For the temp workers the motivation was always very clear and very much based on working around labor laws. If a forklift driver got in an accident, it wouldn't be counted in the same way. Line workers could be less rigidly brought on board or let go with seasonal or other varying demand. They were cheaper too and everyone worked hard to try and become a regular employee.
I am not sure what a solution is, after all these types of temp companies only exist to skirt existing labor laws, suggesting these laws may defy economics a bit too much. On the other hand what other ways do we have of increasing the bargaining position of labor? Growing the economy, but that isn't something a politician can honestly promise. Pulling back from globalization would, but that is bad economics and bad for national security. Perhaps something like earned income tax credit? Or perhaps we should just continue waiting until the rest of the world develops and the supply of labor finally becomes constrained.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDO6HV6xTmI&feature=youtu.be...
source: My grandmother used to work at this very factory when we first moved to Canada. She worked for about 5-6 years, starting in the 90s.
When you are new to a country, don't speak the language or know the laws well, you don't have as much power as you think.
As an electrical engineer working for the company, two of my assigned jobs were 1) evaluating the cost effectiveness of replacing all the forklift drivers with robots and 2) installing new equipment to eliminate repetitive lifting roles on the packaging lines. I was actually surprised how much cheaper the human forklift drivers were than the robots (mostly this was because we had really efficient, hardworking drivers and the robots needed special accommodations and could not handle all special cases).
I left the company because it was very demoralizing working alongside people who you were being paid to replace. But make no mistake, the autonomous forklifts would have been cheaper if the company had to employ the drivers directly, taking the hit to their safety record and bottom line.
There are other ideas for increasing the bargaining position of American labor and reducing capital inequality. For example, plugging up the mechanisms by which trade deficit capital returns to the United States (through economics--not by law, so by increasing property taxes in cities with big foreign investment, reducing the federal debt, switching to regional taxation system, etc.). Another example, if economics, as a collective school of thought, could reconsider its obsession with monetary inflation and consider if technology driven deflation is actually a bad thing. A worker getting a deflationary pay raise would be in a much stronger bargaining position and would actually be claiming some of the rewards of all the technological advances of capitalism by default.
You tighten the labor market.
It's not coincidental that unions, which depend on a tight labor market for a bargaining position (striking is fundamentally their real weapon), have been on a downhill trend since basically the same time that trade laws were changed to favor capital, via removing barriers to both foreign labor and foreign trade. In some cases the labor supply is slackened by bringing in more workers, in some cases by just offshoring production to a place where the labor market is already slack.
Most of the reasons used to justify this were related to the West's perceived existential struggle against Communism: it was necessary to open the door to China trade because that was a wedge against the Soviets; NAFTA was necessary to secure America's standing "as world champion of the free-market cause" (ref. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/09/business/worldbusiness/09i...) as a hedge against an increasingly multipolar world in the 1990s; continued rounds of deals, up until very recently with the failure of the TPP, have always been justified similarly.
Though I am not intimately familiar with Canadian politics historically, I assume that the justifications there were similar (and with significant arm-twisting from their southern neighbor).
Intriguingly, the necessary sacrifices for American leadership (let's not call it 'hegemony'), in the form of the cost of economic subsidies to Western allies necessary to keep them toeing the free market line, have always seemed to fall on American -- and Canadian, apparently -- workers, and benefited businesses and business owners. Workers are constantly reassured that, despite appearances, these deals have been good for the country, and somehow by extension also them personally, but this explanation is starting to wear thin, as it becomes more and more apparent that the gains have gone to a small portion of the country at the expense of a great many. The gig is seemingly up.
Pro-trade, pro-business parties (such as the British Columbia Liberal Party, mentioned in the article as a recipient of donations from the factory owners) should take note of the current state of the US Republican Party, and take steps not to overplay their hand. While the gains made by businesses and capital owners at the expense of industrial workers are impressive, history suggests that going down this road too far leads to what we might politely call a "disruptive overcorrection", either to the political hard right or hard left. In the US, we have seen this frustration elect the first unashamed populist and trade skeptic of the modern era (well, at least, someone the electorate apparently thought was a populist; time will tell); if things had gone a bit differently we might have gotten free-trade skepticism in the form of a Socialist (Sanders).
