Vacation Pay, Who pays on top?

aaron · Post by **aaron** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:13 pm

One of the most important questions you can ask, is vacation pay included in tree price, or on top?

Anyway, this thread is to clear up what companies are using what policy, the companys i know of that add the 7.6-9.6% to the tree price are:

Seneca
Nootka Reforestation

Who doesnt:
Evergreen
summit
folklore

Post by **Scooter** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:35 pm

This is a bit confusing so far. 7.6-9.6% is not Vacation Pay.

Here's a link to the BC provincial Vacation Pay fact sheet: http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/facshts/annualfact.htm

Planters are silviculture workers, so this sheet is also important: http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/facshts ... orkers.htm

Under the Silviculture Sheet, we have the following info:

Silviculture Worker means a person who is:

working in the silviculture industry,
paid primarily on a piece rate basis, and
involved in reforestation field work including clearing brush, cone picking, creek cleaning, harvesting seeds, applying herbicide, reclamation work, herding sheep, site preparation, stand sanitation, building trails, fertilizing, girdling, planting, pruning, spacing or distributing trees, weeding, or supervising any of these field activities.
Primarily means that at least 75 percent of wages for silviculture work are paid on a piece rate basis.

Piece Rate Basis means the rate of pay is based on a measurable quantity of work completed. An employer usually pays workers by the tree, the block or the hectare.

Every employee who goes to work on a piece rate basis must be told in advance what the piece rates are for a particular job. Piece rates must meet or exceed the minimum wage rate. Piece rate workers may, from time to time, be paid a set wage for specific tasks.

Collective incentive-sharing arrangements. If a group of workers agree to “co-op” – that is, they all get paid the same amount for their crew's production – the employer has to keep a written record of the agreement.

Camp costs

If a silviculture worker agrees in writing, the employer may charge for camp costs or other accommodation. The amount charged cannot exceed $25 per day for camp costs, or if the worker is lodged in a motel, the actual cost for the motel room.

Shift Scheduling

A silviculture worker’s shift schedule must consist of:

no more than five working days followed by a day off; and
within each month, at least two consecutive days off or at least eight non-consecutive days off.
If work is being done at a remote camp where there is no ready access, the employer may implement a shift schedule of up to nine days of work followed by at least two days off, or no more than ten days of work followed by at least four days off as long as:

A majority of employees have agreed in writing to the schedule; and
Employees have at least eight days off work each month.
If employees do not get the required number of days off, they must be paid at 1 ½ times the piece rate or the regular wage for any hours worked on the extra days.

Meal breaks

Silviculture workers must not work more than five hours in a row without a break of at least 30 minutes. If a worker has to be available for work during a meal break, they have to be paid for the break.

Minimum pay & overtime

The length of the work day is calculated on a “portal-to-portal” basis – from the time workers leave the camp or pick-up point to the time they are returned to the camp or pick-up point.

Minimum pay for silviculture workers paid on a piece rate basis is:

Minimum pay

First 8 hours
in a day

regular piece rate, or
minimum wage
(whichever is greater)

8 to 12 hours

regular piece rate, or
1 ½ x minimum wage
(whichever is greater)

More than 12 hours in a day

double the piece rate

If a piece rate worker is being paid a set wage rate for a particular task, they must be paid 1.5 times the normal rate for work after eight hours and double the normal rate for work after 12 hours.

If overtime is banked it has to be credited at the applicable overtime rates.

Pay days

All employees must be paid at least twice a month. All money earned in a pay period must be paid within eight days after the end of the pay period. A pay period cannot exceed 16 days.

If an employee being paid by a piece rate earns less than minimum wage in a pay period, the employee must be paid minimum wage. Earnings from one pay period cannot be used to offset another pay period where the piece rate earnings are less than minimum wage.

No set-offs or counterclaims

A contractor cannot levy penalty or quality assessments against a silviculture worker or pass on quality penalties assessed against the contractor by a third party.
Any promised bonus or incentive based on work performed (e.g. an “end of season” bonus) is wages and must be paid as promised. It cannot be reduced or adjusted for any reason.

An employer cannot charge employees for costs resulting from damage to company property or any other costs associated with running the business.

Over-tallies

An employer is not required to pay for work not performed. A silviculture worker’s pay may be adjusted as a result of an “over-tally”.

Where an over-tally or over-count occurs, an employer may not correct it on a group basis. The employer must be able to show an individual employee over-tallied or over-counted in order to adjust that employee’s pay.

Vacation pay

A silviculture worker’s vacation pay may be paid on every pay cheque at the rate of 4% of gross earnings. After five consecutive years of employment the vacation pay rate increases to 6%.

Statutory holidays

A silviculture worker’s statutory holiday pay is calculated by adding 3.6 % of gross earnings for the pay period to every pay cheque.

Silviculture workers working on a statutory holiday are paid at their regular rate.

Managers

Managers are not entitled to overtime pay rates or statutory holiday pay.

A manager is someone whose primary duties are supervising and directing human or other resources. A working supervisor who spends most of the time performing the same work as the employees he or she supervises would not be considered a manager.

A key point in this sheet is the following quotation: "A silviculture worker’s vacation pay may be paid on every pay cheque at the rate of 4% of gross earnings."

