New labour market training agreements announced

In late June, the federal government announced it had signed new labour market training agreements with Alberta worth $1.7 billion over the next six years. There are two main funding streams:

The Labour Market Development Agreements (LMDA) address Type 2 Employment Insurance (EI) training benefits. EI claimants as well as some EI premium payers can receive training under this program. It looks like Alberta gets about $154m per year to provide thee benefits to Albertans.

The Workforce Development Agreements (WDAs) replace the Canada Jobs Grant Fund (CJGF) as well as the Labour Market Agreements for Persons with Disabilities and the Trageted Initiatives for Older Workers (both of which re now defunct and subsumed by the WDA). The WDA funds training that is not eligible to be covered under LMDA and Alberta gets about $91m per year under WDAs.

Interestingly, it appears that Alberta will continue to operate the Canada-Alberta Job Grant. This grant was the brain child of Jason Kenney when he was the federal employment minister. Kenney promised that the grant would see employers select unemployed people, offer then training and then hire them. Specifically, Kenney said

The whole point of the job grant is it will involve employers in selecting employees who they believe will have the propensity to work, getting them specific training, and the employers offer them a job at the end of it.

The mechanics of the CJG were that employers could spend up to $5000 for training and seek matching funds at a 1:2 ratio (i.e., up to $10,000) from the government to offset training costs. In effect, the CJG transferred the power to determine what kind of labour market training would by funded to employers.

Even a few years into the grant, it was apparent that things were going poorly. British Columbia reported that, after two years of operating the Canada-BC Job Grant, 99% of participants were drawn from the ranks of the already employed. This finding reveals that the CJG is not meeting its goal of increasing labour-market attachment among unemployed British Columbians.

Additionally, the majority of participants already had some PSE and most saw no wage-increase following the training. Less than 4% of employer applications identified participants as a youth, a person with a disability, Indigenous, or a new immigrant. Only 30% of participants were women. Finally, only a minority of employers used the CJG to pay for new or additional training. Most employers used CJG funding to offset existing training costs.

Alberta reported a very similar experience, noting that the Canada-Alberta Job Grant is being used to mostly train employed men with PSE in skilled management and non-management occupations. Manitoba concluded:

No evidence was found the Grant increased the supply of skilled labour, increased participation of underrepresented groups, or developed the long term human resource capacity of employers. Over the short term, training did not increase labour market attachment, as very few participants obtained or retained jobs as a direct result of the training. The vast majority of training participants were employed before receiving training (99%). (p.51)

The Northwest Territories was particularly critical of the impact of the CJG on existing labour-market training programs:

The cost sharing element of the Job Grant also negatively impacted funding for existing employment and training programs, particularly those targeted for unemployed, and under-employed individuals who do not have a job offer, and for individuals entering or re-entering the labour force. These impacts will increase as the Job Grant is fully phased in to reach 60% of the Job Fund. (pp. 65-66).

While there are exceptions to this general pattern (as well as data gaps in the evaluations), the CJG appeared to redirect federal training dollars towards already employed men in high-status and high-wage occupations. The CJG funding model also shifts federal funding away from assisting unemployed workers to become job-ready. In these ways, the CJG replicates existing patterns of advantage (and disadvantage).

In terms of access, control and benefit, the CJG privileged the interests of employers. Employers determined which employees received what kind of training under the CJG because employers made applications for the funding. Employers were the main beneficiaries of the CJG, receiving taxpayer-subsidized training for their employees.

Workers may benefit from this training, if it leads to more satisfying or remunerative work, either with their current employer or another employer in the future. The workers who received the most benefit from CJG were largely well-educated men who were already employed in skilled occupations and who didn't identify as Indigenous, immigrant, or disabled. Further, the CJG focuses training dollars on workers who are essentially job-ready, thereby disadvantaging Canadians with little prospect of labour-force attachment.

Basically, the Canada Job Grant was a terrible, terrible idea (which is what most practitioners said when Kenney proposed it). Why any province would retain a training program that yields such inequitable results is beyond me.

-- Bob Barnetson

Labour & Pop Culture: Boiled Frogs

This week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture features “Boiled Frogs” by Alexisonfire. The song is about the monotony of work and how, over time, we lose our capacity to recognize how bad it has become. It also touches on how workers are used (and used up) by employers.

