BC Coalition of Women's Centres
Home
Action!
Archives
Info
Media
Site Map
|
British
Columbia Moves Backwards on Women’s Equality
Submission of the B.C. CEDAW
Group to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
Against Women on the occasion of the Committee’s review of Canada’s 5th
Report | January 23, 2003
|
|
ARTICLE 11
Article 11: Employment Rules and Standards
71. In 2001 and 2002, the government of British Columbia made significant
changes to the Employment Standards Act and its accompanying regulations,
changes that will have a negative and discriminatory impact on working
women. Specifically, recent changes have introduced a “training wage” below
the minimum wage, “negotiated” employee work schedules, reduced enforcement
of labour standards protection, as well as the repeal of pay equity provisions
in the B.C. Human Rights Code.
72. The changes described in this section are particularly harmful
to racialized and disabled women. As legal scholar Nitya Iyer states: “[b]ecause
they are heavily overrepresented in the lowest wage sectors, Aboriginal
women, women of colour and women with disabilities comprise a ‘marginal’
labour force that is especially vulnerable….” Immigrant women and domestic
workers are also a part of this marginal and vulnerable sector of the labour
force. These women are particularly reliant on effective public enforcement
of employment standards.
N. Iyer, “Some Mothers are Better than Others: A Re-examination
of Maternity Benefits,” in S. Boyd ed., Challenging the Public/Private
Divide: Feminism, Law and Public Policy (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1997) 168. [Tab 85]
73. According to new regulations enacted in November 2001, all workers
who are new to the labour force will now be paid a $6 per hour “training
wage”, instead of the regular $8 per hour minimum wage, for the first 500
hours of work. The most obvious impact of this change is on youth. In practice,
however, it is likely to affect immigrants as well as women returning to
the labour force after interruptions caused by child-bearing and child-caring.
Because of women’s work patterns, and because women are disproportionately
minimum wage workers, this measure has a gendered impact.
B.C. Reg. 261/2001, online:
BC Reg.
(date accessed: 20 October 2002). [Tab 86]
Friends of Women and Children in B.C., Report Card, April 15, 2002,
Vol. 1 No.1, online: University
of British Columbia Centre for Women’s Studies and Gender Relations
(date accessed: 8 August 2002). [Tab 37]
74. Further, the Employment Standards Act itself has been amended
to allow employers and employees to negotiate a schedule that maintains
a 40-hour work week, but “averaged” over two, three or four weeks. Thus,
for example, employers are not required to pay overtime pay if they obtain
the agreement of employees to work four 10 hour days or three 13 1/3-hour
days in a week, or to work 30 hours one week and 50 hours another.
An employee will only be paid overtime if the number of working hours exceeds
160 per month. This new standard will have a gendered impact because women
will now be subject to employer pressure to accept irregular work hours,
and required to negotiate on their own for hours that fit their family’s
schedule and their responsibilities. Overtime rules were designed to protect
against economic coercion and exploitation. Low income, non-unionized workers,
the majority of whom are women, cannot negotiate individually on a footing
of equality with their employers regarding conditions of work. The harshest
impact of this change will fall on the most vulnerable women.
British Columbia Ministry of Skills Development
and Labour, Press Release “New Employment Standards Increase Workplace
Flexibility” (13 May 2002), online:
Ministry of Skills Development and Labour
(date accessed: 13 August 2002). [Tab 87]
75. The uncertainty created by the new rules will make it even more
difficult for women “to combine family obligations with work responsibilities”
(CEDAW: Article 11(2)(c)). The government’s claim that this change will
help women manage their family lives relies on a false picture of the
woman worker, and is a cynical denial of the real conditions under which
women work in British Columbia. The worker for whom this “flexibility”
will be an advantage is not a woman worker.
Friends of Women and Children in B.C., Report
Card, June 15, 2002, Vol. 1 No.3, online:
University of British Columbia Centre for Women’s Studies and Gender
Relations
(date accessed: 6 August 2002). [Tab 16]
76. Under the new legislation, the minimum shift has been reduced
from 4 hours to 2 hours. Women who are part-time and casual workers
can be called out for less work and receive less pay, while still experiencing
the same requirement to make child care and other family arrangements and
incurring the same transportation cost. This change will further complicate
women’s attempts to manage their jobs and their families at the same time.
Also, the new legislation reduces employers’ liability for unpaid wages
from 2 years to six months. An employee’s only means of recovering more than
six months of unpaid wages is through the court system, which is more costly
and less accessible, particularly now that legal aid is no longer available
for poverty law matters.
British Columbia Ministry of Skills Development
and Labour, Press Release “New Employment Standards Increase Workplace
Flexibility” (13 May 2002), online:
Ministry of Skills Development and Labour
(date accessed: 13 August 2002). [Tab 87]
77. Under the new Employment Standards Act, workers’ complaints
about violations of the Act must be first dealt with using a “self-help
kit,” which directs the worker to approach her employer on her own.
The Employment Standards Branch will only become involved after this process
has been attempted. Moreover, the number of Employment Standards Officers
available to undertake enforcement work has been reduced significantly.
Vulnerable and marginalized women workers have lost an important source of
protection. The Employment Standards Branch has also introduced mediation
as a main way to resolve disputes. If the self-help kit does not work,
the parties are offered mediation by an employment standards officer (with
minimal training in cross-cultural conflict resolution) to settle their cases.
If the parties do not agree to mediation, the complaint is sent to adjudication.
For vulnerable groups of employees, mediation with their employers will
not provide a successful means of enforcing their rights unless the mediators
are well-trained and employees are provided with adequate supports and advocates.
British Columbia Ministry of Skills Development
and Labour, Press Release “New Employment Standards Increase Workplace
Flexibility” (13 May 2002), online:
Ministry of Skills Development and Labour
(date accessed: 13 August 2002). [Tab 87]
Friends of Women and Children in B.C., Report Card, June 15, 2002,
Vol. 1 No.3, online:
University of British Columbia Centre for Women’s Studies and Gender
Relations
(date accessed: 6 August 2002). [Tab 16]
78. Reduced enforcement of employment standards will have a particular
impact on live-in caregivers, almost all of whom are women of colour who
have come to Canada under a specific immigration program for domestic workers.
These women arrive in Canada as temporary workers and must reside in their
employers’ homes. They are also only allowed to work for the employer
named on their work permit. They are required to complete 24 months of
full-time caregiving work within three years of coming to Canada in order
to be eligible to apply for permanent resident status in Canada.
Due to their temporary status and the live-in requirement, these women
are especially vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Immigrant live-in
caregivers will now be expected to attempt to enforce their own rights using
the self-help kit, and the Employment Standards Branch will have no obligation
to intervene unless they do this. The cuts to Employment Standards personnel
also mean less education about employment rights which is particularly
detrimental to domestic workers who are isolated, dependent on their employers,
and often unaware of their employment rights in Canada. This change will
also have a particularly negative affect on agricultural workers, many
of whom are women of colour. Their work environment is typically characterized
by gross employment standards violations.
79. The government of British Columbia repealed the sections of the
B.C. Human Rights Code that prohibited
paying women less than men for work of equal value (commonly referred to
as pay equity). The government has conducted a review of pay equity provisions
in general. The report of the task force on pay equity documents the
need for aggressive action on the part of the B.C. government to address
women’s pay inequity:
[T]he gender wage gap [in B.C.] has not
changed much over the last few years, even when only full-time full year
workers are considered, suggesting that systemic barriers continue.
In 1997, the wage gap actually widened by almost 1%. Despite some
gains in earnings, women continue to represent a much greater percentage
of those who earn under $25,000 (59.7% compared to 42.1% of men) than of
those who earn over $50,000 (7.9% compared to 25.3% of men). The problem
does not appear to be solving itself.” While general percentages may
be less helpful because of variances across industries, the “gender gap” in
B.C. ranges from 1% (utilities) to 29% (goods-producing sectors), with the
overall gap at 19%.
After repealing the existing pay equity law, the government received
the Task Force report in February, 2002, and has not taken any action,
thus allowing inequality to persist with regard to men and women’s wages.
Ministry of Attorney General, Working
through the Wage Gap: Report of the task force on pay equity by N.
Iyer, (February 28, 2002) at 88-9 and 154, online:
Ministry of Attorney General
(date accessed: 14 August 2002). [Tab 88]
Article 11(2): Child Care
80. The current British Columbian Government has cut programs and
funding for child care services, significantly reducing the ability of
women in British Columbia to access high quality, reliable, and affordable
child care and day care. The 1984 Royal Commission on Equality of Employment
noted that “child care is the ramp that provides equal access to the work
force for mothers”. Thus, the recent actions of the government will make it
more difficult for women to participate in the labour force and in other areas
of public life and will result in women increasingly having to resort to
cheaper, unsafe child care arrangements where the adult caregivers are untrained.
Without access to affordable childcare, women face increased job insecurity,
increased levels of stress, diminished access to educational opportunities,
increased polarization based on socio-economic status, reduction in choices
with respect to participation in the paid work force, and increased risk
of child apprehensions.
Research Advisory on the Provincial
Cuts and Violence Against Women, “Social Assistance and Other Social Programs:
Anticipated Impact on Women who Experience Violence” (2002), British Columbia
Institute Against Family Violence, online:
British Columbia Institute Against Family Violence
(last modified: 10 April 2002). [Tab 40]
Canada, Report of the Royal Commission on Equality of Employment
(Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada,
1984) (Commissioner: Judge Rosalie Silberman Abella). [Tab 89]
B.C. Coalition of Women’s Centres, Media Release, “Child care cuts
– a huge blow to women’s equality in B.C.” (7 November 2002). [Tab
90]
81. The Child Care B.C. Program, which provided before- and after-school
care for children from kindergarten to age 12, has been eliminated.
