Alberta OHS consultation foreshadows weaker safety rules

Alberta is undertaking another consultation about its Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) laws. The OHS Act was last overhauled in 2017, more than 40 years after it was first enacted. According to the government website, the topics under review are how to:

• strengthen the Internal Responsibility System
• enable innovation
• clarify accountabilities

The rationale for the review is:

…some stakeholders raised concerns that the changes made the OHS requirements more prescriptive and burdensome, and introduced new processes that affect how OHS is addressed in Alberta workplaces and how government services and enforcement are delivered.

It is unclear who these concerned stakeholders were.

Narrator: It was employers.

The consultation document discusses reducing the regulatory. Based on the changes outlined in Bill 32 (affecting employment standards and labour relations), this most likely means loosening the rules, which will shift costs from employers to workers in the form of less safe workplaces and more injuries and deaths.

The survey touches on several topics and foreshadows changes. These include:

• Joint health and safety committees: These were introduced in Alberta in 2018. The questions hint at loosening the rules (which will make it easier for employers to subvert and ignore them) and eliminating the requirement for them in so-called low-risk workplaces.
• Right to refuse: There is discussion of limiting the right to refuse unsafe work if the refusal might endanger others (so good-bye right to refuse in healthcare). There is also discussion about reducing delays associated with addressing refusals. At a guess, I’d say we’re going to see refusals no longer continuing until an OHS officer investigates (if an employer fails to make the work safe).
• Enforcement: There is discussion of “increasing flexibility” in how to deal with noncompliance with the law. Since enforcement of OHS remains completely ineffective due to a lack of political will and resources, I’m not sure what case exists for increasing flexibility around noncompliance (which presumably would further reduce the incentive employers have to comply).
• Less prescriptive: There are questions that suggest making the Act less prescriptive. This undermines the whole logic of having OHS laws. We have prescriptive laws because, absent such laws, employers operate unsafely in order to reduce labour costs (usually to increase profits). Why on earth would you make a law less prescriptive if the result will be more workers will get injured and die?
• Advisory bodies: The consultation suggests the government would prefer to have fewer stipulated expert advisory bodies (e.g., the mining expert panel) and more flexibility to appoint panels and establish their scope of work. The absence of a clear problem that this problem would solve is concerning. This sounds like a way to further politicize advisory panels (i.e., stack them in favour of employer interests).
• Potentially serious incidents (PSIs): The 2017 changes to the Act required reporting of potentially serious incidents (i.e., near misses). The consultation suggests the definition of a PSI is unclear (it isn’t) and employers don't like the work extra reporting entails. The reason for PSI reporting is that they identify unsafe workplaces and industries that require greater enforcement attention before injuries and fatalities happen.

Overall, my expectation is that this consultation is simply window dressing for a weakening of Alberta’s injury prevention laws. A 2016 study found that 1 in 5 Alberta workers is injured on the job each year and 1 in every 10.5 is seriously injured. There is also widespread employer non-compliance with even the most rudimentary OHS obligations. If the United conservative government was keen on improving safety, they would enhance enforcement rather than weakening the law.

This review is open until August 12.

-- Bob Barnetson

Shaming OHS violators reduces violations and injuries

An interesting article out of the US suggests shaming employers for egregiously violating occupational health and safety laws increases compliance. More specifically, a single press release about a severe OHS violation has the same impact as performing an additional 210 inspections. The underlying dynamic appears to be employers move to comply to avoid action by employees.

Earlier research suggested that a press release results in 73% fewer violations among nearby peer firms. The compliance effect of this shaming is stronger than the effect of actually inspecting these workplaces! A part of this effect may be that the risk to a firm of fines (which are low value and rare) is relatively low, whereas the risk of financial consequences caused by bad publicity is relatively high. Shaming also appears to lead to fewer (reported) workplace injuries.

Firms may also respond to shaming because they wish to avoid their workers taking action upon learning about injury risks (e.g., quitting, demanding higher wages). This effect appears to occur when workers have more bargaining power (i.e., where unionization rates are higher). By contrast, where workers have little bargaining power, shaming has little or no effect. This makes sense: information is unlikely to affect worker behaviour if they have no real means of putting it to use.

This research suggests that shaming Alberta employers who are egregious OHS violators would hugely amplify the effect of existing inspections and, therefore, drive down the number of Albertans who are injured on the job each year. Alberta presently has a legislative framework that allows the government to shame employers who are egregious OHS violators. To date, no government (Conservative, New Democrat, or UCP) has pursued this approach.

-- Bob Barnetson

Labour & Pop Culture: Superstore Season 5

This year, the comedy Superstore once again canvassed a bunch of labour-related issues. At the end of the fourth season, Cloud9 was being unionized and the corporate offices collaborated with ICE to raid the store for undocumented workers and, thereby putting a chill the organizing drive.

The fifth season opened with the introduction of a cleaning robot, which raised (ultimately unfounded) fears about job loss due to automation. The employer also introduces a game-based app that allows the corporation to track the location of its workers.



The use of ICE to intimidate the union drive forms the basis for getting an undocumented worker out of jail. The worker then gets re-hired but, when his new employer finds out about his status, the worker is blackmailed into doing a bunch of extra work. Some of the workers use a gig-economy app to subcontract out some of their work to a very vulnerable worker.

The store’s union drive is successful. Bargaining goes well, but only because the store has been secretly sold and the agreement becomes null and void. The key organizer then becomes involved with the Raise the Wage movement.

An employee with a mental health issue returns to the store and stalks another employer. She is suspended. Upon return, no one wants to work with her. She’s eventually injured by the cleaning machine and rushed to the hospital.



For a light-weight comedy, Superstore does a reasonable job of staying topical and addressing real world dynamics in workplaces.

-- Bob Barnetson

Labour & Pop Culture: The English Game

Earlier this spring, I watched a mini-series on Netflix called The English Game. The story is set mainly in northern England in 1879 and (loosely) follows the first British working-class soccer team to win the FA Cup. Previously, the game was mostly the preserve of upper-class amateurs. Factory Owner James Walsh breaks the rules by hiring two Scottish ringers to play for his Darwen team and mayhem ensues.

The storyline is interesting because it foregrounds class differences, conflict and blindness. The organization that controls the FA Cup is very upper crust and is largely (and perhaps intentionally) blind to the advantages that the rules grant to those who are wealthy (mostly leisure time).

The factory owners (many of whom also run soccer teams on the side) are a mixed bag and continually grind the wages of the factory workers. This leads to a strike and violence (which is quickly repressed by the police and judiciary). The social services available for “fallen” women was also starkly depicted.

Soccer is presented as one of the few positive things in the lives of factory workers. The notion of soccer as bridging the class divide (without in any way upsetting it) was a bit heavy handed and galling. This gets papered over a bit with a story of the moral redemption of (eventual soccer big wheel) Arthur Kinnaird.

While period dramas are not my thing, this was an interesting (and short!) foray into the lives of upper- and lower-class people during the industrial revolution.

-- Bob Barnetson

AU plays the victim card… again

Athabasca University (AU) is in the midst of a multi-year campaign to bust its faculty association. Its latest effort is using its power to designate who is considered an academic to propose carving out 67% of the members of the faculty association as the union heads into another difficulty round of bargaining.

AU’s de-designation efforts are going poorly. There is no plausible explanation for AU’s proposal to change bargaining unit boundaries after 35 years other than AU is seeking to strengthen its hand at the negotiating table. And AU is transparently gaslighting its staff by refusing to admit the main and obvious implications of its proposals (i.e., 67% of members will be kicked out of the union).

Not surprisingly, staff members are upset. While the results of AU’s most recent engagement survey have not yet been released, I suspect they will be much worse than last year’s, when only 43% of staff said they trusted senior administrators.

Over the past three weeks, faculty association members have been emailing Dr. Margaret Kierylo (AVP Integrated Policy and Planning) to express their concerns about de-designation. Kierylo is the main author of the policy proposal and appears to be the executive lead on the issue. While every email is a bit different, here is a typical example:

From: "Dr. Bob Barnetson" <barnetso@athabascau.ca>
Date: Thursday, June 11, 2020 at 10:22 AM
To: "Dr. Margaret Kierylo" <mkierylo@athabascau.ca>
Subject: some thoughts on your de-designation proposal

Margaret,

I hope this note finds you well.

I’m writing to you about AU’s present proposal to de-designate professionals, academic coordinators, and deans and associate deans. I previously wrote to [Provost] Matt [Prineas] about this in February, but he’s never bothered to respond.

What you are presently proposing will carve 67% of the members of my union out of the union. This is an unacceptable outcome and one effect will be to bust the union’s bargaining power. This is not how academics treat their colleagues.

I’m hopeful you might consider revising the proposed policy so as to maintain the status quo. The distress and anger this proposal is generating quite significant.

I imagine it is a bit hard to see how mad people are about this issue given that we’re all stuck at home for the next while. But, when we return to work, you’ll likely notice how straight up angry people are at the exec and at you (since you seem to be the face of this policy proposal).