The current path, or just telling workers in the industrialized world to suck it up until they hit wage parity with the developing world, is not sustainable. Governments that try may find themselves replaced by governments that don't.
On the justifications for opening international trade, I believe, contrarily, that Nixon was one of the greatest president of the 20th century and that opening trade with China was a most important decision affecting humanity's survival. But since then, government policy has seemed blind to the fact that the working class has been paying all of the costs.
I agree we need to do something in the meantime, before global prosperity is able to rise close enough to our own. Conveniently, I also think the current organization of global fiat currencies is exacerbating the effects of globalization on American workers and preventing them from benefiting from technological advances which would otherwise be minimizing the problem. If we could get our government spending under control, then set the target inflation rate to zero, and even be unafraid of minor deflation caused by manufacturing and efficiency improvements...this would do a lot to blunt the growing inequality between existing wealth and work. Trade deficits financed by fiat currency would have a supply/demand correction if we didn't provide so many short circuits for reserve note capital to return to the US.
Worker has an accident? Make sure that both the factory, the temp agency, and any intermediaries are liable.
If every company involved in a project was liable for ensuring employment laws are upheld, there would be no point in using “temp agencies” to shift the blame.
Temp agencies are a somewhat recent move to circumvent employment laws; we should be able to fix that loophole.
American companies generally have good safety records and a good regulatory environment. Contracting the riskier jobs is mostly done to safeguard the company's image, or it is like other contracted jobs and is done for cost savings or temporary work. With forklift drivers, there was just always going to be some minor collision incident every month, and its easier for the big company bureaucracy if this doesn't count towards their accident statistic or if some other account can be billed for the damage. Its just risk aversion and risk management since the penalties are high for screw ups and protecting the image of the company treating its employees well. Also they could be paid at ~1/2 the total compensation of a team member.
The solution is to limit the labour pool or, in other words, limiting immigration.
> Pulling back from globalization would, but that is bad economics and bad for national security.
How is it bad economics? And what is your benchmark for success? Are you optimising for GDP, for quality of life, GDP per capita, what?
> Or perhaps we should just continue waiting until the rest of the world develops and the supply of labor finally becomes constrained.
Good luck with that, it'll take 200 years.
Bad economics from the point of view of maximum efficiency of human labor across all humanity.
I was not suggesting we just wait complacently, more lamenting that it seems to be the only not-actively-failing policy idea we have pursued up to this point.
You tighten the labor market.
It's not coincidental that unions, which depend on a tight labor market for a bargaining position (striking is fundamentally their real weapon), have been on a downhill trend since basically the same time that trade laws were changed to favor capital, via removing barriers to both foreign labor and foreign trade. In some cases the labor supply is slackened by bringing in more workers, in some cases by just offshoring production to a place where the labor market is already slack.
Most of the reasons used to justify this were related to the West's perceived existential struggle against Communism: it was necessary to open the door to China trade because that was a wedge against the Soviets; NAFTA was necessary to secure America's standing "as world champion of the free-market cause" ([per the NYT](http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/09/business/worldbusiness/09i...) as a hedge against an increasingly multipolar world in the 1990s; continued rounds of deals, up until very recently with the failure of the TPP, have always been justified similarly.
Though I am not intimately familiar with Canadian politics historically, I assume that the justifications there were similar (and with significant arm-twisting from their southern neighbor).
Intriguingly, the necessary sacrifices for American leadership (let's not call it 'hegemony', it has such an ... imperialist ring to it), in the form of the cost of economic subsidies to Western allies necessary to keep them toeing the free market line, have always seemed to fall on American -- and Canadian, apparently -- workers, and benefited American businesses and business owners. Workers are constantly reassured that these deals have been good for the country, but this explanation is starting to wear thin, as it becomes more and more apparent that the gains have gone to a small portion of the country at the expense of a great many.
