Following a recent Calgary Herald series that addressed how the provincial government handles workplace fatalities, the Alberta Federation of Labour has conducted some additional research into Alberta prosecution rates.
The crux of the AFL's complaints are that (1) it takes a long time (often 4 years) to get a conviction, (2) convictions are sought and achieved in a small minority of cases, and (3) fines are low and sometimes not collected. Overall, delay and low fines create little incentive for employers to change their occupational health and safety practices.
There is some literature to support this assertion. A 2007 study (E. Tompa, S. Trevithick and C. McLeod, “Systematic Review of the Prevention Incentives of Insurance and Regulatory Mechanisms for Occupational Health and Safety,” Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health 33(2) (2007): 85-95) found limited evidence that health and safety inspections resulted in fewer or less severe injuries. There was also only mixed evidence that the prospect of being penalized for health and safety violations lead to fewer or less severe injuries.
The researchers suggest several possible explanations, including the penalties may not be significant enough to motivate compliance. It may also be that organizations do not always act rationally. Tompa et al. did find strong evidence that actually being penalized led to a reduction in injuries. This suggests that enforcement of regulations can positively affect workplace safety. All of this and more is available in my new book, The political economy of workplace injury in Canada which you can download for free as an open-source e-book.
-- Bob Barnetson
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Precarious work and injury compensation
A recent study in the American journal of industrial medicine examined whether particular groups of labor force participants were more or less likely to receive compensation following an absence from work of one week or longer due to a work-related injury or illness.
The study "Differences in access to wage replacement benefits for absences due to work-related injury or illness in Canada" concludes that women, younger workers, recent immigrants, part-time employees, employees with shorter job tenures, those from small workplaces, and those who were not members of a union or collective bargaining agreements were all less likely to receive any form of income replacement during their work absence. While the authors do not explicitly tie the results to the concept of precarious work, these groups workers and/or job characteristics are frequently associated with precarious employment.
The study also highlight the importance of legislated employment rights to specific subgroups of workers. Recent immigrants, younger workers, or workers with short job tenure were unlikely to receive any employer-benefits during absences caused by workplace injuries other than workers' compensation. Overall, approximately 50% of the study's subjects receive no
workers’ compensation income and just over 20% received no compensation whatsoever during their absence.
The study "Differences in access to wage replacement benefits for absences due to work-related injury or illness in Canada" concludes that women, younger workers, recent immigrants, part-time employees, employees with shorter job tenures, those from small workplaces, and those who were not members of a union or collective bargaining agreements were all less likely to receive any form of income replacement during their work absence. While the authors do not explicitly tie the results to the concept of precarious work, these groups workers and/or job characteristics are frequently associated with precarious employment.
The study also highlight the importance of legislated employment rights to specific subgroups of workers. Recent immigrants, younger workers, or workers with short job tenure were unlikely to receive any employer-benefits during absences caused by workplace injuries other than workers' compensation. Overall, approximately 50% of the study's subjects receive no
workers’ compensation income and just over 20% received no compensation whatsoever during their absence.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Gender discrimination and precarious employment
A recent article in Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations by Marisa Young sheds some new light on gender and precarious employment.
“Gender differences in precarious work settings” uses US data to examine two competing theories about why women are over-represented in precarious work settings: human capital theory (i.e., women make different choices than men about skills development) and gender stratification (i.e., women are discriminated against).
The study confirms what most practitioners would expect. Women typically have less work experience than men and women typically spend more time on family commitments than men. Women are also typically earn less than men and are more likely to work part-time. The value of the study is that it analyzes the contributions of work experience and family commitments to the incidence of lower pay and part-time employment.
The gist of Young’s conclusions are these:
1. Controlling for education and experience, men receive higher wages and are less likely to work part-time than women.
2. Controlling for time spent on family commitments, women appear more penalized ( in the form of lower pay and part-time employment) than men for undertaking these tasks.
3. While human capital investments do decrease the likelihood of precarious employment, they do so less effectively for women than for men, in part because of underlying gender discrimination in the workplace.
In short, these findings suggest that employer discrimination makes an independent contribution greater job precariousness for women than men. This finding makes it more difficult to dismiss gender differences in the likelihood precarious employment as a function of women’s choices and forces us to consider discrimination as a source of difference.
