Ontario air ambulance paramedics vote in favour of strike
Duration: 02:10
The union representing air ambulance paramedics in Ontario says its members voted 94 per cent in favour of striking, but describes the move as a 'last resort
cbc.ca
Tuesday, May 04, 2021
IN THE EU BANKS ARE UNIONIZED
Commerzbank nears deal on job cuts in talks with labour reps - sources
FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Commerzbank is nearing a deal with labour representatives on its restructuring plan that includes 10,000 job cuts globally, people close to the matter said
Commerzbank nears deal on job cuts in talks with labour reps - sources
FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Commerzbank is nearing a deal with labour representatives on its restructuring plan that includes 10,000 job cuts globally, people close to the matter said
.
© Reuters/Ralph Orlowski FILE PHOTO:
A Commerzbank logo is pictured before the bank's annual news conference in Frankfurt
Management of Germany's second-biggest listed lender and the bank's works council have already reached an agreement in principle, they said, adding that the deal could be officially signed by the end of the week.
Spokespeople for Commerzbank and the works council declined to comment.
Commerzbank Chief Executive Manfred Knof said earlier this year that the turnaround plan would do without forced redundancies in Germany. The restructuring is instead focussing on early retirement programs.
As part of its restructuring, Commerzbank is shuttering 350 of its 800 branches in Germany and retreating from several countries.
Commerzbank hopes the revamp will revive its fortunes, as it struggles to restore profits after management reshuffles and strategy flip-flops. It has never fully recovered after a state bailout during the last financial crisis more than a decade ago and lost 2.9 billion euros ($3.5 billion) in 2020.
($1 = 0.8306 euros)
(Reporting by Patricia Uhlig; Writing by Arno Schuetze; Editing by Maria Sheahan)
Management of Germany's second-biggest listed lender and the bank's works council have already reached an agreement in principle, they said, adding that the deal could be officially signed by the end of the week.
Spokespeople for Commerzbank and the works council declined to comment.
Commerzbank Chief Executive Manfred Knof said earlier this year that the turnaround plan would do without forced redundancies in Germany. The restructuring is instead focussing on early retirement programs.
As part of its restructuring, Commerzbank is shuttering 350 of its 800 branches in Germany and retreating from several countries.
Commerzbank hopes the revamp will revive its fortunes, as it struggles to restore profits after management reshuffles and strategy flip-flops. It has never fully recovered after a state bailout during the last financial crisis more than a decade ago and lost 2.9 billion euros ($3.5 billion) in 2020.
($1 = 0.8306 euros)
(Reporting by Patricia Uhlig; Writing by Arno Schuetze; Editing by Maria Sheahan)
André Leon Talley Discusses Wage Disparity At Vogue While Appearing On ‘Tamron Hall’
Sarah Curran
ET CANADA
MAY 3,2021
Sarah Curran
ET CANADA
MAY 3,2021
© Photo: Getty Images Andre Leon Talley
André Leon Talley is opening up on the "double standards" he experienced during his time working as an editor at Vogue.
The fashion journalist spoke about salary disparities at the iconic publication while joining "Tamron Hall" on Monday, May 3.
RELATED: André Leon Talley Opens Up About Being Sexually Abused As A Child: ‘I Still Don’t Know Who To Trust’
“I just found out two weeks ago from someone of authority that women at Vogue, high, high rate fashion editors made close to a million dollars," he said. "I never made that much in a year. I made almost $300,000, but people on the same level, maybe they were doing more work than the fashion photoshoots, were making $900,000 a year."
André Leon Talley is opening up on the "double standards" he experienced during his time working as an editor at Vogue.
The fashion journalist spoke about salary disparities at the iconic publication while joining "Tamron Hall" on Monday, May 3.
RELATED: André Leon Talley Opens Up About Being Sexually Abused As A Child: ‘I Still Don’t Know Who To Trust’
“I just found out two weeks ago from someone of authority that women at Vogue, high, high rate fashion editors made close to a million dollars," he said. "I never made that much in a year. I made almost $300,000, but people on the same level, maybe they were doing more work than the fashion photoshoots, were making $900,000 a year."
Talley continued, "They don't make that anymore, but this is, this what comes when you live in
America, when you're a Black person, you have to wake up and you know there’s a double standard.”
The comments come in the wake of Talley's recent rift with Vogue Editor-In-Chief, Anna Wintour, following her statement amid last year's Black Lives Matter protests.
On the current status of his relationship with Wintour, Talley shared, "We are friendly, and we care about each other."
RELATED: André Leon Talley Gives Update On His Friendship With Anna Wintour, Admits Parts Of His New Book Are ‘Probably Very Painful For Her To Read’
He went on, "In this complicated friendship, in this passive aggressive friendship, you know we sail by each other's port of call, we sometimes miss each other's port of call, but sometimes we navigate back around, and I'm looking forward to the day when Anna Wintour calls me and says, ‘Come to my house in Bellport for the weekend.’”
Talley also spoke about whether or not he would ever attend the Met Gala again.
“I have since been in communication with Anna Wintour since she made her announcement about her lack of diversity in Vogue and she has certainly accelerated the inclusivity of diversity in Vogue - on the covers and in the content," he added.
RELATED: André Leon Talley Slams Anna Wintour’s Black Lives Matter Statement
"So we have been in communications by emails strictly, on birthdays and holidays, and she thanked me for that support. And I would absolutely, if she sent me an invitation, I would go to the Met Ball, I said in the book I would never go back. But if she sent me an invitation I would go to the Met Ball."
ET Canada has reached out to Vogue for comment.
"Tamron Hall" airs weekdays on Global.
America, when you're a Black person, you have to wake up and you know there’s a double standard.”
The comments come in the wake of Talley's recent rift with Vogue Editor-In-Chief, Anna Wintour, following her statement amid last year's Black Lives Matter protests.
On the current status of his relationship with Wintour, Talley shared, "We are friendly, and we care about each other."
RELATED: André Leon Talley Gives Update On His Friendship With Anna Wintour, Admits Parts Of His New Book Are ‘Probably Very Painful For Her To Read’
He went on, "In this complicated friendship, in this passive aggressive friendship, you know we sail by each other's port of call, we sometimes miss each other's port of call, but sometimes we navigate back around, and I'm looking forward to the day when Anna Wintour calls me and says, ‘Come to my house in Bellport for the weekend.’”
Talley also spoke about whether or not he would ever attend the Met Gala again.
“I have since been in communication with Anna Wintour since she made her announcement about her lack of diversity in Vogue and she has certainly accelerated the inclusivity of diversity in Vogue - on the covers and in the content," he added.
RELATED: André Leon Talley Slams Anna Wintour’s Black Lives Matter Statement
"So we have been in communications by emails strictly, on birthdays and holidays, and she thanked me for that support. And I would absolutely, if she sent me an invitation, I would go to the Met Ball, I said in the book I would never go back. But if she sent me an invitation I would go to the Met Ball."
ET Canada has reached out to Vogue for comment.
"Tamron Hall" airs weekdays on Global.
Uber, Lyft have a California playbook to fight proposed U.S. rules on workers
Gig Workers Rising, a group of workers that advocates for greater benefits and says it does not receive financial support from labor groups, in a statement dismissed the companies' compromise proposal.
