Author Archives: CanucksBanter

Raising low-wage workers out of poverty: What is the government doing?

Posted on by

By Jenny Carson   August 21, 2013  http://rabble.ca

Photo: Bob Simpson/flickr

That there has been a dramatic rise in the number of working poor in Canada is incontestable. In 2013, one in ten Canadians earn minimum wages, more than double the number ten years ago; half of those workers are in Ontario. A recent study conducted jointly by McMaster University and United Way Toronto found that barely half of all workers in the GTA-Hamilton area are employed in permanent full-time positions that provide benefits and a modicum of job security.

The explosion of precarious or insecure employment and the subsequent growth in income inequality are the result of both long and short-term changes in the labour market. The outsourcing of good-paying manufacturing jobs to the developing world, the expansion of the low-wage service sector, reckless Wall Street spending and the assault on unions have all contributed to the current plight of the working class. But also important is the erosion of state support for collective bargaining and basic employment protections.

Governments at all levels have abdicated their responsibility to balance corporate and worker interests to maintain a healthy and balanced economy. The consequences for workers — in the form of shrinking wages, increased job insecurity and declining health — have been disastrous.

It is with cautious optimism then that we should greet recent municipal, provincial and federal-level efforts to address worker poverty and income inequality. On July 19, Toronto City Council voted 28-3 to update the City’s Fair Wage Policy. First established in 1893, the Fair Wage Policy requires contractors and suppliers for the city to pay their workers the prevailing market wages and benefits in their field of employment or, for unionized fields, union rates. The policy was designed to protect workers from unscrupulous contractors trying to underbid their competitors by paying their workers less than the prevailing wage rates, and to enhance the city’s reputation as an ethical employer. However, because the rates had not been updated since 2003, until last month many of the city’s “fair wages” fell below the Ontario minimum wage of $10.25 an hour.

The July 19 vote to update the fair wage rates reveals that a majority of councilors understand that is bad policy for the city, as an employer, to add to the growing ranks of the working poor (this excludes councilors like Denzil Minnan-Wong who sees as any kind of wage control as “social engineering”) Under the new rates, contractors providing janitorial services for the city must pay their workers at least $12.43 an hour. Cleaners in the private sector in contrast almost always earn minimum wages.

Unfortunately, however, a fair wage is not a living wage, which the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives estimates to be $17.76 an hour in Toronto (a living wage covers the cost of basic necessities such as shelter, food, clothing and transportation). The city’s fair wage rate for cleaners would barely raise a worker out of poverty and, if she or he were supporting a family as is often the case, would in fact leave them in poverty. This then is only a first step if the city truly wants to be an ethical employer.

On July 19 City Council also agreed to devise a “job quality assessment tool” against which any jobs being contracted out would be measured. The basic idea behind this initiative is to ensure that the city is not turning good jobs into bad jobs through the contracting-out process. As well as considering wage levels, the tool will include other criteria such as worker health and safety, skills and training opportunities, working conditions and other factors which determine job quality. Ideally, the job quality assessment tool, which will be considered by Council at the end of this year, will provide some protection for city workers who will no doubt face another round of privatization pressure as Mayor Ford runs for re-election in 2014. How successful this initiative will be depends on whether workers and their unions are given a voice in its formulation and implementation, and it’s not yet clear if they will be.

At the provincial level, the Wynne government recently announced the creation of a minimum wage advisory panel that will consider how to calculate increases to Ontario’s minimum wage. The six-member panel, chaired by University of Toronto Industrial Relations and Human Resources professor Anil Verma includes representatives from labour, business and youth, the latter of whom are disproportionately represented among low-wage and precariously employed workers.

The minimum wage in Ontario has been frozen at $10.25 for the last three years, and will remain so for at least the next six months as the panel conducts public consultations and studies how other jurisdictions calculate minimum wage rates. Anti-poverty activists are justifiably angry that it has taken the Liberals more than two years to set up the panel, and wonder why, unlike many other provinces, Ontario does not provide automatic annual minimum wage increases pegged to inflation. Ontario Labour Minister Yasir Naqvi’s assertion that we need a “made-in-Ontario” solution raises more questions than answers.

