Health and Safety For Farm Workers?

[ASRG]

Alberta's Premier Redford has decided farm workers will not get protections every other sector of labour is entitled to. No WCB, No overtime, No benifits or pensions. Definitely no right to form a union!
Now I'm pretty neutral on this....I figure if you don't like it don't work for a farmer!
The problem I do have is Redford campaigned on this issue......she was going to bring the farm workers up to snuff! And now.......she turns around and stiffs them!
Alberta's premier is the biggest liar in the country.

[wilagro]

If nothing else the WCB coverage should be available for farm workers, especially so for full-time or year-round workers.

So Redford is a liar...what else is new? Typical true-blue politician...she has to live up to the standards that preceded her.

[hobbyfrmr]

Around here the BTO's buy their employees
newer vehicles, or brand new quads/
snowmobiles. Then, the employees use the value
of overtime hours to pay off their new stuff faster.

[burnt]

"Alberta's premier is the biggest liar in the country."

Oh I don't know about that. She might carry that trophy for the P.C party, but McGuinty is Liberal and they can beat anybody at anything bad . . .

[TOM4CWB]

Wilagro,

We take WCB for ALL our farm workers (required if WCB insured). WCB is voluntary for farms... or we farmers can buy private insurance like some of our farm partners do. This works well for them.

SO;

What is wrong with this? It is MUCH better to have competition to create value for the service.

You guys should know the facts before you attack.

[wilagro]

Good for you Tom...now go a step farther and suggest to your political "friends" that this be a compulsory thing instead of a voluntary one.

[TOM4CWB]

Willy,

Did you read my post?

IT is Better to be voluntary.

Cheers

[wilagro]

Tom: "Voluntary" will not guarantee the protection the workers need. Usually in this type of legislation the workers covered wouldn't include casual labour but usually they would have to have a certain amount of hours accumulated per week or month before the requirement for coverage kicked in. Otherwise it would be vexatious and unworkable.

My last employer hated the hassle of Worker's Compensation but then he was a friggin' cheapskate and hated paying assessments to the government. It didn't matter about the workers as they were expendable in his estimation.

I did most of the office work so I made sure that the business complied whether he liked it or not.

[TOM4CWB]

Wilagro,

Excuse Me!

"Usually in this type of legislation the workers covered wouldn't include casual labour but usually they would have to have a certain amount of hours accumulated per week or month before the requirement for coverage kicked in."

Wrong. If we hire people we are required to report all hours worked.

AND

It is a benefit to our farm to have all people (including contractors) covered under WCB.

LIABILITY. If all are covered by WCB... we have legal protection from lawsuits.

THis is a simple matter of risk management.

Cheers

[ASRG]

Maybe I'm out of touch or something but when two people make a contract, which is what a job is, how is anyone getting screwed?
If the boss says heres the deal: X number of dollars a day/week/month. No vacation pay. No WCB. No benifits.

Then the potential employee must make a decision....take it or leave it? If he finds the work too dangerous....there is nothing to stop him from quitting?

Two free people making a contract....why do they need the government's big nose in on it?

[wilagro]

ASRG: Nothing wrong if you like the old "master and slave" relationship which existed before people gained some RIGHTS.

[ColevilleH2S]

In the labour market here, today, the slave is the master, and the master the slave. That is, if you can find a slave.

That's the beauty of a free market, it can cut both ways.

[TOM4CWB]

Wilagro,

Alberta Labour markets are as hot as a fire cracker.

If folks don't like what goes on... they can find a job in short order if they are good workers.

If we are not competitive with industry... we don't have quality labour. Simple.

[ASRG]

Wilagro: Who gained the "rights"? Was it the worker....or the government?
Was there anything stopping anyone from negotiating for vacation pay, or pensions, or some kind of injury compensation?
How is it when two people can come to an agreement on pay and working conditions....we need the government in there meddling?
A good worker is worth his weight in gold...he doesn't need a bunch of government BS to keep his job....and do very well at it?
This may surprize you but most employers hire people to make money....not to provide a government welfare scheme for people too useless to make it on their own?

[wilagro]

ASRG: Apparently, you've never worked for E X P L O I T E R S.

They are the businessmen who make promises when they hire but try and screw their workers every frickin day of the year.

Having been a peon as well as a manager, I have a pretty good idea of how and why employers hire. I have hired AND fired people as part of my duties...a job that I really didn't enjoy.

Your ideal of a one-on-one contract is just that...an ideal situation. Trouble is it doesn't work in most situations. Human greed and power trips get in the way.

Government labour legislation is needed to keep people honest and to have at least a more or less equitable situation amongst all the parties involved. Usury is not dead, it can easily rear its ugly head especially in times of high unemployment or labour surplus.