep 'til Monday
Friday night, Friday night
Who cares it's only money

Friday night, Friday night

-- Bob Barnetson

Labour & Pop Culture: Ghost of Tom Joad

This week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture is “The Ghost of Tom Joad” by Bruce Springsteen. Tom Joad is a character from The Grapes of Wrath and the song is a bit of a nod to Woody Guthrie’s “The Ballad of Tom Joad”.

In the novel, the Joads were tenant farmers forced off the land in Oklahoma who set out for California. Upon arriving, they find a huge labour surplus that employers take horrific advantage of. Family Friend Jim Casy works as a union organizer (while the Joad clan works as scabs) and Tom Joad sees Casy beaten to death. Joad kills Casy’s killers and, long story short, the whole story ends rather depressingly.

Springsteen’s song reveals how little has changed for economically vulnerable people since the 1930s. Some become desperate enough to do anything to survive (and, for that, are criminalized) while the rest just disappear from society and our consciousness.

I picked a Mumford & Sons/Elvis Costello cover of the song so you could hear the lyrics a bit better (although this Springsteen version is amazing).



Men walkin' 'long the railroad tracks
Goin' someplace there's no goin' back
Highway patrol choppers comin' up over the ridge

Hot soup on a campfire under the bridge
Shelter line stretchin' 'round the corner
Welcome to the new world order
Families sleepin' in their cars in the Southwest
No home no job no peace no rest

The highway is alive tonight
But nobody's kiddin' nobody about where it goes
I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light
Searchin' for the ghost of Tom Joad

He pulls a prayer book out of his sleeping bag
Preacher lights up a butt and takes a drag
Waitin' for when the last shall be first and the first shall be last
In a cardboard box 'neath the underpass

Got a one-way ticket to the promised land
You got a hole in your belly and gun in your hand
Sleeping on a pillow of solid rock
Bathin' in the city aqueduct

The highway is alive tonight
Where it's headed everybody knows
I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light
Waitin' on the ghost of Tom Joad

Now Tom said "Mom, wherever there's a cop beatin' a guy
Wherever a hungry newborn baby cries
Where there's a fight 'gainst the blood and hatred in the air
Look for me Mom I'll be there
Wherever there's somebody fightin' for a place to stand
Or decent job or a helpin' hand
Wherever somebody's strugglin' to be free
Look in their eyes Mom you'll see me."

Well the highway is alive tonight
But nobody's kiddin' nobody about where it goes
I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light
With the ghost of old Tom Joad

-- Bob Barnetson

Employer dinged $266k for discrimination case

There was an interesting appeal decision on a discrimination case out of Ontario last week. Vicky Strudwick became deaf late in life (possibly as a result of a virus). Her Mississauga employer failed to accommodate her disability.

According to court documents, the employer also undertook a campaign of abuse designed to force her to quit. You can read the court decision here.

The Toronto Star summarized some of the “high”-lights of the employer’s performance:

Both bosses “tormented (Strudwick) for the specific purpose of making the work environment intolerable,” the court noted in its sharply worded decision, citing evidence presented in court last summer. 

This included advising co-workers not to talk to Strudwick and to telephone her with information she needed. Not hearing the phone — thereby missing the information — provided her superiors with an opportunity to chastise her. 

When Strudwick requested workplace accommodations — including a Canadian Hearing Society assessment, visual fire alarm, a special telephone designed for hearing impaired people, and permission to turn her desk around so she could see people as they approached her — Hoffman denied them, taking the position they were “unnecessary,” the court decision stated.

Strudwick was eventually fired, which led to lengthy legal proceedings. Strudwick won her case but appeals the damages. Ontario’s Court of Appeal increased the damages awards by more than $100,000 to $266,000. The employer’s efforts to shift the damages to its managers was unsuccessful.

Overall, this case unscores the financial and reputational peril faced by employers who seek to push workers requiring accommodation out of the workplace.

-- Bob Barnetson