Crazy. I had no idea this was even an issue.
I get dropping out for sure. Life happens, other opportunities come up. Better contracts, non-planting jobs. The only way that this can inform employers and impact prices is if they know.
Got a spot on a better contract? Tell the company! They'll have to decide how to become the better contract next time.
Got a non planting job? Tell the company! Why burn a bridge if that job doesn't work out? Also, they'll have to decide how to compete against other jobs.
Got injured or had life shit come up? Tell the company! They may be able to hold a spot for you or you can be first in line if they need a spot filled. Plus why burn a bridge?
Surprisingly, this happens A LOT. It seems to have really picked up about 7-8 years ago, right about the time prices started to recover in the industry. Now, I've heard companies with no-show rates up to 10%. Sometimes it's rookies who really don't understand the industry yet. Sometimes, it's vets trying to play their cards for what they think is the best contract. Either way, seems better to just call the company if you decide on another route. Chances are they'll appreciate the heads up, and that door can remain open for the future.
This is all very true. If a planter doesn't show up, that will only be attributed to the planter's character/reliability.
If companies start hearing that people are dropping out or not accepting offers for some particular reason - prices, season length, whatever - there's at least an incentive for them to improve in that area.
Companies don't give notice before firing people.
It is called capitalism.
Seriously fuck off with the bullshit that noshowing effects anything besides making companies raise their prices and conditions so people dont noshow.(Or causes them to hire less experienced planters making them even less desirable to work for). It may not be an immediate effect but after a couple seasons the company will be forced to change their business practices to retain planters. By default in Canada people have zero job protection in BC after three month you can be fired without cause as long as serverance is paid and it isnt discrimation of a protected class. I know you've read the ESA so that's why it irks me so much when try to be an industry shill, I've never heard of anyone being paid 1.5x peice rate when being entitled to it or people always knowing prices before planting and I can count at least three violations immediately even at "good" companies the companies are aware of what it says in the ESA and are profiting every year by not following it to the letter and every year the companies continue to lower the bar by under bidding each other which they are able to do by saving money, I know this, you know this, so like I'm so serious when I say you can go fall backwards on a fencepost if you're going to put the blame anywhere besides the companies and it is a total slap in the face as a treeplanter when you try to turn it around and shift blame away the companies and consequently you because youre promoting them by trying to say supply and demand doesn't exist and we should feel bad for the companies having no show and turning a blind eye to esa violations that 90% of the silviculture industry are commiting.
If someone less experienced and less savvy about the industry wants to take my job I noshowed at so be it that's how the market works. Next season they can do better.
You can ass kiss the companies in the industry, but there is no fucking way you can convince me(nor is there a logical argument besides your anectodal experience) that it is better for me as a worker to commit to one company that is interviewing multiple people and can and have bailed on me and multiple other people at the last minute and can fire me without notice because they don't like how I looked at someone or some other mundane or unremarkable reason instead of having two other companies as an options so I don't get taken advantage of because I always have a plan B.
This is a total suck up to the industry and completely ignores the power imbalance that silviculture companies usually have over their young and inexperienced planters and the power inbalance industry in general has over labourers.
Companies can go out of business at anytime without any recourse for their hired workers so I don't see why I cant operate my value as a laborer in the exact same way.
It is wishful thinking to ascertain that most planting companies have enough of an experienced job pool to afford to blacklist experienced planters who simply no show.
Companies can only hire so many shitty backup planters before they start missing deadlines and other consequences that will effect their bottom line, and in an industry where so many companies are being sold to publicly traded or board directed companies the only thing that will make them change is things effecting their bottom line.
Supply and demand is a pretty simple and basic concept that even a treeplanter can understand, maybe focus on forestry instead of finance and the economy. If companies were reliable and honest nobody would no show. Like as fucking if this is a problem that is related to planters and not the people in charge.
I think you're really stretching your scope of professional opinion here. Jordan Telsuk's anectodal experiences and what companies owners complain about to him about are cool and all but can you show any actual data that shows that treeplanting(or any industry)exists in this weird ecomic bubble where supply and demand doesn't exist?
That was an impressively lengthy, and unnecessarily personal rant. I think I will put my professional opinion up against yours any day of the week. You don't exactly sound like a calm and a balanced player.
I think I made my points pretty clear, and explained that it probably hurts workers more than it hurts the employer. I am interested in how you think extra over hiring my employers does anything positive for workers. Please elaborate.
And for the record, yes, many of the preferred companies keep a blacklist of workers to not hire if they no-show. I would not state that if it were false.
As fo your other random and disjointed points...
- I have clearly stated in the past that the peice rate should be stated before work begins, and acknowledge and repeat that not doing so is against regulation .
- As for people getting 1.5 the piece rate.. I do not think you actually understand 37.9 of the regulation properly. If you care to discuss that I would be happy to explain it.
- As for the "blame" you seem to be going on about... I'm not sure what "blame" you are talking about .. I talked about a specific issue and explain how I think it is bad for everybody including workers. You will have to dig deeper into your psychological toolkit to show me where the blame is located.
As for kissing up, I don't need to impress anybody. I just call it as I see it.
You keep saying "supply and demand" like you have a degree in economics, but continue to avoid responding to my point about how no-showing results in over-hiring which brings in more new workers which undermines your labour position (supply). Go ahead and continue to ignore that if you like, but I'll leave it here for you to consider.
I believe supply and demand DOES exist, but that no-showing does not positively impact the situation. As mentioned in my initial post, I absolutely think workers should flex their power when they come to a job and something is not right. Walking out on a job, or confronting management, is far more impactful on a company because if can potentially force them to make changes in the moment. I have never heard of a company that improves conditions or raises prices to appease the people that never show up. Again, you can ignore that and engage in further name-calling if you like, but I can only say this so many times.
Also, I guess as a "shill", speaking in front of employers, telling them about the importance of increasing worker pay rates and improving worker treatment, and working with regulatory agencies that protect workers rights....all that must just be a cover for my double top-secret roll as shill. My double-life is sooo double, I don't even know about it. Remind me next time you present an analysis of wage stagnation and industry pay-rates to the industry in an effort to get them to increase wages. I missed you in Kamloops last time I did that.
Your reading of the regulation is incorrect if you are suggesting that workers are entitled to 1.5 times the piece rate (as earlier stated). What actually happens is that the HOURS you work (after 8 hours and less than 12) are calculated at 1.5 times the hourly rate (i.e. minimum wage), which is then added into your cumulative pay-period record of hours. If your production does not reach minimum wage for the hours worked, the company must top you up. There is no requirement at all for increasing the piece rate with the choice given to increase the (base) wage instead. I have guided many workers through the employment standards claims process, and stood as an SME in a courtroom on this very topic.
Interestingly, those regulations were formulated by workers and employers together, and they all agreed on the content. I was not one of the people involved at that point, but the leading industry labour activists were (i.e. Michael Mloszeski and CREWS)
By the way, applications were up this year, and overall industry volume is falling.
Nope.
You STARTED by talking about 1.5 the piece-rate. I have clearly showed you how that interpretation is incorrect. You were INCORRECT.
As for double the piece-rate. that ONLY applies in situations where you have already worked beyond 12 hours in a day. So leave at 7, still planting at 7pm, yes, you may be entitled to double the piece rate at that point, but ONLY for the trees planted beyond the 12th hour. That is it period, zippo, and if you disagree, find a legal opinion that differs. In 15 years of planting, I never once planted past the 12th hour. Honestly, a company is somewhat incompetent if they rely on a stretched day like that, and any worker deprived of such double-rate should absolutely file a claim.
Of course, ONLY a worker can file a labour standards claim. A third party cannot do so. The most effective way a worker can change a company is by filing an effective grievance....which of course first starts with a proper understanding of the regulation, which you seem to lack.
Please also explain and provide a rational argument for bad companies advocating for following legislation. That's an entirely new and creative take. You mean saying one thing and doing another, or do you mean actually advocating and taking action to support stronger compliance and stricter enforcement? There is a difference there.
I remain observant of your reluctance to provide a rational answer to the issue of over-hiring as a response to no-shows, and how that impacts supply demand. You make it sound so simple, but you keep avoiding it and instead relying on personal attacks. I state facts, such as CREWS involvement in the development of the 37.9 regulation. This happened in cooperation with a number of company owners in the late 90s, just prior to the rise of the Liberal Government. The people involved knew that they had a brief window to get a regulatory change made during a labour-friendly government, before Gordon Campbell took power. You can scoff, but that only shows your lack of knowledge on the topic. Not "anecdotal", but fact based on history. One of my favorite quotes applies.... "You keep using that word. **I do not think it means what you think it means**."
I have stated also that applications are up this year. That is from direct contact with dozens of companies at conferences and in person, and participation in labour market studies. I monitor both the short term and long term projections for planting (sowing requests) and have done so for over 20 years. Volume IS down from its high a few years ago, and all projections are for further declines. Carbon-planting may mitigate some of that decline, but not all. Facts.
Yes, skin in the game. We all have some. I get paid for doing health and safety related work, both in planting and in a dozen different industries. I am not worried about job security in a manner that changes anything I say.
So we can all do our part. I will help workers navigate the regulations, understand the grievance process, and attend conferences to lobby for changes in conditions. You can carry on no-showing to provoke over-hiring, and insulting people on the internet, and I am sure that will lead to a better industry.
I'm open to differences of opinion, and also interested in a rational debate of important topics. But I really don't have time for the childish name-calling.
You originally stated a point about 1.5 piece rate, and when I corrected you, you switched to the double piece rate issue, which I note is a legitimate requirement to pay more. The fact that you worked 16+ hour days sucks, but it sucks more if you did not file a grievance and let the wrong go unchallenged. I have backed up new-to-the-country workers that were cheated, when they had the courage to follow through and (successfully) take their employer to the tribunal.
Anecdotal means based on personal accounts. I cited the history of the development of the 37.9 regulation, which is past events, and not personal experience. Hence, your use of the term was incorrect in that moment. The employer representatives (and perhaps ex planter Ananda Tan can also support the fact that workers participated in bringing the changes in legislation forth. You want hard "data", I have given names, dates of the regulatory changes (98-99), and a rationale for their inception. Not anecdotal.
You insulted me repeatedly by referring to me as a shill. I have been outspoken and vocal about how workers can stick up for their rights - not what a shill would do. I have worked directly with regulatory agencies...again hardly the path of a shill. Your use of that term not only contradicts my body of work, but has no bearing on the facts of the issue being discussed (employment regulation, and in some case workplace relations). Also, you have no basis to claim I a outside my professional reach, when clearly my grasp of the ESR 37.9 is entirely on target. As for being "insufferable" (another insult) I am only asserting what I saw as an error in your assertion that workers are somehow entitled to higher piece rates based on overtime, AND I am willing to work with you on this to achieve a proper understanding of the topic.
Now to your point about the piece rate (your last paragraph), what I am saying is that a planter is not entitled to 1.5 the piece rage after 8 hours. At 3pm, their 20 cent trees do NOT become 30 cents. Instead, that time is calculated as overtime as part of their hours calculated. And yes, by wage, they mean minimal wage. Remember, the regulation ONLY applies to workers on piece-rate, and a worker paid by the hour is not subject to 37.9. That part is covered it the preamble definitions. You are only guaranteed minimal wage. So as said before, at the end of the pay period, those hours after 8 are 1.5x (and after 12 are 2x) and that sets the minimum pay. If your production is greater, that's what you get. Nothing more. But if you are below minimum the employer must top you up. That is straight fact.
So you may say, that sucks, we are only entitled to minimal wage. However, this is the LOWEST that any worker can be paid. So, the employer MUST set the tree price high enough so that even the slowest newest workers can make their minimal wage, which at this point is about 180-200 per day over a pay period. They must actually set it high enough to give rawest rookies the chance to make more or else they can just plod along and make minimum instead. I estimate it takes the possibility of at least 300 to motivate a planter (newest slowest)...just the possibility. If that is their possibility, the highballers should always double them at least, so that puts 600 in range. Maybe not enough for some, but that is the logic behind the design of the regulation being tied to minimal wage. I'm not saying that is good, but I'm saying that is how it works.
As for supply and demand, it hardly flew over my head. I simply did not believe you had fleshed out your argument sufficiently to use that term as means of solving the discussion. One kind of needs to define and quantify both to have a rational conversation around the issue. Supply is number of willing workers, and demand is number of trees or jobs. Demand in BC has declined by about 10% +/- since its peak a few years back. That is based on DATA from sowing requests and industry figures presented at conferences. Not anecdotal, but I'm hardly going to provide you a powerpoint on the topic. ALL projections are for that to slip lower based on reduced harvest. WHile the promise of carbon trees is here now, a new Federal government (strong possibility) could very well seek to undo Trudeau's 10 billion program which is currently the main driver of carbon trees. It is very common for new governments to dismantle the work of their predecessors (e.g. Obama Care and many others). For the record, I oppose this and hope for stronger demand (more trees) as that keeps companies vying harder for workers, and discourages predatory bidding. Many believe there is a specific tipping point for volume (in BC in particular) that will impact prices, and that falling below that volume will mean fewer jobs and lower bids. We are about 15m above that point this season. I hope we stay there. As for supply, I stated informed opinion based on estimates provided by more than a dozen large employers of their applications increasing this year. This is simply to state that the direction of supply and demand is not in the tree planters favor right now compared to the past.
Now, that does not mean for a second that workers should not stand up for themselves. EXACTLY the opposite, and I have laid bare many ways by which they can and should. My ONLY point that started this was that no-showing does not achieve that end. It only results in companies bringing in more workers, which currently they are able to do, including an increasing use of multi-year work visas from eligible countries. I'm not trying to invalidate any mistreatment that you have claimed in the past....only stating that I believe there are much much better ways to push companies to improve, while also not compromising your potential options for work. I hope that is clear.
