Submission

The Value of Work in Canada

Executive Summary

The overall objective of federal labour standards should be to improve working conditions for all workers in general and not just for the most vulnerable. We believe the most vulnerable workers are not easily defined as vulnerability is work place specific and varies depending upon work place culture.

We find ourselves in a time period when Canadian workers are voiceless and angry: silenced by the power imbalance that exists in today's work place. By providing a general sense of security for all workers, this committee may find more support for specific work place accommodations required for special needs workers.

Canadians need your help and innovation to get out of the current work place rut they are in. You can help them to do it by implementing effective strategies to protect the rights of the Canadian worker. Current workplace demands by public and private sector employers upon employees is on the rise. It has been our experience that workers are often expected to work longer hours and in many cases without proper remuneration. With or without remuneration, a worker must be allowed to decide if he/she is able to work overtime and should never be forced to do so. There is no tracking of such infringements upon workers rights at present that we are aware of. Corporate culture is one based on securing profit and gains with little regard for the impact of such narrowly focused goals, upon the worker. As a result there is an invisible cost absorbed by the worker when employers focus single-mindedly upon competitiveness. The concept of the worker as a "team player" should not force workers to sacrifice their own rights in order to be viewed as cooperative. Corporate culture has an awesome influence upon mainstream culture and whether we are prepared to accept it or not, this influence has led to the erosion of the rights of the worker in Canada.

The current minimum wage is a travesty. It is a wage that strips a worker of his/her dignity and shows the lack of respect for the value of honest work in our country at this time. Millions of Canadians are expected to exist upon the minimum wage or just slightly above it. However, the minimum wage may be allowing corporations to make considerable profit by saving upon labour costs.

This collective has been unable to uncover educational or experiential distinctions between those acquiring work and those not acquiring work. It has become increasingly clear to us that education is not necessarily a tool to acquire a high salary or secure a job in Canada anymore. Educated Canadians with Canadian university degrees and college diplomas are working at low paying jobs all across this country. The issues that are causing educated Canadians to work at these mc jobs never make the news reports distributed by the mass media. I challenge this committee to secure the means to conduct a nation wide study of how many Canadian educated university and college graduates are working at jobs they are over qualified for and are generally dissatisfied with. The results of such a study would likely cause a dramatic shift in how we view the relationship between acquiring a job and possessing Canadian educational credentials in this country.

We believe a happy worker is a more productive worker and therefore it is in the best interests of employers' to enact best practices in matters concerning the quality of life of their workers.

Table of Contents

Recommendations

Response to Consultation Question #1

Response to Consultation Question #3

Response to Consultation Question #4

Response to Consultation Question #5, Employee/Employer Relationship – Is it an equal exchange?

The Value of Personal Histories

Workplace Bullies

Who Is Monitoring the Hiring Practices of Employers?

The Workers' Mythical Security Blanket

Workers' Rights Tribunal

Response to Consultation Question #6, Share Employment Strategy

Citations

Recommendations

Our recommendations include:

1. A non-profit, Worker's Rights Organization must be established within every major city in this country.
2. A Worker's self-help centre / resource centre must be established as an arm of a Worker's Rights Organization or as a separate entity within every major city in this country.
3. A Worker's Rights Tribunal (court) must be established.
4. Restrictions imposed upon temporary employment agencies selling employment indiscriminately. Work in this country must not be allowed to become inaccessible to the average Canadian. In order to maintain free access to jobs, acquiring one must not involve a middle- man to negotiate the transaction.
5. Employees' who do not work in unionized environments must have easy access to a mediation/ arbitration system for cases of workplace harassment, abuse, and wrongful termination.
6. Clearly defined rights of the job applicant must posted in a visible location in every work place covered by federal labour standards. Every new hire should be offered a copy of federal labour standards upon hire.
7. Severe penalties must be imposed for nepotism and harassment meted out by cliques or gangs in the workplace against an individual(s).
8. The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Federal Labour Board must be encouraged to broaden their complaints criteria, so that employees may register complaints in workplaces against the actions of fellow employees. As it is fellow employees who may be used as instruments to enact the will of an unethical employer.
9. Employers require incentives to ensure that cliques and gangs are not actively bred or nurtured in their workplace such as a frequent, random and anonymous employee surveys conducted by labour board, in order to obtain feedback on the environment within the workplace.
10. Comprehensive protection under Federal labour standards for all workers is required regardless of how long they have been employed, or their prior length employment/work history. Workers who are new to the workforce are more vulnerable to abuse, harassment and discrimination because employers/co-workers will be well aware of their tentative status and lack of proven work place experience with that specific employer.
11. This committee needs to review the impact of "misinformation" and "a general lack of information" for workers surrounding access to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Labour Board and the Safety Standards complaints process. It is our understanding that Workers who have worked less than 3 years generally are not considered as having a "strong case" to present, with the labour board, human rights commission or employment lawyers. But the majority of workers are not aware of this. It has become increasingly clear to many Canadians that complaints at the human rights commission and labour board must fall into predetermined, narrowly defined categories in order to be heard. Unfortunately, workers often discover this information far too late.
12. This committee needs to undertake an effort to ensure that accurate workplace education on the process of making complaints to the labour board, safety board and human rights commission is provided to all workers and not just management.
13. Management must fall under the same rules as all workers. By allowing separate rules for management, you provide employers with the ability to employ divide and rule tactics within the workplace. The ability for an employer to pit one worker against another, to achieve an unscrupulous end, must be eliminated.
14. Easily accessible Complaints Registry of complaints filed with the Labour Board and Human Rights Commission with complainants allowed to choose if they would like identifying information kept confidential. The description of the complaint and its history through the complaints process should be public information. Statistics on which complaints were successful and which were not should be made available to the general public. This would enable the public to identify patterns within the process.
15. We challenge this committee to secure the means to conduct a nation wide study of how many Canadian educated university and college graduates are working at jobs they are over qualified for and are generally dissatisfied with. The results of such a study would likely cause a dramatic shift in how we view the relationship between acquiring a job and possessing Canadian educational credentials in this country.
16. Share Employment is an alternative to mass unemployment.
17. Another goal we hope to see come to fruition is a full employment scheme or some form of guaranteed annual income system that individuals and families can plan their financial futures around even if they are working on a part time or temporary basis.
18. The elimination of reference requests as part of standard hiring practice etiquette, from job applicants by employers. Employers need to be encouraged to seek other methods of scrutinizing the value, and worth of potential workers other than seeking the approval of other individuals, who are also in positions of power and authority. When individuals have had a falling out with an employer they are left without references and realistically will not be able to find work in this references seeking society. So a lack of "references" may be one of the main "hidden" reasons for unemployment in this country today.

Response to Consultation Question #1

Canadian federal labour standards don't need to be influenced by the standards set in other countries. Federal labour standards need to be based on the recognition of the innate worth and dignity of all workers. Canadian labour policy is too often influenced by labour standard in the United States. Since the introduction of harmonization practices under NAFTA, Canada has often rushed to amend it's own policies to match those of the Unites States, in areas such as Employment Insurance. This has occurred without consideration for the negative ramifications and impact upon the Canadian worker's access to insurance against periods of unemployment. The labour standards in other countries should be surveyed without discrimination and their "best practices" should be evaluated for possible positive and negatives impacts upon the Canadian worker.

This committee must recognize the development of a working poor class of educated and highly literate Canadians. They are a growing majority of workers who work to meet their daily living expenses and never have money enough left over to attain the dream that new immigrants are flocking to this country to achieve.

There is a rising number of workers who are employed in part time, temporary, furlough, work that falls outside of the boundaries of acceptable standards. While the probationary period for a full time, salaried employee last 3 months, for these temporary employees it may last for years on end ... It is unfair to keep a worker without job security for longer than 3 months. No employer has a right to keep an employee on a perpetual trial basis.

The role of temporary agencies in maintaining a "disposable workforce" and the piracy of employee wages must be addressed. The highway sale of labour must be stopped.

If unemployed Canadians lack skills to obtain what work exists in Canada today than access to training needs to be made available. Why not start services and programs to help Canadian Citizens obtain those skills? Canadian youth are spending years in university and college programs that do not lead to jobs with which they can support themselves. The fact that employers continue to be evasive in defining what specific criteria they search for in potential employees adds to the frustration for Canadian workers. Canadians don't want employers to instruct them on how to behave, dress, and groom themselves – they want and need responsible employers to tell them which skill sets they require to get the job. It is essential that the focus be upon preparing students for jobs via post-secondary education to match labour market trends and thus available jobs. University and colleges must be encouraged to create programs in fields where jobs actually exist.

