<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Time &amp; Working Hours Archives - Centre for Future Work</title>
	<atom:link href="https://centreforfuturework.ca/tag/timeandworkinghours/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://centreforfuturework.ca/tag/timeandworkinghours/</link>
	<description>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.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2023 04:56:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.2</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Ontario’s ‘Right-to-Disconnect’ is no Such Thing</title>
		<link>https://centreforfuturework.ca/2022/06/24/ontarios-right-to-disconnect-is-no-such-thing/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim Stanford]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jun 2022 00:51:17 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Future of Work]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Time & Working Hours]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://centreforfuturework.ca/?p=1670</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The Ford government in Ontario, portraying itself as being on “the side of workers,” recently passed legislation setting out certain requirements for some businesses in the province regarding expectations of workers’ availability outside of normal working hours. This legislation has been widely, but very inaccurately, reported as a “right to disconnect.” Some coverage has even fawned that Ontario is now the first jurisdiction in North America to protect this right. This claim is transparently false – and individuals who (wrongly) believe that such a right exists might take actions (such as refusing instructions from their employer) that could jeopardize their employment. The Ontario law simply requires that firms with over 25 employees operating in the province must post and communicate their policy regarding “disconnection” outside of normal working hours. There are no requirements in the legislation whatsoever regarding what that policy should contain, and whether or not workers do indeed have any right to reject work (including instructions sent via email, text, or other remote devices) outside of normal hours. The reality is that workers do not generally have that right – unless they are protected by a union contract. Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford discussed with journalist Holly McKenzie-Sutter the superficial nature of the new Ontario policy, and why unionizing actually offers much better protection for workers concerned with the technology-facilitated creep of work into their unpaid time. See the full story here: There is an enormous dichotomy in Canadian employment law between non-union workplaces (where people can be fired for any reason, with minimum notice or pay in lieu) and union workplaces (where just cause rules are enforced). It&#8217;s the clearest benefit of unionizing. The Ford government&#8217;s symbolic and manipulative “right to disconnect” policy (which offers no such right at all) has inadvertently highlighted this dichotomy: if you want protection for ANY of your rights at work (including a right to disconnect), having a union is essential. In the meantime, workers should be careful about learning about their labour rights from government press releases recycled uncritically as news. Someone who heard on TV that they now have a “right to disconnect” might then tell their boss to stuff it, the next time they are asked to return emails on the weekend. But under Ontario law, they could get fired anyway – unless, of course, they have a union.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://centreforfuturework.ca/2022/06/24/ontarios-right-to-disconnect-is-no-such-thing/">Ontario’s ‘Right-to-Disconnect’ is no Such Thing</a> appeared first on <a href="https://centreforfuturework.ca">Centre for Future Work</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="1670" class="elementor elementor-1670">
						<section class="elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-aa0f057 elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-column-slider-no wpr-equal-height-no" data-id="aa0f057" data-element_type="section" data-e-type="section">
						<div class="elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default">
					<div class="elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-8ed6b81" data-id="8ed6b81" data-element_type="column" data-e-type="column">
			<div class="elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated">
						<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-2d9ca3e elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="2d9ca3e" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<p>The Ford government in Ontario, portraying itself as being on “the side of workers,” recently passed legislation setting out certain requirements for some businesses in the province regarding expectations of workers’ availability outside of normal working hours.</p><p>This legislation has been widely, but very inaccurately, reported as a “right to disconnect.” Some coverage has even fawned that Ontario is now the first jurisdiction in North America to protect this right. This claim is transparently false – and individuals who (wrongly) believe that such a right exists might take actions (such as refusing instructions from their employer) that could jeopardize their employment.</p><p>The Ontario law simply requires that firms with over 25 employees operating in the province must post and communicate their policy regarding “disconnection” outside of normal working hours. There are no requirements in the legislation whatsoever regarding what that policy should contain, and whether or not workers do indeed have any right to reject work (including instructions sent via email, text, or other remote devices) outside of normal hours. The reality is that workers do not generally have that right – unless they are protected by a union contract.