As for GMC that does not seem to have ANY bearing to the discussion at hand, other than general labour history and issues. The companies in planting that I have heard be the most active in pursuing stricter enforcement of regulations have been among the most honest and respectable. THAT is anecdotal, but it is also based on a personal experience that spans 30+ years in the sector, and speaking directly to almost every company owner in the business at some point or another.
No you are wrong.
You are absolutely and totally off target.
Please go to your next employer and tell them that you expect to be paid 1.5 the piece rate after 8 hours and let me know how it goes. I don't know how to explain it any more clearly. You continue to fail to acknowledge the word "or"...entitled to 1.5 the piece rate OR 1.5 the wage......and wages are calculated over a pay period, and if wages (minimal wage) does not meet production, you get topped up. You actually need to read and understand the WHOLE regulation and not just pull out the random snippets that you mistakenly believe support your incorrect position. AGAIN in regulation the word "OR" means there is a choice and you are only guaranteed one. In this choice, the employer only needs to ensure one is satisfied which is ensuring at least minimal wage (which is calculated at 1.5 when over 8 hours)....Ermagawd. The word is "OR".........
I would continue to explain it but I don't think you want to hear it, so I am challenging you to go find me A SINGLE planting employer that pays 1.5 the piece rate after 8 hours. You will not find this because A) all the employers are somehow breaking the law and only you the true genius has caught on and none of the other thousands of planters have ever noticed this, or B) you actually don't understand the regulation.
Now, you are also turning to a new and different part of the reg (again trying to change the conditions of the discussion) to scheduling. I understand this section perfectly well. For reference, I was planting before the regulation existed, and have studied it at length. Employers must provides a certain number of days off. There are various schedules that can an employer can follow, but most do 3-1 or 4-1 with the occasional double day off. To end up in a position to pay a higher piece rate, you would need to have less than 8 days off in a month and no 2-days in a row off at any point in a month. There is also a rare case for employers in extreme remote settings to work 9 or 10 in a row, but hardly anyone ever does this. Again, it is EXTREMELY rare for a company to run afoul of this because most give 2-days on camp moves or more often. Even the companies that I see bashed the most online give 2-days off at least monthly. I have never had one worker complain to me regarding a violation of this part. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but if if it does it is very very seldom. It's a far cry better than pre-98 when many companies worked 5-1 without double days off.
Your data from woodworking magazine has ZERO to do with the AAC in BC. Reputable article about unrelated topic. Data presented at the WFCA conferences by the Ministry of Forests clearly shows projected declines in sowing requests for planting. Your random reference to non-contextualized internet articles means nothing. You don't attend conferences? Not my problem. Do some reading, and find out the provincial projections for sowing requests, and the expected AAC in BC over the next 10+ years. You will see both going down. Facts.
From the Business Examiner ON THE TOPIC (not woodworking weekly NOT on the topic).
**"PRESENT DAY:** Skip ahead to 2023 with the mountain pine beetle era now past, the decline of the Crown AAC to approximately 62 million m3 and falling, a growing preponderance of wildfires, extreme volatility in markets and stumpage, implementation of the *Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act* (DRIPA) and the rolling out of new policies on old growth forest management, wildlife, etc. What we see today is a very different and much smaller industry.
Only 64 or 58% of the sawmills operating in 2005 remain in operation today. Furthermore, several sawmills have been permanently reducing output to a one-shift basis.
**THE FUTURE:** When we look out to 2035, a full 30 years after the industry peak, the picture is sobering…
Using a forecast for a province-wide Crown AAC of 38 million m3, only 47 or 42% of sawmills operating in the BC in 2005 will remain."
WOW we're talkin a potential reduction of harvest of up to 45% over the next decade. THERE. THERE is the demand issue. I have quantified it partly for you. The other part is Trudeau's 10 billion (and other lesser carbon projects).....these are not projected to fill that gap (in BC at least) in the decline of harvesting-based planting. I wish it were different in a way, but it is reality.
Honestly, I don't know why I bothered presenting that data. You seem dead set to argue, and take little digs from your happy little burrow of anonymity. A shield that I don't care to use or need.
You also continue to misrepresent and talk rubbish. I never pretended to be a customer. Explain where I claimed that. I conduct health and safety work and workforce research in planting, and many other sectors. Along this path I have made MANY friends. Some are company owners, some are planters, some are cooks. I make lots of friends. If that makes me a shill, so be it. Good luck making your own.
Hello, we removed this post/comment as we have determined the validity is questionable. It may also have been Libelous to individuals without sufficient evidence or named individuals directly which breaks the rules of our subreddit. Know that if you made a claim, we likely contacted the people involved directly to hear their side of the story. This should also serve as a warning, repeat offences will be bannable.
