Potentially significant impact on industry wages

jdtesluk · Post by **jdtesluk** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:25 pm

Story here: http://www.vancouversun.com/minimum+wag ... story.html

While this has nothing directly to do with treeplanting, it has the potential to significantly affect the economics of bidding contracts, particularly by companies that rely heavily on new workers and rookies.

If the minimum wage was to rise to $10.25 (wish wish). the minimal pay level for a worker doing 12 hour days over a two week pay period would be something to the affect of $143.50 per day (based on guaranteed equivalency of minimum wage for the first 8 hours ($10.25 per hour x 8 hours = 82.00), and min wage times 1.5 for hours 9 through 12 (15.37 per hour x 4 hours = $61.50) --approx'ed--This represents a substantial jump from the $112 currently guranteed under the same formula calculated on $8 per hour.

Thus, a new worker that completes ten days of work in the first two weeks of employment (assuming 12 hour days, and they must be paid from time they get in the truck in the morning until they get back to camp or motel) would be guaranteed a total of $1435.00 PLUS any additional calculations and minus any (legislatively limited) camp cost or motel deductions.

Of course, the logic here is that faced with increased cost of guaranteed wages, companies will be forced to increase their bid prices across the board, and the forestry companies will in turn be forced to pay a higher premium for reforestation work. The ultimate impact (ideally) is that licensees will be forced to provide fair payment for silviculture, with a corresponding alteration to the lower end of the bidding structure, thus producing indirect impacts on broader bidding practices by all contractors.

Of course, I'll believe it when it happens, Ms. Clark is probably feeling the need to make a lot of political firends in a short period of time, and does not hold a very good relationship with the lower ranks of wage-earners in this province. Nonetheless, it is a Liberal initiative that I would personally be glad to see.

barnbill · Post by **barnbill** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:34 pm

what is really going to create an impact is the elimination of the 6$ per hr "training wage" in BC that allowed employers to only pay that rate for the first 500 hrs of "training"

Post by **Scooter** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:17 pm

Even New Brunswick, which is typically one of the provinces with the lowest minimum wages, will be at $10 per hour on September 1st (up from $9.50).

Bostock · Post by **Bostock** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:35 pm

I'd like to see and ROE that has 12 hours a day on it. 8-10 is normal in my experience. last time I work for a shit box company that expected 12 hours of production out of me I made a point on never working more then 10. the shit box company expecting 12 hours of production had shitty planers to go along with it, so there was no worries about lacking production if I knocked of early. I think KG was the only one who out produced me based on his epic keen-ness

long and the short of it 8 times 10.25 is $82. big deal!

jdtesluk · Post by **jdtesluk** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:39 pm

barnbill wrote:what is really going to create an impact is the elimination of the 6$ per hr "training wage" in BC that allowed employers to only pay that rate for the first 500 hrs of "training"

I'd be curious to know how much this actually factors into planting. I somehow expect that most employers will want new hires (even rookies) that have at least a year of work under their belt at some job (any job). Taking a kid who has never had a paying job and throwing them into planting or something is likely to result in more failures than successes in terms of return on your hiring and training investment.

However, in regards to other industries, I agree with this being a major issue, particularly in sectors that may target young people in their first job. Probably includes some food and retail sub-sectors. For the general poverty-level though, I don't think it will have as much of an overall impact because most people that are making wages to support themselves and their family have moved beyond the 500 hour mark. Perhaps indirectly, eliminating the cheap $6 labour will level the field for wage-earners seeking jobs at the minimum wage level.

jdtesluk · Post by **jdtesluk** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:45 pm

Bostock wrote:I'd like to see and ROE that has 12 hours a day on it. 8-10 is normal in my experience. last time I work for a shit box company that expected 12 hours of production out of me I made a point on never working more then 10. the shit box company expecting 12 hours of production had shitty planers to go along with it, so there was no worries about lacking production if I knocked of early. I think KG was the only one who out produced me based on his epic keen-ness

long and the short of it 8 times 10.25 is $82. big deal!

Report them to Employment Standards if they refuse to credit you for the proper number of hours, you are entitled to credit for all hours from time you get in the truck to the time you get out at the end of the day. I certainly suggest you talk to the company first and seek to resolve it there, but don't take no for an answer. I have spoken to many planters that have addressed this directly with their employer and obtained cooperation. However, if that fails, this is currently a significant issue to Employment Standards and they are building precedents at this current time upon which future cases will be determined. The agency has not only been involved in several cases in the past year, but are also interested in receiving further grievances from affected employees.

Bostock · Post by **Bostock** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:52 pm

I guess the fact is I dont plant so I can go on ei all winter. ei is nice and I always get enough hours to get from contract to contract or job to job. so i have never even though about it. but yes the few time i have known i would not be returning in the early spring (this year) my request for more hours has been met.

I never really thought about the legality of it all before. good points and thanks for bringing it up.

donkeyrider · Post by **donkeyrider** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:54 am

I brought up the issue of not getting enough hours on my roe this last season, and trying to get enough hours to make EI in the off season. Up until this season I always expected to go back to Uni, but I just graduated so the EI would have helped out a ton. Worked around 80+ last season. 77 days at 12 hours/day is 924... If I remember correctly you need 920. I got around 810. which is that 10 a day average. Pissed me off because other people who worked half as hard as me did get bumped up on their hours.

jdtesluk · Post by **jdtesluk** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:10 am

I would suggest that the number of hours on your ROE has ramifications beyond EI claims. In fact, I wasn't even thinking about EI claims when I was referring to hours, but it clearly is an important issue to some. COnsidering that EI is a federal system, there is a whole different level of appeal available to workers that are cheated on hours that affect their EI eligibility (Federal Tax Court). This agency has historically played a key role in planting. Between 1982 and 1986, several groups of planters went to the FTC to appeal their eligibility for EI (and won!). The case topic was different (dealing with eligibiligy based on being classified as a sub-contractor or an employee) but still relevant.