</p><p>Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford discussed with journalist Holly McKenzie-Sutter the superficial nature of the new Ontario policy, and why unionizing actually offers much better protection for workers concerned with the technology-facilitated creep of work into their unpaid time. See the full story here:</p><p><a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ont-labour-disconnect-1.6494010"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-1672 size-full" src="https://centreforfuturework.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ON-Right-to-Disconnect.jpg" alt="Ontario's right to disconnect law too vague to help work-life balance, experts say" width="973" height="482" srcset="https://centreforfuturework.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ON-Right-to-Disconnect.jpg 973w, https://centreforfuturework.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ON-Right-to-Disconnect-300x149.jpg 300w, https://centreforfuturework.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ON-Right-to-Disconnect-768x380.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 973px) 100vw, 973px" /></a></p><p>There is an enormous dichotomy in Canadian employment law between non-union workplaces (where people can be fired for any reason, with minimum notice or pay in lieu) and union workplaces (where just cause rules are enforced). It&#8217;s the clearest benefit of unionizing.</p><p>The Ford government&#8217;s symbolic and manipulative “right to disconnect” policy (which offers no such right at all) has inadvertently highlighted this dichotomy: if you want protection for ANY of your rights at work (including a right to disconnect), having a union is essential.</p><p>In the meantime, workers should be careful about learning about their labour rights from government press releases recycled uncritically as news. Someone who heard on TV that they now have a “right to disconnect” might then tell their boss to stuff it, the next time they are asked to return emails on the weekend. But under Ontario law, they could get fired anyway – unless, of course, they have a union.</p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
		</div>
					</div>
		</section>
				</div>
		<p>The post <a href="https://centreforfuturework.ca/2022/06/24/ontarios-right-to-disconnect-is-no-such-thing/">Ontario’s ‘Right-to-Disconnect’ is no Such Thing</a> appeared first on <a href="https://centreforfuturework.ca">Centre for Future Work</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bargaining Tech: Shaping New Technologies to Improve Work, not Devalue It</title>
		<link>https://centreforfuturework.ca/2021/06/15/bargaining-tech/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim Stanford]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2021 07:01:12 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[PowerShare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Time & Working Hours]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Unions]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://centreforfuturework.ca/?p=1044</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The Centre for Future Work has published another major paper in its PowerShare project, dealing with the impact of new technology on the quantity and quality of work in Canada – and strategies for ensuring that new technology produces more benefits for workers. The paper is entitled Bargaining Tech: Strategies for Shaping Technological Change to Benefit Workers, co-authored by Jim Stanford and Kathy Bennett. It provides an overview of the complex, contradictory ways that technological change is affecting jobs in Canada. It also discusses how technology could be better managed and implemented to achieve better, fairer, more inclusive high-tech outcomes. The report reviews recent debates about whether new technology will lead to mass unemployment (with workers replaced by robots and other smart machines), or will degrade the quality and autonomy of work (exemplified by hyper-intense algorithm-directed jobs in high-tech warehouses or the gig economy). The paper also reviews efforts by trade unions in Canada to shape and regulate the introduction of new technologies in their workplaces. It compiles a database of 350 collective agreement provisions, through which workers and their unions have tried to influence how technology rolls out. Major findings include: Fears that tech change will produce mass unemployment are not consistent with statistical evidence from Canada’s recent economic history. Instead, a bigger economic risk is that investments in innovation by Canadian businesses (both in tangible machinery and intangible research) have been too weak – weaker than at any time in the postwar era. While fears of mass unemployment are misplaced, implementation of new technologies can certainly cause disruption and reallocation of work. And technology can also have negative effects on the quality of jobs: including speed-up of work, fragmentation of tasks, new health &#38; safety risks, and the expansion of insecure employment (including gigs) through digital management tools. For all these reasons, whether technology leads to better jobs or worse jobs is indeterminate: depending on whose interests prevail as new tech is unrolled. For that reason, giving workers more say in negotiating how technology unfolds is vital to enhancing the benefits and reducing the costs. Canadian