Free-trade proponents have managed to extract a great deal from labor, but the gig is seemingly up.
Pro-trade, pro-business parties such as the British Columbia Liberal Party should take note of the current state of the US Republican Party, and take steps not to overplay their hand. While the gains made by businesses and capital owners at the expense of industrial workers are historically audacious (in the sense that they didn't result in getting anyone killed by an angry mob, which should be ),
Why doesn't the government start policing the abuse of rights by Company B? Why doesn't the government pass laws that acknowledge that these employees are truly employees of Company A?
See also related (and discussed on here if I am not mistaken): To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider the Janitors at Two Top Companies, Then and Now (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/03/upshot/to-understand-risi...)
Even companies that do not want to abuse their employees' rights do it at the end for all externalized jobs (cleaning or food related jobs, especially)
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/09/11/temp-work...
Good investigative journalism can light a fire under companies and politicians pretty quickly when it makes them look bad.
Large corporations love to outsource risky/dangerous/questionable activities to small firms who are willing to gamble.
But this is Canada! We have strict political donation laws and campaign spending laws that really prevent lobbying from getting nuts like it is in America.
I'm mostly upset because this is in my back yard. I could be at this factory in 20 minutes in current traffic conditions.
> pass laws that acknowledge that these employees are truly employees of Company A?
It's hard to draft this without completely ruling out even legitimate temp jobs. Does working at the factory for a week make you an employee? How about for a day, or an hour?
Who controls the persons time? Who controls their work? Who supplie equipment? Is there an opportunity for profit or loss? Do they have the right to subcontract? etc
Unfortunately, it's a race to the bottom, as tens of millions of Americas will attest to.
My simple question is - can we justify treating humans like this in the name of increasing profit?
Yesterday, on a european TV, I saw a documentary about middle class people who became half-homeless (their words). They were just unlucky to loose their jobs. Now I understand they may have had too much credits or debts here and there but, these were middle class, that is, they went down the social path. That's scary.
These outcomes are not surprising, this is literally the project of NeoLiberalism. A feature, not a bug.
Due to a combination of anti-union propaganda, (US only?) unions having an image of being corrupt and the shift to "gig economy" which was specifically created to combat unions...
I know a lot of refugees live in sheltes and currently there are homeless people in Brussels due to the breakup of Calais. But these people don't want to get asile in Belgium, but want to go to the UK. So that's why they don't receive anything here. That is their choice ofc.
Unionization has declined somewhat since that time, but is still fairly strong in Canada today, with about 30% unionization. The six strongest unionized country in the world. That matches the peak unionization rate for the USA (down to about 10% today), which is heralded for bringing great working improvements for the American worker. There really should be no reason why the current unions in Canada cannot improve on these things. History has shown that 30% unionization is enough to change the world.
I expect that unionization is declining, rather than strengthening, because the potential members are feeling like the unions have become self-serving or are resting on their laurels.
a) Companies will even do illegal stuff as long as they can do it and the lawsuits are not too expensive.
b) You can't make everything illegal. Smart people will always find a way no matter how strict your system is.
c) Yes, many people/companies will exploit others if they can. If you evaluate statistically that's actually "normal behaviour".
That is why I am starting a conversation. Change starts with a conversation.
Surely not.
Not for any reason, let alone for profit.
> it's extremely low wages
"its extremely low wages"
[1] http://projects.thestar.com/temp-employment-agencies/letters...
Maybe you just get a sense of when a lawyer making shit up and slinging shit after you've put together a few dozen similar letters.
A lot of the author's complaints are just part for the course in these kinds of environments. Low margin industries suck in general.
The problem here isn't temp agencies it's companies that would be doing bad things anyway hire their full time workforce though temp agencies to create level of abstraction that helps avoid liability. Obviously there's temp agencies that cater directly to this but the problem is on the demand side. Some companies want to treat people badly and they can use temp agencies to do it.
I know people who have done very well (or as well as you can for those kinds of jobs) at temp agencies. Employers can use a temp agency and if they like the temp(s) they get they can direct hire the temp(s) and cut out the middle man. This doesn't happen when your entire workforce is temps though.
