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

The Temporary Foreign Worker Program and the Neoliberal

by David Doorey November 14, 2012
written by David Doorey November 14, 2012

Here’s an interesting subject for industrial relations students.  You might have seen recent stories about how a Chinese/Canadian coal mining consortium was granted permission by the Federal government to bring in about 200 Chinese miners to fill jobs at a coal mine in B.C.  Here is a Vancouver Sun piece.  The company apparently plans to seek allowance to bring in thousands more Chinese workers in the coming years.  Because unions found out about the Chinese miners and complained that actually Canadians are pretty good at coal mining and could do this work, the government has now announced it will review the program and the coal miners situation.
I’m not going to run through all of the specifics of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.  I’m not an expert on how the program works in practice.  However, in a nutshell, it is a program that allows Canadian employers to receive permission from the federal government to bring in foreign workers to fill jobs in Canada when the jobs have been advertised and qualified Canadians do not fill the jobs.
The mining company must have put ads in papers and jobs boards for the positions, and they claim no candidates applied.  I can’t find a copy of the ads.  The Feds agreed that there are no Canadians willing or able to do the job at the posted rate, so it granted 201 permits for ‘temporary’ Chinese workers.  A strange twist in the B.C. coal mine case is that the job ad apparently listed knowledge of Mandarin.  That requirement would preference employees of Chinese origin over all other ethnicities and therefore, in my opinion, would violate the Ontario Human Rights Code (Section 23(1)) rules prohibiting listing of qualifications in a job ad that discriminate indirectly.  I’m not as familiar with B.C. human rights jurisprudence.  What do you think my B.C. friends:  Can an employer give preference in a mining job to people who speak Chinese? It would be odd indeed if a discriminatory job qualification satisfied the TFWP approval guidelines.
The TFWP program is controversial for a number of reasons.  But I want to focus on one aspect of it that is relevant to our industrial relations course.  This program has flourished under the Federal Conservative Party, the party that is most aligned with the Neoliberal Perspective we discuss in class.  That perspective promotes reliance upon ‘market forces’ to fix wages and working conditions.  This leads them to be suspicious of government regulation of work, since regulation is said to interfere with the market forces.   Curiously though, the TFWP is an example of government intervention in markets designed to help employers lower their training and labour costs. The Conservatives are fine with this sort of state intervention in labour markets.
The TFWP requires the employer to post jobs for a period of time to attract Canadian workers.  The posting must include: a “wage range (i.e. an accurate range of wages being offered to Canadians and permanent residents). The wage range must always include the prevailing wage for the position”.   The ‘prevailing wage’  is calculated by using a government calculator called a Wages and Outlook Report .  I tried ‘Coal Miner’ in the Okanagan-Thompson area because no rate is listed for Northern B.C., and got this:
Hourly Wage Rates:   Low End:  $24    Median:   $30.80   High End:  $36

[For fun, I also tried University Professor for the Toronto area and was told this:Hourly Wage Rates:   Low End:  $18.34    Median:   $43.27   High:  $69.71]

So, I assume that a coal mine in this geographic area would need to list a range that included $30.80 per hour.   But what if no miner wants to work in that region for the median wage rate?   As I understand the Model, the employer would not then be required to offer the High End of the range, or to go above that.  Rather, if no people step forward at the posted rate that the employer wants to offer, the government will then allow the employer to go abroad to find workers who will work for that rate.
But here’s a question:  If an employer can’t attract workers at a wage rate within the median range’, then doesn’t neoliberal labour market theory simply require the employer to raise the offering price?   That is how the price of labour ‘clears’, how supply will eventually meet the demand for coal miners.  I was taught that is how labour markets operate.  If you offer a high enough wage rate, you will no doubt begin to attract coal miners from across Canada.   If the employer can’t find qualified workers, then wouldn’t a neoclassical model require the employer to provide training in order to attract workers (or to find a solution with the government to assist in training workers)?  These are production costs that companies are usually expected to absorb in a market system.
The TFWP program rejects these core market-based principles by permitting Canadian employers to bypass Canadian labour market forces and tap into a pool of foreign workers who come to Canada with fewer legal rights.  These workers usually don’t speak English, so its hard for them to learn their legal rights, and they can be sent back to their country at any time if their employer doesn’t want them any longer.  It is a system designed to permit Canadian employers to benefit from vulnerable foreign workers in order to avoid market forces.  If we opened up our borders to foreign workers, that would be one thing.  But we don’t.  The Conservatives allow foreign workers to come in under a system of vulnerability, without full citizen rights, in order to keep wage rates below the market clearing rate.
This is good news for the mines and coffee shops across Canada using the foreign workers.  However, if you are an adherent to the gospel of ‘free markets’ and limited state intervention, then how can you also support the TFWP program?

What do you think?  Is the Foreign Temporary Worker Program inconsistent with Neoliberal economic teachings?

Should Canadian employers be required to pay that rate required to attract workers to remote areas of Canada, even if that rate is higher than the employer would like to pay?

Should employers be required to train Canadian workers if there is a skills shortage, or should they be able to look abroad for foreign workers who will need less training?

4 comments
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
Target Not a Successor to Zellers, B.C. Labour Board Rules
next post
A Discussion of Discrimination in Job Ads

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 219 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
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.