|
December 20, 2011 - No. 133 Hands Off Workers and Their Defence Organizations An Injury to One Is an Injury to All!
|
When the government takes
away the rights of one section
of the workers, it is an attack against all workers. When one union is
denied its rights to negotiate its working conditions, it sets a
precedent for all of them. With the government ready to intervene with
back-to-work legislation, employers tell us to accept
what they offer or else we will get worse. You can be sure when the
employer and the union have barely begun talking, the employer already
will be having discussions with the government. Employers know they
have the government's backing. We are forced to negotiate under the
gun.The government should not
be intervening in the bargaining process on behalf of the employers.
This is happening not only in the public sector but in the private
sector also. It happened at Air Canada.
The governments of the day
do not recognize the
contributions workers make to the economy. They do not recognize that
when workers' wages are higher and the working conditions better, this
stimulates the economy. The governments also do not recognize it is
workers who provide the public services. We
not only provide them but we defend them because they are under attack
and the conditions we face in providing the service are deteriorating.
This
also is true not only in the public sector but in the private sector.
The Air Canada workers are defending their ability to provide good
service to the passengers but this is not
recognized by Air Canada or the federal government. The Air Canada
workers are the ones fighting against the deterioration of the service.
This is what we do in the public sector also, postal workers and public
transit workers. "We won't be victims of this political diversion from a rotten government" |
TML: Bill 33, An Act to Eliminate Union Placement and Improve the Operation of the Construction Industry, was adopted unanimously on December 2 in the Quebec National Assembly. In its press release, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec-Construction (FTQ-Construction) writes that it is appalled at the government's attempts to blame the unions for corruption in the construction industry.
Yves Ouellet: The primary objective of Bill 33 is to divert attention from the real problem of corruption and collusion, which would target the government directly, and try to pin it on the unions. The aim is to undermine the unions by getting people to forget where corruption and collusion are really coming from and pit the population against the unions. Labour Minister Lise Thériault has seen fit to dig deep into the past, back to the Cliche Commission and before, to give herself some credibility and try to make the people believe the purpose of the law is to help workers, which is not the case. She needed to find a pretext in order to detract attention and pit the people against us. In reality, if we look at last year's numbers, there were 155,000 workers in the Quebec construction industry and more than 26,000 companies, and there were only about 30 complaints related to discrimination or intimidation in the industry. Not all of these complaints were necessarily linked to the unions; some were complaints against companies who fired a worker. We told the Minister that Quebec has laws on this matter. If a union representative is found guilty of intimidation, he loses his job for five years. He is not allowed to be a union representative or work for the union for five years. A doctor can leave a scalpel inside a patient and only be denied his practice for a year.
Imagine this: from April to December the government has held consultations, a Parliamentary Commission and passed its law -- all in seven or eight months. For three years they've been talking about a commission of inquiry on corruption in the construction industry and it has not yet even begun. All of Quebec is demanding an inquiry into corruption and collusion and on the financing of political parties. Now the Minister has shifted the blame to others, the unions. I want to point out that the Duchesneau Report [the report of the Anti-Collusion unit on corruption and collusion in the highway construction industry presented in September 2011 -- TML Ed. Note] doesn't even mention unions or construction workers. When it talks about corruption and collusion, it mentions engineering firms, construction companies and the government, but the unions are not named.
I would also like to say that the construction industry makes the Quebec economy run and it's largely thanks to the industry that we've weathered the effects of the economic crisis. It's an industry that functions well. We've only had four strike days in 20 years. One can't say that work relations are bad. We've never said that there are no problems in the industry, but when we wanted to present concrete proposals to deal with them what we brought was simply dismissed.
TML: The FTQ-Construction press release also says that the law aims to reduce the balance of power of the unions. Can you tell us more about that?
YO: They're trying to weaken the unions and promote individualism, on the pretext that the workers are oppressed by the unions.
I've never before seen in a Parliamentary commission a Minister taking this kind of position. The Minister is supposed to listen to the debates. But the first day of the commission, she told us that the law would pass as-is. She set the tone with her approach. She outright said that we use violence against women. I inquired on the two cases in which we've been involved. In one case there was no violence at all and in the second it was the company who had used violence against a woman. But there was nothing we could do. She wouldn't even listen to us. She never listened to one word we had to say. She chattered and laughed and that's it. Everything was decided in advance so as to be done as quickly and sloppily as possible.