The original reason I brought up hours, has to do with the people at the bottom of the earning ladder- those that may (or should) have their pay bumped up from their production earnings to match minimal wage (in accordance with Employment Srtandards 37.9). For them, the number of hours they get credit for is very important. If employers skimp on their hours, it allows them to scrape along without adjusting their budget (or bidding) to meet the true and fair costs of labour. Perhaps there are few such people on this forum, but it is a key issue in the economics of the industry. I would suggest that even experienced and highly producing planters have a role to play here. When you demand your entitlement of hours, you are helping to level the playing field- you are standing up for yourself and everyone else, and helping assert the rights and regulations that affect the economic conditions of your industry. The majority of contractors are conscientous people and they will credit you for correct numbers of hours, or make appropriate adjustments upon your reasonable and clearly stated request. So, again, I recommend talking to your employer about this if you see discrepencies.

Direct quote from the Silviculture Guidelines for Contractors for administration of Employment Standards Regulation 37.9:
Minimum Wage

The work day begins and ends at the camp or motel. For purposes of calculating minimum wage, all hours worked between leaving the camp or motel and returning are counted as hours worked. The earnings must account for the hours spent working, including those spent traveling.

RPF · Post by **RPF** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:46 am

When contractors bid on a job, do they really take this minimum wage issue into consideration?

From my perspective, I've only hired contractors who employ experienced workers - each of whom earn well above the minimum wage anyway. I'm not sure that raising the minimum wage will necessarily result in an increase in bid prices - at least not from well established reputable contractors.

Mike · Post by **Mike** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:16 pm

I definitely have seen rookies not pull out their minimum wage in the first 3 shifts (15 days, 12 planting days) and not get paid minimum wage despite that. They quit soon after and forget about it. I'm also sceptical that this will have any change. As for # of hours; it's easy for a company to think "10 to 5" and put down 10 hours, despite you getting back at 7:00 each night. I'd be concerned that if I went through and asked for them, I'd simply be fired (equally, I'd be concerned that any rookie asking for minimum wage would simply be fired).

I actually remember in my first year thinking that they should guarantee minimum wage during the first few weeks. Funny, they already did, I just didn't know that.

Richianity · Post by **Richianity** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:14 pm

Higher minimum wage = higher costs to the business. If costs increase then mills/forestry companies etc will push off non-required work into the future to save money (and therefore do less work). They will also want to hire fewer workers and expect more out of each individual worker.

This will be a negative for the amount of planting work available, but good for crappy rookie that is just going to quit anyways 3 weeks into the season (assuming s/he even gets hired - wow, they're expensive). As a baller etc (and siliviculture contractor), higher minimum wage means less money for you....I wonder how many silviculture contractors can take a 25% increase in cost to their largest expense line item and still survive?

If you make more than minimum wage in the silviculture industry you should be against this.

SwampDonkey · Post by **SwampDonkey** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:24 pm

Scooter wrote:Even New Brunswick, which is typically one of the provinces with the lowest minimum wages, will be at $10 per hour on September 1st (up from $9.50).

And $14.15 and $15/hr for overtime on more than 44 hours. Better off thinning in NB than traipsing off to BC to plant trees. ;D

Screefhead · Post by **Screefhead** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:27 pm

The only changes I could see happening is that planting companies might be even less inclined to hire new rookies and lowballers will be fired much quicker.

jdtesluk · Post by **jdtesluk** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:30 pm

There are a lot of push-pull effects with the minimum wage that affect hiring practices and cost of doing business. However, I still think there are a few fundamental issues that cannot be avoided.

- Companies can indeed attempt to "not hire" rookies. However, good luck with that. Most companies try to get as many vet as possible already, and labour supply is unlikely to be altered. If anything, the supply of planters may actually decrease as the attractiveness of minimum-wage jobs that are not as demanding as planting will grow due to wage increases. On the other hand, and to acknolwedge the fluidity and unpredictability of labour markets, it is possible that the miniumum wage will produce the results stated by the corporate sock-puppets that predict job loss in the service sector. If this occurs, there may be more people looking for planting work. However, I tend to look at the overall condition of the economy as improving on a regional basis with increased opportunity in energy sectors that compete for some of the same workforce, thus leading to a need for the silviculture industry to work harder to attract and retain labour.

- The prospect of people getting fired more quickly is very real. Good point. Of course, the company will still have to replace that body, and if it is with another untrained body, the cost of doing do will quicdkly add up.

-A key effect that I am thinking about is that the distance between minimum wage and production earnings (based on tree price) is shrinking. If the tree price is too low, there will be little motivation for workers to try to surpass min-wage. Therefore, it will be necessary to provide workers with adequate incentive to produce (ie, suitably attractive tree price). You can't throw knives at people to get them to plant faster...something good must await them at the end of each bag-up.

-THe cost of silviculture is a very small aspect of forestry, and the success of licensees depends more on foreign markets (and construction booms) and demand for wood than the cost of silviculture labour. THey have already "pushed off" as much work into the future as possible, and the backlog is catching up with them. The number of trees on the planting market is linked to many factors other than labour costs, and increases in sowing requests are already apparent. Any potential impact on licensee operating costs as a result of silviculture labour costs is likely to be very modest. WHat is very minor to licensess, however, may be significant and noticeable to the silviculture market. In terms of the silviculture market, I would suggest it may amount to a stabilization of bids or perhaps a slight correction directly affecting bid prices in a segment of the market. Yes, reputable contractors will not necessarily be directly influenced and alter their practices, but may experience indirect benefits as a result of other contractors (rookie-dependent) having to adjust their bids to account for labour costs.

-An increase to the cost of labour will (intuitively) not cause companies to drop their per-tree prices. Think about it, if you rely heavily on rookies, and if (assuming compliance with regulations- yes big if and agencies are working on this) and if your cost of paying rookies mininum wage increases, the last thing you want to do is drop your tree price. Doing so would only impede your ability to attract and retain veteran planters, leaving you even more dependent upon low-production planters that are increasingly likely to see a guaranteed $140 a day as more attractive than planting enough trees to make more based on production. I believe this linkage represents a direct pressure on rookie-dependent companies to change their bids. They simply will have to have enough money available to ensure their workers make a higher miinimum. As a result, other companies will be faced with the company of competing bids that may be slightly higher than in previous years.

I think it will be fascinating to see how it actually plays out, as there are several very valid yet contrasting perspectives presented here.

