COVID Archives - Centre for Future Work

The Future of Working from Home

Jim Stanford — Thu, 04 May 2023 17:37:16 +0000

The historic expansion of remote and home work during the first stages of the COVID pandemic was both extraordinary and vitally important in helping families, and the economy, through the challenges of that crisis.

Some two-thirds of employed Canadians worked totally or mostly from home at some point during the pandemic. Remote work was essential to preserving incomes, maintaining economic activity, and providing essential services at a time when face-to-face encounters were potentially deadly.

Previous research from the Centre for Future Work, through our PowerShare project, highlighted both the dramatic expansion of remote work during the pandemic, and several important issues raised by the practice: including the need to consider working hours, safety and ergonomics, privacy, and work-family balance issues in designing fair and sustainable work-from-home systems.

In the course of this urgent natural experiment, workers, employers, and organizations had to quickly rise to the challenges of the moment. In doing so, they implemented innovative work practices, technologies, and ways of working together that proved so successful, most home workers want to keep doing it.

To further investigate the experiences of Canadian workers with these expanded remote work arrangements, the Centre for Future Work participated in a research consortium, The Shaping the Future of Work in Canada Project, to undertake original survey research into how Canadians’ jobs changed during and after the pandemic.

The Project was financially supported by the Future Skills Centre, and overseen by a consortium of researchers including Dr. Graham Lowe (project lead), Frank Graves (EKOS Research), Dr. Karen D. Hughes (University of Alberta), Dr. Merv Gilbert (workplace safety consultant), Dr. Pamela Sugiman (Toronto Metropolitan University), and Jim Stanford (Centre for Future Work).

The project gathered data from over 5,800 respondents in all regions, industries, and occupations. The findings were striking, and shed important light on why people who worked from home during the pandemic are so intent on being able to continue working that way – at least some of the time. EKOS Research provided the survey research expertise to support this project.

Key findings include:

- People who worked from home during the COVID-19 pandemic experienced considerably higher levels of job satisfaction (70-83%) and overall positive well-being across 14 distinct measures.
- Home-based workers overwhelmingly want to continue working from home: 40 per cent want to do so all of the time, and another 56 per cent most or some of the time. Just 4 per cent of remote workers want to return to their regular workplace full-time.
- Their motivations for continuing home=based work are broad and powerful: saving time and money on commuting tops the list (with 94% of home-based workers listing it as a major benefit), but other benefits are also strongly appreciated (including better safety, less stress, and general well-being.
- While remote work shows to enhance workers’ job quality and well-being, it appears to have weakened the employment relationship, with 42% of those who had been working remotely at some point during the pandemic agreeing that remote work had made them feel less attached to a specific organization or employer.
- Meaningful consultation and negotiation regarding the future of home work will be important to shaping how remote work practices evolve in the future. Only half of home-based workers had been consulted by their employers about an eventual return to traditional work sites – and even fewer (less than 40 per cent) were satisfied with their degree of input into those discussions.

The issue of remote and home-based work was thrown into the spotlight by the recent work stoppage involving over 150,000 members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada employed at a number of federal government departments. Negotiating future remote work protocols (rather than having those terms unilaterally dictated by the employer) was a central issue in that dispute. The eventual agreement included important new provisions ensuring individual flexibility in work-from-home arrangements, written commitments and written reasons for refusal of workers’ requests (subject to review and appeal), and the creation of joint union-management committees to oversee remote work practices in each department.

The PSAC strike was a high-profile example of discussions over the future of home work that are occurring in workplaces across Canada, both private sector and public. Clearly, giving workers a meaningful say in the future of home work is vital to allowing the many benefits of remote work to be maintained, while striking a reasonable balance with the concerns of employers.

In this commentary published in the Globe and Mail, consortium members Graham Lowe, Karen Hughes, and Jim Stanford discussed the importance of negotiation and consultation in shaping future remote work arrangements.