This implies that instead of a lump-sum payout, the company can opt to pay the 4% on each individual paycheck. However, it does not specify whether or not vacation pay must be included as a component of the tree price, or whether it must be paid on top. As per the BC fact sheet on Vacation Pay, "Vacation pay for farm workers who are paid a piece-rate for harvesting is included in the piece rates." There is some debate that silviculture workers can be treated the same way as farm workers in this respect, if they are working for piece-rate instead of as a day-rate, and of course the phrase "is included in the piece rates" adds confusion. Does that mean that the vacation pay is implied to be included in the given price, or is included in the given price but should be implicitly stated as a fractional component of that price? The current interpretation throughout the province seems to be that the vacation pay MUST be a separately identifiable component, but it stops there.

Some companies quote a "round number" tree price and that's the true tree price, with the 4% vacation on top. Other companies quote fractional tree prices such as 10.58 cents per tree, which, when 4% vacation is added on, comes out to 11.00 cents per tree. Either way is legal. However, this makes it difficult to compare apples to oranges, so to speak.

This has always been a pet peeve of mine, something I'd like to see addressed someday before I leave the industry. More companies currently chose the "inclusive" method and do so legally by providing the fractional tree prices and detailing all this information on the paycheques. But it would be better for the industry, in my opinion, if ALL companies went with a whole-number tree price approach and added vacation on top. How do we effect such a change though? Perhaps the WSCA could be of assistance in this somehow. Perhaps there should be a target date (say the 2013 planting season) whereby the WSCA suggests that all member companies, and hopefully non-member companies too, take the approach of using whole-number pricing on trees and adding the 4% on top. Given a year of advance warning, companies could budget and plan prices accordingly. Of course, there would be no way to enforce such a suggestion, but if it happened due to a planned policy suggested by the WSCA, perhaps a number of companies would do this concurrently. At that point, it would become even more useful to have lists of which companies go by whole-number pricing with vacation on top versus those that use fractional pricing to bring the vacation-included total to a round number.

Anyway, this thread is good. I hope we get a lot of people talking about which approach is used at companies that they have worked for.

Post by **Scooter** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:56 pm

I think this will be one of those topics where a lot of people are reluctant to post info, because I believe that the majority of the companies out there quote a tree price and at the same time specify the vacation component, giving a complete payout per tree. There are a lot of foremen and supervisors on the forums here who are usually pretty good at contributing to the discussions, but they might not want to admit that their company does it the "cheap" way. That would be unfortunate, because I think a lot of foremen and supervisors out there wish that all companies quoted whole-number trees prices and added the 4% on top of that.

However, the sooner that everyone admits that this is an issue that should be talked about and standardized, the more likely that we might eventually see improvements someday.

Right now, I think adding the 4% on top is a major selling point for companies that take that approach. Between a company that quotes "10.58 cents plus 4% vacation giving a total payout of 11.00 cents per tree" and a company that quotes "11 cents a tree plus 4% vacation on top" you'll see a significant difference. On a $15,000 season, that's an extra $600, which is the equivalent of a couple days of work.

Coaster · Post by **Coaster** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:00 pm

Talk about a tempest in a teapot. What earthly difference does it make if you get 10.4 cents plus .6 cents or just plain 11 cents. It's the same thing for Pete's sake! You have to be pretty naive to think that a company is paying out more than they planned to if they add vacation pay to the quoted price. I for one do not want to hear that I'm getting 10.41 cents or 21.62 cents. Round it off!

Don't you think that a company bids to pay X and they're not going to pay X + 4 or 6%. If they're forced to play the silly game of fractional tree prices, then they're just going to reduce X and quote you less.

If you want to compare apples to apples you can't consider Vacation pay without taking into account camp fees, whether you get paid to load trees or set up camp, how much you get for driving or 1st aid and on and on. I think this is a lame and diversionary discussion. Nit picking...

Post by **Scooter** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:16 pm

Maybe that's a good idea. Maybe we could start a database that compares about ten or twelve characteristics like this across all planting companies. Seems like a lot of work to me though, but maybe it would be worth it.

aaron · Post by **aaron** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:21 pm

I kinda feel it would be nice for people who get into a situation where supervisors will not tell them of their policy, to know what it is. But then again, if they arent telling you, these obviously arent the people you should be working for!

aaron · Post by **aaron** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:25 pm

by the way what are the labour laws concerning camp setup and pay?

Coaster · Post by **Coaster** » Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:22 am

aaron wrote:by the way what are the labour laws concerning camp setup and pay?

Employers are required to pay you for any and all work you do. That includes setting up camp, loading trees, cleaning trucks, shopping for food, etc.

The_Bearslayer · Post by **The_Bearslayer** » Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:03 pm

What earthly difference does it make if you get 10.4 cents plus .6 cents or just plain 11 cents. It's the same thing for Pete's sake! You have to be pretty naive to think that a company is paying out more than they planned to if they add vacation pay to the quoted price. I for one do not want to hear that I'm getting 10.41 cents or 21.62 cents. Round it off!

You could make the same argument against adding vacation pay to anyone's hourly wage. Or against just about any wage regulation period, if you wanted. Minimum wage? What's the point, we'll just pay more for things!

Coaster · Post by **Coaster** » Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:51 pm

The_Bearslayer wrote:
What earthly difference does it make if you get 10.4 cents plus .6 cents or just plain 11 cents. It's the same thing for Pete's sake! You have to be pretty naive to think that a company is paying out more than they planned to if they add vacation pay to the quoted price. I for one do not want to hear that I'm getting 10.41 cents or 21.62 cents. Round it off!
You could make the same argument against adding vacation pay to anyone's hourly wage. Or against just about any wage regulation period, if you wanted. Minimum wage? What's the point, we'll just pay more for things!

Hey I'm all for minimum wage, as long as It's not me that's getting it.

My argument isn't against adding vacation pay. What I'm saying is that in each contract there's always a finite amount of money to pay workers. You can split it up and call it vacation pay, piece rate, statutory holiday pay or whatever. The fact remains there's only so much money. Why screw around quoting fractions of a cent. It's just confusing.

jdtesluk · Post by **jdtesluk** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:32 pm

I agree with Coaster for the most part. However, it can make a difference if a company is quoting tree prices to you. If you know that V-P is on top of that, it makes it seem a bit more tolerable.

jules · Post by **jules** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:09 pm

I agree with Coaster, generally speaking. It's not important whether vacation pay is included in the tree price or added on top, as long as the contractor is upfront about how it's calculated. It would be easier if it was standardized, but that just doesn't seem likely.

krahn · Post by **krahn** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:21 pm

I want companies to keep guv mandated extras separate, as most just say it's included so the price is actually lower than quoted, so the companies that do quote a price before vacation pay are at a disadvantage.

I did some cone picking with Outland a few months ago, and while prices weren't all that high (not so low I wouldn't pick for them again) they did give vacation pay on top and I appreciate it.

Good to hear that Seneca does now. They didn't a few years ago.

donkeyrider · Post by **donkeyrider** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:26 pm

Apex doesn't Raven Venture does.

Casper · Post by **Casper** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:48 am

I thought that Apex was doing it, on the paysheet you have the treeprice, your number and the vac pay, among others stuff (camp cost for example. I should look at my last paysheet to know all the things but I'm sure that vac pay add up with the treeprice.

donkeyrider · Post by **donkeyrider** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:14 pm

I could be wrong its been a season since I have worked for them. As far as I can remember If you work the tree price against the number of trees it will add up to all the numbers they lay out after that (stat, vacation, the RWA). I know that's vague if you dont have one in front of you. I will check it out on one of my old ones.

trip · Post by **trip** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:13 pm

Virtually all companies will include vacation pay in the quoted piecerate. If they do not then they tend to make a big deal out of that fact and you will most certainly be aware.

krahn · Post by **krahn** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:43 am

trip wrote:Virtually all companies will include vacation pay in the quoted piecerate. If they do not then they tend to make a big deal out of that fact and you will most certainly be aware.

that's no longer all that true. some of the biggest companies now pay it on top, as well as many of the smaller ones. and in my experience they didn't make a big deal of it.

aaron · Post by **aaron** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:46 pm

Coaster wrote:Talk about a tempest in a teapot. What earthly difference does it make if you get 10.4 cents plus .6 cents or just plain 11 cents. It's the same thing for Pete's sake! You have to be pretty naive to think that a company is paying out more than they planned to if they add vacation pay to the quoted price. I for one do not want to hear that I'm getting 10.41 cents or 21.62 cents. Round it off!

I would like to see contractors who respect the employment standards act enough to quote the proper tree price. Rounding tree prices up like this is a shady tactic that makes shady companies prices look better. Give the planters the REAL tree price and let them decide if they want to round it off. When you round it off for us, YOU ARE LYING TO US ABOUT THE TREE PRICE.

Would rather have the decimals!!! I know how to work a calculator!

Coaster · Post by **Coaster** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:40 pm

aaron wrote:
Coaster wrote:Talk about a tempest in a teapot. What earthly difference does it make if you get 10.4 cents plus .6 cents or just plain 11 cents. It's the same thing for Pete's sake! You have to be pretty naive to think that a company is paying out more than they planned to if they add vacation pay to the quoted price. I for one do not want to hear that I'm getting 10.41 cents or 21.62 cents. Round it off!
I would like to see contractors who respect the employment standards act enough to quote the proper tree price. Rounding tree prices up like this is a shady tactic that makes shady companies prices look better. Give the planters the REAL tree price and let them decide if they want to round it off. When you round it off for us, YOU ARE LYING TO US ABOUT THE TREE PRICE.

Would rather have the decimals!!! I know how to work a calculator!

Bully for you!

Let's say the total price is 15 cents including 7.6% stat and holiday pay - get out your calculator;

15 divided by 1.076 = 13.9405 cents is the base rate
15 minus 13.9405 = 1.0595 cents is the amount of stat & holiday pay included

Let's say the quoted base rate without 7.6% stat and holiday pay is 13.9405 cents

13.9405 X 7.6% = 1.0595
13.9405 + 1.0595 = 15 cents

Surprise - it's exactly the same thing! I for one prefer not to use a calculator. What is the real point! I smell griping for the sake of griping.

If you're in doubt as to whether stat and holiday pay is included in the price, why not ask?

aaron · Post by **aaron** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:44 pm

13.9405 X 7.6% = 1.0595
13.9405 + 1.0595[/b] = 15 cents

This isn't part of the tree price, it is called vacation/stat pay.

Post by **Scooter** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:35 pm

I think it would be handy if everyone in the industry started to use two terms effectively:

Price: The total price per tree is the price as defined by the Employment Standards Branch, ie. there is no vacation or stat pay component included.