If anything, I hope this thread can serve to increase awareness of the regulations and the relevance of minimum-wage and hour entitlements. Whatever does happen, I hope workers increase their knowledge of their entitlements and adopt a more active approach to asserting their rights.

Richianity · Post by **Richianity** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:15 pm

The competition is too steep to 'increase their bids'. Silviculture contractors will eat a whole bunch of this increased cost. Less money for them means less money for everything else which means lower tree prices which means ballers get paid less.

For the econ majors out there if you shift your (labour) supply curve to the left (due to an increase in costs)(technical tangent - the shift is actually straight up as the supply curve is horizontal) then the price (wages) increases while your quantity (of workers) decreases....Proof that unions are job killers.

Higher minimum wages means lower tree prices and fewer employees which means longer hours for less pay. Definitely not what the industry needs right now.

EDIT: But all of this assumes that the minimum wage laws are enforced in the first place.

jdtesluk · Post by **jdtesluk** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:01 pm

quote="Richianity"The competition is too steep to 'increase their bids'. Silviculture contractors will eat a whole bunch of this increased cost. Less money for them means less money for everything else which means lower tree prices which means ballers get paid less.

This is a great conversation. I suggest there is far more complexity at play here than can be explained by a linear scale though. THere are multiple pushes and pulls at play here, and we have to account for fluctuations in competing labour markets. We cannot apply the standard mechanical rules of other (standard) labour markets to one ruled by bidding and piece-work - here there are a different set of forces (and psychologies) at play, and you cannot escape the hydraulics between tree price and minimal wage- you simply must set the tree price at a level that is worth striving for based on production. If prices are sufficient to allow a rookie to reach 150-175, good ballers should surpass 300 with ease. The alternative is to let the tree price sag, lose your ballers to companies that don't hire rookies, and eat the costs.
Now, in regards to this quote, I emphasize that I think that only a small number of contractors may end up "eating costs", but the effect on the small contractors will have wider reaching influences. A parallel effect happens when a small number of predatory companies engage in nosediving bidding, driving prices down - here there may be potential to reverse the effect. Companies with lots of ballers will not be eating costs directly. Competition is steep, but it is heavily influenced by perceptions of the bottom.

quote="Richianity"
For the econ majors out there if you shift your (labour) supply curve to the left (due to an increase in costs) then the price (wages) increases while your quantity (of workers) decreases....Proof that unions are job killers.

I think this has some definite merit in natural resource industries where unions have had a strong influence, ie: milling, logging, mineral extraction. BC provides some textbook examples to this effect. However, I won't paint all unions with the same brush, or discount some of the other effects they have on the labour process. However, we have no unions influencing labour costs here so back to the main point ...
For the application to the current issue (silviculture) I return to my previous paragraph and the assertion that these linear effects do not adequately reflect the circumstances that define the small corner that is silviculture or the unique circumstances that determine the amount of work available and the concurrent applicability of wages and piece-rate in a single work-setting. I think you bring up some good basic points about general principles of labour markets, but I disagree with their application to the current case. They may apply to minimal wage earners as a large category within a larger labour market, and I think you may have a valid point on a broad societal level. However, I don't think your argument adequately addresses the effect of the regulations and other unique features of the industry, and its interaction with other sections of the labour-market. It is possible that other parts of the labour market will be affected negatively while silviculture workers benefit due to their position relative to other jobs and the specifics of the regulations.

quote="Richianity"
EDIT: But all of this assumes that the minimum wage laws are enforced in the first place.

Yes, key point. Thus the emphasis on asserting ones entitlements. You're bang on here Rich, and without this point, my entire hypothesis falls apart. I underline this, because I totally agree with you on this one. I just hope unscrupulous employers don't figure that out -- whoops too late- guess workers better start standing up for themselves! Really though, I think the point you make cannot be stressed strongly enough.

I'm being a bit of an optimist here, and I think Rich rightly challenges my points. One of us could be right....or things could balance out and putter along business as usual. However, if Rich is right, and bidding becomes increasingly competitive to account for higher labour costs (although I insist that {enforced} regulations inhibit this), then we will have a whole new set of problems to deal with. This is something that will have to be watched for, making the assertion of entitlements even more important.

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:54 am

- The prospect of people getting fired more quickly is very real.

I barely read the last three posts. My head hurts from bartending tonight. St. Pat's, um, yeah.

Anyway, this is a great topic, and I'm sure I'll have lots of comments when I'm sober and bored. But in the meantime, this one comment stood out for me.

In twenty years of running camps, I have only ever let ONE person go for slow production, and it wasn't entirely forced. If someone is going to work their heart out and be slow, I can live with it. If they are slow and don't care, then yes, they should move on.

This one particular guy just was NOT cut out for planting. I literally sat him down and said, "I don't know how to put this politely, but some people are born to plant trees, and some people are born to shell peanuts. You were not born to plant trees." He looked at me and asked if he was getting fired. I said, "No, if you really feel like this is the right job for you, we'll keep paying you minimum wage and you'll suffer miserably for another eight or ten weeks, and I'll admire your determination. But is that the smart decision?" He thanked me and packed his tent.

Seriously, if your camp/company is so bad that your rookies cannot consistently make minimum wage by their tenth planting day, then there might be a management problem rather than a pricing problem. Invest in training. Ninety-six percent of them will make the cut within ten days. Three point nine percent of the rest are worth going the extra mile for.

Although yes, it could also be a pricing problem.

jdtesluk · Post by **jdtesluk** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:57 am

Scooter wrote:
- Seriously, if your camp/company is so moronic that your rookies cannot consistently make minimum wage by their tenth planting day, then there might be a management problem rather than a pricing problem. Invest in training. Ninety-six percent of them will make the cut within ten days. Three point nine percent of the rest are worth going the extra mile for.

Although yes, it could also be a pricing problem.

Scooter=wise.

Mike · Post by **Mike** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:07 am

I'm also sceptical that we'll see any effect. Good companies get their rookies planting fast fast. Bad companies won't bother paying minimum wage. Go through currently existing companies and see how many of them pay minimum wage to rookies if they need it.

jdtesluk · Post by **jdtesluk** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:12 am

So again, it may only directly affect a few companies operating on the fringes, and well-run companies with strong training and mentoring programs will not have to alter their payment practices. Scooter makes a great point in this regard.