Extensive media coverage has considered the significance of the PSAC negotiations as a precedent for work-from-home protocols in other workplaces. As the Centre’s Director Jim Stanford explains, “The workplace has changed since the pandemic ... and a lot of employees are very reticent to give up some of the gains that they’ve acquired over that period."

See a complete report on the Shaping the Future of Work in Canada findings, published by the Future Skills Centre.

The post The Future of Working from Home appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Inflation: Causes, Consequences, and Cures

Jim Stanford — Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:06:42 +0000

The surge in inflation in recent months has generated great concern and debate in Canada. This inflation is clearly the result of unique and often external factors related to the COVID pandemic and subsequent recovery: including disruptions in global supply chains (such as the chaos in superconductor markets), energy shocks (made worse by the war in Ukraine), and shifts in consumer demand away from services and towards goods products (due to restrictions on many service activities during the pandemic).

Despite the unique nature of this inflation, anti-inflation hawks are now dusting off their old policy recipes to restrain domestic demand and employment, and wrestle inflation back to the ground. The Bank of Canada has already increased interest rates twice (more and faster than any other G7 economy). Others (like Conservative leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre) call for cutbacks in government spending.

To be sure, workers are harmed by higher inflation, if wages do not keep up. But the labour movement must also be cautious about how austerity measures (including higher interest rates and government fiscal restraint) will negatively hurt employment and incomes. That kind of medicine is worse than the disease.

Centre for Future Work Economist and Director Jim Stanford addressed several of these issues in a recent webinar hosted by the Vancouver and New Westminster Labour Councils. He covered the causes of current inflation, the dangers of conventional responses, and elements of a more progressive approach to reigning in inflation. The webinar was recorded and is viewable here:

Jim’s slides are also available for download here.

The post Inflation: Causes, Consequences, and Cures appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

What’s a Union Good For, Anyway?

Jim Stanford — Sat, 09 Apr 2022 00:30:35 +0000

Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford recently joined Colin Ellis from TVO for a podcast conversation on unions: What are they? Why are they useful? And why, in the wake of the COVID pandemic, are we seeing an upsurge in union organizing efforts in Canada and other countries?

Their conversation is a great primer on why most workers have little bargaining power if engage with their employer one-on-one. There’s an inherent asymmetry in the employment relationship: most workers need their job, more than their employer needs them on an individual basis. But employers do need their workforce in aggregate, to operate their business – and that’s why collective representation and bargaining helps to level the playing field.

Listen to Jim and Colin’s full conversation here, along with Colin’s impressions of the recent Netflix documentary American Factory. This and other episodes of the OnDocs podcast series are available at the TVO site.

The post What’s a Union Good For, Anyway? appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Federal Government Should Pay CERB-Like Benefits to Workers Affected by Ottawa Protest

Jim Stanford — Mon, 21 Feb 2022 02:30:37 +0000

The federal government should extend emergency income supports to workers who were prevented from working as a result of the 3-week occupation of downtown Ottawa by “freedom convoy” protestors, the Centre for Future Work’s Director Jim Stanford has urged. He called on the federal government to offer benefits similar to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) to workers who lost significant hours of work and pay because of the occupation.

“CERB and its successor benefits were designed to support Canadians who could not work because of lockdowns and other public health measures intended to fight the pandemic,” Stanford reasoned. “This was definitely a lockdown, although not one implemented by the government. Thousands of workers lost hours and income due to the actions of anti-vax occupiers, and those losses are clearly an indirect consequence of the pandemic.”

“The government has offered up to $20 million in support to small businesses in Ottawa affected by the occupation. Equivalent support must also be provided to affected workers.”

Stanford suggested the benefits should be offered at the same rate ($500 per week) and the same qualifying conditions as the former CERB (recipients must have earned at least $5000 in the previous 12 months, and less than $1000 per two week period while receiving the benefit).

