Insight into Government is a weekly newsletter following provincial politics. In its February 25th edition, Insight examined a recent report released by a think tank regarding public sector salaries. With kind permission of Insight, that analysis is reprinted below.
THINK TANKS
SHOOTING CLAY PIGEONS
IN THE WORLD OF PUBLIC POLICY
Editorial writers and columnists had fun spewing easily worked up wrath this week over a “background paper” showing that public-sector salaries have increased faster than salaries in any other job sector since 1998. The paper came from a think tank (the Frontier Centre for Public Policy). So it had to be well considered, right?
Maybe. Various organizations churn out stuff like this. Their output often raises more questions than it answers. This paper did not track salaries in specific government jobs. It tracked overall changes in several job categories. Thus, if lower-paid jobs were being trimmed or privatized, the remainder would have shown up as earning higher average salaries, even if salaries for specific jobs were not moving much.
Nor was there any attempt to look into the relative ages of different workforce sectors; all things being equal, a more experienced employee force would earn more. Nor was there a discussion of the start date — because 1998 was about the end of major government cutbacks in Canada, it’s possible that public administration salaries were beginning a major rebound then. Selection of starting points is one of the biggest traps in this kind of study.
The author covers these and other possibilities by saying that “benign explanations” may exist but “are not evident” — meaning they didn’t look for any. Nor did the media who seized on the paper without asking questions.
But the main problem is that the conclusions are not fully supported by Statistics Canada numbers. Insight checked Statscan’s average weekly earnings reports. We found that the current series shows monthly numbers from January 2006 through November 2010. For Canada, public administration earnings grew by 18.1% in that period — compared with increases like 17.6% for professional, scientifi c and technical services, 34.8% for mining, quarrying and oil and gas extraction, and 43.3% for accommodation and food services.
For Alberta, increases in some of the more noteworthy categories were: public administration, 30.7%; accommodation and food services, 38.1%; health and social assistance, 27.9%; educational services, 23%; management of companies and enterprises, 33.6%; mining, quarrying and oil and gas extraction, 33.1%. Finally, comparing increases is not the same as comparing earnings. Food and hotel workers earn on average about half what people in public administration earn. Oil and gas workers earn about 50% more.
The closest match to weekly earnings in public administration in Alberta is in areas like wholesale trade and manufacturing. Much more analysis is possible. But the point was to create impressions of government spending and public sector workers. This paper, like many others on other subjects, went some distance to achieving its purpose.
____
Insight's critique provides a useful caution about the validity of think-tank studies. For practitioners, it is often useful to consider the conclusions reached by examining the think tank's goals, its funders and its general policy orientation. The Frontier Centre is, to my eye, fairly conservative in orientation. That it would produce a study suggesting public sector wages are high is hardly surprising.
-- Bob Barnetson
Monday, February 28, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Migrant worker report released
The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) have released their 9th annual status of migrant farm workers in Canada report . While understandably Ontario focused, this report provides quite a shocking look into the working conditions facing workers from other countries who travel to Canada to harvest our crops.
The report focuses on workers who come to Canada under the Canadian Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program (CSAWP), and the Temporary Foreign Workers (TFW) Program for Occupations Requiring Lower Levels of Formal Training. Both of these programs provide migrant workers with access to few of the workplace rights Canadians take for granted.
The consequence of these programs (which provide cheap labour to Canadian farmers) are borne by the workers. Government statistics in Alberta show 74% of Alberta’s 407 TFW employers inspected had violated the Employment Standards Code regarding pay rates and record keeping. Workers were being short changed on the hours they worked and the pay they received. Threats of reprisals mean Alberta’s complaint-driven enforcement approach is all but useless.
A study of Ontario migrant farm workers found nearly half of workers reported working while sick or injured was the norm due to fear of reprisal. Half of those ordered to work with chemicals and pesticides reported necessary safety gear (e.g., gloves, masks, and goggles) were not provided. Most workers received no safety training and only 24% of those injured filed a workers’ compensation claim due to fear of being docked pay, repatriated, or being blacklisted from returning the next season.
Canadians wouldn’t accept this sort of treatment. Why do governments expect migrant workers to do so?
-- Bob Barnetson
The report focuses on workers who come to Canada under the Canadian Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program (CSAWP), and the Temporary Foreign Workers (TFW) Program for Occupations Requiring Lower Levels of Formal Training. Both of these programs provide migrant workers with access to few of the workplace rights Canadians take for granted.
The consequence of these programs (which provide cheap labour to Canadian farmers) are borne by the workers. Government statistics in Alberta show 74% of Alberta’s 407 TFW employers inspected had violated the Employment Standards Code regarding pay rates and record keeping. Workers were being short changed on the hours they worked and the pay they received. Threats of reprisals mean Alberta’s complaint-driven enforcement approach is all but useless.
A study of Ontario migrant farm workers found nearly half of workers reported working while sick or injured was the norm due to fear of reprisal. Half of those ordered to work with chemicals and pesticides reported necessary safety gear (e.g., gloves, masks, and goggles) were not provided. Most workers received no safety training and only 24% of those injured filed a workers’ compensation claim due to fear of being docked pay, repatriated, or being blacklisted from returning the next season.
Canadians wouldn’t accept this sort of treatment. Why do governments expect migrant workers to do so?
-- Bob Barnetson
Friday, February 11, 2011
WCB premiums and return to work
The Alberta Federation of Labour produces a periodical called Union magazine. In the latest edition, there is an interesting piece about the relationship between returning injured workers to modified work and WCB premiums. The crux of the article is this statement:
Whether WCBs inappropriately return injured workers to work earlier in order to minimize employer premiums is an interesting research question that is tricky to approach, in part because of the political nature of the question.
There is certainly a fair bit of circumstantial evidence hinting at this (I have an article in review the indirectly touches upon this). And, as the AFL article notes, worker advocates suggest this sort behaviour occurs. Certainly in Alberta, the politics of such a strategy are quite workable.
More interesting still is the impact of the inappropriate use of return-to-work programs on workers. This has been nicely documented by Ellen MacEachern in an article well worth reading.
-- Bob Barnetson
Alberta's WCB, however, collects the lowest premiums in Canada from employers in dangerous industries. Simply put, WCB is not collecting enough revenue from premiums and it balances its books on the backs of workers and their families by putting a squeeze on payouts.
Whether WCBs inappropriately return injured workers to work earlier in order to minimize employer premiums is an interesting research question that is tricky to approach, in part because of the political nature of the question.
There is certainly a fair bit of circumstantial evidence hinting at this (I have an article in review the indirectly touches upon this). And, as the AFL article notes, worker advocates suggest this sort behaviour occurs. Certainly in Alberta, the politics of such a strategy are quite workable.
More interesting still is the impact of the inappropriate use of return-to-work programs on workers. This has been nicely documented by Ellen MacEachern in an article well worth reading.
-- Bob Barnetson
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Music for workers
When writing courses, I often dig up far more material than can be included. A new version of Athabasca University’s IDRL 201 (Labour Unions) ought to be available this summer and it includes a heavy video component. To make the course manageable, I left out a fair bit of union- and work-related music that I came across.
Before dumping my files, I thought I’d post some of my favourites. Tppping the list (from a pedagogical perspective) is Dolly Parton’s classic 9 to 5. Dolly doesn’t feature on my iPod ever but few songs speak so clearly to the exploitation inherent in the employment relationship. I could not find a version with footage from the movie but I did find this strange Disney version. I wonder if Disney understood the content of the lyrics before they shot this?
Musically similar but less nuanced is Johnny Paycheque’s classic Take this job and shove it (a favourite of my father). While the song isn’t really all that insightful, the video below contains pictures of the destruction wrought by a laid off worker upon his employer in Hinton, Alberta. This speaks to the different forms of power workers and employers have. Yeah, the worker got fired. But dang, was it an expensive termination for his employer!
A more nuanced look at the experience of blue collar workers is Bruce Springsteen’s Factory. While the song dates from the 1970s, it still rings true of contemporary blue collar work suggesting not all that much has changed (for workers) in our alleged post-Fordist world.
More contemporary is Big Sugar’s All hell for a basement, written about workers relocating to Fort McMurray. The video below contains a series of images focusing on well testing in Alberta. Raw footage of workers doing their jobs is uncommon which is why I chose the video below. The lyrics also speak to the psychological effects of prolonged unemployment.
There is a fairly large catalogue of songs about miners and the effects of mining on workers. A fairly evocative song about the effects of mining on workers is Black lung. This version is sung by Hazel Dickens.
A more modern take on a similar issue (asbestosis) is Blue sky mine by Midnight Oil.
As a child of the ‘80s, I also feel compelled to include Styx's Blue collar man. Not really lyrically insightful but I cannot get enough of the gimmicky keyboards in this song, the leather pants everyone is wearing and the wicked mullet the guy in the blue coat is wearing (is that Dennis DeYoung? I must dig out my copy of Desert Moon).
I wonder what this sounds like now that Gowan is fronting Styx?
-- Bob Barnetson
Before dumping my files, I thought I’d post some of my favourites. Tppping the list (from a pedagogical perspective) is Dolly Parton’s classic 9 to 5. Dolly doesn’t feature on my iPod ever but few songs speak so clearly to the exploitation inherent in the employment relationship. I could not find a version with footage from the movie but I did find this strange Disney version. I wonder if Disney understood the content of the lyrics before they shot this?
Musically similar but less nuanced is Johnny Paycheque’s classic Take this job and shove it (a favourite of my father). While the song isn’t really all that insightful, the video below contains pictures of the destruction wrought by a laid off worker upon his employer in Hinton, Alberta. This speaks to the different forms of power workers and employers have. Yeah, the worker got fired. But dang, was it an expensive termination for his employer!
A more nuanced look at the experience of blue collar workers is Bruce Springsteen’s Factory. While the song dates from the 1970s, it still rings true of contemporary blue collar work suggesting not all that much has changed (for workers) in our alleged post-Fordist world.
More contemporary is Big Sugar’s All hell for a basement, written about workers relocating to Fort McMurray. The video below contains a series of images focusing on well testing in Alberta. Raw footage of workers doing their jobs is uncommon which is why I chose the video below. The lyrics also speak to the psychological effects of prolonged unemployment.
There is a fairly large catalogue of songs about miners and the effects of mining on workers. A fairly evocative song about the effects of mining on workers is Black lung. This version is sung by Hazel Dickens.
A more modern take on a similar issue (asbestosis) is Blue sky mine by Midnight Oil.
As a child of the ‘80s, I also feel compelled to include Styx's Blue collar man. Not really lyrically insightful but I cannot get enough of the gimmicky keyboards in this song, the leather pants everyone is wearing and the wicked mullet the guy in the blue coat is wearing (is that Dennis DeYoung? I must dig out my copy of Desert Moon).
I wonder what this sounds like now that Gowan is fronting Styx?
-- Bob Barnetson
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Just cause dismissals
There is an interesting debate going on in the Edmonton Journal over the concept of just cause dismissals. Loosely, the doctrine of just cause says that employers who terminate the employment of a worker must provide reasonable notice (or pay in lieu of reasonable notice) unless the worker has done something so terrible that it is irreconcilable or inconsistent with continued employment and thus warrants immediate termination.
So if your employer catches you stealing, the employer knows you can no longer be trusted and out the door you go. On the other hand, if you make a mistake that isn't fatal to a continuing employment relationship, the employer must discharge you with notice or work with you to correct the error (a progressive discipline approach). Repeated failures to address the issue might then lead to a just cause termination.
Employer-side lawyer Howard Levitt, in an article originally printed in the Financial Post, suggests that the requirement that employers have just cause for terminating an employee is troublesome:
"The just cause requirement is one way unions erode the employer's control over the workplace. In a non-unionized workplace, the employee could be fired without any doubt or appeal. If there wasn't just cause for his dismissal, he would only receive severance pay."
This is partly correct. In a non-unionized workplace, an employee who has done something objectionable (but which does not meet the just cause standard) might well get let go with notice (or pay in lieu). More likely, though, the employer would simply fire the worker. If the termination was without cause and if the worker sought assistance through a provincial employment standards processes, the employer might well be on the hook for a few weeks of pay.
A worker with more resources might sue for wrongful dismissal and may, after a lengthy court battle, get a more generous settlement. But most of that will go to their lawyer. In effect, most workers under a common law contract of employment have few realizable rights in the event that an employer wants to terminate them--no matter how arbitrary or unfair the termination was.
Because of this (and other) examples of the power imbalance in employment, many workers have chosen to join unions and bargaining collectively. A significant difference between union and non-unionized employment is that, with a union, the remedy for an unjust termination is reinstatement (with backpay) rather than pay in lieu of notice.
This does, certainly, limit the employer's control over the workplace--arbitrary and unfair behaviour by the employer which significantly damages the worker is remediated more fully. Indeed, the threat of a meaningful remedy can well compel employers to act more carefully. This is the crux of the Alberta Federation of Labour's response.
The strategies Levitt suggests for handling just cause dismissal (when maybe the case isn't entirely open and shut) in unionized workplaces provide fascinating insight into the political economy of employment. He encourages employers to attempt to trap employees into conflicting statements of responsibility so as to undermine their credibility. He suggests carefully recording common and minor errors to create a pattern of misconduct to present to the arbitrator. And he suggests suspending a worker without pay so the worker starts to feel the pinch (and may even have found another job) and is thus more likely to accept a termination package.
None of these tactics is illegal. And they are all a rational way for an employer to advance its economic interests. That they come at the expense of the employee elicits no comment or consideration. Perhaps this lack of regard for the interests of workers is why workers often seek protection of a union?
-- Bob Barnetson
So if your employer catches you stealing, the employer knows you can no longer be trusted and out the door you go. On the other hand, if you make a mistake that isn't fatal to a continuing employment relationship, the employer must discharge you with notice or work with you to correct the error (a progressive discipline approach). Repeated failures to address the issue might then lead to a just cause termination.
Employer-side lawyer Howard Levitt, in an article originally printed in the Financial Post, suggests that the requirement that employers have just cause for terminating an employee is troublesome:
"The just cause requirement is one way unions erode the employer's control over the workplace. In a non-unionized workplace, the employee could be fired without any doubt or appeal. If there wasn't just cause for his dismissal, he would only receive severance pay."
This is partly correct. In a non-unionized workplace, an employee who has done something objectionable (but which does not meet the just cause standard) might well get let go with notice (or pay in lieu). More likely, though, the employer would simply fire the worker. If the termination was without cause and if the worker sought assistance through a provincial employment standards processes, the employer might well be on the hook for a few weeks of pay.
A worker with more resources might sue for wrongful dismissal and may, after a lengthy court battle, get a more generous settlement. But most of that will go to their lawyer. In effect, most workers under a common law contract of employment have few realizable rights in the event that an employer wants to terminate them--no matter how arbitrary or unfair the termination was.
Because of this (and other) examples of the power imbalance in employment, many workers have chosen to join unions and bargaining collectively. A significant difference between union and non-unionized employment is that, with a union, the remedy for an unjust termination is reinstatement (with backpay) rather than pay in lieu of notice.
This does, certainly, limit the employer's control over the workplace--arbitrary and unfair behaviour by the employer which significantly damages the worker is remediated more fully. Indeed, the threat of a meaningful remedy can well compel employers to act more carefully. This is the crux of the Alberta Federation of Labour's response.
The strategies Levitt suggests for handling just cause dismissal (when maybe the case isn't entirely open and shut) in unionized workplaces provide fascinating insight into the political economy of employment. He encourages employers to attempt to trap employees into conflicting statements of responsibility so as to undermine their credibility. He suggests carefully recording common and minor errors to create a pattern of misconduct to present to the arbitrator. And he suggests suspending a worker without pay so the worker starts to feel the pinch (and may even have found another job) and is thus more likely to accept a termination package.
None of these tactics is illegal. And they are all a rational way for an employer to advance its economic interests. That they come at the expense of the employee elicits no comment or consideration. Perhaps this lack of regard for the interests of workers is why workers often seek protection of a union?
-- Bob Barnetson
Friday, January 14, 2011
Asbestos and CNRL
I came across two interesting pieces this week. The first is a brief commentary by David Mandel addressing the conflicted position Quebec unions find themselves in regarding asbestos. While developed countries have sought to limit the use of this extremely hazardous material, Canada continues to export it to various developing countries. Not surprisingly, workers in these countries are repeating the experience of workers in the developed worker during the 20th century: they are developing asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. And, given the toxicity of asbestosis, so are those who live or work around sites where the material is being used.
Quebec union federations gave a delegation of Asian unions and asbestos victims a cold reception in late 2010 when they came to Quebec. This delegation sought support for their request that public funds not be used to assist in the development of a new vein of asbestos in Quebec—the product of which would be exported to Asia.
This reception likely reflects the desire of unions to retain asbestos-mining related jobs for their members. Interestingly, these jobs pay poorly, entail exposing these miners to serious workplace hazards, and then inflicting this hazard on workers and citizens of the developing world. Canada’s asbestos industry has (ahem) a checkered past. Interesting how workers are now being co-opted to exploit other workers.
In other news, the CNRL explosion which injured five workers earlier this month has attracted some interesting commentary. Alberta Venture had some sharp comments about CNRL’s safety track record and its degree of engagement with the issue.
The Alberta Federation of Labour makes some salient points about CRNL’s safety record. CNRL has been charged in connection with four fatalities and three injuries since 2006. The AFL also comments on the government’s track record on investigating incidents:
"Nearly three years have passed since (two workers were killed in a tank collapse) and we still don't know what happened. We don't know what problems were at the root of the collapse and we don't what steps, if any, have been taken to fix those problems," said AFL President Gil McGowan.
The Minister’s statements on CNRL are interesting. Before explaining what OHS investigators are doing, he consoles the families of the victims and then proceeds to give the industry some political cover by touting its “excellent” safety record.
It is difficult to believe the Minister’s statement in July that (I’m paraphrasing) he is intent on ensuring workplaces are safe when his first reaction to a multiple-injury explosion is to point out how safe an industry is. This is particularly troubling given CNRL’s safety record over the past five years which includes a high (for Alberta) number of charges and an undetermined number of injuries.
-- Bob Barnetson
Friday, January 7, 2011
Saskatchewan 20 times more likely than Alberta to prosecute safety violations
Thursday, another five workers were injured at the CNRL Horizon site, south of Ft. McMurray. A coker unit appears to have exploded, leaving one worker with third-degree burns.
The government has made the usual response (stop work order, investigation). The government has begun taking criticism, with one group noting that Saskatchewan is more likely than Alberta to prosecute employers for injuries.
Saskatchewan has a workforce approximately one-quarter of the size of Alberta’s workforce. But Saskatchewan completed 47 prosecutions in the first nine months of the 2010/11 fiscal year. Alberta completed 11 prosecutions in 2010. Corrected for workforce size, this means Saskatchewan prosecutes at 20 times Alberta's rate.
The Calgary Herald is reporting that Alberta fatalities were also up in 2010 (111 to date), over 2009 (85 to the same point). These statistics have not appeared on the government’s website that I can find.
In this same article, Minister of Employment and Immigration Thomas Lukaszuk is reported to say workplace investigators forward cases to Crown lawyers for review but, as a politician, he can't press for charges, even when safety infractions are found.
It is fairly disheartening to hear the Minister effectively throw up his hands and say “I can’t enforce my legislation”. If I were an employer, I would take that as confirmation that there is almost no chance I will be prosecute regardless of what safety violations I may have.
This knowledge may explain the widespread violation of safety laws (e.g., in construction) and the hundreds of thousands of workplace injuries (reported and unreported) in Alberta each year.
Ontario has recently reviewed it OHS legislation. Given the widespread non-compliance in with Alberta’s safety laws, an independent review may be of use here as well--it appears public embarrassment is the only trigger for improving worker safety in Alberta.
-- Bob Barnetson
The government has made the usual response (stop work order, investigation). The government has begun taking criticism, with one group noting that Saskatchewan is more likely than Alberta to prosecute employers for injuries.
Saskatchewan has a workforce approximately one-quarter of the size of Alberta’s workforce. But Saskatchewan completed 47 prosecutions in the first nine months of the 2010/11 fiscal year. Alberta completed 11 prosecutions in 2010. Corrected for workforce size, this means Saskatchewan prosecutes at 20 times Alberta's rate.
The Calgary Herald is reporting that Alberta fatalities were also up in 2010 (111 to date), over 2009 (85 to the same point). These statistics have not appeared on the government’s website that I can find.
In this same article, Minister of Employment and Immigration Thomas Lukaszuk is reported to say workplace investigators forward cases to Crown lawyers for review but, as a politician, he can't press for charges, even when safety infractions are found.
It is fairly disheartening to hear the Minister effectively throw up his hands and say “I can’t enforce my legislation”. If I were an employer, I would take that as confirmation that there is almost no chance I will be prosecute regardless of what safety violations I may have.
This knowledge may explain the widespread violation of safety laws (e.g., in construction) and the hundreds of thousands of workplace injuries (reported and unreported) in Alberta each year.
Ontario has recently reviewed it OHS legislation. Given the widespread non-compliance in with Alberta’s safety laws, an independent review may be of use here as well--it appears public embarrassment is the only trigger for improving worker safety in Alberta.
-- Bob Barnetson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)