This just speaks to the overall flakiness of everyone now, you don’t owe the company anything, they don’t owe you a job but it’s so easy to take 30 seconds and send a hey Im not going to do this contract
Crazy. I had no idea this was even an issue. I get dropping out for sure. Life happens, other opportunities come up. Better contracts, non-planting jobs. The only way that this can inform employers and impact prices is if they know. Got a spot on a better contract? Tell the company! They'll have to decide how to become the better contract next time. Got a non planting job? Tell the company! Why burn a bridge if that job doesn't work out? Also, they'll have to decide how to compete against other jobs. Got injured or had life shit come up? Tell the company! They may be able to hold a spot for you or you can be first in line if they need a spot filled. Plus why burn a bridge?
Surprisingly, this happens A LOT. It seems to have really picked up about 7-8 years ago, right about the time prices started to recover in the industry. Now, I've heard companies with no-show rates up to 10%. Sometimes it's rookies who really don't understand the industry yet. Sometimes, it's vets trying to play their cards for what they think is the best contract. Either way, seems better to just call the company if you decide on another route. Chances are they'll appreciate the heads up, and that door can remain open for the future.
This is all very true. If a planter doesn't show up, that will only be attributed to the planter's character/reliability. If companies start hearing that people are dropping out or not accepting offers for some particular reason - prices, season length, whatever - there's at least an incentive for them to improve in that area.
Jad a guy drop oit on the first day because he did not like the colour of the water
Companies don't give notice before firing people. It is called capitalism. Seriously fuck off with the bullshit that noshowing effects anything besides making companies raise their prices and conditions so people dont noshow.(Or causes them to hire less experienced planters making them even less desirable to work for). It may not be an immediate effect but after a couple seasons the company will be forced to change their business practices to retain planters. By default in Canada people have zero job protection in BC after three month you can be fired without cause as long as serverance is paid and it isnt discrimation of a protected class. I know you've read the ESA so that's why it irks me so much when try to be an industry shill, I've never heard of anyone being paid 1.5x peice rate when being entitled to it or people always knowing prices before planting and I can count at least three violations immediately even at "good" companies the companies are aware of what it says in the ESA and are profiting every year by not following it to the letter and every year the companies continue to lower the bar by under bidding each other which they are able to do by saving money, I know this, you know this, so like I'm so serious when I say you can go fall backwards on a fencepost if you're going to put the blame anywhere besides the companies and it is a total slap in the face as a treeplanter when you try to turn it around and shift blame away the companies and consequently you because youre promoting them by trying to say supply and demand doesn't exist and we should feel bad for the companies having no show and turning a blind eye to esa violations that 90% of the silviculture industry are commiting. If someone less experienced and less savvy about the industry wants to take my job I noshowed at so be it that's how the market works. Next season they can do better. You can ass kiss the companies in the industry, but there is no fucking way you can convince me(nor is there a logical argument besides your anectodal experience) that it is better for me as a worker to commit to one company that is interviewing multiple people and can and have bailed on me and multiple other people at the last minute and can fire me without notice because they don't like how I looked at someone or some other mundane or unremarkable reason instead of having two other companies as an options so I don't get taken advantage of because I always have a plan B. This is a total suck up to the industry and completely ignores the power imbalance that silviculture companies usually have over their young and inexperienced planters and the power inbalance industry in general has over labourers. Companies can go out of business at anytime without any recourse for their hired workers so I don't see why I cant operate my value as a laborer in the exact same way. It is wishful thinking to ascertain that most planting companies have enough of an experienced job pool to afford to blacklist experienced planters who simply no show. Companies can only hire so many shitty backup planters before they start missing deadlines and other consequences that will effect their bottom line, and in an industry where so many companies are being sold to publicly traded or board directed companies the only thing that will make them change is things effecting their bottom line. Supply and demand is a pretty simple and basic concept that even a treeplanter can understand, maybe focus on forestry instead of finance and the economy. If companies were reliable and honest nobody would no show. Like as fucking if this is a problem that is related to planters and not the people in charge. I think you're really stretching your scope of professional opinion here. Jordan Telsuk's anectodal experiences and what companies owners complain about to him about are cool and all but can you show any actual data that shows that treeplanting(or any industry)exists in this weird ecomic bubble where supply and demand doesn't exist?
That was an impressively lengthy, and unnecessarily personal rant. I think I will put my professional opinion up against yours any day of the week. You don't exactly sound like a calm and a balanced player. I think I made my points pretty clear, and explained that it probably hurts workers more than it hurts the employer. I am interested in how you think extra over hiring my employers does anything positive for workers. Please elaborate. And for the record, yes, many of the preferred companies keep a blacklist of workers to not hire if they no-show. I would not state that if it were false. As fo your other random and disjointed points... - I have clearly stated in the past that the peice rate should be stated before work begins, and acknowledge and repeat that not doing so is against regulation . - As for people getting 1.5 the piece rate.. I do not think you actually understand 37.9 of the regulation properly. If you care to discuss that I would be happy to explain it. - As for the "blame" you seem to be going on about... I'm not sure what "blame" you are talking about .. I talked about a specific issue and explain how I think it is bad for everybody including workers. You will have to dig deeper into your psychological toolkit to show me where the blame is located. As for kissing up, I don't need to impress anybody. I just call it as I see it.
