The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) periodically publishes a magazine (Direct Impact). The fall 2021 issue (not yet online at the time of writing) reports the results of a survey of its members about the impact of COVID.
The survey is fascinating, documenting income losses by two-thirds of members, with the losses being highly racialized. More than a quarter of member households experienced a layoff and almost half (49%) cut back on food purchases. An interesting question was what measures would help AUPE members cope with the financial hardships caused by COVID. I've nicked the graphic (sorry Guy!) and present it below:
Keep in mind that these results represent the view of unionized workers in AUPE who responded to the survey (I don't see a note about response rates). This means we should be cautious about its findings and especially of generalizing to other populations.
The pearl-clutching aside, what is most striking is that workers overwhelming identify price controls as what would help them most. Many of the COVID demands popularized by the broader labour movement (e.g., paid sick leave, presumptive WCB, childcare subsidies) received much less support.
Further, demanding government intervention in the market (which neoliberalism suggests is anathema, unless it benefits the wealthy) is a surprisingly bold position for such a large portion of the respondents to stake out. Perhaps the pressure COVID is create and how it has pulled back the curtain on class-disparities is starting to more clearly inform rank-and-file views on union priorities?
This post was originally published on the AU Hub in conjunction with the International Day to Eliminate Violence Against Sex Workers.
It is both legal and dangerous to sell sex in Canada. One factor that makes sex workers vulnerable to violence is how the government regulates sex work. While selling sex is legal, buying sexual services and assisting in the sale or purchase of sexual services is not. This regulatory approach stigmatizes sex work and thereby increases sex workers’ risk. Fully decriminalizing the purchase and sale of sexual services—a demand supported by sex workers and 150 human rights groups—would help reduce the risk of violence.
Canada’s current approach to regulating sex work is often called the Nordic model. It assumes sex work is socially undesirable and that the demand for sexual services can be extinguished by sanctioning clients. The impact of the Nordic model on sex workers’ safety is complicated.
Sex workers and authors Juno Mac and Molly Smith note that sex workers typically have a greater need to sell sexual services (e.g., to put food on the table) than buyers do to purchase it. Criminalizing clients can reduce demand. This, in turn, forces sex workers to take on clients they might otherwise refuse or meet them in circumstances that heighten the risk of violence. Criminalizing those who could provide assistance to sex workers working safely (e.g., security staff, call services, drivers) also increases the risk of violence for sex workers.
In theory, the Nordic model is supposed to result in sex workers finding other sources of income. (In Nordic countries, this model is paired with a more complete social safety net than is presently available in Canada). In Canada, “straight” jobs are often unavailable (that’s why sex workers sell sex) or unworkable (e.g., due to childcare or health issues).
Sex workers can also be reluctant to access existing income support programs for fear of triggering the interest of other government agencies, such as children’s services or the tax department. For example, some sex workers’ reluctance to access federal income supports during COVID-19 reflects their concerns about becoming visible to the state.
Fully decriminalizing sex work—where any adult can purchase sexual services—would allow sex workers to work more safely (e.g., in cooperatives, in safer locations, with access to security and other business services). Decriminalization would also lower the barriers faced by sex workers wishing to access state services, such as medical care and income support services.
New Zealand decriminalized most sex work in 2003. Decriminalization is not a panacea. Sex workers still report facing stigma and violence, especially racialized, migrant, and trans sex workers. They still cannot necessarily access law enforcement protection safely. And many other laws and policies (e.g., zoning, licensing, advertising) still make life difficult for sex workers.
And, where sex work occurs in the context of an employment relationship, sex workers are still subject to the usual indignities and exploitation that can be found in any workplace. They may also still be subject to the abuses sex workers tend to experience in employment relationships specifically because they’re sex workers, and which occur in the sex industry under all regulatory frameworks.
But decriminalization does appear to result in better working conditions for sex workers. It also offers more accessible pathways to different work (e.g., through income support programs). If combined with a more fulsome social safety net, it might result in a significant reduction in sex work overall. New Zealand’s experience offers useful guidance about how the government can meaningfully reduce the risk of violence faced by sex workers—one driven by data rather than by stigma.
On Nov. 5, 2020, Alberta’s United Conservative government introduced Bill 47 (Ensuring Safety and Cutting Red Tape Act, 2020). Bill 47 makes substantial changes to the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act and the Workers’ Compensation Act and contains new legislation creating a payment for first responders who die from work-related causes. This is the second of two blog posts examining Bill 47. This post focuses on changes to the Workers’ Compensation Act which, if passed, will come into effect Jan. 1, 2021.
Overall, Bill 47’s changes to workers’ compensation will save employers money by reducing the likelihood of workers receiving benefits when injured and reducing the value of those benefits. Bill 47 also makes it more difficult for workers to appeal decisions and reduces the likelihood they will return to their job once recovered from their injury.
Background
Alberta’s Workers’ Compensation Act provides for compensation to workers who are injured on the job. Compensation is funded by employer premiums and the act is administered by the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB). This act was also amended in 2017 to increase wage-loss benefits and index them to inflation, require employers to return workers to their job after recovery, and make it easier for workers to navigate the WCB.
Lower Compensation for Injury
Presently, when injured workers experience a wage loss, they are eligible to receive WCB benefits of 90 per cent of any lost net income. That is to say, injured workers receive $9 from the WCB for every $10 in income they lose due to a compensable injury. Bill 47 alters this arrangement in three ways.
First, Bill 47 eliminates from the Act the 90 per cent compensation rate. In its place, Bill 47 permits the WCB to determine the rate at which compensation will be paid. The only plausible reason for the government to give the WCB this discretion is to allow the WCB to lower the compensation rate at some future point.
Second, Bill 47 allows the WCB to establish a maximum income ceiling for compensation. Prior to 2018, this maximum was set at $98,700 and any wages lost above the maximum were not compensated. In 2018, the New Democratic government eliminated this maximum to recognize many Alberta workers earned more than the maximum and should not be penalized if injured. Reinstating a cap will reduce wage-loss benefits (as well as employer premiums, which are driven by claims costs) in high-wage industries.
Third, permanent wage-loss benefits are currently indexed to the Alberta Consumer Price Index. Indexing means the purchasing power of wage-loss benefits are not eroded by inflation. Bill 47 gives the WCB the power to set the annual inflationary adjustment. The WCB is directed to maintain “approximate parity with the cost of living.”
When the WCB had this power prior to 2018, it indexed benefits to CPI minus 0.5 per cent. Workers with permanent wage losses (as well as dependents of workers killed on the job) saw their purchasing power decline over time. The longer they received benefits, the worse loss they experienced. Again, the only plausible explanation for offering the WCB this flexibility is to allow the WCB to set rates below inflation and thereby reduce the cost of employer premiums.
Limiting Psychological and Disease Claims
Generally speaking, injuries are eligible for compensation if they arise from and occur during the course of employment. Determining whether some injuries meet this “arises and occurs” test can be challenging. For example, some occupational diseases have long latency periods and murky causality. These sorts of injuries are sometimes “deemed” to be compensable by the WCB. If you have the injury and worked in a specified industry (sometimes for a specified length of time), your claim is automatically accepted.
There is a list of deemed diseases in the Workers’ Compensation Regulation. Prior to 2018, this list had not been meaningfully updated since 1982. In 2018, a committee was struck to periodically review new medical evidence and recommend changes. Bill 47 disbands this committee and simply charges the minister with a review every 10 years. Given the speed of medical research, updating the list every 10 years is unfair to workers.
Whether a psychological injury is compensable can also be tricky to determine. In 2018, the Workers’ Compensation Act was amended such that psychological injuries were deemed to be compensable if (1) a worker was exposed to a traumatic event in the course of work and (2) was diagnosed with a psychological injury unless (3) the injury was proven not to have arisen and occurred from work. Bill 47 eliminates this deeming of psychological injuries. This means workers will need to prove psychological injuries arose and occurred from work. This will be a very difficult threshold for many injured workers to meet.
Reinstatement
In 2018, the Workers’ Compensation Act was amended to create an obligation on employers to re-employ injured workers when workers were able to return to their duties. Prior to this, workers’ only recourse if their employer sacked them after an injury was a lengthy (around two years) process with the Human Rights Commission. After 2018, employers who illegitimately did not comply with their return to work obligation faced financial penalties. Bill 47 entirely does away with this obligation. This change is profoundly out of step with the Canadian norm.
Bill 47 also creates specific obligations on workers to co-operate with the WCB in vocational and other rehabilitation plans. Workers who don’t co-operate can have their benefits cut off. While this may sound reasonable, the history of vocational and other rehabilitation at the WCB suggests there is a significant risk the WCB will use this power in ways that reduce workers’ compensation (in order to lower employer premiums) or force workers to accept modified work plans that may damage their health.
Appeal System
Workers’ compensation claims are complex. Workers who are dissatisfied with the adjudication of their claim often face an uphill battle navigating a complicated set of policies and appeal steps. Further, the 2017 review of the WCB identified that the WCB had a “culture of denial” around claims and that the internal appeal process may have worked against workers’ interests. In 2018, a Fair Practices Office was set up to create some distance between the WCB and the internal appeal bodies, as well as to help workers navigate the appeal process.
Bill 47 largely scraps this new process. It also tightens the timelines on when a worker can appeal a decision and allows the appeal bodies discretion about whether to suspend the termination of wage-loss and other benefits while an appeal is under way.
Heroes Fund
Bill 47 contains within it a new act entitled the Heroes’ Compensation Act. This act provides for the payment of $100,000 to the dependents of any first responder or corrections officer who dies as a consequence of their work. This payment is in addition to the fatality payment any workers’ dependents receive when a worker dies, as well as any wage-loss payments for which those dependent may be eligible. There are, on average, 10 fatalities among first responders per year. Of these fatalities, approximately 90 per cent were firefighters who died from occupational diseases.
This new benefit broadly mirrors an existing Government of Canada program (the Memorial Grant Program for First Responders). This federal program provides $300,000 payments to families of firefighters, police officers and paramedics who die as a result of their duties. Additionally, these workers are also almost entirely unionized and, consequently, have life insurance as part of their benefit packages.