“Gender differences in precarious work settings” uses US data to examine two competing theories about why women are over-represented in precarious work settings: human capital theory (i.e., women make different choices than men about skills development) and gender stratification (i.e., women are discriminated against).
The study confirms what most practitioners would expect. Women typically have less work experience than men and women typically spend more time on family commitments than men. Women are also typically earn less than men and are more likely to work part-time. The value of the study is that it analyzes the contributions of work experience and family commitments to the incidence of lower pay and part-time employment.
The gist of Young’s conclusions are these:
1. Controlling for education and experience, men receive higher wages and are less likely to work part-time than women.
2. Controlling for time spent on family commitments, women appear more penalized ( in the form of lower pay and part-time employment) than men for undertaking these tasks.
3. While human capital investments do decrease the likelihood of precarious employment, they do so less effectively for women than for men, in part because of underlying gender discrimination in the workplace.
In short, these findings suggest that employer discrimination makes an independent contribution greater job precariousness for women than men. This finding makes it more difficult to dismiss gender differences in the likelihood precarious employment as a function of women’s choices and forces us to consider discrimination as a source of difference.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Farm Workers to Remain Excluded
While government consultations are still continuing, the Calgary Herald is reporting that farm workers will continue to be excluded from Alberta's occupational health and safety and workers' compensation laws. This seems like an odd choice, given the Minister of Employment's announcement last week that he will be improving Alberta's OHS system in the wake of the Auditor General's report from April.
“Let this serve as official notice for any Alberta company that doesn’t want to play by the rules,” said Minister Lukaszuk. “Today is a new day for Occupational Health and Safety in Alberta.” Unless, it seems, you are n employer in an occupation that falls outside the rules due to statutory exclusions.
Alberta farm workers remain one of Canada's least protected employee groups. Farm and ranch employees are not subject to minimum wage, hour of work, overtime, vacation pay, general holiday pay, rest periods and child labour provisions of the Employment Standards Code. Farm and ranch workers are also excluded from labour legislation that regulates unionization and collective bargaining, thereby effectively precluding these activities by workers.
Farm and ranch workers are exempted from health and safety legislation by regulation. By contrast, Ontario brought farm workers under the ambit of its OHS legislation in 2006. And workers’ compensation coverage is not mandatory for farm workers, although employers can purchase optional coverage . Workers whose employers do not voluntarily purchase workers’ compensation insurance are left to pursue recourse for injuries through the courts or private insurance schemes, routes employees have traditionally had difficulty accessing.
An important question is why exclude a vulnerable group from basic employment rights broadly available throughout Canada? This article suggests that doing so runs contrary to the interests of the state, agricultural corporations and farmers. And that the gerrymandering of Alberta's electoral boundaries to ensure rural voters are over-represented creates a political imperative for the government to maintain the exclusion, particularly in light of the political threat posed by the Wild Rose Alliance.
Unfortunately for agricultural workers, this means they have effectively no statutory protection on the job.
-- Bob Barnetson
“Let this serve as official notice for any Alberta company that doesn’t want to play by the rules,” said Minister Lukaszuk. “Today is a new day for Occupational Health and Safety in Alberta.” Unless, it seems, you are n employer in an occupation that falls outside the rules due to statutory exclusions.
Alberta farm workers remain one of Canada's least protected employee groups. Farm and ranch employees are not subject to minimum wage, hour of work, overtime, vacation pay, general holiday pay, rest periods and child labour provisions of the Employment Standards Code. Farm and ranch workers are also excluded from labour legislation that regulates unionization and collective bargaining, thereby effectively precluding these activities by workers.
Farm and ranch workers are exempted from health and safety legislation by regulation. By contrast, Ontario brought farm workers under the ambit of its OHS legislation in 2006. And workers’ compensation coverage is not mandatory for farm workers, although employers can purchase optional coverage . Workers whose employers do not voluntarily purchase workers’ compensation insurance are left to pursue recourse for injuries through the courts or private insurance schemes, routes employees have traditionally had difficulty accessing.
