Presentation: : Farm workers, firefighters and workers’ compensation exceptionalism

We’re not worthy: Farm workers, firefighters and workers’ compensation exceptionalism in Alberta, 2000 to 2012. No half measures: Workers’ compensation 100 years after Sir William Meredith
1 November 2013, Don Mills
Bob Barnetson, Athabasca University

Introduction
Good afternoon, I’m Bob. I teach labour relations at Athabasca University in Alberta and What I’d like to talk to you about today is the very different levels of access that Alberta farm workers and firefighters have to workers’ compensation coverage.

Alberta farm workers face what academics call employment precarity—low wages, limited job security and poor access to statutory benefits. One aspect of this precarity is that the vast majority of farm workers in Alberta have no access to any kind of workers’ compensation if they’re injured—just like about 30% of Ontario workers.

Yet, not all workers are in this boat. Over the past 10 years, Alberta firefighters have acquired an exceptional level of access to workers’ compensation benefits. Specifically firefighters diagnosed with any of 14 kinds of cancer are automatically compensated (this is called having presumptive status). By contrast, the seven-ish percent of farm workers who have workers’ compensation would need to identify the exposure that caused their cancer in order to get compensation.

These different experiences of exceptionalism emerge despite the similar working conditions faced by firefighters and farm workers. Both have a heightened risk of occupational cancer. And neither can refuse workplace exposures to carcinogenic substances. How Alberta politicians justify such inconsistent and unjust treatment tells us useful things about how we might go about improving precarious workers’ access to workers’ compensation.

Workers’ Compensation and Occupational Disease
So let’s start with some basics. Every province has a workers’ compensation system that covers most workers. In Alberta, firefighters have mandatory coverage while farm workers don’t—their employers (farmers and feedlot operators) can (but generally don’t) purchase voluntary coverage. This farm-worker exclusion reflects the historical political power of the farm lobby, which has finagled farm-worker exclusions from most of the Employment Standards Code as well as all of the Labour Relations Code and the Occupational Health and Safety Code. Basically, farm workers have none of the statutory rights and benefits that the rest of us take for granted.

Occupational diseases are pretty common injuries but can be tricky to get compensation for because of their long latency period, murky causality, and employer resistance. This is particularly the case with occupational cancer. In Alberta, there is broad agreement that 8-10% of cancers have an occupational link but only 0.22% of cancer diagnoses and 0.68% of cancer deaths in 2005 (which were the most recent years I could find stats for) resulted in success claims.

A part of that is under-reporting—it is hard to recognize an occupational connection to your cancer when you get diagnosed 20 years after an occupational exposure you may not have known about. The vast majority of Alberta’s accepted cancer claims are by firefighters, coal miners and workers exposed to asbestos—workers for whom the government has mandated presumptive status.

Justifying Exceptionalism
So how do Alberta conservative politicians—we call them MLAs, you call them MPPs—justify this presumptive coverage for firefighters on the one hand and no coverage for farm workers on the other?

Well, firefighters got presumptive status in 2003 (and it was expanded in 2010 and 2011). In the debates about enacting this legislation, government MLAs relied upon six reasons to justify granting firefighters presumptive status.

First, MLAs argued that firefighters get cancer more often than the average worker because of occupational exposures to carcinogens. This is true. It is also true of farm workers.

MLAs also asserted that firefighters are the only occupational group unable to refuse unsafe work because occupational exposures to carcinogens is a normal part of their jobs. Now that is not quite true. Farm workers are also unable to refuse such work because they are excluded from the ambit of the Occupational Health and Safety Code. If farm workers refuse unsafe work, they will likely get sacked.

Third, MLAs said firefighters need presumptive coverage because they can’t demonstrate a clear link between a specific exposure(s) and a cancer because of poor (or no) data collection as well as long latency periods and murky causality. This is also true of farm workers because their exclusion from the Health and Safety Code means they have no right to know about hazards in their workplace, including chemical exposures.

I know people sometimes scoff at the notion that farm workers would accept unsafe work, but they do because they fear being fired. The result is a complete wild-west mentality in Alberta agriculture. For example, one female farm worker pointed out that throwing armloads of malathion (an insecticide) with bare hands into a grain bin without reading the instructions was likely unsafe. As it turns out, high levels of exposure to malathion can resulting in skin and eye irritation, cramps, nausea, diarrhea, excessive sweating, seizures and even death.