TML: What about union placements presented by the law as a source of corruption and collusion?
YO: The fundamental question for us is the working relationship between unions and contractors. You can't eliminate this relationship. In the vast majority of cases, the contractor will contact the union. The contractor contacts us, not just the FTQ but all unions, and gives us its needs. The law will now ban this. Placing a worker is not just about giving a name, this is a human being we're talking about. Union placements open a relationship with the contractor. There are workers who have a hard time getting work. If you don't have a direct relationship with the contractor, if you're not talking directly with them, these workers will not have work. We told the Minister that for the moment we're in a situation of full employment in the construction industry so it's easy to get work. But in other circumstances, when a worker reaches the end of his unemployment income and is about to lose his home, or a worker who just gets off workers' compensation and employers are hesitant to hire him, what are we supposed to do, abandon them? And women, we shouldn't help them get work? There's a human factor here and the Minister couldn't care less. Everyone knows the contractors all want a young 25-year-old man, in great shape, with 25 years experience! It doesn't exist but that's what they're looking for.
The Quebec Construction Commission's list will give more power to contractors. A contractor will be able to call any employee and tell him to come work for them. If the worker says no because, for example, it is known that that contractor doesn't pay its workers, the contractor may say "are you telling me that you are refusing work?" etc. In our experience we've had to tell contractors "No and we're not sending you anyone because you don't pay your workers." Will this list take those kinds of things into consideration? They are flinging the door wide open without having weighed the consequences.
The Minister says she will make arrangements for exceptional cases so that we can be contacted directly to provide workers to meet emergency needs, such as a 2:00 am emergency in the subway. That's just not serious. The government refuses to address these problems seriously.
The reality of union
placements does not correlate with
the way she explains it. The majority of unions don't place workers.
There are a few sectors that use placements, mostly on industrial sites
and big worksites. An FTQ worksite just doesn't exist in Quebec. The
five unions are on the worksites according
to their representation. At least 85 per cent of construction workers
find their own work by contacting the contractors directly. The
Minister says we force contractors to take workers. The contractors
take workers if they want to and if they don't want them they don't
take them. The aim is to present union placements
like some huge mountain, some major issue. The aim is to attack the
unions and the best place to start is with the biggest, the FTQ.
We say that on top of being unjust, the law will be inapplicable. It doesn't recognize the reality of the construction industry. It was done so hastily that it's totally botched. How is it that when you present a bill you don't write the regulations before passing it into law to make sure it's enforceable and enforced? The law's regulations won't be ready until nine months from now. If nothing is ready then what's the rush? Until then it will be chaos.
TML: Do you see a correlation between this law and the Charest government's Northern Plan?
YO: Yes. There are things that have already been adopted on which we have not focussed enough attention. The Charest government has already adopted that the forestry roads, called penetration roads, will no longer be built by the construction industry. In the construction industry the law requires all workers to belong to a union. This means that now they've opened the path to hiring non-unionized workers for construction projects and it's the Quebec people who will foot the bill. It's Quebec who will build these roads to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. This change slipped through nearly unnoticed. Charest says that no, it's the mining companies that will pay but who believes him? Who will stop the government from saying the road is public because it serves a Native reserve or a natural park? Of course, if by chance a mining company comes through and uses the road, well then why not? The Charest government has promised many things to the mining companies. We don't know what they've promised. Will he stand up to them in the same way he's boasting he stood up to us? We already know that the Northern Plan's mining companies will pay far less for their hydro-electricity than the cost of production. The government is hatching many plans right now for the Northern Plan.
(Translated from original French by TML)
Attacks on Unions and Working Conditions
Jeopardize Workers Health and Safety
On December 2, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously voted in favour of Bill 33, An Act to Eliminate Union Placement and Improve the Operation of the Construction Industry. The new law allegedly seeks to eliminate the placement of workers at job sites by the unions and improve the operation of the construction industry. In fact, this legislation will eliminate the construction workers' defence organizations with regard to labour standards. Labour is now to be deployed by the Quebec Construction Commission (CCQ).
