Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died

projects.thestar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 140 posts

Re: Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died

#111

Post by Natsu »

frandroid wrote: post #88
err4nt wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single woodworking shop, electric shop, factory, etc I've been in they always make a big deal about _never_ wearing loose-fitting clothing, long hair or necklaces or bracelets - anything you wouldn't want torn off you at a fast rate of speed with force you remove or restrain. This is common sense and common instruction - I'm not sure what employment safety laws say about this. If the cause of her death was loos…

That's the point of the article, I think. Because Fiera doesn't have an employment relationship with the employee, their workers' comp rates will never increase, no matter what happens to the workers. So they don't take the kinds of precautions which would have prevented this worker from dying. I mean, it also severs to human connection between workers and managers, where they just see workers as a dispensable resour…

I read that as saying they couldn't stop her from wearing the hijab, which limits their options. Reading the article, it seems like the other deaths were caused by bad LOTO (lock out tag out) practices and one was some kind of traffic accident.

If it were me, I'd look at ways to avoid normalization of deviance. Maybe those with loose clothing can be given other things to wear or put into other roles. Factory jobs are inherently crappy and employers generally given you the legal minimums, as I know from direct experience. It's best to figure out ways to make complying with the rules easier so that most companies and most workers are complying with the law most of the time, but it's hard to give clear answers on how to do that. Hopefully things continue to improve. I'm sure there's a lot of room for it.

Re: Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died

#112

Post by sushid »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #110

If you impose mandatory higher standards for pay, benefits and training on temp employment agencies, a great many of these jobs will simply cease to exist. Given they're employing some of the most resource-challenged people, such a social intervention is liable to cause far more harm than good. Perfect is the enemy of the good.

Not sure if you read the article, but no one is talking about a higher standards for pay and benefits. You're literally making generic libertarian points.

The only direct criticism is that they don't enforce their own safety guidelines which leads to the death of their workers. A great many of these jobs can continue to exist even if their managers simply request those with loose garbs or improper safety shoes, etc. to show up with proper clothes.

Moreover, if there were some sort of government mandated safety check (which I'm not arguing for, just saying) the imposed burden is equal to all other competing firms. Unless the onus of taking on such check was so great that they suddenly decide to put all their money into R&D, these jobs will continue to exist.

Re: Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died

#113

Post by _5ysi »

mikeash wrote: post #78
RHSeeger wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, that too comes with it's negatives. Unions have both positives and negatives. It's not a simple discussion.

Corporations have both positives and negatives, yet somehow there's never a debate over whether we should have those . It's very strange to me that employees organizing and working together is so controversial, but management doing the same thing is not only expected but we can't even envision anything else.

I think one reason it seems so strange is that it is sort of a mis-characterization/failure of communication that easily happens in politics. There is nothing wrong with unions in principle, but once someone has written into law exactly what a union is, then the possibility for mistakes and unintended negative consequences exist. When the UAW were fighting for better wages and conditions in bygone days, I don't think many at that time thought the same laws would contribute to GM declaring bankruptcy and needing to be bailed out by all 300+ million Americans, who were never involved in any of the bad decisions made.

And reasonable people can quibble about who shoulders more of the blame, but one can't deny that American labor costs were significantly higher than foreign competition and were largely impossible to adjust.

Unions today need better leaders, who realize that the future is in collaborating across national borders with their brethren at all global corporations. The United States simply cannot enforce its own labor laws in China or any other proud nation. Workers created unions themselves, they did not need government to do it for them...which is good because neither the US nor Russia or China rules the whole world.

Re: Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died

#114

Post by _5ysi »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #109
_5ysi wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart people emigrating to a place where their talents can be put to use and then sending their greater earnings back home is efficient. I don't think that economic parity across nations should be a primary goal of any nation's policy, but I do think it is basically an inevitable, positive side effect of trade. As an aside, I'm also not 100% sure maximum efficiency of human labor across all humanity should be a goal…

> Smart people emigrating to a place where their talents can be put to use and then sending their greater earnings back home is efficient. It's not though, because the sudden influx of foreign money in a concentrated number of hands causes inflation in the home country, making the cost of living higher for those living there, while the majority are still working lower paying jobs. Not to mention the efficiency loss f…

I think we mostly agree on most things were talking about.

>> I don't think that economic parity across nations should be a primary goal of any nation's policy, but I do think it is basically an inevitable, positive side effect of trade.

> This should definitely be a goal of anyone who cares about alleviating global poverty and suffering.

Agreed it is very admirable to spend your wealth, time, or influence in a ways that alleviate real poverty around the world. However I don't think it is in the contract between citizens of a nation that their taxes should be spent on this to a large extent.

> It's not though, because the sudden influx of foreign money in a concentrated number of hands causes inflation in the home country, making the cost of living higher for those living there, while the majority are still working lower paying jobs. Not to mention the efficiency loss from the fact they're driving down wages in the host country; so they're losing market value on one end, and then driving inflation on the other (and when prices are higher than the local economy can support it's not efficient).

Being from the US where people want to immigrate to, I haven't thought about this a whole lot and not sure if I understand all of what you are saying. Surely having a wealthy outside investor who is originally from your own country is better or at least equal to another outside investor? Do people lose voting rights when they emigrate, for most countries? (not rhetorical)

> Also, maximum efficiency often comes at the cost of driving the price of labour down. If everything was 100% efficient, far less labour would be required than is being used right now, so in the end it comes down to ownership of capital and how things are distributed.

Again agreed, although the price of capital and living should also be falling! I am not sure what we are talking about with regard to good and bad economics being a thing. All of that was just answering your correct call for clarification about what I meant above.

Re: Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died

#115

Post by jakobegger »

Danihan wrote: post #106
lovich wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point isn't it reasonable to assume that companies will not tell you the truth if it puts them in a bad light, and you would need to go undercover to find that truth? Companies cant tell their shareholders on one side that they are doing everything to maximize profit, and on the other side say that they will show their operations with all the good and the bad to anyone who asks.

Not really. I believe the journalist did sign a document that she knew where the emergency exits were, and the only "damning" thing she found on-site was an unclean bathroom and generally difficult work. This whole thing seems like such a non-story to me. Maybe it's because I've worked in factories before, but I've personally had more harrowing experiences on my 1st day than anything mentioned in this article.

Unreachable emergency stop buttons? Moving parts of a fan next to workers without safety covers? Workers fighting for space next to a crowded conveyor belt? Missing guard rails? Repeated fines for lacking safety? Everything about this factory sounds like a death trap.

Re: Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died

#116

Post by someonewhocar3s »

grecy wrote: post #2

Many companies in countries like Canada and Australia are now trying harder than ever to emulate the United States with it's extremely low wages, health, benefits, etc. for temp or casual workers. Unfortunately, it's a race to the bottom, as tens of millions of Americas will attest to. My simple question is - can we justify treating humans like this in the name of increasing profit?

Labor is a market.

Re: Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died

#117

Post by jakobegger »

_5ysi wrote: post #40

Having worked at two manufacturers in the Midwest, anecdotally the majority of forklift drivers, line workers on specific lines, and even many white collar office roles were filled by temp agencies. A similar structure existed for engineering too; we would have a problem and the engineering firm with workers under the same roof would develop a solution. For the temp workers the motivation was always very clear and ve…

The solution is simple: make every company involved in a project liable for every worker.

Worker has an accident? Make sure that both the factory, the temp agency, and any intermediaries are liable.

If every company involved in a project was liable for ensuring employment laws are upheld, there would be no point in using “temp agencies” to shift the blame.

Temp agencies are a somewhat recent move to circumvent employment laws; we should be able to fix that loophole.

