Reporting temporary foreign worker program abuse

[WestCoastRunner]

I had no idea. This is truly remarkable. I am stunned. Is no one else? i salute your way of living. What about fish quotas? i know nothing about this and i think i should know more living on the west coast. I feel ridiculously ignorant.

[Michael Hardner]

If these employers can resource a foreign country for workers, then they can try in Canada first. I am sure there are plenty of people willing to do those jobs that are already citizens of this country.

You are right. The thing that they would likely say is that the higher wages will raise prices, and cut into their revenues thereby lowering the overall level of economic activity.

I'm not advocating for that position at all - so let's leave their argument out of it. But the fact is that the government either has a complicated formula and economic eggheads deciding whether the program is worthwhile.... or they have somebody who listens to his business buddies at the club and prioritizes his problems over that of the average worker.

That's the game here, IMO.

[eyeball]

I had no idea. This is truly remarkable. I am stunned. Is no one else? i salute your way of living. What about fish quotas? i know nothing about this and i think i should know more living on the west coast. I feel ridiculously ignorant.

Fish quotas mean wealth and lots of it, it's that simple.

Despite the near collapse of commercial fishing along the west coast and the misfortune and impact that's had on thousands of people and small business' the richest businessman in BC is still afforded 40% of the total catch. Quota discussions - discussions about a public resource, your resource, and how and to whom it is allocated are all done confidentially and secretly.

Clearly we live in an oligarchy in which economic playing fields are deliberately tilted against whole communities, the TFW program is just one more indicator of that fact and is as typically devoid of any transparency and more importantly an auditable, verifiable system of accountability that protects the public's interest.

[Michael Hardner]

Clearly we live in an oligarchy in which economic playing fields are deliberately tilted against whole communities, the TFW program is just one more indicator of that fact and is as typically devoid of any transparency and more importantly an auditable, verifiable system of accountability that protects the public's interest.

I feel for you, I honestly do, but I still think that your sector should be doing more to (and I shudder to use this phrase) raise awareness on this. The Ontario farmers organize into a lobby group ...

I don't know, I suppose you're right in the end. I'm feeling frustrated too.

[eyeball]

Yep, I'm pretty much at the point where molotovs and guillotines are probably the only solution.

[kimmy]

These are issues that could be addressed by balancing the power mismatch. e.g. issue lifetime prohibitions for corporations caught abusing the rules and make one of the rules a requirement that all TFWs be informed that the employer has something to lose if rules are broken.

I can only assume they have been exploiting this because they can get away with it. I assume that means that either the monitoring is lax, or the punishments are inconsequential, or most likely both.

Kenney assures us they're going to crack down, but until we see what punishments are handed out, and what steps will be taken to monitor employees, I think a "believe it when we see it" approach is warranted.

-k

[kimmy]

You are right. The thing that they would likely say is that the higher wages will raise prices, and cut into their revenues thereby lowering the overall level of economic activity.

I'm not advocating for that position at all - so let's leave their argument out of it. But the fact is that the government either has a complicated formula and economic eggheads deciding whether the program is worthwhile.... or they have somebody who listens to his business buddies at the club and prioritizes his problems over that of the average worker.

That's the game here, IMO.

The statistics indicate that the majority of TFW requests now bypass the LMO process to go through the new "streamlined" process, which suggests that there's not exactly a team of crack analysts looking at these decisions.

The emails that have been read in the Commons over the past week suggests that the "business buddies" theory is more likely.

Kenney fired back Thursday, introducing a 2009 letter from Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau in which he seeks a work permit for a Chinese chef at a Canadian restaurant popular with his father, the late Pierre Trudeau.

...

Denis Bevington, the NDP member for Western Arctic, wrote to Kenney in October 2012 to complain that wages for temporary foreign workers were too high, McCallum said.

...

Another letter emerged from Halifax MP Megan Leslie in which she raised concerns to a Conservative minister last year about the "cumbersome" need for employers to prove they made attempts to hire Canadian workers.