Band member George Pettit told Much Music:

"It's an analogy. I wrote it inspired by my father who worked at a job where he designed refrigerator parts for 26 years. He was coming up to his pension the last three years and I guess when people are coming up to their pension they really put the screws to them. They're up for review all the time, trying to get them to quit so that they forfeit their pension. It really makes it a stressful last three years. The song is kind of about that, about there being no loyalty in the workplace. 

"And my mother went to this conference talking to different generations in the workplace and they referred to her generation as 'boiled frogs.' The analogy is that if you take a frog and put it in boiling water, it will jump right out immediately, but if you put it in cold water and then you slowly turn the heat up, they'll just eventually fall asleep and die. Same way with people in the workplace. If it's too hectic when they first get there, they'll just quit and get another job, but if you slowly up the workload, lower the pay, they're more likely to sit there and just boil."

While the boiling frog story is a myth, the dynamic as it applies to work (in my experience) appears to be real. Many people will choose to accept deteriorating conditions rather than leave. This may be due to the high cost of job change (especially as we age) as well as our perception about whether things will be better elsewhere.



[George] A man sits at his desk
One year from retirement,
And he's up for review
Not quite sure what to do
Each passing year
The workload grows

[Dallas] I'm always wishing, I'm always wishing too late
For things to go my way
It always ends up the same
(Count your blessings)
I must be missing, I must be missing the point
Your signal fades away and all I'm left with is noise
(Count your blessings on one hand)

So wait up, I'm not sleeping alone again tonight
There's so much to dream about, there must be more to my life

[George] Poor little tin man, still swinging his axe,
Even though his joints are clogged with rust

[Wade] My youth is slipping, my youth is slipping away
Safe in monotony, (so safe), day after day
(Count your blessings)
My youth is slipping, my youth is slipping away
Cold wind blows off the lake, and I know for sure that it's too late
(Count your blessings on one hand)

[Dallas] So wait up, I'm not sleeping alone again tonight
There's so much to dream about, there must be more to my life

[George] Can't help but feel betrayed, punch the clock every single day
There's no loyalty and no remorse
Youth sold for a pension cheque
And it makes him fucking sick
He's heating up, he can't say no

(Whoa-oh-oh-oh-oh)[x4]

[Dallas] So wait up, I'm not sleeping alone again tonight,
There's so much to dream about, there must be more to my life.
(So wait up)
So wait up I'm not sleeping alone again tonight
Between the light and shallow waves is where I'm going to die
Wait up for me
Wait up for me
Wait up for me

-- Bob Barnetson

Mandatory retirement in Canada

The summer issue of Labor Law Journal carried an interesting article about the state of mandatory retirement practices in Canada. “The Uncertain State of mandatory Retirement in Canada” queries to degree to which mandatory retirement at age 65 has been abolished in Canada.

Presently, Canadians subjected to a mandatory retirement rule can file human rights complaints based on age discrimination. (Some jurisdictions may also preclude claims where the claim arises from a requirement in retirement or pension plan.)

All jurisdictions also have statutory retirement requirements for some occupations (e.g., police, judges). In other occupations, employer seeking to impose mandatory retirement must demonstrate that the policy comprises a bona fide occupational requirement.

The Meiorin test for bona fide occupational requirements requires the policy must be adopted in good faith, for a rational job-related purpose, and is reasonably necessary to accomplish that purpose. Few mandatory retirement policies have met these criteria when challenged, although some employers have successfully argued accommodation imposes undue hardship.

The article concludes with an interesting discussion of legitimate strategies available to employers seeking to create turn over among older workers. These include reducing the availability of pensions (these were historically the quid pro quo for mandatory retirement), requiring medical or competency testing, offering financial incentives for retirement, or provide notice of termination (with the risk of an age discrimination complaint).

-- Bob Barnetson

Labour & Pop Culture: Hard Working Man

This week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture is “Hard Working Hands” by Dave Gunning and Ron Hynes. The song is about the end of a working life, written from the perspective of shipbuilders who are mourning the loss of their identities now that they don’t work anymore.

We built those boats down at the shipyard for 40 years or more
Took a break for the time we served in the war
Another evening at the legion with the TV's evening news
Lookin' back is all we ever do

Retirement is often associated with various psychological effects, such as identity disruption and a search for meaningful engagement with society as well as a way to fill the days. Essentially, retirement can mean the loss of an important (and often long-term) source of identity for some workers. Some workers may attempt to reframe their identity, drawing upon personal characteristics that endure and were associated with their former jobs. For example:

An endless wire, that runs through these days
Deepens the lines that run across my face
But if you want to know the kind of man I am
Take a look at these hard workin' hands

In this way, this song is about a process (albeit not necessarily a successful or completed one) of workers making peace with end of their working lives.



