Why Trudeau is no friend of labour
- Thread starter tay
- Start date
A program that brings foreign workers to Canada has ballooned in recent years, threatening wages and employment opportunities for Canadian residents, according to a union representing more than 100,000 construction workers in Canada.
Touted as a solution to labour shortages by proponents, Canada’s International Mobility Program (IMP) is similar to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP).
The TFW Program is meant to help employers fill general labour gaps, often in low-skilled positions, while the IMP program is meant to cater to more specialized needs serving “competitive advantages” to Canada.
The Labourers’ International Union of North America’s western Canada manager Mark Olsen said that, like the TFWP before it, the IMP has swelled as employers use it to circumvent the Canadian labour market.
“It pushes down wages and benefits in the construction industry,” Olsen said. “There really has to be a full study on it.”
In a new policy paper, the union details its concerns about the program.
In 2006, about 84,000 foreign workers were brought to Canada via the IMP, and in 2014 the number peaked at 260,000, according to the paper.
Workers from India, the United States and China make up the top three countries of origin, according to StatsCan
Data shows that 10,000 fewer workers accessed the program in 2015, but in 2016 another 32,000 were added, according to a spokesperson from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
In 2012, the TFWP was plagued by stories of worker abuse and employers paying wages lower than industry standards. At the time, the IMP was a stream within the TFWP.
Under public pressure in 2014, the government of Stephen Harper made changes to the TFWP, including establishing the IMP as a separate entity.
But Olsen said that while use of the TFWP has dropped off, the IMP has grown.
The IMP has fewer requirements for employers to prove that efforts were made to find a Canadian resident to fill a job, he said.
For example, employers accessing the IMP don’t need to apply for a labour market impact assessment, used in part to determine if employers made reasonable efforts to hire a resident.
The paper also says the lack of IMP regulations makes it difficult to know how much employers using the program are paying employees.
According to the IMP’s website, an employer may apply to bring a foreign worker to Canada via the program if it serves “broader economic, cultural or other competitive advantages” for Canada.
more
https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/07/27/Increase-in-Foreign-Workers-Still-a-Problem/
Touted as a solution to labour shortages by proponents, Canada’s International Mobility Program (IMP) is similar to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP).
The TFW Program is meant to help employers fill general labour gaps, often in low-skilled positions, while the IMP program is meant to cater to more specialized needs serving “competitive advantages” to Canada.
The Labourers’ International Union of North America’s western Canada manager Mark Olsen said that, like the TFWP before it, the IMP has swelled as employers use it to circumvent the Canadian labour market.
“It pushes down wages and benefits in the construction industry,” Olsen said. “There really has to be a full study on it.”
In a new policy paper, the union details its concerns about the program.
In 2006, about 84,000 foreign workers were brought to Canada via the IMP, and in 2014 the number peaked at 260,000, according to the paper.
Workers from India, the United States and China make up the top three countries of origin, according to StatsCan
Data shows that 10,000 fewer workers accessed the program in 2015, but in 2016 another 32,000 were added, according to a spokesperson from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
In 2012, the TFWP was plagued by stories of worker abuse and employers paying wages lower than industry standards. At the time, the IMP was a stream within the TFWP.
Under public pressure in 2014, the government of Stephen Harper made changes to the TFWP, including establishing the IMP as a separate entity.
But Olsen said that while use of the TFWP has dropped off, the IMP has grown.
The IMP has fewer requirements for employers to prove that efforts were made to find a Canadian resident to fill a job, he said.
For example, employers accessing the IMP don’t need to apply for a labour market impact assessment, used in part to determine if employers made reasonable efforts to hire a resident.
The paper also says the lack of IMP regulations makes it difficult to know how much employers using the program are paying employees.
According to the IMP’s website, an employer may apply to bring a foreign worker to Canada via the program if it serves “broader economic, cultural or other competitive advantages” for Canada.
more
https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/07/27/Increase-in-Foreign-Workers-Still-a-Problem/
Canadians are justifiably appalled by the plight of thousands of employees and pensioners who are being victimized by the bankruptcy protection manoeuvring of Sears Canada. Thousands have been laid off and even more stand to lose the severance, benefits and pensions that they earned, while Sears pays millions in bonuses to executives and managers.
Sadly, however, Canadians should not be surprised by the Sears scandal and the scope of the devastation that so many will suffer. Successive Liberal and Conservative federal governments have allowed such scenarios to occur by repeatedly rejecting legislative reforms that would protect employees, pensioners and their families.
Members and retirees of my union, the United Steelworkers, know all too well the pain and anguish caused by unfair bankruptcy and insolvency laws that Liberal and Conservative governments have steadfastly maintained for decades.
Some of the most recent victims include more than 20,000 U.S. Steel Canada retirees whose crucial health benefits were eliminated and thousands of former employees and retirees of Cliffs Natural Resources who lost their health benefits and suffered deep cuts to pensions they earned over a lifetime of work.
Imagine a terminally ill pensioner who loses health benefits overnight and is forced to choose between buying food or potentially life-saving medication. Or retirees whose pensions were abruptly cut by $1,000 a month because their governments — quite intentionally — ensure they remain at the back of the queue in corporate insolvency cases, while the claims of big banks and wealthy investors come first.
Even the Supreme Court of Canada has noted that successive governments have made a deliberate choice to favour creditors such as banks and major investors over vulnerable pensioners and employees.
In a case that my union fought in the courts for several years, the Supreme Court sympathized with pensioners from the insolvent Toronto operations of multinational corporation Indalex. However, in its 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court determined that, under the terms of existing legislation, cuts to the Indalex retirees' pensions were lawful.
"There are good reasons for giving special protection to members of pension plans in insolvency proceedings," Supreme Court justices stated. But Parliament "chose not to" enact legislation to protect pensioners, they said.
It was also noted that during the Liberal government regime of the early- and mid-2000s, Liberal-dominated committees in the House of Commons and in the Senate took turns studying reforms to bankruptcy and insolvency legislation. In both cases, the Liberals opted not to stand up for the interests of workers and pensioners.
But after being turfed from office, the same Liberals changed their tune. Then-Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff vowed that his party, if re-elected, would change the law to protect workers and pensioners and ensure they would no longer be "left at the back of queue in insolvency and bankruptcy."
"It's not right. We agree with you," Ignatieff famously told thousands of laid-off Nortel workers in 2009. Following the Liberals' return to power in 2015, that promise appears to have been all but forgotten.
So it is particularly galling to hear the current Liberal government express sympathy for "the difficult circumstances" now faced by Sears workers and retirees. At least one Liberal MP has unabashedly chastised Sears and publicly called on the company to "do the right thing" for pensioners.
Of course, there is no acknowledgement from the Liberal government that, with its overwhelming majority in Parliament, it actually could "do the right thing" by enacting legislative reforms to better protect Canadians' wages, pensions and benefits.
Experts in bankruptcy and restructuring law have put forward practical and realistic legislative reforms that would protect employees and pensioners, without causing economic upheaval.
For example, amending the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) to give priority to severance packages, retirement benefits and money owed to pension plans "would be the easiest thing in the world" and would not result in undue harm to the business climate, says one expert on pension and benefit issues in insolvency cases.
Ultimately, reforming laws such as the BIA and the Companies' Creditor Arrangement Act is primarily a political choice. In other words, whose interests does the government of the day truly want to serve? That is the question facing the current Liberal government.
Canadian workers and pensioners want more than hollow words of sympathy when their money is diverted from their pensions and benefits in favour of banks and wealthy investors.
Canadians rightfully expect their government to "do the right thing."
Sears Mess Shows How Little Liberals Think Of Working Canadians
Sadly, however, Canadians should not be surprised by the Sears scandal and the scope of the devastation that so many will suffer. Successive Liberal and Conservative federal governments have allowed such scenarios to occur by repeatedly rejecting legislative reforms that would protect employees, pensioners and their families.