Yet once again there is reason to be hopeful that this initiative will help low-wage workers, many of whom are newcomers to Canada climb out of poverty and contribute to the economic recovery we so desperately need (remember, low-wage workers tend to spend every cent they earn in the local economy). The panel will most certainly recommend a wage increase and, perhaps just as importantly, develop a more predictable formula for raising the minimum wage in the future (in the past this has been done on an arbitrary, ad hoc basis that resulted in a nine-year wage freeze under the Conservatives). Only time will tell whether the panel’s political masters, whoever they might be next spring support a progressive overhaul of the system.

Despite the chilly climate for workers on Parliament Hill, there may also be reason to hope for change at the federal level. Next spring NDP Member of Parliament for Toronto Davenport Andrew Cash will introduce a private member’s bill to expand EI access to part-time and self-employed workers and to eliminate the use of unpaid interns. Cash has a personal as well as professional interest in the issue as someone who spent most of his adult life precariously employed in the creative sector. His bill would modernize a program that no longer reflects the employment realities of many Canadians, and make it harder for employers to engage in unethical and often illegal practices such as hiring workers as “independent contractors” so as to avoid obligations under employment law. It would also reform a pension system that currently consigns large numbers of elderly Canadians to poverty.

Cash understands that legislative changes to EI are only part of the solution. He envisions a multi-pronged approach that includes affordable daycare (along the lines of Quebec), social programs to fight poverty, and decent and affordable public transit. While the chances of Cash’s bill passing under a Conservative government are next to zero, his laudable initiative has the potential to start a public dialogue about how the EI system is failing Canadian workers. It is also, as Cash explains, an issue which “spans the employment silos and class divides” that traditionally divides workers. His bill has the potential to mobilize a broad cross-section of the working class, from journalists to taxi drivers to computer programmers. Its long-term success depends in large part on whether this mobilization takes place.

Together, these initiatives reveal that government (or at least some within government) is finally beginning to heed worker and progressive demands for action that will stem the alarming growth of job precarity and worker poverty in Canada.

It is far from clear whether any of these initiatives will lead to real change for workers, but collectively they suggest that at least some of our elected officials understand that government has a stake in creating a more equitable society.   

Jenny Carson is Associate Professor in the Department of History at Ryerson University.

Photo: Bob Simpson/flickr

Two orders issued at Bonfield landfill

Posted on by

By GORD YOUNG, The Nugget    Tuesday, August 20, 2013

The Ministry of Labour issued two orders last week regarding the operation of the Bonfield landfill site, including one requiring workers to be properly trained.

Ministry spokesman Matt Blajer confirmed Tuesday that the orders were issued following a site visit under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Blajer said the municipality was also ordered to ensure workers are outfitted with the proper personal equipment. But he said the ministry did not issue any stop-work orders.

Bonfield council members had been operating the landfill while the community’s 16 municipal employees are on strike. But members said last week they would not be opening the site Saturday due to escalating strife at the picket line.

Mayor Randy McLaren said Tuesday that the decision to close the landfill due to concerns for the safety and security of council members was made before the ministry orders were issued.

“It was more coincidental than anything,” he said, noting council members agreed to close the landfill after protesting Thursday forced the cancellation of meeting at the parish hall.

Deputy Mayor Tamela Price-Fry and Coun. Jane Lagassie say they were “held hostage” inside the parish hall while the mayor was being questioned by striking workers and ratepayers in the parking lot.

Price-Fry said she was inside the building with her husband, Lagassie and a person brought in to act as clerk for the meeting, but was unable to leave for about an hour because the exits were blocked.

Steve Boyle, a national representative for the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which represents the striking workers, responded, saying he was not aware of any CUPE members blocking the exits. He said union members were busy speaking to the mayor outside the parish hall. He also noted that police were on the scene and that the gathering dispersed peacefully.

On Monday, the union issued a release suggesting the closure of landfill is creating a bear problem.

“Closing the landfill, with no outlet for the community’s waste to be stored safely will not only prolong this unnecessary strike, but it is also already attracting bears to our community, and this is definitely not safe for the residents,” said Boyle, in the release.

He said CUPE members know what it takes to keep the landfill operating safely and want to resolve the strike.

McLaren said keeping the landfill site closed long-term is not an option. And he said arrangements will likely be made for residents to dispose of their garbage Saturday.

He one option is to ensure adequate security to allow council members to resume operating the site. He said members will be trained to use fire extinguishers and bear spray – as per the ministry order.

McLaren said the municipality can also rent a large bin to be placed in a central location that can later be taken to the landfill.