"(The proposal) is not a blueprint for workers' rights, it's a game plan for gig corporations and investors looking to maximize their profits," the group said in a statement.
The defeat of AB5 for app-based gig workers in California was a blow to organized labor groups, California's Democrats and even Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, who had urged the state's voters to reject the gig industry's proposal.
Though AB5 is gone, gig workers in California now have access to some benefits, including healthcare subsidies, accident insurance and minimum pay while passengers are in their car. Those benefits are significantly less costly to the companies than employee benefits and labor groups say drivers do not know how to access them.
As the fight over gig-worker rights heats up on the national level, the companies could deploy similar measures.
"Right now there's no call for action, but if that became the case, for example if a real piece of legislation or ballot measure was put forward, we'd certainly activate our driver base," a Lyft spokeswoman said.
Uber and DoorDash said they had no specific plans for an outreach campaign as of now. Uber in August sent an email to all its drivers nationwide, outlining its proposal for a change in law to combine independent contractor status with some benefits.
(Reporting by Tina Bellon in Austin, TexasEditing by Matthew Lewis)
(Corrects to reflect that AB5 is no longer the law in California for ride-hail and food-delivery workers, instead of that AB5 is no longer the law in California for anyone, paragraph 5; also corrects paragraph 20 to reflect that AB5 was defeated "for app-based gig workers.")
Uber and Lyft will outperform despite US Labor Secretary's comments that gig workers should be treated as employees, Wedbush says
Wedbush's Dan Ives maintained his "outperform" ratings for Lyft and Uber in a note to clients on Sunday.
The managing director of equity research said the rideshare giants are ideal reopening stocks.
Wedbush Securities' Dan Ives maintained his "outperform" ratings on shares of Uber and Lyft in a note to clients on Sunday.
The managing director of equity research said he expects the rideshare services to take advantage of a "massive rebound in demand" and show a "healthy profitability trajectory" in their upcoming first-quarter earnings reports.
Ives holds a $76 price target for shares of Uber and an $85 price target for shares of Lyft.
Ives' Uber price target represents a potential 39% jump in share prices from Friday's closing price while his price target for Lyft represents a potential 52% surge
Shares of Uber and Lyft fell last week after US Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said "in a lot of cases gig workers should be classified as employees" in an interview with Reuters.
Uber and Lyft rely on labor from "gig economy" workers to run their businesses. A changing classification of gig workers to employees would mean increased costs for the rideshare companies.
Ives said that despite a sell-off after the news broke, based on discussions with experts on labor law issues, he believes "federal involvement in this issue would be very complex and highly unlikely without legislation changes, which at minimum would take significant time to play out."
The managing director added that Uber and Lyft have been proactive in pushing the gig economy model and he believes they will ultimately find a "middle ground approach" over the coming years.
Ives also noted Lyft's recent sale of its Level 5 autonomous vehicle unit to Toyota for $550 million will help accelerate its path to profitability and Uber's new delivery and mobility upgrades should bolster its revenues during the beginning of another "roaring 20's."
Overall, Ives appears unfazed by the recent comments from the US Labor Secretary and remains very bullish on the two rideshare giants, calling them a "pure bounce-back demand" play for investors.
Read the original article on Business Insider
© Reuters/Mike Blake FILE PHOTO: A sign marks a rendezvous location for Lyft and Uber users at San Diego State University in San Diego
By Tina Bellon
(Reuters) -Uber, Lyft and other gig-economy companies face a new challenge from the Biden administration to their use of contract workers, but as they gear up for a fight in Washington they could turn to a lobbying playbook that helped them score a decisive win against California regulators last year.
U.S. President Joe Biden campaigned on the promise of providing legal protections and benefits to gig workers, who as independent contractors generally have no access to unemployment insurance, sick pay and health insurance. U.S. Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said last week: "A lot of gig workers should be classified as employees."
In Congress, Democratic lawmakers are pushing a union-supported labor bill, the PRO Act, that in part is modeled after a California law called AB5 that reclassified most gig workers as employees.
AB5, however, is no longer the law in California for ride-hail and food delivery workers, while it remains in effect for other freelancers. Uber Technologies Inc, Lyft Inc, DoorDash Inc and Instacart, whose business model relies on low-cost flexible labor, mounted a $205 million campaign that overturned the law for the industry last November.
Among the tactics honed in the California fight, the gig-work companies used their apps to reach out to voters and drivers through messages, emails, mailed leaflets, billboards, radio and online ads. They also urged workers on their platforms to speak out against AB5.
The companies threatened an end to ubiquitous food-delivery and ride-hail services many consumers have gotten used to during the pandemic if drivers were classified employees.
The looming fight over the status of gig-economy workers comes amid a wider debate over business regulation. The federal government exercised a light hand in regulating Uber, DoorDash and other digital-economy companies as they redefined traditional definitions of work, communications or retailing. Now, Democrats and Republicans in Washington, for different reasons, are calling for the government to exercise more control over one-time startups that dominate significant sectors of the economy.
Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart so far this year have spent a combined $1.3 million to lobby the Biden administration and members of the U.S. House and Senate, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. In 2020 they spent some $5.7 million, more than half of which came from Uber.
LOBBYING PUSH
Less than two weeks after Biden won the White House in November, companies banded together to form the App-Based Work Alliance, a Washington-based advocacy group. The group is now promoting statements of drivers and food-delivery workers saying they want to remain independent contractors, and do not want the PRO Act because they fear it would deprive them of opportunities to earn money on their own schedule for a few hours a week.
The companies cite surveys to argue the majority of their mostly part-time workers do not want to be classified as employees.
While the surveys show massive support for remaining independent contractors, they also follow years of threats by the companies of eliminating work opportunities if workers become employees. Some of the surveys are co-written by researchers with company ties, sponsored by the companies or completed with unscientific methodologies by a blogger who sent out emails and social media posts.
For example, one study by the National Bureau of Economic Research listed Uber's chief economist, Jonathan Hall, as a co-author, and a 2020 survey of 1,000 drivers by Benenson Strategy Group and GS Strategy Group was paid for by Uber. Uber said that while it paid for the poll, the survey was conducted by reputable research groups.
In California, the gig companies did not simply oppose any changes to their employment practices. Instead, they campaigned for compromise, advocating changes to labor laws to allow workers to remain contractors while also receiving more modest benefits than required for employees.
DoorDash said its workers on average work just four hours a week, while Uber said 37% of its U.S. drivers and 58% of its delivery people averaged fewer than 10 hours per week in the last quarter of 2020. The companies say those part-time gigs would become impossible under an employment model.
But Uber data from the fourth quarter of 2019, before the pandemic, also showed that California drivers working 25 hours and more per week completed more than 60% of all trips in the state, suggesting that full-time drivers complete the bulk of the work.
DRIVER ADVOCACY
By Tina Bellon
(Reuters) -Uber, Lyft and other gig-economy companies face a new challenge from the Biden administration to their use of contract workers, but as they gear up for a fight in Washington they could turn to a lobbying playbook that helped them score a decisive win against California regulators last year.
U.S. President Joe Biden campaigned on the promise of providing legal protections and benefits to gig workers, who as independent contractors generally have no access to unemployment insurance, sick pay and health insurance. U.S. Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said last week: "A lot of gig workers should be classified as employees."