An important question is why exclude a vulnerable group from basic employment rights broadly available throughout Canada? This article suggests that doing so runs contrary to the interests of the state, agricultural corporations and farmers. And that the gerrymandering of Alberta's electoral boundaries to ensure rural voters are over-represented creates a political imperative for the government to maintain the exclusion, particularly in light of the political threat posed by the Wild Rose Alliance.
Unfortunately for agricultural workers, this means they have effectively no statutory protection on the job.
-- Bob Barnetson
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Privacy and Safety in the Workplace
Two interesting newspaper articles have appeared this week.
The first is a privacy commissioner ruling regarding an email sent following an employee resignation. According to the article, " two managers sent out a memo that a "difficult" staffer quit to take a new job and that her new boss would need some luck to deal with her."
The commissioner ruled that this was a release of the employee's personal information without her consent. This ruling draws attention to how privacy laws are (or ought to!) alter human resource practices in the private sector.
The second is an in-depth investigation of how Alberta treats workplace deaths. In short, prosecution is rare, even for repeat offenders. There are a couple of interesting facts:
1. Alberta spends nearly five-times more money on insurance rebates to Alberta companies with government-endorsed safety certificates ($70 million in 2009) than it spends inspecting job sites and enforcing occupational safety laws ($15 million in 2009-10). These rebates are available to companies with worker fatalities--even those with multiple deaths.
2. Of those workers killed on the job since 2003, three-quarters occurred on worksites where inspectors identified safety violations. Only one-third of these cases were prosecuted to a verdict.
3. Several former OHS investigators express frustration with the lack of support for prosecutions.
Employment Minister Thomas Lukaszuk comments are important:
“If there are ideas and there are mechanisms that will make our workplace safer, I’m open to looking at it."
This is a common answer from Lukaszuk on OHS issues. While it seems reasonable enough at first glance, it places the responsibility for ensuring the laws are enforced on the shoulders of worker advocates (who must then often face opposition on committees from employer representatives).
Further, it glosses over the fact that the government modified the legislation eight years ago to allow on-the-spot fines and naming Alberta’s worst safety performers. The lack of action on implementing these provision is not about not having ideas or being restricted by the legislation. It reflects a lack of political will on the part of at least four successive Ministers to lower the boom on unsafe employers. The cost of this inaction is borne by workers and their families in the form of injuries and death.
-- Bob Barnetson
PS: Things will be quiet here the next month as I take a vacation.
The first is a privacy commissioner ruling regarding an email sent following an employee resignation. According to the article, " two managers sent out a memo that a "difficult" staffer quit to take a new job and that her new boss would need some luck to deal with her."
The commissioner ruled that this was a release of the employee's personal information without her consent. This ruling draws attention to how privacy laws are (or ought to!) alter human resource practices in the private sector.
The second is an in-depth investigation of how Alberta treats workplace deaths. In short, prosecution is rare, even for repeat offenders. There are a couple of interesting facts:
1. Alberta spends nearly five-times more money on insurance rebates to Alberta companies with government-endorsed safety certificates ($70 million in 2009) than it spends inspecting job sites and enforcing occupational safety laws ($15 million in 2009-10). These rebates are available to companies with worker fatalities--even those with multiple deaths.
2. Of those workers killed on the job since 2003, three-quarters occurred on worksites where inspectors identified safety violations. Only one-third of these cases were prosecuted to a verdict.
3. Several former OHS investigators express frustration with the lack of support for prosecutions.
Employment Minister Thomas Lukaszuk comments are important:
“If there are ideas and there are mechanisms that will make our workplace safer, I’m open to looking at it."
This is a common answer from Lukaszuk on OHS issues. While it seems reasonable enough at first glance, it places the responsibility for ensuring the laws are enforced on the shoulders of worker advocates (who must then often face opposition on committees from employer representatives).
Further, it glosses over the fact that the government modified the legislation eight years ago to allow on-the-spot fines and naming Alberta’s worst safety performers. The lack of action on implementing these provision is not about not having ideas or being restricted by the legislation. It reflects a lack of political will on the part of at least four successive Ministers to lower the boom on unsafe employers. The cost of this inaction is borne by workers and their families in the form of injuries and death.
