Athabasca U's new worker safety training is terrible

On June 1, 2018, changes to Alberta’s Occupational Health and Safety Act took effect. A key change was the requirement for employers with 20 or more workers to have an OHS program. The OHS program must include a safety orientation and training for workers (s.37(1)(g)).

The content of this training is not specified beyond the requirement in ss.3(1)(b) and 3(2) that workers must be aware of their rights and duties and of any health and safety issues arising from the work being conducted.

Athabasca University failed to comply with this training requirement and received a compliance order in late 2018. In late July of 2019 (i.e., 14 months late), the university rolled out its new OHS training. Basically, AU bought access to an online self-paced training product and demanded all employees complete it within 10 days.

Hilariously, the rollout by HR looked like a phishing attack. So, as they’ve been trained, many staff deleted the email unread, and IT immediately blocked access to the website. But at least we know the IT security training is working!

When things eventually shook out, I took the training offered by AU. It is basically a online powerpoint with 118 screens, a few simple activities, and a 10-question multiple-choice test at the end. It took me about 20 minutes to read everything and complete the test (10/10!).

There are numerous shortcomings with this training. Most obviously, this training lacks any applicability to most AU employees, with lengthy sections early on about due diligence (an employer topic, focused on reducing liability for injury) and hand tools and machinery (relevant to about 3 employees). Providing clearly irrelevant training is a sure-fire way to trigger learner disengagement. You’d think this is a dynamic Canada’s leader in distance education might be aware of.

Not surprisingly, I have heard multiple reports of people getting fed up and clicking through the slides as fast as possible and just doing the activities and tests based upon common sense. Given the generic and largely irrelevant nature of the content, I don’t imagine AU cares about this. This training is clearly about making AU minimally (and finally!) compliant with the OHS Act, rather than actually improving safety or giving workers useful information or skills.

There are several places where the training clearly blames the workers for injuries and prescribes injury-prevention techniques that completely ignore the root cause of injury and the hierarchy of controls. For example, the slide below (used under fair dealing provisions) notes that equipment can cause hand injuries but the most common cause is employee error (boredom, inattentiveness, distraction).



While it is easy to identify the proximate (i.e., immediate) cause of injury, to reduce injury we have to look at the root cause. Specifically, why are employees bored, distracted or inattentive? The answer here is found in the way the employer has designed the job to make it boring, overwhelming, or disengaging. But fixing the root cause (i.e., eliminating the hazard by designing better jobs) is way harder and more expensive than simply blaming the employees.

The training then goes on to say cuts and lacerations are among the most common injuries. “This is even true of secretaries, who can be cut by paper edges and punctured by staplers, scissors and thumbtacks.” Setting aside the anachronistic term for administrative assistants, suggesting “even secretaries” can get hurt is deeply insulting.

Administrative staff are some of the most at-risk for injuries due to the repetitive nature of their work (e.g., RSIs and other ergonomic-related injuries) and their relative lack of power (e.g., leading to harassment by coworkers). This part of the training was profoundly tone deaf to the realities of Athabasca University.

The training contains a number of elements that several staff have found objectionable. For example, the slide below shows a man forcing a female to photocopy her face (I think—that’s the consensus, anyways).



This is (1) a ridiculous example of violence that (2) both obscures and trivializes actual forms of harassment and violence faced by AU employees and that (3) several workers have found extremely triggering. Is this seriously the best imagery that a professional training organization could come up with?

Similarly, the section on workplace violence is headlined by this image:



Now, I expect that many AU employees have idly fantasized about doing this. But it is not representative of the actual issues faced by AU employees. The most likely kind of violence at AU is verbal and directed at front-line and support staff (who are mostly women). I’m not suggesting that physical violence should be ignored or that women can’t act violently. The point is that this cartoonish representation of violence trivializes the issue by showing us an uncommon and frankly unlikely example.

The training does touch on the issue of working alone, which is important, as half of AU 1100 employees work from home offices. It recommends some sort of check-in procedure. Alberta’s OHS Code actually requires more than that when workers work by themselves and cannot be seen or heard by people capable of rendering help (which is the case for many AU home workers). AU is, in fact, probably in violation of this requirement. The irony of flagging working alone as a risk but AU doing nothing about it is not lost on home workers.

Moving on, the OHS Act requires employers to make employees aware of both their rights and obligations. There is a fair bit of information on employee obligations but only really two screens that deal with employee OHS rights. One lists the rights and the other briefly discusses how employees go about refusing unsafe work.