Analysis
At the beginning of the 20th century, Canadian workers gave up their right to sue their employer for work-related injuries in exchange for stable, predictable and immediate compensation. Over time, workers’ compensation has expanded to include more workers (such as women). More kinds of injuries are also compensated, as our understanding of the negative consequences of work deepens.
Alberta’s legislation long lagged behind the Canadian norm, reflecting a history of conservative governments and agencies that were essentially captured by employer lobbyists. The 2018 changes to WCB brought Alberta’s laws into alignment with the Canadian norms. Bill 47 reverses many of these changes.
Labour Minister Jason Copping suggested that Bill 47 is designed to “restor[e] balance and fairness to the workers’ compensation system to meet the needs of workers and job creators now and in the future.” This is half true. Employers will benefit from Bill 47 through lower premiums. (It is notable that Minister Copping ignores that lower premiums reduces employers’ incentives make workplaces safer.)
The cost of this will be borne by workers. Under Bill 47, workers will be less likely to have their injuries compensated, their benefits will be reduced, their access to the appeals system will be impeded, and they will be less likely to return to their pre-injury job. In effect, this is a return to the state of affairs pre-2018, where the WCB was effectively a creature of employers and had a culture of claims denial.
The Heroes Fund will benefit relatively few workers, who are mostly well insured men. The most useful way to see the Heroes Fund is as a craven PR exercise. By providing marginal increases to valorized workers, the government can deflect attention away from changes that financially benefit employers while making workplaces more dangerous for workers and reducing the compensation paid out when workers are injured.
This week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture is “Shackled and Drawn” by Bruce Springsteen. This song has a bit of a gospel feel to it and is from Springsteen’s 2012 album Wrecking Ball. The album tells the stories of people whose lives were destroyed by the recession.
You can read the lyrics lots of ways—my first thought was it was about prison labour. But, on reflection, I think it uses being shackled as a metaphor for the debt and limited prospects of the working class.
Gambling man rolls the dice, workingman pays the bill It’s still fat and easy up on banker’s hill Up on banker’s hill, the party’s going strong Down here below we’re shackled and drawn
The live version above seems to stray from the studio version but the content s all there—just re-arranged.
Gray morning light spits through the shade Another day older, closer to the grave Closer to the grave and come the dawn I woke up this morning shackled and drawn
Shackled and drawn, shackled and drawn Pick up the rock son, carry it on I’m trudging through the dark in a world gone wrong I woke up this morning shackled and drawn
I always loved the feel of sweat on my shirt Stand back son and let a man work Let a man work, is that so wrong I woke up this morning shackled and drawn
Shackled and drawn, shackled and drawn Pick up the rock son, carry it on What’s a poor boy to do in a world gone wrong I woke up this morning shackled and drawn
Freedom son’s a dirty shirt The sun on my face and my shovel in the dirt A shovel in the dirt keeps the devil gone I woke up this morning shackled and drawn
Shackled and drawn, shackled and drawn Pick up the rock son, carry it on What’s a poor boy to do but keep singing his song I woke up this morning shackled and drawn
Gambling man rolls the dice, workingman pays the bill It’s still fat and easy up on banker’s hill Up on banker’s hill, the party’s going strong Down here below we’re shackled and drawn
Shackled and drawn, shackled and drawn Pick up the rock son, carry it on We’re trudging through the dark in a world gone wrong I woke up this morning shackled and drawn
Shackled and drawn, shackled and drawn Pick up the rock son, carry it on What’s a poor boy to do but keep singing his song I woke up this morning shackled and drawn
As I’ve mentioned in the past, I’m involved with a large Canadian research project examining employment-related geographical mobility. My own interests have been centered on temporary foreign workers in Alberta. Other research clusters have examined intra- and inter-provincial migration
One of the benefits of involvement has been exposure to other disciplines and their way of looking at the world. I’ve become fairly interested in geographical research which seeks to map phenomenon (and changes) spatially. This approach often reveals nuances that are hard to “see” when looking at data.
For example, we might look at the effect of an economic downturn on a population on where people live and find that most people continue to live in the same city in which they were most recently employed. A more nuanced analysis, though, might examine where in the city they live.
involuntary job loss is associated with both short-distance residential mobility and long-distance migration,
short-distance residential mobility is the more common response to job loss,
this mobility typically entails movement from a non-deprived neighbourhood to a neighbourhood with high material deprivation (this is particularly the case for workers who identify as visible minorities; the reasons for this pattern are not clear).
This pattern after job loss suggests numerous possible knock-on effects. Workers may experience different and potentially constrained labour-market opportunities. Children may see their educational progress interrupted and their educational options constrained. Families may face a higher risk of criminal victimization.
One implication of this analysis is that job loss may set the stage for the accumulation of various forms of disadvantage. It is unclear if existing income support programs (e.g., employment insurance) are adequate to attenuate this effect. None of these effects are immediately visible when one just looks at high-level statistics about employment-related geographical mobility.