However, even companies that have historically NOT had to pay up to minimum may now be put in that position. In the past, as long as your rookies made $100 a day, there was no need to bump them up. Now that threshold is set to move (as high as$138 for an 11 hour day, assuming regulations are followed), and more companies may potentially fall into that area of bumping up payment. I think Rich and I have offered two very viable competing perspectives on whether this will be a good or bad affect on worker earnings overall. However, there is no doubt that a larger number of companies will now face the prospect of bumping up pay.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:17 am

My concern with minimum wage and rookies has always been this premise of getting paid from the moment you step into a truck until the moment you step out of it at the end of the day. What about the rookie that takes a two hour "lunch" break. They are entitled to their breaks but is the company really supposed to pay them for it? If the rookie works a half day and sleeps the rain storm away in the truck, should they really get a full day of pay?

Where did the idea that your work day begins and ends with these exact times? Is this legislation? I am not trying to be argumentative just actually curious.

I specifically bring up rookies because the point is moot with vets, they make more then minimum wage in a half day anyway.

jdtesluk · Post by **jdtesluk** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:59 am

Shelley wrote:My concern with minimum wage and rookies has always been this premise of getting paid from the moment you step into a truck until the moment you step out of it at the end of the day. What about the rookie that takes a two hour "lunch" break. They are entitled to their breaks but is the company really supposed to pay them for it? If the rookie works a half day and sleeps the rain storm away in the truck, should they really get a full day of pay?

Where did the idea that your work day begins and ends with these exact times? Is this legislation? I am not trying to be argumentative just actually curious.

I specifically bring up rookies because the point is moot with vets, they make more then minimum wage in a half day anyway.

Nobody wants a planter like that, no doubt. I expect they wouldn't last very long, and good hiring and screening practices will help avoid them making their way into the field. To answer your question Shelley, yes it is legislation regarding the hours and wages. Section 37.9 of the Employment Standards Regulation deals specifically with silviculture. You have to read the guidelines that accompany the regulations to fully understand how they are to be implemented, and that is where the clear reference to working times starting and stopping is found. The legislation was developed, drafted, and pushed into force by contractors wanting to set a minimum baseline of payment that companies cannot fall below, and to provide some flexibility to accommodate the special circumstances of the industry. It has been in force since around 2000 to my knowledge. The regulations not only set out key requirements, but also state exemptions from other parts of the regulations to allow silviculture contractors to run their operations under distinct time and production demands. Here's a link to the guidelines (with embedded links back to the regs) if you are interested in more details: http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/silvicu ... itions.htm

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:29 pm

Thanks, I will be giving that website a thorough look. Do you know if silviculture has specific legislation in other provinces (Alberta?)? And if you do, can you send me the link to that as well? Thanks.

That being said I feel like I have read this document before... My memory is failing me :(

TheHamsterizer · Post by **TheHamsterizer** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:36 pm

A lot of effort and discussion is going into something that seems like it will only ultra lowballing rookies and shitty companies. Definitely not relevant to anyone here, I should think. Do you guys want to have an in depth debate about the waning starfruit crops in Madagascar next?

I'll admit that it's interesting and I learned something today, but on the day after st. patty's day I really didn't want to learn and think. That's why I came to this forum, WHY DID YOU GUYS HAVE TO RUIN IT FOR ME?

Really though, this won't affect my wages or anyone elses' here, and I doubt there will be much ripple effect. If anything it might mean shorter days, which is good. There's no point in keeping a rookie who makes under minimum wage on a block for 11-12 hours, and if they raise minimum wage there would be even less point.

Evergreen · Post by **Evergreen** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:13 pm

Big improvement on the postscript Hammy! I agree that the minimum wage increase will have no effect on any of the established better companies. If a planter can't make minimum wage we can't afford to have them. In the rare circumstance that we hire a rookie, we've made a poor selection if they can't make minimum wage within a couple of days at most. I think it's mostly a non-issue.

In regards to hours given for EI purposes, there's no incentive to contractors to give planters less hours than they are actually away from the marshalling point - in other words why not give planters all the hours from getting into the truck until they get back? Generally we subtract 1/2 hour during that time for breaks. As far as I'm aware that's the rules. It certainly doesn't cost a contractor more to give 12 hours rather than 10. As long as that's what happend why not?

Nate · Post by **Nate** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:35 pm

Evergreen wrote:Big improvement on the postscript Hammy! I agree that the minimum wage increase will have no effect on any of the established better companies. If a planter can't make minimum wage we can't afford to have them. In the rare circumstance that we hire a rookie, we've made a poor selection if they can't make minimum wage within a couple of days at most. I think it's mostly a non-issue.

In regards to hours given for EI purposes, there's no incentive to contractors to give planters less hours than they are actually away from the marshalling point - in other words why not give planters all the hours from getting into the truck until they get back? Generally we subtract 1/2 hour during that time for breaks. As far as I'm aware that's the rules. It certainly doesn't cost a contractor more to give 12 hours rather than 10. As long as that's what happend why not?

I think on the safety end companies have incentives to not be putting their workers through 12 hour days, especially if they have numerous vehicles making long daily drives.

jayBOT · Post by **jayBOT** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:11 pm

Nate wrote: I think on the safety end companies have incentives to not be putting their workers through 12 hour days, especially if they have numerous vehicles making long daily drives.

I think he's just talking about whats on the books not necessarily the time spent planting. I don't know what benefit there would be to short-changing planters on hours, but I know I don't include hours for travel time...

Nate · Post by **Nate** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:15 pm

jayBOT wrote:
Nate wrote: I think on the safety end companies have incentives to not be putting their workers through 12 hour days, especially if they have numerous vehicles making long daily drives.
I think he's just talking about whats on the books not necessarily the time spent planting. I don't know what benefit there would be to short-changing planters on hours, but I know I don't include hours for travel time...

Yeah, I think on-paper there is a safety paperwork angle here, e.g. BC SAFE and driver's logbooks etc.