Earnings: The total earnings per tree would be the tree price plus the 4% vacation pay component plus the 3.6% statutory holiday pay component, all added together. I've heard companies refer to this (unofficially) as the "all-in" price.

If I had a preference, I would love to eventually see every company in the industry use tree prices that are rounded to the nearest full cent, and then the 7.6% is added on top to give a number which will undoubtedly have several decimal points. If every company used this approach, it would be easier to compare apples to apples.

Of course, even without that happening, prices can be compared as long as one understands whether the price or total earnings per tree is being quoted.

In the meantime, I would be happy to see some consistency in terminology to help distinguish between the "price" per tree and the "total earnings" per tree.

---------------------------

On a side note, it would be interesting to see if all of the ads in the jobs section that quote a price or price range are from companies that use "price" properly and then add the vacation/stat.holiday on top. Because if they weren't, then someone working at that company could take a screen-shot of the ad right now, and then at the end of the summer, take that screenshot to the Employment Standards Branch along with their paycheque and point out the fact that the company did not pay adequately.

I wonder how many of the job ads will suddenly get edited over the next several days?

dreamofcream · Post by **dreamofcream** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:56 pm

Scooter wrote:On a side note, it would be interesting to see if all of the ads in the jobs section that quote a price or price range are from companies that use "price" properly and then add the vacation/stat.holiday on top. Because if they weren't, then someone working at that company could take a screen-shot of the ad right now, and then at the end of the summer, take that screenshot to the Employment Standards Branch along with their paycheque and point out the fact that the company did not pay adequately.

I wonder how many of the job ads will suddenly get edited over the next several days?

I have trouble seeing the challenge supported by employment standards unless you could conclusively prove that the owner or a stakeholder formally made that statement, such as on a company website, as opposed to hammerslammer69 on a public forum composed largely of hearsay and speculation.

Post by **Scooter** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:01 pm

But when you have a post made by someone providing their name and stating that they are a representative (foreman/supervisor) of that company, and then you have a person who is hired by that person, it kind of corroborates that the person who made the post is acting as a representative of the company. After all, if the person making the post has the ability to hire an employee ...

Evergreen · Post by **Evergreen** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:47 am

Here’s an ad for planters as I see one looking in the future.

Under the old system the all-in price would have been 20 cents. However in light of Scooter and Aaron’s enlightening discourse we’ve decided to post so as not to incur any potential future legal action. Stat and vacation pay is just the beginning of this, what’s paid on top discussion. Our lawyers have suggested that we should also take into account RWAs.

So here goes;

We have one open position for an experienced planter in our Kamloops crew. Please do not apply if you’ve worked for us for 5 consecutive years as our budget is already spent for planters in that category.

The average price to the planter is 18.5873 cents per tree if you choose not to take a daily RWA.
However if you elect to take an RWA, the tree price will be determined by consulting our logarithmic table which can be accessed at http://www.rwalogcalcskamprice.com The calculations there will show you depending on your production and the RWA amount selected per day, what the price per tree is before stat and holiday pay. Please be sure to understand that RWAs are not wages and that you will not be paid stat and holiday pay on the amount of the RWA. Choosing an RWA will lower the amount of the price per tree, decreasing your insurable EI earnings but increasing your after tax take home pay.
So whereas the stated average price of 18.5873 assumes that the option selected by the planter with less than 5 years consecutive service is not to take an RWA.
Camp fees are $13.3928 per day plus HST.
In the interest of safety, planters will be required to take a drug test prior to start of planting. We have found that planters who take illegal drugs are more likely to cause harm to themselves, their fellow workers and society as a whole.

I know it seems a bit ridiculous but why not expand the discussion to RWAs? We have recently been challenged by a planter to pay stat and holiday pay on the amount of the RWA paid to him. We haven’t had any dealings with Labor Relations in a few decades so I’d imagine the discussions on this forum had something to do with this particular claim. Our contracts with clients are written by clients and contain enough legalize to gag an aardvark. We have avoided having planters sign cumbersome and wordy contracts, however the more technical we all get around these issues, the more careful contractors will have to be to specify in writing what’s included where and what’s added on top.

Tnalp · Post by **Tnalp** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:25 am

An employee that does not incur costs for a principal place of residence cannot receive RWA. If x is living in a Van x cannot access this tax free money! I'm all for RWA but workers must meet the requirements!

I am curious as to the purpose behind the variability in the RWA amounts you offer to your workers. My understanding is that the amounts should mostly be based on the generally reasonable acceptable cost of local lodgings etc.

I do know that some companies offer more to higher earners versus lower earners mostly for EI considerations. How can these workers that are working in the same "remote area" have differing amounts offered?

What are the main considerations behind offering say 40$ a day to one worker and 80$ to an another? can the worker make demands? Is the employer the final decision maker?

Please enlighten? Anyone?

Evergreen · Post by **Evergreen** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:12 pm

RWAs are based on the reasonable cost of transportation from your principal residence to the remote work site. If the work site is near Port McNeill, someone living in Nova Scotia can receive more than someone living in Nanaimo. RWAs can vary but must be "reasonable".

Post by **Scooter** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:09 pm

In the interest of safety, planters will be required to take a drug test prior to start of planting.

I've been thinking about this recently (I certainly wouldn't endorse or suggest it). But I was wondering if, considering the trends towards safer workplaces over the past decade, mandatory drug testing will eventually creep in somewhere. Scary. That would effectively wipe out half of the industry's workforce.

Anyway, back to RWA. I've been trying to learn more about RWA recently. The important thing, as noted, is that the employee has to maintain a principal residence elsewhere. This often makes sense and is applicable to coastal planters. However, for the larger interior companies, a problem arises. Many of those companies have a lot of university students in their workforces. For example, the planters in my camp last year (excluding management) were about 45% university students at the time (although almost half of that group was on one crew). Of that group, let's assume that about half do not qualify for maintaining a principal residence elsewhere (you can't say that your parents' place is valid, or if you're in residence you're out of luck). So right off the bat, one quarter of my camp wouldn't be eligible.

However, there is another system (T2200) that can be used instead of RWA, which university students can take advantage of. There are companies out there which are rumoured to have very high percentages of university students (on purpose) which should be using the T2200's. But then again, a lot of university students probably don't pay much in taxes because they have their tuition and monthly deduction on top of their basic personal exemption, so maybe there is less knowledge/care about things like T2200's in some of those companies. I've always used the T2200's myself.

Mike · Post by **Mike** » Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:02 am

That would effectively wipe out all of the industry's workforce.

Fixed it for you.

PlantinTaders · Post by **PlantinTaders** » Wed Mar 07, 2012 3:56 pm

Either that, or we'd see a new industry blossom where clean moose urine is traded as a highly valuable commodity.

jdtesluk · Post by **jdtesluk** » Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:30 pm

I don't pee-tests happening for planters unless it becomes standard in the harvesting sector first. For log haulers or designated drivers, might not be a bad idea and I understand some companies have gone in this direction particularly for hauling. However, even as an outspoken safety advocate, I would not be in favour of pee-testing for planters. It is very common in oil and gas, but there are different factors at play - one being more money to throw around at such initiatives, two being more problems with drugs infiltrating camps and the occurence of highly organized dealing in the patch, three being the extremely high levels of liability associated with the scale of industry and potential disasters (leaks, spills, explosions) that characterize O&G.

Jarrydlee · Post by **Jarrydlee** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:14 pm

I was wondering what other companies policy on vacation pay was. At the company I work with, they add.7% on top of the tree price to account for vacation pay. So actual tree price is .7-2 cents higher then the base price. Do some other comapnies included that when they note their tree price or tacking it on after the standard practice?

Thomas · Post by **Thomas** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:32 pm

This is very uncommon. Vacation and stat pay is usually included in the quoted tree price. I have been paid vac on top by Outland though.

Aeryk · Post by **Aeryk** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:15 pm

Every company I have worked for included the Vac pay in the quoted tree price. I have heard people bitch about this though so there must be some companies out there that don't but i believe it is pretty standard

Post by **Scooter** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:44 pm

The previous three posts were merged from a new thread about vacation pay ... don't forget that there's a search option on the message board (up and to the right) that lets you look to see if there has already been some discussion about a specific topic.

Mike · Post by **Mike** » Fri Dec 05, 2014 1:05 pm

Jarrydlee, Spectrum?

siberianmist · Post by **siberianmist** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:45 pm

apex adds its vacation pay + 15% Apex vet pay into your living allowance(22.5%) if i remember both combined ontop of tree price for example, if you planted 1000 trees on 13.5 c land(135.00) you would be making 135.00 x 1.225 = 165.375. (30.75)vet pay only is given out to people with more than one season of planting and is not available for rookies. This is added ontop of your camp costs which if in brackets = profit. This is added with motel(-16.50)/bush camp(-26.75) fees deducted. Net Camp total in brackets if you worked in a motel would be (14.25) and in a bush camp(4.00) without a negative is profit plus the tree price total is how you calclulate a pay stub at apex. depending on your income ei(2.9-1.73%)cpp(4.95-2.925) deducted as well as taxes($0 to $37,869 5.06%,$37,869.01 to $75,740 7.70%,$75,740.01 to $86,958 10.50%,$86,958.01 to $105,592 12.29%,$105,592.01 to $151,050 14.70%, Over $151,050 16.80%) Granted someone shouldn't be planting only 1000 trees in one day, number was used for a reference. i hope this information is found useful to someone

Post by **Scooter** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:19 pm

Just to clarify, earlier in this thread I referred to a statutory holiday pay percentage rate of 3.6%. That was accurate at the time, but is no longer accurate, since the official holidays were changed in BC a year or so ago. The official statutory holiday percentage rate is now 4.0%, so it is equal to the separate vacation rate of 4.0%.

The_Bearslayer · Post by **The_Bearslayer** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:08 pm

Evergreen wrote:Here’s an ad for planters as I see one looking in the future.

Under the old system the all-in price would have been 20 cents. However in light of Scooter and Aaron’s enlightening discourse we’ve decided to post so as not to incur any potential future legal action. Stat and vacation pay is just the beginning of this, what’s paid on top discussion. Our lawyers have suggested that we should also take into account RWAs.

So here goes;

We have one open position for an experienced planter in our Kamloops crew. Please do not apply if you’ve worked for us for 5 consecutive years as our budget is already spent for planters in that category.

The average price to the planter is 18.5873 cents per tree if you choose not to take a daily RWA.
However if you elect to take an RWA, the tree price will be determined by consulting our logarithmic table which can be accessed at http://www.rwalogcalcskamprice.com The calculations there will show you depending on your production and the RWA amount selected per day, what the price per tree is before stat and holiday pay. Please be sure to understand that RWAs are not wages and that you will not be paid stat and holiday pay on the amount of the RWA. Choosing an RWA will lower the amount of the price per tree, decreasing your insurable EI earnings but increasing your after tax take home pay.
So whereas the stated average price of 18.5873 assumes that the option selected by the planter with less than 5 years consecutive service is not to take an RWA.
Camp fees are $13.3928 per day plus HST.
In the interest of safety, planters will be required to take a drug test prior to start of planting. We have found that planters who take illegal drugs are more likely to cause harm to themselves, their fellow workers and society as a whole.

I know it seems a bit ridiculous but why not expand the discussion to RWAs? We have recently been challenged by a planter to pay stat and holiday pay on the amount of the RWA paid to him. We haven’t had any dealings with Labor Relations in a few decades so I’d imagine the discussions on this forum had something to do with this particular claim. Our contracts with clients are written by clients and contain enough legalize to gag an aardvark. We have avoided having planters sign cumbersome and wordy contracts, however the more technical we all get around these issues, the more careful contractors will have to be to specify in writing what’s included where and what’s added on top.

You're conflating paying vacation and stat pay on top of tree prices, which is easy to do and doesn't affect planters' lives negatively, with a bunch of other things that are difficult to do and probably would effect planters' lives negatively. The truth is very simple -- companies don't quote vacation pay on top of prices because not doing so allows planters to believe they're making more money. The fact that we all agree it isn't that big a deal is not a license to make lazy or dishonest statements about it.

Nate · Post by **Nate** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:46 pm

I think the overall point Evergreen makes is salient, it's why I've stopped chipping in opinions on this sort of stuff myself, whereas I used to think this sort of stuff was good to talk about. It's a freedom vs. equality argument to me, and in the planting world I'll side with freedom.

To me, planting shouldn't be treated like other jobs. It just shouldn't. A "rules this and regulations that and I'm entitled to this and you're obligated to do that" guy like Mike on these forums is more of a threat to planting as a unique job where people can make decent money than a low-balling, parasitic company is. There are alternative models to the traditional treeplanting corporate structures out there - see Tree Time Services and their oil and gas work - but they only manage to be effective and professional because they work in a niche subsector of the industry that has the money to pay for an alternative model. The bottom line is that there is not enough money in the forestry industry to pay planters all the fancy OT and vacation pay and travel pay and training pay and (insert here) pay people think/believe they're entitled to. If you try to make the industry pay all that shit out the result will be less overall pay distributed in multifarious forms as a result of decreased operational efficiency and increased bureaucratic overhead and accounting costs.

The negative byproducts of traditional planting organizational models as they currently stand are well documented. There are shitty companies out there, and there are some companies that try to squeeze their planters harder than they should. You cannot force all the rules and regs that govern traditional hourly jobs onto the planting industry as it currently stands. Is that right or fair or just? That's a nice theoretical question but the on-the-ground realities are that we can't have all the nice things we want in the world and you absolutely cannot drop a government worker's attitude and mindset toward rules and regulations onto the planting industry and expect the result to be positive.

The only thing I'd like to see drastically changed about the industry is vehicular safety. Other than that, the planting world is truly something unique that I'd like to see government and labor/union type people leave the hell alone.

jdtesluk · Post by **jdtesluk** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 5:08 pm

Nate wrote:That's a nice theoretical question but the on-the-ground realities are that we can't have all the nice things we want in the world and you absolutely cannot drop a government worker's attitude and mindset toward rules and regulations onto the planting industry and expect the result to be positive.

This is a great piece of crystallized thought. Thanks Nate.

Mike · Post by **Mike** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 5:20 pm

Perhaps we should stop shipping raw logs at an incredible discount and processing locally?

I think your point about lack of money in the Forestry industry is totally and entirely fair. The problem is the forestry industry needs to retain workers. Over these last years, we've seen Zanzibar, A&G, Ranger Reforestation, Gainer Resources, Evergreen, Fieldstone, Artisan advertising for needing planters --- companies that 5 years ago (except the newer ones) were exceptionally challenging to get on with --- years of waiting lists and getting to know the right people. Now posting online. Scooter hypothesized a year or two ago that trees would rot in nurseries for lack of planters in the right spot at the right time (Did that happen yet?)? As planting becomes less competitive with oil, gas, mining, other forestry and trades, the industry is also at risk of crashing due to a workers shortage --- and I think we're leaning more in that direction than in an over-regulation direction.

(Heck, at the WSCA conference, people there was excited about the potential for new regulations to help the industry, especially on the safety/rest front --- and employers at that conference have also been having conversations about their troubles retaining and finding new workers ever since I first went in February of 2012).

I think there is a reasonable compromise between equality and freedom, and I think the fact that a good portion of companies still abuse the freedom (recent WSCA survey shows that 10% still aren't paid biweekly, and that's a survey biased towards planters more engaged with the industry) shows that more work can be done. Dewan is still bidding on contracts, and you think the industry is in danger from not enough freedom?

