Jump to content

Guest Workers in Canada


Recommended Posts

'Guest workers' at core of labor dispute

The US is in the midst of a debate on what to do with illegal immigrants and whether to extend guest worker status to them. This wouldn't be an issue if there weren't so many of them and they didn't contribute positively to the economy.

Should not Canada have a guest worker program which allows employers to import workers temporarily? In my view the minimium wage would be lower than that of permanant residents. As well, there privilidge to work would only be valid so long as they had a job.

We have taken small steps toward such a program with nannies, and seasonal farm workers. Why shouldn't we extend this to other types of work? There are many industries which either have labour shortages or have work which permanant residents are unwilling to perform. Shouldn't we tap the world outside Canada as a labour force?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Definitely not, they won't leave then we'll have as a big a problem as the U.S. They are at the core of the demonstrations and are now demanding that they stay because it's 'their' continent and the land was stolen from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely not, they won't leave then we'll have as a big a problem as the U.S. They are at the core of the demonstrations and are now demanding that they stay because it's 'their' continent and the land was stolen from them.

In the US it's not the guest workers who are the problem it's the illegal immigrants. Other countries have guest worker programs, and it is a positive net benefit to the economy. It seems that your only objection is the enforcement of the program rules, not with the concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely not, they won't leave then we'll have as a big a problem as the U.S. They are at the core of the demonstrations and are now demanding that they stay because it's 'their' continent and the land was stolen from them.

In the US it's not the guest workers who are the problem it's the illegal immigrants. Other countries have guest worker programs, and it is a positive net benefit to the economy. It seems that your only objection is the enforcement of the program rules, not with the concept.

Your right, the concept is okay as long as the rules are strictly enforced. Also, only if no Canadians want the jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest worker programs have gone a long way to help make western Europe what it is today. Take that any way you want.

A complication in Canada is that the boneheads who gave us our Charter of Rights and immigration law also gave any person who sets foot on Canadian soil and claims refugee status, the same rights as a Canadian citizen, meaning we can only get rid of them at great cost over a long period of time. That issue would have to be dealt with conclusively before we embark on any guest program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way.

There's already too many people disrepecting our laws and our sovereignty by immigrating here illegally or overstaying their visas.

That will only encourage more to do the same.

Do you know any illegal immigrants? I doubt the problem is as severe as you think. In any case, by providing a legal avenue where these workers can be employed, it would discourage them from entering the country illegaly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a guest worker program for agricultural workers used extensively in Norfolk, Oxford and Elgin Counties for the tobacco crop and in Niagara for fruits and nursery work. Several friends of mine have hired seasonal workers from the Barbados and Tobago for years on their tobacco farms and sponsored several who have since become Canadian citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should not Canada have a guest worker program which allows employers to import workers temporarily? In my view the minimium wage would be lower than that of permanant residents. As well, there privilidge to work would only be valid so long as they had a job.

As WellandBoy notes, we do now.

Here are the application forms.

One of the more interesting guest-worker programmes concerns caregivers. Some Canadian families want to hire a nanny but don't want to pay market wages. Women from Third World countries are more than happy to provide the service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should not Canada have a guest worker program which allows employers to import workers temporarily? In my view the minimium wage would be lower than that of permanant residents. As well, there privilidge to work would only be valid so long as they had a job.

As WellandBoy notes, we do now.

Here are the application forms.

One of the more interesting guest-worker programmes concerns caregivers. Some Canadian families want to hire a nanny but don't want to pay market wages. Women from Third World countries are more than happy to provide the service.

What makes these programs not a prevalent as they could be is the market wages which are imposed. Foreign nannies are available for far less than what the governmetn mandates that the hiring couple has to pay. If they lowered the barrier, such a program would be much more viable to many more parents. It seems like an effective solution to childcare, and one which has been sucessfully used in other countries. It is unfortunate that the govenment doesn't adapt the program to the needs of the employer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not favourable to forcing people in substandard labour conditions just because we can.

Paying them below market wages looks is treating them as non-peoples, plus it damages jobs for Canadians. I have little problem with skilled foreign workers coming to Canada and working at our pay rates, hell, we need them right now. But if you want a nanny, pay the price, don't import people to exploit them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not favourable to forcing people in substandard labour conditions just because we can.

Paying them below market wages looks is treating them as non-peoples, plus it damages jobs for Canadians. I have little problem with skilled foreign workers coming to Canada and working at our pay rates, hell, we need them right now. But if you want a nanny, pay the price, don't import people to exploit them.

I disagree with your characterization that these people are being exploited or are non-people. The people take the positions even at less than minimium wage because it is far better than the rates which they would get in their home country. No one seems to have an issue when are goods are produced overseas at wage rates under Canadian standards, are imported to Canada. It seems the only difference is where the work is performed.

How many Canadians do you know who would work at nanny positions for less than minimium wage? None? Well that's my experience too. It seems that many "conservatives" are fine with free trade so long as that trade doesn't include labour. Seems like a double standard to me.

geoffrey, in other threads you advocate that parents should be the ones to pay for their kids childcare at the same time you would refuse to give them the option for affordable childcare when such services could be available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many Canadians do you know who would work at nanny positions for less than minimium wage? None? Well that's my experience too. It seems that many "conservatives" are fine with free trade so long as that trade doesn't include labour. Seems like a double standard to me.
You have touched on the biggest irony in the free trade debate. I believe almost no one is a true free trader - everyone has line where they feel the gov't should restrict trade. Many people that claim to believe in free trade draw the line at free trade in labour.

From my perspective, we should not be importing labour into this country unless the people are paid the same as a citizen and subject to the same labour regulations. Guest worker visas create a legal loop hole that allows employers to exploit people from other countries because once they arrive in the country they can only stay if the employers allows them. This creates an imbalance of power that will always result in exploitation one way or another. Furthermore, allowing guest workers reduces the incentive for employers to increase wages to the level where they can attract Canadians to do the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my perspective, we should not be importing labour into this country unless the people are paid the same as a citizen and subject to the same labour regulations. Guest worker visas create a legal loop hole that allows employers to exploit people from other countries because once they arrive in the country they can only stay if the employers allows them. This creates an imbalance of power that will always result in exploitation one way or another. Furthermore, allowing guest workers reduces the incentive for employers to increase wages to the level where they can attract Canadians to do the job.

What does "exploit" really mean? It seems to be used very subjectively. In my view, labour which willing undertakes to trade their services for money is not exploitive. I agree there is potential for employers to weild undue power over workers, but that really depends upon the nature of how the guest worker program is set up. For example, a guest worker need not be restricted to a named employer. It is true that there will be less incentive for employers to increase wages to the level where Canadians would do the job, but most of these jobs are jobs which the majority of Canadians do not want to do anyway. What it does is fill a labour demand which goes unfilled today. Many ordinary Canadians would employ these workers and thereby enrich the quality of their own lives if the barriers to hiriing such labour was low.

I have experience in hiring a foreign nanny. Ironicly, the nanny disposable income far exceeded our own, as she drew an income but had virtually no costs as room and board were provided. We on the other hand had the substantial cost of accomodation, in addition to the nanny's wages to pay for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have experience in hiring a foreign nanny. Ironicly, the nanny disposable income far exceeded our own, as she drew an income but had virtually no costs as room and board were provided. We on the other hand had the substantial cost of accomodation, in addition to the nanny's wages to pay for.
What you have identified is a problem with the definition of minimum wage. If you costed the market value of room and board you would probably find that your were paying your nanny much more that minimum wage - which would meet my criteria that the workers be paid at least what a Canadian be entitled to. Ironically, you could not offer the same terms to a 'Canadian' because the free room and board is a taxable benefit as far a Revenue Canada is concerned. It sounds like a tax loop hole that encourages people to hire foreign workers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have experience in hiring a foreign nanny. Ironicly, the nanny disposable income far exceeded our own, as she drew an income but had virtually no costs as room and board were provided. We on the other hand had the substantial cost of accomodation, in addition to the nanny's wages to pay for.
What you have identified is a problem with the definition of minimum wage. If you costed the market value of room and board you would probably find that your were paying your nanny much more that minimum wage. Ironically, you could not offer the same terms to a 'Canadian' because the free room and board is a taxable benefit as far a Revenue Canada is concerned. It sounds like a tax loop hole that encourages people to hire foreign workers.