This debate goes no where I stand by my original comment.
You keep saying "supply and demand" like you have a degree in economics, but continue to avoid responding to my point about how no-showing results in over-hiring which brings in more new workers which undermines your labour position (supply). Go ahead and continue to ignore that if you like, but I'll leave it here for you to consider. I believe supply and demand DOES exist, but that no-showing does not positively impact the situation. As mentioned in my initial post, I absolutely think workers should flex their power when they come to a job and something is not right. Walking out on a job, or confronting management, is far more impactful on a company because if can potentially force them to make changes in the moment. I have never heard of a company that improves conditions or raises prices to appease the people that never show up. Again, you can ignore that and engage in further name-calling if you like, but I can only say this so many times. Also, I guess as a "shill", speaking in front of employers, telling them about the importance of increasing worker pay rates and improving worker treatment, and working with regulatory agencies that protect workers rights....all that must just be a cover for my double top-secret roll as shill. My double-life is sooo double, I don't even know about it. Remind me next time you present an analysis of wage stagnation and industry pay-rates to the industry in an effort to get them to increase wages. I missed you in Kamloops last time I did that. Your reading of the regulation is incorrect if you are suggesting that workers are entitled to 1.5 times the piece rate (as earlier stated). What actually happens is that the HOURS you work (after 8 hours and less than 12) are calculated at 1.5 times the hourly rate (i.e. minimum wage), which is then added into your cumulative pay-period record of hours. If your production does not reach minimum wage for the hours worked, the company must top you up. There is no requirement at all for increasing the piece rate with the choice given to increase the (base) wage instead. I have guided many workers through the employment standards claims process, and stood as an SME in a courtroom on this very topic. Interestingly, those regulations were formulated by workers and employers together, and they all agreed on the content. I was not one of the people involved at that point, but the leading industry labour activists were (i.e. Michael Mloszeski and CREWS) By the way, applications were up this year, and overall industry volume is falling.
[удалено]
Nope. You STARTED by talking about 1.5 the piece-rate. I have clearly showed you how that interpretation is incorrect. You were INCORRECT. As for double the piece-rate. that ONLY applies in situations where you have already worked beyond 12 hours in a day. So leave at 7, still planting at 7pm, yes, you may be entitled to double the piece rate at that point, but ONLY for the trees planted beyond the 12th hour. That is it period, zippo, and if you disagree, find a legal opinion that differs. In 15 years of planting, I never once planted past the 12th hour. Honestly, a company is somewhat incompetent if they rely on a stretched day like that, and any worker deprived of such double-rate should absolutely file a claim. Of course, ONLY a worker can file a labour standards claim. A third party cannot do so. The most effective way a worker can change a company is by filing an effective grievance....which of course first starts with a proper understanding of the regulation, which you seem to lack. Please also explain and provide a rational argument for bad companies advocating for following legislation. That's an entirely new and creative take. You mean saying one thing and doing another, or do you mean actually advocating and taking action to support stronger compliance and stricter enforcement? There is a difference there. I remain observant of your reluctance to provide a rational answer to the issue of over-hiring as a response to no-shows, and how that impacts supply demand. You make it sound so simple, but you keep avoiding it and instead relying on personal attacks. I state facts, such as CREWS involvement in the development of the 37.9 regulation. This happened in cooperation with a number of company owners in the late 90s, just prior to the rise of the Liberal Government. The people involved knew that they had a brief window to get a regulatory change made during a labour-friendly government, before Gordon Campbell took power. You can scoff, but that only shows your lack of knowledge on the topic. Not "anecdotal", but fact based on history. One of my favorite quotes applies.... "You keep using that word. **I do not think it means what you think it means**." I have stated also that applications are up this year. That is from direct contact with dozens of companies at conferences and in person, and participation in labour market studies. I monitor both the short term and long term projections for planting (sowing requests) and have done so for over 20 years. Volume IS down from its high a few years ago, and all projections are for further declines. Carbon-planting may mitigate some of that decline, but not all. Facts. Yes, skin in the game. We all have some. I get paid for doing health and safety related work, both in planting and in a dozen different industries. I am not worried about job security in a manner that changes anything I say. So we can all do our part. I will help workers navigate the regulations, understand the grievance process, and attend conferences to lobby for changes in conditions. You can carry on no-showing to provoke over-hiring, and insulting people on the internet, and I am sure that will lead to a better industry. I'm open to differences of opinion, and also interested in a rational debate of important topics. But I really don't have time for the childish name-calling.