A change in the university’s approach would likely go a long way to attenuating this anger and bringing this issue to a productive conclusion.

If you’d like to discuss this further, I’m available at either number below.

Thanks kindly

Bob

Kierylo’s response was a boilerplate email of no real consequence. What was interesting was AU’s next move.

At the June 22 consultation between AU and its unions, AU’s labour relations consultant Abey Arnaout began the meeting by claiming that Kierylo was being harassed. Here is a near-verbatim transcript:

Abey: … Before we start, I’d like to read out a statement from the university.

Over the past week members of the university’s draft designation policy committee have received emails from their union executive. The concern we raise today is not receipt of the emails. The issue in hand is harassment, bullying, and intimidation through veiled threat by these emails.

Quotes implied to be threatening:

I imagine it is a bit hard to see how mad people are about this issue. When we return to work you will notice how angry people are university exec and at you.

One can objectively assume that this was a threat of the university community of physical harm.

We want to make it clear that intimidation, threats, harassment and bullying have no place at this university or at any workplace. We understand that the topic of designation is an important one and that members of AU’s community are passionate about it. 

Because many of these emails indicate they were directed by the union, we assume that the union is complicit in this behavior. Our union partners should not deem this behavior as an acceptable labour relations tactic. 

This may lead to disciplinary action. The university takes no issue with the receipt of emails from university members. We remind our members to engage in respectful dialogue.

So, basically, the university is alleging that my email constituted a threat directed at Kierylo. Now, if that were true, the university has an obligation to take action to protect Kierylo. This might include:

• Indicating its concern to me directly.
• Directing me not to threaten (or even contact) Kierylo again.
• Commencing a disciplinary investigation (perhaps suspending me with pay during that time) and imposing sanctions.
• Re-assigning Kierylo so she is no longer in a position to be threatened.
• Contacting the police.

AU has done none of these things. I only heard about this concern second hand when the union was trying to track down the full email to review it (AU refused to provide a copy of the email to the union). AU’s inaction suggests AU doesn’t really think Kierylo was subjected to a threat. Because, of course, she wasn’t.

What is actually going on here is that AU is losing its fight to bust the union. AU’s behaviour is threatening the interests of every member of the union and has destroyed the credibility of AU’s executive team. The result, naturally, is that the members are becoming angry and rallying around the union.

And AU doesn't know what to do about that. If AU continues with efforts to de-designate two-thirds of the union’s members, it risks additional reputational harm and a nasty legal fight as well as the possibility of job action. If AU drops its proposal, the union will claim victory and the workers will learn (once again) that resisting AU attacks pays off.

Instead of trying to resolve this self-inflicted strategic dilemma, AU has decided continue to press ahead with de-designation while trying to delegitimize the behaviours that faculty association members are using to resist AU’s union busting. A powerful person or organization false claiming to be the victim of harassment is a form of emotional manipulation.

This tactic is, however, not going to work. AU already played the victim card just last summer after it got beat up during the last round of bargaining. And, last week, it claimed that any criticism of the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) efforts was bullying. The effectiveness of claiming to be the victim declines quickly with repetition.

Further, AU’s overall credibility with staff is so low that staff disbelieve much of what AU says. This is especially the case when the facts underlying the claim don't support it. No reasonable person would find the email threatening. This is likely why AU hasn't taken any meaningful steps to “protect” Kierylo—they would face another embarrassing and expensive loss in a discipline hearing.

One result of falsely claiming to be the victim is that AU is signalling that direct pressure on senior executives causes them discomfort (i.e., is an effective tactic). If a series of very mild emails generated this kind of intemperate response, what kind of response might the union get if it amped up the pressure even slightly (e.g., flyering Kierylo’s neighbourhood)?

At this point, AU’s best out is to revise its proposed policy such that the policy that does not affect the boundaries of the bargaining unit. (AU will lose face doing that, but that’s a sunk cost at this point.) Walking away from de-designation will reduce the support the union has because its members will no longer be under immediate threat.

If AU’s executives can’t see that (or let their egos get in the way of doing that), it be up to the Board of Governors to prevent this issue from causing the institution to spin out of control. Because that is pretty clearly where things are headed.

-- Bob Barnetson

Research: COVID anxiety and cannabis use at work

The Institute for Work and Health (IWH) does some really excellent research. They also do an excellent job of making that research accessible to the public. The IWH’s Spring 2020 issue of At Work is just out and contains a bunch of interesting pieces.

