Fairness Works ads now available on youtube

The Canadian Labour Congress has recently been running ads on TV. Last week I lamented I couldn't find them and, lo, the Labour Gods have made it available on YouTube:



-- Bob Barnetson

More on mandatory WCB for Alberta farm workers

One of few positive signs around the long-standing exclusion of Alberta farm workers from virtually all of statutory employment laws was a January motion at the Wild Rose Agricultural Producers (now the Alberta Federation of Agriculture) AGM that said:

Farm Labour Resolution 2013-10: Be it resolved that WRAP approach the WCB to discuss inclusion of agricultural employment under the WCB Act.

 At the time, most observers (including myself) thought that this signaled the AFA was going to explore mandatory workers’ compensation coverage for farms and ranches (which are presently excluded from mandatory coverage—although employers can purchase voluntary coverage). Apparently, this motion was passed “very narrowly”. 

This 2013 motion follows on a 2011 motion that was similar and also passed very narrowly:

Delegates to the recent Wild Rose Agricultural Producers (WRAP) annual meeting in Edmonton took on the contentious farm workers’ rights issue, and voted to lobby the Alberta government to include agricultural workers under the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB). The motion passed by one vote. 

In late January, the AFA was quoted as saying WCB coverage was good news:

(President Lynn) Jacobson said WCB coverage makes sense because most farmers don't carry insurance to cover their liability if a worker gets injured. "Really, when you think about it, having some type of coverage is a win for you as a producer. You can't really lose by it. But if you don't have it, you could lose your farm."

 Yet, in February, the AFA clarified it position in an article in the Prairie Post:

“We are not pushing WCB to include agricultural workers; we are simply gathering information and exploring the options," explained Sheryl Rae, executive director, WRAP, the largest agriculture organization in Alberta.

“Gathering information and exploring options” is an interesting interpretation of the January motion. The motion could mean that, although why the AFA would need a motion from the floor of its AGM to go gather information is hard to fathom: isn’t this what industry organizations do as a matter of course?

Recently, I received a copy of an October 10 letter from the AFA to Alberta’s Minister of Agriculture. It says, in part:

AFA is often publically portrayed as having a resolution on our books that calls for mandatory WCB coverage. As we discussed with you during our meeting, a producer-initiated resolution was passed at our AGM that directed our board to “approach the WCB to discuss the inclusion of agricultural employment under the WCB Act.” In hindsight, this wording may have fallen short of its intent, which was to seek clarity around corporate liability protection and how coverage for family members, neighbors, and friends assisting with specific farm operations is handled. We have since met with the WCB Manager of Customer Services and will be taking that information forward to our membership.

This paragraph deserves some unpacking. First, note that the AGA characterizes the motion “producer-initiated”. I’m not sure if that means it was a motion from the floor or not, but this wording seems to distance the AGA’s executive from the motion. It may signal that there is still some organizational resistance to the notion of mandatory coverage, which accords with the reportedly close votes in 2011 and 2013.

Second, the AGA expands upon its February interpretation of the motion to indicate the motion directed the AGA “to seek clarity around corporate liability protection and how coverage for family members, neighbors, and friends assisting with specific farm operations is handled.” The AGA also notes that the January motion’s “wording may have fallen short of its intent.”

Now I wasn’t at the AGM, but this interpretation seems like a bit of a stretch. The motion was: “Be it resolved that WRAP approach the WCB to discuss inclusion of agricultural employment under the WCB Act.”

While the motion doesn’t quite authorize the AGA to seek changes in the Workers’ Compensation Regulation (although the 2011 motion seems to), it also doesn’t suggest the AGA simply seek clarity around the scope of voluntary coverage. Rather, it directs the AGA to commence discussion about included agricultural employment (which is currently excluded) under the WCB Act. That is to say, the motion seems to direct action toward changing the status quo.

Perhaps what we’re seeking here is an internal division in the AFA on the issue of mandatory WCB. This is consistent with the 2011 and 2013 motions passing narrowly. If the organization is divided, this puts the executive of the AFA in a tough spot. On the one hand, they must take action on the motion but, on the other hand, they may risk the departure of those members who opposed the motion.