I expect this meets the minimal requirements under the Code, but it really does little to empower workers. That makes sense since employers generally don't want workers asking questions like “why is the fire hose missing?” The desire to keep workers subservient also likely explains why there is no mention of unions in the training.

The training ends with three slides addressing injury and return to work. The role of AU’s various unions in return to work (as set out in policy) is absent in the training. Further, the training mentioned requirements for communication set out in Bill C-99. I have no idea what is in reference to.

The only thing I could find was some 1996 legislation in Ontario (Bill 99, the Workers’ Compensation Reform Act). This has no application in Alberta or to Athabasca University (although recent changes to Alberta’s Workers’ Compensation Act may be relevant). You’d kinda think a professional training firm or AU’s own OHS staff might have caught such a basic error?

The activities and test in the training were insulting and poorly designed. Consider this activity to test whether trainees have understood the section on personal protective equipment (PPE):



Even if you have never taken any OHS training, surely you could figure out which piece of PPE is best way to protect your HAND when you handle a hot item. (Hint: it is not the boot). The question itself is deeply insulting: a grade 2 student could answer this correctly so asking adults to do it tells them that the trainer thinks they are morons. As a way to self-test workers’ knowledge, this activity provides only the most superficial indication of whether workers understand the requirement for and use of PPE.

Similarly, the test questions include things like:

• True or false: you should check the back seat for creepy dudes before getting in your car. 
• If the ladder is missing a rung you should: (a) fix with duct tape, (b) step-over the missing rung carefully, or (c) get it fixed.
• True or false: It’s cool to climb up shelves if you can't find a ladder.

These questions provide (at best) a superficial assessment of worker knowledge about their rights and how to handle safety issues. Any rando at the mall could pass this test without ever having seen the training. And, indeed, that is basically what is happening with employees—people are ignoring the training because it sucks.

No one really benefits from superficial compliance with the law. Workers remain at risk and the employer will see disengagement continue to rise (negatively affecting productivity). The lousy training is just the latest issue in HR with OHS and return to work. It is probably time to clean house and bring in new staff.

-- Bob Barnetson

UCP platform will drive down wages

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

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

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

Employment Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labour Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labour-Market Training

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Specifically, the UCP’s platform will:

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

-- Bob Barnetson

New book: Canada's labour market training system

If you're looking for a last-minute Christmas present, I’ve just released a new book entitled Canada’s Labour Market Training System. You can buy the book for $30 or download a pdf version for free.

The book examines how the labour market training occurs in Canada and whose interests it serves. We often hear complaints that the system—post-secondary institution, government policies, community agencies and workplace training—is failing at producing the right number of workers with the right skills.

The book suggests that the “system” is not one in the sense of it being a machine that turns out widgets. But, rather, it is a system in the political sense, where different stakeholder groups seek to advance their interests. The outcome of the system tend to reflect the relative balance of power between stakeholders.

This book is the main text in a new course that we’ll be opening in January: EDUC 210: The Canadian Training System. The course should also be available as an open course (i.e., you can learn the material without doing the assessments or receiving credit) shortly. We’ve done something similar with IDRL 308: Occupational Health and Safety that Jason Foster and I wrote Health and Safety in Canadian Workplaces.

-- Bob Barnetson

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: Incentive Pay at the Office

This week's instalment of Labour & Pop Culture looks at incentive-pay systems as portrayed on the television show The Office. I'm currently revising AU's introductory human resource management course and incentive pay is one of the topics we touch on.

The basic idea, as noted by one of the workers in the sketch, is that the employer wants more production out of the workers without paying them more. So manager Andy sets up a points system whereby workers can win low-value prizes for achieving performance targets.

Incentive-based pay sounds like a good idea, but it is fraught with peril for employers because designing an effective system is tricky. Set rewards too low and they have no effect. Set rewards too high and they can drive all sorts of perverse behaviour, such as increasing quantity at the expense of quality.

The Office does a nice job of noting that the interests of workers and employers conflict in such systems and that workers can, if they work collectively, subvert these systems. This is a good lesson for wannbe managers.

-- Bob Barnetson

Labour & Pop Culture: Oh, the boss is coming!