unions have been heavily engaged in negotiating technological change in their workplaces. There is no evidence unions are trying to “stop” technology. Instead, they are trying to shape and manage it: through measures like notice, adjustment supports, access to training and redeployment, limits on surveillance and digital discipline, provisions regarding work from home (which expanded under COVID), and more. The authors’ survey of union bargaining strategies has identified one important shortcoming: the issue of reducing regular working hours has largely fallen off the union bargaining agenda. The authors urge unions to seek ways of revitalizing the campaign for shorter working hours as one key strategy for sharing the productivity gains of new technology, and avoiding unemployment. The authors conclude with several policy suggestions aimed at both governments and unions, including strengthening collective bargaining systems (especially in the private sector, where just one worker in six is covered by a collective agreement); linking government support for business innovation activity with commitment to negotiate tech change with their workers; and developing ‘early warning systems’ whereby unions can get ahead of tech change before it rolls out. Those measures would help ensure faster, fairer tech change in Canadian workplaces – and a better sharing of its costs and benefits. Please see the full report, Bargaining Tech: Strategies for Shaping Technological Change to Benefit Workers, by Jim Stanford and Kathy Bennett.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://centreforfuturework.ca/2021/06/15/bargaining-tech/">Bargaining Tech: Shaping New Technologies to Improve Work, not Devalue It</a> appeared first on <a href="https://centreforfuturework.ca">Centre for Future Work</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="1044" class="elementor elementor-1044">
						<section class="elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-9385971 elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-column-slider-no wpr-equal-height-no" data-id="9385971" data-element_type="section" data-e-type="section">
						<div class="elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default">
					<div class="elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-5ae7792" data-id="5ae7792" data-element_type="column" data-e-type="column">
			<div class="elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated">
						<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-544dc30 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="544dc30" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<p>The Centre for Future Work has published another major paper in its <a href="https://centreforfuturework.ca/powershare/"><b>PowerShare</b></a> project, dealing with the impact of new technology on the quantity and quality of work in Canada – and strategies for ensuring that new technology produces more benefits for workers.</p><p>The paper is entitled <a href="https://centreforfuturework.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Bargaining-Tech.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><b><i>Bargaining Tech: Strategies for Shaping Technological Change to Benefit Workers</i></b></a>, co-authored by Jim Stanford and Kathy Bennett. It provides an overview of the complex, contradictory ways that technological change is affecting jobs in Canada. It also discusses how technology could be better managed and implemented to achieve better, fairer, more inclusive high-tech outcomes.</p><p>The report reviews recent debates about whether new technology will lead to mass unemployment (with workers replaced by robots and other smart machines), or will degrade the quality and autonomy of work (exemplified by hyper-intense algorithm-directed jobs in high-tech warehouses or the gig economy).</p><p>The paper also reviews efforts by trade unions in Canada to shape and regulate the introduction of new technologies in their workplaces. It compiles a database of 350 collective agreement provisions, through which workers and their unions have tried to influence how technology rolls out.</p><p>Major findings include:</p><ul><li style="list-style-type: none;"><ul><li style="list-style-type: none;"><ul><li>Fears that tech change will produce mass unemployment are not consistent with statistical evidence from Canada’s recent economic history. Instead, a bigger economic risk is that investments in innovation by Canadian businesses (both in tangible machinery and intangible research) have been too weak – weaker than at any time in the postwar era.</li><li>While fears of mass unemployment are misplaced, implementation of new technologies can certainly cause disruption and reallocation of work. And technology can also have negative effects on the <i>quality</i> of jobs: including speed-up of work, fragmentation of tasks, new health &amp; safety risks, and the expansion of insecure employment (including gigs) through digital management tools.</li><li>For all these reasons, whether technology leads to better jobs or worse jobs is indeterminate: depending on whose interests prevail as new tech is unrolled. For that reason, giving workers more say in negotiating how technology unfolds is vital to enhancing the benefits and reducing the costs.</li><li>Canadian unions have been heavily engaged in negotiating technological change in their workplaces. There is no evidence unions are trying to “stop” technology. Instead, they are trying to shape and manage it: through measures like notice, adjustment supports, access to training and redeployment, limits on surveillance and digital discipline, provisions regarding work from home (which expanded under COVID), and more.