The worker’s employer told her she "thought too much". Now she was eventually provided with some PPE (personal protective equipment)—a long stick with a tin can on the end. I wish I was making that up, but that’s how things roll on some farms.

Coming back to the MLA narratives, the fourth reason for granting firefighters presumptive status was that the cost of granting presumptive status was small. This would not be true of farm workers—mandatory workers’ compensation coverage on farms would increase payroll costs of about 3%, costs that farmers can currently externalize onto workers and the public health-care system.

Fifth, MLAs said Alberta was following the lead of other jurisdictions, which were (at the time) beginning to grant presumptive status to firefighters. Of course, farm workers in other provinces are also (slowly) gaining possession of employment rights, including access to workers’ compensation.

Finally, MLAs said firefighters are heroes and society owes firefighters (and their families) presumptive status. There is no analog to this among farm workers. Indeed, farm workers are entirely absent from the discourse around mandatory workers’ compensation coverage for farms. Instead, MLAs discuss employer interests, something that never came up when chatting presumptive status for firefighters—perhaps because firefighter employers were supportive of presumptive status.

When forced to discuss the farm-worker exclusion, MLAs argued three things. First they said that educating farmers about the benefits of taking out voluntary workers’ compensation for their workers was better than forcing farmers to do so. Since 93% of farm workers have no such coverage, that is obvious untrue.

MLAs argued that farms can’t be regulated like so-called regular worksites, primarily because farms are mixed-use worksites (i.e., they are both homes and businesses). This is untrue in several ways. Lots of large farms and feedlots are simply worksites. Lots of other provinces somehow manage to disentangle regulatory issues on mixed-use sites. And, in fact, Alberta regulates some mixed-used farms, including greenhouses, mushroom farms, nurseries and sod farms. So clearly mixed-use worksites simply don’t pose any kind of insurmountable regulatory barrier.

Finally, some MLAs said farmers don’t want mandatory workers’ compensation coverage forced upon them. This is probably true, but we don’t make public policy based solely on what employers want. The real issue is that government MLAs are politically beholden to rural voters for re-election due to MLAs’ gerrymandering of electoral boundaries. Simply, MLAs don’t want to piss off the farmers and are happy to throw farm workers under the bus.

Discussion
Alberta’s experience with firefighter and farm worker exceptionalism contains three lessons that I think have application to working with other groups who are excluded from workers’ compensation, particularly workers who are precariously employed.

The first lesson is that exceptionalism in public policy requires justification. Now, obviously, that justification doesn’t have to be particularly good. Or even true. But politicians clearly recognize the need for at least the façade of a rationale to maintain their legitimacy when making public policy. This, in turn, suggests that politicians may be sensitive (or even vulnerable) to having their purported rationale up-ended by careful and timely analysis.

In this case, farm-worker advocates might well have used the government’s willingness to extend exceptional access to firefighters as an opportunity to raise the political costs of maintaining the clearly inequitable farm-worker exclusion. They didn’t, but the opportunity was there; the key point being that gains by relatively privileged workers can open space for precarious workers to make demands based on the principle of equality.

The second lesson is that employer support or opposition can play a critical role in extending access to workers’ compensation. Firefighter employers were supportive which reduced the political cost for MLAs when they extended presumptive status. By contrast, farmers have been (until recently) steadfast in their opposition to mandatory workers’ compensation in Alberta.

That said, employer opposition is not immutable: the key is converting (or at least neutralizing) this opposition. In Alberta, farmer opposition to mandatory workers’ compensation coverage has been reduced (but not eliminated) by highlighting the liability protection workers’ compensation provides: this was suddenly important to farmers after a farm fatality lawsuit bankrupted a feedlot. Further, employer opposition is not determinative: when politicians set public policy, they must be responsive to threats to their legitimacy, such as a good argument or a sympathetic group of workers.

The third lesson is that the political salience of the workers matters. Firefighters are predominantly unionized white men who have access to significant personal and collective resources. And they’re held in high esteem by the public—they are often seen as heroes. By contrast, farm workers are typically non-unionized. They are often female and belong to ethnic minorities. A significant portion may also be international migrants, with little political power or interest in engaging in Canadian politics. Farm workers are not only not heroes, but they are basically invisible workers.

But the limited political salience of farm workers is also not immutable. Food and food security are topical issues, and farm workers clearly play an important role in them. Further the working conditions on farms are often exploitative and simply odious: lots of injuries, many gruesome, poor sanitation, awful working and living conditions, low wages and poor treatment, harassment, sexual assault. These characteristics of farm work can be harnessed to improve the public perception of farm workers as necessary and hard working. And as needing and deserving of the same basic employment rights as every other worker.

This case also highlights a number of challenges with organizing precarious workers. Farm workers are frequently transitory workers, workers who rightly fear retribution and who have little immediate incentive to join a “union”. Because of this, organized labour in Alberta appears unwilling to do much for farm workers beyond issue press releases.

In the place of organized labour, a grassroots organization has developed: the Farmworkers Union of Alberta (known locally as FU Alberta…). This group has relatively few resources—there are two staffers, who are both basically volunteers. One of the resources FU Alberta does have is an absence of internal constraints on its behaviour. Consequently, it works with both government and opposition politicians (sometime simultaneously) as well as with employer groups.

Over the past few years, FU Alberta convinced members of Alberta’s largest farm lobby group to pass motions compelling their organization to explore mandatory workers’ compensation coverage. So far, this has created significant discord within the producers’ group, which has reduced the group’s ability to publically resist calls for mandatory workers’ compensation—although their executive continues to do so behind the scenes.

FU Alberta has also worked to apply moral pressure on policy makers around the issue of injury compensation, highlighting the real world injustices that flow from farm workers’ exclusion. Partly as a result of this pressure, the premier publically committed to extending basic employment rights to farm workers during a meeting with the editorial board of a major daily newspaper—an unfulfilled promise she is periodically reminded of.

FU Alberta has also been reasonably careful not to back the government into a moral corner. Instead of condemning government (in)action, they have been framing farm workers as deserving of the same injury compensation everyone else receives. This allows MLAs to change their position without having to directly recant their earlier support of farmers—they can simply adopt the positive “hard-working and deserving” characterization. To date, MLAs have not yet come around to this, but providing MLAs with a way to save face seems like a good strategy for the future.

Obviously Alberta’s particular and peculiar politics deeply affects this specific case. Consequently, I’m going yo leave it to you to decide whether and how these lesson can be applied to precarious workers in Ontario. But thanks very kindly for listening to my story this afternoon.

-- Bob Barnetson

Meredith hearings redux and leading indicators

Rabble.ca is reporting on new hearings in workers' compensation in Ontario, marking the 100th anniversary of Sir William Meredith's report ushering in injury compensation in Ontario. The report of these hearings will be unveiled Friday at the No Half Measures conference (yay!) in Don Mills (meh...) that I'll be speaking at.

In other workplace injury news, the Institute for Work and Health has released an interim report on their quest for leading indicators of workplace injury. Unlike injury rates (which are a trailing indicator), leading indicators are characteristics of workplaces that precede injuries and, if changed, affect injury outcomes.

In theory, leading indicators are a kind of holy grail. In practice, their development is proving difficult (as befits a questing metaphor!).

The lack of evidence that any feasible indicators exist raises questions about government interest in them: perhaps the demand for leading indicators is just another way to distract us from criticism about rampant noncompliance and ineffective enforcement?

-- Bob Barnetson

More union advertising

Following up on last week's post of CLC and UFCW ads, below is the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees latest ad attacking government policy and, more directly, the broken promises of the Redford government.



These ads are nicely timed with Redford's leadership review and are clearly aimed at heightening the political costs of public sector cuts. The Alberta Teachers' Association has also come out swinging.



It is interesting to see how deeply and quickly Redford has alienated public-sector unions that supported her in the last election.

-- Bob Barnetson

The construction of migrant work and workers by Alberta legislators, 2000-2011

The construction of migrant work and workers by Alberta legislators, 2000-2011

Jason Foster and Bob Barnetson, Athabasca University

Transforming Citizenship: Ethnicity, Transnationalism and Belonging in Canada Conference

Edmonton. 25 October 2013

Introduction

Like many jurisdictions, Alberta’s population of international migrant workers grew significantly between 2000 and 2011 (Foster 2012). An earlier examination Jason and I performed on the discourse around temporary and permanent international migrants hinted at a seeming contradiction: the government members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) often seemed bullish on migrant work, but critical of migrant workers (Barnetson and Foster 2013).

The study I’ll be presenting today is a narrative analysis of MLA statements. Narrative analysis examines how stories categorize, name and label things and, in doing so, construct a particular view of the world. The view these politicians construct of migrant work and migrant workers is important because this view informs public policy—in effect, state action and inaction—which affects all workers.

What our analysis found were four main narratives. MLAs were quite supportive of migrant work, asserting (1) that it was economically necessary and (2) that it didn’t pose any threat to Canadian workers. By contrast, MLAs were critical of international migrant workers, asserting that (3) they had questionable occupational, linguistic or cultural skills and that (4) their transience caused negative social and economic impacts on Alberta.

In short, we found pretty clear evidence of seemingly contradictory views of migrant work and workers among Alberta policy makers. So then we tried to make sense of this contradiction. What I propose to do today is give you a brief overview of the evidence for four narratives as well as our initial thoughts on how this seeming contradiction can be understood.

Migrant Work as Economically Necessary

MLAs repeatedly asserted that (1) there was a labour shortage that (2) had to be addressed to maintain economic growth by (3) increasing the number of temporary and permanent Canadian and international migrant workers. The clearest expression of this view is in the 2006 throne speech:

His Honour: …Alberta will take immediate steps to address labour shortages that threaten economic growth. …The government will develop a new strategy to increase awareness of Alberta as a destination of choice for skilled immigrants, and it will expand immigrant settlement services and language training and make it easier for foreign-trained professionals to work in Alberta (Alberta 2006).

The view that migrant work is economically necessary supposes Alberta’s labour shortage was an absolute shortage—there were no more Canadian workers available. Examining unemployment among Canadians in traditional sending provinces as well as among traditionally under-represented groups suggests this was not true. Instead, what Alberta faced was a relative labour shortage—there were no more Canadian workers willing to make themselves available for prevailing wage rates and working conditions.

This is an important distinction because it identifies a feedback loop between labour shortages and migrant work. The loop begins when employers don’t raise wages and don’t improve working conditions to attract Canadian workers because they know that international migrant workers will accept the conditions employers are offering. This keeps Canadian workers out of the workforce and thus creates the so-called labour shortage that is used to justify expanding the number of international migrant workers. In turn, growth in the ranks of international migrant workers allow employers to maintain existing wage and working conditions, thereby perpetuating the so-called labour shortage. Employers benefit from this arrangement because it minimizes their labour costs.

Migrant Work as No Threat to Canadians

MLAs also presented the growth in international migrant workers posing no threat to the employment of Canadians. This assertion is premised upon MLAs’ position that there was a labour shortage (so there were jobs for everyone) and MLAs’ belief that the federal Labour Market Opinion (LMO) process prevented employers from replacing Canadians with international migrant workers:

Mr. Cardinal: The first priority for… 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 2005b). then-Minister of Human Resources and Employment Mike Cardinal

In addition to the question about whether there was an absolute or relative shortage of Canadian workers, there is significant evidence that employers could and did game the federal LMO process (Auditor General 2009, Foster and Taylor 2011).

MLAs also routinely presented international migrant work as a temporary measure:

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. They cannot stay. They do not become landed immigrants. They must go home at that time (Alberta 2005a). 

It is true that individual international migrant workers must leave Canada four years. But, it is also true that, as a group, international migrant workers have become a permanent and growing feature of Canada’s labour market. For example, Alberta’s cohort of international migrants under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) increased from 11,376 in 2003 to 68,339 in 2012 (Citizenship and Immigration Canada 2013). Even during the recession of 2008 to 2010, the number of temporary foreign workers (TFWs) did not decline and, in fact, TFWs displaced interprovincial migrants as the main source of additional workers during that time (Alberta 2011a, 2011b).

Migrant Workers as Unskilled

Interestingly, MLAs had very little to say about migrant workers. They said almost nothing about interprovincial migrants in the entire 12 years of data. When MLAs did talk about international migrant workers, they were highly critical of these workers’ occupational skills:

Mr. Norris: … I know that you have cab drivers who say: I’m an engineer from a specific country; I can’t get a job. Don’t believe everything you hear, hon. member, because we make every effort to allow them to get their training certificates upgraded or pass to what level they need to be. I don’t know if there’s a suggestion being made that we should just take things at face value, because I wouldn’t do that… (Alberta 2004).  

Dr. Oberg: We don’t necessarily want someone saying that they are a welder in a particular country, arriving here, and having no usable trades that can be done. So they are going to be certified in the country before they come over here (Alberta 2005a).

Mr. Lukaszuk: …This ministry has programs in place that assist foreign credentialed individuals to enter our workforce. At the same time, we have to make sure that we don’t jeopardize in any way the standards that we are accustomed to have over here (Alberta 2010). 

MLAs also questioned the validity of medical credentials of permanent international migrants. But such concerns were mediated by these migrants’ country of origin. For example, medically trained international migrants from the UK were often given a pass if their skills weren’t quite up to snuff. And American migrant workers were also seen as more desirable that international migrants from “across (the) oceans”:

Mr. Lukaszuk: (O)ften when we think about foreign workers, we tend to drift away across oceans. I strongly suggest to Alberta employers to give our neighbors to the south first opportunity at any jobs in Alberta. These workers from the United States are not only our partners, our friends, and our allies, but they also have similar occupational health and safety employment standards. There are no language barriers. At the end of the day that’s what neighbours do for neighbours. If we have a surplus of jobs – and they obviously have an economy that will take a long time to recover – we should welcome them with open arms (Alberta 2011c).

MLAs also raised questions about international migrant workers’ cultural and linguistic fluency and, in fact, sometimes attributed the exploitation of international migrant workers in part to the workers’ limited understanding of their rights:

“It’s tough for somebody that comes from a totally different country and different rules and regulations to feel at home on a short-term basis,” Employment and Immigration Minister Hector Goudreau said last week.

“Many, many don’t know their rights. They don’t know all their responsibilities. They often have a hard time with language” (Calgary Herald 2008).

Overall, international migrant workers are framed as less desirable than Canadian workers. Interestingly, this governmental discourse about undesirable international migrants runs contrary to the behaviour of employers, who went out of their way to hire such workers over Canadians.

Migrants Workers as Societally Harmful

Finally, late in the period of study, some MLAs raised concerns about the transience of international migrant workers. Specifically, they were concerned that temporary international migrant workers do not financially or socially invest in Alberta:

Mr. Lukaszuk: …Well, transient communities would be one answer, individuals who do not purchase houses, cars, who don’t invest in our economy but send remittances back home. There is a social impact on families over here, but just having come back from the Philippines, I had the opportunity to see the other, those families who are left behind by temporary foreign workers. The impact is economic and moral, and it’s immense (Alberta 2011d).

Framing international migrants’ reluctance to socially or financially invest in Alberta as a choice or inherent trait of migrant workers—rather than recognizing this behaviour as the result government-imposed residency limits—demonizes contextually quite rational behaviour by international migrants and essentially blames the victim.

Conclusion

On the surface, the four narratives MLAs advance about migrant work and workers seem to be contradictory: migrant work is good but migrant workers are bad. Yet, viewed together, these narratives can be reconciled as an effort to politically justify growth in Alberta’s international migrant workforce.

Misrepresenting the nature of the labour shortage justified initial increases in international migrants, while providing employers access to a lower-cost and docile labour force. Resistance to increased numbers of international migrants among Canadian workers was overcome by claiming migrant workers posed no labour market threat because they were temporary, they had limited labour mobility, and they could only come if there were no Canadians available.

At the same time, MLAs dehumanized international migrant workers. They were discussed in solely economic terms. They were characterized as unskilled—a characterization with racialized undertones. They were said to pose a threat to Canadian communities—although not Canadian jobs (“don’t worry about those!” say MLAs). Dehumanizing international migrant workers makes them an “other”—a group distinct from Canadians and whose partial citizenship (Sharma 2006, Vosko 2010) and poor treatment (AF 2007, 2009) is justified by their limited economic role in Canada.

So what we see then, are two layers to MLA statements. In part, their statements are political activities designed to manage policy consent and dissent on a day-to-day basis. The seeming contradictions are, in part, a response to different kinds of criticism that MLAs face.

But, when you look at MLA statements over a longer period, there is coherence to be found because the seemingly contradictory sets of narratives are, in fact, two complementary elements of a broader legitimization project. Specifically, MLA narratives construct a generic, racialized other to justify state and employer actions designed to advance capital’s interests (in low-cost, docile labour) over the interests of both Canadian and international workers.

References

AFL. Temporary Foreign Workers: Alberta’s Disposable Workforce. Edmonton: Alberta Federation of Labour, 2007.

AFL. Entrenching Exploitation: The Second Report of the Alberta Federation of Labour Temporary Foreign Worker Advocate. Edmonton: Alberta Federation of Labour, 2009.

Alberta, Alberta Hansard, 31 March 2004, Mark Norris PC, pp. 824-5

Alberta, Alberta Hansard, 27 April 2005a, Lyle Oberg PC, pp. 1090-1

Alberta, Alberta Hansard, 16 March 2005b, Mike Cardinal PC, p. 280

Alberta, Alberta Hansard, 22 February 2006, Normie Kwong, Lt. Governor, p. 2

Alberta, Alberta Hansard, 29 November 2010, Thomas Lukaszuk PC, p. 1640

Alberta. 2010 Annual Alberta Labour Market Review. Edmonton: Government of Alberta, 2011a.

Alberta. Alberta Immigration Progress Report 2011. Edmonton: Government of Alberta, 2011b

Alberta, Alberta Hansard, 19 April 2011c, Thomas Lkaszuk PC, pp. 725-6.

Alberta, Alberta Hansard, 23 February 2011d, Thomas Lukaszuk PC, p. 15

Alberta, Alberta Labour Force Profiles: Aboriginal People 2011. (Edmonton: Author, 2012).

Auditor General of Canada, 2009 Fall Report of the Auditor General. (Ottawa: Author, 2009).

B. Barnetson and J. Foster, “The Political Justification of Migrant Workers in Alberta, Canada”, Journal of International Migration and Immigration, 2013. DOI:

Calgary Herald, “Alberta pursues 41,000 foreign workers; 'We are being swamped with requests from employers”, Calgary Herald, April 13, 2008.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada, “Facts and Figures 2012”, Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2013.

J. Foster, “Making Temporary Permanent: The Silent Transformation of the Temporary Foreign Workers Program”, Just Labour 19 (2012): 22–46.

J. Foster and A. Taylor, “Permanent Temporary-ness: Temporary Foreign Workers in Alberta’s Construction Trades”, Canadian Industrial Relations Association Annual Conference. Fredericton, New Brunswick, June 2011

N. Sharma, Home Economics Nationalism and the Making of ‘Migrant Workers’ in Canada. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006).

L. Vosko, Managing the Margins: Gender, Citizenship, and the International Regulation of Precarious Employment. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).

Skills and labour shortage: Sky not falling, carry on

The TD Bank has released a new analysis of the Canadian labour market that pours some cold water on claims that a massive labour shortage is looming. For whatever reason, I can’t find the full report (I’ll keep looking—it may be embargoed), but a six-page summary is available here.

EDIT: Here is the full report.

The most interesting part of the summary is this bit from page 4:

It is the case that occupations widely thought to be in shortage have recorded considerably lower unemployment rates than their counterparts in the surplus camp. Still, vacancy rates outside some pockets (e.g., trades) are not significantly higher than the rest and have not accelerated over the past few years. And strikingly, similar wage increases are noted in sectors in loose and tight markets.  

Given the regional variations in labour market conditions, we tested occupational mismatch at the provincial level. Our findings corroborate the view that regional mismatch occurs, with vacancy rates rising more significantly in the Prairies, particularly in those occupations perceived to be in shortage. In addition, we discovered that employers in Alberta and Saskatchewan were also having difficulties filling workers in occupations widely believed to be in surplus, which points to the knock-on effects to the broad economy from strong resource development.  

The story on the wage data remains curious, as wage gains out west have not increased to the extent that one might have thought given the signs of tightness. We cite in the report a number of factors that could be at play in holding back wages, including competitiveness pressures and the preference of employers to use non-wage channels to address hard-to-fill vacancies.

Basically, there is tightness in the labour market in some occupations and some regions, but not enough to trigger significant wage increases. Further, TD questions projections that there will be a large shortage of labour in the future.

This report suggests a number of things. First, the sky is not falling regarding labour shortages or a skills gap. There may be localized or occupational tightness, but this does not imperil the economy. This is useful to know as the (economic) sky falling is often used to justify public policy change.

Second, we should be cautious about industry and industry lobby groups warnings around shortages as employers benefit from government policies that expand the labour pool (it typically cheapens labour). This is especially the case when employers are not utilizing the levers they can (e.g., improving wages and working conditions) to draw more workers into the labour force. In effect, we may be seeing relative labour shortages (no more workers willing to work for available wages and working conditions) rather than absolute shortages (no more workers no matter the compensation or conditions). 

Third, federal programming changes (e.g., raising pension age, linking EI to labour mobility, the Canada Jobs Grant) may not rest on a firm footing. Rather, they may well be sops to industry to loosen the labour market and thus reduce wage pressure.

-- Bob Barnetson

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