Labour Minister Lise
Thériault, who introduced
the bill, wants to set up a transition committee to
implement the new law and representatives of the CCQ, various employer
associations and the trade unions have been invited by the government
to take part. Already the two main unions, the construction union
affiliated with the Quebec Federation of Labour (FTQ) and the Quebec
Provincial Council of Construction Trades (International)
have refused to sit on the committee until they have direct links with
the employers. The Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CSD) and the
Confederation of National Trade Unions-Construction (CSN-Construction)
have accepted the Minister's invitation.
By promoting monopoly right in the construction industry, the Jean Charest Liberals are directly attacking the safety of workers in the sector. The Quebec working class experience shows that when the workers' ability to organize themselves and their own safety is undermined and this responsibility is left in the hands of the monopolies, the workers pay dearly.
This can be seen in the transportation industry. The deregulation of the '90s significantly weakened drivers' ability to take responsibility for their own safety. This role was then given to the government and transport companies. Statistics show that they have failed miserably. According to figures from Quebec's health and safety commission (CSST) -- the death toll among truckers far exceeds that of other professions in Quebec. In 2010, 15 drivers lost their lives on the job. Construction workers suffered 12 fatalities. Truck drivers and construction workers respectively account for about five per cent of the total workforce. Miners, industrial and automotive mechanics, pilots and navigators count seven deaths for each sector. Police officers and firefighters are at the bottom of the list of work-related accidents, according to the CSST.
In 2009 the CSST recorded 15 deaths caused by contact with moving objects or equipment, including big rigs or equipment related to transport and storage. The CSST has also noted a steady increase of deaths in the transportation sector since 2002. The industry was once considered the third highest risk behind mining and construction. In 2010, big rig truck driving was unfortunately at the top of the list. This finding is a direct result of the deterioration of truck drivers' working conditions. This deterioration has been caused, among other things, by the deregulation of the '90s. What followed was the creation of low cost transport companies with their poorly kept equipment, just-in-time delivery, exploitation of migrant workers, pressure on the industry to improve drivers' productivity and efficiency, the total surveillance drivers are subjected to via satellite, a permanent sense of insecurity, lack of training, the destruction of labour standards, increased work hours, decreased unionization, and so on, all contributing to increased fatal accidents and the occupation being ranked the most dangerous in 2010. Despite the crocodile tears of the government and transport companies about their concern for our safety, truck drivers' security is in constant danger. The figures don't lie.
Bill 33 will create the same conditions for construction workers, by promoting monopoly right and will inevitably result in death or serious accidents in the years to come. It is the government's responsibility to ensure workers' safety, but in practice Bill 33 will undermine the safety of all workers. Truck drivers, miners, construction workers and factory workers -- everyone must condemn the Charest government and Bill 33. They must be held responsible and accountable for every work accident leading to the death of one of our own because of this bill.
Down
with
Bill
33!
Our Security Lies in the Fight for
the Rights of All!
(Agence QMI, CSST, Le monde ouvrier; Translated from original French by TML)
Northern Plan's Fly-In-Fly-Out Work System
An organization of work similar to that of the work camps of the '60s and '70s has emerged in the Charest government's Northern Plan, namely the fly-in-fly-out sytem (FIFO).
A means of transporting workers to isolated or distant work-sites, FIFO is best suited to plundering a country's resources. Workers have no contact with the local and indigenous people and are isolated from communities in the area of the job site. Under FIFO, issues such as respect for the social and natural environments become secondary.
FIFO is also a system organized and developed by the monopolies to fight workers' defence organizations and circumvent existing labour laws. This system has been used in Canada for the last 25 years, since the development of diamond mines in the Northwest Territories.
With the exception of Falconbridge's transport of workers to its Raglan mine in Nunavik, FIFO is in its infancy in Quebec. As the roads and airports announced as part of the Northern Plan are not yet ready, companies will want to use FIFO to get workers on site. Although few projects are advanced enough, ArcelorMittal is hiring and talking about using FIFO. In cities like Fermont and Chibougamau companies are testing the system.
To attract workers to these sites, businesses advertise high wages and long rest periods. They don't mention the high levels of production required or the hazards associated with remote and isolated sites in the case of accidents or illness.
Companies that hire FIFO workers first conduct a security background check on all who apply. Then medical exams eliminate 40-60 per cent of candidates depending on the field of work. Security and surveillance are everywhere on site and access is fully controlled by the company. In most cases, it owns the landing strips, which have been constructed specifically for that project, as well as the aircraft servicing the site. It also decides the boarding point for workers. In the event of a work conflict, the company has only to change to another point of departure, possibly in another province, and bring in scabs to continue production.
Workers are housed right on site, either in permanent or semi-permanent camps, depending on the length of the job. No overtime or double-time is paid. If, for weather-related or other reasons replacement workers are unable to get to the site, the workers already on site must stay and continue to work until the replacements arrive.
Under FIFO, the eight-hour workday for which millions of workers have fought, is out the window. Once a company implements this system, workers work 12 hour days, seven days a week for 14 or 15 consecutive days. At the end of this work period, workers are returned home and replaced by another group. Often a second 12-hour shift will be organized so the company can guarantee production 24/7. Therefore a second team of workers must be on site to take over.
FIFO makes unionization more difficult and complicated, as union organizers are easily kept off the job sites. As well, the law permits mining companies to hire construction workers at such operations as "miners" and thereby avoid compliance with the labour agreements that govern the construction industry in Quebec.
FIFO leaves workers at the mercy of the employers at the job sites. The company controls and organizes the transport of workers and there is nowhere for workers to go outside of the construction site. The company controls the communication systems. Workers are sometimes cut off from their families for the whole 14 to 15 day period. FIFO represents a return to the work camps James Bay workers experienced in the '60s and '70s.
Injured Workers
Private Consultant's Recommendations for Cutbacks Contradict Aim of Compensation System
Injured workers' Christmas Demonstration, Ministry of Labour, Toronto, December 9, 2011. (PSAC)
TML: Private consulting firm KPMG recently produced a report for the Workplace Safety Insurance Board (WSIB) calling for drastic cutbacks in the compensation benefits of injured workers. KPMG is the same firm that proposed cutbacks and privatization of Toronto's public services in its Core Service Review for the Ford administration. How did KPMG end up being asked by the WSIB to make this report on the adjudication of claims?
Steve Mantis: Back in 1997-1998, when the Harris government amended the Workers’ Compensation Act and created the WSIB, the government put in a requirement that every year the WSIB must do a value for money audit on one or another aspect of its operation. Prior to this audits were done but not as a matter of policy. This year the report was on adjudications and the adjudication process. The WSIB put up a request for proposals and KPMG won the contract. It is not the first time KPMG has been chosen to do a value for money review.
TML: The
Ontario Network of Injured
Workers Groups (ONIWG) and organizations that defend injured workers
say the KPMG report has nothing to do with assessing the way claims are
adjudicated.
SM: My understanding of a value-for-money audit is that first you must determine what you are evaluating. If you are talking about adjudication of claims, then the first thing to establish is the goal of adjudication and then you measure how well the WSIB is meeting that goal. They never did that. They never talked about the purpose of claims adjudication.
The compensation system's fundamental purpose is to assist workers who have been injured at work and are disabled. Reducing costs appears as the main goal of the WSIB in the KPMG report. Basically, the report states that the goal of the system is to reduce costs and they evaluate every aspect of adjudication on the basis of how well it achieves cost reduction. This is not the WSIB's mandate.
The method being used by KPMG is to assume the present WSIB administration is trying to reduce costs in such and such areas, and it suggests ways to further reduce these costs in those same areas.
If the WSIB wants to change its mandate it has to go through a public process of consultations that allows public accountability and scrutiny. It cannot do so via a management consulting firm.
TML: One of the main areas that KPMG targets is the initial adjudication.
SM: Initial adjudication refers to when a worker or, to be more accurate, an employer files a claim on behalf of the injured worker. The first step in initial adjudication is that a staff member of WSIB must determine whether or not this claim is really about a work-related injury or disability. We have seen historically over the last 20 years the percentage of claims denied at this stage is increasing. In the last two years it has increased again and KPMG is recommending a further increase in denial of entitlements at that first stage.