Indeed, the AFA exec may also be divided (or even opposed), which might explain why it characterizes the motion as “producer-initiated”. Walking back the motion to “gathering information and exploring options” may well be an effort to minimally comply with the motion without alienating either camp.

The upshot seems to be that the AFA remains committed to the status quo on workers’ compensation coverage (voluntary coverage only), uptake upon which the AGA characterizes as “low”. Based on WCB industry profiles, it looks like about 7% or so.

For farm workers who will be injured this year, this means they will most likely continue to be without wage-loss compensation or medical benefits. It also suggests that winning producers over on issues where they have a vested interest is difficult. This, of course, is why it is often necessary for governments to impose regulation on industries. It is also why there is so much skepticism about Alberta's seemingly endless consultations with agricultural producers around improving workplace safety: so long as employers can externalize the cost of injury onto workers and the health-care system, there is little incentive for them to operate more safely.

Interestingly, temporary foreign workers who come to Canada to work in agriculture must be provided workers’ compensation coverage. It is a bit hard to reconcile this (laudable) treatment of non-citizens with the government’s unwillingness to extend similar benefits to Canadian citizens who work in Alberta’s agricultural industry.

-- Bob Barnetson

Union advertising

I've been seeing a fair bit of advertising by the Canada Labour Congress on TV lately, trying to rehabilitate the general public's view of unions (see Fairness Works for a sense of the content). I couldn't find any videos of the ads, but I did find this one on UFCW's page:



The idea of identifying the benefits of trade unionism isn't new ("From the people who brought you the weekend...") but it is nice to see some counter-hegemonic advertising about broader utility of collective action.

-- Bob Barnetson

Alberta's discourse around workplace injury

I've recently published an article entitled Framing and blaming: Construction of workplace injuries by legislators in Alberta, Canada.

Starting from the premise that government members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) have successfully resisted pressure to increase state injury-prevention efforts, I sought to identify the narratives used by MLAs to manage political pressure for increased injury-prevention efforts via legislative analysis from 2000 to 2012.

I eventually identified three recurring narratives around workplace injury: (1) injuries are caused by ignorance and inattention, (2) workplaces are safe and getting safer, and (3) risk is inevitable and mitigation is (too) expensive. 

The consistency of the messages delivered by MLAs over time suggests an intentional effort to frame workplace injury in ways that manage political pressure for greater state efforts to prevent workplace injuries while maintaining the government’s legitimacy. The narratives used by MLAs draw on widely held beliefs about workplace injuries, including the careless worker myth and the notion that safety pays.

-- Bob Barnetson

Migrants denied EI benefits despite paying premiums

An interesting story about migrant workers has come out of Ontario. Glendon Sanchez, of Trinidad and Tobago, has been coming to Canada under the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP) for 14 years.  A long-time contributor to EI (like all migrant workers), Sanchez decided to apply for parental benefits in 2009.

(Migrants have been generally ineligible for regular EI benefits (because they are not available in Canada for work when unemployed) but were eligible for special benefits such as parental leave because there was no residency requirement attached to them.)

Then a typical bureaucratic snafu ensured. The Employment Insurance was willing to accept claims dating back as far as 1990 from migrant workers who didn’t realize they were eligible but the EI Commission turned him down, saying he waited too long to apply (???). His appeal (along with appeals from 102 other migrant farm workers) will be heard in federal court today.

The workers stand to win between $3,000 and $8,000, each. But future workers are ineligible for parental benefits (due to a federal rule change) even thought these workers must continue to pay EI premiums.

 --Bob Barnetson

Finally a good use for labour market data!

Yesterday, the province announced $142.5m to expand engineering facilities at the University of Calgary. Critics complained about this (capital) expenditure when post-secondary (operating) grants had been cut.

As far as I can tell, there is no information about who will pay for the operating costs of educating the 400 engineers that the expanded building can house, although the U of C’s president said:

“We will be looking to partner with government to have the operating funds to bring in those new students. Those conversations are happening right now.”

 Part of the justification of this expenditure is growing demand for engineering space (likely true). The other part of the justification was that Alberta needed more engineers:

“We need a lot of engineers in this province,” Premier Alison Redford said at the event on Wednesday. 

It is unclear if there is any actual demand for more engineers.