Unfortunately you are probably rigth. The govenment assigns a value for the room and board. Unfortuantely to the government it is irrevelant what the actual market value of that room and board is. Maybe rather than the worker being exploited, we were the ones exploited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with your characterization that these people are being exploited or are non-people. The people take the positions even at less than minimium wage because it is far better than the rates which they would get in their home country. No one seems to have an issue when are goods are produced overseas at wage rates under Canadian standards, are imported to Canada. It seems the only difference is where the work is performed.

How many Canadians do you know who would work at nanny positions for less than minimium wage? None? Well that's my experience too. It seems that many "conservatives" are fine with free trade so long as that trade doesn't include labour. Seems like a double standard to me.

geoffrey, in other threads you advocate that parents should be the ones to pay for their kids childcare at the same time you would refuse to give them the option for affordable childcare when such services could be available.

Whoa there, hold it. If affordable childcare for you means exploiting others, what good is that creating?

The cost of living in Canada is much higher than in the third world. So yes, they make more nominal income but their real disposable income would be considerably lower. That's why I'm ok with the third world producing goods at low wages, that little bit of money goes a long way there. In Canada, living on 3 or 4 dollars per hour is simply exploitation at its finest.

If it was a capable Canadian citizen that wanted to work at 3 or 4 an hour, ok fine, so be it. But importing foreigners to exploit is not a business I want Canada involved in.

Your right, the only difference is where the services are performed. It's also the biggest difference possible.

Hire an umemployed Canadian, there are tonnes of them, and don't cheap out and exploit foreigners simply because they don't know better and it saves ya a few bucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa there, hold it. If affordable childcare for you means exploiting others, what good is that creating?

The cost of living in Canada is much higher than in the third world. So yes, they make more nominal income but their real disposable income would be considerably lower. That's why I'm ok with the third world producing goods at low wages, that little bit of money goes a long way there. In Canada, living on 3 or 4 dollars per hour is simply exploitation at its finest.

If it was a capable Canadian citizen that wanted to work at 3 or 4 an hour, ok fine, so be it. But importing foreigners to exploit is not a business I want Canada involved in.

Your right, the only difference is where the services are performed. It's also the biggest difference possible.

Hire an umemployed Canadian, there are tonnes of them, and don't cheap out and exploit foreigners simply because they don't know better and it saves ya a few bucks.

You've used the word exploit three times in your response above. Maybe you'd care to define what you mean by it. Does McDonalds exploit students when they pay them the youth minimium wage? If so why?

Perhaps you didn't see my personal example to Riverwind, but the foreign nanny had more disposable income than we did. Did we exploit her? If we paid her half of minimium wage, would that still exploit her? If so why?

Maybe if we start with youi defining what you mean be exploiting we can take it from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've used the word exploit three times in your response above. Maybe you'd care to define what you mean by it. Does McDonalds exploit students when they pay them the youth minimium wage? If so why?

Perhaps you didn't see my personal example to Riverwind, but the foreign nanny had more disposable income than we did. Did we exploit her? If we paid her half of minimium wage, would that still exploit her? If so why?

Maybe if we start with youi defining what you mean be exploiting we can take it from there.

Room and board should obviously be included in payment, so if you are including that, maybe a lower minimum wage is in order.

Exploitation isn't about how much they make, its tricking these foreigners into believing they will have a better life working for you in Canada. A raise of $50 a day coming from Bangladesh is actually going to be a lesser standard of living in Canada. That is, of course, dependant on the living arrangement.