</li><li>The authors’ survey of union bargaining strategies has identified one important shortcoming: the issue of reducing regular working hours has largely fallen off the union bargaining agenda. The authors urge unions to seek ways of revitalizing the campaign for shorter working hours as one key strategy for sharing the productivity gains of new technology, and avoiding unemployment.</li></ul></li></ul></li></ul><p>The authors conclude with several policy suggestions aimed at both governments and unions, including strengthening collective bargaining systems (especially in the private sector, where just one worker in six is covered by a collective agreement); linking government support for business innovation activity with commitment to negotiate tech change with their workers; and developing ‘early warning systems’ whereby unions can get ahead of tech change before it rolls out. Those measures would help ensure faster, fairer tech change in Canadian workplaces – and a better sharing of its costs and benefits.</p><p>Please see the full report, <a href="https://centreforfuturework.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Bargaining-Tech.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><b><i>Bargaining Tech: Strategies for Shaping Technological Change to Benefit Workers</i></b></a><i>, </i>by Jim Stanford and Kathy Bennett.</p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
		</div>
					</div>
		</section>
				</div>
		<p>The post <a href="https://centreforfuturework.ca/2021/06/15/bargaining-tech/">Bargaining Tech: Shaping New Technologies to Improve Work, not Devalue It</a> appeared first on <a href="https://centreforfuturework.ca">Centre for Future Work</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Working From Home Helps, but is No Panacea</title>
		<link>https://centreforfuturework.ca/2020/05/25/working-from-home-helps-but-is-no-panacea/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim Stanford]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2020 16:38:29 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Future of Work]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labour Standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PowerShare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Time & Working Hours]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://centreforfuturework.ca/?p=430</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>A version of this commentary originally appeared in the Toronto Star. Millions of Canadians have been doggedly working from home through the pandemic. It’s inspired endless memes and laments on social media: Zoom meetings in pyjamas, kids running amok with office papers, super-sized data and electricity bills. To be sure, there are many economic benefits of home work. It maintains at least partial production, while respecting physical distancing and flattening the curve. On one hand, those who can work from home are lucky. They keep earning, but without the risks of infection facing those who must go out to work. But there are also many challenges and risks associated with home work. And if, as many expect, working from home remains common after the pandemic, employers, unions, and policy-makers must address those challenges and make home work better. Who Gets to Work at Home? Not everyone can do their jobs from home. I estimate only around 30% of Canadian workers can work largely or wholly from home. And that group is not randomly distributed. Managers, professionals, and specialists – people who work mostly on computers – are most likely to be able to do their jobs remotely. That creates a double injustice: many of them earned higher salaries before the pandemic hit, and now they get to keep working. That inequality reinforces the need for stronger income protections for those who lose work in the pandemic. Not all home workers are high earners; many earn lower pay, including many clerical, sales, and call centre jobs. Shifting Costs: Some employers are enthusiastic about potential savings from downsizing offices and other workplaces. More home work means less costs for buildings, utilities, and office equipment, potentially padding profit margins after the recession. But it’s unfair to simply shift workplace costs onto workers. Home workers should be compensated fairly for the expenses they incur – including utilities, data, equipment, and space. Decent home work allowances should be specified in employment contracts and labour standards. On the Clock: Even before the pandemic, it was already hard to turn off work. With smart phones, email, and wifi, work follows us everyone – even on vacation. With home work, the boundaries between work and life become even fuzzier. Employers are tempted to assume home workers are always on the job, with the laptop just an arm’s length away. Many expect workers to make up for inevitable interruptions associated with home work by staying on the job well into the evening. Clear expectations need to be established and defended, that the working day still ends at a normal time. Caring Labour: Another burden shifted to workers in home work arrangements is childcare and family responsibilities. For much or all of the day, home workers (especially women) are unfairly expected to manage households and childcare while still performing their paid duties. The expansion of home work cannot become another excuse to delay necessary improvements in public childcare. Space and Safety: Few home workers have a spare room or den to dedicate to an efficient, quiet work space. More of us work from kitchen tables and other makeshift places. In the long run, careful attention must be paid to organizing safe, ergonomic home