The problem is worse than that. Companies are providing insufficient worker trainings/protection to save money and hiding behind a temp agency for any consequences of that decision. That way, when they get inevitably get sued, the temp agency can declare bankruptcy. Meanwhile, the plant reassigns the contract to a "new" company who then hires most of the same workers.
Here's how it works:
- A holding company owns the factory and everything in it (equipment, etc). Skilled labor (technicians, etc.) work for this company. This is also the company that is most likely to be a subsidiary or joint venture of a publicly traded company that you've heard of.
- An operating company leases the factory from the holding company with the goal of manufacturing something (but often something that the parent company wants). The plant managers are probably the only people who work for this company.
- The operating company hires a temp agency to staff the line.
- The temp workers are employed by the agency to work the line.
- If a worker gets hurt, the temp agency can declare bankrupcy. Temp agencies have few capital assets to go after, so even if you win, you're not likely to get much.
- Even if you can somehow get the operating company included in the suit for negligent oversight, it too has very little in the way of assets.
- The holding company (where the real assets exist) is protected by several layers of liability.
- The publicly traded company is out of the loop entirely, but still gets cheap products to sell at their stores. Risk is transferred to workers in order to save money.
Retail boycotts have been used against clothing sweatshops.
Is there a reliable way to identify North American baked goods which originate from these temp-labor factories? If all the large distributors use the same suppliers, are there local bakeries which provide better labor conditions and create better product?
The factory in question supplies places like Dunkin donuts and highway rest-stops. Much better to go hungry than eat that stuff-- aside from the labor abuses, its just bad stuff.
Temp offices should not be allowed to exist.
I disagree.
Working for a temp agency doing catering, sports venue and whatnot is generally more stable income than working for several places like that directly. Temp agencies work well for industries where demand is variable but predictable.
Companies that use temps to fill their baseline staffing requirements to skirt legal/ethical requirements are terrible though.
The temp offices usually work with day contracts, allowing them to 'fire' you when you get a bad review, they don't need you that day or they don't like you. This provides a very unstable income.
In my case, the company that was hiring me used the temp jobs as a kind of 'trial period' and easily disposable workforce. If somebody did not live up to expectations, that person does not come back, but every day, 50 of those workers were needed. It took me 1.5 year as a temp worker on day contracts to get a permanent contract from the employer. I was a lucky exception.
Looking back on the stress, the uncertainty, the misery and humiliation I had to undergo to keep the most basic job, I would never, ever go back to that industry again.
Investigative journalism is slow, difficult and expensive. Sometimes it doesn't yield anything worth printing, sometimes it results in a worthy but dull story, sometimes it provokes major social change. You can't afford to do serious investigative work on Adsense revenue.
Local newspapers are uniquely equipped to do this sort of work. They have the local contacts, they have the experienced journalists who know their beat, they have the trust of the community. Agencies like ProPublica do important work, but they're no substitute for grass-roots journalism.
It's only been up for an hour, slow down.
/thread.
If the cause of her death was loose-fitting clothing that's normally prohibited from those environments because it's a serious danger and workers have been getting caught in machinery as long as we've had machinery to get caught in - and the only reason she was able to wear the clothing in that environment was because of her religious rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which states that her religious rights supersede any written legal code) then this mortal risk might be something she fought to take on, even if the company recommended against it.
Imagine for a second that you're a motorcycle police officer, where it's customary (even law) to wear a helmet, but you (for religious reasons) wanted to wear your religious headwear in lieu of a helmet. Then imagine you were killed on the job in a motorcycle crash due to a blow to the skull. Would there be a need for a month-long undercover investigation to uncover the reason you died?
It is a basic safety rule in any envirnment where machines are present that you cannot wear any loose clothing, (like a scarf, or a hijab, but also wide pants or sleeves) nor jewelry (rings, bracelets, necklaces, etc.).
As a matter of fact later in the article, the journalist reported: >I am told to bring safety shoes, and instructed not to wear a hijab or jewelry.
