A New Approach to Regulating Temporary Agency Work in Ontario or Back to the Future?

In 2009, the province of Ontario, Canada adopted the Employment Standards Amendment Act (Temporary Help Agencies) partly in response to public concern over temporary agency workers’ limited access to labour protection. This article examines its “new” approach in historical and international context, illustrating that the resulting section of the Employment Standards Act (ESA) reflects continuity through change in its continued omissions and exclusions.The article begins by defining temporary agency work and describing its significance, explaining how it exemplifies precarious employment, partly by virtue of the triangular employment relationship at its heart. Next it traces three eras of regulation, from the early 20th to the early 21st centuries: in the first era, against the backdrop of the federal government’s forays into regulation through the Immigration Act, Ontario responded to abusive practices of private employment agencies, with strict regulations, directed especially at those placing recent immigrants in employment. In the second era, restrictions on private employment agencies were gradually loosened, resulting in modest regulation; in this era, there was growing space for the emergence of “new” types of agencies providing “employment services,” including temporary help agencies, which carved out a niche for themselves by targeting marginalized social groups, such as women. The third era was characterized by the legitimization of private employment agencies and, in particular, temporary help agencies, both in a passive sense by government inaction in response to growing complexities surrounding their operation, and in an active sense by the repeal of Ontario’s Employment Agencies Act in 2000.Despite a consultative process aimed, in the words of Ontario’s then Minister of Labour, at “enhanc [ing] protections for employees working for temporary help agencies,” the new section of the ESA adopted in 2009 reproduces outdated approaches to regulation through its omissions and exclusions; specifically, it focuses narrowly on temporary help agencies rather than including an overlapping group of private employment agencies with which they comprise the employment services industry and its denial of access to protection to workers from a particular occupational group (i.e., workers placed by a subset of homecare agencies otherwise falling within the definition of “assignment employees”). Highlighting the importance of looking back in devising new regulations, the article concludes by advancing a more promising approach for the future that would address more squarely the triangular employment relationship as the basis for extending greater protection to workers.En 2009, l’Ontario a adopté la Loi modifiant la Loi sur les normes d’emploi en ce qui concerne les agences temporaires de placement et certaines autres questions afin de répondre, du moins en partie, à la préoccupation publique à l’égard de l’accès limité en matière de protection des conditions de travail des travailleurs de ces agences. Le présent article examine cette « nouvelle » approche dans une perspective historique et internationale, ce qui permet d’observer que cette nouvelle section de la Loi sur les normes d’emploi (LNE) s’inscrit, à travers le changement, dans une continuité en ce qui concerne les exclusions et les omissions de la LNE.L’article débute par une définition de l’expression « agence temporaire de placement » (ATP), tout en faisant ressortir sa signification en termes de précarité d’emploi grâce à la relation d’emploi triangulaire qui est au coeur de celle-ci. Puis il retrace trois périodes de régulation. Première période du début du 20e siècle au début du 21e siècle, avec en toile de fond les incursions du gouvernement fédéral en matière de réglementation via la Loi sur l’immigration, la province d’Ontario a répondu aux pratiques abusives des agences de placement privées par des règles strictes s’adressant directement aux agences faisant le placement des nouveaux immigrants. Durant la seconde période, les restrictions envers les agences de placement temporaires ont été graduellement relâchées, donnant lieu à une régulation plus modeste; c’est aussi la période d’émergence de « nouveaux » types d’agences procurant des « services d’emploi », incluant des agences temporaires d’aide qui se découvraient une niche en ciblant des groupes sociaux marginalisés, comme les femmes. La troisième période est caractérisée par la légitimation