The municipality’s 16 workers have been off the job since Aug. 1, affecting services such as road maintenance, tax payments, building permits, inspections, planning services and general inquiries. CUPE says key issues are the threat of contracting out and a list of concessions demanded from the municipality including attacks on seniority, training, employment security, scheduling, vacations, sick leave and benefits. McLaren has said there are some 40 outstanding issues and the municipality is seeking changes to the existing collective agreement, including reducing the number of bankable sick days to which employees are entitled, increasing the length of service required for additional vacation entitlement and extending the probationary period for new hires.

He has also acknowledged the municipality has proposed language that would allow it to contract hire. But McLaren has said there is no intention of contracting out core services.

gord.young@sunmedia.ca

Why Do Workers Support Policies To Weaken Labour Rights?

Posted on by

From:  http://lawofwork.ca   Tuesday, August 20, 2013

doorey    By   Dr. David Doorey

My colleague here at the School of HRM at York, Tony Fang, found a while back that the union wage premium in Canada is about 7.7% (see page 13), meaning that unionized workers earn that much more on average than nonunion workers. Unionized workers also receive significantly better benefits and pension plans.  Since polls suggest people are very concerned about growing income inequality, it might seem logical that they would also support policies and practices that put more money into the hands of working folks.

Thus, if you are a nonunion worker earning less than what a unionized worker earns, a rational response would be to say, “Why am I doing the same work for less pay, less job security, and fewer benefits?  I should join a union too.”  Some people do think that way.  But many people do not, and respond to the better paid unionized workers with hostility. They say, “those damned greedy unionized workers, we should get rid of unions, and strip those workers of their better pay and benefits“.

It’s perfectly understandable why employers and conservative politicians and think tanks argue against collective bargaining and better wages and benefits enjoyed by unionized workers.  Their interest is in maximizing corporate profits, executive compensation, and shareholder dividends by giving less of the pie to workers, and in the case of the Conservative Party, in weakening an effective political foe in the labour movement.

Much more interesting is why the average worker would side with an argument for lowering wages and benefits.

I was thinking about this after I was interviewed on a radio station recently, and the host said that “people” are angry at the wages of union workers, and she asked me what I had to say to those people.  I said that maybe they should join a union.  The host gagged.  Apparently that wasn’t the answer she was looking for.  What do you think was the “correct” answer to that question?

Why Do Working People Support Policies Designed to Lower the Pay, Benefits of Working People?

This piece in the New Yorker describes  how nonunionized workers in the US experience ‘resentment’ over better wages and benefits enjoyed by unionized workers. In past times, workers responded by seeking out good unionized jobs themselves. However, in more recent times,  America workers are responding to this resentment  by supporting initiatives designed to strip labour rights.

Robert Frank

I read an interesting book by Robert Frank, called Falling Behind: How Rising Inequality Harms the Middle Class. He provides an interesting insight into this question by using a model that is something like this.  He imagines two worlds that are identical (ie.  prices of goods are the same in both worlds), except for one thing:

World A: You earn $100,000, but everyone else earns $120,000.

World B:  You earn $80,000, but everyone else earns $60,000.

In World A, you can buy a bigger house and nicer stuff than in World B, but everyone else can buy even nicer stuff and more stuff than you.  In World B, you can afford less of everything, but that would still be more than everyone else could buy.  In other words, you are relatively better off in World B compared to everyone else, but you are absolutely better off in World A.

Which world would you prefer to live in?

Frank says that most people select World B.  They are concerned more about how they fare relative to others than the absolute level of their income.  That might help explain why many nonunion workers get angry when they learn that unionized workers earn more than them, and why their first response might not be  to try and bring their wage levels up to the unionized rate by joining a union themselves.

They want other people’s wages to come down more than they want their wages to go up.  They are more concerned with doing relatively better off than the next guy than they are in raising their own absolute income level.   Frank’s insights might also help explain why the vast majority of unionized workers are happy with being in the union:  Lipset and Meltz found that 90.5% of American and 85.8% of Canadian union members would vote to remain in the union if asked.  Theses statistics refute claims by antiunion folks like Tim Hudak and Conservative politicians, who like to argue that there are large numbers of trapped union members who just can’t escape from their union oppressors.