In most factories AFAIK, besides such a "dress code" there is a responsible that checks that workers are dressed according to such safety rules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Wallraff#Undercove...
But on the other hand, there's religious freedom and rules that come into play. In this case though, if she didn't want to remove or replace the loose clothing, she shouldn't be allowed to work near dangerous machinery.
In case you don't want to visit quora, there's a picture of what looks like a tearaway hijab.
I'm a little unclear about your point. Do you mean that Moslems deserve to die, or low skilled workers in general?
It may be distasteful, but it has nothing to do with bias against a particular religion or against low-skilled workers.
Then, at least as important, the reporter is backed by the Toronto Star's legal team. I suspect that if she were an independent and published her story on her own blog, this writer would have been sued by the bakery owners and compelled to take the story down. And she would also pay a lot for her legal defense. In this case, if the bakery owners want to sue, they can, but they'll be suing the Toronto Star, which has resources to mount a legal defense, and a voice with which to write about an unjustified lawsuit.
So this seems like real journalism to me, and I don't want it to go away. And when I say "real journalism" I'm thinking of George Orwell's view that "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations."
I'm also thinking of Finley Peter Dunne, who said the point of journalism is to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."
In a world without professional journalists, there's no-one to speak out for the poor and marginalised, no-one to unearth stories that are being kept well-hidden by unscrupulous people, no-one to do the months of digging and fact-checking that are involved in a major investigation. Journalism is a highly skilled craft that plays a vital role in society; we can't afford to delegate it to amateurs.
I'd be curious to know if the majority of people writing to expose abuses in their own companies are in white collar companies or companies like the bakery described in the Toronto Star. I would predict that more are in white collar companies, as they are more likely to already be aware of how to get content up on the web. Certainly employees of Uber or Google are. But I'm not aware of any research on this, so my prediction isn't backed by anything substantial.
Still, I think of people like the temp employees at this bakery as being more toward the voiceless end of the continuum, and more in need of a muckraking reporter.
As an aside, I'm not terribly familiar with bitcoin, but I often wondered if something like reddit's bitcoin bot was the solution to pay per article access. A system where you simply paste your wallet key into the article to unlock the rest of it for a nominal fee ($0.03-$0.08 per article) would seem to be a way to pay for things without a zillion accounts or transactions on your card. I say bitcoin, but, realistically, any universal pool of money that can be quickly withdrawn from without an account on a specific site would be neat. There have been times I wanted to read investigative articles from WSJ or other subscription sites, but I don't want to subscribe or have yet another login. If I could just paste in a code or click Apple Pay for that one article, I gladly would. The counter to that is I don't want every sub $0.50 transaction popping up on my credit card, which is why a universal pool of money like Bitcoin would be best.
I do think the idea of having time and a strong legal team behind you is important for this kind of story. Currently, the best way to access that is a traditional newspaper. Small operations definitely can't take on the legal risks for something like this, which is why an Atlantic model is difficult for hard journalism. I do wonder if independent places would start pooling resources for things like this.
Perfect is the enemy of the good.
The only direct criticism is that they don't enforce their own safety guidelines which leads to the death of their workers. A great many of these jobs can continue to exist even if their managers simply request those with loose garbs or improper safety shoes, etc. to show up with proper clothes.
Moreover, if there were some sort of government mandated safety check (which I'm not arguing for, just saying) the imposed burden is equal to all other competing firms. Unless the onus of taking on such check was so great that they suddenly decide to put all their money into R&D, these jobs will continue to exist.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/09/11/temp-work...
Publicity of the working conditions and pay of low-skilled workers invariably leads to calls for more stringent mandatory standards, as if you can outlaw poverty and low-living standards.
>>Unless the onus of taking on such check was so great that they suddenly decide to put all their money into R&D, these jobs will continue to exist.
The effect is on the margins. No single mandate will have a significant impact, but each one adds costs, and in the aggregate, they have a significant effect on economic growth, which is a compounding effect that translates to massive long-term effects.