• Anxiety among heath care workers: Nearly 60% of health care workers surveyed in April reported levels of anxiety surpassing an accepted threshold level of clinical report. A key factor contributing to this anxiety is the unavailability of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the workplace. Nearly half of respondents indicated that fewer than half of their PPE needs were being met.
• Cannabis use at work stable: The legalization of cannabis in 2018 has not resulted in higher reporting of use in the workplace. Usage rates in the two hours before work, at work, during work breaks, or at the workplace at the end of a work shift, remained at 8%. Interestingly, 16% of respondents who used cannabis indicated they used it to manage a work-related injury or illness. Employer who were reported as having policies on substance use increased from 63% to 79%

The IWH also provides issue briefings. The most recent examines what Ontario employers spend on health and safety. On average, expenditures were $1303 per worker per year. There was wide variation between sectors, with good sectors spending much more than service sectors. Spending was heavily weighted to organizational management and supervision functions (58%) and staff training (22%)

-- Bob Barnetson

COVID and PSE: Do as I say, not as I do

Watching bricks-and-mortar post-secondary institutions cope the suspension of the winter 2020 semester has been very humbling. Many of my colleagues worked very hard (often with little institutional support) to ensure their students could finish out the semester during lockdown.

Going forward, many institutions are (sensibly) planning for an online autumn 2020 semester. This means that online education (previously the purview of a small number of PSEs) will now become the norm. For some long-time distance educators, its validating to see traditional institutions recognize that they can provide a solid online education.

I was struck, though, by some comments attributed to the president of Athabasca University at the end of May in the Globe and Mail:

The virtual programs put together on an emergency basis by schools in the spring is not really online learning, said Neil Fassina, president of Athabasca University, the first postsecondary institution in Canada to focus solely on distance education. High-quality online education includes opportunities for student-to-student and student-to-professor interaction, along with significant tools for social engagement. It typically takes months to build a proper online course, he added.

It is a bit arrogant to judge other institutions as not providing “high-quality online learning” when Athabasca University (which provides almost exclusively online education) doesn’t really provide “opportunities for student-to-student and student-to-professor interaction, along with significant tools for social engagement.” In truth, most of AU’s undergrad programming (I’d guess >90%) is basically delivered on a “correspondence with computers” model, with very limited contact between teachers and students and no peer-to-peer contact whatsoever.

There’s nothing wrong with this approach. Many students learn quite well in this model and makes a university education accessible to many students who couldn’t otherwise go. It’s just kind of weird for the president to assert (by implication), that his university isn’t really offering high-quality online education.

Indeed, if you watch the video (start at about 8.50), he asserts that AU can “create environments where there is huge interaction between professor and learner if it is designed specifically for the online space. We can create great interaction among and between learners” (from about 10.00).

This statement is narrowly true: AU could do that. But, we mostly don’t. What is happening here is a blurring between prescription and description. Outsiders can't see this difference and this sets learners up for a pretty big surprise when they arrive and basically get a website and an etext.

Later on (about 12.30), Fassina extolls the importance of supporting the academy in making the transition to online delivery. That’s a nice talking point. But it belies what is actually happening inside AU. The issue of moving to digital exams has basically been dumped in the laps of professors without adequate (or any support).

Quick background: Many AU courses have invigilated final exams. Exams can be written at an AU exam centre or some other exam centre. Some courses’ exams can also be delivered through online invigilation services, such as ProctorU. Other courses retain paper-based exams that must be written in-person. COVID has foreclosed in-person exams and the institution has moved to online only exams.

For many disciplines, online exams don’t work. I’ve heard from other profs that language, math, and science courses could not be quickly transitioned (or transitioned at all) onto online platforms because these platforms don't support the punctuation, graphics, calculations, or symbols required for assessing student comprehension.

This has been a long-term issue and is why these exams were still paper-based exams. Instead of addressing this (and other pressing operational issues, the institution has spent three years navel-gazing, writing strategic plans, and patting itself on the back.)

Along comes COVID and profs with paper-only exams were basically told “figure it out”. The Faculty of Science appears to be have been particularly hard hit, because of the number of affected courses and the size of the enrollments in the courses. Professors were left to fashion substitute exams (often unique to each student) and schedule and administer them with no additional support. This VASTLY increases the work associated with examinations. Consequently, other tasks (marking, research, sleep) have been pushed aside.

(There are COVID-related workload issues in other areas of the university, but exams is the easiest story to tell.)

The point of this story is that, for all of Fassina’s nice words, AU is basically doing the same things as every other PSE in COVID and dumping the hard work associated with managing COVID onto the staff and it’s not going well. Given that, it is pretty galling for AU’s executive to position themselves as leaders in online education and purport to dispense advice.

-- Bob Barnetson