Richianity · Post by **Richianity** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:57 pm

Evergreen wrote:In regards to hours given for EI purposes, there's no incentive to contractors to give planters less hours than they are actually away from the marshalling point - in other words why not give planters all the hours from getting into the truck until they get back? Generally we subtract 1/2 hour during that time for breaks. As far as I'm aware that's the rules. It certainly doesn't cost a contractor more to give 12 hours rather than 10. As long as that's what happend why not?

Probably no reason except if you only pay the person (8*10.25) $82/day but their EI form says they worked 12 hours and should have made $140+/day due to daily overtime, the CRA and some other bureaucracy might be a little choked if it ever hit the fan.

SwampDonkey · Post by **SwampDonkey** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:46 pm

If you look at it from the tax man's angle: staying in a camp and traveling to work sites that can be at different locations with your own vehicle they consider this travel as part of work. Thus you can claim your vehicle on a Form 2200 as a condition of employment. Now, in most situations in BC the contractor may be providing travel vehicles. But, I'm just saying if they consider travel from camp to these works sites part of work in your own vehicle, then ipso fatso. ;)

Evergreen · Post by **Evergreen** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:51 am

SwampDonkey wrote:If you look at it from the tax man's angle: staying in a camp and traveling to work sites that can be at different locations with your own vehicle they consider this travel as part of work. Thus you can claim your vehicle on a Form 2200 as a condition of employment. Now, in most situations in BC the contractor may be providing travel vehicles. But, I'm just saying if they consider travel from camp to these works sites part of work in your own vehicle, then ipso fatso. ;)

Absolutely right - if you use your vehicle to get to the work site then you can claim it as an employment expense. I know there's a whole other world of planting contracts out there that we in the south and coastal parts of the province find it hard to imagine. I used to hear about contractors requiring planters to provide their own tarps and then this idea of people driving themselves to work in their own vehicle? How can that happen? Do you have a radio? It's hard to imagine how WCB and BCFSC are going to feel warm and fuzzy with fleets of personal vehicles snaking their way up haul roads??

When I suggested that people should get credited for 12 EI hours rather than 10 if they in fact worked that much, I wasn't suggesting that planters should work long days like that. It is counterproductive and dangerous to work people that long. In rare circumstances it's hard to avoid. Some times long commutes are unavoidable and if they don't last for too long you just put up with them. I've also heard about the hardcore crews that would work 10 days straight or 6 & 1 shifts. You're just asking for trouble working people that hard. There's the rare person who can handle it and who may even choose to work days off but for the most part you're inviting more injuries and in the long run lower production by over working people like that.

Post by **Scooter** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:34 am

We used to work 6&1's in my camp all the time, up until about eight or nine years ago. Back then, we were trying to do 80+ day seasons from May to the first couple days of August.

I'm a big fan now of the 4&1's. We only did one single five-day shift in my camp last year (partly because of snow) and the planters found it to be very tiring compared to the four-day shifts. I find that planters are able to work a lot harder when they know it is only a four-day shift.

SwampDonkey · Post by **SwampDonkey** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:56 am

Evergreen wrote:
I used to hear about contractors requiring planters to provide their own tarps and then this idea of people driving themselves to work in their own vehicle? How can that happen? Do you have a radio? It's hard to imagine how WCB and BCFSC are going to feel warm and fuzzy with fleets of personal vehicles snaking their way up haul roads??

It's done here every day, and yes we have radios on CB Channel 1. All log trucks have to call mileage every KM or the "big chief" will come down hard on them. I travel for a least an hour on haul roads each way. 60 km/hr is the speed limit but many roads you do well to do 40 km/hr. I am never in a hurry myself, the block will be waiting and I always cut my pay just the same as some arse in a hurry. ;D We had one old timer last summer, he would burn about 3 or 4 tanks and head home. You can't do that and make much money, and not expect quality to suffer. He was send in to clean up his strips a time or two. He can't work a full day like us younger fella's. WCB? No sign of them fellas ever and I've been in this racket for years. :D

karperp17 · Post by **karperp17** » Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:53 am

As Richianity said, when the minimum wage goes up it generally draws from an inflexible pool of salary space in a business. So instead of Burger King paying 10 workers 8 dollars an hour for eight hours at $640 they instead pay 8 workers 10 dollars and hour for eight hours for $640 and open one less cash register and one less burger assembler etc (in theory). So in doubting that the minimum wage will take any effect in planting, instead you will see the service industry for summer jobs open up to the possibility of earning an extra $1,000-1,500 by May 1, 2012.
I don't know of too many planters who actually stuck around and were content with making minimum wage, even with low ball companies. But certainly the low wage in service industry is what pushed me to go planting, and now the lower wage in planting is actually pushing me back to the service area where I can make $2,000 more than I did planting, see my family everyday, eat and live rent free etc... so now it is one less vet out there and one more spot open. So certainly the shrinking advantage of planting wages over other summer jobs has impacted me.

krahn · Post by **krahn** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:36 pm

Shelley wrote:My concern with minimum wage and rookies has always been this premise of getting paid from the moment you step into a truck until the moment you step out of it at the end of the day. What about the rookie that takes a two hour "lunch" break. They are entitled to their breaks but is the company really supposed to pay them for it? If the rookie works a half day and sleeps the rain storm away in the truck, should they really get a full day of pay?

Where did the idea that your work day begins and ends with these exact times? Is this legislation? I am not trying to be argumentative just actually curious.

I specifically bring up rookies because the point is moot with vets, they make more then minimum wage in a half day anyway.

good point. companies have some legit reasons to not pay out 12 hours across the board, even if they have long drives. however, i doubt this would even come into consideration for most, because jobs rarely factor in driving time. even if legally they should.

my second season, back in 2001, with Silvarado... at the opening meeting they said that new rules made it so that they had to pay overtime, and so we couldn't stay more than 8 hours. they didn't factor in driving time at all, not sure if they legally had to. but we were allowed to plant 8 on the nose.

after that spring i never heard of another company with concern over this. probably because it's never been enforced.

i tried to get a small environmental contractor from another country in trouble last fall for hiring me under the table retroactively, without my consent, last fall. and so i didn't have enough hours for EI. i went to 4 different government offices to report this guy, to no avail. this government it terrible about sharing information and passing the buck, it makes total sense now that so many planting companies have gotten away with breaking rule after rule, i think planters give up pretty quick trying to report their ex-bosses.

maybe this will increase bid prices, but i'm still not aware of any company actually paying slow rookies minimum wage consistently.

jdtesluk · Post by **jdtesluk** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:42 pm

krahn wrote:i'm still not aware of any company actually paying slow rookies minimum wage consistently.

