Friday Tunes: Between the Wars

This week’s installment of labour themes in popular culture is Billy Bragg’s “Between the Wars”, a song he wrote during the UK coal miner’s fight with Margaret Thatcher. The key theme in the song is the sense of betrayal by the government among the working class over Thatcher’s austerity agenda:

I paid the union and as times got harder
I looked to the government to help the working man 

I kept the faith and I kept voting
Not for the iron fist but for the helping hand

The poor treatment of the miner, docker and railway man—the kinds of people who historically have risked and sacrificed their lives for their countries in the expectation of a fair shake—represents a betrayal of that sacrifice.

Call up the craftsmen
Bring me the draughtsmen
Build me a path from cradle to grave
And I'll give my consent
To any government
That does not deny a man a living wage

We heard echoes of this sentiment in the recent federal election, with many voters appalled by the Harper government’s treatment of veterans. Whether it is denying disabled veterans benefits or destroying the industries that provides workers with a living wage in order to break the power of workers, governments that renege on the social contract eventually pay a price.

I don’t particularly care for Billy Bragg’s voice so I’ve selected an acapella cover by The Young’uns.



I was a miner
I was a docker
I was a railway man
Between the wars

I raised a family
In times of austerity
With sweat at the foundry
Between the wars

I paid the union and as times got harder
I looked to the government to help the working man
And they brought prosperity down at the armoury
"We're arming for peace me boys"
Between the wars

I kept the faith and I kept voting
Not for the iron fist but for the helping hand
For theirs is a land with a wall around it
And mine is a faith in my fellow man
Theirs is a land of hope and glory
Mine is the green field and the factory floor
Theirs are the skies all dark with bombers
And mine is the peace we knew
Between the wars

Call up the craftsmen
Bring me the draughtsmen
Build me a path from cradle to grave
And I'll give my consent
To any government
That does not deny a man a living wage

Go find the young men never to fight again
Bring up the banners from the days gone by
Sweet moderation
Heart of this nation
Desert us not, we are
Between the wars

-- Bob Barnetson

Gendered energy extraction in Fort McMurray

Three weeks ago, AU Press published a new book entitled Alberta Oil and the Decline of Democracy in Canada. You can download the entire book for free from Athabasca University Press. Sara Dorow’s chapter entitled “Gendering energy extraction in Fort McMurray” examines the gendered nature of social reproduction that underlies the tar sands economy. 

Basically, Dorow looks at how the role of women in Fort McMurray's economy often becomes to support men’s participation in the oil industry—through not working (at least for pay) or working part-time or working in “town” jobs in order to free up men to work in the plants and mines.

Dorow’s analysis is very interesting. Here are a couple of snap shots:

First, consider that in 2011 nearly one-third of the resident labour force in the [Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo] census area worked in “trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations,” and 90 percent of those workers oil industry ads and billboards is, ironically, more a reflection of the work that female bodies do to publicly produce the idea of inclusive economic participation than of the reality of work on the ground. (p. 279) 

Median earnings for men in the RMWB were almost three times those of women, and were still more than twice as high when we consider only those individuals working full-year, full-time (see table 10.1). This is considerably more of a gap than in the province as a whole, which already has one of the highest gender wage gaps in Canada. (pp. 279-280)

In this context, complained the spouse of an oil industry professional, “as much as the companies certainly say, ‘Balanced life, that’s what we want,’ there’s certainly that dichotomy between ‘Make sure you’re staying healthy and not working too much’ but ‘Could you come in and work tomorrow?’” (p. 281) 

A second form of flexibilization entailed women taking a paid job that worked around a male partner’s schedule in the oil patch. Often this was part-time work found in public, nonprofit, or service industry employment in town, given the relative dearth of part-time work with the oil companies themselves. (p. 282)

Dorow’s chapter also touches upon the experiences of (mostly racialized) live-in caregivers, which Dorow has previously discussed in this report. Overall, this is a very different take on the oilsands and well worth the read.

-- Bob Barnetson

International Conference on Regulation, Change and the Work Environment

From November 30 to December 2, the University of Ottawa will be playing host to the International Conference on Regulation, Change and the Work Environment. I am sad I can't attend this conference as it is quite a good program.

The conference opens with a panel discussion entitled "Sick of Work: The Health and Safety Challenges of Insecure and Precarious Employment – Global Perspectives and Lessons for Canada" that includes Michael Quinlan, Annie Thébaud-Mony, David Walters, Laurent Vogel and Katherine Lippel.

The next days sees sessions that include:

• Occupational Health Put to the Test of Deregulation: The Paralysis of European Policies on Occupational Cancers 
• The Global Workforce and Workplace Safety in Australian Horticulture: Managing Without Obligation or Commitment
• (in French) Local Labour Union Action on Occupational Health and Safety: Varieties in Forms, Leverage and Obstacles

Overall, this looks like a good conference on a timely theme!

-- Bob Barnetson

Friday Tunes: Shift Work

This week’s installment of labour theme in popular culture is Kenny Chesney’s (rather uninspiring) “Shift Work”. Shift work—work that requires workers to work outside of regular week-day hours—is a growing trend in Canada. The most common form of shift work is rotating schedules, when a worker cycles through a series of day, evening, and night shifts. Shift work disrupts our biological clock, family patterns and is associated with unhealthy behaviours, including smoking, poor diet and increased alcohol consumption

Research compiled by my colleague Jason Foster (with whom I’m writing an open-source OHS textbook) reveals shift work causes a wide range of health effects. In the short term, shift work leads to shortened and less restorative sleep, chronic tiredness and lack of alertness, as well as stomachaches, indigestion, and heartburn. Shift work is associated with increased risk of workplace incidents and injury.

Longer term exposure to shift work is associated with a series of illnesses and conditions. Shift workers report significantly higher rates of burnout, emotional exhaustion, stress, anxiety, depression, and other psychological distress. Shift work increases a worker’s risk of developing diabetes and some studies have also found a greater risk of heart disease. Some studies have also suggested a link between shift work and pregnancy complications.

Likely the most significant long term risk of shift work is increased risk of cancer, in particular breast cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has concluded that disrupting shift work is “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) – the second most conclusive category in the IARC.

Chesney’s song is remarkable for lyrically focusing on this aspect of job design and, more broadly, the difficulties faced by blue collar workers. About the most interesting observation he makes is that, in seeking a break from shift work, the singer accesses services that also run on shift work.

What is most striking is how brutally sexist Chesney’s video is. While women comprise a significant percentage of all shift workers, they show up only a handful of times in the video (three times, may) as examples of workers. The rest of the time, shift work is clearly constructed as the preserve of (mostly white) men engaged in “log it, mine it, pave it” work.

The major exception to the absence of women is the models pretending to be gas station attendants who writhe around the car in the service station parking lot that serves as the main set for the video. Seriously, would anyone lean over a hot engine to check the oil in a crop top with their boobs hanging out? This creates an interesting contrast to the “real workers" (i.e., men) in the video who are shown often wearing appropriate personal protective equipment.

Brutal sexism, Kenny. Just brutal.



Shift work, hard work, tired body
Blue-collar shirt and a baseball cap
You knew me

He's hot, sweat drops, 'round the clock
Door never locks
Noise never stops
Not all day

Work seven to three
Three to eleven
Eleven to seven

Shift work, tough work for the busy convenience store clerk
Two feet that hurt, going insane
She's mad at some lad

Drove off and didn't pay for his gas and he won't be the last
'round the clock pain
Work seven to three
Three to eleven
Eleven to seven

[Chorus:]

Talking about a bunch of shift work
A big ol' pile of shift work
Work seven to three
Three to eleven
Eleven to seven

Well I work, shift work,
Ten years man, I hated that work
I made a break with the money I saved
It took me to the beach to have a beer by the edge of the sea

And this 'round a clock place
I drank my money away
We partied
Work seven to three
Three to eleven
Eleven to seven

[Chorus]

[Chorus]

Work seven to three
Three to eleven
Eleven to seven

-- Bob Barnetson

Regulatory capture: Trading worker's health for profit

Two weeks ago, a new book entitled Alberta Oil and the Decline of Democracy in Canada was published by Athabasca University Press. You can download the entire book for free from Athabasca University Press.

My own chapter entitled “Worker safety in Alberta: Trading health for profit” examines how the former Conservative government undermines workers’ rights to safe workplaces in order to privilege the interests of employers. The story is a bit winding and includes a concerted effort to weaken Alberta’s labour movement and also appease rural interests to maintain electoral support.

I think the most interesting part of the chapter is the discussion of regulatory capture of Alberta OHS system.

Regulatory capture occurs when a state agency designed to act in the public interest instead acts to advance the interests of an important stakeholder group in the sector its regulates (Shapiro 2012). Regulatory capture occurs when groups with a significant stake in the outcome of regulatory decisions aggressively seek to gain advantageous policy outcomes. Focused efforts are often successful, because the public (who individually have only a small stake in the outcome) tend to ignore regulatory decision making.

