Income Security Archives - Centre for Future Work https://centreforfuturework.ca/tag/incomesecurity/ A non-partisan centre of excellence, developing timely and practical policy proposals to help make the world of work better for working people and their families. Tue, 21 Mar 2023 04:56:41 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1 https://centreforfuturework.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/CFWicon-75x75.png Income Security Archives - Centre for Future Work https://centreforfuturework.ca/tag/incomesecurity/ 32 32 Federal Government Should Pay CERB-Like Benefits to Workers Affected by Ottawa Protest https://centreforfuturework.ca/2022/02/20/federal-government-should-pay-cerb-like-benefits-to-workers-affected-by-ottawa-protest/ Mon, 21 Feb 2022 02:30:37 +0000 https://centreforfuturework.ca/?p=1528 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.

]]>

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.

]]> Income Security and Workers’ Power: Work, Wages, and Basic Income after COVID https://centreforfuturework.ca/2022/01/28/income-security-and-workers-power-work-wages-and-basic-income-after-covid/ Fri, 28 Jan 2022 18:06:24 +0000 https://centreforfuturework.ca/?p=1496 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.

]]>

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 https://centreforfuturework.ca/2022/01/14/a-healthy-economy-requires-healthy-workers/ Fri, 14 Jan 2022 23:17:25 +0000 https://centreforfuturework.ca/?p=1451 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.

]]>

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.

]]> Canada’s Growing Jobs Advantage Over the U.S. https://centreforfuturework.ca/2021/10/27/canadas-growing-jobs-advantage-over-the-u-s/ Thu, 28 Oct 2021 00:48:57 +0000 https://centreforfuturework.ca/?p=1317 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.

]]>

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's Growing Jobs Advantage

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.

]]> Interview with Evan Solomon about Fiscal Policy, Income Supports, and Other Responses to the Pandemic https://centreforfuturework.ca/2020/07/09/interview-with-evan-solomon-about-fiscal-policy-income-supports-and-other-responses-to-the-pandemic/ Thu, 09 Jul 2020 19:05:55 +0000 http://centreforfuturework.ca/?p=486 Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford recently appeared on Evan Solomon’s national radio program, Overview, to discuss the continuing evolution of the COVID-19 recession, and its implications for all areas of government policy. Evan and Jim discussed Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s fiscal ‘snapshot,’ the significance (or not) of the federal government’s large deficit, and the feasibility of various proposals for a basic income to help Canadians through the crisis (and to deal with the economic insecurity they already faced, even before the pandemic). Jim proposed far-reaching reforms to Canada’s deeply flawed Employment Insurance system, including a ‘hybrid’ approach that would combine improved access, a basic income threshold (similar to currently provided by the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, or CERB), and scaled benefits for displaced workers who earned much more than the CERB. Hear Jim’s full discussion with Evan Solomon here: Evan Solomon Show: Should Canada have a basic income?

The post Interview with Evan Solomon about Fiscal Policy, Income Supports, and Other Responses to the Pandemic appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

]]>

Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford recently appeared on Evan Solomon’s national radio program, Overview, to discuss the continuing evolution of the COVID-19 recession, and its implications for all areas of government policy.

Evan and Jim discussed Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s fiscal ‘snapshot,’ the significance (or not) of the federal government’s large deficit, and the feasibility of various proposals for a basic income to help Canadians through the crisis (and to deal with the economic insecurity they already faced, even before the pandemic).

Jim proposed far-reaching reforms to Canada’s deeply flawed Employment Insurance system, including a ‘hybrid’ approach that would combine improved access, a basic income threshold (similar to currently provided by the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, or CERB), and scaled benefits for displaced workers who earned much more than the CERB.

Hear Jim’s full discussion with Evan Solomon here: Evan Solomon Show: Should Canada have a basic income?

The post Interview with Evan Solomon about Fiscal Policy, Income Supports, and Other Responses to the Pandemic appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

]]> Ten Ways to Improve Work After COVID-19 Pandemic https://centreforfuturework.ca/2020/06/03/ten-ways-to-improve-work-after-covid-19-pandemic/ Wed, 03 Jun 2020 14:59:55 +0000 http://centreforfuturework.ca/?p=451 Governments, employers, and unions must all work urgently to address several critical weaknesses in Canada’s employment laws and policies to ensure the post-COVID re-opening of the economy can be safe and sustained. That’s the core message of a new research report from the Centre for Future Work. The report is the first publication from the Centre’s new PowerShare research program, undertaken in partnership with the Atkinson Foundation and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. The study, by the Centre’s Director Jim Stanford, lists 10 specific ways jobs need to be protected and strengthened in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, which has shut down large sections of the national economy. In the report, Stanford estimates the true unemployment rate in Canada in April was 33% – much higher than the official Statistics Canada estimate of just 13%. “The economy is gradually re-opening now, but it will take years to rebuild the quantity of work back up to a level that fully occupies Canadian workers,” Stanford said. “And at the same time we need to repair some obvious and damaging flaws in the quality of work, if we want that re-opening to last and succeed.” The 50-page report lists 10 proposals for making jobs safer, healthier, and fairer, including: infection control and safety; more space in work sites; sick pay for workers who must stay away from work; protections for people working from home; limits on multiple job-holding and other precarious work practices; an expansion of public sector jobs; reduced reliance on just-in-time supply chains; more comprehensive income support; better wages for low-wage essential workers; and stronger mechanisms of worker representation to ensure safe practices. Please see the full report: Ten Ways the COVID-19 Pandemic Must Change Work for Good.

The post Ten Ways to Improve Work After COVID-19 Pandemic appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

]]>

Governments, employers, and unions must all work urgently to address several critical weaknesses in Canada’s employment laws and policies to ensure the post-COVID re-opening of the economy can be safe and sustained.

That’s the core message of a new research report from the Centre for Future Work. The report is the first publication from the Centre’s new PowerShare research program, undertaken in partnership with the Atkinson Foundation and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

The study, by the Centre’s Director Jim Stanford, lists 10 specific ways jobs need to be protected and strengthened in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, which has shut down large sections of the national economy. In the report, Stanford estimates the true unemployment rate in Canada in April was 33% – much higher than the official Statistics Canada estimate of just 13%.

“The economy is gradually re-opening now, but it will take years to rebuild the quantity of work back up to a level that fully occupies Canadian workers,” Stanford said. “And at the same time we need to repair some obvious and damaging flaws in the quality of work, if we want that re-opening to last and succeed.”

The 50-page report lists 10 proposals for making jobs safer, healthier, and fairer, including: infection control and safety; more space in work sites; sick pay for workers who must stay away from work; protections for people working from home; limits on multiple job-holding and other precarious work practices; an expansion of public sector jobs; reduced reliance on just-in-time supply chains; more comprehensive income support; better wages for low-wage essential workers; and stronger mechanisms of worker representation to ensure safe practices.

Please see the full report: Ten Ways the COVID-19 Pandemic Must Change Work for Good.

The post Ten Ways to Improve Work After COVID-19 Pandemic appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

]]>