Professor Harry Arthurs, Canada’s eminent labour law scholar, has offered this insightful explanation for the apparent paradox of low wage workers supporting politicians who want to gut labour and employment laws and undermine collective bargaining:

arthurs

Harry Arthurs

the rise of non-standard employment has not only cost millions of workers their rights, benefits, and sense of ‘identity and self-worth’. By widening the gulf and shifting the numerical balance between workers still protected by labour law and those who are not, it may also have contributed to a new political dynamic in which have-not workers acquiesce in or support efforts to strip the haves of their advantages. (Labour Law After Labour)

Harry’s making the same basic point as Frank.  Employer preferences for fewer standard, full-time workers and government policies designed to weaken employment laws and access to collective bargaining are growing Canada’s income inequality and creating huge pools of marginalized workers (as explained by Professor Michael Lynk in this paper).  Yet many of these workers are responding by supporting policies they think will bring the relatively better off workers down to their level, rather than policies that would attempt to bring them up to improved levels.

Issue for Discussion

Do you think Frank’s story about people being driven mostly by a desire to do relatively better than others explains why low wage workers would support policies designed to strip other workers of benefits?

What do you think of Professor Arthurs’ claim that the growth in precarious work has caused precarious workers to support policies that strip more privileged workers of their rights and benefits?

 

Dr. David Doorey is an Associate Professor of Labour and Employment law at York University’s School of Human Resource Management, where he teaches courses in labour and employment law and industrial relations to undergraduate business and HRM students, and graduate students in law and HRM.  For the 2012-13 academic year, Professor Doorey is Visiting Scholar at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law and the Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources.

Professor Doorey is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law, and sits on the Advisory Board of the new Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law.

Black and Farrell Visit COPE Members on IBEW Picket Lines

Posted on by

Home

From: http://www.cope378.ca

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

When the driver of large semi truck blew his horn and waved in support as he rumbled by the picket line, COPE 378 and IBEW 213 members waved back and put their fists in the air before turning back to their visitors, President David Black and Vice President Gwenne Farrell.

“The support from the community has been really good,” said a young male IBEW member, with a hint of a sunburn from the bright sky showing on his cheekbones. “First off, it’s a lockout, they know we want to go back to work. Put that with Fortis’ recent [electricity] rate increase, they’re all pretty onside.”

FortisBC, the primary electric utility in the Kootenays and parts of B.C.’s interior, locked out approximately 200 workers of Local 213 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in June following the overwhelming rejection of the company’s final offer. IBEW 213 members said FortisBC’s efforts to control job descriptions have the potential to substantially de-skill their workforce, one of the major reasons they so decisively voted the offer down. The other issue is wages, but the company and the union were only one per cent per year apart. Instead of negotiating further, FortisBC locked the workers out.

The lockout affects 28 of COPE 378’s FortisBC members (COPE 378 also represents over 500 members at Fortis Energy, the gas arm of the utility, and around 300 members at the Fortis Customer Care Centre; none of those members are affected at this time). Those 28 members are respecting the IBEW picket line and refusing to cross. They are eager to get back to work–but only if there’s a deal.

“Of course we have to stand with them,” said an older male COPE member at one of the first stops made by Black and Farrell. “It’s the right thing to do and we also know our bargaining is coming up next. If Fortis gets away with treating Local 213 like this they’re coming after us next.”

Black and Farrell spent a day and a half criss crossing the FortisBC service area to meet and speak with members. They visited Castlegar and South Slocan, Creston and Warfield on Monday (but just missed the Warfield picket shift), then Oliver, Penticton and Kelowna on Tuesday. At each place they heard similar comments–strong support for the IBEW members, a desire to get back to work and concerns about their own bargaining coming up in February of 2014.

“These are good jobs here, in our communities,” said a female COPE 378 member in Oliver, when talking about the impact of the lockout. “Some of our coworkers are single parents or just single. There’s not always secondary income to rely on.” Picket pay is enough to cover basics but the locked out workers aren’t able to contribute to their local economies in the same way as before the dispute.

There is hope a resolution is around the corner. IBEW 213 is heading into mediation with the company this Thursday, which could lead to an end of the eight week long lockout. Meanwhile, COPE 378 members and leadership hope the lockout won’t prove to be a dry run for their own negotiations. But if it is difficult to reach a collective agreement COPE members know they will have the support of their union brothers and sisters from the IBEW.

Before Black and Farrell left the Kelowna Fortis picket line an IBEW member approached them. “I want you to know they’ve been great,” he said, gesturing to the COPE picketers. “These folks have been out here with us every day. I can’t tell you what that means.”