In Congress, Democratic lawmakers are pushing a union-supported labor bill, the PRO Act, that in part is modeled after a California law called AB5 that reclassified most gig workers as employees.
AB5, however, is no longer the law in California for ride-hail and food delivery workers, while it remains in effect for other freelancers. Uber Technologies Inc, Lyft Inc, DoorDash Inc and Instacart, whose business model relies on low-cost flexible labor, mounted a $205 million campaign that overturned the law for the industry last November.
Among the tactics honed in the California fight, the gig-work companies used their apps to reach out to voters and drivers through messages, emails, mailed leaflets, billboards, radio and online ads. They also urged workers on their platforms to speak out against AB5.
The companies threatened an end to ubiquitous food-delivery and ride-hail services many consumers have gotten used to during the pandemic if drivers were classified employees.
The looming fight over the status of gig-economy workers comes amid a wider debate over business regulation. The federal government exercised a light hand in regulating Uber, DoorDash and other digital-economy companies as they redefined traditional definitions of work, communications or retailing. Now, Democrats and Republicans in Washington, for different reasons, are calling for the government to exercise more control over one-time startups that dominate significant sectors of the economy.
Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart so far this year have spent a combined $1.3 million to lobby the Biden administration and members of the U.S. House and Senate, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. In 2020 they spent some $5.7 million, more than half of which came from Uber.
LOBBYING PUSH
Less than two weeks after Biden won the White House in November, companies banded together to form the App-Based Work Alliance, a Washington-based advocacy group. The group is now promoting statements of drivers and food-delivery workers saying they want to remain independent contractors, and do not want the PRO Act because they fear it would deprive them of opportunities to earn money on their own schedule for a few hours a week.
The companies cite surveys to argue the majority of their mostly part-time workers do not want to be classified as employees.
While the surveys show massive support for remaining independent contractors, they also follow years of threats by the companies of eliminating work opportunities if workers become employees. Some of the surveys are co-written by researchers with company ties, sponsored by the companies or completed with unscientific methodologies by a blogger who sent out emails and social media posts.
For example, one study by the National Bureau of Economic Research listed Uber's chief economist, Jonathan Hall, as a co-author, and a 2020 survey of 1,000 drivers by Benenson Strategy Group and GS Strategy Group was paid for by Uber. Uber said that while it paid for the poll, the survey was conducted by reputable research groups.
In California, the gig companies did not simply oppose any changes to their employment practices. Instead, they campaigned for compromise, advocating changes to labor laws to allow workers to remain contractors while also receiving more modest benefits than required for employees.
DoorDash said its workers on average work just four hours a week, while Uber said 37% of its U.S. drivers and 58% of its delivery people averaged fewer than 10 hours per week in the last quarter of 2020. The companies say those part-time gigs would become impossible under an employment model.
But Uber data from the fourth quarter of 2019, before the pandemic, also showed that California drivers working 25 hours and more per week completed more than 60% of all trips in the state, suggesting that full-time drivers complete the bulk of the work.
DRIVER ADVOCACY
Gig Workers Rising, a group of workers that advocates for greater benefits and says it does not receive financial support from labor groups, in a statement dismissed the companies' compromise proposal.
"(The proposal) is not a blueprint for workers' rights, it's a game plan for gig corporations and investors looking to maximize their profits," the group said in a statement.
The defeat of AB5 for app-based gig workers in California was a blow to organized labor groups, California's Democrats and even Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, who had urged the state's voters to reject the gig industry's proposal.
Though AB5 is gone, gig workers in California now have access to some benefits, including healthcare subsidies, accident insurance and minimum pay while passengers are in their car. Those benefits are significantly less costly to the companies than employee benefits and labor groups say drivers do not know how to access them.
As the fight over gig-worker rights heats up on the national level, the companies could deploy similar measures.
"Right now there's no call for action, but if that became the case, for example if a real piece of legislation or ballot measure was put forward, we'd certainly activate our driver base," a Lyft spokeswoman said.
Uber and DoorDash said they had no specific plans for an outreach campaign as of now. Uber in August sent an email to all its drivers nationwide, outlining its proposal for a change in law to combine independent contractor status with some benefits.
(Reporting by Tina Bellon in Austin, TexasEditing by Matthew Lewis)
(Corrects to reflect that AB5 is no longer the law in California for ride-hail and food-delivery workers, instead of that AB5 is no longer the law in California for anyone, paragraph 5; also corrects paragraph 20 to reflect that AB5 was defeated "for app-based gig workers.")
Uber and Lyft will outperform despite US Labor Secretary's comments that gig workers should be treated as employees, Wedbush says
© Provided by Business Insider The future of Uber and Lyft drivers - and the companies - will likely hinge on a hugely important vote in California this November. Brian Snyder/Reuters
Wedbush's Dan Ives maintained his "outperform" ratings for Lyft and Uber in a note to clients on Sunday.
The managing director of equity research said the rideshare giants are ideal reopening stocks.
Based on checks with industry legal experts, Ives believes federal involvement in gig workers' status is "highly unlikely."
Wedbush Securities' Dan Ives maintained his "outperform" ratings on shares of Uber and Lyft in a note to clients on Sunday.
The managing director of equity research said he expects the rideshare services to take advantage of a "massive rebound in demand" and show a "healthy profitability trajectory" in their upcoming first-quarter earnings reports.
Ives holds a $76 price target for shares of Uber and an $85 price target for shares of Lyft.
Ives' Uber price target represents a potential 39% jump in share prices from Friday's closing price while his price target for Lyft represents a potential 52% surge
Shares of Uber and Lyft fell last week after US Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said "in a lot of cases gig workers should be classified as employees" in an interview with Reuters.
Uber and Lyft rely on labor from "gig economy" workers to run their businesses. A changing classification of gig workers to employees would mean increased costs for the rideshare companies.
Ives said that despite a sell-off after the news broke, based on discussions with experts on labor law issues, he believes "federal involvement in this issue would be very complex and highly unlikely without legislation changes, which at minimum would take significant time to play out."
The managing director added that Uber and Lyft have been proactive in pushing the gig economy model and he believes they will ultimately find a "middle ground approach" over the coming years.
Ives also noted Lyft's recent sale of its Level 5 autonomous vehicle unit to Toyota for $550 million will help accelerate its path to profitability and Uber's new delivery and mobility upgrades should bolster its revenues during the beginning of another "roaring 20's."
Overall, Ives appears unfazed by the recent comments from the US Labor Secretary and remains very bullish on the two rideshare giants, calling them a "pure bounce-back demand" play for investors.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Rights activists skeptical as Canadian fashion brands carefully deny using China forced labour
Tom Blackwell
Tom Blackwell
NATIONAL POST
MAY 3,2021
It’s been a tough few months for some of the world’s top apparel brands.
New report argues China clearly committing genocide against Uyghur people
The Post asked six of Canada’s best-known clothing brands if they had investigated whether their supply chains involved forced labour in China, whether they had concerns on that front and if they were removing any suppliers involved in such work in Xinjiang.
Most cited codes of conduct and other policies that insist on fair labour practices from their suppliers. Few answered the questions directly; one not at all.
The media-relations office at Lululemon, which already has 50 yoga-wear stores in China and has said it wants to expand there, failed to respond to five emailed requests for comment.
Others were somewhat more forthcoming.
