http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... ur-by-2019
One really really has to wonder what would happen, if the minimal wage in BC went up to $15. I'm just thinking of this as a hypothetical, and considering how it might affect the planting industry, job market, and bid geography.
Minimum wage is already slated for 11.35. With the recent change in government, this could really happen. Our Premiere-to-be John Horgan tabled a petition with the BC Fed of Labor and 56,000 signatures for a $15 minimum wage back in February, and he actually pledged to make the change by the end of his first term.
Consider this. Using the ESA 37.9 formula, based on 11-hour days. Assign 8 hours per day for hours 1-8, and 4.5 hours for hours 9-11 (calculated at time X 1.5). Then add 4% vacay and 4% stat.
You get 202.50 per day. So, $2227.50 as a base bi-weekly rate, assuming 11 days in the pay period. $2430 if there are 12 days in the pay period. Any planter not reaching that based on production would be entitled to a top up on their wages. Yes, we know that most vets achieve that easily.....well nothing is ever achieved easily, but you know what I mean. However, it is very reasonable to think that a large number of newer workers would be working below "top-up" rates for the whole season.....and certainly for many weeks to start
This could entail a massive shift.
>Would newer workers even be motivated to get faster? When the reward for pounding is so marginal compared to the reward for just working like a regular person, how would workers be encouraged to produce?
>>Workers aren't stupid. They can count and do math. Say you get toward the end of a pay period, and your production has generally sucked for the past 8 to 10 days, and has fallen short of, or even close to the wage threshold. There would actually be no motivation for a worker to do anything at all to achieve wage-equivalent-production in the last few days. In fact, they may be motivated to just slack right off. To be clear, I'm not suggesting this is cool; I'm only considering the implications.
>Companies are really struggling to find workers this year. Many top companies are searching high and low. Planters cannot just be replaced. There is an investment in training and administration. Moreover, the random bodies you might pick up to replace planters are unlikely to be any better than what you lose, and in fact may be much worse.
>How will this affect bidding behavior, particularly on large volume jobs, and for employers with higher turnover? One must think they would need to be prepared to allocate an additional few thousand dollars per potential topped-up worker that they carry. That could add up.
>It's not just bids, but other financial imperatives. Would some companies be stretched to or past the limit to cover payroll as they wait for contract payment?
>Even vet companies with higher average production may feel the affect. It's not just about the people reaching up to surpass the minimal threshold....what about those people that grind it out to stay just above? This is basic worker psychology. Why would someone chafe and grind themselves to the limit, when they could take a serious foot off the gas, and make almost as much?
>What about enforcement action? There are certainly persisting cases of non-compliance with employment standards in some pockets within the industry. Would a significant shift in the wage result in wider non-compliance as contractors on the bubble come up against the wall?
>How much more difficult might it become to attract workers if they face the opportunity to earn roughly equivalent wages for scooping ice cream or sitting in a booth somewhere? To be clear, lack of workers hurts everyone in the industry, not just the high turnover companies. Workers are the lifeblood of silviculture.
>Might we see change in payment structure, with different levels of production incentives? With the cost of accommodating and managing marginal-producers, would there suddenly be a premium placed on highly productive workers? I would think that companies may have to find new ways of tapping into people's competitive base, and their economic motivations. Perhaps some sort of true bonus system that reward specific levels of production/achievement. Would we see Alec Baldwin touring the camp, like in Glengarry Glen Ross?
>Would there be a group to lobby for a repeal of ESA 37.9? I would think there would be as much or more opposition to changing the reg as for it, and I would think that the current government would not even consider such a move.
>How would the licensees respond?
[/list]
Again, I'm just throwing this out for discussion, because I see this wage change as a legitimate possibility.
I'm not seeking to argue the pros and cons of such a change, or lobbying for this change. I'm more interested in how it would play out. This is the kind of thing that companies need to stay ahead of to survive.
Whaddaya' reckon?
$15 wage?