I know of several conscientous contractors that do this. There are some good people out there. All the more reason to deal with those that are not keeping up.

Post by **Scooter** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:14 am

I think my camp has usually needed to top up three or four rookies on their first cheque, and far less frequently, maybe on their second cheque too. But realistically, 99% of well-hired rookies should be making minimum wage consistently within six or seven planting days, AND putting in good quality trees to do it.

SwampDonkey · Post by **SwampDonkey** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:01 am

It's nothing out of my pocket, so I don't blat about it like some do. But, we have a few experienced guys that want top stamp, but can not keep up in their production. So by year end they owe the boss, some of them, upwards of 3 grand. I know if it were me, I would only pay on what is owed. Work, or stay the $%^$ home. I've run brushing crews and that's the way it was. I only had to send one guy packing, mostly because he would work hard one week, go on a 5 day weekend alcoholic binder, and show up the last two days the next week. I have low tolerance to alcohol and dope bums.

SwampDonkey the hard baller. :D LOL

krahn · Post by **krahn** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:40 pm

glad to hear some are paying the rookies what they owe em. the last few years i worked with a great company, so probably not much "topping up" was needed, and i know before that, we had rookies at seneca who definitely were not getting minimum wage. and i've worked for tons of little contractors who were alright but didn't follow this rule. and all the bad companies previously, also didn't. hopefully times are a changin'.

jules · Post by **jules** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:54 pm

krahn wrote:glad to hear some are paying the rookies what they owe em. the last few years i worked with a great company, so probably not much "topping up" was needed, and i know before that, we had rookies at seneca who definitely were not getting minimum wage. and i've worked for tons of little contractors who were alright but didn't follow this rule. and all the bad companies previously, also didn't. hopefully times are a changin'.

The last time I was working at Seneca, there were a couple of rookie planters/lawyers from NZ on my crew. They realized that they were supposed to topped up and paid for drive time, and at least started to make a fuss about it. I didn't hear what came of it, though.

But yeah. Seneca didn't top up, for sure. I don't think it's all that standard in the industry, whether it's required or not.

jdtesluk · Post by **jdtesluk** » Fri May 06, 2011 4:07 pm

Note to new planters; THe new minimal wage is now officially $8.75. As mentioned previously, you are entitled to guaranteed earnings of minimal wage for the first 8 hours, and minimal wage x 1.5 for the next 4 hours.

This means, that even if your production earnings do not reach this level, you are entitled to (approx) $96.25 for a 10 hour day, $109.37 for an 11 hour day, and $122.50 for a 12 hour day.

This may be averaged out over a shift through a complicated system called a time bank (Sec 42 of the Employment Standards Act), but the general rule is that if you work 10 days in a two-week shift, and work roughly the same number of hours each day, you are entitled to the basic payrates set out above. That means, if you are working 11 hours a day, over a two week shift where you planted 10 days, your base pay rate should be a minimum of $1,225.00.

If you have questions or concerns, speak to your employer.

I know this is not new info, but wanted to provide some updated ballpark numbers to reflect the changes in the wage. Next update due May of 2012.

thunderbruce · Post by **thunderbruce** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:28 pm

jdtesluk wrote:Note to new planters; THe new minimal wage is now officially $8.75. As mentioned previously, you are entitled to guaranteed earnings of minimal wage for the first 8 hours, and minimal wage x 1.5 for the next 4 hours.

This means, that even if your production earnings do not reach this level, you are entitled to (approx) $96.25 for a 10 hour day, $109.37 for an 11 hour day, and $122.50 for a 12 hour day.

As a crewboss I know and understand this system as we have been recording work hours and paying minimum wage accordingly to those planters that do not reach production levels. The part that usually results in confusion with planters is how many hours they actually work and how many hours they spend smoking, standing, sitting, talking, crying, sleeping, complaining or replanting (although thats a whole other story), swimming at the back of their land, sitting on the bus while it rains/snows, pouting, climbing trees etc. As far as hours go, in a normal day lets say you arrive on the block at 8 and plant until 6. This is a 10 hour day of 'work'. Some planters work hard all day and take minimal 'breaks' meaning even when bagging up their time at the cache is spent literally bagging up and they head back in land. These planters who may be slow but work hard, deserve their full minimum wage. Most of those planters though if they were to work hard for 10 hours would end up planting 1200 trees a day by the second shift. 1200 trees a day would be 120 an hour. Doable for a rookie in his/her second shift. For a company that hires a lot of new rookies each year, how are staff supposed to record hours fairly if one planter is lazy and one is not? There are a lot of people that want to be paid for nothing and the minute they realize that it might be law to pay them for slacking off they start to voice their opinion. Personally, ideally you would have these planters fired and keep a lean and strong crew to plant the trees although I also know of many rookies that seemed slow and lazy for the first few shifts until they realized their potential and they became great planters.
Some highballers take long cache breaks or only work for a certain number of hours a day... some highballers work consistently all day to get in as many trees as possible... depends on the person right?

How are we supposed to record hours according to a person's work style in a situation where we don't have set breaks or constant supervision. Some lazy planters will get topped up to minimum wage while some work their ass off to actually plant enough trees to make minimum wage... anyone else find this unfair? Anyone else figured out a system or have any tips? Thanks.

Rainman · Post by **Rainman** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:01 pm

Some lazy planters will get topped up to minimum wage while some work their ass off to actually plant enough trees to make minimum wage... anyone else find this unfair?