...

In a 2009 letter obtained by The Canadian Press, Merrifield tells Diane Finley, then human resources minister, about a Boston Pizza franchise owner in his riding who's complaining about having to pay his temporary foreign workers the prevailing wage rate. The owner can't afford to pay $15.82 an hour to a temporary foreign worker, writes Merrifield, who served for three years as a junior minister before being dropped from cabinet in 2011.

...

It seems like business-people expect their MPs to act as advocates on their behalf to the TFW program.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

It seems like business-people expect their MPs to act as advocates on their behalf to the TFW program.

-k

In other words, the public for this issue has excluded citizens who are concerned with the overall benefit to Canada, rather than the business people who personally benefit from the program.

Thank you for the thorough background on this but... what is LMO ?

[kimmy]

In other words, the public for this issue has excluded citizens who are concerned with the overall benefit to Canada, rather than the business people who personally benefit from the program.

Thank you for the thorough background on this but... what is LMO ?

"Labor Market Opinion", the process through which the TFW program is supposed to go through to assess whether there's a real need for employers to bring in foreign workers to fill their vacancies. The employer makes an application to the program, Human Resources Canada does whatever research it is that they do, and approve or deny the request based on their findings. In recent years the Conservatives have accelerated the process by allowing employers to bypass the LMO process in some cases.

-k

[GostHacked]

I think a camera would have added a lot to the missing Malaysian flight.

How? Unless the camera has a live feed 24/7. You would now have a camera on a missing plane. Not much help it would be.

[Michael Hardner]

In recent years the Conservatives have accelerated the process by allowing employers to bypass the LMO process in some cases.

-k

Relevant and excellent background information there, thank you.

[GostHacked]

And great points Kimmy. Thanks.

[overthere]

TimG, on 08 May 2014 - 10:10 PM, said:

They probably will but that is the point. The TFW exists because some employers really need it and they have exhausted all of their options for hiring locally. The trouble is some other employers are just using to keep their wage costs low. Forcing them to pay more than market for people would reduce or eliminate employers in the second group.

A company like McDonalds does not need to hire anyone foreign. The skill level is not that high. And all you are getting at is that a company wants to cut costs wherever they can. My former employer replaced in house teams with contractors to save money. Lower wages and do not have to pay out benefits.

If these employers can resource a foreign country for workers, then they can try in Canada first. I am sure there are plenty of people willing to do those jobs that are already citizens of this country.

Tim is correct. Some employers really need workers from somewhere else. You are wrong in comparing hiring local contractors to replace local in house staff with hiring outside the country because nobody in Canada will take the jobs. It's not the same thing.

Where I live and where I suspect TimG lives- there aren't enough people to fill the available jobs. Period. The unemployment rate is under 5%. Housing vacancy rate hovers around 1%. Hello inflation!!!

In your comparison with contracting out, there are a surplus of people quailified for the jobs- in house(you) and outsourced(contractors).

[Peter F]

I'm quite sure that some employers, as you say, really do need employees. I bet they need workers really really bad.

You are suggesting that government then step in and solve their problem. Sorta like the Employers provide an essential service.

Except we're talking about mostly restraunts and stuff like that.

I say boot up the wages to attract the workers or set up shop somewhere else or close the place down.

[kimmy]

Tim is correct. Some employers really need workers from somewhere else. You are wrong in comparing hiring local contractors to replace local in house staff with hiring outside the country because nobody in Canada will take the jobs. It's not the same thing.

Where I live and where I suspect TimG lives- there aren't enough people to fill the available jobs. Period. The unemployment rate is under 5%. Housing vacancy rate hovers around 1%. Hello inflation!!!

In your comparison with contracting out, there are a surplus of people quailified for the jobs- in house(you) and outsourced(contractors).

When people say "nobody in Canada will take these jobs", what they mean is "nobody in Canada will take these jobs at the wages being offered." People usually omit the second half of that statement, but they shouldn't because it's an important qualifier.

