HighGrader editor Charlie Angus digs into his vault of memories as a former milk store clerk, busboy, dishwasher, chimney sweep, asbestos remover, carpenter, drywall taper and member of the Board of Directors for the local Chamber of Commerce to present...

Kiss the Weekend Goodbye
Charlie Angus' guide to the 60 hour work week
HighGrader Magazine January/February 2001
I had this job once - removing asbestos from the 28th floor of a Toronto skyscraper. The pay - nine bucks an hour, didn't seem like much for what could have been a risky health venture, but with no other prospects and a young family to feed, I took the job.
I signed on with my best friend to work on the set-up crew -- sealing the floors in heavy plastic prior to the removal. We started on Monday morning at seven a.m. with a crew of about 40 other workers - all young Portuguese immigrants.
"Funny," one of the staff said as I was being signed on, "all the other guys on your shift have the same name and the same Social Insurance number."
The first day was long and tiring. Expecting an eight-hour day, I looked forward to the whistle being blown at three. It wasn't. By four o'clock the crew was still hard at work. Come five o'clock, I went up to the foreman and asked just how long we were expected to work.
"Oh, you and your buddy can go home now if you like," he said casually.
"Well how come the rest of these guys are still working?"
"They like working longer hours." he said. Somehow I just didn't believe him. And then he added the kicker -- "Just don't bother telling them that you're leaving early."
Another funny thing about this job - come payday I found that the promised nine bucks an hour had been arbitrarily dropped to $7.25.
After a few weeks of this, my buddy and I quit.

"No, we're not bringing in a 60 hour work week. That's a widespread myth."
Kelly Shute, media assistant to Ontario Labour Minister Chris Stockwell, sounds frustrated. "The Opposition and the unions, particularly the Ontario Federation of Labour, have been doing a long and focused media campaign about the Province bringing in a 60 hour work week when that isn't true at all."
The labour-sponsored "campaign" has put the spotlight on a number of contentious changes to the Employment Standards Act. Among the highlights (or low lights):
* employers will no longer have to fill out request forms with the Ministry of Labour if they want employees to work longer than a 48 hour week.
* it will be possible to break holidays up into one and two-day periods instead of the mandatory one week blocks.
* the weekend might be history with it now being possible to ask employees to work 12 straight days before granting two rest days.
* overtime pay will still be mandatory after 44 hours but the overtime can now be averaged out over four weeks.

And while it may seem that the Province is targeting every hapless Bob Cratchett in the Province, Shute says this just isn't the case.
"The Employment Standards Act was written in 1968. Since then it has become cumbersome and the workplace has changed. What we have heard from employers and employees is that the Act needed to be simplified and clarified."
So what about the 60 hour week?
"The 60 hour work week was already legal," maintains Shute.
Under the old legislation, an employer had to pay overtime after 44 hours and employees had a right to refuse work after 48 hours. If, however, an employer wanted to keep a shift working longer in a given week, they had to apply for a permit from the Ministry of Labour.
About the only thing the government and the Labour movement seem to agree on is the fact that the permit system was merely a rubber stamp.
Chris Shank speaks for the Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL). "The problem with the issue of overtime is that limits were never enforced. If an employer wanted you to work 60 hours he simply got a permit. The Ministry gave out these permits like candy."
The OFL's solution is to put tighter limits on the overtime permits. The government's solution is to get out of the permit business.
Kelly Shute explains, "All we're doing is eliminating the permit which was basically a rubber stamp. The permit didn't offer any particular protection for anybody."
Chris Shank says this is a backward step.
"I don't know why industry would be pushing for this," says Chris Shanks, "because a 60 hour work week will result in lower productivity and higher accidents."
Shute, however, says its all being blown out of proportion. "People are already working 60 hours a week in many industries. After 44 hours of work you are still entitled to overtime. After 48 hours you still have the right to refuse any more overtime."
The only change, she says, is that the new law will simplify things for the employer.
"As long as the employer has a written agreement from the employees, then (we say) go ahead and do it (bringing on more work)."

Critics of this new flexibility point out that workers in many sectors simply do not have the leverage to resist employer requests for changes in overtime or holiday schedules.
As well, a signed permission form will serve to protect the employer from future legal challenges while, at the same time, waiving away any chance of redress for an employee.
The OFL's Shank explains, "The labour law is only enforced if you complain and 90% of complaints come after you quit the job. The question you will have to prove is did you sign a waiver under duress. I think people will be pressured into signing these forms as a condition of employment and then will be told later, 'well you signed these forms, you're not in a position to complain.'"
The Ministry, however, is vowing to investigate all complaints against employers who try to get waivers signed under duress.
"I don't believe that bad employers are the majority," says Kelly Shute, "but that's what unions will tell you."
Jonathan Eaton, a spokesman with the Union of Needle Trades, Industrial and Textile Employees, doesn't share the Ministry's optimism. He says that, even without this new law coming into affect, employees in Ontario are subject to a whole range of abuse. He blames the situation on the fact that the government laid off a third of the Province's enforcement investigators.
"Imagine if the Province laid off a third of the OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) - what kind of message that would send out. Employers know they can break the standards with impunity and their chance of getting caught is virtually nil."

I worked as a dishwasher and cleaner at this one restaurant which regularly scheduled more people than it needed for the lunch hour shift. If you were on the second-tier for the lunch shift, you simply waited until management decided if it was busy enough to let you work. If it wasn't, you were sent home -- no pay for the time you wasted and no compensation for the bus or car fare you'd wasted. One time I raised a ruckus with the management about being sent home after wasting most of the day waiting.
"Hey," I said cockily, "The law states you have to pay me for four hours of work if you call me in."
The manager grinned. "You want four hours of work?" He said. "We'll find you four hours of work."
Knowing what could be in store, I decided not to press my rights.
The big trick at this restaurant was the schedule. Management posted work schedules in two week blocks and if you had stepped out of line, or raised the ire of a particular manager, you'd come in to find yourself dropped from full-time, or even steady part time, down to one or two shifts over the whole two week period. If you complained, they'd say it was a mistake and promise to fix it -- once the two week period was completed.
This restaurant, was part of an American chain and our location, just so happened to be the place where they trained the new managers. Every few months we got a new manager and the first thing they did to establish their authority was to fire an employee in front of the rest of the staff. This headhunting routine seemed to be a standard part of their management training.
As far as I know, this chain has gone under.
No matter -- the food was terrible.

Flexible Loopholes
According to provincial labour reps, the "flexibility" of new labour legislation will simply enshrine barn-sized loopholes in the Employment Standards Act.
Under the government's initial plans, the extension to the 60 hour week would have been averaged out over three weeks (maximum 180 hours over three weeks). This meant it would have been possible to make an employee work 100 hours one week followed by two 40 hour weeks.
This part of the legislation has been scrapped (with the week capped at 60 hours) but employers will still be able to average overtime (paid at 44 hours) over four weeks.
Shute says this is meant to give flexibility to workers such as firefighters or employees at Bruce Nuclear on a "continental shift."
"It will give people the chance to have more time off in companies that run 24-hours-a-day, seven days a week."
Shank, however, says it will allow companies to offset peak work periods with slow downs to avoid paying overtime.
"That's money taken right of the employees pocket and put into the pocket of the employer."

But one of the more contentious issues is the new rules for holidays.
"Absolutely, patently false," is how Shute describes suggestions that holidays can no be broken down into dribbles of one and two day periods.
"Employers will still be required by law to schedule holidays in one week blocks," she says. "If however, an employee approaches an employer and requests something different in writing, then it would not be against the law for an employer to do that."
Shute gives an example from her own working past.
"I once went to my boss and said, 'look I'm not going away anywhere this year. I don't have any kids. I want a long weekend every weekend in July and August.' But they said they couldn't do that because it was against the law. The only changes we are making is adding in the flexibility for people to be able to make changes if that is what they want and not be breaking the law."
Consuelo Rubio from the Centre for Spanish Speaking People in Toronto, says it's "perverse" to suggest that employees in low-paying jobs will be able to say no to an employer who wants them to break down their holiday time.
"The people I represent are mostly immigrant workers doing minimum wage work in factories or working as cleaners. These people have zero leverage in the workplace. If you get hired and the employer says 'jump' you say, 'how high?' If the employer says to you when you get hired, 'oh by the way, around here we take our vacations one day at a time' what will you say? People who speak little English, or who are holding down two jobs so they can bring over their families, are not in a position to say no."
Rubio says that even without the changes to Employment Standards, low-income and immigrant workers face unbelievable exploitation.

"I can give you all kinds of examples of cleaning companies that regularly break every statute in the book - no statutory holidays, no overtime and extended work hours. We've had employees who clean out government court houses working for companies who regularly breach every section of the Act."
As an example, she tells the story of one immigrant worker who worked overtime every day for two months. "It was heavy work and finally he couldn't do it any more. He was too tired. He told his boss that he couldn't work any more overtime and the boss fired him saying he needed someone who was more flexible."
Shute, however, maintains that under the new guidelines, the Ministry of Labour is beefing up its inspections and the level of fines levied against companies that abuse their workers.
"The Minister has made a commitment to bring on new inspectors. We are increasing fines and jail times. We're expanding the enforcement powers.....If an employer asks an employee to work longer than 48 hours in a week and the employee says no, if the employer then tries to take action against that employee, the employee can lodge a complaint and we will investigate."
Rubio isn't impressed.
"I have been involved in work-related issues since 1981 and in those 19 years I have never seen the Ministry impose a fine on any employer that they have investigated. And I have represented people in some pretty extreme cases. I can tell you just how petty some of these employers can be."
Jonathan Eaton says he thinks the new law will dog the Conservatives for years to come.
"I think this is going to be one of those things people remember - the government that gave them the 60 hour work week. It's like the GST. It will really stick in people's memory, long after the political fall-out has ended, just because it is so manifestly unfair and regressive."

You're going to think I'm exaggerating with this next story....
I was once asked (told) to work 12 straight days to complete a major roof renovation. We took it for granted that the boss never paid overtime, nor for that matter workers' compensation or unemployment insurance (he treated us as 'subcontractors' on his books).
The first few days of this 12-day week started off well enough.
By day seven we were starting to get sluggish and mistakes were being made. On day eight, the boss was taking a chainsaw to a beam that I was holding when he slipped and fell off a ladder. The chainsaw came swinging down - just missing my outstretched arms.
On day nine, there was an ice storm and it was nearly impossible to move around on the steep pitch of the roof. We should have refused to even go up on the roof but we felt an obligation to meet the deadline. Even so, the boss cursed us for not moving fast enough as we tried to cut and nail down sheeting on the ice-covered roof.
We didn't have safety lines. One of us slipped off the scaffolding and the other went through a hole in the attic ceiling. Luckily neither of us was injured.
By day twelve we were a full day behind schedule. Little wonder with the bad turn in weather and the fact that all of us had slowly burnt out. The boss, however, put the blame on us. He was furious with the fact that the shingle crew had arrived on the scene while we were still trying to finish the sheeting.
He told us there was going to be no coffee or lunch breaks until the job was done (although I saw him sneaking off in his truck around 11:30). Come three o'clock the labourer finally sat down on the roof and took out his lunchbox.
"I don't care if I get fired," he said. "I'm tired and I need to eat."
The boss came up and demanded to know what the hell was going on.
"That's the last lunch he'll ever take on this job," the boss said to me.
I told him to lay off. That we were hungry and tired and a break would do us good.
Come quitting time the boss told me he wouldn't need me for the next few days as things were slowing down.
I knew he was lying because we still had a major portion of the job inside to finish. After I left, the boss confided in the labourer that my lay off was intended to teach me a lesson. He said it was a trick he'd learned from his old man --"lay guys off long enough to get them hungry and they'll appreciate the job."
It was two weeks before Christmas with no savings in the bank and no chance for unemployment insurance. I decided to drop the toolbelt forever, and move on into the journalism biz.
Who knows, maybe the new laws will create a glut of journalists in Ontario.

Back

This article may be downloaded but any reprints require prior permission.