We built those boats down at the shipyard for 40 years or more
We only laid our hammers down when left for the war
Now these days I watch the night fall across a tired floor
Far too old for working anymore

Wake the same hour every morning to join the morning crew
We line up at the coffee shop to get the morning news
We still wear the same clothes, wear the same old shoes
Lookin' back is all we ever do

An endless wire, that runs through these days
Deepens the lines that run across my face
But if you want to know the kind of man I am
Take a look at these hard workin' hands

There's a map that has hardened in my skin
Everywhere I go I take every place I've been
The lifeline is a highway through the towns of memories
Every scar has a story

An endless wire, that runs through these days
Deepens the lines that run down my face
But if you want to know the kind of man I am
Take a look at these hard workin' hands

We built those boats down at the shipyard for 40 years or more
Took a break for the time we served in the war
Another evening at the legion with the TV's evening news
Lookin' back is all we ever do

An endless wire, that runs through these days
Deepens the lines that run through my face
But if you want to know the kind of man I am
Take a look at these hard workin' hands
Take a look at these hard workin' hands

-- Bob Barnetson

Older workers and unemployment

One of the things that came out of the weekend workers' compensation conference I attended was a discussion of how difficult re-employment is for injured workers. This came up in the context of deeming, a practice by Workers' Compensation Boards whereby wage-loss compensation to injured workers is sometimes reduced based upon a deemed amount the worker is expected to earn (whether or not the worker has a job).

By coincidence, this 20-minute CBC radio documentary (called Freedom 95) arrived in my inbox. It discusses the difficulties faced by older workers who find themselves unemployed. While older workers don't have exactly the same challenges as injured workers do, they do face similar systemic barriers. The result is that they can never retire.

The documentary discussed the federal Targeted Initiatives for Older Workers (TIOW) program. This provincially delivered program ends in March (in Alberta, at least). It is unclear whether it will be renewed. If it isn't renewed, one of the knock-on effects is that those who are served may well abandon efforts to connect to the labour market and, instead, access various social benefits.

Interestingly, the TIOW is designed to serve workers up to age 64, although the need for post-65 labour market attachment assistance seems clear as many Canadians don't have adequate resources to retire.

-- Bob Barnetson

Will older workers solve the labour shortage? Part 2

Last spring, the government rolled out a new human resources strategy to meet the expected demand for workers in Alberta. One of the initiatives was encouraging older workers to remain in or return to the workforce. As I wrote at the time, this policy statement seemed to be mostly wishful thinking.

Post-Media has started a series on the use of older workers. Today’s article raises a number of questions, the most important being whether employers really want older workers?

But will employers want older workers around? Already, the aging workforce is forcing organizations to wrestle with such uncomfortable issues as seniors' ability to keep up with job demands, the degree to which physical or mental deterioration can compromise performance, and the cost to companies' bottom lines if a large segment of their staff is silver-aged.

"The older cohort will very likely be high users of expensive services, products and medical programs, which will put health-benefits costs through the roof," says Mike Cuma, a human-resources expert who predicts many organizations will be "unwilling or un-able" to meet the demands of such a shift.

This will be an interesting series to follow.

-- Bob Barnetson

The Coming Population Crash

Over the holidays I worked my way through a few books. Most were trashy fiction but I did run across The Coming Population Crash while wandering the shelves of my local library. The crux of Fred Pearce’s book is that birth rates have dropped significantly and, in developing countries, are frequently below the replacement rate. He predicts a global population plateau just below 8 billion and a population drop to 5 billion by 2100.

Pearce canvasses a number of issues in the book, including evaluating the uncharitable assumptions of Malthus about the poor (of which we continue to see echoes in right-wing policy). Some reviewers have called him overly optimistic—I was certainly struck by his optimism (a nice change!)—a bit light on analysis and prediction. There are two implications in the book for labour policy and human resource management.

The first is that, in developed countries where the cost of social reproduction is mostly borne by women (i.e., women face a choice between having children and having a career), women are increasingly opting to have a career. This creates the conditions for (and in some cases the fact of) a population crash. By contrast, in countries with social policy that supports women, women choose to have children.

