There are several reasons why this particular hazard and worker group are worth examining:
Intensity of exposure: Tree planters often work in close proximity to wildfires and their work is physically demanding (increasing respiration and heart rate). Consequently, they are likely to have one of the highest intensities of exposure to wildfire smoke.
Duration of exposure: In addition to long working days, most tree planters live in camps (e.g., tents) and lack any respite from the smoke in their off hours. This means these workers have a much longer duration of exposure than, say, a worker who might face dust in the workplace but then go home to clean air at the end of the day.
Lack of specific controls or OELs: There are no specific occupational exposure limits (OELs) for wildfire smoke and general OELs for dust were not designed with wildfire smoke (which has very tiny particles) in mind.
Latency: Injuries due to inhalation often have long latency periods and murky causality, thus the link between the work exposure and the ill-health can be hard to see.
Proxy for nonworkers: The exposures experienced by tree planters can be useful in predicting larger population effects caused by increased wildfire effects (essentially the dangerous working conditions experienced by these workers create a natural experiment).
Compliance: PPE slows tree planting work. Tree planters are generally paid on piece-rate basis. This pay structure basically forces tree planters to trade off their own health against their need to earn an adequate income and almost certainly reduces compliance. Contractors also have production targets, which means they too have an incentive to trade worker safety for profit.
A notable take-away from the article is the complete lack of a regulatory response to the risk posed by wildfire smoke. WorkSafeBC acknowledges the risk but can’t be arsed to issue any directives. Alberta’s OHS minister couldn’t even be bothered to respond to the reporter. This likely reflects regulatory capture of regulators by the forestry industry.
By contrast, Oregon and California require air quality monitoring and the availability of respirators when air quality gets to a specific point. This doesn’t mean these controls are adequate, but they are at least something.
Back in 2015, Alberta passed laws giving farm workers basic employment rights, including making their employer subject to the ambit of the OHS Act. This reflected that farm work is very dangerous. Most of these changes were repealed in 2019 by the new UCP government, although some basic OHS rights still exist.
During the period that these laws were in full force, there was an incident on a “family farm” in southern Alberta. Laidlaw Ranching Co Ltd. began operations near Bow Island, Alberta in 1970. On the same property as the cattle ranch is a sand and gravel operation (Laidlaw Sand & Gravel Ltd.). The sand and gravel operation was the subject of 17 compliance orders between 2015 and 2020. Both companies are owned and operated by a single family.
On August 14, 2018, an 11-year-old boy (who regularly performed odd jobs on the farm) of one of the owners and a 17-year-old worker (not related to the owners) on the farming operation were hosing off concrete-pouring equipment being used to build a slab near a silage pit. This work was being performed at the bottom of hill.
Another adult worker (of the gravel company) was operating a front-end loader. The loader was poorly maintained. The operator was driving near the location where the young workers were working. When the driver tried to apply the brakes, the brakes failed to engage. The operator then tried to put the loader into reverse. This caused it to stall and made steering difficult and reduced brake functioning.
The child and worker saw the loader coming at them and ran away from of the loader’s direction of travel. At the same time, the loader veered in the same direction the child and worker had run, striking them both. The 11-year-old died while the 17-year-old suffered minor injuries. The fatality investigation report can be viewed here.
At the time, the RCMP characterized the event as an accident and were not contemplating charges (I wasn’t able to find any indication that charges had been laid later). The OHS investigation was completed and referred to Alberta Justice to see if charges were warranted. Justice declined to prosecute and, as far as I can tell, there were no charges, orders (other than a stop work and stop use orders two days after the incident), administrative penalties, or tickets issued to either the farm or the gravel operation.
I have a couple of thoughts.
First, this incident illustrates how workplace injuries and deaths are treated as less serious than injuries and deaths in other contexts. If the loader had been travelling on a roadway when the brakes failed, almost certainly there would have been charges laid and likely a civil settlement (there was a WCB claim during this year, but I cannot tell if it is related to the 17-year-old's injuries).
Second, except for the very unfortunate circumstances (whereby one of the owner’s children died), there were really no consequences for the employer as a result of this incident. Basically, the message for employers is “whaddaya gonna do?” The lack of consequences for even very serious incidents is a long-standing issue in Alberta and is likely a factor in Alberta’s high rate of work-related injury.
Third, while the application of OHS to the farm is often poo-poo’ed by agriculturalists, clearly farm work is dangerous and following OHS principles (e.g., properly functioning equipment, procedures to ensure rundowns are avoided) would have prevented this incident. Further, the notion that small farms are safe is clearly shown to be false. This farm appears to have fewer than 5 regular employees (the test for the application of many employment laws) but includes an onsite gravel operation with heavy equipment.
Recently, a new novella arrived on my desk. It tells the story of a strike by young female mill workers (“mill girls”) set in Lowell, Massachusetts during the mid 1830s (probably, as a work of historical fiction, the story is vague). Facing severe health effects from the work and a reduction in wages, the workers strike.
As the title implies, workers in The Factory Witches of Lowell are, well, witches. I’m not much for the fantasy genre, but I am interested in representations of union in science fiction. There are slim pickings in the sci-fi genre so I’m like, fine, bring on the dragons and unicorns and whatnot.
Without giving away the plot, the workers use witchcraft to create an unbreakable solidarity among the workers as well as control the production process. This gives them the leverage to hold out against the pressure of bosses.
Overall, the book left me a little flat. Using magic as a proxy for solidarity and direct action was an interesting idea that, to my mind, never really went anywhere. Perhaps, though, I’m just less interested by allegory than I am by more realistic representations of workers exercising power?
I have, however, ordered The Future of Another Timeline, which explores a covert war between rival factions of time travellers over women’s and human rights. The events they attempt to influence include moments in the labour movement.
A few years back, some colleagues and I surveyed 2000 Alberta workers about injury and safety. One of our findings was that only about half of employers complied with basic OHS requirements, such as performing a hazard assessment.
A hazard assessment is a written document that identifies hazards in the workplace and how the employer intends to control those hazards. It is required by law. It is important because employers can only control those hazard that they identify.
The study found only 50% of employers had a hazard assessment. This is a pretty shocking level of non-compliance. Not surprisingly, there was some eye rolling and quiet suggestions that we were out to lunch. The politest criticism was that “how would workers know if there was a hazard assessment?”
Questioning the validity of studies is part of a well-known set of employer strategies to delay dealing with OHS issues. It comes after denying there is an issue and before employers buy their own study to show there is no problem.
So, a couple of years go by and then I ran across this graphic in the August 2020 issue of Alberta’s OHS e-news. The crux of it is that OHS inspections of new employers during 2018-19 found pretty high levels of non-compliance around hazard assessments (50-59% in the four worst-offender industries). It is important to note that these findings were for new employers in industries where OHS visited 10+ times and these were the worst-performing industries. This means we shouldn’t carelessly generalize from these findings to every employer.
That said, I have three thoughts. First, these findings provide some support for our 2016 findings of 50% noncompliance with hazard assessments. Since these findings reflect inspections (where employers either were or weren’t able to produce a hazard assessment), one can’t argue them away as simply worker (mis)perceptions.
Second, that these inspection results generated similar results to worker surveys, suggests that worker surveys may actually generate valid and reliable data about employer practices. That is to say, workers do actually know what is going on in the workplace in terms of safety.
Third, the worst industries for not having met the most basic OHS requirement—beauty parlours and school, restaurants and catering, food and convenience stores, and hotels—are many of the same industries that will benefit from Alberta looseningits child labour laws.
Specifically, Alberta is loosening the rules for 13- and 14-year-olds to allow them to do more restaurant work and light janitorial work. (The exact details on this as still sketchy, but 13-year-old janitors sounds pretty dumb no matter what the details.) So, basically, the UCP is sending vulnerable kids into workplaces that we have good evidence to indicate they don’t abide by OHS rules.
Alberta’s minimum wage for youth under 18 will be reduced tomorrow as part of a broad series of labour-law rollbacks enacted by the new United Conservative government. The short of it is that workers under 18 and enrolled in school will have a minimum wage of $13 per hour, instead of the $15 per hour earned by everyone else.
Some employers have publicly pledged to continuing paying youth the same wage as adults. Others are quietly rolling back wages. The first public case of a rollback was (oddly) the Edmonton Public Library.
Background
The Edmonton Public Library (EPL) has a pretty good reputation as a library system and its staff provides wonderful services, often to vulnerable populations. The EPL also contributes to and is committed to important democratic principles such as intellectual freedom: “Intellectual Freedom protects your right to read, listen, write and speak your beliefs and opinions – and everyone has the right to have an opinion or hear an opinion on any topic. ”
EPL’s collective agreement with CSU 52 set the wages of its youth pages at the minimum wage plus an additional premium (between 15% and 25%). On June 10, the EPL emailed its youth ages to tell them that it would be reducing their wages between $2.30 and $2.50 an hour because the provincial government has reduced the youth minimum wage.
Staff were told verbally not to “gossip” about this wage rollback and to direct questions or concerns directly to management. This suggests the EPL’s commitment to intellectual freedom extends only to its customers, not its employees. Despite efforts to contain news of this rollback to within the library, word got around.
Timeline and Messaging
On June 12, when queried about the rollback, the library’s talking points were essentially these:
As some background, EPL employs youth workers under 18 as Student Pages in our libraries. These positions are unionized and their wages are outlined through a letter of understanding with Civic Service Union 52.
The Government of Alberta has instituted a new youth minimum wage of $13 per hour for students under the age of 18. This will come into effect Wednesday, June 26 and our Student Pages will be affected by it. This is because rates of pay for a Student Page are tied to the minimum wage as established by the Government of Alberta.
In short, the library sought to place responsibility for the change on the government and on the EPL’s collective agreement with CSU 52. In these talking points, the EPL appears to lack agency or choice.
In the early hours of June 13, local blogger David Climenhaga published a sharp critique of the EPL, noting that the EPL could indeed negotiate a solution that precluded a wage cut. By 8 am, the library’s talking points had shifted:
I do wish to let you know though, that EPL is currently open for bargaining with Civic Service Union 52 and through negotiations will be discussing further.
This suggests that the EPL had some choice but things are still constrained by its bargaining relationship with CSU 52 (with which it was bargaining). At this point, criticism of the EPL began to pick up on twitter, with long-time library supporters expressing shock and disappointment. Traditional media also began to ask questions. After lunch, CSU 52 then made a chippy post (since removed) about its dismay with the EPL’s behaviour.
By the afternoon, the library had reversed course. A statement on the EPL website indicated, in part:
The Edmonton Public Library (EPL) would like to acknowledge feedback we’ve received regarding our Student Page positions and the impact of recently announced changes to student minimum wage rates in Alberta. As part of our Collective Agreement with Civic Service Union 52 (CSU 52), Student Page wages are based on a premium applied to the provincial minimum wage set by the Government of Alberta.
EPL is proud to have ongoing roles specifically for high school students under the age of 18. We value our Student Pages as evidenced by our commitment to paying a premium over the minimum wage.
EPL will begin bargaining with CSU 52 shortly to negotiate a new Collective Agreement. Generally, changes to language contained in the Collective Agreement are done through the bargaining process which involves EPL working collaboratively with CSU 52 to make any amendments.
Fortunately, EPL has not implemented this proposed change, and after further discussion, EPL and CSU 52 have come to an agreement to maintain current Student Page wages rates until negotiation of the new Collective Agreement is complete. As a result, there will be no changes to Student Page wages at this time ($17.25 - $18.75 per hour).
Thank you for voicing your opinions and asking us to find a solution.
In this set of messages, the EPL is still the victim of circumstance but is now also a responsive employer that values the workers whose wages it was going to cut.
CSU then replaced its critical post with one outlining how it cooperated with the library to resolve the issue. The EPL then went on a twitter offensive, individually pushing its resolution messaging out to everyone who made a critical comment. This generated mostly praise and relief, with a few tweets querying what the library had been thinking in the first place.