I find it fair. Minimum wage is the baseline in this country. If a company hires someone, they should at least make this amount. If this baseline is not achieved through the piece rate pay scheme, then it is the responsibility of the company to top it up. If this needs to be done, then the reasons that the planter could not achieve minimum wage should be looked at carefully by said company. Was it poor prices that led to poor motivation? Was it a lack of proper training? Or was it just poor hiring and relying on large pools of inexperienced planters to make low prices work?

Of course there are people at good prices that can't achieve minimum wage, but this is rare. By and large, most people will make minimum wage with decent prices and proper training, organization, and supervision.

I personally would be happy if this was strictly adhered to because often the companies who are dealing the most with these issues are working with a faulty business model. This model relies on inexperience and ineptitude (planters, foreman and supervisors) to get a difficult job done.

Companies that provide a good working experience generally do not have to deal with this issue (topping up to minimum wage) much. The main points being tree price, safety, and leadership. When these points are properly dealt with, a productive and diligent workforce is more easily found.

In the race to the bottom (bidding that is), some companies need to be reminded that it's not just about throwing more (inexperienced) bodies at the job that will make the job work out.

My two cents.

Chocolatej · Post by **Chocolatej** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:14 pm

thunderbruce wrote:As a crewboss I know and understand this system as we have been recording work hours and paying minimum wage accordingly to those planters that do not reach production levels. The part that usually results in confusion with planters is how many hours they actually work and how many hours they spend smoking, standing, sitting, talking, crying, sleeping, complaining or replanting (although thats a whole other story), swimming at the back of their land, sitting on the bus while it rains/snows, pouting, climbing trees etc. As far as hours go, in a normal day lets say you arrive on the block at 8 and plant until 6. This is a 10 hour day of 'work'. Some planters work hard all day and take minimal 'breaks' meaning even when bagging up their time at the cache is spent literally bagging up and they head back in land. These planters who may be slow but work hard, deserve their full minimum wage. Most of those planters though if they were to work hard for 10 hours would end up planting 1200 trees a day by the second shift. 1200 trees a day would be 120 an hour. Doable for a rookie in his/her second shift. For a company that hires a lot of new rookies each year, how are staff supposed to record hours fairly if one planter is lazy and one is not? There are a lot of people that want to be paid for nothing and the minute they realize that it might be law to pay them for slacking off they start to voice their opinion. Personally, ideally you would have these planters fired and keep a lean and strong crew to plant the trees although I also know of many rookies that seemed slow and lazy for the first few shifts until they realized their potential and they became great planters.
Some highballers take long cache breaks or only work for a certain number of hours a day... some highballers work consistently all day to get in as many trees as possible... depends on the person right?

How are we supposed to record hours according to a person's work style in a situation where we don't have set breaks or constant supervision. Some lazy planters will get topped up to minimum wage while some work their ass off to actually plant enough trees to make minimum wage... anyone else find this unfair? Anyone else figured out a system or have any tips? Thanks.

Jdtelsuk went over this for BC in a previous post. The hours in silviculture, are from leaving camp/motel, right up until the return trip is complete. Check out his post and his links for more info. I'm not sure about Alberta, but I've been lead to believe that the same regulations apply.

I just personally spoke to the Ontario Ministry of Labour, where no specific silviculture regulations exist. The representative was absolutely adamant that travel time must be included in work hours, and taken into account in the event of a minimum wage claim, in Ontario. She actually got impatient with me when I tried to think of ways around this, to anticipate a guilty company's response. Her words were "Look, when you get into that company vehicle, you are working, end of story."

That doesn't account for slacking off on the job site, but do you know of any other industry where you clock out to take a breather? where you are expected to maintain a work ethic that doesn't permit any unproductive time? If it is really excessive, I agree that management, needs to work towards a resolution; I don't agree that the solution could be rounding down work hours.

Edited to say that I entirely agree with the post above mine. Good points Rainman.

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:24 pm

I'd agree. Some people are naturally slower than others. They still should be able to make minimum wage.

You mentioned the option of firing someone who is slow. Yes, that's an option, but it's probably going to be a last resort. The last time that I "fired" a rookie for "just not getting it" was about thirteen or fourteen years ago. And it wasn't so much a case of firing him and sitting down with him and saying, "Listen, I hate to say this, but you're not good at this job, and you probably never will be. Some people were born to plant trees, and some were born to shell peanuts. Have you thought about a career change?" I felt pretty bad about being that harsh, but that's what he needed to hear. We had a frank discussion after that, and he decided that I was right, and he'd never be a good planter. He left the next day. By the way, this was about six weeks into the season, AND it was a couple years before we started paying minimum wage, so he was basically out there as a volunteer.

Anyway, if a rookie can't make minimum wage after two full weeks, there is a problem. Either the prices are bad, or the company needs to invest more resources into training and coaching.

Regarding the logging of hours when someone is screwing around instead of planting - that doesn't happen very often in my camp, but when somebody does end up sitting in the truck for a few hours, the foreman will let me know and I'll give them the appropriate amount of time on their time sheet. I'll also make a note in my daily liability log saying something like, "I gave Stephen 7.25 hours instead of 10 today, since Sean told me that he found Stephen sleeping in the truck at quarter to two, and he didn't plant any more for the rest of the day." But if they're just screwing around for ten minutes at the start of the day, or taking a 15 minute lunch break where they're actually doing nothing for part of that time, I don't worry about it and just give them full hours. There are bound to be times when a planter is only the block for a bit of time without planting, and really, the wages should be good enough to be able to absorb a small amount of downtime without triggering minimum wage top-ups.

SwampDonkey · Post by **SwampDonkey** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:33 pm

Here in New Brunswick if you were called to work and show up for work, you are entitled to 3 hours pay supposing you are only given 2 hours work. It's the law. If you hire bums, just fire'm and document why.

thunderbruce · Post by **thunderbruce** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:36 pm

I agree with you that minimum wage is there for a reason and people should be paid. I guess I just have a hard time recording the same hours for people that clearly slacked off the those that worked hard (and I have had to do this a lot). I have recorded less hours if someone clearly went and sat on the bus or stayed in camp etc. With their permission when they sign their biweekly. Rounding hours to your own discretion is not the way to get around this but as we all know there is always going to be some dead weight when hiring a bunch of new rookies, I guess getting rid of them early in the game is the only way to cut your losses with those individuals. Which is too bad because like I said, I know some slow starters that came into their own at the end of their first season and especially their second season. For big companies they can keep them around and pay them their wage (especially when the people are sometimes AWESOME and fun to have in camp) but for smaller companies it is hard to pay these costs with no trees going in the ground.