This week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture features “Oh, the boss is coming!” by the Arkells. The song talks about how the profit imperative shapes the nature of work:

The boss is comin'!
You Better look busy....
They're not paying, you for nothing

The premise of the video is that the band/workers have to make a safety video (on their own time) for the boss. The most interesting part is that the list of safety precautions are behaviour-based safety precautions:

Always use protection
Rules must be followed
Keep alert
Eye protection must be worn
Lift with your legs
Leave your work area tidy
Safety first?

Ignoring the acrostic, these rules all place responsibility on the worker for avoiding injury instead of on the employer for controlling hazards. I’m not sure if this subtext was intentional or not but it certainly fits with the overall theme of class-conflict in the lyrics.



OOAWWWOOHHh, The boss is comin'!
You Better look busy....
They're not paying, you for nothing

There's no time for loving!
In the summer, in the city
There's only room for the sweaty,
There's only room for the sweaty.
HO!

Oh oh oh!?
Oh oh oh,
Oh oh oh!!

There's no room for error,
So beware, when your ass is on the line,
I have yet to witness, much forgiveness
In this business.

Oh, you better not be sittin'!

Or punch in early!...
But be prepared to stay in late.!!.

Oh you know they're not kidding!
When they're talking the talk,
Well they're talking the talk,
Well they're talking the talk,

This ones for you
oh well this ones for you

OH.

Oh oh oh!
Oh oh oh?
Oh oh oh..

There's no room for error,
So beware, when your ass is on the line,
I have yet to witness, much forgiveness
In this business.

I'm Punching in,
I'm Punchin out,
I'm Punchin in,
I'm punchin out!

Punch'n in,
Punch'n out,
Punch'n in!

I'm punch'n out!
I'm punch'n out!

There's no room for error!
So beware, when your ass is on the line,
I have yet to witness, much forgiveness
In this business.

-- Bob Barnetson

Bill 6 OHS recommendations

In late October, Alberta released for public comment the reports of four working groups that examined the application of occupational health and safety rules for paid employees in the farm and ranch sector. The reports are available here. Feedback is due January 15.

The reports make a large number of recommendations (mostly to adopt the existing rules in the OHS Code). There has been some media coverage of the recommendations, mostly centering on seatbelts, subsidies and bathrooms.

I think there are two really interesting issues that are, so far, below the radar. The first is the recommendation (across all Working groups reports but especially group 6) that the government established an industry safety association. My understanding is that the AgCoalition (perhaps through a separate society) is positioning itself to be this association. Whether the AgCoalition (which finds most of its support among large producers) would be successful in engaging smaller operators is an open question. Another interesting question is the degree to which farm workers would have any meaningful involvement in such an association.

The recommendation also suggests that the association be government funded. One effect of government funding is that often constrains the desire and ability of the funded group to act in a partisan manner. This happens through a couple of mechanism. First, the group becomes dependent on government largesse (as well as subject to regulation) so open opposition entails more risk. Second, individuals within the organization start to buy into the goals and norms of workplace safety, particularly over time as the safety keeners tend to persist and eventually dominate the organization.

It will be fascinating to see if a political saw-off emerges, wherein the Ag Coalition gets government funding and, in turn, basically accepts Bill 6 as a done deal. There was a very interesting interview on Alberta Primetime a few weeks back where Lynn Jacobsen (President of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture) was asked about the UCP’s pledge to repeal Bill 6:

I guess I’m getting tired of everybody playing politics around this issue. I think that statement is directed related to politics and is not related to some facts and what is actually going on in the agricultural community.

…What we have found out… before we had this legislation, farms in Alberta didn’t have a lot of coverage for their workers. We did some straw polls… and it seemed like maybe 30-35% of producers had any type of protection for anybody working for there. That is a huge issue that we don’t want to go back to.

People without coverage and basic legislation they have to follow and rules and workmen’s comps—people lose their farms over accidents and that. We don’t want to go back to that era.

…I think it is a little foolish of the opposition parties to say we’re just going to cancel it because it is an attack on farmers. Really it isn’t an attack on farmers. It is maybe bringing labour on our farms up into the 20th century.

The AFA has always been a bit more reasonable on farm safety than other groups, but this still seemed like a real softening of resistance among a key producer group.

The other issue will be around legacy equipment. Both Working Groups 3 and 4 are recommending that farm equipment in operation one year after any change to the OHS Code is made (so-called legacy equipment) should be exempt from certain requirements. The key requirements are around equipment being operated, modified or otherwise used in compliance with manufacturer’s specification (although this legacy issue comes up in a couple of places, such as having adequate roll-over and falling object protections and safeguards).

This is a complicated issue because farms operate equipment that may not have manufacturers specs, may have been modified contrary to them, may be used in ways not anticipated by the manufacturer (similar to off-label use of drugs), may be home built, or may be subject to “emergency repairs” in the field during a busy season. There is also a sense that manufacturer specs are often very conservative because they are a means by which manufacturers avoid liability if something goes wrong.

Particularly worrisome was Working Group 4’s recommendation for legacy exemptions on roll-over protections and falling objects protections on mobile powered equipment (e.g., tractors) as well as safeguards on equipment. Basically, this recommendation would mean farms could continue to use equipment of questionable safety until it breaks down.

The death of Stephen Murray Gibson illustrates the consequences of a permanent exemption around meeting manufacturer specs and other standards. Gibson was killed in 2015 after getting entangled in an unshielded power take off (PTO). (A PTO is a drive-shaft that spins at high speed to transfers power from an engine to some other equipment.)

Fatigue was probably an issue in this fatality (he had been working 28 straight days). But an important root cause was the unguarded PTO. According to the fatality inquiry:

Mr. Hamilton bought from a neighbour a 40- or 50-year old grain roller and PTO. The roller had three safety shields on it; the PTO, although it would originally have had a safety shield, at the time Mr. Hamilton acquired it, did not. No manual came with the equipment, either.

Given that farm equipment can often stay in use for decades, recommendations allowing continued non-compliance around legacy equipment are a recipe for exposing generations of farm workers to unremediated hazards that will kill some of them. I can’t imagine the government going for that. Yet, bringing unsafe equipment up to code (or replacing it) will entail significant costs. If the government declines this recommendation, I suspect there will be a lot of complaining.

One option it to create a grace period (to spread costs over time). Another is to provide some sort of safety subsidy programs to help offset the cost of compliance (Working Group 5 suggests this for roll over protection). Subsidies are common in agriculture (e.g., crop insurance) but, like government funding of ag associations, they often have other implications. For example, they (at least implicitly) require farmers to recognize the government’s authority over matters of farm safety. And they give governments leverage that may moderate farmers’ behaviour.

It will be very interesting to watch these two issues play out over time.

-- Bob Barnetson

Research: Exit, voice, loyalty and neglect

I’ve been reading about employee reactions to deteriorating working conditions as a part of an ongoing research project about how fear affects workers' willingness to report health and safety problems. Back in 1970, Albert Hirshman posited that members of organizations have two basic responses when things start to go badly: exit or voice. Exit is self explanatory; voice is action workers take with an eye to improving conditions (e.g., speaking out, whistleblowing).

Over time, this typology has been refined to include loyalty and neglect. Loyalty (sometimes called patience) happens when workers choose to ride out a bad patch (often in silence, but not always). Neglect is essentially workers giving up and can result in non-compliance, obstruction, and disengagement.

The exist-voice-loyalty-neglect (EVLN) model has been applied to any different situations (e.g., consumer behaviour, romantic relationships, employee turnover) and often yields interesting insights and explanations. One aspect of a good social science theory is that it has high face validity: basically it sounds plausible to an informed ear.

In reading EVLN, I was struck by how much of my own experiences I can see in this model. My first reaction to organizational troubles at Athabasca University (back in 2004-2006) was loyalty: basically I assumed that those in charge knew what they were doing and the few problems that I could see were aberrations that would be corrected or just accepted.

By 2009, it was becoming increasingly obvious to me that there were deeper issues (specifically incompetent leadership and looming financial woes) and I chose various forms of voice to try and resolve them. As it became apparent that internal governance processes were ignored (about 2011?), my use of voice escalated and turned to using external venues to generate additional pressure.

As things worsened (e.g., layoffs, constant threat of closure, non-stop violations of the collective agreement), I then turned to neglect (around 2013) where my strategy was to obstruct the employer until circumstances changed. An alternative would have been exit but, as a middle-aged guy 10+ years into a pension plan, exit wasn’t a good option.

While things are (at least superficially) better (because the employer is keeping the club behind its back instead of waving it in our face), objectively, not much has changed. A difference for me is that, absent a crisis, I’m now mostly disengaged. I still do my job but I try to limit my interactions with my employer as much as possible (increasingly I'm spending my time on my research and engaging with community partners).

