Toronto Escorts

Doug Ford vows to scrap key Liberal labour reform legislation

Charlemagne

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2017
15,451
2,484
113
Doug Ford vows to scrap key Liberal labour reform legislation

SHAWN JEFFORDS
TORONTO
THE CANADIAN PRESS

UPDATED OCTOBER 2, 2018

Ontario Premier Doug Ford is vowing to scrap labour reform legislation from the previous Liberal government that raised the province’s minimum wage and introduced a range of other worker protections, a declaration that comes days after his government said the law was under review.

Ford’s comments, made in the legislature Tuesday, caught the opposition off-guard and upset those in the labour community who have been supporters of the law known as Bill 148.

“We’re going to make sure we’re competitive around the world,” the premier said. “We’re getting rid of Bill 148. We’re going to make sure we protect the front-line workers.”

The Progressive Conservatives said last week that they would halt a planned increase to minimum wage set to kick in next year as a result of the Liberal law, and the labour minister said the rest of the legislation was being reviewed.

The bill mandates equal pay for part-time and temporary workers doing the same job as full-time employees and increases vacation entitlements to three weeks after a worker has been with their company for five years. It also requires employees to be paid for three hours if their shift is cancelled within 48 hours of its start, and expands personal emergency leave to 10 days per year, two of them paid.

When asked to clarify Ford’s comments, Economic Development Minister Jim Wilson maintained that the law was still under review but called it a “real concern.”

“There are parts that we will keep and there are parts that probably will go,” he said. “But we’re consulting on that. We’re just not in a position today to tell you where we’re at.”

Bill 148 – dubbed the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act – was applauded by labour activists who had been calling on the government to increase the minimum wage for years. Former premier Kathleen Wynne used the policy, and its theme of fairness, as a major plank during the spring election.

Some businesses, however, complained about the hike in minimum wage – from $11.60 to $14 an hour on Jan. 1 – and raised prices, cut staff hours and reduced employee benefits in response.

On Tuesday, NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said it’s not clear, despite Ford’s latest comments, just what the government plans to do with the labour reform law. Repealing the legislation will only make life more unstable for workers across the province, she said.

“At the end of the day, dragging us backwards to the days where people couldn’t get three weeks vacation or they couldn’t get sick time off when they were sick at work, these are things that we worry about,” she said.

Interim Liberal leader John Fraser said it sounds like Ford will scrap the bill, despite his minister insisting it is still under review. The premier’s declaration hurts workers across the province, he said.

“It does a disservice to the office to not fully consider the direction you’re going in,” he said. “The premier’s not doing that.”

Pam Frache, the Ontario co-ordinator of the Fight for 15 and Fairness, a group that supports the law, noted that the government has not yet introduced legislation to replace or repeal Bill 148, despite Ford’s comments.

“We still think there’s time for the premier to change his mind, to do the right thing and to stand with the people, not with the corporate elites,” she said.

Meanwhile, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, which represents the province’s business community, said it would like the government to repeal Bill 148.

“The very real unintended consequences (of Bill 148) have forced our members to decrease product offerings and increase the price of products being sold, hire fewer employees, reduce services and hours of operation, cut back on employee benefits, and halt capital investment – all in an effort to stay afloat,” president Rocco Rossi said in a statement.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-doug-ford-vows-to-scrap-key-liberal-labour-reform-legislation/
 

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
10,120
2,768
113
It is quite obvious what the Notorious Biggie Ford's agenda is and who he really represents and it taint "The First Government For the People".
 

Ref

Committee Member
Oct 29, 2002
5,079
1,011
113
web.archive.org
Hopefully he will introduce legislation that will make it much easier to decertify unions. Even something as simple as having a certification vote at the end of each collective agreement.

If the employees feel they need a union, they will all vote to keep it. If they feel that the union is not in their best interests, then they can easily vote to decertify it.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Hopefully he will introduce legislation that will make it much easier to decertify unions. Even something as simple as having a certification vote at the end of each collective agreement.

If the employees feel they need a union, they will all vote to keep it. If they feel that the union is not in their best interests, then they can easily vote to decertify it.
And with a government taking away workers' rights to such simple, basic stuff as equal pay, or minimal sick-days, it'll be easier for workers to see it's in their best interest to join unions to get them.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
And with a government taking away workers' rights to such simple, basic stuff as equal pay, or minimal sick-days, it'll be easier for workers to see it's in their best interest to join unions to get them.
The problem with the labour laws he's looking at rolling back is that they were horribly drafted and ill conceived.

You think they were intended to give people sick days who didn't have any. However, the way they were drafted had the effect of giving additional paid days off to UNIONIZED workers who already had much more generous paid time off provisions in their agreements. The laws really had unintended effects in the unionized construction industry, where workers regularly migrate between employers, because the provisions create "banks" of time based on employment with each employer (add to that the fact that sick pay is not administered by individual employers in that industry, but through a jointly trusteed benefit plan).