Basically, KPMG claims the increased rate of denials is proof adjudication is working properly! This is ridiculous because the report does not provide any information adjudication is being done correctly. They do not present any information to show if these initial decisions are challenged, etc. There is no data to show that just turning down more people is the proper way to adjudicate. They just say it. That kind of philosophy permeates the whole report. The assumption is made that when you cut people off, the system is working well and the more you cut them off the better the system is working.
They do the same thing by assuming that by cutting off benefits it means the people have gone back to work. The only fact for which there is evidence here is that people are being cut off. The WSIB in fact does not keep statistics as to whether the people are working again. Their database only shows if people are receiving money or not. If a worker is told to go back to work or told he is able to go back to work, his benefits are cut and this is the only data recorded. In all the literature these days on workers' compensation, when they talk about returning to work what they say is that people are no longer receiving benefits. That is why in our research project, we are trying to get some of those numbers that show what is really happening to injured workers so we have another set of information we can use in our work.
TML: The KPMG report uses the criteria of aging to reduce benefits.
SM: The KPMG
report raises the issue of
aging as a criteria affecting adjudication of claims even though it has
no basis in law or policy. KPMG argues that, as they get older, people
have more aches and pains, people become disabled more frequently, so
how can their work be blamed
for that? That is just a normal part of life, they say, so the system
should not compensate for aging.
This criteria only emerges from the premise that we have to save money at all costs and this is one of the means they have come up with in order to do so. For example, a worker has a permanent injury, his claim is accepted and at some point he goes back to work. Then he reinjures the same body part. The adjudicator can say that, well, this really has nothing do to with work; it is aging, it has happened because of the worker's age. There is a lot of this happening in the case of back problems or degenerative disc disease. Workers are being dismissed and told, "Sorry that's too bad. It's just normal for this to happen."
TML: ONIWG states that the WSIB has already accepted the report and is implementing it.
SM: When we talked over a year ago with the new WSIB CEO, he raised the same issues now being raised in the KPMG report. In his first public intervention, he said the goal of the WSIB is to reduce benefits for long-term injuries. The WSIB did not wait for the report to begin implementing what it says. Injured workers are being cut off before they reach the 72-month benefit period, after which they are supposed to be guaranteed benefits until they reach the age of 65. Sometimes they get called just before the end of the 72 months and are told the WSIB made a mistake, they are really able to work and are being cut off. This is happening to injured workers across Ontario.
TML: What are the injured workers demanding regarding this report?
SM: We are asking everyone to voice
their opposition both to the government and to the management of the
WSIB. We want the people to take action by sending letters to these
people. We have a petition they can sign and we
are planning lobbying
and public demonstrations about it. We
are demanding that both the government and the WSIB reject this report
and respect the fundamental mandate of the workers' compensation system.
Ontario Injured Workers' Day, Queen's Park, June 1, 2011. (UFCW)
Rallies for Justice and Dignity
Justice and Dignity Not Poverty and Despair
Thursday, December 22 -- 11:00 am-1:00 pm
WSIB, 120 King St. W (Jackson Square, corner of King and Bay)
Toronto
Oppose KPMG's Recommendations for Cutbacks
Friday, December 23 -- 11:00 am
KPMG Offices, 333 Bay St., Suite 4600 (Bay Adelaide Centre)
For information: Industrial Accident Victims' Group of Ontario, (416) 924-6477
Come and tell KPMG what you think of their Christmas gift! KPMG's report:
* recommends transferring many costs of work injuries from employers onto taxpayers;
* attacks older workers by suggesting that the WSIB eliminate or limit compensation for workplace injuries where workers have pre-existing conditions, aggravations and/or recurrences;
* recommends eliminating the 72-month lock in, which will leave workers on probation
for life;
* uses disingenuous reasoning, concluding that return to work and recovery are being improved because workers' benefits are being slashed; and
* follows the line of medical lobbyists for the insurance industry that time off work to heal is harmful.
Read The Marxist-Leninist
Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca