Labour law a work in progress

Before one assumes that the labour law changes presented Tuesday by Labour Minister Don Morgan are completely benign, one needs to consider the following:

• The only thing that

stands between your eighthour work day, five days a week from becoming a 10-hour day, four days a week will be a week’s notice from your employer. While that might be the preferred option of some workers, those with childcare needs or other concerns will have little choice.

• Workers who cross their

union’s picket line no longer will have any fear that their wages can be garnisheed by a union fine — a move that many may see as fair.

However, combined with extending contract voting rights to former union members who have quit, retired or been promoted during negotiations, forcing bargaining units to provide audited financial statements, and ensuring that decertification votes can happen at least once a year, one suspects that life has just got tougher for small, fragile bargaining units.

• Who can be in a union

may fall into greater question as the new law extends the definition to “supervisory employees.” That seems less clear-cut than the traditional definition of outof-scope, meaning anyone with disciplinary/hiring or firing authority.

And while legislation ostensibly is needed to replace the government’s Essential Services Act that was ruled to have overreached, that provision is not included in the new legislation. In fact, the essential services component may not even be included by the time the bill is passed next spring.

Of course, these are just the more glaring shortcomings to emerge from Morgan’s press conference and briefings with his officials. Closer perusal of the actual 186-page act, which condenses 12 separate pieces of legislation, likely will unearth other potential problems.

The adage that the “devil is in the details” has never been so applicable.

The above doesn’t even include many far-fetched concerns immediately raised by the Opposition, such as the claim that allowing payment through pay cards will be equivalent to employees receiving company gift guards; that thousands of government employees will be placed out-of-scope because of minor work assignment duties attached to their job; and that we’re seeing the beginning of the end to the five-day, 40-hour week and overtime.

This was a great day for NDP’s paranoia, but not the party’s best day for critical analysis. Then again, we would have thought that the Opposition was a bit paranoid had it told us five years ago that the government was about to introduce an Essential Services Act that gave its health sector administrators the right to deem 124 of 125 unionized employees as essential workers and remove their right to strike.

Is isn’t exactly the demon legislation that so many in labour and those on the political left were expecting from a conservative-minded government. In fact, Morgan and his committee deserve kudos not only for some very positive measures in the new legislation but also some deft political handling that, remarkably, may actually create some consensus between business and labour.

Full marks to the minister for his special emphasis on improving the lot of some of Saskatchewan’s most disenfranchised workers by indexing the minimum wage to inflation (presuming cabinet makes good on this commitment each year), for extending labour standards to ensure that no two people can be paid different wages on grounds outlined in the human rights code, and for extending additional rights to immigrant workers.

Combined with increasing the current fine of $300,000 for the most severe violations of the occupational health and safety act to a maximum of $500,000 for individuals and to $1.5 million for corporations, it’s incredibly hard to accuse the government law of being overly pro-business.

Moreover, one might assume that all the pre-bill radical talk from the government of forcing unions to directly collect their dues from members or allow individuals to opt out might never have been its intention.

But if we are to continue to assume that Morgan and his government are still well-intentioned, they need to listen to those who raise concerns about “unintended consequences” of the new law. As suggested, there are plenty of potential problems that need to be addressed.

And how the government adapts to criticism of its bill will be the measure of the true intent of these legislative changes. The new labour law must remain a work in progress.