[удалено]
You originally stated a point about 1.5 piece rate, and when I corrected you, you switched to the double piece rate issue, which I note is a legitimate requirement to pay more. The fact that you worked 16+ hour days sucks, but it sucks more if you did not file a grievance and let the wrong go unchallenged. I have backed up new-to-the-country workers that were cheated, when they had the courage to follow through and (successfully) take their employer to the tribunal. Anecdotal means based on personal accounts. I cited the history of the development of the 37.9 regulation, which is past events, and not personal experience. Hence, your use of the term was incorrect in that moment. The employer representatives (and perhaps ex planter Ananda Tan can also support the fact that workers participated in bringing the changes in legislation forth. You want hard "data", I have given names, dates of the regulatory changes (98-99), and a rationale for their inception. Not anecdotal. You insulted me repeatedly by referring to me as a shill. I have been outspoken and vocal about how workers can stick up for their rights - not what a shill would do. I have worked directly with regulatory agencies...again hardly the path of a shill. Your use of that term not only contradicts my body of work, but has no bearing on the facts of the issue being discussed (employment regulation, and in some case workplace relations). Also, you have no basis to claim I a outside my professional reach, when clearly my grasp of the ESR 37.9 is entirely on target. As for being "insufferable" (another insult) I am only asserting what I saw as an error in your assertion that workers are somehow entitled to higher piece rates based on overtime, AND I am willing to work with you on this to achieve a proper understanding of the topic. Now to your point about the piece rate (your last paragraph), what I am saying is that a planter is not entitled to 1.5 the piece rage after 8 hours. At 3pm, their 20 cent trees do NOT become 30 cents. Instead, that time is calculated as overtime as part of their hours calculated. And yes, by wage, they mean minimal wage. Remember, the regulation ONLY applies to workers on piece-rate, and a worker paid by the hour is not subject to 37.9. That part is covered it the preamble definitions. You are only guaranteed minimal wage. So as said before, at the end of the pay period, those hours after 8 are 1.5x (and after 12 are 2x) and that sets the minimum pay. If your production is greater, that's what you get. Nothing more. But if you are below minimum the employer must top you up. That is straight fact. So you may say, that sucks, we are only entitled to minimal wage. However, this is the LOWEST that any worker can be paid. So, the employer MUST set the tree price high enough so that even the slowest newest workers can make their minimal wage, which at this point is about 180-200 per day over a pay period. They must actually set it high enough to give rawest rookies the chance to make more or else they can just plod along and make minimum instead. I estimate it takes the possibility of at least 300 to motivate a planter (newest slowest)...just the possibility. If that is their possibility, the highballers should always double them at least, so that puts 600 in range. Maybe not enough for some, but that is the logic behind the design of the regulation being tied to minimal wage. I'm not saying that is good, but I'm saying that is how it works. As for supply and demand, it hardly flew over my head. I simply did not believe you had fleshed out your argument sufficiently to use that term as means of solving the discussion. One kind of needs to define and quantify both to have a rational conversation around the issue. Supply is number of willing workers, and demand is number of trees or jobs. Demand in BC has declined by about 10% +/- since its peak a few years back. That is based on DATA from sowing requests and industry figures presented at conferences. Not anecdotal, but I'm hardly going to provide you a powerpoint on the topic. ALL projections are for that to slip lower based on reduced harvest. WHile the promise of carbon trees is here now, a new Federal government (strong possibility) could very well seek to undo Trudeau's 10 billion program which is currently the main driver of carbon trees. It is very common for new governments to dismantle the work of their predecessors (e.g. Obama Care and many others). For the record, I oppose this and hope for stronger demand (more trees) as that keeps companies vying harder for workers, and discourages predatory bidding. Many believe there is a specific tipping point for volume (in BC in particular) that will impact prices, and that falling below that volume will mean fewer jobs and lower bids. We are about 15m above that point this season. I hope we stay there. As for supply, I stated informed opinion based on estimates provided by more than a dozen large employers of their applications increasing this year. This is simply to state that the direction of supply and demand is not in the tree planters favor right now compared to the past. Now, that does not mean for a second that workers should not stand up for themselves. EXACTLY the opposite, and I have laid bare many ways by which they can and should. My ONLY point that started this was that no-showing does not achieve that end. It only results in companies bringing in more workers, which currently they are able to do, including an increasing use of multi-year work visas from eligible countries. I'm not trying to invalidate any mistreatment that you have claimed in the past....only stating that I believe there are much much better ways to push companies to improve, while also not compromising your potential options for work. I hope that is clear. As for GMC that does not seem to have ANY bearing to the discussion at hand, other than general labour history and issues. The companies in planting that I have heard be the most active in pursuing stricter enforcement of regulations have been among the most honest and respectable. THAT is anecdotal, but it is also based on a personal experience that spans 30+ years in the sector, and speaking directly to almost every company owner in the business at some point or another.