work spaces: with good lighting, safe wiring, quality furnishings, and free of trip and fall hazards. Another priority must be safety in the family environment, again especially critical for women. Preventing and stopping violence at home (with measures like paid domestic violence leave) is essential for safe home work. Privacy: Some employers complain working from home is a license to slack off. Many are already rolling out new ways to monitor employee attention and productivity in their own homes. Webcam snooping, digital productivity trackers, GPS surveillance, and other strategies could convert our homes into digital glass houses. This surveillance is intrusive and dangerous, and should be outlawed. Bosses need to use carrots, not sticks, in supporting their home workers to do their best. Working from home will likely retain some of its current popularity, even once we can safely get back to work. But employment practices and labour standards must evolve to make sure home work is done right: safely, sustainably, and fairly. And at the end of the day, workers will need to defend their right to return to regular workplaces – because working in pyjamas will quickly lose its novelty. For most of us, interaction with colleagues, escaping from household stresses and duties, and working in a real workplace (not the kitchen table) all enhance job quality and productivity. Employers’ cost-cutting dreams shouldn’t supercede our right to get back to normal work. For a more detailed analysis of risks and challenges associated with the increase in work&#8211;from home arrangements, please see this report published by the Centre for Future Work in Australia: Working from Home in a Pandemic: Opportunities and Risks, by Alison Pennington and Jim Stanford.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://centreforfuturework.ca/2020/05/25/working-from-home-helps-but-is-no-panacea/">Working From Home Helps, but is No Panacea</a> appeared first on <a href="https://centreforfuturework.ca">Centre for Future Work</a>.</p>
]]></description>
			<style id="elementor-post-430">.elementor-430 .elementor-element.elementor-element-9079428{text-align:center;}</style>							<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="430" class="elementor elementor-430">
						<section class="elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-115407d elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-column-slider-no wpr-equal-height-no" data-id="115407d" data-element_type="section" data-e-type="section">
						<div class="elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default">
					<div class="elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-826b01c" data-id="826b01c" data-element_type="column" data-e-type="column">
			<div class="elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated">
						<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-9079428 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading" data-id="9079428" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="heading.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
					<p class="elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default"><a href="https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2020/05/09/working-from-home-helps-but-its-no-panacea.html" target="_blank">A version of this commentary originally appeared in the Toronto Star.</a></p>				</div>
				</div>
					</div>
		</div>
					</div>
		</section>
				<section class="elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-4eb7772 elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-column-slider-no wpr-equal-height-no" data-id="4eb7772" data-element_type="section" data-e-type="section">
						<div class="elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default">
					<div class="elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-1f5337a" data-id="1f5337a" data-element_type="column" data-e-type="column">
			<div class="elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated">
						<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-1817889 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="1817889" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<p class="p3"><span class="s3">Millions of Canadians have been doggedly working from home through the pandemic. It’s inspired endless memes and laments on social media: Zoom meetings <a href="https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/621784/how-to-look-professional-video-conference-call" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span class="s2">in pyjamas</span></a>, kids running amok with office papers, super-sized data and electricity bills.</span></p><p class="p3"><span class="s3">To be sure, there are many economic benefits of home work. It maintains at least partial production, while respecting physical distancing and flattening the curve. On one hand, those who can work from home are lucky. They keep earning, but without the risks of infection facing those who must go out to work. But there are also many challenges and risks associated with home work. And if, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestowersclark/2020/03/27/will-remote-work-become-the-new-normal/#6f7cc538cd1c" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span class="s2">as many expect</span></a>, working from home remains common after the pandemic, employers, unions, and policy-makers must address those challenges and make home work better.</span></p><h4 class="p3"><span class="s4">Who Gets to Work at Home?