I agree Scooter, most of those conversations I have had with rookies that "just dont get it" have resulted in them either doubling their production with a boost of motivation to stick it out or packing up their tent and heading home.
I guess the key is to find ways to keep your planters motivated and keep everyone planting enough trees to cover minimum wage so these situations don't become an issue. Also recording hours appropriately and keeping the planter informed of their number of trees/hours for future reference when they get paid.

jdtesluk · Post by **jdtesluk** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:37 pm

Ultimately Thunderbruce, I think you answer your own question. "I guess the key is to find ways to keep your planters motivated and keep everyone planting enough trees to cover minimum wage so these situations don't become an issue." I think this is the way a savvy contractor or supervisor needs to approach the challenge,,,at least in terms of the immediate challege...but not in regard to the bigger picture and broader constellation of factors that produce the situation in the first place.

I think you raise a great point and bring a valuable perspective to this conversation. I would of course point out that the regulations are there specifically to protect workers, and the needs of employers and contractors are really not the primary concern of the people administrating these requirements (at least we believe that to be the case). So, yes the "lazy" behaviour you describe (coined "chiselling" by Burawoy) does pose a problem to the employer, and one must ask what else can be done to protect the interests of the good employers that seek to do right by their workers?...a good question.

I suggest the answer is to throw your weight behind detecting and punishing the employers that exploit worker, and that required the creation and increased enforcement of the said rules to begin with...for they are among the parties dragging down the conditions of the industry so that meeting minimal wage is even an issue to begin with. Additionally, participate in the patterns of bidding and other behaviours that will return planter pay to levels where minimal wage issues will not be a problem. I admit this is rather pie-in-the-sky of me to say, but really one of the reasons why "good" employers may run into such problems with bumping up pay for slow workers is that the financial conditions of the industry have been dragged down partially by those that are convinced that they can get people to do the job for less and less every year and by partially by those that flagrantly cut corners with employment standards compliance and bring enforcement of the said regulations into greater vogue with the bureaucracy. We really didn't have to talk about this issue nearly as much 6-8 years ago- I mean the regulations were still in affect but the prices to the planter were higher. Now, employers demand more and pay less...that is not subject to interpretation. As a result, employers are being forced to dig lower down in the employment barrel and are forced to rely more and more on less-than-ideal recruits- who may be increasingly lucky to work a slow day for minimal wage.

So in sum, I think your analysis of the challenge as a supervisor is bang-on and speaks to your experience. However, the larger picture cannot be overlooked. I see the exact problems you describe as coming to bite the industry in the proverbial ass more and more in the coming season. While approaches like yours are progressive and adaptive, I predict more and more employers will be faced with dilemmas about firing slow rookies when rehiring and retraining poses an equally unpalatable option. Yes, fire and rehire may seem like a viable choice, but this too will have repurcussions if it occurs too often as more and more workers will be discouraged from applying and your recruit pool will shrink. For decades young people across Canada have said to each other in cafeterias, classrooms, and coffee shops "Yeah, tree planting, I did that a season or two" and either "I made some coin" or "I quit because it wasn't for me". This kind of discourse reinforces the challenge of the job and maintains the attractive aura the industry has always benefitted from in its recruitment processes. However, if the words spoken are more frequently "Yeah, tree planting, I tried it and spent a bunch of time and money getting there, but was fired because I didn't make my company enough money", the image of the industry will suffer greatly in the eyes of many future recruits. It already took a beating thanks to Khaira. I think the industry has to think clearly and soberly about how to tackle the imminent challenges of the minimal wage requirements, especially in regard to how they treat their "slower" recruits. Remember, as we have found at points in the past, there is not an endless supply of rookies to continually draw from. The labour market is hydraulic and wildly dynamic. Furthermore, jobs are not numbers and figures, they hold social profiles that can be damaged, resulting in lasting damage to the industry's ability to draw from the said labour pool.

I think this shows how the financial circumstances of the industry may really be dragging contractors and planters into a mutual problem. Things may have to improve, or both groups will be singing the blues. I thank you again for bringing in this valuable perspective, and providing me with an opportunity to ramble on a bit. I think this provides some excellent fodder for the worker panel at the WSCA conference in February.

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:51 pm

I suggest the answer is to throw your weight behind detecting and punishing the employers that exploit worker,

Yeah, that it something that is a big problem. There are STILL several companies in BC that do NOT do minimum wage top-ups. I don't say this from first-hand experience, because I haven't worked at any like that in the past several years, but I've had several people talk to me about the issue of not getting topped up in the first several weeks as a rookie. If the stories that I've been told are accurate, then a few of these cases have gone to the Labour Board and there will be some changes at certain companies next summer.

This is a procedural change that is unfortunately still a work-in-progress for part of the industry.

Part of the problem is communication and education. Rookies MUST be informed that during their training period, whether it's for one week or eight weeks, if they are not making minimum wage, there is a big problem. I think we're going to see a huge shift in 2012 because of some cases that have happened this fall. Companies that are still not paying properly may think they can continue to get away with blowing it off, but that will be far riskier in 2012. Right now, for the next four months leading up to the start of the spring plant, is the time for owners at those few companies to realize that they can't get away with cheating forever, and make the necessary changes to their accounting system.

Vets at EVERY company also need to make sure, this coming summer, that they talk to rookies and give them moral support in a couple ways:
1. The obvious, let them know that there is a steep learning curve, and to hang in because they will learn to plant well and make money eventually; and
2. Until they get to the point where they're able to make good money, they ARE entitled to minimum wage.

I know that some vets won't care about this issue, but this is one of the most critical things out there to support higher prices. The companies that DON'T top up minimum wage are the ones that can continue to pay the lowest prices, and thus drive bid prices lower. This is one of the key areas that planters can actually make a big impact on the industry very quickly, which is also positive for the vets in the long term, and positive for the best companies out there.