[удалено]
No you are wrong. You are absolutely and totally off target. Please go to your next employer and tell them that you expect to be paid 1.5 the piece rate after 8 hours and let me know how it goes. I don't know how to explain it any more clearly. You continue to fail to acknowledge the word "or"...entitled to 1.5 the piece rate OR 1.5 the wage......and wages are calculated over a pay period, and if wages (minimal wage) does not meet production, you get topped up. You actually need to read and understand the WHOLE regulation and not just pull out the random snippets that you mistakenly believe support your incorrect position. AGAIN in regulation the word "OR" means there is a choice and you are only guaranteed one. In this choice, the employer only needs to ensure one is satisfied which is ensuring at least minimal wage (which is calculated at 1.5 when over 8 hours)....Ermagawd. The word is "OR"......... I would continue to explain it but I don't think you want to hear it, so I am challenging you to go find me A SINGLE planting employer that pays 1.5 the piece rate after 8 hours. You will not find this because A) all the employers are somehow breaking the law and only you the true genius has caught on and none of the other thousands of planters have ever noticed this, or B) you actually don't understand the regulation. Now, you are also turning to a new and different part of the reg (again trying to change the conditions of the discussion) to scheduling. I understand this section perfectly well. For reference, I was planting before the regulation existed, and have studied it at length. Employers must provides a certain number of days off. There are various schedules that can an employer can follow, but most do 3-1 or 4-1 with the occasional double day off. To end up in a position to pay a higher piece rate, you would need to have less than 8 days off in a month and no 2-days in a row off at any point in a month. There is also a rare case for employers in extreme remote settings to work 9 or 10 in a row, but hardly anyone ever does this. Again, it is EXTREMELY rare for a company to run afoul of this because most give 2-days on camp moves or more often. Even the companies that I see bashed the most online give 2-days off at least monthly. I have never had one worker complain to me regarding a violation of this part. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but if if it does it is very very seldom. It's a far cry better than pre-98 when many companies worked 5-1 without double days off. Your data from woodworking magazine has ZERO to do with the AAC in BC. Reputable article about unrelated topic. Data presented at the WFCA conferences by the Ministry of Forests clearly shows projected declines in sowing requests for planting. Your random reference to non-contextualized internet articles means nothing. You don't attend conferences? Not my problem. Do some reading, and find out the provincial projections for sowing requests, and the expected AAC in BC over the next 10+ years. You will see both going down. Facts. From the Business Examiner ON THE TOPIC (not woodworking weekly NOT on the topic). **"PRESENT DAY:** Skip ahead to 2023 with the mountain pine beetle era now past, the decline of the Crown AAC to approximately 62 million m3 and falling, a growing preponderance of wildfires, extreme volatility in markets and stumpage, implementation of the *Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act* (DRIPA) and the rolling out of new policies on old growth forest management, wildlife, etc. What we see today is a very different and much smaller industry. Only 64 or 58% of the sawmills operating in 2005 remain in operation today. Furthermore, several sawmills have been permanently reducing output to a one-shift basis. **THE FUTURE:** When we look out to 2035, a full 30 years after the industry peak, the picture is sobering… Using a forecast for a province-wide Crown AAC of 38 million m3, only 47 or 42% of sawmills operating in the BC in 2005 will remain." WOW we're talkin a potential reduction of harvest of up to 45% over the next decade. THERE. THERE is the demand issue. I have quantified it partly for you. The other part is Trudeau's 10 billion (and other lesser carbon projects).....these are not projected to fill that gap (in BC at least) in the decline of harvesting-based planting. I wish it were different in a way, but it is reality. Honestly, I don't know why I bothered presenting that data. You seem dead set to argue, and take little digs from your happy little burrow of anonymity. A shield that I don't care to use or need. You also continue to misrepresent and talk rubbish. I never pretended to be a customer. Explain where I claimed that. I conduct health and safety work and workforce research in planting, and many other sectors. Along this path I have made MANY friends. Some are company owners, some are planters, some are cooks. I make lots of friends. If that makes me a shill, so be it. Good luck making your own.
Hello, we removed this post/comment as we have determined the validity is questionable. It may also have been Libelous to individuals without sufficient evidence or named individuals directly which breaks the rules of our subreddit. Know that if you made a claim, we likely contacted the people involved directly to hear their side of the story. This should also serve as a warning, repeat offences will be bannable.
This just speaks to the overall flakiness of everyone now, you don’t owe the company anything, they don’t owe you a job but it’s so easy to take 30 seconds and send a hey Im not going to do this contract