My first job was at a McDonalds. It sucked. I quit as soon as I found another job, in retail. I got a second job waitressing at a family restaurant, and as soon as I was old enough I started waitressing in bars, at which point I dropped the retail job, and eventually dropped the family restaurant job as well. It's my experience that fast food has crappy working conditions, and in the experience of myself and my other low-skilled friends, fast food was the last resort. If you could work at a real restaurant or a coffee shop or in retail, that was far better than working in fast food. Fast food is stressful and unpleasant and the pay is crappy.

When you have work that people are reluctant to do-- it's dangerous, or disgusting, or has bad hours, or whatever-- the employer is supposed to figure out how to bring in workers. Higher wages, or a benefits package, or a path to advancement, or something. I mean, garbagemen don't earn $18 an hour because their job takes mad skills.

The other part of otherthere's post that struck me: the 1% vacancy rate. Ok, so the rental housing market is so tight that workers can't come to town to fill these jobs? Wellll, first off, at minimum wage nobody's going to come to town for those jobs anyway. Second, if there's no rental housing available, where are the temporary workers going to stay?

-k

[TimG]

When people say "nobody in Canada will take these jobs", what they mean is "nobody in Canada will take these jobs at the wages being offered." People usually omit the second half of that statement, but they shouldn't because it's an important qualifier.

The trouble is many business are simply not competitive if their wage rates rise because the higher prices will kill the demand for whatever they produce. Farm produce is a one example because the market for produce competes with many low wage regions. Any service industry that depends on tourists is another because tourists have many destination choices and are cost sensitive.

This reality means politicians have to decide between letting businesses close and losing the economic activity that the businesses bring in (even business with TFW bring economic activity into the country) or live with the fact that no matter what the rules there will be some businesses that exploit them.

In my opinion, changing the incentives built into the rules would be a more effective way to deal with business exploiting them.

Edited May 11, 2014 by TimG

[GostHacked]

This reality means politicians have to decide between letting businesses close and losing the economic activity that the businesses bring in (even business with TFW bring economic activity into the country) or live with the fact that no matter what the rules there will be some businesses that exploit them.

All while we shift manufacturing to places like China and sell top resource companies to foreign entities. One that hits home the most is the mining sector and a company called Vale.

[kimmy]

That's how the "free market" is supposed to work.

If McDonalds has to raise their wages to convince somebody to work there instead of working at Staples or Starbucks, so be it.

If McDonalds has to raise the price of a cheeseburger to pay the higher wages, so be it.

If the rising price of cheeseburgers decreases the demand and forces some of the McDonalds franchises to close, so be it.

The closure of some franchises will decrease the demand for fast food workers, which will in turn act to balance rising wages, and everything will reach a happy equilibrium.

That's how it's supposed to go.

But instead, fast food companies are going to the government with their sad faces on and saying "nobody wants to work for us for $10/hr" and Jason Kenney says "oh hey, we can help you with that!" and providing a solution that rigs the labor market in favor of employers and cheap happy-meals, and against low-skilled workers. Why does Jason Kenney hate the free market?

-k

[TimG]

The closure of some franchises will decrease the demand for fast food workers, which will in turn act to balance rising wages, and everything will reach a happy equilibrium.

Closing existing franchises will increase the unemployment and result in lowering wage demands. It will reach equilibrium but it will hardly be "happy". When it comes to businesses that compete in a global market like tourism or farm produce the "happy equilibrium" will be more work for people in Mexico and even fewer opportunities for Canadians.

TFWs are a necessary policy and the only question is how to get the incentives right.

Edited May 11, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Closing existing franchises will increase the unemployment and result in lowering wage demands. It will reach equilibrium but it will hardly be "happy". When it comes to businesses that compete in a global market like tourism or farm produce the "happy equilibrium" will be more work for people in Mexico and even fewer opportunities for Canadians.

TFWs are a necessary policy and the only question is how to get the incentives right.

Imagine. We might get an idea of the actual state of the Canadian economy.

[TimG]

Imagine. We might get an idea of the actual state of the Canadian economy.

There is no "actual" state that is hidden. The "actual" state is what it is today with current laws. If you want to change the laws you need need to assess whether the change will make things better or worse.

That said, labour protectionism is an anachronism in a world where goods move freely between countries but it is unfortunately a necessary one since the right to work in a country usually comes with a right to numerous social benefits. That also means high cost countries are at a disadvantage globally and countries that do not look for ways to reduce the harm caused by labour protectionism will experience lower growth and a lower standard of living for everyone.

Edited May 11, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

TFWs are a necessary policy and the only question is how to get the incentives right.

Occasionally necessary for really difficult to find experts but not always for general help. How to incentivize that has been answered by every think tank to the right of the Marxist Leninist Party for the last 30 years, you let the market get it right.

It's like you people wipe your hard drives every night before you go to bed.

[kimmy]

Closing existing franchises will increase the unemployment

(these are the franchises that say they have to look outside the country because they can't find workers?)

Closing existing franchises will increase the unemployment and result in lowering wage demands. It will reach equilibrium but it will hardly be "happy". When it comes to businesses that compete in a global market like tourism or farm produce the "happy equilibrium" will be more work for people in Mexico and even fewer opportunities for Canadians.

Ok, so you're saying that Canada needs TFWs to produce low-cost fast food because Canada is competing in the global tourism market.

I doubt it, first off. I don't think the price of cheeseburgers is high on the list of considerations when international travellers are planning their vacation. The marginal price increase of menu items it might take to pay fast food workers a more competitive wage is going to be a miniscule portion of the overall cost of a vacation. What portion of fast food restaurant customers are international tourists? What portion of international tourists' dining dollars are spent at fast food restaurants?

But the main point:

I'm saying that by providing fast food places with access to cheap laborers from abroad, the government is intentionally dicking around with the free market in a way that acts to depress wages for fast food workers and by extension other unskilled workers with whom fast food restaurants are supposed to be competing for employees.

And you're saying that it's justified, because rising costs in the fast food sector could harm tourism.

Well, if preventing negative economic consequences elsewhere in the economy justifies meddling with the free market, then keeping the cost of fast food down seems like a silly place to start. There are way bigger fish to fry. Specifically, the price of fuel. High fuel costs have a ripple effect that is felt throughout the entire economy. It affects the cost of everything, including fast food. Imagine the effects on tourism. I've never heard a tourist complaining about the cost of a cheeseburger here in Kim City, but I've heard plenty of them complaining about the price of gas. Imagine how many vacations don't happen because the price of gas has just gotten too high. I know several seniors who've parked their RVs for good because they just can't pay for gas anymore. Imagine all the Americans who say "I'm not going to Canada this year because gas up there is just so expensive."

Surely, if you think the government is justified in acting to depress wages among low-skilled workers due to potential benefits to other areas of the economy, then the government would be super-justified in taking action to reduce fuel costs and eliminate profiteering in the fuel industry.

If this idea of dicking around with the free market to create benefits to the larger economy has any merit, then why don't we start with the fuel industry first, and pick on low-skill workers later?

-k

[Argus]

Closing existing franchises will increase the unemployment

Increase unemployment? How, when they're being operated by foreign workers?

It will reach equilibrium but it will hardly be "happy".

Capitalism doesn't promise happiness.

When it comes to businesses that compete in a global market like tourism or farm produce the "happy equilibrium" will be more work for people in Mexico and even fewer opportunities for Canadians.

Nonsense. You keep bringing up agricultural workers even though no one is really complaining about bringing in agricultural workers.

What people ARE complaining about is bringing in cheap foreign workers so fast food restaurants, trucking companies, helicopter companies, and other companies can pay lower wages.

Why don't you tell us why you don't believe in the free market economy and instead believe in government intervention?

Edited May 11, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

How? Unless the camera has a live feed 24/7. You would now have a camera on a missing plane. Not much help it would be.

This crap is wildly off topic.