The perils of employer influence in OHS

On Monday, April 23, 2012, the Lakeland sawmill exploded and then burned, lighting the night sky of Prince George, British Columbia. The explosion and subsequent fire killed Alan Little, 43, and Glenn Roche, 46, and injured more than 20 other workers.

Brian Croy, vice-president with the United Steelworkers’ local was sitting in a training session when the mill exploded. The room’s plywood walls were blown down on top of the workers and Croy and his colleagues escaped through a section of outer wall that had been destroyed by the blast.

“It’s almost like you were coming out of a war zone. Everything was leveled. I met one fellow I think his fingers were blown off, and his clothing, a lot of it was gone. It was off and his hair,” Croy told the Canadian Press. Upon arriving at an outdoor first-aid station, Croy found workers sitting on a tarp, holding up burned arms and hands while one worker lay naked on the tarp, burned black and without any hair.

A WorkSafeBC investigation found that an overheated fan shaft ignited the dust-laden air resulting in the explosion. Wood dust is a well known explosion hazard in saw mills. The Lakeland mill was sawing large amounts of pine beetle-killed trees. This wood is extremely dry and, when milled, creates a large amount of fine dust. Only three months earlier, the Babine sawmill near Burns Lake had blown up in basically the same manner.

An interesting new WorkSafeBC memo has surfaced. Written after the first explosion but weeks before the second, it seems to suggest identify expected employer pushback as a reason to delay additional enforcement focused on reducing the risk of wood dust explosions:

Industry sensitivity to the issue given the recent event and limited clarity around what constitutes an explosion could lead to push back if an enforcement strategy is pursued at this time.

Roughly 20 days later, the Lakeland Mill exploded—due to wood dust accumulation. In effect, government concern about employer interests delayed enforcement action that might have saved workers’ lives. As Alberta moves towards a review of both its workers’ compensation and occupational health an safety systems, the perils (to workers) of systems that are overly cozy with employers should be at the forefront of the government’s mind.

-- Bob Barnetson

Labour & Pop Culture: You Won't Stand Alone

This week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture is DOA’s punk anthem “You won’t stand alone.” There is a fair bit of the usual solidarity rah-rah going on here. 

The most interesting part is this verse, which starts out getting at the anesthetizing effect of popular culture and then transitions into how a loose labour market drives feelings of vulnerability:

They'll line you up to listen in front of the TV
And make you feel lucky 'cause you've something to eat

Then it quickly transitions into a rant against drug testing (punk rockers against workplace drug testing!?!) and the instrumental way that corporations treat their workers.

And you'll pee in a jar just to keep your job
Unless you're downsized like another useless cog

I like a good protest song. It is a bit of a shame that this one didn’t sustain its critique for another verse or two. It is hard to find a decent video to go along with this song.



Time to make a stand, time to have our say
Don't buckle under, get in the way
There's many ears to listen and many hands to help
Time to wake them up and give the liars hell

Well, when your face the storm you won't stand alone
We'll all fight back with every stone
Not just for yourself, we do it for all
Reach out for our help, you won't stand alone

They climb the corporate ladder
They take the kickback
They'd sell out their mother
They can go to hell

They'll line you up to listen in front of the TV
And make you feel lucky 'cause you've something to eat
And you'll pee in a jar just to keep your job
Unless you're downsized like another useless cog

When your face the storm you won't stand alone
We'll all fight back with every stone
Not just for yourself, we do it for all
Reach out for our help, you won't stand alone

They climb the corporate ladder
They take the kickback
They'd sell out their mother
Well, they can go to hell

Time to make a stand, time to have our say
Don't buckle under, get in the way
There's many ears to listen and many hands to help
Time to wake them up and give the liars hell

When your face the storm you won't stand alone
We'll all fight back with every stone
Not just for yourself, we do it for all
Reach out for our help, you won't stand alone

[x2]

You won't stand alone

-- Bob Barnetson

Teen experiences of supervision and safety

A new pre-press article on teen employment crossed my desktop that a seemed appropriate to flag during the height of the shopping season. “Perceptions of supervision among injured and non-injured teens working in the retail or service industry” examines how perceived supervision related to teen injury rates in the US.