Analysis
Although this case relies solely on public documents, there are some conclusions we can draw. These include:
1. Intentional decision: The partial paper trail that I have seen suggests this decision was both intentional and well enough thought through that there was plan to mitigate reputational harm. In light of this, it is reasonable to conclude that the EPL decided the benefits of reducing teens’ wages (e.g., cost savings, leverage over CSU 52 at the bargaining table) outweighed the costs of acting to maintain wages.
2. Pressure worked: Concerted public pushback caused the EPL to reverse its decision about reducing youth wages. The EPL may have been particularly sensitive to reputational harm because reputation is an important asset, particularly as the EPL tries to raise money to complete the renovation of the Milner library. Whether other employers are equally vulnerable to reputational harm is an open question.
3. Incremental response: The EPL’s response changed over the course of two days from defending the change to reversing it. I would suggest the mounting criticism among library patrons and supporters caused this (eventual) reversal. Absent continued criticism, I suspect the library would not have reversed its decision but instead would have tried to communicate the problem away.
4. Inconsistent messaging: The EPL’s messaging started out claiming the EPL had little agency (caught between the union and the government). By the end, the EPL had worked out a fix. This fix was available from the get go. What was missing was the political will to achieve it.
5. All smiles: Both the EPL and CSU 52 are now touting their agreement as a good news story and CSU has revised it public statement. This “nice-nice” behaviour elides the conflict they had during the dust up.
6. Organized labour's absence: Alberta’s unions were notable absent in this push back. To be fair, they were focused on opposing Bill 9, which attacks wage settlements. But unions are large organizations that can attend to multiple problems. This was a missed opportunity for labour to support a vulnerable and sympathetic group negatively affected by government policies. This “poster-child” dynamic is important. For example, the 1995 laundry workers strike in Calgary was an important turning point in blunting Ralph Klein’s enthusiasm for further wage rollback.
The second bill introduced by Alberta’s new United Conservative Party (UCP) government is An Act to Make Alberta Open for Business. In conjunction with an Order in Council, if passed this act will reduce the minimum wage for many workers under 18, reduce all workers' access to general holiday pay and overtime premiums, and make it harder for workers to unionize.
According to Premier Jason Kenney, these changes are designed to increase employment levels and fairness in the workplace:
Our government ran on a promise to get Albertans, especially young people, back to work. … With Bill 2 and the youth minimum wage, we are restoring fairness and balance to the workplace and getting 'Help Wanted' signs back in the windows of Alberta businesses.
Minister of Labour Jason Copping asserts these changes will also reduce red tape and increase the employment of minors, saying,
We need to encourage employers to create opportunities for all workers. These changes would help Alberta's businesses to do just that. We’re bringing back balance, cutting red tape and making it more affordable to hire teens for their first jobs.
An examination of Bill 2 suggests that it will, in fact, yield none of these claimed benefits. Instead, it will reduce workers' income, make payroll administration more complex, and impede workers seeking to join a union.
Youth minimum wage
Effective June 26, the minimum wage for workers under 18 who attend school will drop from $15 per hour to $13 per hour. The government will (somehow) allow employers to immediately reduce the wages for these workers.
During weeks when school is in session, the first 28 hours worked by minors who are in school will be paid at $13 per hour while subsequent hours will be paid at $15 per hour. During weeks when school is not in session (e.g., summer, Christmas, spring break), all hours will be paid at the lower $13 rate.
The premise underlying this 13 percent reduction in the minimum wage is that employers will hire more minors who are in school. It certainly is possible that, given the opportunity to hire minors at $13 per hour or adults at $15 per hour, some employers will hire more minors who are in school. Shifting who gets hired will not, however, change overall employment levels.
I was unable to locate any academic research addressing the impact of reducing the minimum wage for minors. While it is possible that employers will use the savings they realize to hire more workers, this seems unlikely. Hiring is typically driven by demand for a product or service. Reducing wage levels does not increase demand. What we are likely to see is that employers (who are in business to make money) will simply pocket these savings.
What this change does do is significantly increase payroll complexity for employers (particularly small businesses) by requiring them to:
know which employees are students,
know when each employee’s school is in session or on a break,
vary each employee’s hourly wage depending upon hours worked and whether school is in session, and
change workers’ wages and payroll calculations when workers turn 18.
This effect seems at odds with the UCP’s election promise to reduce red tape. To avoid the red tape the UCP is creating, some employers may simply cap minors at 28 hours of work per week. Other employers may cope by simply paying all minors $13 an hour in all instances and waiting to see if anyone complains (unfortunately, most minors won't).
The government has also promised to allow employers to quickly reduce the wages of minors who are in school via the provision of notice. This promise directly interferes with employment contracts negotiated between employers and employees in a way that negatively affects the more vulnerable party (i.e., young workers). It is unclear how the government’s requirement for notice would satisfy the usual requirements for a contractual change. Neither Bill 2 nor the associated Order in Council addresses this issue.
Overall, reducing the minimum wage for minors who are in school benefits employers by reducing their labour costs. These savings may be offset by the increasing administrative complexity created by this change. It is unclear how this change would increase overall employment.
General holiday pay
At present, Alberta workers are entitled to nine paid general holidays (often called statutory holidays) immediately after hiring. General holiday pay is complicated, but the basic rules are:
To be eligible for holiday pay, your must work your regularly scheduled shifts before and after the holiday as well as on the holiday, if asked.
If you do not work the holiday, you get your average daily pay rate (regardless of when the holiday falls).
If you do work the holiday you either get 1.5 times your hourly rate for hours worker or your regular rate plus another day off with pay.
Bill 2 proposes adding an additional requirement that you must be employed by the employer for the 30 days preceding the holiday. Bill 2 also proposes that if a holiday falls on a day you do not normally work and you do not work the holiday, you are not entitled to general holiday pay. Essentially, the UCP is adding back in much of the complexity that employers asked the former NDP government to remove.