Presently, workers who are totally disabled (permanently or temporarily) are eligible to receive wage-loss benefits totalling 90% of their net earnings. The definition of earnings includes an insurable earnings cap or $98,700. This means that the WCB will replace $9 of every $10 of lost wages up to $98,700. Any lost wages over $98,700 are not compensated.
Bill 30 retains the 90% wage-loss replacement rate but eliminates the cap. This will be a boon to high-wage earners who have been doubly financially penalized by the cap (getting only 90% of wages and not getting any benefits for income over $98.7k).
It would have been more beneficial for the WCB to provide 100% replacement and keep the cap as this would have better helped lower-wage Albertans (who comprise the majority of injured workers). Helping out the richest injured workers seems like a strange choice for a government that styles itself as socially progressive to make.
Or they could have also done both (100% and no cap) and actually financially compensate all workers for the effect of their injuries… .That said, there were also some adjustments targeting lower-income injured workers.
Workers under 25 who experience a long-term and significant injury (≥50%) can have their income adjusted to the Albertan average. This addresses the situation wherein young workers (who often earn low wages) get stuck with life-time compensation set at absurdly low levels.
Bill 30 also adds a mandatory death benefit of $90.7k in the case of fatalities, levels-out the treatment of widows, and extends benefits to dependent children not living at home to age 25 if enrolled in an educational program. Bill 30 also improves retirement benefits for injured workers, recognizing the effect injury has on their ability to save for retirement.
Perhaps more importantly, the indexing of WCB benefits will track the consumer-price index (CPI). Presently, benefits are indexed at CPI - 0.5%. Under the previous policy, the worse you are injured, the worse the erosion of your benefits is, which is an unconscionable violation of the basic purpose of workers’ compensation. This practice is a legacy of the Tory government and allows benefits to erode over time in terms of purchasing power to the benefit of employers (whose claims costs go down).
Which brings us to an issue angering injured worker advocates: retroactivity.
As far as I can tell, the changes to benefit levels only affect claims that are filed after the changes take effect (between April and September 2018), although the CPI change should affect all claimants going forward.
That is to say, workers whose claims have been adjudicated cannot file for any sort of re-adjudication under the new rules. Are you a 17-year-old who gets permanently and totally injured on McDonald’s wages today? Sorry, you’re stuck with below poverty-line compensation until you die. Did your mom die and now you are 18 and want to go university? Oh well, you’re on your own sister. I appreciate the practical and political difficulty of making changes retro-actively. A saw-off might have been to allow re-adjudication going forward (i.e., allow the new rules to apply to old claims starting on a fixed date).
It may be that the WCB itself will create a process to re-examine old claims, although I think that is a faint hope. I only mention it because the government kicked another item to the WCB to sort out.
Presently, the WCB has been returning surpluses in the accident fund to employers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars each year. These surpluses are created (in significant part) by investment earnings from the accident fund, which are greater than the liabilities the fund must meet over the life of the claims the WCB is currently carrying. The Review Panel recommend some ways the surplus might be used to benefit workers and employers:
Retained in the fund to further “inflation proof” the Accident Fund and further secure future compensation and benefits for injured workers;
Conditional grants to support actions that improve workplace safety;
Conditional grants to support research into enhancements of the system;
Enhancement of data gathering to support better intelligence on workplace safety and to better inform injury and illness prevention efforts; and
Facilitate some stability in employer rates by helping smooth out the step changes that may occur due to our Panel’s other recommendations.
Another option would be to address long-standing disputed claims and apply the benefits improvements set out in Bill 30 to existing claims. Not surprisingly, employers have been seeking continued surplus distributions.
The government essentially followed the last recommendation of the review panel. At least $94 million will be needed annually to offset the cost of additional benefits triggered by Bill 30. But that still leaves $100m (sometimes much more) up for grabs each year.
The government declined to clarify in legislation what should happen to future surpluses. They have clarified that the purpose of money in the accident fund is intended to create a sustainable and fair system. That said, Bill 30 leaves it up to the WCB to determine how best to proceed.
It may be that the government may have some quiet (or not so quiet) suggestions about how to handle surpluses. Leaving the decision to the WCB insulates the government from any political fall out. It also raises the possibility that historically pro-employer WCB will just keep giving the surpluses to employers.
Overall, these changes to the WCB are a significant win for injured workers. Yet there is a sense of half-measures to some of them. And aggrieved injured workers remain out in the cold.
This week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture is “Mathematics” by Mos Def. The song engages the disenfranchisement of non-whites in contemporary America, with particular attention to the high level of incarceration among these groups.
The analytical meat of the song is its interrogation of the factors that help explain this dynamic. They include poverty, systemic racism, and (perhaps) the profit-motive of prison labour. For example:
When the average minimum wage is $5.15 You best believe you gotta find a new ground to get cream The white unemployment rate, is nearly more than triple for black so frontliners got they gun in your back Bubblin crack, jewel theft and robbery to combat poverty and end up in the global jail economy
I couldn't find a video for this song but there is a good audio version below.