The key results are:

• 43% of teens reported injury in the past year (which is pretty much in line with Alberta data).
• Non-injured teens were more likely to have received safety training than injured teens (88% v 77%, p = .01).
• Only 69% of injured teens reported their injury (which is high, in my experience).
• Teens generally felt that they were solely at fault for their injury (66%).
• Only 30% of teens felt comfortable talking about safety issues with their boss (even though most knew that their boss could not fire them for raising safety issues).

Looking at supervision, I find the results a bit hard to parse. Teens who were injured were more likely to report supervisors who did not listen well and who did not ensure that teens understood workplace safety.

But which way does the causality run?

Are these factors causes of injury (because they reflect less safe workplaces)? Or are they ex post facto assessments by injured teens caused by the injury event? The study acknowledges this limitation.

Overall, an interest window into the world of teenage employment and how they view supervisors, safety and injury.

-- Bob Barnetson

Labour & Pop Culture: Worker's Song

This week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture is Dropkick Murphy’s “Worker’s Song”. This is a very, very class conscious song that explicitly identifies the different roles of labour and capital and the enduring exploitation inherent in this relationship.

The song starts out identifying how workers need employment moreso than employers need workers and the tendency of employers displace workers with capital whenever possible.

In the factories and mills, in the shipyards and mines
We've often been told to keep up with the times
For our skills are not needed, they've streamlined the job
And with sliderule and stopwatch our pride they have robbed

It then shifts to decrying the different fates allocated (largely by birth) to workers and capitalists:

We're the first ones to starve, we're the first ones to die
The first ones in line for that pie-in-the-sky
And we're always the last when the cream is shared out
For the worker is working when the fat cat's about

The most interesting part is the analysis of the necessity of workers in maintaining the economic and political structure of their exploitation. Specifically, the song identifies the irony of workers being forced to fight in wars, ostensibly for workers’ freedom… to be exploited.

And when the sky darkens and the prospect is war
Who's given a gun and then pushed to the fore
And expected to die for the land of our birth
Though we've never owned one lousy handful of earth?

While some class conscious songs (like 9-to-5) focus our attention on the micro-relations of the workplace, this one clearly steps back to provide a broader view of the political economy of capitalism and the modern nation state. This approach undermines the rationalization of examples of exploitation in capitalism as “there are always a few bad bosses.” That is to say, perhaps, it is the system that is bad.

Yeh, this one's for the workers who toil night and day
By hand and by brain to earn your pay
Who for centuries long past for no more than your bread
Have bled for your countries and counted your dead

In the factories and mills, in the shipyards and mines
We've often been told to keep up with the times
For our skills are not needed, they've streamlined the job
And with sliderule and stopwatch our pride they have robbed

[Chorus:]
We're the first ones to starve, we're the first ones to die
The first ones in line for that pie-in-the-sky
And we're always the last when the cream is shared out
For the worker is working when the fat cat's about

And when the sky darkens and the prospect is war
Who's given a gun and then pushed to the fore
And expected to die for the land of our birth
Though we've never owned one lousy handful of earth?

[Chorus x3]

All of these things the worker has done
From tilling the fields to carrying the gun
We've been yoked to the plough since time first began
And always expected to carry the can

-- Bob Barnetson

Labour law reform in Alberta

The past couple of weeks have seen quite a spirited debate about the merits of Alberta’s new farm safety bill (including protests and filibustering in the Legislature). The basic idea of Bill 6 was to grant paid Alberta farm workers the same workplace rights as every other worker. You can see my contribution to the discussion on the Parkland Institute’s blog.

Bill 6 is likely the first of a series of changes in Alberta’s employment law regime. I suspect we’ll see an announcement of a review of workers’ compensation, either before or shortly after Christmas. The government is also consulting on bringing Alberta’s labour legislation into compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision that the right to strike is constitutionally protected.