It is very difficult to calculate the exact effect of this change. Overall, employers will see a reduction in labour costs and workers will see a reduction in take-home pay. Employers will face additional work and complexity in determining who is entitled to pay for each holiday. Workers with irregular or flexible schedules may be affected more significantly than workers who work a standard work week.
Overtime premiums
Bill 2 also proposes reducing the rate at which banked overtime is paid out. At present, if you work more than 8 hours in a day or 44 hours in a week, you are entitled to be paid at a rate of 1.5 times your normal rate of pay for these overtime hours.
The Employment Standards Code allows employers and employees to enter into overtime banking arrangements, whereby overtime is not immediately paid out. Instead, employees can draw down their banked overtime to take time off with pay at a rate of 1.5 hours off for every hour of overtime worked. If the employee does not draw down the banked time, it is then paid out at the overtime rate.
Overtime banking is often used in industries subject to seasonal fluctuations. Workers bank overtime during a busy period and then draw down this time to maintain their employment (and benefits) during the slow season.
The UCP is proposing that banked overtime taken as time off would be taken at straight time. In effect, employees would lose the overtime premium they are due. While employees could elect to cash out their banked overtime (and get the premium), if they are using overtime to bridge slow seasons (to avoid a layoff), cashing out overtime may trigger a layoff (thereby terminating their benefits).
This change benefits employers by providing them with a way to avoid paying overtime premiums to workers. It is unclear how this would increase workplace fairness or increase employment. Indeed, incentivizing employers to use overtime (by cheapening it) will likely reduce employment levels.
Mandatory certification votes
At present, when workers wish to join a union, a union files an application for certification with the Alberta Labour Relations Board (ALRB). Certification applications must include evidence that at least 40 percent of employees in the proposed bargaining unit support the union's application. If the union provides evidence that more than 65 percent of workers support the union, then the ALRB will certify the union as the bargaining agent for the unit without the need for a vote. This is called card-check certification.
If the union cannot demonstrate greater than 65 percent support, then the ALRB will order a vote of all of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit to determine if the majority of voters support the application.
Bill 2 proposes eliminating card-check certification and requiring mandatory certification votes in all certification applications. The research from across Canada is pretty clear: card-certification results in more applications to join unions and a greater success rate. We have seen this dynamic already take effect in Alberta.
The reason for this effect is that card-check certification eliminates the opportunity for employers to interfere in what should be a free choice by employees. One Canadian study found that 80 percent of employers oppose certification drives, 60 percent do so overtly, and 20 percent take action that is illegal (e.g., threatening or dismissing workers).
Employer interference tends to put a chill on the organizing drive. Research from both British Columbia and Ontario shows that, as soon as the rules switch to mandatory votes, the number and success rate of union drives drops significantly.
Requiring certification votes is often justified as fundamentally democratic, and as a way to prevent union intimidation of workers. Equating certification votes with the electoral process ignores the fact that, when workers cast a vote in a federal or provincial election, the government doesn't spend the campaign period threatening to fire workers if they 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 idea that mandatory votes prevent the intimidation of workers is misleading. Requiring mandatory votes may prevent (very uncommon) union intimidation of workers, but it does so at the cost of facilitating (very common) employer intimidation of workers.
Eliminating card-check (i.e., requiring votes on every application) will reduce the number of workplaces that are unionized. Because unionized workplaces typically better terms and conditions of employment, reducing the number of workplaces that unionize financial benefits employers and financially penalizes workers.
Analysis
Bill 2 is clearly designed to reduce labour costs for Alberta employers. Bill 2 achieves this by transferring these costs to workers, in the form of reduced compensation. There is no evidence or reason to believe that this transfer of costs will result in an overall increase in employment rates, and the mechanisms set out in Bill 2 will also substantially increase payroll complexity for employers (particularly small businesses).
Eliminating card-check certification increases employers' abilities to interfere in workers' decisions about whether they wish to be represented by a union or not. The result will be fewer successful union drives. This change will clearly decrease fairness in the workplace in order to help employers avoid unions.
At the media conference announcing Bill 2, Premier Kenney stated that additional labour law reform will be introduced in the fall. This may include the introduction of a lower minimum wage for serving staff (following the appointment of a task force), restrictions on how unions can spend dues collected from members, and changes the essential services rules for public-sector unions.
Children 12 and under cannot be employed
except in artistic productions and then, only with a permit and parental
permission. These new rules raise the minimum age of employment from 12 to 13.
Teens aged 13 and 14 can work in a small
number of listed occupations during limited hours, both of which are largely
unchanged from the Tory years. They can also perform other work with a permit
from Employment Standards
Teens 15 to 17 can perform basically any
job, but there are a small number of restrictions on hours of work.
Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) rules
also require all employers to have a hazard assessment that identifies hazards
and how they will be controlled.
Overall, not much has changed except that the 12-year-olds are no longer allowed to work. There is also some fancy dancing around the
issue of teens who are self-employed contractors, the upshot of which basically
permits kids of any age to participate in casual babysitting, snow shoveling,
and lawn mowing but precludes such work as regular employment for those under
15.
These rules are better than earlier proposals that would have allowed 13 and 14-year-olds to also perform light
janitorial work, grounds-keeping work (including using powered equipment),
light assembly work, and painting—all of which are jobs that would expose teens
to significant hazards.
The most troubling part of this announcement is the note that none of these rules apply to children or teens
employed on farms and ranches. I was not able to find a copy of the new
Employment Standards Regulation, but I did confirm this with the ES call
centre.
Practically, what this means is that there
are still no rules around child employment on farms and ranches. This is a broader
exception than that which has been enacted in others branch of Alberta
employment law following Bill 6, which typically excludes paid family members from the ambit of
certain laws but includes non-family farm workers. So not only can farmers and ranchers employ their own children on their farms, they can employer other people's children as well.
It is stunning that a New
Democrat government would exclude perhaps the most vulnerable group of workers
in one of the most dangerous industries in Alberta from its new child labour laws.
While there are lots of safe(ish) jobs on farms and ranches (such as the
near-apocryphal collecting-eggs-with-grandma example that is always trotted
out), it is dangerous for children to be proximity to many kinds of farm work (as
evidenced by blind equipment run-downs and drownings).