-
Scooter
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 4517
- Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
- Location: New Brunswick
- Contact:
Re: $15 wage?
We're already looking at this (the first part). Too busy to discuss in depth at this point in the season, but Alberta's minimum wage is going to be that rate in two years and we're already planning for $200/day minimums.
Mind you, I heard today of one large BC company operating out of Prince George that is NOT currently paying minimum wage top-ups as per legal requirements. That caught me by surprise that they've gotten away with it for so long. What's the point of having regulations if the government doesn't have the teeth or the motivation to enforce them?
Considering that I heard about this situation from an angry parent, and the contractor in question has a lot of work for the provincial government, they may not fly under the radar much longer.
Mind you, I heard today of one large BC company operating out of Prince George that is NOT currently paying minimum wage top-ups as per legal requirements. That caught me by surprise that they've gotten away with it for so long. What's the point of having regulations if the government doesn't have the teeth or the motivation to enforce them?
Considering that I heard about this situation from an angry parent, and the contractor in question has a lot of work for the provincial government, they may not fly under the radar much longer.
Free download of "Step By Step" training book: www.replant.ca/digitaldownloads
Personal Email: jonathan.scooter.clark@gmail.com
Sponsor Tree Planting: www.replant-environmental.ca
(to build community forests, not to be turned into 2x4's and toilet paper)
Personal Email: jonathan.scooter.clark@gmail.com
Sponsor Tree Planting: www.replant-environmental.ca
(to build community forests, not to be turned into 2x4's and toilet paper)
Re: $15 wage?
The more I think about it, the bigger of an issue this seems. The implications could have domino effects.
>>Companies will not just be able to shave money from their higher-producers to subsidize low-producers. High-ballers would simply walk en-mass and congregate where prices permit them to achieve optimal rewards for their efforts.
>>There could be increased stratification within the industry, dividing companies based strictly on their ability to maintain a workforce that surpasses minimal-wage levels. This could hit hard for companies with high-turnover, and provide significant expansion opportunities for others.
>>There are dozens of different incentive models that may be used, including true bonuses (guaranteed above and beyond earnings) for daily, shiftly, seasonal, or pay-period achievements. A t-shirt or ballcap won't cut it anymore. Contractors may have to devise clear cash-award systems, and then ensure these are implemented in a way that satisfies regulation. The choice of model could be the make-it-or-break-it for many contractors.
>>Training systems would have to be totally revamped. Good employers understand that a significant investment is required early on to ensure workers can produce without problems (injury or quality) throughout the season. Those that think half a day with a vet is enough, would likely have to make some changes to their model.
>>Shirkers (non-compliers), and there are a persistent few unfortunately..... We may see brand new ideas for cheating the system. I think the standard short-cuts are fairly well known. How innovative might the few be if pressed to the wall?
>> Related to above- might some companies start to carve up their crew. You may see some people being assigned to the worst possible ground and nastiest pieces, perhaps on some sort of guaranteed day rate with a quota, while high-production workers are assigned to the cream. In turn, that cream may be downgraded in price, so that companies can use faster workers to subsidize day-rated workers. So instead of stratification between companies, you may see stratification within companies.... I'm not trying to put ideas in anyone's head, but I know the managers would be figuring these things out anyway.....Of course this may only work in cases where you have significant variation in conditions. Perhaps there would be increased movement of planters between contracts within a company, with people being assigned and re-assigned based on their ability to meet wage-equivalent-production.
>>Spinning off that, if companies do radically restructure the incentive system in a way that stratifies workers, what would this mean for the culture of the workplace? Would it affect the way workers relate to each other, and would it introduce new (and uneven) treatment of workers according to production? Might incentives start to include choice of accommodation, contract location, land pieces, and so forth? So many things could be on the table.
>> Perhaps most interesting, is that the guaranteed wage approximates what many companies pay on a day-rate basis. How many companies might consider a shift toward a true dayrate model, with perhaps quota systems? Might this accompany a shift in business models that emphasizes quality over quantity. If the metrics for production surpassing wage cannot be managed, maybe a new approach can emerge? Perhaps Fieldstone's old "dayrate-plus" system will be resurrected.