des agences privées de placement, en particulier des agences temporaires d’aide, de façon passive via l’inaction du gouvernement en réponse à la complexité croissante de leurs opérations, et de façon active par l’abolition la Loi sur les agences de placement de l’Ontario en 2000.En dépit de la tenue d’un processus de consultation dont le but, selon les dires du Ministre du travail, était d’ « élargir les protections pour les employés travaillant pour des agences temporaires d’aide », cette nouvelle section de la LNE adoptée en 2009 ne fait que reproduire les approches dépassées de régulations à travers ses exclusions et ses omissions. Plus spécifiquement, on vise de façon étroite les agences temporaires d’aide plutôt que le groupe plus large des agences privées d’emploi qui englobent l’industrie des services d’emploi et son dénie d’accès à la protection des travailleurs d’un groupe professionnel particulier (soit les travailleurs placés en emploi par un sous-ensemble d’agences de soins à domicile qui seraient autrement considérés légalement comme travailleurs de l’agence, i.e. selon une relation « employeur-employé »). Mettant en lumière l’importance de jeter un regard sur le passé pour développer de nouvelles régulations, l’article conclut en proposant une approche plus prometteuse pour l’avenir et qui s’adresserait plus carrément au problème de la relation d’emploi triangulaire comme support à une protection plus étendue des travailleurs.En 2009, la provincia de Ontario en Canadá adoptó la revisión de la ley de normas de empleo (Agencias de ayuda temporaria) parcialmente en respuesta a la preocupación pública sobre el acceso limitado a la protección laboral de los trabajadores temporales de agencias. Este artículo analiza su “nuevo” enfoque en un contexto histórico e internacional, ilustrando que dicha sección de la Ley de normas de empleo refleja una continuidad a través del cambio en omisiones y exclusiones persistentes.Este artículo comienza definiendo el trabajo temporario de agencias y describe su significado, explica cómo esto ilustra el empleo precario, parcialmente en virtud de la relación triangular de empleo que constituye su esencia. Luego, se esbozan tres eras de regulación, desde el comienzo del siglo XX hasta el comienzo del siglo XXI: en la primera era, frente a las incursiones del gobierno federal en la regulación mediante la Ley de inmigración, Ontario respondía a las prácticas abusivas de las empresas privadas de empleo con estrictas regulaciones, dirigidas en particular contra aquellas que ofrecían servicios de empleo a inmigrantes recientes.En la segunda era, las restricciones respecto a las agencias de empleo privado fueron relajadas gradualmente, resultando en una regulación modesta; en esta era, hubo un espacio creciente para la emergencia de “nuevos” tipos de agencias proveedoras de servicios de empleo, incluyendo las agencias de ayuda temporal que se abrieron un espacio propio focalizando los grupos sociales marginalizados, como las mujeres. La tercera era fue caracterizada por la legitimación de las agencias privadas de empleo y, en particular, de las agencias de ayuda temporal, legitimación en sentido pasivo mediante la inacción del gobierno en respuesta a las crecientes complejidades que rodean el funcionamiento de dichas agencias, y en un legitimación en sentido activo mediante la revocación de la Ley de las agencias de empleo de Ontario en el año 2000.A pesar de un proceso consultativo orientado, según las palabras del entonces Ministro de trabajo de Ontario, a “ampliar las protecciones para los empleados que trabajan para las agencias de ayuda temporal”, la nueva sección de la Ley de normas de empleo adoptada en 2009, con sus omisiones y exclusiones, reproduce los enfoques obsoletos de regulación; en particular, la ley se centra casi exclusivamente en las agencias de ayuda temporal en vez de incluir un amplio grupo de agencias privadas de empleo que comprenden la industria de servicios de empleo y la negativa de acceso a la protección de los trabajadores de un grupo ocupacional particular (es decir, los trabajadores colocados por un subconjunto de agencias de servicios a domicilio que de otra manera caen en la definición de “empleados por asignación”).Destacando la importancia de ver retrospectivamente el diseño de nuevas regulaciones, este artículo concluye con la propuesta de un enfoque más prometedor para el futuro que se dirigiría más directamente a la relación de empleo triangular como base para lograr una más amplia protección para los trabajadores