I don't think this guest workers program's primary focus is nanny's, however. It's fruit pickers and people like that, who we import from Mexico and pay $20 a day. Sure it's more than they make at home, but paying a Mexican less than you'd pay a Canadian is definitely a moral dilemma. Are they a lesser person, even though they may be better at the job?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many Canadians do you know who would work at nanny positions for less than minimium wage? None? Well that's my experience too. It seems that many "conservatives" are fine with free trade so long as that trade doesn't include labour. Seems like a double standard to me.
First of all, the fact that only a foreigner would accept the offer you made (and not someone resident in Canada) implies that you are paying below the (Canadian) market wage.
You have touched on the biggest irony in the free trade debate. I believe almost no one is a true free trader - everyone has line where they feel the gov't should restrict trade. Many people that claim to believe in free trade draw the line at free trade in labour.
Second, don't confuse free trade in goods and free mobility in labour. The two ideas are distinct. I can see several legitimate reasons to restrict the free mobility of labour, but almost none for limitations on free trade.
From my perspective, we should not be importing labour into this country unless the people are paid the same as a citizen and subject to the same labour regulations. Guest worker visas create a legal loop hole that allows employers to exploit people from other countries because once they arrive in the country they can only stay if the employers allows them. This creates an imbalance of power that will always result in exploitation one way or another. Furthermore, allowing guest workers reduces the incentive for employers to increase wages to the level where they can attract Canadians to do the job.
As I understand it, foreign nannies are paid minimum wage but have room & board deducted from this and must pay income taxes on the difference. They (and the employer) make statutory contributions. They can change employers and, of course, are free to return home at any time. This last point makes it hard to claim anyone is exploited. This is not slavery.

After working as a nanny for two years, they are entitled to apply for formal immigration to Canada. Riverwind, foreign nannies amount to (almost) unrestricted mobility of labour. If anyone is exploited, it is the Canadian public.

Foreign nannies accept poor conditions because they know they can immigrate to Canada as a result. Women with little education and spotty language skills, who would never meet normal immigration criteria, have a way to enter the country.

Worse, they leave behind husbands, children for several years and in effect the family is divided when the main purpose of Canada's immigration law is family reunification.

Argus had a long thread on the social problems caused by the foreign nanny programme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many Canadians do you know who would work at nanny positions for less than minimium wage? None? Well that's my experience too. It seems that many "conservatives" are fine with free trade so long as that trade doesn't include labour. Seems like a double standard to me.
First of all, the fact that only a foreigner would accept the offer you made (and not someone resident in Canada) implies that you are paying below the (Canadian) market wage.
You have touched on the biggest irony in the free trade debate. I believe almost no one is a true free trader - everyone has line where they feel the gov't should restrict trade. Many people that claim to believe in free trade draw the line at free trade in labour.
Second, don't confuse free trade in goods and free mobility in labour. The two ideas are distinct. I can see several legitimate reasons to restrict the free mobility of labour, but almost none for limitations on free trade.
From my perspective, we should not be importing labour into this country unless the people are paid the same as a citizen and subject to the same labour regulations. Guest worker visas create a legal loop hole that allows employers to exploit people from other countries because once they arrive in the country they can only stay if the employers allows them. This creates an imbalance of power that will always result in exploitation one way or another. Furthermore, allowing guest workers reduces the incentive for employers to increase wages to the level where they can attract Canadians to do the job.
As I understand it, foreign nannies are paid minimum wage but have room & board deducted from this and must pay income taxes on the difference. They (and the employer) make statutory contributions. They can change employers and, of course, are free to return home at any time. This last point makes it hard to claim anyone is exploited. This is not slavery.

After working as a nanny for two years, they are entitled to apply for formal immigration to Canada. Riverwind, foreign nannies amount to (almost) unrestricted mobility of labour. If anyone is exploited, it is the Canadian public.

Foreign nannies accept poor conditions because they know they can immigrate to Canada as a result. Women with little education and spotty language skills, who would never meet normal immigration criteria, have a way to enter the country.

Worse, they leave behind husbands, children for several years and in effect the family is divided when the main purpose of Canada's immigration law is family reunification.

Argus had a long thread on the social problems caused by the foreign nanny programme.

As you probably know, I'm not a big fan of George Bush, but something he said during the summit made sense. The migrant Mexican workers did jobs that Americans refused to do, and the money they made was usually sent home to help their families in Mexico.

I realize that there would be problems, but we should not simply turn our backs on the opportunity. However, they should be paid minimum wage so that Canadians can at least compete for the jobs. They should also have to pay income tax, since they will be enjoying the rights and protection of all citizens while here; and if their behaviour warrants it; eventually citizenship, if that's what they desire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think we should have such a program.

These people will think they can just come to Canada, work for less than minimum (read poverty) wage, have no rights, and just drive any taxi, work at any 7-11, McDonalds or temporary agency that they please. Its everybodys dream, so why should they take it from our own citizens.