If you look at the government’s own labour market demand forecasts, they are projecting below average growth among civil, mechanical, electrical and chemical engineers (+2.5% 2013-2017) and other engineers (+1.5% 2013-2017) (Lines C03 and C04 here). All in this represents about 2800 more engineers employed by 2017.

Existing programs might well meet this demand. Or, occupational churn (i.e., replacing retirees) may require more than 2800 new bodies. It is hard to tell. Of the 50 occupations with the highest vacancy rates, only mechanical engineers are on the list.

No engineers appear on the list of the “oldest” occupations in this 2009 report about Alberta’s Aging Labour Force and Skill Shortages (p.9), although this may reflect a data  exclusion by size of the occupation (I can’t quite tell).

There are engineers (software, civil engineers) listed as subject to short-term high demand (2012-2014) on page 23 of this March 2013 Labour Market Outlook.

Since the expansion won’t be finished until 2016 and then it will take four more years to graduate engineers (so 2020), this is not a solution to any identifiable shortage in government documents. 

Which raises the question of whether this expansion is politically motivated, perhaps rewarding the university that absorbed budget cuts with the least fuss.

-- Bob Barnetson

Migrant workers bump Canadians in McMurray?

Back when the temporary foreign worker (TFW) program was ramping up, elected officials were quick to assure voters that TFWs posed no threat to Canadian jobs. Here are a few 2005 quotes from Tory cabinet Ministers recorded in Hansard to this effect:

Dr. Oberg: Lastly, the whole idea behind a temporary foreign worker is… to take these workers, bring them over here for a temporary period of time when they are needed, when there is the workforce boom that is going on, when we can’t supply it, and then at the end of three years they have to go home. Alberta, Alberta Hansard, 27 April 2005a, Lyle Oberg PC, pp. 1090-1

Mr. Cardinal: … The first priority for Alberta, our government… is to hire Albertans first wherever possible, Canadians second…. When an employer has exhausted that, then they have an opportunity to apply through the federal government to bring in foreign workers…. It’s definitely not a top priority for industries, definitely not a top priority for our government… who like to see our own local people working first. Alberta, Alberta Hansard, 16 March 2005b, Mike Cardinal PC, p. 280

There are dozens of similar comments where MLAs justify an increasingly migrant workforce. Yet there are also hints that these kinds of statements aren't true, especially during the economic downturn of 2008/09 when employers kept on TFWs and laid off domestic workers. There is also evidence that the federal system of evaluating employer claims about the need for TFWs was a bit thin on the "evaluate" part of "evaluating" (lots of "ing", though!).

Along the way, the feds loosened the rules. Requests for permits would proceed faster, they said (because that improves the quality of evaluation...) and several occupations required no evaluation (generally construction). Not surprisingly, with no real need to prove a labour shortage exists, some employers have decided to hire TFWs regardless of whether Canadians are available.

For example, Fort McMurray Today is reporting 270 Canadian pipefitters and welders and Husky's Sunrise project got laid off in September and have been replaced with TFWs from Portugal, Ireland, Mexico and Italy. Of course, none of the players is talking about why this happened--there are rumours of a paydispute between companies and talk that TFWs are cheaper than unionized Canadians. All of this seems contrary to the purpose of the TFW program--to address short-term labour shortages.

One of the more troubling aspects of this displacement centres on accusations that TFWs are working unsafely:

Fougere also witnessed several foreign workers operate equipment unsafely or wander into restricted areas without protective gear. Fougere says many did not understand the Alberta labour code or basic warning labels on hazardous materials. 

When he brought his concerns about the qualifications of the temporary foreign workers to Husky, Fougere says they fell on deaf ears. 

“Just to get through the door, we need certificates and licences up the ying-yang like Red Seal certification. It let’s them know that as Canadians, we’re all qualified to the standards,” he says. “These guys coming in, how the hell can they get in without our qualifications? Or how do we know how good their qualifications from other countries are?”

It is useful to keep in mind that these kinds of accusations can reflect a variety of different agendas and, indeed, there are many ways to approach the issue of TFWs.

On that note, Jason Foster and I will be presenting a paper on how Alberta MLAs "construct" migrant work and migrant workers on October 25th at the Metropolis conference Transforming Citizenship: Ethnicity, Transnationalism, and Belonging in Canada (held at the Faculte St Jean campus of the U of Alberta). 

-- Bob Barnetson