Under a situation of regulatory capture, the dominant stakeholder group can then use the captured regulator to impose costs on other stakeholders, even if such costs are contrary to the public interest. Captured regulators may see themselves as partners of the captors they are supposed to regulate and may even find themselves financed by that group (p. 236).

It is important to recognize that regulatory capture is a contested concept (there are competing definitions and approaches). That said, there is ample evidence to suggest that it had occurred in Alberta’s occupational health and safety system under the Tory regime. The evidence includes the state:

• ineffectively regulating workplace safety, 
• deeming employers to be “partners” in regulation, 
• being reliant on employer funding of regulatory activity, 
• allowing employers preferential access to policy making, 
• enacting policies that reward the appearance of safety rather than safety itself, and 
• promulgating a narrative that blames another stakeholder (i.e. , workers) for workplace injuries.

The key policy question going forward is what changes the New Democratic government might make to the operation of the occupational health and safety and workers’ compensation systems that might reverse this capture.

-- Bob Barnetson

Professor. Associate Professor. What's the difference?

I had some good news from Athabasca University yesterday (a rare event indeed!) regarding my final promotion. This clip somehow seems funnier now:



I'm sure there is some sort of teachable moment here, but I'm really too tired to even try.

-- Professor Bob Barnetson

Deaths of farm children are mostly preventable

The death of three young farm kids in Alberta last week is (rightly) being reported as a tragedy. The reports are bit unclear but it appears that the girls (13, 11 and 11) were sitting on a truck while canola seed was being loaded, somehow fell into the truck bed, and were buried, eventually dying of asphyxiation.

One of the more vexing aspects of the media coverage are “man-on-the-street” comments along the lines of “it’s a farm, what are ya gonna do?” Although this narrative has been less pronounced in the coverage of these deaths than in other tragedies, it is still visible in the coverage.  For example:

Fred Bott said he was invited to the Bott farm often while growing up in Rocky Mountain House, Alta. 

He said many might question why the children weren't more closely monitored on the farm. 

"Anytime we went to visit, you were always out playing out in the haystacks, playing in the barn loft, playing in the grain. That's what farm kids do."

There certainly truth in this statement: farm kids routinely come into contact with hazards and this contact is widely accepted as a part of farm life. Yet, at the same time, most of these contacts—and the injuries they sometimes cause—are not inevitable.

Crudely speaking, injuries and fatalities are caused by an individual being in proximity to an uncontrolled hazard. If you control the hazard (e.g., by eliminating it or otherwise limiting contact with the hazard), you prevent the injury or fatality. This the basic “logic” of hazard control in occupational health and safety.

Hazard elimination is tricky on farms. Of the roughly 100 farm fatalities each year in Canada, about 70% are machinery-related (roll-overs, run-downs, caught in machine, collisions, pinned by machinery). Drowning, contact with animals and falls account for most of the rest. About 2% of fatalities are caused by asphyxiation by grain or soil.

Many farm hazards are inherent in the work (thus cannot be eliminated) while others would be extremely costly to mitigate. It is, however, possible to reduce the risk of death appreciably. Consider roll overs (the biggest risk to farmers, nationally). Driver training can reduce the risk of tractor roll overs. And roll bars can decrease the likelihood and severity of injury from a roll over.

Now think about kids on farms. There were 61 fatalities involving minors on Alberta farms between 1997 and 2013. The causes broadly mirror national data on child farm deaths:

Machine runovers: 41.9%
Drownings: 15.2%
Machine rollovers: 11.1%
Animal-related: 6.5%
Crushed under an object: 5.1% 

A small percentage of these deaths are likely unpreventable. For example, anyone who gets on a horse can get thrown and a small subset of those thrown will die as a result. But most of these deaths are preventable by excluding children from the area containing the hazard, either with physical barriers or via firmly enforced rules.

Excluding the children from the area around grain or seed loading operations, for example, likely would have saved the three girls who died this week. Yes, children can break rules, but most likely won’t. And it is up to parents to enforce these rules.

What this analysis suggests is that allowing farm kids to be exposed to hazards is a choice (i.e., academics would call it a cultural practice). As a choice, this practice is amenable to change. The question is show to effect such a cultural change, given how adults tend to diminish injuries and near misses to children by framing these events as educational (“that’ll learn ya”).

There is some logic to this “natural consequences” approach to parenting. We certainly do all learn from experience. Yet allow kids to learn from first-hand experience in the face of risks with potentially fatal consequences is not responsible parenting. While educating children about the risks on the farm is certainly one possibility, it is important to remember that it is adults who determine the dangers children face on a farm.

-- Bob Barnetson