I never have argued for all the regulations of non-planting. But I think in terms of safety, rest, and fair treatment for the newest planters to the industry --- the people at companies that hire 50-90$ rookies --- there is a lot that can be done at low cost. Things like an opt-in effective training program (like at team including Scooter is developing), a set of best practices for health and safety policies (which the WSCA is working on), and a further enforcement of standard labour laws (which generally aren't).

Speaking of Treetime, they sound like they might be a perfect fit for me --- mind putting in a good word

?

PlantinTaders · Post by **PlantinTaders** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 10:46 pm

Nate wrote:
A "rules this and regulations that and I'm entitled to this and you're obligated to do that" guy like Mike on these forums is more of a threat to planting as a unique job where people can make decent money than a low-balling, parasitic company.

No, he isn't.

Nate wrote:The bottom line is that there is not enough money in the forestry industry to pay planters all the fancy OT and vacation pay and travel pay and training pay and (insert here) pay people think/believe they're entitled to. If you try to make the industry pay all that shit out the result will be less overall pay distributed in multifarious forms as a result of decreased operational efficiency and increased bureaucratic overhead and accounting costs.

But there is enough money for loggers and other forestry workers to enjoy all of these benefits and entitlements? I think if this were to happen most planters would still demand a comparable amount of earning potential/overall pay. I hypothesize that the real fat being cut away would be exactly the fat that now needs to be trimmed: the middle management, office staff and swanky offices/yards at all the (insert name)-marts that now dominate the industry and do their best to squeeze planters and skirt the minimal existing labour laws that are actually enforced.

If I can be blunt Nate, I think you are too many seasons removed from just planting to pay the bills to have a good idea of the reality and the mindset of the 2015 planter. You seem to have an idealized view of the "good old days" when the money was good and there wasn't all this demand for soft comforts. Well I'm afraid that in my opinion those days are already over. Prices have fallen, drastically. I don't want to see planting become a $15/hour gig, but I don't think thats a feasible reality in the near future. I also don't expect every little rule to be applicable to a piecework job, but no one should have to work for free or be denied basic worker entitlements. Planting is for citizens and work visa holders, not migrant workers.

I can understand wanting to protect the uniquely appealing aspects of planting and being resistant to change, but one only needs to look at average tree prices to see that change is already upon us. Its now up to us to put measures in place to protect our profession and our wages, and make sure these changes go in the right direction.

Mike wrote:Dewan is still bidding on contracts, and you think the industry is in danger from not enough freedom?

Damn straight well said. They are putting deposits on these contracts with funds legally awarded and owed to the victims of Khaira. Funds shuffled and funneled to the owner's family members behind Dewan, to shirk the responsibility of compensating the workers they abused.

If we can't make the Khaira ordeal into the catalyst we need to effect change, I really don't want to see the incident(s) that make it happen.

By the way Khaira paid those workers $15/hour.

Post by **Scooter** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 11:34 pm

I hypothesize that the real fat being cut away would be exactly the fat that now needs to be trimmed: the middle management, office staff and swanky offices/yards ...

But then who is going to ensure that payroll is done in a timely manner, that worksafe reports are filed as required, and so on?

It's easy to pick on the big companies, but strangely enough, having worked at quite a few companies and studied the cost structures and management structures of half a dozen different organizational structures, I begrudgingly think that the percentage of tree price paid out to middle management (foremen and myself) at a big company like Folklore is actually slightly LOWER than the percentage of tree price paid out to the foremen at many coastal companies. While I don't think I can publish numbers to back this up, for competitive reasons, I do have such numbers.

Also, in some cases, I believe that the percentage of tree price paid out to "support staff plus owner" at a larger company is often no higher than the percentage of tree price going to the owner (who does all the accounting and paperwork) at a small company.

I know, some people may refuse to believe this, but as many times as I've argued this with myself, the numbers that I know are compelling. And also, I need to point out that some of the smaller owner/operator companies that appear to be run by a single owner still contract a lot of work like accounting to outside companies. The same thing with mechanical ... if the company is doing a large enough volume of work to keep a full-time mechanic busy, it may be cheaper to pay for that full-time mechanic than it is to pay independent shops and garages to do the work. So is this a wasted use of the financial resources? In this case, 'trimming the fat' by getting rid of the mechanic may actually mean that a higher percentage of the tree price suddenly goes to maintaining vehicles and equipment.

I think that the problem is less with the size of the companies as an abstract issue. It's that as volumes rise, a company becomes more effective at controlling costs, partly through experience and partly through efficiency due to volumes. If there's a fault anywhere, it's that the low-bid system allows the most efficient companies to gain a competitive advantage.

Everything is interconnected. Mike mentioned above that I'm working on a project that involves better training information for first-year planters. My fear is that as we train planters to be better, it just makes it easier for companies to lower bid prices, as planting eventually becomes commoditized.

I wonder what planting-related discussions will be like in another fifty years, assuming that tree planting is still done by hand. The industry will be more mature, and I think some of the arguments will be different. Remember that the entire BC reforestation industry is only about forty years old. That's scary. When I started planting, it was impossible for there to be a vet with twenty years of experience. Now I am one. Jesus.

Mike · Post by **Mike** » Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:04 am

Yeah, PlantinTaders hate to say I disagree with you substantially about the causes and changes necessary. And I think Nate is still a planting some foreman, making your comments at least somewhat unfair?