Response to Consultation Question #3

Item #3, in the Questions for Consultation, the federal labour standards review refers to "best practices adopted by leading Canadian employers" as a possible example of model practices to be reviewed by this committee. Our group wonders what criterion was used to establish these private sector employers as "leaders"? Was it the employer's annual income? Because that is the criteria used by most financial magazines to establish corporations at the top of their lists. Was it how close the workplace is located to a park? Because that is one of the criteria a popular, highly recognizable Canadian Magazine uses to gauge its top employers of the year. Was it how easily accessible the company complaints procedure against work place abuse, harassment and mistreatment is to access and put into motion? That is one of the chief criterion that our group uses to gauge top employers. "Best practices" terminology is just another trendy word that corporate employers are currently emblazoning shelves full of shiny binders with. We would like to ensure that this labour standards review has checked to make sure the content within some of those binders contains material that is able to set right some of the wrongs in today's work place.

Response to Consultation Question #4

Consultation Question #4, asks if different labour standards need to apply to specific industries, occupations or sizes of businesses. We say "no", unless absolutely necessary. Workers need simple, clearly defined rights in workplaces that are easy to understand, memorize and defend themselves against when any encroachment upon these rights arises. When you begin applying different rights to different workplaces it becomes very difficult for the general, working public to follow.

When workers are ignorant of their own rights and the method for accessing the correct complaints procedure against an infringement frustration and anger emerge. The potential for abusive scenarios to emerge multiply when workers are kept in the dark, uniformed and ignorant of their own rights.

Consider the hypothetical scenario below:

1. A broadcast communications company engages 50 or more workers in non-wage employment with no defined role or title, The workers receive a lump sum payment, a cheque with no deductions for an unspecific amount of hours each month. This was formerly called "paying someone under the table" but today such practices have become more sophisticated with the discovery of new loop holes. The employer hires new immigrants, students, new workers in the field and recent graduates for cheap labour. In this particular work place we would identify these workers as highly vulnerable to exploitation due to: lack of knowledge of work place worker rights, lack of experience and knowledge of workplace operations, vulnerability to intimidation practices, under high financial pressure to gain employment and gain work place experience. Also, due to the stigmatization of developing a "bad" name in such a high profile industry. Workers who try to fight against such unjust employment may find themselves discouraged by front line workers at the federal labour board who may ask them to reconsider complaints against a media giant because it is a "close knit industry" and the worker risks getting a "bad name". A worker who has studied for years at Canadian University, accumulated enormous debt, to get into the broadcast industry, likely would find it difficult to take the risk of being blacklisted. It requires an enormous amount of courage to take a work place complaint to the labour board or human rights commission. A worker requires the assurance that the ramifications upon their whole life will be taken into consideration when judgements about work place abuse are made. This Labour Review Committee needs to think seriously about the black listing of workers from various industries for speaking out against unjust labour practices. One of the primary tools to investigate such practices is never employed: undercover investigations. Undercover investigations by trained, labour board staff would allow them to gain the hard evidence against employers who engage in crafty and abusive practices against employees.
2. Furthermore, this labour review needs to consider the abuse of the work place "volunteer". While ads for volunteers by highly recognized charities make volunteering look like a joyous two-way street of mutual fulfillment, this is not always the case. Young people, saddled with student loans are often forced into volunteer work for months and even years at a time after graduating from school to gain what is termed "experience". Employers are making profit off this work and therefore this work should be paid. Most university and college programs now include practical components that employers should be recognizing as suitable to attain entry-level positions with their companies rather than forcing graduates into more debt and suffering after years spent in school.

The average worker in Canada today longs for what the generation before had attained: job security. Which workers are we speaking about? Highly educated Canadian workers are kicking around at part time and temporary employment in sectors covered by Federal Labour Standards such as: the broadcast communications industry. How many random labour board inspections have been done in this industry in the last 10 years? Are employers in this industry encouraged to post labour standards in highly visible locations throughout the work place? Are employers in this industry entitled to special rights at the labour board due to their highly visible corporate personalities and power?

Response to Consultation Question #5

Employee/Employer Relationship – Is it an equal exchange?

Is the employee / employer relationship set up in such a way that both benefit equally from this exchange? Do employees have the key elements of "access" in the workplace that would allow them to adequately seek protection under the Labour Code without simultaneously jeopardizing their job and therefore income?

Are the far-reaching and dangerous effects of nepotism and premeditated cliques in work places being addressed with the seriousness and degree of prevalence with which they exist? Until these and many more workers' rights issues are addressed, it is difficult to make standards anymore "flexible" to suit employers' demands.

Is it realistic for employees to independently cope with the everyday stressors of work on top of filing a complaint against an employer internally or externally without a legal representative in place to assist? Complaints require documentation, correspondence, and legal assistance at meetings. Where should a minimum to moderate wage earner go to seek such support?

On the flip side, most medium to large scale corporations keep lawyers on retainer, so litigation can be easily entered into without incurring extra-normal fees than what is regularly paid. Additional fees only start to be paid once the case involved work outside of the lawyer's services included within the retainer fee.

Should the labour board be considering allowing employees' access to trained "mediators" to assist with employer/employee relations (in cases where they are not represented by a union). Such mediators should have access to time with the employee, meetings with management in regards to the employee and should be able to make recommendations to the labour board about the situation. The mediator must not be employed by the work place and must be held accountable for declaring any conflict of interest issues at the onset. Has the labour board considered the cost impact to the employer / employee of "workplace psychological harassment"?

The Value of Personal Histories

I hope you will recognize the importance of taking into account personal histories and experiences of employees in Canada in your findings and decisions as a standing committee. The average worker is not politicized enough to get her / his voice heard in our society anymore. You need to actively seek it out. At a time when workers have not received a cost of living increase in over a decade ... most individuals and families do not have the finances necessary to launch proceedings against employers or even to attend your public forum. Even though individuals are encouraged to make complaints at the labour board, human rights commission, employment standards etc ... the reality is the "invisible cost" is too high for most to absorb while simultaneously searching for a new job.

I think it is fair to say, that most employee/employer disputes end in:

1. The employee being terminated
2. The employee being politely forced out of the job
3. The actual "role" or "job" of the employee being eliminated and then recreated once the employee has been eliminated
4. The ruling clique in the organization applying enough "peer pressure" or "bullying tactics" that the employee is forced to resign
5. Employees must have worked in excess of 3 years at a work place before they actually have a leg to stand on with employment lawyers, labour board and the human rights commission
6. An employee who has worked for 6 months or less has virtually no recourse for abuse in a work place, save if it is physical abuse and than they have the option to call the police ... and launch a costly lawsuit
7. Employees are vulnerable and exposed to the inclinations of employers ... much the same way as people who appeared in "the court" of a king or queen in medieval England were in times gone by...

We will readily admit we have no statistics to back up such statements only our own experiences, the experiences of family members, and friends. But ... we could have statistics to back up such claims if money was directed by the government to set up non-profit employee rights organizations to monitor the needs of workers in this country. Just as they exist for consumer survivors of the mental health system, anti-racism organizations, women's rights organizations etc ... We require watch dog organizations to protect and maintain the rights of employees in all sectors of employment in this nation ... without them employees are virtual pawns of their employers.

Workplace Bullies

"The first anti-bullying law in North America came into effect on June 1, 2004. Quebec has amended its Labour Standards Act to deal with psychological harassment in the workplace." (Canada Safety Council, Targeting Workplace Bullies pg. 1, para 1)

There should be laws against bullies ... (Canada Safety Council, Targeting Workplace Bullies, pg. 1 para 5) Workplace bully's can inflict much trauma. It is becoming more and more apparent that less and less are people getting ahead because they are "smart" or "determined". The individuals who are getting ahead in the work place are increasingly those who employ school ground bully tactics. They bring the "in crowd" with them and get the "smart" people to slave away as "worker bees" underneath them. I have often heard this reality joked about by co-workers who are involved in secure cliques in which they don't feel threatened. "Oh you know, Joe better stop working so hard or he is going to have a heart attack ... ha ha ha" Or "Why don't you ever smile Nancy? Why are you the only one who looks so stressed out?" Likely it is Nancy and Joe who are the organizations two worker bees.

There are generally only a few worker bees' in each organization and the rest are loafers who take the credit for the work because they have the "social" power of the organization in their hands. Recognizing the reality of modern day work place dynamics is not negativity on our part, but courage enough to face the truth.

It is clear that the Labour Board did recognize the possibility for workplace abuse as in 2004, as there was some effort made to address it.

"A similar amendment has been proposed to the Canada Labour Code, which applies to all federal government employees. The Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act would impose fines of to $10,000 for hostile inappropriate and unwanted conduct, verbal comments or gestures ..." as well as "any abuse of authority, including intimidation, threats, blackmail or coercion. When the June 2004 election was called, the bill died." (Canada Safety Council, Targeting Workplace Bullies, pg. 1 para 4)

Who Is Monitoring the Hiring Practices of Employers?

Specific rights of the job applicant need to be defined by this committee. The rights of the job applicant must be posted in each and every work place covered by Federal Labour Standards. The posting should also include details on how to access the complaints procedure for job applicants who feel they have partaken in an unjust hiring process. They must have access to legal advice and the results of such a complaint must not hinge on the complainants prior work history.

We think it is important to recognize that the employee / employer relationship is set up with a huge power imbalance from the onset. First of all when a hiring process is initiated what checks and balances are employers' legally required to ensure are in place to protect the rights of applicants? If any such guidelines exist, who is monitoring them? Without constant monitoring, spot checks and expeditious enforcement of regulations – they become useless.

The "new speak" of hiring processes involves the employer setting up a peer committee to conduct the hiring termed a "hiring committee". Such committees are often complex processes that take up an exorbitant amount of time and result in a huge cost for the employer ... A temporary, bureaucracy of sorts is established and to what benefit? There is no conclusive evidence that a hiring committee is any more fair in it's approach, ethics, or results than a solitary individual conducting a hiring process. One individual committed to the ethical and moral obligations involved in hiring, such as ensuring the most qualified individual obtains the position can likely be as effective, if not more so than a cumbersome committee. Workers on the committee may have "hidden agendas" intertwined into who they cast their vote in favour of. Ensuring accountability for poor hiring decisions becomes more complex when numerous individuals are responsible.

At the onset of any hiring a clear set of "criteria" for the qualities ideally possessed by the new hire must be recorded and kept on record for seven years, should any dispute in regard to the hiring process arise.

Furthermore, it should be noted that such committees can be intimidating to the applicant during the interview process.

It has been our experience that interview questions are often improperly worded by the committee and thus mislead the applicant away from the real purpose of the question. Printed questions and printed answers recorded for posterity would be a more effective and fair practice.

Why not allow each applicant to provide feedback on his/her experience with the interview process at the culmination of the interview? Wouldn't the committee want to know how they might improve their skills from the perspective of the applicant?

Furthermore, it has been our personal experience that job applicants at all levels ranging from professional to labour intensive workers, are treated as "highly suspicious" during the interview process. Workers often treat the applicant as someone to be "screened intensely" as one screens for possible deviant elements of society such as serial criminals. Such behaviour may promote feelings of negativity and anger among job applicants. The interview process should be a "friendly" encounter that puts an individual at ease rather than on edge.

Why not encourage as "new" etiquette for employers? Employers should "pay a nominal fee" to the interviewee for an interview. That would clearly send a message to the job applicant that their time and effort to attend the interview was given the respect it deserved and that they had not been called out on a whim ...

Furthermore, it should become standard practice in workplaces to have job interviews electronically recorded and recordings kept on record for a specific time period. This way should a job applicant have a complaint about an interview process there would actually exist some evidence to call upon. Otherwise you are reducing a complainant to nothing more than he said / she said allegations.

If an employer has the right to demand 3 references from an individual, ask a myriad of personal and professional questions, demand a printed resume and cover letter, in many cases criminal record checks, security screening, medical testing ... Shouldn't each and every potential applicant be able to demand similar pieces of documentation from the employer? In fact, it should be standard etiquette for the employer to provide documentation in kind to the employee. We would like to know many things of a potential employer such as: What rate of turnover have you experienced in the last 5 years? Have you had any labour board, human rights violations, lawsuits, or legal proceedings brought against you by employees in the last twenty years? How do you treat volunteers in this organization?

Furthermore, we believe that providing references is an out of date practice that provides little insight into the actual worth of a potential employee. A security check or criminal record check is available to employers if safety issues are of concern in the work place. References simply provide employers with assertions from individuals in positions of power and authority of their personal opinions of the worth of the job applicant. We don't believe that an individual's potential or worth should hinge on the opinions of previous employers. Individuals should not need people in high places to make positive statements about them in order to establish their worth as a qualified worker. Such out-of-date practices simply contribute to the following:

1. It provides previous employers with considerable power and authority over an ex-employee.
2. It provides present employers with leverage to intimidate a current employee. Employee may be reluctant to quit a job that is causing them mental stress, physical health problems or simply just dislike due to fear of not receiving a good reference.
3. When individuals have had a falling out with an employer they are left without references and realistically will not be able to find work in this references seeking society. So a lack of "references" may be one of the main "hidden" reasons for unemployment in this country today.

It is our understanding that some employers have stopped providing references to employees for fear of litigation stemming from providing a reference. Allegedly a Toronto area college of applied arts and technology no longer provides references to any of its academic or non-academic employees.

The Workers' Mythical Security Blanket

Common myth's that exist in our society and perpetuated by the media, word of mouth and through literature in our society, are that of potential recourses available to employees who have experienced intimidation by co-workers or employers, abuse, harassment, or discrimination. The uninformed worker is led to silently believe that he/she will always have ultimate recourse against abuse at the labour board or human rights commission ... but how realistic is this? Don't both organizations require the employee to bring forth witnesses ... such as co-workers ... to confirm their allegations against an employer?

And which of us would be willing to risk our own job by standing up in a tribunal setting for a fellow employee? Would you risk your source of income to take on an unethical, unscrupulous employer who might also impose penalties against you? How many of you have mortgages to pay, and kids to feed? Do you think you would gamble your job on a whim to help a fellow worker? It may be demoralizing to recognize this sad, unempowering fact but better we acknowledge the flaws in our system and make it better than not.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Federal Labour Board must be encouraged to broaden their complaints criteria, so that employees may register complaints in workplaces against the actions of fellow employees. As it is fellow employees who may be used as instruments to enact the will of an unethical employer.

And ultimately if a worker was to win at the human rights commission, suffer the humiliation and indignities of being fired unjustly ... isn't accurate to say the maximum compensation they would be entitled to is very minimal? Meanwhile the fee of the average human rights paralegal / representative is approximately $5,000 to represent an individual at the commission. So at the end of the day the worker may have lost a $50,000 per job ... placed themselves and their families in financial jeopardy and gained nothing at all ...but possibly the onset of symptoms related to some mental illnesses and mental disorders ...

Employees by virtue of their vulnerability need protection from employers by the government. In a capitalist society it is no secret that employers ultimate objective is to secure profit [or in the case of non-profit organizations it is their objective to secure "gains"] therefore it is the duty and responsibility for this government to give a voice to the voiceless! Where employees are too weak to have their voices heard you must make sure they are heard, where their issues are shoved under the rug you must pull them out and bring them to the forefront of Canadian life. All the good intentions can't stop this road from crumbling ... it requires vigilance, maintenance and a respect for the worth of each worker and his/her contribution to this society.

Workers' Rights Tribunal

Every worker in Canada MUST have access to an expeditious, accessible, and cost free complaints process against an employer, regardless if the employer is in the private or public sector. We envision a system similar to that of the current Rental Housing Tribunal, human rights commission, and numerous religious tribunals that exist in the Province of Ontario at this present time.

The adjudicators in this process must be educated on the law and workers' rights. They must be held accountable for their decisions which must follow checks and balances to ensure fairness, non-judgementalism, be free of prejudice, bias, and be in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada.

An employee bringing forth such a complaint must be allowed to continue employment free of harassment or threats until a decision has bee reached through this complaints process.

In acknowledging that there is often an un-proportional income disparity and access to resources between corporations [public/private sector] and working class individuals, such a tribunal will do an assessment of income disparity between complainant and complainer when assessing the impact of damages upon the complainant taking into account their financial resources. For example the actual cost of pursuing a complaint for an individual living 3 pay cheques away from being homeless is a lot higher than the cost to a multi-national corporation with lawyers on retainer to defend themselves against such allegations.

The responsibility to bring forth workplace witnesses (who may be fellow workers) will not be the responsibility of the worker or the employer. The tribunal will accept lists of witnesses from both parties and call witnesses forth on behalf of the tribunal. All requests for witnesses will kept strictly confidential and shall not become part of the public record in order to ensure the safety of those parties involved in the process.

Employees must be given access to free legal support/advice and access to mediation and arbitration if they so desire to enter into it with an employer.

No persons either workers or employers shall bring forth frivolous or vexatious complaints to such a tribunal or have penalties imposed.

The decisions of such a tribunal must be binding and individuals / corporations who fail to comply by the decisions shall have a monetary penalty imposed. All decision must be made public. Any employer found not to comply with decisions of such a tribunal would be required to publicly post the details of such a penalty in a prominent place on the exterior of the work site for 1 year. The monetary compensation for an employee who is ruled in favour of through such a process will not have a set limit. The sum awarded will be at the discretion of the tribunal which will take into account factors such as loss of income (if any occurred), damage to reputation and career, damage to physical and mental health, damage to family etcetera ...

A worker shall be able to bring forth a complaint to the Worker's Rights Tribunal regardless of length of employment be it 1 week or 10 years. The tribunal will also address complaints from applicants involved in a job hiring and have the power to make judgements in this capacity.

Response to Consultation Question #6

Share Employment Strategy

There is no such thing as unemployment, just the over-employment of a few. Meanwhile the 8 hour / day, 40 hour workweek is akin to the 16 hour/per day schedule of the 1800's. We have progressed little to none on this front. We in North America "live to work". We need to recognize the benefits of more holidays on life for families, caregivers and individuals. Relaxed individuals make for a more healthy and productive work force. Our current workplaces are anything but healthy places for all participants - be they employers or employees.

Canada's "long work hours culture", which causes irreparable damage to the work place environment, should be condemned. Unemployment, exhaustive work, the lack of support services for parents, individual special needs and families, and technological change, are issues that should have resulted in a conscious re-examination of work style arrangements long ago.

We urge the Labour Standards Review committee to assist in the facilitation of proactive changes in our workplaces, by encouraging employers to adopt a more positive approach to work / life balance, by taking a deeper look at the Share employment concept.

Over the last fifteen years, the workplace landscape has changed dramatically. New philosophies surrounding the nature of work could bring potential new benefits for both employers and workers. Innovative concepts such as flextime, tele-commuting, and on-site childcare may give employees more of what they want, while allowing employers to achieve the end gains they hope for. There are many on-the-job programs that could assist employees to be more productive.

Job sharing/share employment is a relatively new idea that seems to be catching the interest and attention of working parents, students and senior citizens. Thanks to the tight labour market and the rise in working mothers, such programs are on a upswing in Europe and in the U.S. where- 28% of firms offer job sharing, up from 18% in 1990, according to a study by management consultancy Hewitt Associates.²

Promoting a positive approach to balancing work and personal responsibilities is important for the health and welfare of Canadians.

Flexible Time:

The most common forms of non-standard or flexible arrangements are:

• flexible hours or "flextime" schemes
• part-time work
• term time work
• jobshare (various models)
• compressed working weeks
• annualized hours
• zero hours (paying for an employee's achievements and not hours)

What are the benefits of flextime?

Benefits for the employee:

better work-life balance
ability to avoid stressful commute times for journeys to work
ability to have more control over time off (e.g. in compressed working week, term-time working, part-time working and job share)

Benefits for the employer:

ability to meet fluctuations in demand
ability to provide round-the-clock cover
ability to retain valued staff when other demands on their time may be high
ability to make more efficient use of facilities.³

JOB SHARING/SHARE EMPLOYMENT - NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH CONCEPT OF WORK SHARING:

The possible detrimental impact of share employment schemes if employers misinterpret them is that they might use them as a method to replace full-time workers. You can imagine a certain amount of fear or resentment might result if other co-workers suspect a trend is being set which could jeopardize their job security. These thoughts are understandable since part-time work is increasing while most workers want and need full-time work in order to survive.⁴

DEFINING JOB SHARING ARRANGEMENTS:

1. Definition of Job-sharing: Job-sharing means two or more part-time employees' work schedules are arranged to cover the duties of a single full-time position. Job-sharing counts as two (or more) part-time positions.
2. Members of Job-sharing Team: Generally, a job-sharing team means two or more employees at the same grade or pay level.
3. Human Resources Policies: Job-sharers are subject to the same agency human resources policies as other part-time employees.
4. Job-sharers' Work Schedules: Job-sharing does not necessarily mean that each job sharer works half time, or that the total of 40 hours are worked each week. Specific work schedules depend on the nature of the job, the needs of the office, and the job sharing team.⁵
5. (ONE) definition of a "full time" employee for the purposes of determining benefits- is anybody who works 30 or more hours per week.

So 30-hour employees get all their benefits. Included in such job are health insurance, vacation, life insurance, holiday pay, paid leave, all of the same benefits as a full time position would have. The only difference they'll see is [that] a 30-hour-a-week person will get six-hour vacation days instead of eight-hour vacation days. The paid time off is prorated. Benefit packages should also be created for employees with less than 30-hour weeks.