Australia is an interesting example. Unsupportive social policy over the past 30 years (which an analysis of generational effects suggests were unnecessary ) now faces a significant baby deficit, which has ripple on effects for the future labour force and the tax base. How a country that is relatively xenophobic towards immigrants (at least non-Anglo immigrants) will cope with that is an open question.

This leads to the second implication: developing countries will increasingly rely upon immigration (or, in cases like Alberta, perhaps migration) in order to maintain their workforce and population. Pearce provides an accessible but nuanced consideration of migration at the macro-level, attempting to dispel uncharitable assumptions about migrants and migration (shades of Malthus!). Overall, a pleasant read and reasonable introduction to the inter-relationships between birth rates, public policy, the environment and migration.

-- Bob Barnetson

Inter-generational conflict

The Edmonton Journal has an interesting story today about generational differences in income and prospects. Now, I’ve done my fair share of complaining about baby boomers in the workplace. And I’ve gone so far as to put a former colleague (who would not freakin’ retire) on the mailing list for a variety of senior lodges and leaving him job applications for WalMart and McDonalds mixed in with his paper work.

What resonated most with me in the Journal article was the need for two-income families to maintain a middle class lifestyle. This reflects wage stagnation over time for workers, while the cost of housing, energy and (most recently) food has increased.

The notion of generational conflict is certainly an interesting one. For those of you GenXers out there, the University of Toronto Press has recently published The making of a generation: Children of the 1970s in adulthood which largely validates much of what we’ve experienced.

This includes more education but tenuous labour market attachment, growth in economic inequity, delayed marriage and parenthood, work-life imbalance and a significant growth in low-distress mental health issues. Yet the culprit identified by the authors is not inter-generational conflict, but rather state social policy which facilitates externalizing the costs of social reproduction onto families.

-- Bob Barnetson

Will older workers solve the labour shortage?

Today the government of Alberta announced a new action plan for ensuring mature workers stay in the labour force longer as one way to address a projected labour shortage.

One of the compelling questions not addressed in the report is: do older Alberta workers, in any appreciable number, want to remain in the workforce past the average retirement age of 64 years (higher than the Canadians average of 61.9 years)?

According to Minister of Employment and Immigration Thomas Lukaszuk, yes they do: “Most mature workers want to stay engaged in the labour force in some capacity — maybe doing what they were doing all their lives but on a part-time or casual basis or changing careers altogether.”

But is it true?

There is no data in the action plan suggesting this is the case. Looking at some of the documents the action plan builds upon, a similar data gap emerges. For example, the 2008 Findings Report of the Demographic Planning Commission which talked to seniors had little to say about the desire of seniors to stay in the workforce beyond some motherhood statements and general handwringing about the cost of retirement.

The subsequent Aging Population Policy Framework (released in 2010) indicates a priority (under the general goal of ensuring Albertans have adequate financial resources for retirement) is to “Support Albertans who choose to remain engaged in the workforce in their senior years.” This is a laudable goal but again, we have no evidence about the degree of interest in working beyond the current retirement age.

Interestingly, the action plan does contain some information that ought to cause us to question the validity of the Minister’s statement. On page 20, the report notes: “A high percentage of older Albertans choose to continue working relative to the rest of Canada. 73.4% of Albertans aged 55-64 are active in the labour force compared to 61.9% of Canadians; and 16.5% of Albertans over age 65 choose to remain in the labour force compared to only 10.5% of Canadians.”

If we already have 50% more seniors working than the Canadian average, how likely is it that we can significantly increase this percentage? Have we, in fact, already tapped out this source of workers?

Again on page 20, the report notes: “In 2009, while the unemployment rate was 6.6% in Alberta and 8.3% across Canada, the unemployment rate for Alberta workers over age 55 was only 4.6% – suggesting that mature workers who choose to remain in the labour force are very likely to have employment. (p.20)”

Effectively, almost every older Albertan who wants to work is working. Again, is it likely that Alberta is going to significantly increase the number of older workers? Or is this pool tapped out?

I’m all for government intervention. But that intervention should be based on some credible case that the intervention will be effective. Obviously iron-clad proof is not possible, but how about something more than off the cuff speculation by the Minister that runs contrary to a common-sense reading of the data contained within the action plan?

-- Bob Barnetson