Canada Goose, whose CEO recently said China is an “increasingly crucial” market for the parka manufacturer, requires all of its suppliers, “no matter where they are in the world,” to sign a supplier code of conduct barring use of forced labour, the firm said through an outside public-relations firm. The statement did not mention Xinjiang.
Roots, which has 26 “partner-operated” stores in China and two in Hong Kong, said it does not source “any product directly from the Xinjiang” and requires direct suppliers to certify an absence of forced labour, said spokeswoman Kristen Davies . Meanwhile, it continues to “actively review” its supply chain.
Joe Fresh, the cheap-chic fashion line owned by Loblaws, “reached out to vendors for a commitment that they will not use cotton from the Xinjiang region,” said Loblaws spokeswoman Catherine Thomas.
Aritzia “does not manufacture in China’s Xinjiang region and is in full compliance with all trade regulations,” said vice president Renee Smith-Valade. It is also the only one of the companies that belongs to the Better Cotton Initiative , a non-profit that has spoken out about forced-labour in Xinjiang.
Hudson’s Bay, which has several private-label clothing brands, “does not use factories in, or source cotton from, Xinjiang,” stated spokeswoman Tiffany Bourre.
But Penelope Kyritsis of the Washington, D.C.-based Workers Rights Consortium said statements like those of the Canadian companies are little more than rhetoric until they sign on to something like the call to action and vigorously verify their commitments.
“So I couldn’t tell you with satisfaction that their supply chains are free of Uyghur forced labour,” she said.
The new federal regulations implemented last July bar imports of products made wholly or in part from forced labour. They require companies that do business in Xinjiang and get help from the government’s Trade Commissioner to sign a Xinjiang integrity declaration. And they ban exports that could be used in human rights abuses, like Beijing’s omnipresent surveillance of Uyghurs.
Asked repeatedly if any imports have so far been banned, officials from Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) said only that the government is working on the issue.
CBSA is responsible for intervening based on research conducted by Employment and Social Development Canada, but it’s not an easy task, said agency spokeswoman Jacquie Callin.
“There is no visual clue for a Border Services officer to understand the labour standards by which a particular import was produced,” she said. “It takes research, coordination and diligence amongst all stakeholders to establish reliable and actionable sources of information.”
But Waller said there is much that Canada could do now, primarily by making use of work already done by the United States: It has barred numerous Chinese products from entering the U.S. because of suspected involvement of forced labour, including a blanket ban on cotton and tomatoes from Xinjiang.
“From everything that we’re hearing so far, it’s still very much in the stage of figuring out how to enforce it,” said Waller about Ottawa’s efforts.
Unless Canada quickly follows the American lead, it risks being used as a “backdoor” by China for getting banned forced-labour products into the U.S., warned Tohti.
One Canadian company has signed the Xinjiang integrity declaration and others are “conducting their due diligence” before signing, though none can be identified for commercial-confidentiality reasons, said a GAC spokesman.
As for rejecting export permits for products that could be used in rights abuses, department officials said only that aggregate information on various types of permit denials is contained in the annual report on Export of Military Goods to be tabled May 31.
But that document offers almost no information on why permits are denied, and none on the export product itself.
It’s been a tough few months for some of the world’s top apparel brands.
© Provided by National Post People rally outside the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C., February 19, 2021.
After repudiating cotton allegedly produced with forced labour from China’s Uyghur minority, firms like Nike, Adidas and H&M have faced a sharp backlash in the country, imperilling their access to the lucrative market.
Canada’s leading clothing brands, on the other hand, are not exactly sticking their necks out on the issue.
Some told the National Post recently they do not source or have taken steps to avoid sourcing cotton made with forced labour in the Xinjiang region, but only one has joined an international association of manufacturers addressing the issue. None have signed a human-rights consortium ‘s pledge to take verifiable action in the area.
Companies surveyed by the Post offered broad statements of principle on the topic, but few details about their supply chains in China, or criticism of the country for allegedly coercing Uyghurs into textile work.
One Canadian firm with a growing presence in the China market, Vancouver-based Lululemon Athletica, did not respond to repeated queries about where ingredients for its products originate.
Mehmet Tohti, a Uyghur-Canadian activist, said he takes Canadian manufacturers’ assurances about the issue with a grain of salt.
“Many companies are deeply afraid to talk openly,” said Tohti, citing the recent blacklisting of Western brands in China. “Secondly, there is a huge benefit from forced labour for a company, because you can get the products cheap.”
No Canadian manufacturer has signed a “call to action” developed by the Coalition to End Forced Labor in the Uyghur Region, noted Lori Waller of Above Ground, an Ottawa-based labour-rights group. The manifesto requires brands to eschew any products made in Xinjiang or other workplaces that exploit Uyghur workers.
“It’s really not enough to simply ask suppliers to sign statements that none of their products contain this,” she said. “You need to do some work to verify.”
Meanwhile, little action appears to have flowed from a new set of federal rules designed to counter the use of forced labour in Xinjiang and elsewhere, federal officials indicate.
Human rights groups, the United Nations, journalists and others have documented a broad campaign of repression against the Muslim Uyghurs, including a network of re-education camps believed to hold a million or more people.
Amid reports of forced sterilization and rape in the camps, Canada’s House of Commons, the U.S. and other nations have labeled the actions genocide.
There is also growing evidence that Uyghurs are being compelled to work for meagre pay in factories and in the Xinjiang fields and mills that produce 20 per cent of the world’s cotton. One in five clothing items sold in the West includes such textile, the Uyghur forced-labour coalition estimates.
After repudiating cotton allegedly produced with forced labour from China’s Uyghur minority, firms like Nike, Adidas and H&M have faced a sharp backlash in the country, imperilling their access to the lucrative market.
Canada’s leading clothing brands, on the other hand, are not exactly sticking their necks out on the issue.
Some told the National Post recently they do not source or have taken steps to avoid sourcing cotton made with forced labour in the Xinjiang region, but only one has joined an international association of manufacturers addressing the issue. None have signed a human-rights consortium ‘s pledge to take verifiable action in the area.
Companies surveyed by the Post offered broad statements of principle on the topic, but few details about their supply chains in China, or criticism of the country for allegedly coercing Uyghurs into textile work.
One Canadian firm with a growing presence in the China market, Vancouver-based Lululemon Athletica, did not respond to repeated queries about where ingredients for its products originate.
Mehmet Tohti, a Uyghur-Canadian activist, said he takes Canadian manufacturers’ assurances about the issue with a grain of salt.
“Many companies are deeply afraid to talk openly,” said Tohti, citing the recent blacklisting of Western brands in China. “Secondly, there is a huge benefit from forced labour for a company, because you can get the products cheap.”
No Canadian manufacturer has signed a “call to action” developed by the Coalition to End Forced Labor in the Uyghur Region, noted Lori Waller of Above Ground, an Ottawa-based labour-rights group. The manifesto requires brands to eschew any products made in Xinjiang or other workplaces that exploit Uyghur workers.
“It’s really not enough to simply ask suppliers to sign statements that none of their products contain this,” she said. “You need to do some work to verify.”
Meanwhile, little action appears to have flowed from a new set of federal rules designed to counter the use of forced labour in Xinjiang and elsewhere, federal officials indicate.
Human rights groups, the United Nations, journalists and others have documented a broad campaign of repression against the Muslim Uyghurs, including a network of re-education camps believed to hold a million or more people.
Amid reports of forced sterilization and rape in the camps, Canada’s House of Commons, the U.S. and other nations have labeled the actions genocide.
There is also growing evidence that Uyghurs are being compelled to work for meagre pay in factories and in the Xinjiang fields and mills that produce 20 per cent of the world’s cotton. One in five clothing items sold in the West includes such textile, the Uyghur forced-labour coalition estimates.
New report argues China clearly committing genocide against Uyghur people
The Post asked six of Canada’s best-known clothing brands if they had investigated whether their supply chains involved forced labour in China, whether they had concerns on that front and if they were removing any suppliers involved in such work in Xinjiang.
Most cited codes of conduct and other policies that insist on fair labour practices from their suppliers. Few answered the questions directly; one not at all.
The media-relations office at Lululemon, which already has 50 yoga-wear stores in China and has said it wants to expand there, failed to respond to five emailed requests for comment.
Others were somewhat more forthcoming.
Canada Goose, whose CEO recently said China is an “increasingly crucial” market for the parka manufacturer, requires all of its suppliers, “no matter where they are in the world,” to sign a supplier code of conduct barring use of forced labour, the firm said through an outside public-relations firm. The statement did not mention Xinjiang.
Roots, which has 26 “partner-operated” stores in China and two in Hong Kong, said it does not source “any product directly from the Xinjiang” and requires direct suppliers to certify an absence of forced labour, said spokeswoman Kristen Davies . Meanwhile, it continues to “actively review” its supply chain.
Joe Fresh, the cheap-chic fashion line owned by Loblaws, “reached out to vendors for a commitment that they will not use cotton from the Xinjiang region,” said Loblaws spokeswoman Catherine Thomas.
Aritzia “does not manufacture in China’s Xinjiang region and is in full compliance with all trade regulations,” said vice president Renee Smith-Valade. It is also the only one of the companies that belongs to the Better Cotton Initiative , a non-profit that has spoken out about forced-labour in Xinjiang.
Hudson’s Bay, which has several private-label clothing brands, “does not use factories in, or source cotton from, Xinjiang,” stated spokeswoman Tiffany Bourre.
But Penelope Kyritsis of the Washington, D.C.-based Workers Rights Consortium said statements like those of the Canadian companies are little more than rhetoric until they sign on to something like the call to action and vigorously verify their commitments.
“So I couldn’t tell you with satisfaction that their supply chains are free of Uyghur forced labour,” she said.
The new federal regulations implemented last July bar imports of products made wholly or in part from forced labour. They require companies that do business in Xinjiang and get help from the government’s Trade Commissioner to sign a Xinjiang integrity declaration. And they ban exports that could be used in human rights abuses, like Beijing’s omnipresent surveillance of Uyghurs.
Asked repeatedly if any imports have so far been banned, officials from Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) said only that the government is working on the issue.
CBSA is responsible for intervening based on research conducted by Employment and Social Development Canada, but it’s not an easy task, said agency spokeswoman Jacquie Callin.
“There is no visual clue for a Border Services officer to understand the labour standards by which a particular import was produced,” she said. “It takes research, coordination and diligence amongst all stakeholders to establish reliable and actionable sources of information.”
But Waller said there is much that Canada could do now, primarily by making use of work already done by the United States: It has barred numerous Chinese products from entering the U.S. because of suspected involvement of forced labour, including a blanket ban on cotton and tomatoes from Xinjiang.
“From everything that we’re hearing so far, it’s still very much in the stage of figuring out how to enforce it,” said Waller about Ottawa’s efforts.
Unless Canada quickly follows the American lead, it risks being used as a “backdoor” by China for getting banned forced-labour products into the U.S., warned Tohti.
One Canadian company has signed the Xinjiang integrity declaration and others are “conducting their due diligence” before signing, though none can be identified for commercial-confidentiality reasons, said a GAC spokesman.
As for rejecting export permits for products that could be used in rights abuses, department officials said only that aggregate information on various types of permit denials is contained in the annual report on Export of Military Goods to be tabled May 31.
But that document offers almost no information on why permits are denied, and none on the export product itself.
In Mexico autos town, labor rights falter despite U.S. trade deal
By Daina Beth Solomon
By Daina Beth Solomon
© Reuters/Henry Romero FILE PHOTO: Mexican labor lawyer Susana Prieto leads a demonstration with supporters and workers outside an office of the Chihuahua state government in Mexico City
MATAMOROS, Mexico (Reuters) - After successfully staging a wildcat strike for higher wages in 2019, many workers at the Tridonex auto-parts plant in the Mexican city of Matamoros, across the border from Texas, set their sights higher: replacing the union that they say failed to fight for them.
Six workers at the factory, which refits second-hand car parts for sale in the United States and Canada, told Reuters they felt let down that their union, SITPME, did not back their demands for better pay. About 400 Tridonex workers protested outside a Matamoros labor court last year to be allowed to switch unions.
When the first protests broke out in 2019, many of the plant's roughly 4,000 workers earned just above the then-minimum wage of 176.72 pesos ($8.82) a day.
The Tridonex workers and thousands more at other Matamoros factories walked off the job demanding a 20% raise and 32,000-peso bonus, many without union backing. In nearly all cases, the companies conceded.
"This showed us what we were capable of," said Edgar Salazar, then a Tridonex employee. "We know we have rights, but the union just wants to cash in. It doesn't support us at all."
Jesus Mendoza, SITPME's long-time leader, said his union generated jobs and delivered perks to its members while maintaining harmonious relationships with employers.
However, Salazar and many of his Tridonex colleagues wanted to throw their support behind a new organization led by activist and attorney Susana Prieto.
But their efforts are failing, labor experts acknowledge.
Dismantling the power of Mexico's entrenched unions is proving a tough challenge, some labor activists say, with few signs that reforms promised under a new North American trade deal are yet charting an easier course.
Amid resistance from SITPME, the Tridonex workers' request to be represented by Prieto's union has still not been put to a vote. Legal challenges by attorney Prieto to replace unions at 45 other factories in the area have also stalled.
When Prieto urged strikes in January to again demand higher pay, just a few hundred people protested across a handful of companies.
"They're scared, because they don't have anyone to defend them," Prieto said. According to Prieto, about 600 of her supporters at Tridonex -- including Salazar -- were fired between April and October 2020. Reuters could not independently confirm this.
Cardone Industries, Tridonex's Philadelphia-based parent, did not respond to a question about allegations of retaliation.
It says layoffs were made due to reduced demand following pandemic lockdowns but did not provide further details. Cardone is controlled by Canadian company Brookfield Asset Management.
SLOW PROGRESS
Leftist
MATAMOROS, Mexico (Reuters) - After successfully staging a wildcat strike for higher wages in 2019, many workers at the Tridonex auto-parts plant in the Mexican city of Matamoros, across the border from Texas, set their sights higher: replacing the union that they say failed to fight for them.
Six workers at the factory, which refits second-hand car parts for sale in the United States and Canada, told Reuters they felt let down that their union, SITPME, did not back their demands for better pay. About 400 Tridonex workers protested outside a Matamoros labor court last year to be allowed to switch unions.
When the first protests broke out in 2019, many of the plant's roughly 4,000 workers earned just above the then-minimum wage of 176.72 pesos ($8.82) a day.
The Tridonex workers and thousands more at other Matamoros factories walked off the job demanding a 20% raise and 32,000-peso bonus, many without union backing. In nearly all cases, the companies conceded.
"This showed us what we were capable of," said Edgar Salazar, then a Tridonex employee. "We know we have rights, but the union just wants to cash in. It doesn't support us at all."
Jesus Mendoza, SITPME's long-time leader, said his union generated jobs and delivered perks to its members while maintaining harmonious relationships with employers.
However, Salazar and many of his Tridonex colleagues wanted to throw their support behind a new organization led by activist and attorney Susana Prieto.
But their efforts are failing, labor experts acknowledge.
Dismantling the power of Mexico's entrenched unions is proving a tough challenge, some labor activists say, with few signs that reforms promised under a new North American trade deal are yet charting an easier course.
Amid resistance from SITPME, the Tridonex workers' request to be represented by Prieto's union has still not been put to a vote. Legal challenges by attorney Prieto to replace unions at 45 other factories in the area have also stalled.
When Prieto urged strikes in January to again demand higher pay, just a few hundred people protested across a handful of companies.
"They're scared, because they don't have anyone to defend them," Prieto said. According to Prieto, about 600 of her supporters at Tridonex -- including Salazar -- were fired between April and October 2020. Reuters could not independently confirm this.
Cardone Industries, Tridonex's Philadelphia-based parent, did not respond to a question about allegations of retaliation.
It says layoffs were made due to reduced demand following pandemic lockdowns but did not provide further details. Cardone is controlled by Canadian company Brookfield Asset Management.
SLOW PROGRESS
Leftist
"The law in general is very good. But that doesn't mean we're going to get any change in Mexico anytime soon," said Kimberly Nolan, a labor scholar at the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences research institute.
Some of the Matamoros workers are now looking to the United States for backing.
A new free trade deal between Mexico, the United States and Canada (USMCA) implemented last year enshrined workers' rights to choose which union administers their collective contract.
With Democrat Joe Biden now president, Mexico may come under close scrutiny to uphold the USMCA's pro-worker provisions, which were partly designed to prevent low labor costs from leeching more U.S. jobs.
Under the treaty, companies failing to ensure freedom of association for workers in Mexico could be sanctioned with tariffs and other penalties.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which runs U.S. trade policy, did not respond to a question of how the Biden administration would treat violations of the trade pact's labor measures.
But Katherine Tai, head of the agency, said last week she was "not afraid" to use the enforcement provisions of the USMCA, without specifying which issues could come under review.
The powerful U.S. union federation, the AFL-CIO, told Reuters in April it was drafting cases against companies in Mexico under USMCA, and would make details public in May.
Matamoros is one of a string of Mexican border cities which American firms were lured to by cheap labor in recent decades. Its factories supply parts for General Motors Co, Toyota Motor Corp, Stellantis and other automakers.
Booming trade with the United States has brought jobs to areas of northern Mexico but labor rights lag.
Companies in Mexico have commonly fired workers, among other tactics, rather than allow them to agitate for new unions, say activists, scholars and government officials.
"They fire them; they suppress them. They stop giving extra hours. They don't give bonuses. They change them to night shift," said Alfredo Dominguez, head of the Federal Center of Conciliation and Labor Registration, created under the labor reform to ensure collective contracts are legitimate.
One of the labor ministry's priorities is to eliminate so-called "protection contracts," signed between unions and employers without workers' prior consultation or knowledge, which Dominguez said make up at least 80% of all collective contracts in Mexico.
The labor reform, once implemented, will also do away with local panels blamed by labor activists for long delays in the process of establishing new unions like Prieto's. The boards will be replaced with tribunals reporting to the judicial branch.
NEW TACTICS
Frustrated by delays in setting up a new union, hundreds of Tridonex workers early in 2020 opted for a new tactic: declaring they no longer wanted to pay dues to the established union, SITPME. After several tense protests, Tridonex consented.
Then firings began, four workers told Reuters.
In March 2020, Efren Ruiz, who cleaned and assembled brake parts for Tridonex and was a vocal advocate of Prieto's union, was dismissed.
"This is reprisal," Ruiz remembered telling a supervisor, before security guards escorted him out, he said.
Three other workers also said they believed their union activism led to their dismissals. A government record seen by Reuters, dated October 30, 2020, shows Tridonex dismissed 717 people from April to October last year.
Reuters was unable to determine if any have been hired back since. Mexico's Social Security Institute, which tracks employment, said it could not comment on individual companies.
Prieto said the firings were retaliation by the company to protect SITPME and prevent more strikes for better pay.
SITPME leader Mendoza described complaints of retaliation as "lies." Cardone said in a statement the staff reduction was due to a drop in demand and was "managed through transparent and constructive discussions with employees and relevant trade unions."
SITPME - which extols membership perks such as medical and legal aid - said it lured back at least 3,000 people from different companies who had supported Prieto's breakaway group. Reuters could not independently confirm this.
Mendoza noted that he strives for dialogue with companies, not strikes: "What we do well is guarantee labor peace and efficiency in the workforce."
(Reporting by Daina Beth Solomon; additional reporting by Ben Klayman in Detroit and David Lawder in Washington; Editing by Christian Plumb, Daniel Flynn and Alistair Bell)
Some of the Matamoros workers are now looking to the United States for backing.
A new free trade deal between Mexico, the United States and Canada (USMCA) implemented last year enshrined workers' rights to choose which union administers their collective contract.
With Democrat Joe Biden now president, Mexico may come under close scrutiny to uphold the USMCA's pro-worker provisions, which were partly designed to prevent low labor costs from leeching more U.S. jobs.
Under the treaty, companies failing to ensure freedom of association for workers in Mexico could be sanctioned with tariffs and other penalties.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which runs U.S. trade policy, did not respond to a question of how the Biden administration would treat violations of the trade pact's labor measures.
But Katherine Tai, head of the agency, said last week she was "not afraid" to use the enforcement provisions of the USMCA, without specifying which issues could come under review.
The powerful U.S. union federation, the AFL-CIO, told Reuters in April it was drafting cases against companies in Mexico under USMCA, and would make details public in May.
Matamoros is one of a string of Mexican border cities which American firms were lured to by cheap labor in recent decades. Its factories supply parts for General Motors Co, Toyota Motor Corp, Stellantis and other automakers.
Booming trade with the United States has brought jobs to areas of northern Mexico but labor rights lag.
Companies in Mexico have commonly fired workers, among other tactics, rather than allow them to agitate for new unions, say activists, scholars and government officials.
"They fire them; they suppress them. They stop giving extra hours. They don't give bonuses. They change them to night shift," said Alfredo Dominguez, head of the Federal Center of Conciliation and Labor Registration, created under the labor reform to ensure collective contracts are legitimate.
One of the labor ministry's priorities is to eliminate so-called "protection contracts," signed between unions and employers without workers' prior consultation or knowledge, which Dominguez said make up at least 80% of all collective contracts in Mexico.
The labor reform, once implemented, will also do away with local panels blamed by labor activists for long delays in the process of establishing new unions like Prieto's. The boards will be replaced with tribunals reporting to the judicial branch.
NEW TACTICS
Frustrated by delays in setting up a new union, hundreds of Tridonex workers early in 2020 opted for a new tactic: declaring they no longer wanted to pay dues to the established union, SITPME. After several tense protests, Tridonex consented.
Then firings began, four workers told Reuters.
In March 2020, Efren Ruiz, who cleaned and assembled brake parts for Tridonex and was a vocal advocate of Prieto's union, was dismissed.
"This is reprisal," Ruiz remembered telling a supervisor, before security guards escorted him out, he said.
Three other workers also said they believed their union activism led to their dismissals. A government record seen by Reuters, dated October 30, 2020, shows Tridonex dismissed 717 people from April to October last year.
Reuters was unable to determine if any have been hired back since. Mexico's Social Security Institute, which tracks employment, said it could not comment on individual companies.
Prieto said the firings were retaliation by the company to protect SITPME and prevent more strikes for better pay.
SITPME leader Mendoza described complaints of retaliation as "lies." Cardone said in a statement the staff reduction was due to a drop in demand and was "managed through transparent and constructive discussions with employees and relevant trade unions."
SITPME - which extols membership perks such as medical and legal aid - said it lured back at least 3,000 people from different companies who had supported Prieto's breakaway group. Reuters could not independently confirm this.
Mendoza noted that he strives for dialogue with companies, not strikes: "What we do well is guarantee labor peace and efficiency in the workforce."
(Reporting by Daina Beth Solomon; additional reporting by Ben Klayman in Detroit and David Lawder in Washington; Editing by Christian Plumb, Daniel Flynn and Alistair Bell)
NO TIME
Amazon is polling drivers about their bathroom breaks after apologizing for denying that workers pee in bottles. Drivers say the survey is missing a key answer.
ndailey@businessinsider.com (Natasha Dailey,Avery Hartmans)
Amazon asked its drivers in a survey if they're "able to find restrooms" on their routes.
The drivers said the question missed the point of their problem - that they don't have time to.
"They're giving us monster routes," one driver told Insider.
"The funny part about this screenshot is that they don't provide an option for 'Do not have time to use the restroom,' which is the main problem," one Amazon driver told Insider. He asked to remain anonymous for fear of job repercussions for speaking publicly.
Insider has previously documented how Amazon drivers often pee in bottles, as well as poop in bags and change menstrual pads while driving, due to the time constraints of the job.
The company previously denied that its workers peed in bottles on Twitter, but then later apologized for the tweet. Calling the issue an industry-wide trend, it attributed the problem to rural routes, pandemic-closed restrooms, and traffic, and said it was working to come up with solutions.
Insider spoke with four drivers about the survey, three of whom asked for anonymity to protect their jobs. Amazon did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment on the survey.
One driver said he selected the top choice, which read, "No I am not being allowed access to open restrooms," because drivers "frankly aren't given enough time to search for restrooms."
"They're giving us monster routes," he said. "If we so much as fall 10 minutes behind, Amazon will ask the dispatchers why we are behind," he said.
Read more: Jeff Bezos responds to employee question about his resignation as CEO, says Amazon can 'out-survive any individual in the company, including, of course, myself'
Amazon driver Robert Lupia said he receives surveys almost every morning. He told Insider he is expected to deliver 350 to 400 packages per day, and he's required to clock out for lunch breaks but doesn't have time to take the break.
"Yes we pee in bottles daily; it's part of the job," he said. "Places don't allow non-customers to use their bathrooms."
A driver based near Lansing, Michigan, said the "I don't know how to find a restroom" option was "a little condescending." But, he said, acknowledging the restroom issue "is at least a step in the right direction."
Read the original article on Business Insider
Amazon is polling drivers about their bathroom breaks after apologizing for denying that workers pee in bottles. Drivers say the survey is missing a key answer.
ndailey@businessinsider.com (Natasha Dailey,Avery Hartmans)
© Patrick Fallon/Getty Images
Amazon asked its drivers in a survey if they're "able to find restrooms" on their routes.
The drivers said the question missed the point of their problem - that they don't have time to.
"They're giving us monster routes," one driver told Insider.
Amazon asked its drivers in a recent survey if they were "able to find restrooms" while making deliveries, but workers said the question was missing their main problem - that they don't have enough time.
Several Amazon delivery drivers shared a screenshot of the survey with Insider on Monday. It asked, "Are you able to find open restrooms for use while making deliveries?" And had four options for answers
Several Amazon delivery drivers shared a screenshot of the survey with Insider on Monday. It asked, "Are you able to find open restrooms for use while making deliveries?" And had four options for answers
.
Courtesy of Amazon delivery driver Amazon driver survey on May 3, 2021.
"The funny part about this screenshot is that they don't provide an option for 'Do not have time to use the restroom,' which is the main problem," one Amazon driver told Insider. He asked to remain anonymous for fear of job repercussions for speaking publicly.
Insider has previously documented how Amazon drivers often pee in bottles, as well as poop in bags and change menstrual pads while driving, due to the time constraints of the job.
The company previously denied that its workers peed in bottles on Twitter, but then later apologized for the tweet. Calling the issue an industry-wide trend, it attributed the problem to rural routes, pandemic-closed restrooms, and traffic, and said it was working to come up with solutions.
Insider spoke with four drivers about the survey, three of whom asked for anonymity to protect their jobs. Amazon did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment on the survey.
One driver said he selected the top choice, which read, "No I am not being allowed access to open restrooms," because drivers "frankly aren't given enough time to search for restrooms."
"They're giving us monster routes," he said. "If we so much as fall 10 minutes behind, Amazon will ask the dispatchers why we are behind," he said.
Read more: Jeff Bezos responds to employee question about his resignation as CEO, says Amazon can 'out-survive any individual in the company, including, of course, myself'
Amazon driver Robert Lupia said he receives surveys almost every morning. He told Insider he is expected to deliver 350 to 400 packages per day, and he's required to clock out for lunch breaks but doesn't have time to take the break.
"Yes we pee in bottles daily; it's part of the job," he said. "Places don't allow non-customers to use their bathrooms."
A driver based near Lansing, Michigan, said the "I don't know how to find a restroom" option was "a little condescending." But, he said, acknowledging the restroom issue "is at least a step in the right direction."
Read the original article on Business Insider
TORY LIBERAL CONTRACTING OUT FAIL
CRA rules against civil service union push to make Phoenix damages non-taxable
OTTAWA — Canada's biggest civil service union says it is considering taking legal action after the Canada Revenue Agency ruled that damages paid to federal employees in connection with the troubled Phoenix pay system are taxable.
© Provided by The Canadian Press
The Public Service Alliance of Canada says it has received notice from CRA that the agency won't review the taxability of the payments.
The payments were part of a contract settlement dealing with the financial, mental and emotional harm caused to government employees who were overpaid, underpaid or not paid at all through the Phoenix system.
Payments of up to $2,500 each were issued in March to civil servants affected by the damages agreement, minus applicable income taxes and other deductions.
In a letter sent to the union, dated April 27, the tax agency turned down the union's request to review the taxation issue.
In part, CRA said the government agency responsible for paying civil servants didn't cooperate with its review.
"After numerous requests for Treasury Board’s cooperation, and direct appeals to (Treasury Board President Jean-Yves) Duclos, they have refused any and all cooperation on the matter," a portion of the letter provided to the union stated.
The review was contingent on both the union and Treasury Board Secretariat providing an agreed statement of facts.
The union accused the government of shortchanging the 140,000 federal employees it represents by deducting tax from the payments, arguing that damages settlements are not normally taxed.
The union and government reached a deal last summer to compensate PSAC members affected by failures in the Phoenix system.
The Treasury Board chose not to co-operate with the review out of spite, PSAC national president Chris Aylward said in a statement.
"It's clear they're still angry that PSAC forced them to deliver a better deal for our members," Aylward said.
"They're frustrated that they have to honour the top-up clauses signed with the other unions to match our general damages agreement, and now they're taking it out on PSAC members by sabotaging attempts to get a positive tax ruling."
Treasury Board officials were not immediately available to respond to a request for comment.
But a spokesman said in February that Treasury Board was not blocking a review of the CRA's initial decision on the matter by refusing to issue a joint statement of facts with PSAC, adding that the government had always intended that the damages payments would be subject to "applicable deductions."
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 3, 2021.
Terry Pedwell, The Canadian Press
CRA rules against civil service union push to make Phoenix damages non-taxable
OTTAWA — Canada's biggest civil service union says it is considering taking legal action after the Canada Revenue Agency ruled that damages paid to federal employees in connection with the troubled Phoenix pay system are taxable.
© Provided by The Canadian PressThe Public Service Alliance of Canada says it has received notice from CRA that the agency won't review the taxability of the payments.
The payments were part of a contract settlement dealing with the financial, mental and emotional harm caused to government employees who were overpaid, underpaid or not paid at all through the Phoenix system.
Payments of up to $2,500 each were issued in March to civil servants affected by the damages agreement, minus applicable income taxes and other deductions.
In a letter sent to the union, dated April 27, the tax agency turned down the union's request to review the taxation issue.
In part, CRA said the government agency responsible for paying civil servants didn't cooperate with its review.
"After numerous requests for Treasury Board’s cooperation, and direct appeals to (Treasury Board President Jean-Yves) Duclos, they have refused any and all cooperation on the matter," a portion of the letter provided to the union stated.
The review was contingent on both the union and Treasury Board Secretariat providing an agreed statement of facts.
The union accused the government of shortchanging the 140,000 federal employees it represents by deducting tax from the payments, arguing that damages settlements are not normally taxed.
The union and government reached a deal last summer to compensate PSAC members affected by failures in the Phoenix system.
The Treasury Board chose not to co-operate with the review out of spite, PSAC national president Chris Aylward said in a statement.
"It's clear they're still angry that PSAC forced them to deliver a better deal for our members," Aylward said.
"They're frustrated that they have to honour the top-up clauses signed with the other unions to match our general damages agreement, and now they're taking it out on PSAC members by sabotaging attempts to get a positive tax ruling."
Treasury Board officials were not immediately available to respond to a request for comment.
But a spokesman said in February that Treasury Board was not blocking a review of the CRA's initial decision on the matter by refusing to issue a joint statement of facts with PSAC, adding that the government had always intended that the damages payments would be subject to "applicable deductions."
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 3, 2021.
Terry Pedwell, The Canadian Press
A restaurant manager who forced a Black man to work without pay owes him more than $500,000 in restitution, court rules
By Scottie Andrew, CNN
A South Carolina man who was forced to work over 100 hours every week for years without pay and subjected to verbal and physical abuse was supposed to receive close to $273,000 in restitution after his former manager pleaded guilty.
© J. Reuben Long Detention Center via AP Bobby Edwards, a South Carolina restaurant manager, was sentenced to prison for 10 years.
But that initial amount was too low, an appellate court ruled in April. The man should have received more than double that amount -- closer to $546,000 -- from the manager to account for federal labor laws, according to the ruling.
John Christopher Smith was forced to work at a cafeteria in Conway without pay for years. His manager, Bobby Edwards, pleaded guilty to forced labor in 2018 and was sentenced to 10 years in prison for his abuse of Smith, a Black man who has intellectual disabilities.
A US District Court judge in 2019 ordered Edwards, who is White, to pay Smith around $273,000 in restitution, which represented Smith's unpaid wages and overtime.
But the court "erred in failing to include liquidated damages" in the restitution, a provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act that would've doubled the amount of restitution Smith received, according to the April ruling from the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals based in Richmond, Virginia.
But that initial amount was too low, an appellate court ruled in April. The man should have received more than double that amount -- closer to $546,000 -- from the manager to account for federal labor laws, according to the ruling.
John Christopher Smith was forced to work at a cafeteria in Conway without pay for years. His manager, Bobby Edwards, pleaded guilty to forced labor in 2018 and was sentenced to 10 years in prison for his abuse of Smith, a Black man who has intellectual disabilities.
A US District Court judge in 2019 ordered Edwards, who is White, to pay Smith around $273,000 in restitution, which represented Smith's unpaid wages and overtime.
But the court "erred in failing to include liquidated damages" in the restitution, a provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act that would've doubled the amount of restitution Smith received, according to the April ruling from the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals based in Richmond, Virginia.
The Fair Labor Standards Act's liquidated-damages provision holds that if failing to pay a worker's wages on time is so detrimental to that worker's "minimum standard of living," then they should be paid double that amount, the Supreme Court decided in 1945.
"When an employer fails to pay those amounts, the employee suffers losses, which includes the loss of the use of that money during the period of delay," the federal appeals court said.
The district court will now calculate the new amount Smith is owed.
CNN has reached out to the US Attorney's Office in South Carolina and the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, which ordered the original restitution payment, for comment.
Smith endured years of abuse
Smith started working at the cafeteria as a part-time dishwasher when he was 12, according to the recent ruling. His first 19 years of employment there, when the restaurant was managed by other members of Edwards' family, were paid.
But when Edwards took over the restaurant in 2009, Smith was moved into an apartment next to the restaurant and forced to work more than 100 hours every week without pay, according to the ruling.
"Edwards effected this forced labor by taking advantage of Jack's intellectual disability and keeping Jack isolated from his family, threatening to have him arrested, and verbally abusing him," the ruling reads.
Smith feared Edwards, who once dipped metal tongs into grease and pressed them into Smith's neck when Smith failed to quickly restock the buffet with fried chicken, the ruling says. Edwards also whipped Smith with his belt, punched him and beat him with kitchen pans, leaving Smith "physically and psychologically scarred," according to the ruling.
But Smith also feared what might happen if he attempted to escape, he told CNN affiliate WPDE in 2017.
"I wanted to get out of there a long time ago. But I didn't have nobody I could go to," he told the affiliate. "I couldn't go anywhere. I couldn't see none of my family."
The ruling says an employee's relative alerted authorities of the abuse in 2014, and the South Carolina Department of Social Services removed Smith from the restaurant that year.
"We are talking about enslavement here," Abdullah Mustafa, then the president of the local chapter of the NAACP, said at the time.
CNN has reached out to the Conway chapter of the South Carolina NAACP for comment.
Alberta NDP leader urges officials to enforce pandemic measures
Opposition leader Rachel Notley tells Power & Politics the provincial government must enforce pandemic measures already in place as the caseload continues to climb in Alberta.
CBC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)