WHO BENEFITS:

Many employers agree that the benefits of a Job Sharing program outweigh the challenges. Job Sharing also provides a way for working parents and students to hold professional positions part-time, and still have enough time for family and classes. A company can retain many new mothers or professionals going back to school by using a program such as this.

TEMPORARY FLEXIBILITY:

The benefit to the employees of this kind of flexibility is obvious.

SHARE EMPLOYMENT ADVANTAGES TO THE EMPLOYER:

Employers' gain the skills, knowledge, and experience of two workers instead of just one. Individuals may bring complementary skills and such work may bring a new understanding of the term "team work" into the work place. Share employment practices can aid recruitment and retention of staff. Employees are highly motivated because they have a better work/life balance and the incidence of sickness is often lower among job-share partners.⁶

The cost factor involved for employers to hire and retrain a new employee is detrimental to their gains. This cost to the employer can be reduced through job sharing strategies. Employees often have temporary situations in their lives during which they need flexibility such as mature workers wishing to reduce their hours leading up to retirement, any worker professional or otherwise who may wish to have time for further study or upgrading.

When the children are young, [employees] need to work fewer hours. As children grow up, they're in school; now the employee can work more. This type of program positions a company to earn loyalty from employees. If the employer is flexible with workers, is willing to assist to meet their changing needs, then they may in return become the recipient of employee loyalty.

Job Sharing/ Share Employment is the most recent model in what promises to be a long line of new work concepts to increase productivity, improve the work environment and make the jobs work for both the employer and employees.

Consequences of Ignoring Full Employment Possibilities and Share Employment:

In conclusion, we believe that by promoting positive approaches between work and a personal, quality time ratio for workers, a profound and positive impact upon the health and welfare of Canadians is possible.

We hope to see a full employment scheme come to fruition or some form of guaranteed annual income system that individuals and families can plan their financial futures around even if they are working on a part time or temporary basis.

The workplace landscape has changed dramatically in North America and in keeping with the social changes that have occurred in Canadian society, employers need to work with employees to find innovative ways to fill their labour demands.

It is unfortunate that many employers find their help through "middlemen" or temporary employment agencies, which only serve to further complicate the employment landscape. The benefits that might such agencies might seem to provide, can be replaced with concrete, clearly defined hiring practices that are expeditious, cost efficient and have checks and balances to ensure accountability and fairness for the applicants.

After consideration this working group opted to support share employment because it is a scheme that recognizes the value of a humanitarian approach to employment. Share employment schemes such as flextime and other job sharing ideas need to be further invested in for the sake of finding more work in our workplaces. Job sharing moves us gradually towards the goal of full employment for all Canadians, who choose to make a contribution to their community through meaningful work.

As technology advances, it is foreseeable that machines will replace much labour and this will call for a necessary adjustment in our concept of work. In order to accommodate displaced labour we need to engage individuals in alternative modes of work. Share employment schemes can help in redistributing work and wealth achieved by technological advancements.

We urge the members of the Labour Standards Review Committee to consider our recommendations listed in point form at the beginning of this submission. It is our hope that public forums and consultations on labour issues, be held regularly, so that people in positions to recommend changes may be kept informed of the issues that concern ordinary Canadians. It is inevitable that factors presently affecting the socio-political climate within our country, will cause a reorganization of labour in North America. It is our hope, that through foresight and planning for the welfare of the worker, these factors will have a positive effect upon the Canadian worker rather than a detrimental one.

Citations

¹ Job Sharing Programs on The Upswing. Retrieved 15/07/05, from http://www.usatoday.com/careers/news/2001-01-26-jobsharing.htm

² Flexibility, the online journal of flexible work. Retrieved 09/09/05, from http://www.flexibility.co.uk/flexwork/time/.

³ Where We Stand: Policies, Job Sharing of B.C. Federation of Labour, Retrieved 15/07/05, from http://www.bcfed.com/Where+We+Stand/Policies/Archives/PS-84job.htm

⁴ Human Resource Policy Manual (HRPM) of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, Retrieved 09/09/05, from http://www.faa.gov/ahr/policy/hrpm/lws/lws-8-16.cfm#6

⁵ The National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women, Teachers; Job Sharing. Retrieved 12/09/05, from http://www.teachersunion.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=71169

⁶ Canada Safety Council, Canada's Voice And Resource for Safety. Targeting Workplace Bullies. Retrieved 28/08/05, from http://www.safetycouncil.org/info/OSH/bully-law.html