[Mos Def] Booka-booka-booka-booka-booka-booka Ha hah You know the deal It's just me yo Beats by Su-Primo for all of my peoples, negroes and latinos and even the gringos
Yo, check it one for Charlie Hustle, two for Steady Rock Three for the fourth comin live, future shock It's five dimensions, six senses Seven firmaments of heaven to hell, 8 Million Stories to tell Nine planets faithfully keep in orbit with the probable tenth, the universe expands length The body of my text posess extra strength Power-liftin powerless up, out of this, towerin inferno My ink so hot it burn through the journal I'm blacker than midnight on Broadway and Myrtle Hip-Hop past all your tall social hurdles like the nationwide projects, prison-industry complex Broken glass wall better keep your alarm set Streets too loud to ever hear freedom sing Say evacuate your sleep, it's dangerous to dream but you chain cats get they CHA-POW, who dead now Killin fields need blood to graze the cash cow It's a number game, but shit don't add up somehow Like I got, sixteen to thirty-two bars to rock it but only 15% of profits, ever see my pockets like sixty-nine billion in the last twenty years spent on national defense but folks still live in fear like nearly half of America's largest cities is one-quarter black That's why they gave Ricky Ross all the crack Sixteen ounces to a pound, twenty more to a ki A five minute sentence hearing and you no longer free 40% of Americans own a cell phone so they can hear, everything that you say when you ain't home I guess, Michael Jackson was right, "You Are Not Alone" Rock your hardhat black cause you in the Terrordome full of hard niggaz, large niggaz, dice tumblers Young teens and prison greens facin life numbers Crack mothers, crack babies and AIDS patients Young bloods can't spell but they could rock you in PlayStation This new math is whippin motherfuckers ass You wanna know how to rhyme you better learn how to add It's mathematics
[Chorus: scratched by DJ Premier (repeat 2X)]
"The Mighty Mos Def.." "It's simple mathematics" -> [Fat Joe] "Check it out!" "I revolve around science.." "What are we talking about here?"
.. "Do your math" -> [Erykah Badu (2X)] .. "One.. t-t-two.. three, four" -> [James Brown] .. "What are we talking about here?" ..
[Mos Def] Yo, it's one universal law but two sides to every story Three strikes and you be in for life, manditory Four MC's murdered in the last four years I ain't tryin to be the fifth one, the millenium is here Yo it's 6 Million Ways to Die, from the seven deadly thrills Eight-year olds gettin found with 9 mill's It's 10 P.M., where your seeds at? What's the deal He on the hill puffin krill to keep they belly filled Light in the ass with heavy steel, sights on the pretty shit in life Young soldiers tryin to earn they next stripe When the average minimum wage is $5.15 You best believe you gotta find a new ground to get cream The white unemployment rate, is nearly more than triple for black so frontliners got they gun in your back Bubblin crack, jewel theft and robbery to combat poverty and end up in the global jail economy Stiffer stipulations attached to each sentence Budget cutbacks but increased police presence And even if you get out of prison still livin join the other five million under state supervision This is business, no faces just lines and statistics from your phone, your zip code, to S-S-I digits The system break man child and women into figures Two columns for who is, and who ain't niggaz Numbers is hardly real and they never have feelings but you push too hard, even numbers got limits Why did one straw break the camel's back? Here's the secret: the million other straws underneath it - it's all mathematics
This week, the so-called Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation (CTF) released StatCan data about the number of days of illness and disability leave taken by public- and private-sector employees.
The Alberta release shows Alberta public-sector workers taking an average of 8.5 sick days per year while private-sector employees take an average of 5.1 days. (This pattern is broadly replicated across all Canadian jurisdictions.)
According to the CTF:
“The government could save millions each year if it could reduce the high level of sick leave among government employees,” said CTF Interim Alberta Director Colin Craig. “Politicians should tackle the problem by scaling back the amount of sick leave provided in the first place.”
“The good news is that Alberta bureaucrats are taking less sick time than bureaucrats in other parts of the country,” added Craig. “The problem is that Alberta bureaucrats still take far more sick time than those who don’t work for the government.”
The implication here is that government workers are abusing illness leave. The solution, says the CTF, is for governments to attack illness and disability provisions in public-sector collective agreements (presumably thereby reducing the cost of government).
The CTF’s conclusions are premised on the (false) belief that public- and private-sector employees are comparable groups. An important difference between these groups is that unionization is much higher in the public sector than the private sector (roughly 67% vs 10% in Alberta). Unionization profoundly affects the terms and conditions of work.
For example, virtually every collective agreement contains provisions for sick-leave and most have long-term disability benefits. The same is not true in non-unionized environments My experience is that unionized illness benefits are also better (i.e., provide more sick days) than similar benefits in non-unionized workplaces.
So, one explanation for the difference noted by the CTF is likely is that public-sector workers have a greater opportunity to stay home when they are sick (versus having to come to work ill).
Unionized workers are also less vulnerable to management retribution for calling in sick than are non-unionized workers. Consequently, public-sector workers are more likely to use their illness- and disability-leave benefits than are private-sector workers.
There may also be an argument that public-sector workers (particularly in health-care, education, and emergency-services) have greater exposure to disease and injury than private-sector workers. So they may be more likely to become sick due to occupational exposures. (I’d want to look into that a bit more, but my gut says that is likely correct).
These differences are fairly obvious so it’s strange that the CTF chose to ignore them and, instead, produced a misleading comparison (apples and oranges) that led to a false conclusion (“malingerers!”) and, then, to unsound public policy recommendations (“roll back sick leave so nurses and teachers have to come to work sick”).
(As an aside, this same data might well be used to support calls for more mandatory sick and disability leaves in the private sector so the kid making your frappuccino doesn't pass on his cold to everyone in the coffee shop. The data might also be used to demonstrate how unions make the lives of workers better by allowing them to stay home when they are ill.)
Perhaps the CTF isn’t very good at research and analysis?
Or perhaps they were just trying to whip up some phony outrage to play to their donor base?
While most media outlets have ignored this crappy analysis, some have taken the bait. For example, Metro Calgary and AM 660 reproduced the CTF press release with zero analysis and no commentary from other affected parties. Global News did only slightly better, interviewing an employer-side labour lawyer.
The Vanier Institute of the Family recently released a short summary of caregiving in Canada. Caregiving entails providing support to a family member or friend who has a long-term health condition or a disability, or who requires care due to aging.
In the past year, 28% of Canadians have acted as caregivers and just over one third of all employed Canadians are also caregivers. The number of Canadians requiring caregiving is expected to double in the next 30 years due to demographic factors.
About 15% of employer caregivers have reduced their weekly hours of work to accommodate care giving. Of this group, 14% reported losing some or all of their benefits as a result of this reduction. About 44% of employer caregivers also reported missing an average of 8-9 day of employment in a year due to caregiving responsibilities.
As Alberta considers the first major changes to its Employment Standards Code since the 1980s, two changes could help caregivers.
First, the government could harmonize the length of job-protected leave in Alberta to care for a gravely ill or dying loved one (currently 8 weeks) with federal Employment Insurance benefits (26 weeks). Harmonizing these provisions with federal EI provisions would ensure that workers accessing compassionate care EI benefits would not lose their job while caring for loved ones. This change would likely disproportionately benefit women.
Second, Alberta could implement some form of family illness leave. Neither the Employment Standards Code nor the Human Rights Act provides workers with leave to care for sick family members (e.g., children, parents). Ontario provides employees who work for firms with at least 50 employees up to 10 days per year of unpaid personal emergency leave to cope with personal or family illness or medical emergencies. This leave would be most effective if extended to all employees (regardless of employer size).
Clarifying Alberta’s provisions around personal illness leave would also improve workers’ access to remedy in the event the employer denies such leave (remedy is presently murky but appears to fall within the ambit of the Human Rights Commission).
Alberta is reviewing it workers’ compensation system for the first time in 15 years. A few weeks ago, Merit Contractors started a campaign with the basic message is that business is opposed to increased operating costs:
The government’s intended direction is clear: it wants to make it easier to file claims and expand the number of claims that are covered. As a result, WCB premiums are inevitably going to go up.
Together with the carbon tax and minimum wage hike, this is yet another cost for small businesses at a time when they simply can’t afford it. Some will be able to bear the burden, but others won’t.
Business owners who have spent years building their dream may watch it slip away. Ordinary Albertans will suffer too, with even more people losing their jobs.
This campaign is pretty typical of the corporate-conservative pushback against the NDs. Whether such a campaign resonates with employers is an open question. It paints employers as more concerned with their bottom line than their employees’ health and well-being. Supporting this campaign doesn’t exactly scream “we’re an employer of choice”.
Last week, the review panel released an interim progress report. Its consultation has generated about 2000(!) responses so far and a final report is due in April. A key theme the committee has flagged is a purported shift away from the Meredith principles and towards an insurance model as a source of a number of difficulties. That sounds quite abstract and bloodless, until you read down a few pages and get to this paragraph (I’ve broken the text up a bit to facilitate reading--it is worth your time).
There are people who describe their experiences with the WCB claims process in positive terms. Many others describe their experiences in very negative terms, such as “disrespectful”, “angering”, “frustrating” and even “dehumanizing”.
A widespread view is that the WCB operates its claims process in a way that presumes injured workers are lying about their injuries or illnesses, and looks for any possible reason to deny an injured worker’s claim, lower their compensation, refuse their requests and “cut them off”.
Some feel the WCB deliberately makes its process complex so that injured workers will abandon their claims out of frustration. For example, it is said the WCB will demand injured workers obtain information (such as notes from physicians) to “prove” their condition and its relationship to their employment, only to be told the information they have provided is “still not good enough”.
Others feel the WCB’s culture is focused on saving money rather than compensating injured workers. They say this is evident in the way some WCB personnel display rudeness and a lack of compassion when communicating with injured workers and managing their claims.
Still others characterize the WCB as a bully, saying it abuses its authority by routinely threatening to terminate workers’ benefits if they dare to question its demands. Compounding this, it is said that the WCB’s decision- making process is not clear to people, which further fuels distrust, anger and frustration. (p.7)
The committee also flagged presumptive status, an employer obligation to accommodate returning workers in a meaningful way, and the WCB’s approach to return-to-work as issues requiring more attention. On RTW:
Sometimes workers are assessed as ready to return even though they do not personally feel ready, or their personal physician says they are not ready, or the employer believes they are not ready. Some people say that the WCB ignores such concerns and deems the worker fit to return anyway.
This forces the worker to make a choice between losing their benefits or returning to the workforce and risking their health; and it forces the employer to re-integrate a worker whom they believe should not be there and might pose a safety risk to others. (p.10)
On benefits and premiums, the committee notes:
The current insurable earnings cap may need review.
Earnings might be calculated more inclusively.
The process by which the WCB deems workers to be earning money (and thus cuts their benefits) may be problematic.
WCB premium incentive schemes may drive undesirable employer behaviour.
These topics will likely raise some eyebrows at Merit. That said, I don’t think that Merit can reasonably claim WCB premiums will be going up if even if radical changes were implemented.
I say this because the WCB annually rebates hundreds of millions of dollars to employers (e.g., $507m in 2015 and $467m in 2016) based on accumulated surpluses. Employers may not get a big surplus cheque each year, but premiums will likely stay stable.
Overall, I thought the interim report was very even-handed. It gave voice to a number of important worker criticisms of how the WCB operates that the Tories managed to stifle for the last 20 years. It delved into systemic issues that reinforce the insurance culture of the WCB (premium schemes). Yet it makes no promises and draws no conclusions as the consultation is still going on.
One way to read the tea leaves of this report is that major changes in the culture and operation of the WCB may be required. If I were a Board member or senior executive in the WCB (i.e., the people who set the direction and tone), the implicit condemnation of the WCB's approach in this report might make me a bit nervous. I wonder what kind of push-back the review committee is getting from the WCB?
The Institute for Work and Health issued a new study this spring that looked at the adequacy of workers’ compensation benefits in Ontario. The original intent of workers’ compensation was (in part) to prevent workers from experiencing a catastrophic loss of income due to their injury (although I acknowledge that this is a contested assertion).
Looking at permanently disabled workers who were injured between 1998 and 2002, the IWH study found that these workers had (on average), full compensation for wage losses when compared to a control group. That said:
… there is some variation around the average in the earnings replacement rates. About 46 per cent of the sample had replacement rates of 100 per cent or more, while 25 per cent had replacement rates of under 75 per cent… .
What this means is that some of these injured workers did not see their wage-loss fully replaced by the various benefit programs (e.g., workers’ compensation benefits, Canada Pension Plan disability benefits). Ontario’s target was to ensure injured workers had an earnings replacement rate of at least 85%--a goal achieved for only 65% of the injured workers in the sample.
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
Last week, the Huffington Post reported that President Obama is changing the rules around over time in America in a way that will affect millions of workers. In the US, employment is (mostly) federally regulated. Workers who work more than 40 hours a week must be paid time-and-half if their annual salary is below $23,661. The Obama changes raise this threshold to $47,476 and index it to inflation.
The story contains the usual employer concerns about the effect of the change on workers (“oh, think of the workers!”). The movement towards a $15 minimum wage suggests that most of this employer catastrophizing is just economically self-serving propaganda.
The rules around over time in Canada (where employment is mostly provincially regulated) are different. Jurisdictions typically require over time if any worker works more than 40 hour in a week or 8 hours in a day. Some jurisdictions also largely prohibit over time except in emergencies.
The effectiveness of these employment standards is mixed, with many researchers finding widespread noncompliance. This reflects that enforcement is mostly complaint-based and workers are reluctant to complaint.
This is particularly true for vulnerable workers—those with fewer options and less ability to recover from being terminated (however illegally) for complaining. As one person I spoke to last month put it, “employment standards work less well the more reliant you are on it for protection.”
While the conversation we were having identified many ways to improve the operation of Alberta’s employment standards system, it all basically comes back to the ineffectiveness of complaint-based enforcement which renders most employer violations invisible. Under this system, we’re essentially expecting employers to act against their own economic interests and comply with the law.
Canadians workers who become unemployed through no fault of their own are usually eligible for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits of up to $537 per week. This is calculated based on 55% of your average insurable earnings (which are capped $50,800 per year).
In order to qualify for EI benefits, you need to have worked work a minimum number of hours in the last 52 weeks. This number of hours varies based upon the unemployment rate in your region. Your economic region (there are 62) also determines the number of weeks you can receive EI benefits.
Basically the higher the unemployment rate is, the easier it is to qualify and the longer benefits last. This results in variable access based upon place to residence. For example, when I wrote this post, the EI region chart (linked above) showed:
unemployment in Calgary and southern Alberta was 8.6% and workers there needed 595 hours of employment to qualify and could receive up to 42 weeks of benefits.
unemployment in Edmonton was 6.9% and workers there needed 665 hours to quality and could receive up to 38 weeks of benefits.
unemployment in northern Alberta was 12.3% and workers there needed 455 hours to qualify and could receive up to 45 weeks of benefits.
EI is a federally operated program and, back in March, the feds announced they would extend benefit durations by 5 weeks (to a maximum of 50 weeks) in some regions along with other changes. Workers in Edmonton were excluded from extended benefits because the rise in Edmonton’s unemployment rate was too slow.
A secondary issue is that unemployment is calculated based upon a worker’s place of residence, rather than location of work. So, a worker who loses her job in Fort McMurray but lives in Edmonton would be out of luck (versus a worker who lived in Fort McMurray). This led to some criticism of the regional system as well as a smaller number of calls for the abolishment of regional differences in EI eligibility and duration (a recurring theme in EI criticism).
The logic of regional differences is fairly compelling: in some regions of the country, it is harder to get and keep a job. Consequently, EI should be easier to qualify for and last longer in these economically depressed regions because an individual’s employment experiences reflect structural factors in the economy. The Prime Minister defended different regional access to enhanced benefits:
“I think that both people in Edmonton and Saskatchewan should be pleased that they are not hit as hard as other parts of the country and indeed the province have been,” Trudeau said in the Global Calgary interview… .
While this quote has been spun as a heartless dismissal in some media reports, the principles (i.e., data-driven decisions; regional equity) seem like good principles upon which to base this system of income support. An alternate approach might be a national guaranteed income for everyone.
This week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture is the late Stan Rogers’s “Free in the Harbour”. Like much of Rogers’s work, it focuses on the migration of workers from Atlantic Canada (in this case, from Hermitage Bay on the south shore of Newfoundland) west to the oil fields of Alberta.
What is particularly striking in this song is his enumeration of how migration entails leaving behind a community that continues on after one have left.
Well, it's living they've found, deep in the ground, And if there's doubts, it's best they ignore them. Nor think on the bones, the crosses and stones Of their fathers that came there before them. In the taverns of Edmonton, fishermen shout Haul it away! Haul it away! They left three hundred years buried up the Bay Where the whales make free in the harbour.
Well it's blackfish at play in Hermitage Bay From Pushthrough across to Bois Island. They broach and they sprout and they lift their flukes out And they wave to a town that is dying. Now it's many's the boats that have plied on the foam, Hauling away! Hauling away! But there's many more fellows been leaving their homes, Where whales make free in the harbour.
It's at Portage and Main you'll see them again On their way to the hills of Alberta. With lop-side grins, they waggle their chins And they brag of the wage they'll be earning. Then it's quick, pull the string boys, and get the tool out, Haul it away! Haul it away! But just two years ago you could hear the same shout Where the whales make free in the harbour.
Free in the harbour; the blackfish are sporting again Free in the harbour; untroubled by comings and goings of men Who once did pursue them as oil from the sea, Hauling away! Hauling away! Now they're Calgary roughnecks from Hermitage Bay, Where the whales make free in the harbour.
Well, it's living they've found, deep in the ground, And if there's doubts, it's best they ignore them. Nor think on the bones, the crosses and stones Of their fathers that came there before them. In the taverns of Edmonton, fishermen shout Haul it away! Haul it away! They left three hundred years buried up the Bay Where the whales make free in the harbour.
Free in the harbour; the blackfish are sporting again Free in the harbour; untroubled by comings and goings of men Who once did pursue them as oil from the sea, Hauling away! Hauling away! Now they're Calgary roughnecks from Hermitage Bay, Where the whales make free in the harbour
This week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture is Furnaceface’s “Government Cheque”. This song examines (perhaps unwittingly) how lousy jobs coupled with the decommodification of labour allow workers to pursue other, more rewarding interests.
The singer has quit his job “cuz it stunk” and is reliant upon his government cheque, which he acknowledges is funded by the working class. The singer’s seemingly irresponsible behaviour has an explanation, though:
Well, I worked for years, but it didn't pay A kick in the ass, a slap in the face They showed me the door when I asked for a raise Maximum work for minimum pay
Essentially, faced with the option of demeaning, undervalued work or the dole, the worker (rather logically) took the dole. This dynamic is part of the explanation for the neoliberal attack on income support programs. Eliminating or reducing employment insurance benefits forces workers to seek job (i.e., it re-commodifies labour) even this means accepting terrible jobs.
I couldn’t find an official video but this one was pretty interesting. Also, the song lyrics below only broadly approximate what is actually sung. But you get the idea.
"You're doin' it fuckin' wrong!"
A kick in the ass A slap in the face A knife in the back for the minimum wage
Well, today I got a government cheque Am I gonna get drunk? Oh yeah, you bet! Gonna paint the town red till my money's all spent Then blame it on the government
I quit my job. Why? Cuz it stunk But I still get a cheque twice a month I sit around on my ass and I get paid by the working class
Well, I worked for years, but it didn't pay A kick in the ass, a slap in the face They showed me the door when I asked for a raise Maximum work for minimum pay
"Did you like your job?" Nobody does "Well, why'd you quit?" Well, because I don't need a job. What the heck? Canada Post will bring my cheque
And with every bottle that I drink I sit and I think and I think and I think About the people to whom I owe my keep
[Chorus 1 over top of:] Well, today I got a government cheque Am I gonna get drunk? Oh yeah, you bet Gonna paint the town red till my money's all spent
