A Study Concerning Federal Labour Standards: Balancing Work, Family and Learning in Canada's Federally Regulated Workplaces - January 2000

A Study Concerning Federal Labour Standards: Balancing Work, Family and Learning in Canada's Federally Regulated Workplaces

View Whole Report

• Introduction
• Program Description
• Substantive Focus
• Study Methodology
• Key Findings
• Specific Findings

This brief provides a summary of key findings from a follow-up study to the evaluation of federal labour standards (Part III of the Canada Labour Code). This study was designed, managed, and funded by Evaluation and Data Development, Strategic Policy, Human Resources Development Canada.

Through Part III, the Canada Labour Code defines conditions of employment such as hours of work, treatment of overtime, conditions of dismissal, and holidays for over 700, 000 Canadians who work in federally regulated industrial sectors. Part III standards provide a "floor" of protection for workers in the above areas, prohibiting certain treatment of workers, and maintaining societally desirable minimum working conditions. Sectors covered by Part III include banking, inter-provincial and international transportation (sea, air, rail, trucking), grain handling, communications, pipelines, and First Nations.

The overall work spanned a three-year period. The first phase of the evaluation, completed in 1997, focussed on compliance of employers with Part III of the Canada Labour Code . The second phase of the evaluation, completed in 1998, mainly examined the relation of Part III of the Code to labour market changes.

This follow-up study, undertaken in 1999, specifically addressed the topic of balancing work, family and learning in Canada 's federally regulated workplaces. Its overall goals were to:

• expand on findings from the preceding evaluation research;
• obtain qualitative validation of previous quantitative results;
• examine worker and employer views of the kinds of changes they would "buy-into" to improve the quality of work in federally regulated workplaces; and
• consider linkages between such diverse concerns as working conditions, demands of family life, and learning.

This 1999 study collected new data from focus groups and interviews with workers and employers, as well as consultations with union representatives and employer associations.

The focus groups were arranged in sites chosen to cover various geographical locations, including Vancouver, Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Sydney and St. John's. Thirty-two groups were scheduled with small, medium and large companies, union and non-unionized workplaces. These groups covered a diversity of industries, including banking, transportation (trucking, sea, air), communications, grain handling, Crown corporations, and others. The focus groups were conducted in both official languages by senior members of the research team. They used a discussion guide developed on the basis of findings from the previous evaluation research. Matching interviews were undertaken with the employers for each of the workplaces where worker discussion groups were held.

Findings from this 1999 study are interwoven with the findings from the previous evaluation surveys to address the broader study objectives.

The research also included a focussed review of relevant domestic and international literature.

Broad Findings

Employers indicated that they would like Part III to be more flexible, so that they could make arrangements with their workers or unions which would better meet the particular needs of their types of business. Simply put, they would like less regulation and more flexibility in labour standards overall. Many employers also indicated they would like to give more input to HRDC on labour standards.

Union representatives, in contrast, wanted stronger enforcement of Part III, and stronger support for minimum standards including family-friendly policies. A number of union representatives wanted to know how the Labour Program was intending to improve compliance with the Code, and argued that this need preceded the need for education, best-practices, etc. Union representatives also noted specific gaps in the Code, such as the need for a standard regarding work breaks.

Workers generally indicated that they know very little about their rights under Part III. Many workers indicated that government and employers should do more to provide more information directly to workers, so they can understand their rights. This finding complements earlier findings regarding employers' lack of information about Part III, and underlines the importance of education-information in Part III implementation.

Overall, the focus groups and interviews also provided good validation of the previous evaluation research, with indications that:

• Non-standard work and long hours of work have remained significant phenomena and continue to grow as major issues for Canadian workplaces;
• Workers continue to face considerable difficulties in balancing family life and work, and in many cases in balancing work with access to learning opportunities; and
• Important areas of common ground exist between employers and workers on the desirability of a more flexible Part III and greater workplace flexibility, and the desirability of improved family-friendly policies and support for lifelong learning.

Changing face of work and growth of non-standard work

Employers and workers reported that non-standard work was growing and that the changing Canadian workplace was producing high pressure on the job. Although some workers welcomed overtime, long hours of work and unwanted overtime were major concerns for many workers, as were other job aspects that required time away from home.

Non-standard work was reported to be growing in all types of workplaces by both workers and managers, as was a rapid rate of workplace change and other aspects of work pressure (e. g. , long hours, time away from home, etc. )These conditions were widespread in union and non-union and large and small workplaces alike. One variation was that larger companies were more likely to encourage at-home work, and some variations were also noted by industry - different types of non- standard work or workplace pressures were evident in different industries (e. g. , contract work was prominent in banking, long hours in trucking, and so on).

Some employers had flexible and supportive workplace policies to offset the impacts of the above types of pressures, but these practices were not generally comprehensive or widely implemented. Such policies were appreciated by workers, and employers also reported that these types of policies were economically advantageous (e. g. , that they resulted in reduced absenteeism, improved employee satisfaction, greater productivity, etc. ).

Workers and employers in many workplaces shared a view of the desirability of reducing pressures of work through flexible and supportive work practices, although practices were found to be generally far behind the expressed needs of workers.

Work and Family

Employers were found to be highly variable in their response to workers' needs to meet family responsibilities. Many employers provided a wide range of flexible work and family-friendly policies and practices such as flextime, family leave, and so on. But most employers were reported to do little to aid the balance of work and family.

Unionized workplaces were generally found to be very similar to non-unionized workplaces in balancing of work and family life, with unionization only slightly related to supportive policies. This lack of substantial effects reflected the uneven role of unions: in some workplaces, unions aided family-friendly policies, while in others family issues were reported to be simply "not on the union's agenda".

Similarly, larger workplaces were found to be very much like other workplaces, although slightly more likely to have family-friendly policies. Smaller workplaces often had greater difficulties with schedule adjustments because they have fewer staff, making it harder for other workers to substitute for those with a pressing family need. Office-type workplaces were generally more able to provide family-friendly policies.

Workers and employers in many workplaces shared a view of the desirability of family- friendly policies (flexible workplace policies generally, including flextime, alternative treatment of overtime, family leave, etc. ).

Work and Learning

While there was widespread interest among workers and managers alike in the importance of lifelong learning. Employers were found to be highly variable in their responses to the needs of workers for learning. Many employers provided a wide range of flexible work and supportive policies and practices to aid learning (e. g. , paying tuition, allowing flexible schedules or time off), but most employers did very little or nothing to aid learning.

As with family issues, workplace characteristics, such as unionization and size were not major factors predicting support for learning. Unionized workplaces were reported to have a variety of learning-friendly policies, but generally were found to be very similar to non- unionized workplaces in terms of promoting lifelong learning.

Larger workplaces were somewhat more likely to have learning-friendly policies, but only slightly so. Smaller companies reported slightly greater difficulties in providing schedule changes and financial aid for learning objectives.

Workers and employers in many workplaces expressed the desirability of specific learning- friendly policies (flexible workplace policies generally, including direct supports for learning such as adjustable schedules, educational leave, and so on). Tax incentives, particularly for employers, were viewed as a key feature to aid lifelong learning, rather than employers or workers paying all direct costs for learning.

In closing, an overriding study finding was that employers and workers expressed a general desire for more flexibility in federally regulated workplaces to address workplace change. A supportive workplace environment emerged as an important enabling factor in workplace change.