The absence of child labour laws on farms
means that a farmer could hire a 9-year-old to drive a grain truck, a
10-year-old to transfer grain to a silo using an auger, an 11-year-old to clean a silo, a 12-year-old to herd a dozen
1300lb dairy cows, a 13-year-old to operate a legacy potato-sorting machine with no safeguards, and a 14-year-old to run a posthole digger of a chain saw.
In theory, the employer is supposed to do a
hazard assessment (at least for non-family employees), which would flag these jobs as inappropriate for such young
workers. But most Alberta employers don’t comply with that requirement, so it won't protect children. And, sure, workers can refuse unsafe work. But children simply aren’t going to
recognize and refuse unsafe work--which is, of course, why we have child labour laws in the first place.
So the result of the government’s decision
to exempt farms from child labour laws is going to be children placed in
hazardous employment situations, some of whom will be maimed and killed as a result. Perhaps these children would be maimed and killed even if the laws prohibited dangerous farm work (which is why we need stepped-up enforcement). But at least then the government wouldn’t be sanctioning and indeed normalizing work that will lead to the injury and death of children.
Last week, I shared some preliminary research exploring the narratives and discursive strategies used by opposition MLAs to oppose a minimum-wage increase. This week I’d like to share a preliminary analysis of 17 statements made by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB).
I chose the CFIB because it represents approximately 10,000 small-business owners in Alberta, has consistently opposed minimum-wage increases, and had an available record of statements I could analyze. CFIB spokespersons advanced a consistent narrative about increasing the minimum wage, asserting that raising the minimum wage:
was opposed by employers,
would cost jobs, particularly among teenagers,
was not supported by adequate evidence about its effect, and
was not an effective poverty reduction strategy.
CFIB spokespersons employed three main discursive strategies in which these narratives appeared. The CFIB theoretically rationalized its opposition to minimum-wage increases by citing job-loss projections it developed:
In the case of Alberta’s massive hike in the minimum wage rate from $10,20 to $15.00 (47 per cent increase) by 2018, this would put 51,700 to 200,690 jobs at risk in Alberta (Wong, 2015a, p. 1).
These projected job losses included both layoffs and foregone future hiring. These projections ultimately proved wildly inaccurate but were contrasted with the limited economic analyses that the government publicly provided:
Premier Notley stated that her aggressive minimum wage policy won’t kill jobs. Then show us the evidence (Ruddy, 2016, p. 1)
The CFIB also used its projections to assert minimum-wage increases were not effective poverty-reduction tools:
CFIB’s calculations show that minimum wage increases are not the best way to increase low income earners’ well being (Wong, 2015b, p. 2).
This assertion sits uneasily with the CFIB’s projections in the same report, which show the net income of workers in every provinces rose with a minimum wage increase.
The CFIB used public authorization in two ways in an effort for increase the salience of its views. First, the CFIB frames itself as speaking on behalf of small business owners, despite representing on about 10% of such businesses (CFIB, 2018). Second, it used surveys of its memberships to support its demands. These surveys also act as a cautionary tale about the impact of the minimum wage increase. The most common narrative associated with surveys is that minimum-age increases cost jobs:
A CFIB survey of 1040 Alberta business owners asked: Which of the following changes has your business already made as Alberta moves to a $15 an hour minimum wage? 55 percent have reduced to eliminated plans to hire new workers, 52 per cent have reduced of eliminated plans to hire young workers, 46 per cent raised prices, 43 per cent reduced overall staffing hours, ad 42 per cent have reduced the number of employees, to name just a few of the implications (Ruddy, 2018, p. 1).
Opposition MLAs and the CFIB both used similar narratives about minimum wage increases (e.g., job killer opposed by employers and ineffective at reducing poverty) and similar discursive strategies (theoretical rationalization, cautionary tales). The small number of statements in the dataset suggest that this analysis should be treated with caution.
Next week, we’ll conclude this series by looking at organized labour’s contribution to the minimum-wage debate.
This week’s instalment of Labour & Pop Culture is "Spaceship” by Kayne West. This song explores the frustration and desperation of low-wage work, particularly among young African-American men in the United States.
Of particular note is how being systemically discriminated against and economically excluded results in a rejection of the system:
If my manager insults me again I will be assaulting him After I fuck the manager up then I'm gonna shorten the register up Let's go back, back to the Gap Look at my check, wasn't no scratch So if I stole, wasn't my fault
The song also speaks to the experience of tokenism in the workplace:
Yeah I stole, never get caught They take me to the back and pat me Askin' me about some khakis But let some black people walk in I bet you they show off their token blackie Oh now they love Kanye, let's put him all in the front of the store
I couldn’t find a good video by Kayne but I did find this blues-y cover that is pretty good.
[Hook: Kanye West, Tony Williams, John Legend]
I've been workin' this graveshift and I ain't made shit I wish I could buy me a spaceship and fly (heavens knows) past the sky (every night, every night) I've been workin' this graveshift and I ain't made shit I wish I could buy me a spaceship and fly (heavens knows) past the sky (every night, every night)
[Verse 1: Kanye West] Man, man, man If my manager insults me again I will be assaulting him After I fuck the manager up then I'm gonna shorten the register up Let's go back, back to the Gap Look at my check, wasn't no scratch So if I stole, wasn't my fault Yeah I stole, never get caught They take me to the back and pat me Askin' me about some khakis But let some black people walk in I bet you they show off their token blackie Oh now they love Kanye, let's put him all in the front of the store Saw him on break next to the 'No Smoking' sign with a blunt and a malt Takin' my hits, writin' my hits Writin' my rhymes, playin' my mind This fuckin' job can't help him So I quit, y'all welcome (heavens knows) Y'all don't know my struggle Y'all can't match my hustle (every night) You can't catch my hustle (every night) You can't fathom my love dude Lock yourself in a room doin' five beats a day for three summers That's a different world like Cree summers I deserve to do these numbers The kid that made back [aka running back], (heavens knows) Deserves that Maybach So many records in my basement (every night) I'm just waitin' on my spaceship (every night), I've been (blaow)
[Hook: Kanye West, Tony Williams, John Legend] Workin' this graveshift and I ain't made shit I wish I could buy me a spaceship and fly (heavens knows) past the sky (every night, every night) I've been workin' this graveshift and I ain't made shit I wish I could buy me a spaceship and fly(heavens knows) past the sky (every night, every night)
[Verse 2: GLC] Man, I'm talkin' way past the sky Let's go, oh And I didn't even try to work a job Represent the mob At the same time thirsty on the grind Chi state of mind Lost my mama, lost my mind My life, my love (heavens knows) that's not mine Why you ain't signed? Wasn't my time Leave me alone, (every night) work for y'all Half of it's yours, (every night) half of it's mine Only one to ball Never one to fall Gotta get mine Gotta take mine Got a tec-9 Reach my prime Gotta make these haters respect mine In the mall (heavens knows) 'til 12 when my schedule had said 9 (every night) Puttin' new pants on shelves Waitin' paitently (every night) I ask myself Where I wanna go, where I wanna be Life is much more than runnin' in the streets Holla at 'ye, hit me with the beat Put me on my feet Sound so sweet Yes (heavens knows) I'm the same ol' G, same goatee Stayin' low key, nope (every night) Holla at God Man (every night) why'd you had to take my folks? Hope to see Freddy G., Yusef G Love my G, Rolly G Police watch me smoke my weed, and count my G's Got a lot of people countin' on me (heavens knows) And I'm just tryin' to find my peace (every night) Should of finished school like my niece Then I wouldn't (every night) finally wouldn't use my piece, blaow Aw man, all this pressure
[Hook: Kanye West, Tony Williams, John Legend] I've been workin' this graveshift and I ain't made shit I wish I could buy me a spaceship and fly (heavens knows) past the sky (every night, every night) I've been workin' this graveshift and I ain't made shit I wish I could buy me a spaceship and fly (heavens knows) past the sky (every night, every night)
[Verse 3: Consequence] I remember havin' to take the dollar cab Comin' home real late at night Standin' on my feet all damn day Tryin' to make this thing right And havin' (heavens knows) one of my co-workers say Yo you look just like (every night) This kid I seen in the old Busta Rhymes video (every night) the other night Well easy come, easy go How that sayin' goes No more broad service, cars, and them TV shows I all had that snatched from me (heavens knows) And all the faculties all turn their back on me (every night) And didn't wanna hear a rap from me (every night) So naturally actually had to face things factually Had to be a catastrophe with the fridgest starin' back at me Cuz nothing's there, (heaven knows) nothing's fair I don't wanna ever go back there So I won't be takin' (every night) no days off 'til my spaceship takes off (every night) Blaow
[Hook: Kanye West, Tony Williams, John Legend] I've been workin' this graveshift and I ain't made shit I wish I could buy me a spaceship and fly (heavens knows) past the sky (every night, every night) I've been workin' this graveshift and I ain't made shit I wish I could buy me a spaceship and fly (heavens knows) past the sky (every night, every night)
[Outro: Tony Williams] I wanna fly, I wanna fly I said I want my chariot to pick me up And take me brother for a ride
The idea is to identify and resolve complaints where the employer is willing to pay as quickly as possible. The government asserts that a similar initiative in Ontario reduced the number of investigations by 25%. (I was unable to find any data about its impact on wage recovery.)
For workers waiting for wages, this kind of delay is very difficult. While faster resolution of “easy” complaints may help the government increase the number of complaints resolved with 6 months, it ignores the root issue: understaffing.
As I noted last October, in 2016/17, Alberta employed only 45 ES inspectors and 8 other ES staff to regulate wage theft in a non-unionized workforce of about 1.8 million. I did hear a rumour that more ES staff will be hired, but I have seen no confirmation. It is impressive that so few ES staff can resolve nearly 6000 claims per year.
EDIT 2018.09.16: A Calgary Herald story says there are now 73 ES inspectors. Doesn't change the general argument but is better data.
While the government’s press release has garnered positive press coverage, it is useful to ask what the announcement will actually mean for workers.
The release indicates employers will be told they have three options: they can pay the amount claimed, they can dispute the claim (which triggers an investigation), or they can settle with the worker for a mutually agreeable amount.
Alberta has a long history of seeking to settle ES claims through mediation. When “successful”, mediation often means workers end up accepting less money than they are owed. Here's a fictional example of how it works in practice:
The worker files a complaint for, say, $1000 in unpaid wages. The employer says, “I’ll give you $500”. The worker must then decide between $500 bucks today for sure or rolling the dice, waiting six or more months, and maybe getting an order directing the employer to pay $1000 (maybe) which many employers evade anyways (there is $19 million in orders for unpaid wages on the books rights now).
Understandably, the worker is probably going to say “fuck it, gimme the cash” and accept the $500 loss.
The problem with mediated settlements is that the law says the worker should have gotten the full $1000. Past governments have underfunded ES and forced bureaucrats to adopt mechanisms whereby the government essentially helps employers break the very law that the system is supposed to enforce by pressuring workers to relinquish at least part of the wages they are legally due is they want any of their owed wages in a timely manner.
Now, in this example, the worker is $500 better off than the worker would be without the Employment Standards system. But is this process really consistent with Labour Minister Christina Grey’s assertions that “Our government has the backs of working people” and “This action will help us better serve employees so they can get the wages they have earned”?
I’m inclined to say no.
What would help is aggressively prosecuting and publically embarrassing a few bad-actor employers. Get some serious fines imposed. Put some newspaper, radio, Facebook, and bus ads out saying “So-and-so’s Steakhouse screwed its workers out of $15,000 in wages last year. Do you really want to dine there?”
Employers are smart and, faced with enforcement, they’ll get the message that the cost of wage theft just went up and they will change their behaviour. By contrast, a policy facilitating employers having to pay only a fraction of the owed wages incentivizes employers to engage in wage theft.
