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 Problem with the Use of Economics in Labour Policy

by David Doorey December 13, 2010
written by David Doorey December 13, 2010

A typical scenario plays out in the Canadian media yet again today.  It has to do with a theme I develop in many of my industrial relations courses.  I challenge students to doubt every statistic they come across that is being used to advance an argument about labour and employment law policy.  That is prudent because lawyers and policy-makers pick and choose statistics that fit whatever policy argument they wish to advance.  Rarely, do statistics drive labour policy.  More often, the opposite is true. Remember when leading American economists divided into two camps during the recent debates over labour law reform, with one group arguing labour law reform was necessary to save the American economy and the other camp arguing that labour law reform would kill the American economy.
According to one column in the National Post today, a paper that has never once said anything positive about unions and collective bargaining, unions “pad” politicians pockets, with the result that “the average municipal public worker earned more than 14% higher wages and benefits than the average private sector employee.” They are quoting a study by the corporate lobby group, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, hardly a neutral observer.  When the National Post speaks about high wages, especially public sector wages, they mean it in a derogatory way, as in good wages and benefits are bad. I’ve made this point  before. The Post article is arguing for strong restraints on public sector compensation, and against tax increases.
In the Toronto Star today, an editorial notes that Mayor Ford’s promise to freeze taxes, to cut spending by $4 billion, AND NOT CUT SERVICES (good luck with that, buddy) depends on his ability to obtain “concessions” from the public sector unions.  That implies that  public sector wages are a central problem to be dealt with.  But then, on the next page, there is a comment by an ex-Deputy Minister of Labour for Ontario and labour arbitrator, Tim Armstrong. Here is what he writes:

Public sector wages are still below those of comparable wages in the private sector and over the least two decades, have increased at a marginally lesser rate than have private sector wages.  A two year government sector wage freeze would make only a minimal contribution to overall government expenditure.  The savings would be largely offset by the loss of purchasing power by those affected who are important consumers as well as wage earners.

Armstrong is arguing that, given the fact that freezing public sector salaries does little if anything to eliminate public debt, it is not good policy for governments to provoke strikes by demanding wage freezes.
So, what does a student take from these two articles?  Well, if you believe the Post and the corporate lobby group’s “study”, public sector compensation is out of control, a full 14% higher than comparable private sector wages!  Terrible.  But then the Star piece, written by an ex Deputy Minister of Labour and Chair of the OLRB, tells us that public sector wages are actually less than private sector wages, not more!  Who is right?
Maybe Statistics Canada can help sort this out.  This Globe and Mail article cites Stats Can’s November 2010 study, which found that public sector wage settlements are increasing at a rate of 1.3%  compared to 1.8% in the private sector.  Further, private sector employers are planning wage increases of 2.9% in 2011, compared to expected increases of only 2.3% in the public sector.
Oh, brother.  What does it all mean?  The Globe and Mail helps sum it all up for us:

Public pay increases have stoked plenty of debate between those who believe they represent serious government overspending, and others who say wage growth helped sustain the economy through the recession as many businesses were floundering. Both sides dispute each other’s calculations on the difference between private and public-sector salaries.

And that’s the point.  Never assume that a statistic cited in a labour policy debate represents some indisputable “truth”.  All statistics are open for debate and they are cited and often devised to advance a particular policy argument.  Doubt everything.  Challenge every point.  Think critically.

1 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
York MHRM Student Wins Award for Top HR Professional in Toronto
next post
Nomination Time for Canadian Law Blog Awards

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.