Stanford estimated this special program would cost less than $7 million, to provide up to three weeks’ benefit to an estimated 5000 affected workers (after deduction of 10% income tax). That is less than half the potential cost of the supports to Ottawa small business being offered through the Federal Economic Development Agency.

The program could also be extended to those (including thousands of truckers) who lost income as a result of border blockades in Windsor, Ont., and Coutts, Alta.

“Contrary to the rhetoric of the occupiers, this protest was never about supporting workers affected by public health measures. Instead, thousands of workers lost time and income they could not afford because of these blockades. They are workers who followed public health guidelines. Their losses were due to the pandemic, and they should now be supported as other Canadians were.”

The post Federal Government Should Pay CERB-Like Benefits to Workers Affected by Ottawa Protest appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Real Truckers Have Real Issues That Could be Solved With Regulation, Investment, and Unions

Jim Stanford — Mon, 14 Feb 2022 17:04:19 +0000

Despite claims of organizers, the protests and blockades in Ottawa and at several of Canada’s border crossings are not really about issues faced by working truck drivers. Rather, they are part of an organized effort to overturn Canada’s public health rules – and, for some of the organizers, Canada’s elected government. But the references to “hard-working truckers” arising from the protests should spark a more genuine examination of the challenges truckers face in their jobs, and how their working lives could be improved. In this column, originally published in the Toronto Star, our Director Jim Stanford discusses several of the most pressing challenges facing real truckers: including low pay, misclassification, long hours, and poor safety enforcement. Those problems could be addressed through stronger regulations (including sector-wide standards on wages, wait times, and working hours), public investment in roadside facilities, and collective bargaining.

Let’s Talk About the Real Problems Facing Truck Drivers

By Jim Stanford

It is now well-documented that the “truckers protest” in Ottawa has little to do with trucking. Most vehicles in the convoy were not trucks. Most people at the protest are not truckers. And most of the organizers’ demands (from opposing all COVID health restrictions to removing the elected government of Canada) have nothing to do with trucking.

Meanwhile, actual truckers are going about their business – while complying with the dozens of government rules that regulate their industry every day. Requiring double vaccination to cross the Canada-U.S. border without quarantine is just one of those rules. Industry experts say 90% of truckers are vaccinated (roughly the same as the rest of us).

The nebulous connection between trucking and this protest has not stopped right-wing politicians from invoking the rugged image of “hard-working truckers” as a convenient prop for their flirtation with extremism. Erin O’Toole and Jason Kenney spoke glowingly about the dedication and bravery of drivers (it didn’t save O’Toole, and probably won’t save Kenney). Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe was especially shameless: issuing a phony “thank-you letter” to truckers simply as a gimmick to cancel more COVID restrictions, despite Saskatchewan having one of the worst COVID hospitalization rates in the country.

Real truck drivers face many challenges. They are treated unfairly by employers, shippers, and governments. Even if the cross-border vaccine mandate was eliminated tomorrow (it won’t be), all those challenges would remain. Perhaps all this attention on truckers will translate into awareness and concern for the exploitation they experience every day. But don’t wait for conservative politicians to do anything about it.

There are over 200,000 freight truck drivers in Canada. Base wages are low: around $25 per hour. But hours are long (20% above the national average), and conditions are hard. The occupational category including truckers (along with other heavy equipment operators) experiences 25,000 lost-time injury claims and over 100 fatalities per year – more than any other occupation. Back problems, fatigue, family stress, and loneliness make the job all the harder.

If politicians really wanted to help, there are obvious ways to reform the industry so truckers could earn a decent living, in safe and tolerable conditions:

Safety: In theory, driving hours are capped by regulations to limit fatigue – but the rules are weakly enforced, and only apply to heavy, long-haul work (not regional and delivery trucks). Safety rules should be more comprehensive and better enforced. Truckers need access to better training, and confidential reprisal-free representation when facing dangerous situations.

