In my own experiences as an employee, I have worked as a tutor, as a stock clerk, a bagger, a research assistant, a miner, a waiter, a cashier, a salesperson and as a bakery dude (I don't know what the term is for the guy who stands behind the counter and gets people their bagels). All of this was in Quebec except for one job in BC which had excellent working conditions.

My own personal thought (lots of anecdotes ahead...) is that the code itself is pretty good, but a lot of employers ignore it. They also hope for the ignorance and naivete of their workers. I had one job, where they made people sign forms accepting responsibility if there was missing money in the cash register (I don't think that's legal when different workers share the cash). They would also make workers sign forms to accept to work shifts under 3 hours in length, and agree they can't quit without giving two weeks notice. In another position, for a large department store, veteran workers told me there were frequent issues with missing pay, such a missing shift (I don't believe that can happen by accident). One job they told me I wasn't entitled to my 4%, because they were paying me in cash (I took that one to the commission of labour). In the waitering job, they were subtracting 2$/hour for taxes but we never got pay stubs nor a T4. They went bankrupt and dissapeared. Oh, and there's the typical thing of companies making workers pay a lot of money for the clothes they're forced to wear to work. I'm sure that's either regulated or not allowed as is. Roots for example says its workers have to wear Roots clothing, including shoes. They need to be dressed fully in Roots clothing on their first day of the job.

The most serious story I heard is from a friend who worked on the F1 grandprix. They forced her to wear high heeled shoes one size too small for her, and by the end of the two days she had an infection and so ended up losing money from that job. When she complained to the supervisor, she was told she could leave and they'd find someone else.

Before I begin a brief analysis, I should tell you that there is different legislation and processes for union and non-union workers in B.C. The Code (union) is currently only workable. The Employment Standards Act is a joke. For this post I'll leave the ESA aside.

The Code from '93 to '01 really attempted to balance the rights of workers and bosses. It was more then rhetoric that two overriding principles were constatntly at the forefront - Access to collective bargaining and Industrial stability. My personal opinion is that the Board tended to lean to far to the latter to show how "fair" an NDP appointed Board could be.

The Liberals made few, but significant changes. The first was reintroducing votes on certifications. This has meant workers must now twice decide to unionize; first by signing a card and then by confirming the choice in a vote. This was sold as "democratic", but it really was simply to allow employers a period of time to interfere in workers' choice.

The Liberals also eliminated sections that addressed the unique nature of the construction industry. This was merely a sop to the non-union contrators who were their largest contributors. The effect was to stall unionisation while at the same time enhancing the penetration of an "employer-friendly" organization called the Christian Labour Association (see postings under Labour and consumption).

The second set of changes completely imbalanced the legislation. Employers now can legally interfere in organising campaigns and say pretty much anything except they will close their doors. Unions continue to be barred access to worksites, but employers have taken full advantage of their position in the workplace. It has become a situation of free speech, but only for the employers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by munroe:

The second set of changes completely imbalanced the legislation. Employers now can legally interfere in organising campaigns and say pretty much anything except they will close their doors. Unions continue to be barred access to worksites, but employers have taken full advantage of their position in the workplace. It has become a situation of free speech, but only for the employers.

---

Is there a constitutional challenge in the works?

What are the problems with the ESA?

[ 26 June 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

On the process side, changes have virtually ensured workers a loss of their rights. Closed offices, laid off senior officers and junior reassignments have taken place. It was, if a complaint on say failure to pay overtime came in, officers would often audit for the entire workforce. Now workers are forced individually to fill in a complaint form and submit it to the employer. If the employer doesn't respond and correct the issue in ten days then the worker can file a complaint. Think about that. Workers with NO job security and protection must self-identify to the Employer.

There has been a dramatic decrease in complaints. Surprise.

You ask about a Charter challenge. First I should explain I do legal work in labour relations, but I'm not a lawyer (its permissible on this restricted basis). However, I can say there has been discussions of the uneven access to Charter freedom of speech rights. Perhaps there is room on the right set of facts, but that is not the first approach.

I'm not going to outline any strategy we've considered, just in case. I hope you understand.

I hope this helps. Bottom line is that worker rights in B.C. are very weak currently.

[ 26 June 2007: Message edited by: munroe ]

quote:

---

If I may briefly outline. The ESA is not my forte, but there were a number of changes to allow employers greater "flexibility". Perhaps the most egregious was loosening the child labour provisions.

---

I do have to say that, personally, I see nothing wrong with 14 year olds working at McDonalds. People mature at different rates. I know a lot of people who worked at subway, famous players, laura secord, et cetera when they were younger; I assume it was under the table. I think what you wrote about the overtime salary complaint is very gross. Though I'm not sure if it's different in Quebec.

On the child labour question, only those under 12 require the Director's approval. From 12 to 15, only parental consent is needed. In B.C., your net big mac could be served by a person in what, grade 6?

While this action is unprecedented (e.g. it is a lawsuit, not a judicial review) I am hoping to make it a constitutional challenge, one result of which is that the provision will have to be repealed.

I am not an expert on labour and employment law, but the research I have had to pursue over this one issue has convinced me that these statutes exist primarily to maintain a power structure that denies all citizens, in their roles as working people, virtually any rights whatsoever.

I also believe that truly significant and effective changes would not be difficult to conceive or implement. What stands in the way is the political establishment, which includes many institutions with interlocking relationships and common interests. My own experience (and that of many other individuals) has demonstrated that the trade unions are among those institutions with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Unfortunately it appears the same can be said of the courts and quasi-judicial tribunals.

I don't believe this makes for a hopeless situation. The solution lies simply in self-education and self-determination. I am optimistic that I will be able to prove that point by winning the lawsuit I now have underway.

[ 27 June 2007: Message edited by: gbuddy ]