And with our thousands upon thousands of unspoiled young people dying to have these professions as their chosen occupation, and what with unemployment at the rate that it is, this would be highly unacceptable. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all guest workers come to Canada to fill low wage jobs. In Alberta there is a shortage of skilled trades which has resulted in many employers looking overseas to fill positions that pay around $25-$35/hr.

From what I understand, these people can only work for the employer which holds the permit and can be sent back when their services are no longer needed or if they fail to meet the expectations of the employer that brought them into Canada.

Tha sad part about this is that these are not low paying jobs and given the unemployment stats for various regions there is no reason that existing Canadians could not fill these positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all guest workers come to Canada to fill low wage jobs. In Alberta there is a shortage of skilled trades which has resulted in many employers looking overseas to fill positions that pay around $25-$35/hr.

From what I understand, these people can only work for the employer which holds the permit and can be sent back when their services are no longer needed or if they fail to meet the expectations of the employer that brought them into Canada.

Tha sad part about this is that these are not low paying jobs and given the unemployment stats for various regions there is no reason that existing Canadians could not fill these positions.

Thats a good point. So here is the question (s). If Alberta is the Mecca of Happiness in Canada (and as some have alluded to, the world), and if hard work is rewarded with proper financial compensation in Ralphtown, why are employers needing to look overseas?

With 25-35 dollar an hour jobs (roughly 60k per year-above national average-about an autoworker in Ontario equivalent-wages), why are people not snapping these jobs up? Is McDonalds so appealing?

Immigrants are win win in this kind of situation (as they are in the low wage industries). Employers get the workers they need. Immigrants have an opportunity (in most cases) to have a better employment situation than in their native countries. And we all get to whine about how they are "stealing" our jobs (we all remember, the jobs employers cant find enough workers to fill-including the high paying ones).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Room and board should obviously be included in payment, so if you are including that, maybe a lower minimum wage is in order.

Minimium wage guidelines are set based upon an assumption of the worker facing certain cost of living conditions. If room and board are provided the cost of living for the employee drasticly changes however the minimium wage does not. As August described the government allows you to deduct and amount for Room and Board. In Ontario this amount is $369.42/month. This is far below market rates. If you know anywhere in GTA where you can get R & B for that amount I'd like to hear about it, because I don't.

Exploitation isn't about how much they make, its tricking these foreigners into believing they will have a better life working for you in Canada. A raise of $50 a day coming from Bangladesh is actually going to be a lesser standard of living in Canada. That is, of course, dependant on the living arrangement.

I agree. Your previous posts seem to have centered around paying the guest workers and paying anything less than Canadian wage rates was exploitation. You are now defining exploitation as misleading the workers. I'm not taking about a program about misleading anyone. People should be well aware of the arrangements, including wages, cost of living, and room and board provisions, before they ever sign up for such a program. This does not preclude paying at a wage scale below minimium wage.

For many of these workers, even at less than minimium wage conditions it affords them an opportunity to save money they would never have in their own country.

I don't think this guest workers program's primary focus is nanny's, however. It's fruit pickers and people like that, who we import from Mexico and pay $20 a day. Sure it's more than they make at home, but paying a Mexican less than you'd pay a Canadian is definitely a moral dilemma. Are they a lesser person, even though they may be better at the job?

It's true that the guest worker progfram isn't strictly for nannies. There are categories for farm seasonal workers. I don't see a moral distinction in paying a farm worker $20/day to pick fruit in Niagara and paying them $3/day to make clothes that we purchase. Are they a lesser person because they accept a job at $3/day back in their home country?

If you look at Singapore as a model, it imports lots of guest workers for construction, and as nannies and domestics. In general for both catagories accomodation is provided by the employer. Mind you we're not talking hotel rooms, we are talking being housed in barracks or for domestics, a small room in the apartment of the employer. The wages are well below Singaporian wage standards. The wokers are not misled on wage and working conditions. Many come because they don't have education, skills or employment opportunities back home. Does this take away Singaporian jobs? Not really. Virually all Singaporians are well aware that the key to economic success is education and skills. They have no expectaion that without those that they shoudl have an expectation of a decent paying job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...