Misclassification: Trucking was a ‘gig’ industry long before Uber. Shippers or brokers require owner-operators to cover all capital and operating expenses, sometimes manipulating truckers’ true status. After those costs, payments per load may not even meet the minimum wage. Owner-operators should be covered by the same standards that apply to waged employees (including minimum wage, maximum hours, CPP, and more). Crucially, minimum shipping rates must be set at levels that can validate those standards.

Rest stops: For years truckers have asked for more and better places to safely park for rest breaks and overnight stops: with better facilities, amenities, and anti-theft monitoring. Even bathrooms are hard to find – a particular problem for women drivers (who could solve the industry’s labour shortage if they were provided respectful working conditions).

Surveillance: Zealots fretting about government vaccine mandates are strangely silent about the nefarious ways employers use electronic monitoring and surveillance to micro-manage drivers’ performance. Misuse of GPS systems, in-cab cameras, and time monitoring by employers should be prohibited with strong privacy and job security rights.

Sector standards: The best way to stop the race to the bottom in truckers’ wages and conditions is by establishing decent, safe standards that apply to whole segments of the industry – creating a level playing field that all competitors must respect. A good example is the system used in B.C. to efficiently regulate trucking at the province’s seaports.

These reforms would concretely improve the lives of real truckers. But they require regulations, public investment, and unions – all things conservatives hate. When work and compensation are at stake, right-wing politicians will be much less visible than they were on Parliament Hill last weekend. They’re trying to sew a blue collar onto their pinstripe suits, but make no mistake: they’ll favour business over truckers every time.

The post Real Truckers Have Real Issues That Could be Solved With Regulation, Investment, and Unions appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Income Security and Workers’ Power: Work, Wages, and Basic Income after COVID

Jim Stanford — Fri, 28 Jan 2022 18:06:24 +0000

The success of the CERB and complementary policies in helping Canadian households through the COVID pandemic confirmed the effectiveness and feasibility of much stronger income security. The CERB was not designed to be a “basic income”, but its broad coverage, generally adequate benefit level ($500 per week), and effectiveness in preventing mass dislocation during the pandemic has spurred arguments for a permanent form of basic income. Thanks to the CERB, poverty actually fell in Canada despite the pandemic. That confirmed we could achieve permanent reductions in poverty with similar, permanent income supports.

Employers, however, complained loudly that the CERB undermined the “incentive to work” among current or prospective staff. Indeed, the relationship between income security for working-age people, and the power balances that shape the terms and conditions of paid work, is a long-standing tension in social policy. Employers prefer a situation as close to “work or starve” as possible: if workers have few alternatives to support themselves and their families, they face more compulsion to accept unfavourable or even dangerous conditions in paid work. On the other hand, if it is possible to live adequately without accepting paid employment, workers have more capacity to resist employer demands that are unfair or intolerable.

The positive impact of unconditional income benefits on the power relationships embedded in conventional employment relations constitutes an additional reason why more universal and accessible income security – if not a full basic income, then at least significant steps in that direction – would benefit large segments of the population. These benefits would flow not just to those who cannot work (for various reasons) and need income, but also to those who are working – but need more power to negotiate better terms and conditions of employment.

In this briefing paper, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford considers the interactions between income support, power balances in employment relations, and the viability of basic income proposals. It argues that the complementarity between good income security and workers’ bargaining power creates a shared motivation for the trade union and basic income movements to cooperate.

Please see the full paper, Income Security and Workers’ Power: Work, Wages, and Basic Income after COVID.

The post Income Security and Workers’ Power: Work, Wages, and Basic Income after COVID appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

A Healthy Economy Requires Healthy Workers

Jim Stanford — Fri, 14 Jan 2022 23:17:25 +0000

With the Omicron variant rampaging through Canadian communities, many industries are experiencing supply disruptions because many workers cannot go to their jobs: because they have COVID, were exposed to it, or are caring for others (like kids who can’t go to school). Perversely, this has spurred governments to weaken policies that limited the spread of COVID in workplaces. This may seem like a quick ‘fix’, but will only accelerate further contagion (and exacerbate supply chain problems) within days.

In this commentary, originally published in the Toronto Star, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford highlights the contradictory messages from political and business leaders toward workers throughout the entire pandemic. At times workers were honoured as heroes for providing essential services despite the risks. But then they cut workers’ pay and undermine safety protocols – confirming they ultimately see workers as just another disposable productive input. You don’t have to be an economist, however, to understand that when mass numbers of workers get sick, the economy will suffer badly – more than if strong preventive measures had remained in place.

Stanford makes a similar argument (in the Australian context) in this analysis published in The Conversation. There, as in Canada, short-sighted governments responded to the crisis in supply chains by relaxing isolation rules and cutting back income supports. The result, predictably, has been an acceleration of contagion and even worse supply shortages.

When a Worker’s Death is Just a Cost of Doing Business

By Jim Stanford

Throughout COVID-19, there’s been an uncomfortable tension in how political leaders, employers, and public opinion have reacted to the challenges of working during a pandemic.

On one hand, many acknowledged the courage and sacrifice of those who kept providing essential services despite the risks. We applauded health care workers and first responders. And we thanked those in more humble, undervalued roles: like grocery clerks, cleaners, and delivery drivers, whose continued labour helped us weather the crisis.

On the other hand, a deeper reflex remained in place among employers and governments. They could quickly revert to a more dollars-and-sense perspective, in which workers are just another productive input: something whose continued supply must be assured, and whose cost must be minimized.

Grocery chains offered $2 per hour bonuses during the scary initial weeks of the pandemic – but snatched them away as soon as operationally (and politically) feasible. Pandemic pay was replaced by million-dollar bonuses for CEOs amidst a COVID-fueled grocery boom. Premiers praised health care workers for their bravery – and then demanded cuts in their pay. And from the outset, the willingness of negligent employers to sacrifice the health and even lives of workers to maintain production – in slaughterhouses, corporate farms, and Amazon warehouses – was a frightening reminder of the amorality of the profit motive.

Now, with Omicron out of control, it seems employers and public health officers have thrown in the towel in the fight to limit contagion, protect workers and customers, and support isolation when needed.

The cannon shot signaling this new, grim approach was the relaxation of isolation requirements for workers with COVID. This started in late December when the U.S. Centres for Disease Control (CDC) cut the isolation period to just 5 days (for those infected and close contacts). It was lobbied hard by U.S. employers, who wanted sick workers back on the job faster.

Scientific evidence on this issue is mixed at best. Recent research suggests the average contagious period for vaccinated COVID patients is 5.5 days – and since that’s the average, it’s longer for many patients. But it wasn’t science that ruled the day: it was the complaints of employers that isolation was depriving them of needed workers.

Other jurisdictions rejected the U.S. precedent. And America’s sorry COVID record (it registered over 1 million new cases last Monday alone) hardly constitutes a role model. But influenced by similar complaints from Canadian employers, our officials fell in line. The 5-day rule has now been mimicked in several provinces (including Ontario, Alberta, and B.C.).

In Quebec, the government even requires some health workers to stay on the job with COVID. Alberta gives individual employers discretion in deciding staff shortages necessitate isolation periods of less than 5 days. Meanwhile, B.C.’s health officer bluntly stated she is no longer interested in “telling [employers] what to do.” Instead, each business should make its own plan to avoid shutting down because of staff shortages.

Leaving life-and-death decisions to the discretion of individual profit-seeking employers willfully ignores the power imbalances that shape the day-to-day reality of workplaces. Without clear, strong rules, workers don’t have a chance of forcing their employers to behave responsibly.