For example, I don't attend optional meetings and I don't read much of the institutional email. When I have to attend a meeting, I usually do it by teleconference because that is way less emotionally demanding. Basically, I am counting down the days to retirement (just under 2900 calendar days, if you were interested) and using neglect to bridge to exit.

My colleagues have exhibited different pathways through the last 10 years. This reflects that workers select among the EVLN options based upon their level of satisfaction with, investment in, and alternatives to their current job. I see a lot of neglect these days—mostly in the form of silence—as well as moments of voice (often defensive and occurring when something threatens a core term or condition of employment—but not always).

Whether the university can re-engage its staff in constructive voice activities remains to be seen. Some of that will likely turn on the strategic plan put forward by the university and the degree to which the university can operationalize that.

-- Bob Barnetson

Research: Latino farmworker OHS in Saskatchewan

This week I finally got around to reading a dissertation from the University of Saskatchewan that examines occupational health and safety of Latino migrant farm workers. I’ve been looking forward to reading this for awhile.

The study entitled “Latino Migrant Farmworkers in Saskatchewan: 
Occupational Health and Safety Education and the Sustainability of Agriculture” examines the OHS training that these farm workers receive and considers the barriers that may exist to maximizing its effectiveness.

Language barriers, personal and cultural factors are identified as factors affecting safety training, with language barriers being identified by virtually every research participant (Latino workers, employers, bureaucrats, Canadian workers) discussing it. This barrier also affects migrant workers’ ability to access health care and causes social isolation, compounding the geographic isolation associated with prairie agriculture. And linguistic barriers can intensify the risk of hazards because workers may not be told about the hazard or control strategies and/or may not understand such information.

The nature of seasonal agricultural work may also be a factor. Such work is often difficulty and unpleasant. It is also often time pressured and hazard control strategies may be only partially implemented or ignored in the face of production pressure. Productivity can become the dominant value of all players—this is certainly something we see in Alberta with farms exempted from many of the work-time constraints that every other workplace must follow.

The researcher also considered aspects of the labour mobility programs that allow these workers to enter Canada. Specifically, labour mobility regimes may reinforce the focus on productivity at the expense of other considerations. Workers in such programs are profoundly vulnerable to their employers and resistance can result in being sent home or not rehired in subsequent years. This reduces the ability and willingness of workers to consider OHS issues or participate in training. Workers must also cope with social isolation and stress, which may reduce their ability to engage with OHS training.

English-language training that is focused on the circumstances of the workers and training on machinery are identified as two issues that require attention. This training is necessary to address unsafe agricultural practices that workers may have learned in their home countries (there seemed to be a gendered effect here). Adequate workplace support (including the availability of translators), changes in how contracts are structured, and a different approach to safety training (that engages the worker more fully) are suggested.

-- Bob Barnetson

Gender-based analysis online training

One of the more interesting developments in Alberta policy circles in the introduction of gender-based analysis. The crux of this analysis is the notion that the differing characteristics of individuals (gender, ethnicity, ability, age, geography, etc.) affect how individuals benefit (or not) from government policies and programs. The upshot is that policies, programs and services should consider these factors in design and recognize that one size does not fit all.

The federal government has been using gender-based analysis for some time. Status of Women Canada has a very nice (and free!) online introduction (complete with certificate!) available here. It takes about two or two-and-a-half hours to complete and provides an overview of the process and some interesting illustrative case studies (policing, emergency response, forestry, parental leave).

-- Bob Barnetson

Take your kid to work: Why bother?

My daughter starts junior high this week. A friend was joking with me about working from home and “take your daughter to work day” (usually the first Wednesday in November).

“Daddy, do we have to wear our bathrobes all day? How long do we have to keep yelling at the computer? Here, let me show you how that actually works.” It could be worse, I suppose…

Anyhow…. The idea of take your kid to school is to help students plan “their future career by helping them better understand a profession or workplace environment.” Yet it strikes me how “band-aid-y” the whole undertaking is, given the structure of school.

The K-12 system segregates kids by age, which is completely unlike the “real world” and isolates them from contact with work or mentors (excepting hyper-dangerous early apprenticeship programming). If the point of schooling is to help students prepare for a career (and I’m not sure it is), then one day of following a parent around is unlikely to meaningfully counteract the structure of schooling.

The K-12 system also subjects students to a profound amount of control and surveillance. While surveillance is endemic in the workplace, the hyper-structuring of time no longer exists except in the worst jobs (e.g., fast food). While my job is unusually unstructured, no job that I’ve held (and there have been a lot!) have exhibited anywhere near the degree of arbitrary time blocking we see in school. Again, one day in a workplace can’t teach students to be responsible for their own time.

Finally, while I have lots of teacher friends and quite like teachers, I’m skeptical that we should rely on teachers (who mostly made one career choice at age 22) to help students either make a career choice or develop job-search skills. As a group, they are profoundly unqualified to speak about the realities of work and working.

The point of this was not to bash teachers or the school system, both of which do a good job of teaching literacy, numeracy and the knowledge of science and society necessary to be an engaged system. Instead, the point is to question what real value students derive from a one-off exposure to a random (although, I suspect, skewed towards white-collar) job? It seems to be more about generating positive media photo-ops than any real educational outcomes.

-- Bob Barnetson

Research: Training volume on the decline in Britain

The British Journal of Industrial Relations recently published an article entitled “The Declining Volume of Workers’ Training in Britain”. Instead of examining the percentage (or “rate”) of workers receiving training (which is the conventional measure), the author’s examine the volume (or “duration”) of training to reveal that that quantity of training workers received fell by about half between 1997 and 2012.

This result is hard to reconcile with the rhetoric about knowledge economies and learning organizations. Basically, the state and employers argue that ongoing worker skill development is necessary to maintain economic competitiveness. Consequently, we should see an increase in the amount of training that workers receive.

Yet, until this study, there has been no published research on the volume or quality of worker training. While the training participation rate remained relatively steady, the best estimate available (based on analyzing multiple surveys) is that average training hours per week per employed person in Britain fell from 1.24 in 1997 to 0.69 in 2009—a 44% drop.

So what explains this change? Age, gender and industry don’t seem to matter too much. It appears to be an actual reduction that sits uneasily with the rhetoric about training. The authors posit four potential explanations:

1. Employers decreasingly believe training adds value.
2. Existing skills levels may be sufficient, especially if (1) workers arrive with more skills than in the past and/or (2) the complexity of many jobs is falling.
3. Training has become vastly more efficient over time, so less volume is necessary
4. Learning is decreasingly occurring through training.

It is possible that there are multiple explanations for the decline. My own guess is that employers are acting in their interests (i.e., to maximize profitability) and are reducing training expenditures while deskilling jobs as much as possible (so a combination of 1 and 2). This suggests that the knowledge economy and learning organization rhetoric is perhaps more prescription than description.

-- Bob Barnetson

Will education reduce workplace bullying?

I had an interesting conversation recently about the value of education in the workplace. The gist was that educating employers about the costs associated with workplace bully would result in less bullying at work (I’m paraphrasing a bit). The underlying logic is that bullying is costly and that profit-maximizing employers, once aware of the costs, will act to avoid them.

I’m generally skeptical about this line of argument. The evidence I was pointed to about cost is from the Workplace Bullying Institute (under the Impact tab). This organization approaches bullying from a psychological perspective and focuses their impact studies on the personal impact of bullying.

This is a very valid perspective and yields useful insights into why and how bullying occurs and how it affects the target. That said, the psychological perspective ignores that bullying occurs in a political and economic context. Specifically, workplace bullying occurs within a capitalist economy, wherein employer behaviour is shaped by the profit imperative.

One of the more interesting articles written about bullying in employment is “Workplace bullying and the employment relationship”. Based on British data, this article suggests that employers may economically benefit from bullying. Specifically, bullying by supervisors (the most common bullies) may be an efficient way to increase productivity. In this way, bullying may be an endemic feature of capitalist employment relationships.

The idea that employer condone bullying is an uncomfortable one. Yet it certainly explains why profit maximizers (like employers) would put up with this bullying: it is in their economic interest.

This line of analysis is also a good tonic for advocates of workplace education, who often assume that deviant behaviour is the product of ignorance, rather than the interaction of systemic pressures and self-interest.

-- Bob Barnetson

A day in the life of a professor

I often get asked “So what exactly do you do all do during the day?” Most folks are a bit unclear what a professor does and, when they hear I also work from home (Athabasca is a distributed workplace), make some rather (ahem) uncharitable assumptions! I’ve been tracking my time, so here is an average day.

7:00-7:30: marked a term paper

7:30-8:06: investigated plagiarism complaint and answered students emails

8:06-8:15: walked daughter to school

8:15-8:30: worked on research project re: gender and construction work.

8:30-8:45: phone call re: union grievances

8:45-9:15: back to research project

9:15-9:30: cascade of phone call and emails re: grievances and students

9:30-9:45: back to research project but hard to focus.

9:45-10:45 prep for and chaired phone call re: new program then revised proposal and sent to colleague for review.

10:45-11:30: back to research but constantly interrupted by emails; gave up on research

11:30-12:20: went for walk; mostly thought about research problem.

12:20-1:00: student phone calls; prepped for meeting; reviewed spreadsheets.

1:00-1:30: dealt with distressed colleague and prepped for meeting.

1:30-2:00: chaired phone meeting while answering emails.

2:00-2:30: read one third of a book chapter.

2:30-3:00 prepped for meeting; answered emails.

3:00-3:45 chaired phone meeting.

3:45-4:15: marked two papers, thought about research project.

4:15-5:00 finished reading book chapter; sketched out must-do list for tomorrow; knocked together blog post.

Overall, I worked 9 hours, but will only be paid for 7. I imagine I will be answering emails tonight at some point, which will increase the time by 30 minutes or so. Over the course of the year (excluding holidays and leaves), that will work out to about 400 unpaid hours (or 11.428571 extra weeks of work).

This was a pretty average day and I’m struck by how fractured by work time was. I spent 1 hour and 45 minutes on research but it was very broken up. I’m pretty good about compartmentalizing my work ("think research thoughts NOW!") but, even so, I didn’t accomplish all that much. This fracturing has become significantly worse since I started in 2007 as layoffs and retirements have increased the administrative workload.

I'm not sure this workload is sustainable in the long term (or even the short term), which is a troubling thought. 

-- Bob Barnetson

Protect AU from the call centre?

The Canadian Union of Public Employees has launched a new website for those who wish to express their dismay with Athabasca University's efforts to displace the tutor model of instruction with a call centre. You can visit Protect Learning at AU by click the link and filling out a digital postcard.

-- Bob Barnetson

Gender implications of Alberta's PSE cuts

I ran across an interesting piece by four U of Alberta profs regarding the gender implications of the current rounds of PSE cuts. The gist is that PSE cuts hurt female workers because post-secondary education is one of the few levers that can offset rampant wage-disparity created by a male-dominant resource economy. The list of program loss that flow from Tory PSE budget cuts are (for the most part) programs where female students predominate. Overall, an interesting analysis of one of the gendered implications of the Tory's 2013 budget.

-- Bob Barnetson

Skill shortage exaggerated?

The Bank on Montreal has released a report suggesting that the so-called skill shortage that the federal conservatives are using to justify skills training funding in their budget is exaggerated. Canada's unemployment rate is about 7%.  According to the CBC:

That's much lower than it was during the depths of the recession. But many private sector groups and some within the federal government warn that the number belies the reality of the job market, which is that there aren't enough qualified people to work badly needed jobs in the fast-growing resources sector. 

But a report from Bank of Montreal published late Tuesday questions that narrative, pointing out that only 25 per cent of companies polled in the Bank of Canada's latest business outlook survey reported a lack of qualified workers. That's actually 10 percentage points below the 15-year average of 35 per cent.

It is also 15% below results from 1999 and 2004/05 (the last time unemployment was at 7.0%). While the notion that the skills gap is not really that significant runs contrary to the rhetoric (and there may well be regional variations), this is consistent with the limited growth in wages (which should surge upwards in a skills shortage.

Rick Mercer has a nice piece about the skill shortage and the federal government's response.

-- Bob Barnetson

Workplace learning and austerity

The Journal of Workplace Learning has recently published "Not learning in the workplace: Austerity and shattering the illusio in public service work." This article departs from much of the literature on workplace learning by examining how public policy can trigger instances of "not learning" in the workplace.

The gist of the article is that austerity measures create significant stress and conflict in workplaces. This can be particularly evident when the priorities of managers and workers clash. Managerial priorities typically win out in such clashes and cause workers much angst.

One of the ripple-on effects of this conflict is to inhibit workplace learning. Ironically, workplace learning is inhibited at exactly the moment when workers are being pressurized to do more with less (or, in the lexicon of neoliberalism, being asked to "innovate").

-- Bob Barnetson