Members and retirees of my union, the United Steelworkers, know all too well the pain and anguish caused by unfair bankruptcy and insolvency laws that Liberal and Conservative governments have steadfastly maintained for decades.
Some of the most recent victims include more than 20,000 U.S. Steel Canada retirees whose crucial health benefits were eliminated and thousands of former employees and retirees of Cliffs Natural Resources who lost their health benefits and suffered deep cuts to pensions they earned over a lifetime of work.
Imagine a terminally ill pensioner who loses health benefits overnight and is forced to choose between buying food or potentially life-saving medication. Or retirees whose pensions were abruptly cut by $1,000 a month because their governments — quite intentionally — ensure they remain at the back of the queue in corporate insolvency cases, while the claims of big banks and wealthy investors come first.
Even the Supreme Court of Canada has noted that successive governments have made a deliberate choice to favour creditors such as banks and major investors over vulnerable pensioners and employees.
In a case that my union fought in the courts for several years, the Supreme Court sympathized with pensioners from the insolvent Toronto operations of multinational corporation Indalex. However, in its 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court determined that, under the terms of existing legislation, cuts to the Indalex retirees' pensions were lawful.
"There are good reasons for giving special protection to members of pension plans in insolvency proceedings," Supreme Court justices stated. But Parliament "chose not to" enact legislation to protect pensioners, they said.
It was also noted that during the Liberal government regime of the early- and mid-2000s, Liberal-dominated committees in the House of Commons and in the Senate took turns studying reforms to bankruptcy and insolvency legislation. In both cases, the Liberals opted not to stand up for the interests of workers and pensioners.
But after being turfed from office, the same Liberals changed their tune. Then-Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff vowed that his party, if re-elected, would change the law to protect workers and pensioners and ensure they would no longer be "left at the back of queue in insolvency and bankruptcy."
"It's not right. We agree with you," Ignatieff famously told thousands of laid-off Nortel workers in 2009. Following the Liberals' return to power in 2015, that promise appears to have been all but forgotten.
So it is particularly galling to hear the current Liberal government express sympathy for "the difficult circumstances" now faced by Sears workers and retirees. At least one Liberal MP has unabashedly chastised Sears and publicly called on the company to "do the right thing" for pensioners.
Of course, there is no acknowledgement from the Liberal government that, with its overwhelming majority in Parliament, it actually could "do the right thing" by enacting legislative reforms to better protect Canadians' wages, pensions and benefits.
Experts in bankruptcy and restructuring law have put forward practical and realistic legislative reforms that would protect employees and pensioners, without causing economic upheaval.
For example, amending the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) to give priority to severance packages, retirement benefits and money owed to pension plans "would be the easiest thing in the world" and would not result in undue harm to the business climate, says one expert on pension and benefit issues in insolvency cases.
Ultimately, reforming laws such as the BIA and the Companies' Creditor Arrangement Act is primarily a political choice. In other words, whose interests does the government of the day truly want to serve? That is the question facing the current Liberal government.
Canadian workers and pensioners want more than hollow words of sympathy when their money is diverted from their pensions and benefits in favour of banks and wealthy investors.
Canadians rightfully expect their government to "do the right thing."
Sears Mess Shows How Little Liberals Think Of Working Canadians
I have always been Leary of company pension plans since they are often subject to manipulation. For that matter I don't have all that much faith in our defined benefit union plan either. WHile possibly not as susceptible to manipulation it is somewhat at the mercy of the markets and the continued inputs from current workers. My choice would be the company give me the money to invest as I see fit. Then any problems are my own fault. Or a completely government pension plan that makes the politicians in charge personally responsible for any shortfall.
What happens, and what law should be changed is that the employees get paid their money first and let the creditors, banks, utilities etcetera get the 10 cents on the dollar instead of the other way around.
It's the only fair way to do it. The workers should not get shafted because of wayward management that screwed up.....
You diligently make contributions to your company pension plan with the assumption you'll get what you're entitled to when you part with your employer.
But that may not always be the case — depending on what type of plan you have and what happens to your company.
Currently, workers at both Sears Canada and Northstar Aerospace in Milton, Ont., are facing deep concerns about their pension prospects because of the problems plaguing their employers,
"This is not fair for us," says Naresh Ajmani, who retired from Northstar in 2015 after working for the manufacturer for 22 years, producing helicopter parts.
Ajmani recently learned from his union, Unifor, that because the Milton plant will soon be shut down due to lost business, his pension payments will likely be cut back.
"They have broken their promises," says Ajmani, who joined more than 100 Unifor members Thursday to stage a protest at the plant.
"I have set up my retirement. I'm not getting what I'm supposed to get."
Unifor claims that because the plant is shutting down in September, there will be an estimated $6-million shortfall in the employee pension plan, which Northstar is refusing to top up. As a result, the union says the 250 laid-off workers and retirees will face a potential 24 per cent reduction in their pension payments.
"To the workers that are going to lose a couple hundred dollars a month, it's significant. So someone's going to have to fix this," says Unifor national president Jerry Dias.
He also took part in the protest, which included blockading the plant's doors, preventing it from operating that day. "We had to take some dramatic action in order to get their attention."
Unifor may have received some attention, but it still faces an uphill battle for better pensions.
Northstar employees don't have a defined benefit pension where employers promise a certain level of payout to retirees.
Instead, they have a target benefit pension plan where, if there's a shortfall, the employer can choose to dole out reduced payments.
"We're not talking about any flagrant disregard for the collective agreement or breach of the labour relations act," says employment lawyer Muneeza Sheikh, with Levitt LLP in Toronto.
"What we have is a situation where Unifor is saying: what you're doing from a public accountability standpoint, from a moral standpoint, is extremely disrespectful and a slap in the face."
Northstar's parent company, Heligear, claims it's not responsible for any looming pension problems. The U.S. company says it made all the required payments, and that the plan was underfunded when it took over the Northstar plant in 2012.
"Any reduction or shortfall is a function of the plan management and design, which are not within Heligear's control," the company said in a statement.
Still, that's little comfort for retirees like Ajmani, who believes he will get a reduced pension. "Pension is a promise," he says.
It may be a promise, but sometimes, promises get to be broken. Sears Canada retirees also fear they may not get the pension they were promised.
As part of a court-supervised restructuring process, the cash-strapped retailer is closing 54 stores and laying off 2,900 workers without severance.
Sears Canada has also requested court permission to stop topping up the underfunded retiree pension plan, though the retailer recently agreed to postpone that matter until Sept. 30.
Many of Sears' 16,000 retirees fear that if the company is allowed to stop making pension contributions, they will receive reduced pensions. Sears claims that may not necessarily be the case.
Recently laid-off employees who are collecting their pension in a lump-sum payout are facing another concern.
Sears Canada is only paying them 81 per cent of their pension value at this time; the remaining 19 per cent will be paid over five years, which is perfectly legal.
However, the missing money makes Kim Throop nervous. The former floor manager spent 24 years at the Sears store in Coburg, Ont., before it closed in March. She says she has already lost an estimated $16,000 in severance and now worries she may never see the rest of her defined benefit pension.
"There is some concern there, because you don't know what's going to happen in the next five years," says Throop. "If Sears goes down, will we see that 19 per cent?"
Employment lawyer Chantel Goldsmith says if the restructuring doesn't work and Sears goes bankrupt, chances are Throop won't get the rest of her pension. Retirees would become unsecured creditors who would have to line up behind secured creditors, like banks, to try to recoup that 19 per cent.
"If the secured creditors take all the money in the pool and there's nothing left for unsecured creditors, then, unfortunately, they'd be out of luck," says Goldsmith, with Samfiru Tumarkin LLP in Toronto.
Of course, Sears may successfully restructure and Throop may eventually get her full pension.
But the situation is another reminder that sometimes there are no guarantees that the pension you are promised on paper is what you will actually wind up with in retirement.
Is your pension safe? It may depend on what happens to your company - Business - CBC News
But that may not always be the case — depending on what type of plan you have and what happens to your company.