</span></h4><p class="p3"><span class="s3"> Not everyone can do their jobs from home. I estimate only around 30% of Canadian workers can work largely or wholly from home. And that group is not randomly distributed. Managers, professionals, and specialists – people who work mostly on computers – are most likely to be able to do their jobs remotely. That creates a double injustice: many of them <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/theausinstitute/pages/3288/attachments/original/1586714739/Working_From_Home_Opportunitites_and_Risks_April2020.pdf?1586714739" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span class="s2">earned higher salaries</span></a> before the pandemic hit, and now they get to keep working. That inequality reinforces the need for <a href="https://www.thestar.com/business/2020/04/02/covid-19-job-loss-fund-will-let-many-down-analysis-finds.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span class="s2">stronger income protections</span></a> for those who lose work in the pandemic. Not all home workers are high earners; many earn lower pay, including many clerical, sales, and call centre jobs.</span></p><p class="p3"><strong><span class="s4">Shifting Costs: </span></strong><span class="s3">Some employers are enthusiastic about potential savings from downsizing offices and other workplaces. More home work means less costs for buildings, utilities, and office equipment, potentially padding profit margins after the recession. But it’s unfair to simply shift workplace costs onto workers. Home workers should be compensated fairly for the expenses they incur – including utilities, data, equipment, and space. Decent home work allowances should be specified in employment contracts and labour standards.</span></p><p class="p3"><span class="s4"><strong>On the Clock:</strong> </span><span class="s3">Even before the pandemic, it was already hard to turn off work. With smart phones, email, and wifi, work follows us everyone – even on vacation. With home work, the boundaries between work and life become even fuzzier. Employers are tempted to assume home workers are always on the job, with the laptop just an arm’s length away. Many expect workers to make up for inevitable interruptions associated with home work by staying on the job well into the evening. Clear expectations need to be established and defended, that the working day still ends at a normal time.</span></p><p class="p3"><span class="s4"><strong>Caring Labour:</strong> </span><span class="s3">Another burden shifted to workers in home work arrangements is childcare and family responsibilities. For much or all of the day, home workers (especially women) are unfairly expected to manage households and childcare while still performing their paid duties. The expansion of home work cannot become another excuse to delay <a href="https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2020/03/16/covid-19-policies-create-child-care-crunch-for-essential-workers.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span class="s2">necessary improvements in public childcare</span></a>.</span></p><h4 class="p3"><span class="s4">Space and Safety:</span></h4><p class="p3"><span class="s3">Few home workers have a spare room or den to dedicate to an efficient, quiet work space. More of us work from kitchen tables and other makeshift places. In the long run, careful attention must be paid to organizing safe, ergonomic home work spaces: with good lighting, safe wiring, quality furnishings, and free of trip and fall hazards. Another priority must be safety in the family environment, again especially critical for women. Preventing and stopping <a href="https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/04/22/are-you-a-victim-of-violence-at-home-heres-how-to-get-help-amid-covid-19.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span class="s2">violence at home</span></a> (with measures like paid domestic violence leave) is essential for safe home work.</span></p><p class="p3"><strong><span class="s4">Privacy:</span></strong> <span class="s3">Some employers complain working from home is a license to slack off. Many are already rolling out <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/30/work-from-home-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span class="s2">new ways to monitor employee attention and productivity</span></a> in their own homes. Webcam snooping, digital productivity trackers, GPS surveillance, and other strategies could convert our homes into digital glass houses. This surveillance is intrusive and dangerous, and should be outlawed. Bosses need to use carrots, not sticks, in supporting their home workers to do their best.</span></p><p class="p3"><span class="s3">Working from home will likely retain some of its current popularity, even once we can safely get back to work. But employment practices and labour standards must evolve to make sure home work is done right: safely, sustainably, and fairly.</span></p><p class="p3"><span class="s3">And at the end of the day, workers will need to defend their right to return to regular workplaces – because working in pyjamas will quickly lose its novelty. For most of us, interaction with colleagues, escaping from household stresses and duties, and working in a real workplace (not the kitchen table) all enhance job quality and productivity. Employers’ cost-cutting dreams shouldn’t supercede our right to get back to normal work.</span></p><p class="p3"><span class="s3">For a more detailed analysis of risks and challenges associated with the increase in work&#8211;from home arrangements, please see this report published by the Centre for Future Work in Australia: <a href="https://www.futurework.org.au/working_from_home_in_a_pandemic_opportunities_and_risks" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span class="s2">Working from Home in a Pandemic: Opportunities and Risks</span></a>, by Alison Pennington and Jim Stanford.</span></p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
		</div>
					</div>
		</section>
				</div>
		<p>The post <a href="https://centreforfuturework.ca/2020/05/25/working-from-home-helps-but-is-no-panacea/">Working From Home Helps, but is No Panacea</a> appeared first on <a href="https://centreforfuturework.ca">Centre for Future Work</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Extending Unpaid Leave Provisions for Indigenous Democracy</title>
		<link>https://centreforfuturework.ca/2020/04/16/extending-unpaid-leave-provisions-for-indigenous-democracy/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim Stanford]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2020 02:13:38 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indigenous Labour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Time & Working Hours]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://centreforfuturework.ca/?p=326</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The Toronto Star’s Andrea Macdonald has uncovered a fascinating and inspiring story about Janna Pratt, an indigenous woman from Saskatchewan who has fought successfully to win the right to unpaid leave from work for workers to participate in indigenous elections and government. This victory extends provisions the right for workers to access unpaid leave for electoral campaigns, and (if successful) to serve as elected representatives in federal, provincial, and municipal government. It is obvious that indigenous government should be included on the list of applicable political processes covered by that provision. But Jenna’s successful campaign (waged with the support of her union, Unifor), has highlighted the surprising absence of basic political leave provisions from the employment standards laws in other provinces. The article cites Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford, as noting this provision is an overdue and democratic extension of basic leave provisions in employment law. See the full article, “The law didn’t protect her job when she ran for band council. A six-year battle won protections for Saskatchewan First Nations,” by Andrea Macdonald at the Toronto Star.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://centreforfuturework.ca/2020/04/16/extending-unpaid-leave-provisions-for-indigenous-democracy/">Extending Unpaid Leave Provisions for Indigenous Democracy</a> appeared first on <a href="https://centreforfuturework.ca">Centre for Future Work</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="326" class="elementor elementor-326">
						<section class="elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-99b2b59 elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-column-slider-no wpr-equal-height-no" data-id="99b2b59" data-element_type="section" data-e-type="section">
						<div class="elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default">
					<div class="elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-586c566" data-id="586c566" data-element_type="column" data-e-type="column">
			<div class="elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated">
						<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-bbaff2f elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="bbaff2f" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<p class="p1"><span class="s1">The <i>Toronto Star</i>’s Andrea Macdonald has uncovered a <a href="https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/04/15/the-law-didnt-protect-her-job-when-she-ran-for-band-council-a-six-year-battle-won-protections-for-saskatchewan-first-nations.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span class="s2">fascinating and inspiring story</span></a> about Janna Pratt, an indigenous woman from Saskatchewan who has fought successfully to win the right to unpaid leave from work for workers to participate in indigenous elections and government.</span></p><p class="p1"><span class="s1">This victory extends provisions the right for workers to access unpaid leave for electoral campaigns, and (if successful) to serve as elected representatives in federal, provincial, and municipal government. It is obvious that indigenous government should be included on the list of applicable political processes covered by that provision.</span></p><p class="p1"><span class="s1">But Jenna’s successful campaign (waged with the support of her union, Unifor), has highlighted the surprising absence of basic political leave provisions from the employment standards laws in other provinces. The article cites Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford, as noting this provision is an overdue and democratic extension of basic leave provisions in employment law.</span></p><p class="p1"><span class="s1">See the <a href="https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/04/15/the-law-didnt-protect-her-job-when-she-ran-for-band-council-a-six-year-battle-won-protections-for-saskatchewan-first-nations.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span class="s2">full article</span></a>, “The law didn’t protect her job when she ran for band council. A six-year battle won protections for Saskatchewan First Nations,” by Andrea Macdonald at the <i>Toronto Star</i>.</span></p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
		</div>
					</div>
		</section>
				</div>
		<p>The post <a href="https://centreforfuturework.ca/2020/04/16/extending-unpaid-leave-provisions-for-indigenous-democracy/">Extending Unpaid Leave Provisions for Indigenous Democracy</a> appeared first on <a href="https://centreforfuturework.ca">Centre for Future Work</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