>>What of injury-management systems? Companies are legally required to pay wages equivalent to normal wages. In planting, this typically should reflect guaranteed minimums. Camp costs is simply not an acceptable wage for a worker on alternate duties. How might companies adjust their injury management policies in the face of needing to pay $200 =/- per day? Will some simply abandon the program? Again, not advocating, just considering the possibilities.
>>Maybe I have it wrong about workers potentially being drawn to other jobs and away from planting. Maybe the opposite will occur, and workers will flock to the block knowing that they have guaranteed wages BASE ON LONG HOURS*****. As a spring/summer job, the ability to generate 700-900 hours at a guaranteed wage (with August off) may actually start to look pretty darned good compared to 40 hour M-F in the city with high rent.
>>(I keep editing and adding points) - If employers indeed were forced to raise prices, perhaps we would see workers stay in the industry longer. This would help reduce the costs associated with retraining new workers. Moreover, if workers stayed in the industry longer (thus reducing turnover), then ostensibly there would be fewer costs associated with topping up pay. That is, perhaps bid prices would not have to increase in lockstep with tree prices....that is the need for top-up is largely a byproduct of turnover. If you adjust conditions to reduce turnover, the cost (or frequency) of top-up will decline.
This is the fascinating thing about such a change. It is incredibly dynamic, liquid, and unpredictable. I've only thrown out stream-of-consciousness ideas thus far. I would have to sit down, and really ruminate on the many factors at play before making any predictions.
I do not take this lightly, and I do not consider these issues without regard for contractors and workers. To be sure, people's livelihoods, businesses, investments, and families may be at stake here. It is no small thing to consider wholesale restructuring of the industry, and beyond the numbers and the regulations I have concerns for the people involved in this.
>>Companies will not just be able to shave money from their higher-producers to subsidize low-producers. High-ballers would simply walk en-mass and congregate where prices permit them to achieve optimal rewards for their efforts.
>>There could be increased stratification within the industry, dividing companies based strictly on their ability to maintain a workforce that surpasses minimal-wage levels. This could hit hard for companies with high-turnover, and provide significant expansion opportunities for others.
>>There are dozens of different incentive models that may be used, including true bonuses (guaranteed above and beyond earnings) for daily, shiftly, seasonal, or pay-period achievements. A t-shirt or ballcap won't cut it anymore. Contractors may have to devise clear cash-award systems, and then ensure these are implemented in a way that satisfies regulation. The choice of model could be the make-it-or-break-it for many contractors.
>>Training systems would have to be totally revamped. Good employers understand that a significant investment is required early on to ensure workers can produce without problems (injury or quality) throughout the season. Those that think half a day with a vet is enough, would likely have to make some changes to their model.
>>Shirkers (non-compliers), and there are a persistent few unfortunately..... We may see brand new ideas for cheating the system. I think the standard short-cuts are fairly well known. How innovative might the few be if pressed to the wall?
>> Related to above- might some companies start to carve up their crew. You may see some people being assigned to the worst possible ground and nastiest pieces, perhaps on some sort of guaranteed day rate with a quota, while high-production workers are assigned to the cream. In turn, that cream may be downgraded in price, so that companies can use faster workers to subsidize day-rated workers. So instead of stratification between companies, you may see stratification within companies.... I'm not trying to put ideas in anyone's head, but I know the managers would be figuring these things out anyway.....Of course this may only work in cases where you have significant variation in conditions. Perhaps there would be increased movement of planters between contracts within a company, with people being assigned and re-assigned based on their ability to meet wage-equivalent-production.
>>Spinning off that, if companies do radically restructure the incentive system in a way that stratifies workers, what would this mean for the culture of the workplace? Would it affect the way workers relate to each other, and would it introduce new (and uneven) treatment of workers according to production? Might incentives start to include choice of accommodation, contract location, land pieces, and so forth? So many things could be on the table.