Currently, workers at both Sears Canada and Northstar Aerospace in Milton, Ont., are facing deep concerns about their pension prospects because of the problems plaguing their employers,
"This is not fair for us," says Naresh Ajmani, who retired from Northstar in 2015 after working for the manufacturer for 22 years, producing helicopter parts.
Ajmani recently learned from his union, Unifor, that because the Milton plant will soon be shut down due to lost business, his pension payments will likely be cut back.
"They have broken their promises," says Ajmani, who joined more than 100 Unifor members Thursday to stage a protest at the plant.
"I have set up my retirement. I'm not getting what I'm supposed to get."
Unifor claims that because the plant is shutting down in September, there will be an estimated $6-million shortfall in the employee pension plan, which Northstar is refusing to top up. As a result, the union says the 250 laid-off workers and retirees will face a potential 24 per cent reduction in their pension payments.
"To the workers that are going to lose a couple hundred dollars a month, it's significant. So someone's going to have to fix this," says Unifor national president Jerry Dias.
He also took part in the protest, which included blockading the plant's doors, preventing it from operating that day. "We had to take some dramatic action in order to get their attention."
Unifor may have received some attention, but it still faces an uphill battle for better pensions.
Northstar employees don't have a defined benefit pension where employers promise a certain level of payout to retirees.
Instead, they have a target benefit pension plan where, if there's a shortfall, the employer can choose to dole out reduced payments.
"We're not talking about any flagrant disregard for the collective agreement or breach of the labour relations act," says employment lawyer Muneeza Sheikh, with Levitt LLP in Toronto.
"What we have is a situation where Unifor is saying: what you're doing from a public accountability standpoint, from a moral standpoint, is extremely disrespectful and a slap in the face."
Northstar's parent company, Heligear, claims it's not responsible for any looming pension problems. The U.S. company says it made all the required payments, and that the plan was underfunded when it took over the Northstar plant in 2012.
"Any reduction or shortfall is a function of the plan management and design, which are not within Heligear's control," the company said in a statement.
Still, that's little comfort for retirees like Ajmani, who believes he will get a reduced pension. "Pension is a promise," he says.
It may be a promise, but sometimes, promises get to be broken. Sears Canada retirees also fear they may not get the pension they were promised.
As part of a court-supervised restructuring process, the cash-strapped retailer is closing 54 stores and laying off 2,900 workers without severance.
Sears Canada has also requested court permission to stop topping up the underfunded retiree pension plan, though the retailer recently agreed to postpone that matter until Sept. 30.
Many of Sears' 16,000 retirees fear that if the company is allowed to stop making pension contributions, they will receive reduced pensions. Sears claims that may not necessarily be the case.
Recently laid-off employees who are collecting their pension in a lump-sum payout are facing another concern.
Sears Canada is only paying them 81 per cent of their pension value at this time; the remaining 19 per cent will be paid over five years, which is perfectly legal.
However, the missing money makes Kim Throop nervous. The former floor manager spent 24 years at the Sears store in Coburg, Ont., before it closed in March. She says she has already lost an estimated $16,000 in severance and now worries she may never see the rest of her defined benefit pension.
"There is some concern there, because you don't know what's going to happen in the next five years," says Throop. "If Sears goes down, will we see that 19 per cent?"
Employment lawyer Chantel Goldsmith says if the restructuring doesn't work and Sears goes bankrupt, chances are Throop won't get the rest of her pension. Retirees would become unsecured creditors who would have to line up behind secured creditors, like banks, to try to recoup that 19 per cent.
"If the secured creditors take all the money in the pool and there's nothing left for unsecured creditors, then, unfortunately, they'd be out of luck," says Goldsmith, with Samfiru Tumarkin LLP in Toronto.
Of course, Sears may successfully restructure and Throop may eventually get her full pension.
But the situation is another reminder that sometimes there are no guarantees that the pension you are promised on paper is what you will actually wind up with in retirement.
Is your pension safe? It may depend on what happens to your company - Business - CBC News