-- Bob Barnetson
PS: Things will be quiet here the next month as I take a vacation.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Living Wage in Alberta
An interesting article kicked up on the Edmonton Journal website today. In short, it reports StatCan data suggesting 224,000 Albertans (13.7% of the workforce) earn less than $12 a hour--the amount needed to get over the low-income cutoff for StatCan (sometimes called the poverty line, a characterization StatCan does not agree with). Over 112,000 Albertans earn less than $10 an hour.
This information comes courtesy of Public Interest Alberta, a not-for-profit group that provides advice and commentary on issues of public interest. A region breakdown of the data is available.
There is an interesting gendered aspect to this data: "The statistics reveal that 58% of people earning less than $10/ hour are women over 20 years of age (17% are older than 45) and women make up 62% of low-income earners."
This data is released as the province's Standing Committee on the Economy is holding hearings on the future of the minimum wage. PIA has made a presentation to the Committee. Of particular interest is slide 5 which shows the real-dollar value of the minimum wage over time.
My own submission to the Committee is available here.
-- Bob Barnetson
This information comes courtesy of Public Interest Alberta, a not-for-profit group that provides advice and commentary on issues of public interest. A region breakdown of the data is available.
There is an interesting gendered aspect to this data: "The statistics reveal that 58% of people earning less than $10/ hour are women over 20 years of age (17% are older than 45) and women make up 62% of low-income earners."
This data is released as the province's Standing Committee on the Economy is holding hearings on the future of the minimum wage. PIA has made a presentation to the Committee. Of particular interest is slide 5 which shows the real-dollar value of the minimum wage over time.
My own submission to the Committee is available here.
-- Bob Barnetson
Monday, June 7, 2010
Quebec Farm Workers can Unionize
Agricultural workers are frequently exempted from statutory employment rights in Canada. In recent years, this has been changing. For example, Ontario has been compelled to provide farm workers with the ability to unionized and collectively bargain , although this is presently under appeal to the Supreme Court and Manitoba has included agricultural workers in its employment standards legislation.
Last week, the Quebec Labour Relations Board ruled that Labour Code provisions of the that effectively preclude seasonal farm workers from gaining collective bargaining rights breaches the freedom of association guaranteed in s.2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The provision required a minimum of three workers be "continuously" employed at a farm if collective bargaining rights are sought, works against seasonal migrant workers (mainly from Latin America). As a result, the LRB certified a bargaining unit of six Mexican migrant workers at a vegetable farm near Mirabel.
Here in Alberta, farm workers are excluded from minimum wage, hour of work, overtime, vacation pay, general holiday pay, rest periods and child labour provisions of the Employment Standards Code. The Labour Relations Code precludes farm workers from organizing and the Occupational Health and Safety Act does not apply. Finally, employers are not required to have workers’ compensation coverage for farm workers. No other province is a thorough as Alberta in excluding agricultural workers from basic statutory employment rights.
An interesting question is why does Alberta treat farm workers this way? While too long to summarize in a blog post, this article suggests how the interests of farmers, the state and capital intertwine to maintain this arrangement. It is unclear how long Alberta will be able to resist the current wave of constitutional arguments against these exclusions.
-- Bob Barnetson
Last week, the Quebec Labour Relations Board ruled that Labour Code provisions of the that effectively preclude seasonal farm workers from gaining collective bargaining rights breaches the freedom of association guaranteed in s.2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The provision required a minimum of three workers be "continuously" employed at a farm if collective bargaining rights are sought, works against seasonal migrant workers (mainly from Latin America). As a result, the LRB certified a bargaining unit of six Mexican migrant workers at a vegetable farm near Mirabel.
Here in Alberta, farm workers are excluded from minimum wage, hour of work, overtime, vacation pay, general holiday pay, rest periods and child labour provisions of the Employment Standards Code. The Labour Relations Code precludes farm workers from organizing and the Occupational Health and Safety Act does not apply. Finally, employers are not required to have workers’ compensation coverage for farm workers. No other province is a thorough as Alberta in excluding agricultural workers from basic statutory employment rights.
An interesting question is why does Alberta treat farm workers this way? While too long to summarize in a blog post, this article suggests how the interests of farmers, the state and capital intertwine to maintain this arrangement. It is unclear how long Alberta will be able to resist the current wave of constitutional arguments against these exclusions.
-- Bob Barnetson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)