Why are there camp fees?

[Cyper]

What is the point of camp fees? Isn't the end result that our whole industry is just taking from the planters and giving to the government and the big logging companies? Doesn't this seem ridiculous? Aren't we really just taxing ourselves. I know that people call lottery tickets Stupid Tax. Then aren't camp fees Ultra Stupid Tax? At least with lottery tickets you stand a chance of winning something. With camp fees it's strictly a lose lose situation.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how camp fees came into existence. At some point back in the beginnings of planting contracting, some "smart" contractor saw an opportunity to gain a bidding advantage by passing some of the costs of accommodating and feeding planters on to the planters. AHA, they thought, this will allow me to underbid my competitors and win more jobs. And lo and behold, perhaps this worked for a time. However the secret got out and each and every competitor over time came to charge the same fees.

From what I've heard, camp fees are pretty consistently $20 to $25 across the province. So the original strategy is no longer effective. No contractor has any advantage over another if they are housing and/or feeding their crews. Is there any possibility that realizing this, the contractors could do all planters a favour by getting together and agreeing to stop charging camp fees? They'd be doing themselves a favour by making their planters happier and more likely to return year after year.

Can we start a movement? Will the contractor's association (WFCA), step up the plate and persuade their members to adopt this policy? Will planters band together and tell their contractors that they won't work for them unless they drop camp fees? Any contractor who doesn't fall in line would be boycotted by all experienced planters. I'd hope we could compile a list of who's still charging camp fees and get that out through Replant and Facebook.

The contractors don't stand to lose anything by dropping camp fees, so why would we as a group continue to pay the Ultra Stupid Tax? I know for a fact that this topic will be brought up with the WFCA executive. Is there any chance that planters can get together through Facebook or some such medium and correct this super dumb practice?

[TripleS]

Yeah it's crazy that planters pay a decent amount of money to live in tents while other resource workers get a living out allowance to stay in sweet camps. As a faster planter I never had a problem with camp costs since they allow for higher prices. If contractors forego charging camp costs how do you think they will make up for the loss?

[Scooter]

Here's a lengthy thread about the pros and cons of camp costs:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=66630

[jdtesluk]

An interesting topic, but I think that concern about overall worker payments is the bigger issue.

I won't dive into the argument about whether camp fees hurt faster or slower planters more, because I honestly think the difference is too small to really spend energy upon. Instead, see above comment.

As for your questions...

Can we start a movement? >>>>- Um sure. Been done several times. Moves, then stops. You need an effective organization through which to table such demands, and seeing that no such organization currently exists, and company owners generally don't heed the internet, I don't see this happening.

Will the contractor's association (WFCA), step up the plate and persuade their members to adopt this policy? >>>>> Probably not. It's honestly been discussed among industry members several times, including suggestions that they seek to have licensees foot the bill of camps and so forth. However, this approach has been deemed problematic. Many companies have very effective and efficient camp systems, and the way in which they calculate and control costs varies widely across the industry. Some companies have great camps some struggle with the basics. It simply is not likely that we are going to come up with a simple solve-all approach to camp costs with such diversity, and when some see their camp acumen as an advantage over competitors. Also, many companies don't use camps. If you banned camp costs, you may end up seeing companies not using camps as much, and that may not be great...longer drives, no cooks, no campfire bonding, no lots of stuff.

Will planters band together and tell their contractors that they won't work for them unless they drop camp fees? Any contractor who doesn't fall in line would be boycotted by all experienced planters. I'd hope we could compile a list of who's still charging camp fees and get that out through Replant and Facebook. >>>>> Um, no offence, but good luck with that. People already can gain info on who does what among employers, and that does not seem to affect hiring success. The internet (as I write this) is simply not an effective panacea for all workplace problems. It takes more than a blog and a poll to change a practice. Workers have yet to truly band together on much of anything. I may be proven wrong, by a marching band of anti-camp-cost protestors, but I just don't see this happening.

IMHO you express a legitimate point about why us and not everyone else? It really is a reflection of the collective power and lack or organization among this labour pool. I very much disagree with calling it a stupidity-tax, or comparing it to lottery, as the choices are not the same. I also think the origins of camp costs are different than what you suggest.

Go back, waaaaay back, like 70s back. Many companies were cooperatives in which everyone shared the costs of everything, and collectively shouldered the burden of camp costs, truck costs, and so forth. As regulations changed things, and the modern model of employer-employee took shape, contractors had to figure out a way to recoup their costs. This became even more pressing as regulations applying to camps (health, safety, food services, you know, important stuff) started to require a more standardized set-up. It was not just some underhanded contractor trying to sneak a buck, but part of the regulatory maturation of the industry. Eventually, there was a range of camp costs in the 90s between $0 and $35 (or so, I estimate based on memory). Eventually, an industry panel (mainly of employers) contributed to passing regulations that limited camp costs to the $25 (plus gst) that they are today. Hotel accomm has no limit, but an employer cannot charge more to workers than he or she pays for the rooms.

So yes, in the current system, there is kind of a flat rate that comes off the top of your cheque. However, in absence of more money from the licensees, that flat rate is coming out of the bid price whether anyone likes it or not.

LIcensees are not going to take on these costs, and even if they did it wouldn't matter. Consider:

A) Licensees currently benefit from planters in true bush camps, because if they had to house them in real logging camps, costs would go up. Way up. Planting camps are very efficient ways of accommodating large numbers of transient workers for a short period. They also offer a level of mobility, and advantages in reducing travel demands, that permanent camps cannot match.

B) If licensees DID take on camp costs, they would simply pass those expenses on through the bidding system to contractors, and in turn reduced tree prices.


Personally, I think it all comes down to money. While I think it would be nice to see camp costs eliminated, I think there is more moving and shaking to occur as a result of imminent changes in minimal wage. If workers simply stood up and demanded total compliance to EXISTING pay regulations, things would already be better. If you want to start "a movement" I would suggest that should be your starting point.

[Scooter]

If workers simply stood up and demanded total compliance to EXISTING pay regulations, things would already be better.

I wish that I could think of some way to make this my legacy to the industry. Instead, all I can do is claim partial responsibility for 104 million trees.

I'd also comment that when I wear my hat as a planter, I embrace camp costs. Hell, it costs me $20+ per day to feed myself when planting, if I'm cooking for myself. Let me give some context - I owned and cooked in a restaurant for a decade. I love to cook. But if you gave me the option of paying $20 per day for my food and cooking it myself vs $25 per day and having a cook prepare my meals, I'd opt for the latter. Paying $5 per day to have someone make your meals? Priceless. I'd pay $15 for that privilege ($35 camp costs) in a second if I was planting. When you're making $350+ per day and you come home tired, you don't always want to muster up the energy to make a decent meal. I also eat much better when being fed in a camp just because I'm not worried about monitoring personal expenses. The camp can buy food in bulk at significantly better prices, so $20 worth of food (at cost) in a camp is much more substantive, healthy, and diverse than $20 worth of food when I'm buying it for myself and trying to monitor a budget.

[Cyper]

I think you guys are missing the point. In the old days the IWA limited camp costs to a maximum of $2.50 per day. I don't know what the upper limit is for them now. I'd guess their power has been eroded. I'm making no distinction between motel/hotel shows and camps with cooks. Perhaps this is over simplifying but my point is that we are all a bunch of dummies to be giving the companies and the government this money at all. If nobody collects camp fees then contractors are all on a level playing field. It seems this is pie in the sky thinking and as Jordan says, planters don't seem to have the cohesion or determination to present a united front on any issues let alone this one.

I can see that with licensee companies who direct award heir work, it would be hard for their contractors to tell them that they will no longer be charging camp fees so prices have to go up. Again planters have no power as there's no energy or unified will to stand up for their rights. I've known and heard of far too many planters who get screwed and just shrug and keep bending over. We need another Michael Mloszewski.

[TripleS]

The problem is that if camp costs were to go the way of the dodo, owners would have to make up for the loss of revenue by dropping tree prices, so pick your poison. This could be a good thing as crappy companies' prices would drop even further making it even more difficult for them to find workers.

[Scooter]

Yeah, it's hard to say what would really happen. It's also possible that if camp costs were free, more planters would move away from contractors that do motel jobs, to move to companies with camp jobs. For instance, if you know that going to a company working out of motels will cost you about $45 per night ($25 room charge, plus roughly $20/day in food) versa $0 in a camp because camp costs have been eliminated, that would cause some people to want to move to camps. The same question about "why pay camp costs" could be asked of companies that work out of motels, "why pay motel costs?"

Again, I think that if there was a holy grail that would really improve conditions for workers across the entire industry, it would be for workers at companies that break the law (labour regulations) to report those companies to the Employment Standards Branch in BC (or whatever the province). Once everyone is on a level playing field, the companies that break the law won't have the same flexibility in underbidding companies that try to do things legally.

[Cyper]

It's always way more complicated than it first appears. I always meant to ask the same question of motel/hotel show operators. Why charge fees? Certainly some planters might migrate from motels to camp as they would be saving the cost of buying their own food and it's always wonderful to be cooked for. But they'd likely have to accept lower per tree prices since the camp contractor would have more costs than the $25 so would be paying less per tree. Both the hotel/motel contractor and the camp out contractor would have to raise their bid prices by $25 per planter per day since they couldn't charge a camp fee but the camp contractor would have to either raise their prices more or give less to the planters. Pretty obvious what would happen there. Either way I'd just like to see more money in the planter's pockets somehow.

As to TripleS point, the whole idea is that owners wouldn't have to drop prices to make up for less revenue as they'd be charging more to their clients across the board. Again perhaps pie in the sky to think licensees would accept price increases from their direct award contractors just because they say they can't charge fees to planters any more.

I'd love to see the "industry panel" Jordan referred to, reconvene and lower the ceiling on camp/hotel fees to something more reasonable like $5 a day.

[jdtesluk]

Cyper- it may come up. But I can honestly say it will take a good crowd of people demanding to make it happen. I absolutely hear you in that most other jobs don't have these fees attached, at least in forestry and resource work. Ultimately it comes down to one pot of money, and everyone wants their part. Your point about what licensees may or may not accept still requires a unified front that is absent.

You see, it is complicated indeed, and there has evolved somewhat of a market basis for what kind of camp and what kind of hotel people get. Workers already play that to some extent, seeking the best digs, and companies play it too as they refine their camps and negotiate with hotels. In this sense, we have an embedded system in place, regardless of the perceived justness of the system to the worker....both planters and contractors have their vested stakes and interests in camps and hotels, and the balances they pursue.

To play devils advocate, it seems unlikely that they would seek to upset this admittedly messy apple-cart of accommodation market to achieve some perceived ends in removing an unjust fee to workers. Simply put, licensees don't care, employers say just look at the tree price, and many workers prefer it the way it is and say we should just look at the bottom line (tree price). That kind of situation would make it hard to get what you suggest on the menu. Again, I'm not disagreeing with your point about "should we" or "it is okay", but just looking at the landscape of activity and the business inertia behind it, I see it as a hard battle to even start let alone win.

Consider this too:
>>Minimal wage going up means imminent rises in tree prices for some if not many contractors to keep up with employment standards requirements. Amidst already rising prices, it is unlikely that workers will get cast any more bones.

>>What you suggest potentially involves renegotiating 37.9 of the Employment Standards Regulation. That is a legislative action. A big deal. No "panel" can simply do this. It takes a panel to work with Govt to do it. First you need the panel, then you need the receptive govt. Won't be done unless there is big pressure. Moreover, if we open up 37.9 for rejigging, who knows what else might get rejigged? Know what I mean? There are plenty of actors that would like to see it gutted, refined, or manipulated to their benefit (not yours).

Now, perhaps perhaps perhaps, there are some companies that will hear what you say. Maybe in a more competitive or a more different market, perhaps one unsettled by a $15 minimum wage, that is a labor market....perhaps some companies WILL start to adjust camp and accom practices to entice workers. THAT I could see happening.

I will have some more comments to this in a separate thread.....that is some more comments to what you specifically think should be done Cyper. Because there is a place for worker input, and it is partly my role to seek that out and listen.

For now, I recall the worst camp I ever staid in. Cut rate meat (rationed), generic oatie-ohs and skim milk, powdered eggs, and no fires, no electricity, and no owner to be seen. Scenes among the best, home-made hot tubs, fresh baked bread (I love you Micheline), views of glaciers, hotsprings a 5 minute midnight drive away, bands of musicians to make my soul cry, little baby strawberries growing around my tent, 15 dogs competing for attention, comfy couchs and an everburning airtight, homemade treats I can still taste, a full beer fridge, closeness to people I've never been able to recreate. Camp life. It changes you.