The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

It's Mostly Women Who Will Pay for Hudak's '100,000 Job Losses' Plan

by David Doorey May 25, 2014
written by David Doorey May 25, 2014

Many of my students aren’t even aware that there is an election looming in Ontario.  That’s hardly surprising given the low voter turnout generally in the 18-25 age bracket.  But if they were paying attention, they likely would have noticed that the Conservative Party is promising to cut the public sector by some 100,000 jobs in two years.  
As this Globe and Mail editorial notes, when you crunch the numbers of which employees could be included in the pool of potential casualties, you are talking about a group of about 650,000 facing the ax.  That means about 1 in 6 of these government employees entering the rolls of the unemployed in Ontario, drawing unemployment insurance and possibly welfare benefits.  Terrible news for families and friends of these workers for sure.  This is a key component of Tim Hudak’s, er, job creation plan for Ontario.
When you dig deeper into who these workers are, we can see, as noted in the Globe piece, that they are mostly employed in education (teachers and teachers aids), and health care and social

Most of the workers targeted by Tim Hudak for the Ax are Women

Most of the workers targeted by Tim Hudak for the Ax are Women


services.  Therefore, the Conservative plan is to cut services to education, health care, and social services.  Class sizes will increase, longer delays in getting health care are almost certain, and people waiting for social services will have to wait even longer for help.
These are all items that the wealthy Conservative supporter can acquire from the private sector, so they will be mostly unaffected by the cuts.  Their kids can go to private schools, their favourite executive medical clinic with valet service (like Medcan) won’t be affected by the cuts, and they rarely require social services anyways. Why a lower or middle income voter would support a cut to these core public services to fund another huge corporate tax cut is beyond my limited comprehension.  But I assume the Tories believe enough of them will to do so to win them power.

One of the factors that stands out when we look at public sector jobs in the areas being targeted by Tim Hudak for gutting is the gender composition of the workers involved.  These are primarily female dominated jobs that pay a decent wage and have relatively good benefit plans.

For example, when I searched gender composition of Ontario public sector jobs in “health care and social assistance” in the Stats Can database, I find that 531,700 are female compared to only 87, 500 males workers.  Many of these workers are nurses, who Hudak says he is not after, but even if we deduct nurses, health care remains a female dominated industry.  In Educational services,  there are more than twice the number of female employees (293,000 vs. 147,500).
You get the idea.  A policy of cutting 100,000 jobs in education, health care, and social services is a policy to gut decent paying female jobs from the economy.  The gender wage gap in health care and education is among the lowest of all jobs (that is, women and men earn pretty close to the same amounts in these jobs), and female jobs in the public sector pay substantially more than comparable jobs in the private sector. 
The jobs Hudak wants to cut are those found a peculiar economic island where women actually do quite well.  As Don Drummond noted in his report, public sector compensation tends to be slightly higher than in the private sector for non-executive jobs because the public sector compensation pie is more fairly distributed among the workforce.  Lower level non-managerial workers receive a greater share of the pie than in the private sector, where a greater share goes to executives at the top and to shareholders in the form of dividends.  This skewed distribution in the private sector helps explain growing income inequality in the private sector in Canada.
The Conservative’s plan is to attack the relatively better jobs women can obtain in the public sector, relative to their prospects in the private sector.  The women Hudak is promising to fire from their public sector jobs are unlikely to get jobs in the private sector paying comparable wages.  Indeed, the Conservatives claim is that although the will be adding 100,000 to the unemployment rolls, this will be offset by an unprecedented explosion in post-Free Trade manufacturing jobs.  And guess who tends to fill manufacturing jobs in Canada?  Hint: it isn’t women.
Issues for Discussion
Do you think that gender composition of the targeted jobs cuts in the Conservative platform should be a relevant debating point in this election?
Would it affect your opinion of the cuts knowing that the vast majority of workers losing their jobs will be women?
What justification might the Conservatives give if in fact they do end up terminating primarily women?

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
The State of the Labour Law Academy (It Ain't So Good)
next post
Boucher v. Walmart: Court of Appeal Confirms an Implied Obligation of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in Employment Contracts

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

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

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

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

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
10h

I can’t believe that Almost Famous came out 23 years ago.

Time is flying by.

Reply on Twitter 1622776388179705859 Retweet on Twitter 1622776388179705859 3 Like on Twitter 1622776388179705859 14 Twitter 1622776388179705859
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
11h

I had an LLM student who had a part-time job phantom writing labor arbitration decisions based on arbitrator’s notes and instructions.

Like law clerks do for judges (except parties don’t know about the phantom arb writer).

Is using a machine different? Interesting debate.

Valerio De Stefano @valeriodeste

The crucial part starts on p. 5, where the Court reports the answers to the legal questions they posed to ChatGPT. Then, at the end of p. 6, the Court adopts the arguments given in these answers as grounds for its decision.

Reply on Twitter 1622759377944952834 Retweet on Twitter 1622759377944952834 5 Like on Twitter 1622759377944952834 8 Twitter 1622759377944952834
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
12h

Quebec passed anti-scab legislation in 1977, BC in 1993, & Ontario 1993-95.

Hysterical claims that these laws cause job losses & loss of investment aren't supported by evidence. Businesses just don't like them.

Short 🧵

1/

Seamus O'Regan Jr @SeamusORegan

We’re banning replacement workers, as we said on Oct. 19th.

We’re working with unions and employers to get the balance right.

As agreed, government will introduce legislation by the end of this year.

Reply on Twitter 1622745098088861702 Retweet on Twitter 1622745098088861702 16 Like on Twitter 1622745098088861702 39 Twitter 1622745098088861702
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • 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
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • 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.