>> Perhaps most interesting, is that the guaranteed wage approximates what many companies pay on a day-rate basis. How many companies might consider a shift toward a true dayrate model, with perhaps quota systems? Might this accompany a shift in business models that emphasizes quality over quantity. If the metrics for production surpassing wage cannot be managed, maybe a new approach can emerge? Perhaps Fieldstone's old "dayrate-plus" system will be resurrected.
>>What of injury-management systems? Companies are legally required to pay wages equivalent to normal wages. In planting, this typically should reflect guaranteed minimums. Camp costs is simply not an acceptable wage for a worker on alternate duties. How might companies adjust their injury management policies in the face of needing to pay $200 =/- per day? Will some simply abandon the program? Again, not advocating, just considering the possibilities.
>>Maybe I have it wrong about workers potentially being drawn to other jobs and away from planting. Maybe the opposite will occur, and workers will flock to the block knowing that they have guaranteed wages BASE ON LONG HOURS*****. As a spring/summer job, the ability to generate 700-900 hours at a guaranteed wage (with August off) may actually start to look pretty darned good compared to 40 hour M-F in the city with high rent.
>>(I keep editing and adding points) - If employers indeed were forced to raise prices, perhaps we would see workers stay in the industry longer. This would help reduce the costs associated with retraining new workers. Moreover, if workers stayed in the industry longer (thus reducing turnover), then ostensibly there would be fewer costs associated with topping up pay. That is, perhaps bid prices would not have to increase in lockstep with tree prices....that is the need for top-up is largely a byproduct of turnover. If you adjust conditions to reduce turnover, the cost (or frequency) of top-up will decline.
This is the fascinating thing about such a change. It is incredibly dynamic, liquid, and unpredictable. I've only thrown out stream-of-consciousness ideas thus far. I would have to sit down, and really ruminate on the many factors at play before making any predictions.
I do not take this lightly, and I do not consider these issues without regard for contractors and workers. To be sure, people's livelihoods, businesses, investments, and families may be at stake here. It is no small thing to consider wholesale restructuring of the industry, and beyond the numbers and the regulations I have concerns for the people involved in this.
Last edited by jdtesluk on Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:48 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Re: $15 wage?
I'm going to create a new acronym here. WEP. Wage Equivalent Production. This means planting enough trees that your production-based pay meets or surpasses what you would be guaranteed according to Employment Standards Act 37.9 wage regulations.
Re: $15 wage?
Why not name the persistent Shirkers? As they are breaking laws (regs) why is there a seemingly avoidance of advertising their names while espousing adherence to said regs? Corsair went tits up!! Owes $$ to many workers and companies.. Are we looking out for each other or just bloviating? Names please!!
Re: $15 wage?
The entire system is based on worker complaints. It is up to workers to name companies that do not comply, and to tell others about their experiences. It would be irresponsible of me to peddle in rumors, even with reliable sources. Moreover, my goal here was not to draw out names. It was specifically to stimulate discussion about potential impacts of a minimum wage shift.
That being said, you raise another important point here. If compliance/non-compliance were to be a more important factor under a $15 min wage regime, then how WILL workers respond? I suggest that under the current system ($10.85), there is seldom a huge margin between production and minimal wage. As a season progresses, that gap should shrink and usually disappear. Thus, by the end or even mid-point of the season, workers would have a reduced motive for filing a grievance.
However, under a $15 regime, with production and tree prices held constant, there would be much larger production-min wage gaps, and those gaps would persist to the end of the season for many workers. Thus, there would be increased financial motive for workers to demand fair pay.
Really, the impacts of this would be far-reaching, and send shockwaves through many industries. There could be significant costs passed on to consumers in many cases (i.e., service) which could impact recreation and tourism industries. For certain, there will be a strong lobby group against it, as well as the historical groups that support it. Within silviculture, I also expect that some companies may simply choose to fold up shop. This is not an outlandish idea for those with a business model that would be unevenly be affected by this move. Perhaps for junior partners there may be unprecedented (and risky!) opportunities to buy out retiring partners that don't want to ride out a multi-year restructuring process.
If I was a contractor right now, I would be tracking my payroll very carefully, and I would be calculating a running total of what it would cost to meet payroll under a $15 min-wage regime. The difference between that number and what is paid out now is a critical figure that will need to be factored into plans if this change occurs.
I also want to be clear, I'm not advocating one way or another. This change is already proposed....the silviculture industry has limited ability to sway this. I would expect that there would be a transition plan for industries, and workshops from Ministry of Labor to help smooth the move. Despite this, there would still be some level of chaos, and both contractors and workers will face uncertainties in their jobs. I'm not a huge fan of uncertainty when it comes to work, and think it is best for all parties to have a solid plan in place. I somehow expect there could be some extra meetings this fall if the NDP wage plan proceeds as indicated.
That being said, you raise another important point here. If compliance/non-compliance were to be a more important factor under a $15 min wage regime, then how WILL workers respond? I suggest that under the current system ($10.85), there is seldom a huge margin between production and minimal wage. As a season progresses, that gap should shrink and usually disappear. Thus, by the end or even mid-point of the season, workers would have a reduced motive for filing a grievance.
However, under a $15 regime, with production and tree prices held constant, there would be much larger production-min wage gaps, and those gaps would persist to the end of the season for many workers. Thus, there would be increased financial motive for workers to demand fair pay.
Really, the impacts of this would be far-reaching, and send shockwaves through many industries. There could be significant costs passed on to consumers in many cases (i.e., service) which could impact recreation and tourism industries. For certain, there will be a strong lobby group against it, as well as the historical groups that support it. Within silviculture, I also expect that some companies may simply choose to fold up shop. This is not an outlandish idea for those with a business model that would be unevenly be affected by this move. Perhaps for junior partners there may be unprecedented (and risky!) opportunities to buy out retiring partners that don't want to ride out a multi-year restructuring process.
If I was a contractor right now, I would be tracking my payroll very carefully, and I would be calculating a running total of what it would cost to meet payroll under a $15 min-wage regime. The difference between that number and what is paid out now is a critical figure that will need to be factored into plans if this change occurs.
I also want to be clear, I'm not advocating one way or another. This change is already proposed....the silviculture industry has limited ability to sway this. I would expect that there would be a transition plan for industries, and workshops from Ministry of Labor to help smooth the move. Despite this, there would still be some level of chaos, and both contractors and workers will face uncertainties in their jobs. I'm not a huge fan of uncertainty when it comes to work, and think it is best for all parties to have a solid plan in place. I somehow expect there could be some extra meetings this fall if the NDP wage plan proceeds as indicated.
Re: $15 wage?
>Companies are really struggling to find workers this year. Many top companies are searching high and low
Companies were struggling to find people 3 years ago. It's good to hear it's still going on.
Also, shaving EI hours to 8 instead of portal to portal is going to be the new norm. 8 hours = $129.6. Employers will say "You're sitting in a truck, why pay you for it?"
11 hours (7am-6pm) with 4% VAC and 4% stat = 202.5
12 hours (7am-7pm) with VAC & Stat = $227.8
Serious implications for the rookie mills, for sure. If you go through my signature, probably ~50% of the camps I've been in have, at points, had camp averages at or below that number.
Companies were struggling to find people 3 years ago. It's good to hear it's still going on.
Also, shaving EI hours to 8 instead of portal to portal is going to be the new norm. 8 hours = $129.6. Employers will say "You're sitting in a truck, why pay you for it?"
11 hours (7am-6pm) with 4% VAC and 4% stat = 202.5
12 hours (7am-7pm) with VAC & Stat = $227.8
Serious implications for the rookie mills, for sure. If you go through my signature, probably ~50% of the camps I've been in have, at points, had camp averages at or below that number.