You think they were to ensure equal pay for equal work, but instead they ensured that people who are not of equal skill, ability, responsibility or commitment to their employer (part time employees) got paid the same as those who were higher skilled, more experienced, more responsible and more committed. This basis for differentiation has been recognized by UNIONS in their collective bargaining for decades, creating the pay gap between part time and full time workers.

So, it doesn't matter if repealing these laws will make more part timers seek union representation, because unions never saw the logic of their position on these issues.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
The problem with the labour laws he's looking at rolling back is that they were horribly drafted and ill conceived.

You think they were intended to give people sick days who didn't have any. However, the way they were drafted had the effect of giving additional paid days off to UNIONIZED workers who already had much more generous paid time off provisions in their agreements.

You think they were to ensure equal pay for equal work, but instead they ensured that people who are not of equal skill, ability, responsibility or commitment to their employer (part time employees) got paid the same as those who were higher skilled, more experienced, more responsible and more committed. This basis for differentiation has been recognized by UNIONS in their collective bargaining for decades, creating the pay gap between part time and full time workers.

So, it doesn't matter if repealing these laws will make more part timers seek union representation, because unions never saw the logic of their position on these issues.
I'll take your word about bad drafting, although I'm doubtful, particularly about your characterization of full vs. part-time work and workers. The effect won't change: Worker-hostile government actions make unions look more desirable, worker-friendly laws make unions seem redundant.
------
FWIW I've belonged to two unions and lived with members of two more. None of them had managed to negotiate sick-days, so at least some would likely be pleased to have even two days mandated by law
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
I'll take your word about bad drafting, although I'm doubtful, particularly about your characterization of full vs. part-time work and workers. The effect won't change: Worker-hostile government actions make unions look more desirable, worker-friendly laws make unions redundant.
Not if unions share the same views as employers about whether differentiation between part time and full time workers is "worker hostile".
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Not if unions share the same views as employers about whether differentiation between part time and full time workers is "worker hostile".
Duh! As if one definition they agree on for the moment them indistinguishable blood brothers, and that was the only item disappearing with repeal.

Check Ref's post above, for a post that better reflects some real world views.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
Duh! As if one definition they agree on for the moment them indistinguishable blood brothers, and that was the only item disappearing with repeal.

Check Ref's post above, for a post that better reflects some real world views.
If you (or Ref) think the Conservatives will introduce legislation that mandates periodic re-election of unions, think again. Large unionized employers won't back it. Unions that have to repeatedly "prove themselves" to workers would necessarily be more militant and less reasonable. The biggest change the PCs may have a look at is to require certification votes (rather than than just card based certification) in all cases.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
If you (or Ref) think the Conservatives will introduce legislation that mandates periodic re-election of unions, think again. Large unionized employers won't back it. Unions that have to repeatedly "prove themselves" to workers would necessarily be more militant and less reasonable. The biggest change the PCs may have a look at is to require certification votes (rather than than just card based certification) in all cases.
Ref! Hey, Ref, He's talking to you!

I already made my point above. As long as the folks who want re-certification votes by calendar or similar auto-trigger pay the cost, I see no problem. In effect, ratifying the new contract is a certification vote at contract end.
 

glamphotographer

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2011
15,963
15,691
113
Canada
NDP will win the next election. University and College students working PT jobs are pissed will finally come out to vote. Maybe they will just forget and hide in parent's basement.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,420
2,297
113
NDP will win the next election. University and College students working PT jobs are pissed will finally come out to vote. Maybe they will just forget and hide in parent's basement.
Not with Horwith running the show they wont
The electorate voted for a much needed change for a financial responsibility govt
That concept & the NDP just do not mix
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Not with Horwith running the show they wont
The electorate voted for a much needed change for a financial responsibility govt
That concept & the NDP just do not mix
Actually what the electorate really did was vote against the Liberals and Wynn.

When they decided to do that, the electorate gave the NDP almost as many votes as they gave the PCs. Add Greens and Independents (yes, we still have those) to the NDP total they're within 100th of a percentage point of the fraction of the electorate that picked the Tories. Not to mention that even with their miserable seat-count, the Liberals still scored fully half the votes the PCs did. Clearly and indisputably, only two out of five voters in that electorate you mention picked the PCs for any reason at all. And with a secret ballot, we'll never know the real reasons.

So, if you want to believe that minority was moved by your notions of "a financial responsibility govt", just keep avoiding the evidence of what really happened.
 

Boober69

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2012
6,722
263
83
I'll take your word about bad drafting, although I'm doubtful, particularly about your characterization of full vs. part-time work and workers. The effect won't change: Worker-hostile government actions make unions look more desirable, worker-friendly laws make unions seem redundant.
------
FWIW I've belonged to two unions and lived with members of two more. None of them had managed to negotiate sick-days, so at least some would likely be pleased to have even two days mandated by law
Sick days are a joke in government unions. City staff get an outrageous amount of sick days which is nothing but abuse.
Funny how union supporters cry about getting sick days when they abuse them.
Government unions need to go. Time to join the real world.
If you are good at what you do, a company will give you what you want.
No one is entitled to a job...you work hard and become valuable to a company and if they don't make you happy, you leave and join another company that values your skills and experience. Period.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts