Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Chicago's Wage Theft Law: A Good Idea for Canada?

by David Doorey February 12, 2013
written by David Doorey February 12, 2013

Starting July 2013, deadbeat bad employers will not be able to operate a business in Chicago. A new city ordinance was passed recently that could deny businesses a right to operate if they have violated wage laws. The law was the result of an effective campaign by worker centres in the Chicago area.
I like this idea.  In fact, I argued way back in 2010 on this very blog that people who have been convicted of ESA violations should be denied the right to register new business and corporations for a period of time.  It takes time for my brilliance to be recognized 🙂   Seriously though, let’s take a look at what the Chicago law will do.
 
Here is the Chicago Wage Theft Ordinance.
The main charging section of the law says this:

4-4-320 License denial, revocation or suspension for certain offenses.
(a) The commissioner, for good and sufficient cause, may deny an application for any license issued under this Title 4 if, during the 5-year period prior to the date of the application, the applicant admitted guilt or liability or has been found guilty or liable in any judicial or administrative proceeding of committing or attempting to commit:
1) a wilful violation, or two or more violations which do not include a wilful violation, of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1, or any other federal or state law regulating the payment of wages

The law also allows for the revocation of a business licence for the same reasons.  Note that a single ‘wilful’ violation of a wage law triggers the law, which means basically ‘on purpose’.  It also applies to non-wilful breaches, which would include violations due to ignorance of the law for example, as long as there have been two or more such breaches in a 5 year period.  So a single, innocent mistake cannot result in a loss or refusal of a business licence.  Finally, even a settlement of a wage theft complaint could trigger the denial of a license if in the settlement the employer “admitted guilt”.
Laws like this work by what I have described in my scholarly writing as, “injecting risk into the bloodstream of business actors”.  I explained this theory in an Osgoode Hall Law Journal paper, which is here, for you legal theory geeks.  These types of laws can be effective because business actors respond to risks by trying to limit them.  The law aims to provoke risk management responses that will guide the business towards compliance with a law. The threat of losing the ability to operate will make business people take wage laws much more seriously than our existing model, which punishes wage theft with a simple order to repay the stolen wages, and possibly a small fine.  This model is notoriously ineffective for dealing with employers who are not motivated to learn and comply with employment standards laws.
There needs to be a real business threat associated with wage theft.  Revoking a business licence is one threat.  I argue in my Osgoode Hall Law Journal article that another is changing the rules so that employees of employers who engage in wage theft have easier access to unionization and collective bargaining.  The core idea is the same.  The fear of being unionized will cause many employers to pay much closer attention to the ESA, while giving employees of low-road employers a more effective ability to obtain collective bargaining protection.
In Toronto, many businesses that tend to be at high risk for wage theft and ESA violations require business licences.  Here is a list. It includes all food service businesses, and many retail establishments, the sorts of business that often appear on the Bad Employer Sunshine List. The City is debating right now whether to condition licence approval on health inspections, so why not add a search of whether the business is a repeat employment standards law offender too? Should businesses be granted a right to operate in Toronto if they fail to comply with even the most basic and minimal employment standards laws?  Are companies that violate employment standards law obtaining a competitive advantage over decent employers who do comply with the laws?
Questions for Discussion

Can you make an argument why Toronto should not follow Chicago’s lead and condition business licences on compliance with wage laws?
Should the law be extended to violations of other Employment Standards laws, such as those respecting overtime pay and hours of work?

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Conservative M.P. (Poilievre) Supports the Rand Formula as He Argues to Abolish It?
next post
Canadian Labor Laws Are Not the Answer for the American Labor Movement

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
19 Feb

Tenants have associations, but landlords can't just ignore them. Is Landlord Tenant Law the next frontier in Freedom of Association litigation?

@TheLawofWork considers:

“The Striking Absence of Freedom of Association in Landlord and Tenant Law”

https://lawofwork.ca/the-striking-absence-of-freedom-of-association-in-landlord-and-tenant-law/

Reply on Twitter 1362821027458334724Retweet on Twitter 13628210274583347243Like on Twitter 13628210274583347244Twitter 1362821027458334724
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
19 Feb

Tenants have associations, but landlords can't just ignore them. Is Landlord Tenant Law the next frontier in Freedom of Association litigation?

@TheLawofWork considers:

“The Striking Absence of Freedom of Association in Landlord and Tenant Law”

https://lawofwork.ca/the-striking-absence-of-freedom-of-association-in-landlord-and-tenant-law/

Reply on Twitter 1362821027458334724Retweet on Twitter 13628210274583347243Like on Twitter 13628210274583347244Twitter 1362821027458334724
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
15 Feb

New post from @TheLawofWork examining unfair labor practice complaint filed by UFCW vs @Uber in Toronto, complaint attached. Thanks to @WrightHenryLLP for permission to post:

"Real Pleadings: Has Uber Created a New Service to Avoid Unionization?"

https://lawofwork.ca/uberblackulp/

Reply on Twitter 1361345482510000131Retweet on Twitter 1361345482510000131Like on Twitter 1361345482510000131Twitter 1361345482510000131
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.