There may also be a fuller review of labour laws—the laws governing unionization and collective bargaining—at some point. You can read my thoughts on how the government might change the law to make easier for workers to exercise their associational rights on the Parkland Institute’s blog. You can also see the presentation at the Parkland conference that gave rise to this blog post here (plus a presentation on minimum and living wages by Ian Hussey):



-- Bob Barnetson

Labour & Pop Culture: Government Cheque

This week’s installment of Labour & Pop Culture is Furnaceface’s “Government Cheque”. This song examines (perhaps unwittingly) how lousy jobs coupled with the decommodification of labour allow workers to pursue other, more rewarding interests.

The singer has quit his job “cuz it stunk” and is reliant upon his government cheque, which he acknowledges is funded by the working class. The singer’s seemingly irresponsible behaviour has an explanation, though:

Well, I worked for years, but it didn't pay
A kick in the ass, a slap in the face
They showed me the door when I asked for a raise
Maximum work for minimum pay

Essentially, faced with the option of demeaning, undervalued work or the dole, the worker (rather logically) took the dole. This dynamic is part of the explanation for the neoliberal attack on income support programs. Eliminating or reducing employment insurance benefits forces workers to seek job (i.e., it re-commodifies labour) even this means accepting terrible jobs.

I couldn’t find an official video but this one was pretty interesting. Also, the song lyrics below only broadly approximate what is actually sung. But you get the idea.



"You're doin' it fuckin' wrong!"

A kick in the ass
A slap in the face
A knife in the back for the minimum wage

Well, today I got a government cheque
Am I gonna get drunk? Oh yeah, you bet!
Gonna paint the town red till my money's all spent
Then blame it on the government

I quit my job. Why? Cuz it stunk
But I still get a cheque twice a month
I sit around on my ass and I get paid by the working class

Well, I worked for years, but it didn't pay
A kick in the ass, a slap in the face
They showed me the door when I asked for a raise
Maximum work for minimum pay

"Did you like your job?" Nobody does
"Well, why'd you quit?" Well, because
I don't need a job. What the heck?
Canada Post will bring my cheque

And with every bottle that I drink
I sit and I think and I think and I think
About the people to whom I owe my keep

[Chorus 1 over top of:]
Well, today I got a government cheque
Am I gonna get drunk? Oh yeah, you bet
Gonna paint the town red till my money's all spent

-- Bob Barnetson

Research: Occupational health discourse in Finnish media

The journal Sociology of Heath & Illness just published an article entitled “Heath risks, social relations and class: An analysis of occupational health discourse in Finnish newspaper and women’s magazine articles, 1961-2008.”

The article examines how class expectations of work have changed over time and how this interacts with how we view workplace risk. In Finland (as in Canada), workplace safety issues became problematized in the 1970s.

At about this same time, though, views of work shifted from being conflict-oriented towards being harmonious (basically middle class views of work displaced blue-collar ones). Plus, you know, neoliberal market pressure and all that.

The authors' found the resulting collision of values (danger-driven conflict versus harmonious working arrangements) plays out in the coverage of psychosocial health risks. Specifically, around 1980, there is a significant change in the discourse in newspaper and magazine coverage.

There is more extensive coverage of psychosocial risks and the risks are presented not as the natural outcome of hierarchical organizations, but as some sort of separate issue. Herein we see the shift in how organizations are viewed from naturally (if perhaps unintentionally) harmful to harmless (with conflict being the result of inaction or error by workers and/or supervisors).

In this new formulation, the prescription for reducing psychosocial hazards rests with workers adjusting themselves to the needs and goals of the organization, rather than seeking to alter the organization (e.g., via unionization or other forms of collective or individual resistance). Basically, workers’ reactions to organizations became the problem, rather than the effect organizations had on workers’ health.

Overall, this article presets an interesting way to track how the discourse about the nature, cause and solution of workplace issues has changed over time and in ways that favour employers.

-- Bob Barnetson