The range that goes to planters is consistently between 35 and 50% of the bid (with Scooter thinking the range is generally a bit tighter). But what's relevant here is that companies of similar sized tend to bid in similar areas --- when it comes to the Coast, excepting Brinkman (and maybe?? Evergreen), they're all small companies (50 or less?) without office staff. They're all owner operators.

When you get to the South Interior, companies tend to stay small. 100 people is a big south interior company, and that would be Brinkman, maybe? A&G, Zanzibar, Leader had 70-80 and it's cutting down this year, Coast Range? But lots of the companies are still on the under 50 mark (Gainer, Greenpeaks?, Ranger, Hawkeye, etc), and still without Office Staff.

These are also the places in the industry where I think the least corners are cut when it comes to treating workers well, but I still occasionally do see places for further optimization.

But more importantly, these are places where wages are still decreasing when adjusted for inflation, and places where we look to loggers, forestry workers, miners, and oil and natural gas and see people being treated in a way substantially different from us, with a wage similar or higher and fewer costs. Treeplanting is banking on it's cultural cache of coolness to keep drawing people in (plus illusions of environmental sustainability. So many people I say "Oh yeah, we plant monoculture pine in place of real forests" and their faces fall), but at some point, that won't be enough. I'd love to see us sort that problem out prior to a few million trees rotting in a nursery, and maybe help it so that rookies don't go through the same issues of inaccurate pay, no minimum wage top ups, series of days over 12 hours in a row (I'm fine with 1 or 2 here or there to finish a block...but 5 day shifts where each day is clocking at 13 hours?), 6-7 day shifts (again, if the season has one...but by the 3rd one, maybe some shifts could be split in half?), aggressive and dangerous driving and etcetera that I had to before I found my way to better companies.

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:17 am

But what's relevant here is that companies of similar sized tend to bid in similar areas

Yes. This is a point that is rarely brought up.

Mike · Post by **Mike** » Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:31 am

Aren't ya glad I'm here?

Nate · Post by **Nate** » Fri Feb 13, 2015 3:13 am

Mike, we reasonably disagree on goals/approaches. In the last ten years I've gone from a liberal arts leftist to definitely right-leaning and at this point you are kind of the token "labour guy" on the forums, so my using your name is just generalizing a political perspective, it's not personal. I get why you're coming from where you are, and I think it's founded in the right motives, it's simply ideological disagreement.

You're trying to prevent a crash; I'd like to see it expedited. I believe the market needs a correction. The underlying financials of the planting industry don't jive with its current trends towards tighter regulation and increased obligations on contractors (particularly safety, training and labour costs). I believe a market crash is a gamble (the outcome on the other side might be an industry full of Dewans), but I think it's better to gamble on a correction sooner rather than later while the infrastructure/model of companies like Dewan hasn't been proven out well yet. I think Scooter's point about commoditizing planters is incredibly relevant here - that sends the industry to the BC fruit picking model. Rather than try to crutch the industry up, let it crash and fail and hope that the real correction needed (forestry companies allocating more of their expense budgets to silviculture) happens. Of course, given that I'm not directly part of the industry at this point, it's easy for me to say that what's needed is a multi-year crash/rebuild cycle when I'm not the one relying on those wages.

PlantinTaders, you're probably kind of right about my good old days mentality though. I've been away from the industry for a year or two now and I was on the client side of things before that so I am sort of disconnected from where prices sit right now and how the average planter feels about things. I didn't word my "enough money in the forestry industry" comment correctly there, you're right about the discrepency between two worker sets in the same industry (loggers vs. planters). That said, the harvesting side requires highly skilled machine operators that can easily move to other sectors (construction, mining, etc.) I think you're dead wrong about middle management fat though. Treeplanting runs so incredibly lean on management/administrative costs compared to other resource sectors it's insane. There's not much fat at all to trim, outside of one or two bloated companies maybe. My overall viewpoint here is that the issue isn't fat trimming, it's portion size to begin with. I get how as a worker the management structure can appear fatty/inefficient at times, but workers are fatty/inefficient at times too. For every useless tit foreman who sits in his truck on salary while real work needs to be done there's a competent but lazy planter out there getting minimum wage top ups or someone milking a WCB claim for months.

I don't get your citizens vs. migrant workers comment though. It sounds like your implication there is that it is somehow okay deny migrant workers basic entitlements/pay because they're not citizens/visa holders? It's a fucking travesty how we as a society allow migrant workers to be treated, and I hope I'm misinterpreting your implication there.

Mike · Post by **Mike** » Fri Feb 13, 2015 10:35 am

Oh yeah, I knew it wasn't personal, which is why I didn't respond personally. I love a good political conversation.

That's super interesting. I honestly think I need to read some things about how industries change post-crashes before I'm even ready to evaluate your idea --- I honestly hadn't considered that a crash might be more successful for creating better change than a slow and steady push upwards from regulatory bodies and industry standards. You might be right. I should go find a book.

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:06 pm

In one of the posts above, Mike mentioned a training program that a group of people (including myself) are developing. It's targeted mostly at first-year planters, to try to give them better training about the industry in general and about planting trees in specific. Many vets won't be interested in learning more about this, but for the small number who are, some links to give you more background can be found at this topic:

viewforum.php?f=28

I figured that I should post a notice here because it's a new forum underneath all the others, and unless you have a display screen with resolution of probably 1920x1080 or better, it might not be visible on your screens whenever you log in to look at the forums.