Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER CANADIAN HR REPORTER April 21, 2014 April 21, 2014 INSIGHT INSIGHT 23 23 LETTER TO THE EDITOR Unpaid internship issue requires collaboration As a staunch advocate for paid internships, Career Edge supports the Ontario Ministry of Labour's crackdown on internships that violate the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA). We believe enforcement of the law is the right thing to do to prevent exploita- tion of our youth and to protect workers' rights. In our opinion, the search for a resolution to the issue of unpaid internships will require collaboration between the government, employers and youth: • e government needs to educate employers on the stipula- tions outlined in the ESA, while safeguarding young people's rights and ensuring fair and equitable access to career-launching opportunities. •Employers must be willing to invest in our future by ensuring young people receive the experience required to grow profession- ally and become tomorrow's leaders. •Young people have a responsibility to educate themselves on their rights and make informed decisions to invest in their career. From our experience, we know unpaid internships limit oppor- tunities to a certain socio-economic class — only those who can aff ord to work without pay have the chance to gain experience in this way. Paid internships, on the other hand, off er an inclusive and accessible way for young people to transition into the workforce and get the experience needed to launch their career, while being fairly compensated for their work. With that in mind, we must fi nd ways to make internships work for employers, while ensuring equity for young people entering the labour force. We must also ensure interns have an opportunity to make a decent living and get on the right track to a promising career — without restricting the number of opportunities available to them. Career Edge is passionate about connecting recent graduates and internationally qualifi ed professionals with organizations for paid internships. More than 55 per cent of our interns are hired by their host employer during or immediately after their internship, with the majority of the rest fi nding work elsewhere within six months of completing their internship. Naguib Gouda President, CareerEdge Toronto Why aren't more employers in jail? Westray Bill turns 10 but questions linger about its eff ectiveness Ten years ago, Bill C-45 — commonly known as the Westray Bill and corporate killing law — became federal law. It was landmark legislation intended to im- prove health and safety for Canadian workers. It amended the federal criminal code and enabled police and the Crown to criminally charge own- ers and offi cers of corporations if there was reckless disregard to the health and safety of employees. e 1992 Westray mining acci- dent that killed 26 miners in Nova Scotia was an unfortunate wakeup call for Canadian companies. It was a preventable accident and a reminder that safety needed to be, and must always be, the top prior- ity at any worksite. As we refl ect on this accident and the anniversary of Bill C-45, it's a wakeup call that still needs to be sounded — because, unfortu- nately, there have been hundreds of worksite deaths and accidents across the country since the en- actment of this law. Are Canadian workers saf- er? Yes, to some extent, be- cause there is a mechanism to penalize negligent behaviour. However, there are still many lingering questions about the enforcement of this legislation. In the past decade, charges have been laid in a handful of cases us- ing Bill C-45. Also, there are questions about whether the law's spirit has reached smaller companies that may fi nd it challenging to comply with current safety regulations and standards. What Bill C-45 did was not only entrench workplace safety in the Criminal Code but it put the onus of safety on the employer or any- one of authority in the workplace. e prospect of going to jail is indeed a scary one. However, the challenge a decade later appears to be enforcement. In the cases that included charges under Bill C-45, the resulting penalties have been plea-bargained fi nes — some very stiff sums of money — but indi- viduals haven't faced jail time. Is this a strong enough deterrent? I question whether Bill C-45 has been enforced to an adequate degree. I would urge the federal government and the Crown to refl ect on what has been accom- plished since the bill's inception. In your opinion, has it been suc- cessful? Are there measurements in place to determine how far we have come? Are the root causes of these accidents and deaths being addressed to avoid more incidents in the future? I hope this debate and discus- sion will resonate among all par- ties and result in greater aware- ness and implementation of work- place safety. Personally, I believe and have seen that the spirit of Bill C-45 has been better refl ected in larger companies. is is likely due to the fact they have more established safety practices and resources to implement workplace safety. However, my hope is smaller companies will take notice. ey may think the cost to implement safety measures is too much or that safety standards may impede production. Often, the main hin- drance to safety can be a combi- nation of ignorance, lack of expe- rience and the perceived cost of implementation. But the cost to ensure employ- ees have a safe workplace is very small compared to the emotional and fi nancial burdens of injury or death. It is likely cheaper to pro- actively invest in maintaining the most current safety standards, such as enacting proper machine guarding, than having to take ac- tion after the fact — be it in legal fees, insurance costs or lost time for operations. In some cases, we have designed measures in which implementing up-to-date safety standards can even create greater operational effi ciency. Safety steps What can companies and their owners do? First, it's always good to be reminded that training is possibly the single most impor- tant step to safety. ere must be proper training for workers and supervisors about how to operate and maintain safe sites, machines and tools. Managers and supervi- sors must be given the resources and responsibility to report and remedy situations on the ground. Workers need to understand the risks of their work and how to deal with them. ere must be clear communications from all parties about the work that is being done and the hazards being minimized or eliminated. Secondly, owners, managers and supervisors need to recog- nize current safety standards and implement them wherever pos- sible. Safety planning and reviews are essential to ensure a site or machine is safe for operation, but these do not guarantee continued safety. Maintaining safety is a con- stant and ongoing challenge. Companies can consult provin- cial inspectors and outside safety experts and engineers to ensure compliance but, ultimately, own- ers and employers need to exer- cise the due diligence required for safety. It goes without saying — work- place accidents and death are tragic and costly. But they are of- ten preventable too. In the spirit of Bill C-45, my hope is we continue the dialogue surrounding safety and keep it front-of-mind when- ever we go to work. Safety shouldn't just be a box we check off and we shouldn't have another unfortunate wakeup call. Ralph Balbaa is president of Missis- sauga, Ont.-based HITE Engineering, a fi rm specializing in industrial and construction safety, and forensic en- gineering. For more information visit www.hite.ca. Dealing with foreign- trained professionals Question: How should employers deal with skilled immigrants whose credentials do not readily transfer to Canada? Can we insist on hiring only people with Cana- dian experience? Answer: Though I grew up in Canada, I completed my under- graduate education in Scotland. After I returned, I began to un- derstand the challenges faced by foreign-trained professionals. My own problems were exac- erbated by the fact I studied law in Scotland. In many ways, I was probably worse off than if I had studied something more univer- sal, such as economics or sociolo- gy. Recruiters openly told me they weren't considering me because I didn't have recent Canadian ex- perience. People were hostile to- wards me for attending university outside Canada. I had completed all of my prior schooling in Canada, with sev- eral part-time and summer jobs throughout high school. But it didn't seem like any of that mat- tered much to employers. Because my degree wasn't fully recognized in Canada, I de- cided to enhance my education by completing certifi cates in law and business management from a Canadian university, along with a postgraduate program in human resources, a Certified Human Resources Professional (CHRP) designation and a master's degree focusing on employment law. Reforming immigration It is somewhat dishonest to per- suade professionals to come to Canada because their qualifi ca- tions are in high demand, only for them to fi nd the situation is quite diff erent when they get here. Our government, employers, profes- sional associations and the gener- al public are all partially to blame for this problem. Evidence is increasingly sug- gesting that so-called skills short- ages are overblown. And it is quite possible some employers are abusing the system by bring- ing in temporary foreign workers to do work Canadians could easily be doing. While the Temporary For- eign Worker Program is being reformed, perhaps we should be looking at further reforming the entire immigration system. At the very least, we should be more honest with people about their likelihood of success in pursuing their profession in Canada. Even if it means bringing fewer people into the country, we have a moral obligation to help the people who are already here to succeed and integrate into the Canadian economy and society. Nevertheless, there are signs of positive change. Several juris- dictions have passed legislation making the recognition of foreign credentials fairer and more trans- parent. Human rights legislation provides that insisting job candi- dates have Canadian experience discriminates against immigrants on the grounds of nationality. e Ontario Human Rights Commis- sion also recently developed a policy on removing the Canadian experience barrier, with the result that employers should not insist on Canadian experience or quali- fi cations in most cases. Implications for employers It is up to employers to comply with legislation and human rights policy in this area and stop insist- ing on hiring only people with Canadian experience. While pos- session of Canadian credentials could be a bona fi de occupational requirement for certain jobs — especially in licensed professions such as law and medicine — in many cases, someone with educa- tion and experience from abroad could do the job just as well. That's not to say employers aren't entitled to hire the best can- didate for the job or that commu- nication and soft skills aren't im- portant. But someone shouldn't be discounted just because she has international experience or a degree from a foreign university. When in doubt about interna- tional qualifi cations, have them evaluated by a foreign credential evaluation service. It is also important to be wary of rejecting foreign-trained pro- fessionals for being overqualifi ed. In many cases, these individuals are unable to get the jobs people wrongly assume they would be qualifi ed for in Canada. Brian Kreissl is the product develop- ment manager for Carswell's human resources, OH&S, payroll and records retention products and solutions. For more information, visit www.carswell. com. Brian Kreissl Toughest HR Question Ralph Balbaa Guest Commentary

• Cover