Caledon Institute of Social Policy,
“A New Era in British Columbia: A Profile of Budget Cuts Across Social
Programs” at 7, online:
Caledon Institute of Social Policy
(date accessed: 14 August 2002). [Tab 82]
Research Advisory on the Provincial Cuts and Violence Against Women,
“Social Assistance and Other Social Programs: Anticipated Impact on Women
who Experience Violence” (2002), British Columbia Institute Against Family
Violence, online:
British Columbia Institute Against Family Violence
(last modified: 10 April 2002). [Tab 40]
82. The current government of British Columbia has cancelled a $16
million universal day care program launched but not implemented by the
previous government. The results of the program cancellations detailed in
paragraphs 91 and 92 will be that women will have less flexibility in obtaining
work, and thus less flexibility in building financial independence. The
consequences of such reductions in ability to access the labour market are
particularly severe for women seeking to leave an abusive partner.
Caledon Institute of Social Policy,
“A New Era in British Columbia: A Profile of Budget Cuts Across Social
Programs” at 7, online
: Caledon Institute of Social Policy
(date accessed: 14 August 2002). [Tab 82]
83. Programs providing financial support directly to day care and
child care centres have been or will be cut. For example, the British
Columbia Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services has eliminated
the daycare Contribution and Compensation program which provided salary
top-ups to childcare workers with appropriate higher education. The One
Stop Access Program, which provides childcare subsidies in the (rural)
north of British Columbia will be cut. Upcoming changes in other government
funding of childcare (a move to a “per child” system based on enrolment)
will mean further cuts of up to 30% in funding to individual daycares.
The Ministry of Children and Family Development has reduced supported childcare
for developmentally delayed children by 28%.
B.C. Coalition of Women’s Centres,
Media Release, “Child care cuts – a huge blow to women’s equality in B.C.”
(7 November 2002). [Tab 90]
84. The British Columbian Government will cut, by 2004-05, funding
for child care resource and referral services, including Westcoast Resource
and Inform, a rural information and resource service. These services
provide both assistance to mothers looking for quality child care and training
for child care providers. These cuts will significantly decrease community
access to assistance to apply for child care subsidies, as well as reducing
access to child care information.
Caledon Institute of Social
Policy, “A New Era in British Columbia: A Profile of Budget Cuts Across
Social Programs” at 7, online:
Caledon Institute of Social Policy
(date accessed: 14 August 2002). [Tab 82]
B.C. Coalition of Women’s Centres, Media Release, “Child care cuts
– a huge blow to women’s equality in B.C.” (7 November 2002). [Tab 90]
Research Advisory on the Provincial Cuts and Violence Against Women,
“Social Assistance and Other Social Programs: Anticipated Impact on Women
who Experience Violence” (2002), British Columbia Institute Against Family
Violence, online:
British Columbia Institute Against Family Violence
(last modified: 10 April 2002). [Tab 40]
85. Fewer women will be eligible for a childcare subsidy under the
Child Care Subsidy Program because the income exemption level has been
lowered. In other words many mothers who are working but still living
in poverty will not be eligible for childcare subsidies since their incomes
will not be low enough to qualify them for assistance. The consequences
of these reductions are that 1) fewer families will be able to access the
income-tested child care subsidy, and 2) eligible families will receive
fewer dollars to assist with monthly child care fees. As the Coalition of
Child Care Advocates B.C. has stated: “Cuts for these families will mean
parents choose between quality child care and feeding their kids.”
The contradictions and unfairness of government policies are particularly
clear in relation to mothers on income assistance, who, once their children
turn 3 years old, are obligated to enter the paid labour force, yet are
increasingly denied access to the quality child care that is essential to
their participation in paid employment.
British Columbia Ministry
of Human Resources, Fact Sheet “B.C. Employment and Assistance Initiatives”
(1 April 2002), online:
British Columbia Ministry of Human Resources
(date accessed: 14 August 2002). [Tab 42]
Coalition of Child Care Advocates B.C., Press Release “Liberals Trade
Quality And The Future Of B.C.'s Children To Save A Few Bucks” (21 February
2002), online:
Coalition of Child Care Advocates B.C.
(date accessed: 14 August 2002). [Tab 91]
Research Advisory on the Provincial Cuts and Violence Against Women,
“Social Assistance and Other Social Programs: Anticipated Impact on Women
who Experience Violence” (2002), British Columbia Institute Against Family
Violence, online:
British Columbia Institute Against Family Violence
(last modified: 10 April 2002). [Tab 40]
|
If you have questions/comments for BCCWC,
please e-mail us at
bcwomen@telus.net
For other contact information,
please go to our
Information Page
BC Coalition of Women's Centres
•
British Columbia,
Canada
100 Mile House • Campbell
River • Chetwynd • Comox
Valley • Cranbrook •
Fernie • Fort Nelson • Fort St. John • Golden • Grand Forks • Howe
Sound • Kamloops • Kelowna • Kitimat • North Shore •
Penticton • Port Coquitlam • Queen Charlotte Islands • Quesnel •
Richmond • Ridge Meadows • Sunshine Coast • South Surrey/White Rock •
Surrey • Terrace • Vancouver • Vernon • Westcoast • West Kootenay • Williams Lake
This page last updated:
March 8, 2003
created entirely with volunteer labour by
Doodlebug Grrl
No Budget Productions
|