Re: Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died

#119

Post by Mikeb85 »

_5ysi wrote: post #114
Mikeb85 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Smart people emigrating to a place where their talents can be put to use and then sending their greater earnings back home is efficient. It's not though, because the sudden influx of foreign money in a concentrated number of hands causes inflation in the home country, making the cost of living higher for those living there, while the majority are still working lower paying jobs. Not to mention the efficiency loss f…

I think we mostly agree on most things were talking about. >> I don't think that economic parity across nations should be a primary goal of any nation's policy, but I do think it is basically an inevitable, positive side effect of trade. > This should definitely be a goal of anyone who cares about alleviating global poverty and suffering. Agreed it is very admirable to spend your wealth, time, or influence in a ways…

> Agreed it is very admirable to spend your wealth, time, or influence in a ways that alleviate real poverty around the world. However I don't think it is in the contract between citizens of a nation that their taxes should be spent on this to a large extent.

Yes and no. You're right, a government should provide mainly for its own people. However the stability of the whole world is important for national security and national prosperity. See what's happening in Europe right now: a massive influx of immigrants, increased terrorist attacks, increased crime, etc... I go to Europe semi-regularly (mainly France), and in my travels the difference over the years hasn't been particularly positive.

The main problem is that mass immigration isn't a real solution, Europe and the US/Canada can't support the entire world's population. Development of underdeveloped regions of the world has to be a priority if we want to survive on our planet in the long-term.

> I haven't thought about this a whole lot and not sure if I understand all of what you are saying. Surely having a wealthy outside investor who is originally from your own country is better or at least equal to another outside investor?

It's because the money isn't generally used as an investment, but rather minimum wage workers from the US/Canada send back money to their families, which merely supplements their income. On a whole the influx of money drives up prices, without contributing much to development.

I'd agree if workers came to the US/Canada for 10 years, saved, then went back and invested in their home country. That's generally not how it works though. Workers come here, send small amounts of money back, eventually sponsor their families, and then they all leave.

If you look at statistics as well, it's not the countries with the most ex-pats (and I mean as a percentage of population, not in absolute numbers) that are growing the quickest, but rather countries with a stable rule of law which make investment more attractive (and re-investment by those within the country).

> Again agreed, although the price of capital and living should also be falling!

The problem is that as capital (and land) gets concentrated in fewer hands, the income earned from capital outpaces the income earned from labour, resulting in lower relative wealth for the labour side of the equation. Thomas Piketty explains this well, and has amassed a seriously impressive set of data to back up all his assertions.

Re: Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died

#120

Post by _5ysi »

jakobegger wrote: post #117
_5ysi wrote: post #40

Having worked at two manufacturers in the Midwest, anecdotally the majority of forklift drivers, line workers on specific lines, and even many white collar office roles were filled by temp agencies. A similar structure existed for engineering too; we would have a problem and the engineering firm with workers under the same roof would develop a solution. For the temp workers the motivation was always very clear and ve…

The solution is simple: make every company involved in a project liable for every worker. Worker has an accident? Make sure that both the factory, the temp agency, and any intermediaries are liable. If every company involved in a project was liable for ensuring employment laws are upheld, there would be no point in using “temp agencies” to shift the blame. Temp agencies are a somewhat recent move to circumvent employ…

Its not that there are no consequences for safety incidents involving temp workers. It is more about company prestige and preserving the existing benefits of being an full team member. Both of the companies I worked for had very good safety records among all workers in the facility, most serious incident in years was a severed thumb.

American companies generally have good safety records and a good regulatory environment. Contracting the riskier jobs is mostly done to safeguard the company's image, or it is like other contracted jobs and is done for cost savings or temporary work. With forklift drivers, there was just always going to be some minor collision incident every month, and its easier for the big company bureaucracy if this doesn't count towards their accident statistic or if some other account can be billed for the damage. Its just risk aversion and risk management since the penalties are high for screw ups and protecting the image of the company treating its employees well. Also they could be paid at ~1/2 the total compensation of a team member.

Post reply on HN