This announcement is the second concerning ES issue to appear in the past few weeks. Alberta just completed a consultation about changes in its child labour laws. The proposed laws would dramatically expand the jobs 13- and 14-year-olds can do to include light janitorial work, work at a gas station, perform food prep and grounds-keeping duties, work on an assembly line, and painting.
These are hazardous jobs. The government has attempted to limit young workers’ exposure to the worst hazards of these jobs by limiting the tasks they can perform. But the evidence on child labour in Alberta is pretty clear: once workers are in the workplace, employers ignore the rules. Trusting employers to obey these new rules is naïve and endangers children.
The government of Alberta is updating its rules around the employment of minors. After changing the minimum age of employment from 12 to 13, the government is seeking feedback a list of jobs and job tasks considered to be “light work” and therefore appropriate for 13- to 14-year-olds to perform.
This list includes many of the jobs that these workers have historically been permitted to do, such as delivery person, retail clerk, office work, and some restaurant work. This list also significant expands the range of acceptable jobs and duties.
Some of these jobs and duties certainly raised my eyebrows because of the potential for injury: janitorial work, groundskeeping, food preparation, assembly work, and painting. To be fair, the government has gone to significant lengths to place limits on tasks that these workers can do in these jobs. Here are some examples:
assembling food orders (i.e., washing, gathering, presenting, portioning and wrapping foods) using manual tools and appliances typically found in a home such as toasters, blenders, microwave, coffee machine/grinder.
light janitorial - Excludes the use of commercial/industrial gas/propane motorized heavy equipment (i.e., floor burnisher, wax/polish machines) and harmful substances defined as hazardous.
weeding, planting and watering, and grounds keeping without the use of gas- powered equipment (i.e., all lawn mowing equipment, snow blowers, leaf blowers, weed-wackers).
light assembly (no cutting torches, welding or working with hazardous substances)
painting with environmentally friendly substances (no commercial spray painting)
A key assumption embedded in this list of excluded tasks is that employers will obey the rules once the workers are in the workplace. I’m skeptical because the evidence we have is that employers don't obey the rules around young workers.
The deadline for feedback is June 29, 2018 and the government expected to enact regulations for September 1, 2018. One political effect of this timing is that few workers and employers will be affected by the new laws prior to the expected spring 2019 election.
Fear factory: Retaliation and workers’ hesitance to claim employment rightsCanadian Industrial Relations Association Annual Conference
Montreal, May 2, 2018
Jason Foster, Bob Barnetson, and Jared Matsunaga-Turnbull
INTRODUCTION
The modern employment law regime is aimed at codifying particular employee rights in areas such as employment standards, occupational health and safety, injury compensation and the right to join a union.
A key feature of that regime is establishing mechanisms for employees to make claims or complaints when their rights are violated, either directly with the employer or by contacting government officials.
In fact much of the system relies on pro-active action on the part of workers. To file a WCB claim. To make an employment standards complaint, to sign a union card and take part in a vote. Workers need to take active steps if they are to ensure the legislated rights are protected.
Formally legislation contains prohibitions against employers taking retaliatory measures against a worker who complains. Longtime observers of employment recognize that those prohibitions are problematic in terms of enforcement and that workers can be vulnerable to reprisal should they choose to speak up. A number of studies have shown that workers often fear reprisal should they speak up against their employer.
Of note is Alexander and Prasad who looked at enforcement of employment law in US. They found that 1) workers have inadequate knowledge to identify violations and 2) are reluctant to make complaints. They also find that workers lack trust that the system will actually work for them.
Further they find workers’ fears are well warranted. Their study found that 43% of complainants faced some kind of retaliation from the employer. Also, only 15% had their concern addressed by their employer.
My presentation today is part of a study I and my colleagues conducted to examine how workers perceive and utilize their rights under employment law that was funded by the Government of Alberta OHS Futures Program. Specifically we look at the effect of fear of reprisal plays in workers’ willingness to advocate for their rights.
We examine why workers report NOT reporting rights violations in the workplace. We also explore how many workers feel fear and which workers feel the highest level of fear.
Our analysis looks at how these results might reflect upon the overall effectiveness of Canada’s employment rights regime.
METHOD
In spring 2017, we conducted an online survey of 2000 Albertans who had engaged in paid employment in the province during the past 12 months. We presented a 39-item questionnaire, which included pertinent demographic and occupational data.
For the purposes of this presentation we presented respondents with 14 rights-claiming scenarios. Examples include filing a WCB claim, asking for time off work to attend to family responsibilities, and refusing unsafe work.
We provided a range of relatively low risk actions, such as asking for safety information, to more risky behaviour such as talking about a union and filing an employment standards complaint. We based the 14 scenarios on Wayne Lewchuk’s recent work.
From the answers we create a Fear Scale based upon how many times a worker expressed fear of reprisal, ranging from 0 to 14.
We also established a 15-point scale related to hazard exposure to measure the relative safety of the respondents’ employment (the broader study emphasized OHS related issues).
RESULTS
Taking all factors into account, an average of 16% of workers reported fear of reprisal.
Fear ranged from a low of 10% for low risk actions like reporting an injury to the employer and asking for health and safety information, to a high of 23% related to formally filing a complaint with the government around unpaid wages or unsafe working conditions.
While these numbers may seem low – a majority of workers report not feeling fear – we need to keep in mind that the current regime has been in place for decades and that workers are regularly reminded that their rights are protected. That almost 1 in 5 workers continues to express fear of reprisal from basic acts of defending themselves is significant.
But our main interest is in which groups of workers are more likely to report fear, as vulnerability is not evenly distributed in the workforce.
In terms of specific fears there was a complex matrix of results. Which is why we turned to the fear matrix. Our supposition is the more times a worker reports fear, the more deeply held their fear of reprisal is and, at least subjectively, the more vulnerable they are to reprisal.
Our correlations found that young workers, workers who identify as a visible minority, part-time workers and workers with shorter job tenure report a greater depth of fear. Other workers who reported deeper fear were those who have been injured in the past 12 months, those exposed to more hazards in the workplace and, surprisingly, union members.
We conducted a linear regression on the significant variables to try to map out a model. The results found that union membership, part-time employment and job tenure were all fully mediated by other factors.
So that leaves us with four significant characteristics: number of hazards exposed to, experience of workplace injury, visible minority and young workers.
It is likely unsurprising to this room that young workers and visible minorities feel greater levels of fear. In the workplace they can be more vulnerable to employer intimidation and are more likely to be found in jobs where employment rights are not respected.
More work is required to unpack the link between unsafe working conditions (and injury) to fear, but we can speculate that jobs where basic safety precautions are not taken – leading both to more exposure and more injury – will be workplaces where the employer is less concerned with their employees’ rights. Injury and hazard exposure can be seen as a proxy for other factors – a theory that requires further research.
The final question we explored was to examine why workers don’t report injuries or refuse unsafe work.
Our study found that only 30% of serious injuries are reported to WCB, a finding the supports previous research into the topic. Further, when workers are faced with an unsafe work situation, only 33% refuse.
Workers report a wide range of reasons for not acting on their rights – fear is a significant factor, but not the only one.
For injuries, a majority report feeling the injury wasn’t serious enough but other common responses were not knowing they had a right to file a claim, not wanting to cause problems for employer and being pressured into not reporting. Many of these responses circle around notions of fear and can be argued as a different articulation of the same concern – not wanting to get on the wrong side of the employer.
Reasons for not refusing unsafe work are similar: not wanting to be a troublemaker, feeling no one would take it seriously anyway, pressure to keep working and not knowing about the right to refuse. Many workers also took steps themselves to fix the problem rather than report it. Again this suggests a widely held belief that exercising ones rights is ineffective and places a worker at risk in some fashion.
Again these results are consistent with similar studies into worker perceptions of their rights.
ANALYSIS
Our findings suggest three things to us.
First, the responses suggest that a significant portion of workers fear reprisal for exercising their basic employment rights. Possibly for good reason. The more vulnerable the worker is, the more deeply they feel that fear.
In a way that is not an unsurprising result, but it does offer us some quantitative evidence of what workers are thinking when making choices about how to exercise their rights.
Second, our study suggests that workers don’t really trust the employment law regime as it stands. They don’t, when push comes to shove, believe it will be there for them. The results are, understandably, complex but we don’t see any kind of expression of confidence that the government will come to workers’ defence when they need it. Instead what we find is that workers feel on their own and how confident they are about exercising their rights is dependent upon how vulnerable they are at work.
Finally, the study hints at the fact that maybe the employment rights regime has been poorly designed. It places a high degree of onus on employees to act to ensure their rights are respected. The enforcement regime is set up to address complaints. And that might be the problem.
It may be that the system, in practice, spends its energy helping workers who are most able to help themselves – those who don’t feel fear and so report transgressions. And as a result it might be missing the workers who need the government’s help the most.
The consequence is that government resources are directed to the wrong locations as officers investigate workplaces where workers are most able to defend themselves. Furthermore, the workers who need help the most are left unprotected by the enforcement system.
The system we have entrenched may, ironically, function to entrench the inequitable vulnerabilities found in the labour market.
The solutions are likely fairly complex, but definitely point to the need for more pro-active and targeted inspections by government officers. Selecting workplaces for inspection based upon the nature of the work and/or the make-up of the workforce. The limited examples of such enforcement in Alberta – such as TFWs – has proven to reveal widespread violations.
Finally our paper posits a more radical solution. We float the idea that governments should empower community groups and worker organizations to conduct workplace inspections and identify violations.
Workers health centres, immigrant agencies, etc. would have the power to enter workplaces and catalogue violations, reporting any findings to the government for enforcement. While this idea has never been tried it has the potential to greatly increase the number of eyes and ears keeping a watch on workers’ employment rights. An idea at least worth discussing further.
This week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture is “Welcome to the Boomtown” by David & David. The song recounts the mid-80s excess found in Los Angeles and how a boomtown plays out for the rich and for the poor.
Alberta is no stranger to booms and busts and there is interesting research going on about how this affects labour. For example, foreign live-in caregivers (more commonly known as “nannies”) play an important role in the economy of Fort McMurray. Their often-grueling conditions of work allow their employers to meet the demands of their own employers.
Sara Dorow (from the U of A) and her colleagues have been studying this phenomenon. They note that the boom entails a cascading of social reproductive costs onto this vulnerable group. That is to say, the oil sands couldn’t function without these almost invisible workers managing home and hearth issues for workers. Yet these workers are often treated as disposable.
With the boom also comes the bust. Since 2014, Alberta has struggled economically. It appears that the worst of this recession is passing but the recovery is uneven.
For example, in a recent CBC article, U of C economist Trevor Tombe notes that the economic recovery Alberta is experiencing is evident in employment rates (which are bouncing back up. But as Tombe’s graph (below) shows, young men appear to be excluded from this recovery.
This pattern is understandable given that, in the past, young men could secure well paying jobs in the oil patch with not much more than a strong back. This employment strategy appears to no longer be as effective as it once was. One solution is to provide displaced workers with opportunities to return to school.
Ms. Cristina drives a 944
Satisfaction oozes from her pores
She keeps rings on her fingers
Marble on her floor, cocaine on her dresser
Bars on her doors, she keeps her back against the wall
She keeps her back against the wall
So I say, I say welcome, welcome to the Boomtown
Pick a habit, we got plenty to go around
Welcome, welcome to the Boomtown
All that money makes such a succulent sound
Welcome to the Boomtown
Handsome Kevin got a little off track
Took a year off of college and he never went back
Now he smokes too much, he's got a permanent hack
Deals dope out of Denny's, keeps a table in the back
He always listens to the ground
Always listens to the ground
So I say, I say welcome, welcome to the Boomtown
Pick a habit, we got plenty to go around
Welcome, welcome to the Boomtown
All that money makes such a succulent sound
Welcome to the Boomtown
Well, the ambulance arrived too late
I guess, she didn't want to wait