Business leaders celebrate this turn to light-touch COVID regulation. Workers can be forgiven for feeling differently. Now, in addition to fears of catching COVID, accessing testing, and protecting loved ones, workers face an added danger: their employer can demand coworkers return to work even if contagious. Most perversely of all, almost no Canadian jurisdictions (outside of federally regulated industries and B.C.) guarantee enough sick pay to cover even this shorter isolation period.

Perhaps more than any recent history, COVID-19 has highlighted the callous logic of capitalism. Bosses need workers to keep working, no matter what: after all, that’s what produces the value-added. And if workers must die in the process, so be it. We must keep the wheels of commerce turning – and keep profits (which perversely rose during the pandemic) flowing.

No wonder workers are angry. No wonder there are more strikes, more union drives, and more individual acts of resistance (like resignations). When you suddenly realize your boss will tolerate your death as a cost of doing business, your attitude toward them (and your job) changes considerably.

The post A Healthy Economy Requires Healthy Workers appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Changing Work, for Good, After COVID

Jim Stanford — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 20:32:52 +0000

As Canada enters the fifth wave of COVID contagion and restrictions, with new infections reaching the highest levels yet, we need to consider again how the pandemic must change our approach to valuing work, and protecting workers, on a permanent basis. In this keynote speech to the recent annual conference of the Parkland Institute in Alberta, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford discusses the labour policy lessons learned during the first waves of the pandemic – and why it’s vital to make permanent changes to crucial aspects of our labour market (including sick pay, protections for workers in precarious jobs, and genuine improvements in workplace health and safety). The lecture draws on his paper for the PowerShare project on 10 priorities for reforming work after the pandemic.

Watch the full video here:

Or follow this link to view the video on Youtube in a new window.

This and other Centre for Future Work videos are available on our YouTube channel: please subscribe here to receive automatic updates on future releases.

The post Changing Work, for Good, After COVID appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

10 Paid Sick Days Would Have Little Impact on Business Costs

Jim Stanford — Mon, 15 Nov 2021 08:01:37 +0000

A proposed 10-day paid sick leave policy in B.C. will increase overall business costs by just one-fifth of one percent. That’s the finding of new research from the Centre for Future Work.

The new report, by Centre Director Jim Stanford, calculates the impact of the proposed policy on sick leave entitlements, absences, replacement staff costs, and bottom-line business expenses. The ultimate impact of paid sick days is estimated at just 0.21% of existing business expenses, and will have no measurable impact on overall competitiveness or profitability.

The findings discredit claims by some business lobbyists that 10 days of paid sick leave would cause widespread bankruptcies and job loss. Moreover, these small estimated impacts do not consider the benefits which also flow to businesses from the policy: including reduced contagion among a sick worker’s colleagues and customers, better staff retention, and stronger customer confidence. On a net basis, the cost impact of paid sick days will be negligible.

The report shows the cost of paid sick days is muted by several factors:

- Not all workers will qualify for 10 days paid leave (since the benefit is phased in as a worker gains experience in a job).
- Many employers already offer paid sick leave, and hence will experience little or no increase in compensation costs.
- On average, not all entitled paid sick days will be claimed by workers.
- Not all sick workers are replaced by alternative staff during their absence.
- Labour compensation is a relatively small share of total business expenses in most industries.

“The claim that an increase in business costs of this order of magnitude could cause widespread bankruptcy is simply not credible,” said Dr. Stanford.

Please see the full report, Estimates of the Gross Cost of Paid Sick Day Provisions in British Columbia.

The post 10 Paid Sick Days Would Have Little Impact on Business Costs appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Canada’s Growing Jobs Advantage Over the U.S.

Jim Stanford — Thu, 28 Oct 2021 00:48:57 +0000

In September, Canada’s labour market reached a milestone: the total number of people employed finally regained (and slightly surpassed) the level when COVID hit back in February 2020. While this isn’t a full recovery, it is evidence of an encouraging rebound in work, participation, and incomes. In this commentary, originally published in the Toronto Star, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford compares Canada’s employment rebound to the less impressive recovery south of the border. Far from inhibiting the rebound in employment (by ‘encouraging’ workers to stay at home instead of getting back to work), Canada’s more comprehensive income support measures have contributed to a stronger economic recovery.