All of my company reviews and experience (The Planting Company, Windfirm, ELF, Folklore, Dynamic, Timberline, Eric Boyd, Wagner, Little Smokey, Leader, plus my lists for summer work and coastal) can be found at the start of the Folklore review due to URL and character limits.
Folklore, 2011: http://tinyurl.com/anl6mkd
Folklore, 2011: http://tinyurl.com/anl6mkd
Re: $15 wage?
Shaving hours is of course absolutely and unquestionably illegal. This is very clearly addressed in the guidelines for 37.9 of the Employment Standards Regulation. Hours MUST be calculated portal to portal.
Yes, come companies may consider doing this. However, they do so at peril of their own economic survival. There is clear precedent for deciding these cases, and I expect an NDP led bureaucratic regime to show no mercy for companies that try to cut corners on labour standards. The likely Minister of Labour is well versed in 37.9 and knows the industry well. A change in regulatory attitude is also rising in Alberta with indications that OHS (Alberta) will be investigating labour standards violations in concert with their safety review activities.
Edit: The appointed Minister of Labour has no forestry background. Not quite who I expected. Nonetheless, the new Premiere and cabinet is the first domino to fall here.
Yes, come companies may consider doing this. However, they do so at peril of their own economic survival. There is clear precedent for deciding these cases, and I expect an NDP led bureaucratic regime to show no mercy for companies that try to cut corners on labour standards. The likely Minister of Labour is well versed in 37.9 and knows the industry well. A change in regulatory attitude is also rising in Alberta with indications that OHS (Alberta) will be investigating labour standards violations in concert with their safety review activities.
Edit: The appointed Minister of Labour has no forestry background. Not quite who I expected. Nonetheless, the new Premiere and cabinet is the first domino to fall here.
Re: $15 wage?
The way I see it, bid prices will only go up in order to discourage the lackadaisical attitude that the previous poster is predicting.
On a broader scale, in my mind, it's ridiculous to think an increase in the minimum wage will solve the issue of being working poor. All this will do is result in price increases for everything (products and services), which will lead to another discussion on further minimum wage increase, etc. It's a never ending spiral. The only way this spiral will end is if government stepped up and put a stop to corporate greed. Giving more to the working poor is a good idea, but as we all know, corporations will not want to see a decrease in their PROFITS so prices will increase to counteract the labour increases. It all boils down to GREED and as long as governments allow this to happen at the expense of it's citizens, nothing will ever change.
I don't have the answer, but it's something our society needs to work on. Some of the minimum wages in Western European nations are much higher than here, and everyone (corporations included) seem to be happy - but that's only because they also have a much healthier social system, and they understand that corporate greed is not good for society. I think until North Americans understand this principle, we will be having this discussion for generations to come.
On a broader scale, in my mind, it's ridiculous to think an increase in the minimum wage will solve the issue of being working poor. All this will do is result in price increases for everything (products and services), which will lead to another discussion on further minimum wage increase, etc. It's a never ending spiral. The only way this spiral will end is if government stepped up and put a stop to corporate greed. Giving more to the working poor is a good idea, but as we all know, corporations will not want to see a decrease in their PROFITS so prices will increase to counteract the labour increases. It all boils down to GREED and as long as governments allow this to happen at the expense of it's citizens, nothing will ever change.
I don't have the answer, but it's something our society needs to work on. Some of the minimum wages in Western European nations are much higher than here, and everyone (corporations included) seem to be happy - but that's only because they also have a much healthier social system, and they understand that corporate greed is not good for society. I think until North Americans understand this principle, we will be having this discussion for generations to come.
Re: $15 wage?
RPF- important thoughts you offer. This wage change (if it occurs) should also be seen within the broader context. Indeed, tweaking the wage is only adjusting one part of society, and will not solve bigger problems for planters or other workers as the rest of the system re-adjusts around them. Think of this as a change in a fluid system, rather than a simple mechanical adjustment.