“Rights without Remedies”: Enforcing Employment Standards in Ontario by Maximizing Voice among Workers in Precarious Jobs

Workers in Ontario, Canada are on the edge of a crisis in the enforcement of their minimum employment standards (ES). This crisis is shaped not only by well-documented deficiencies in the scope of labour protection but by the fact that the administration of the ES system has not kept pace with the increasing number of workers and workplaces requiring protection under the province’s employment standards act. Coupled with an outmoded complaint-based system, the dearth of support for ES enforcement is cultivating a situation in which an unprecedented number of workers are bearers of rights without genuine opportunities for redress. Responding to this situation, this article explores how measures augmenting the voices of workers and their advocates could contribute to improving ES enforcement in Ontario. It does so through a review of innovative practices in other common law contexts characterized by similar enforcement regimes where labour market conditions have likewise deteriorated

Working Time and Flexibility in Canada

Canada is a federal state and, under its constitution, legislative jurisdiction over labour and employment is vested primarily in its provinces and territories. As a result, there is no generally applicable national regime regulating hours of work, but rather a patchwork of laws with limited reach. It is not possible to cover all these laws in a brief overview and so we have chosen to focus on the laws of Ontario, Canada’s most populous province. However, it is also fair to say that while provincial laws vary, the law of Ontario reflects the general pattern of hours of work laws in Canada. As will be seen, while the development of the hours of work regime was initially driven by the demand to protect employees from long hours, it has also accommodated the demand of employers for flexibility and arguably, in recent years, flexibility for employers has come at the expense of protection for employees

Infodemic Deportability: Risks Confronting Essential Migrant Agricultural Workers from Latin America and the Caribbean During the COVID-19 Pandemic

My remarks will focus on the treatment of seasonal migrant workers in agriculture in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. It will explore how dis/mis/information exacerbated the externalization of the costs of and risks confronting this group of workers perform essential work in the agri-food, with particular attention to those migrating from Latin America and the Caribbean

What We Owe Workers as a Matter of Common Humanity: Sickness and Caregiving Leaves and Pay in the Age of Pandemics

Workers commodifying their time in labour markets are liable to become temporarily incapable of doing so because of sickness or caregiving responsibilities. While the risk is universal, it will be experienced very differently depending on social conditions and arrangements and social locations, such as gender, among others. In a society in which the vast majority of people are dependent on labour market incomes to survive, the consequences of being off work are severe, unless some protection and benefits are provided. Over time, Canada has developed a number leave and income-replacement schemes, but the COVID-19 pandemic revealed, in dramatic fashion, their limitations, leading to the adoption of temporary measures to address the crisis. This article, written from a feminist political economy perspective, provides an overview of the historical development of sickness and caregiving leave and pay arrangements set against the background of changing social and economic reproduction regimes. It then examines more closely the slow development of Canada’s welfare state model of sickness and caregiving leaves and benefits since the 1970s, focusing on the federal government’s enactment of special employment insurance benefits and statutory leave rights in British Columbia and Ontario. Next, it critically examines the limitations of that statutory regime, as it existed immediately prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, and then considers the expansion of sick and caregiving leave and pay provisions, enacted in response to the pandemic. The article then elaborates four principles to guide the future development of the sick and caregiving entitlements suggests ways of bringing the existing regime more into line with those principles. Finally, it sets out a few directions towards imagining a different regime that truly provides workers with what we conceive they are owed as a matter of common humanity

Precarious Employment in the Canadian Labour Market: A Statistical Portrait

'Precarious employment' is a better concept for understanding labour market insecurity than the dominant concept in Canada, 'non-standard work.' We examine dimensions of precariousness between and within mutually exclusive forms of employment. The growth of 'non-standard work' is fuelled by increases in forms of employment that lack regulatory protection, such as own- account self-employment. Wage work falls along a continuum of precariousness measured as regulatory protection, control and income. Finally, employment in precarious forms is shaped by social location. White men are concentrated in the least precarious forms of employment, while white women, women of colour and youth are concentrated in the more precarious forms

Federal Enforcement of Migrant Workers’ Labour Rights in Canada: A Research Report

Although Canada’s migrant labour program is seen by some as a model of best practices, rights shortfalls and exploitation of workers are well documented. Through migration policy, federal authorities determine who can hire migrant workers, and the conditions under which they are employed, through the provision of work permits. Despite its authority over work permits, the federal government has historically had little to do with the regulation of working conditions. In 2015, the federal government introduced a new regulatory enforcement system - unique internationally for its attempt to enforce migrants’ workplace rights through federal migration policy - under which employers must comply with contractual employment terms, uphold provincial workplace standards, and make efforts to maintain a workplace free of abuse. Drawing on enforcement data, and frontline law and policy documents, we critically assess the new enforcement system, concluding that it holds both promise and peril for migrant workers