Canada’s job recovery numbers are leaving America in the dust

By Jim Stanford

The latest Statistics Canada employment report marked a milestone: for the first time in the pandemic, we’ve regained the same total employment (19.1 million workers) as when COVID hit. It’s not quite a full recovery, since population grew over that time. But by any measure, Canada’s labour market rebound has been extraordinary.

A largely unnoticed angle to this good news story is the emergence of a significant employment gap between Canada and the U.S. Both countries experienced equal job losses in the first lockdowns: employment fell 16% from February through April 2020. And the path to recovery was initially similar. Over the past year, however, we’ve opened an impressive lead over our American cousins.

As we were regaining pre-pandemic jobs totals last month, U.S. employment still languished 5 million jobs lower than when COVID hit. And over the last four months Canadian employment has grown more than twice as fast.

Canada is not just excelling in the quantity of jobs. The quality of our new jobs is also superior. Full-time employment in Canada exceeds pre-pandemic highs. Public sector employment (which tends to be more secure and better paid) is 250,000 positions higher than in February 2020. In the U.S., in contrast, public sector employment is 1 million jobs lower (mostly at cash-strapped state and municipal governments). Canada’s minimum wages are far higher than in the U.S., and union representation has risen (not fallen).

Perhaps most telling is the sharp contrast in labour force participation. Canada’s participation rate (measuring the share of adults either working or actively seeking it) has regained its pre-pandemic level. In America, it’s still almost two full percentage points below February 2020 – and it hasn’t improved at all in the last year. That represents 3 million Americans who’ve essentially given up on work, and extends a socially devastating disengagement from the labour market that was visible long before COVID.

Several factors explain Canada’s stronger labour recovery. Each of them attests to the economic value of social cohesion and participation. And each discredits the knee-jerk ‘dog-eat-dog’ assumptions that too often infect public attitudes to work and workers.

Most obviously, we did much better at controlling the spread of COVID-19: thanks to stronger public health measures and more acceptance of vaccination. The U.S. has had three times as many COVID cases per million inhabitants as us, and twice the share of Americans are unvaccinated. That’s given the Delta variant far more room to run, with devastating effects on work and the economy.

This confirms again there’s no trade off between economic resilience and protecting public health (contrary to the musing of certain provincial premiers). Rather, they are one and the same. The economy is composed of human beings; taking good care of those human beings is the best way to protect the economy. Canada’s stronger post-COVID recovery proves it. Moreover, our higher levels of education and trust in government reinforce this social advantage: more Canadians follow scientific and public health directives, without falling prey to misinformation and conspiracy theories. That’s helped us all get back to work.

Another perhaps counter-intuitive factor in Canada’s labour market success has been our stronger emergency income supports. Some business lobbyists argue the CERB and other pandemic payments encouraged Canadians to stay at home, instead of returning to work. U.S. COVID support payments, in comparison, were less generous than ours – and they were cut off entirely in September. Did that compel American workers to leap back into work? Quite the opposite: U.S. participation declined, not recovered, as thousands more desperate workers simply withdrew.

Our more generous and continuing income supports are just one dimension of an overall fiscal response by government that was also stronger than America’s. Federal and provincial governments pumped more spending power into the economy than their U.S. counterparts – and it shows. Far from bankrupting the country as naysayers predict, that stimulus is fueling a more robust recovery.

With a bigger state, a better health system, and more social cohesion, Canada’s job market is surviving the pandemic much more effectively than our neighbour. That’s something to be proud of. And it’s something to remember, the next time someone tells us we should emulate America’s lower taxes and more privatized economy.

The post Canada’s Growing Jobs Advantage Over the U.S. appeared first on Centre for Future Work.