May 2015 Provincial Election Thread v2

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I've been trying to track it down. My aunt posted it on Facebook, and a bunch of other 'rural Albertan' friends of mine have reposted similar wordings.

As of yet, it appears to track back to a "farmers against NDP. Bill 6" group on Facebook and back to a couple of other anti-NDP and anti-Notley groups.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/farmersagainstbill6/

Not the best source in the world... and I hope it has some validity but is impossible to track

fair enough, thanks for tracking it down

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why not?

Pretty much all farm activities should require steel toed boots. Not sure on hard hats. Lockouts being required on equipment before servicing. Fall protection at heights. These are things that OHS would require that certainly weren't practiced when I was growing up.

There is definitely a lack of a safety culture on farms. The statement that accidents happen is used too frequently.

I don't think people understand how OHS works. In fact it is pretty obvious throughout this whole discussion.

There is no 'requirement' to do this or do that outside of very specific things. Most of the time OHS wants companies to come up with a safety policy that is specific towards the type of work they do. In other words, someone working in a high rise office building do tax work does not need to wear steel toe boots or a hardhat because the company that person is working for came up with their own safety policy and it was more than likely not included because it wasn't needed.

A manufacturing facility has to do the same thing. Our shop is not required to wear hard hats or steel toe boots because there is no 'overhead' danger to worry about. However, we do have to wear ear and eye protection where it is needed(almost everywhere), but that is policy we decided on and implemented. OHS just wants every company to go through their place of work and come up with a safety policy where every employee is trained how to work without being at risk of injury. They are also big on a discipline system being in place, and that record is kept of how that discipline policy is enforced. First aid equipment needs to be in place, hazards dealt with, etc, etc....all your standard safety stuff. If you have these policies in place and do a half decent job of keeping record of everything and show willingness to improve, OHS will usually leave you alone. Most of the times the fines are handed out when someone dies, or when there is blatant abuse of a companies OWN safety policy.

The problem with Bill 6 is how it handles how kids work on farms. I grew up on a farm, and since the age of 7 I was helping with all kinds of chores. The idea that a 13 year old kid can't help their parents with daily chores after school is laughable. If you ACTUALLY think the province has enough resources to enforce all these policies you are sadly mistaken. Manitoba has strict OHS policies and they can't even get around to enforcing them.

I do find all of this amusing though. Ignorance is bliss, and there is a lot of it being thrown around in this debate. Starting with the morons in charge. Spend a year on a farm and your opinion will change and it is quite obvious that the idiots running the government have never worked on a farm in their life.

I'm all for better safety policies, but I also grew up in rural Alberta, and schools spent a lot of time teaching proper farm safety. There are better ways of doing this than what the NDP is trying. But of course, nothing else short of sheer stupidity should be expected from them.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

That is exactly it. There is no recourse or recompense for a farm worker (or really, any person) injured while on a farm. None.

Well, the common law. He/she can sue.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Well, the common law. He/she can sue.

For what? I would like to see the civil court case for that one.

Also, I would think those farm workers who aren't employees would have trouble mustering up the cash for representation.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

For what? I would like to see the civil court case for that one.

Also, I would think those farm workers who aren't employees would have trouble mustering up the cash for representation.

I am not saying it's ideal, but it's an option. I've done it. Unsafe conditions, whatever, some sort of negligence usually. It's on contingency usually.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't think people understand how OHS works. In fact it is pretty obvious throughout this whole discussion.

There is no 'requirement' to do this or do that outside of very specific things. Most of the time OHS wants companies to come up with a safety policy that is specific towards the type of work they do. In other words, someone working in a high rise office building do tax work does not need to wear steel toe boots or a hardhat because the company that person is working for came up with their own safety policy and it was more than likely not included because it wasn't needed.

A manufacturing facility has to do the same thing. Our shop is not required to wear hard hats or steel toe boots because there is no 'overhead' danger to worry about. However, we do have to wear ear and eye protection where it is needed(almost everywhere), but that is policy we decided on and implemented. OHS just wants every company to go through their place of work and come up with a safety policy where every employee is trained how to work without being at risk of injury. They are also big on a discipline system being in place, and that record is kept of how that discipline policy is enforced. First aid equipment needs to be in place, hazards dealt with, etc, etc....all your standard safety stuff. If you have these policies in place and do a half decent job of keeping record of everything and show willingness to improve, OHS will usually leave you alone. Most of the times the fines are handed out when someone dies, or when there is blatant abuse of a companies OWN safety policy.

The problem with Bill 6 is how it handles how kids work on farms. I grew up on a farm, and since the age of 7 I was helping with all kinds of chores. The idea that a 13 year old kid can't help their parents with daily chores after school is laughable. If you ACTUALLY think the province has enough resources to enforce all these policies you are sadly mistaken. Manitoba has strict OHS policies and they can't even get around to enforcing them.

I do find all of this amusing though. Ignorance is bliss, and there is a lot of it being thrown around in this debate. Starting with the morons in charge. Spend a year on a farm and your opinion will change and it is quite obvious that the idiots running the government have never worked on a farm in their life.

I'm all for better safety policies, but I also grew up in rural Alberta, and schools spent a lot of time teaching proper farm safety. There are better ways of doing this than what the NDP is trying. But of course, nothing else short of sheer stupidity should be expected from them.

In any properly crafted safety policy you would have a requirement for steel toed boots, eye protection, proper protection for chemical handling.

The kids on the farm as help is interesting though. I know that it likely was unsafe for me to drive a tractor at 12 and that wasn't the best choice. Along with sweeping grain bins without masks.

And you wouldn't let kids run around an oil battery

So somewhere in between let parents decide and no kids doing farm work is appropriate.

[para transit fellow]

In a community that proclaims "accidents happen," I have to wonder how this is in any manner acceptable?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...lift-1.3330376

( and yes... we had a farm... I drove the tractor by myself when I was 13 -- but I never drove it alone when I was 10)

[chemgear]

The NDP is probably also lovin' the part of the bill for workers to refuse work and forming unions all over the place.

Moar refusing work & unions, moar!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I am not saying it's ideal, but it's an option. I've done it. Unsafe conditions, whatever, some sort of negligence usually. It's on contingency usually.

Didn't you hear the man? There is NO recourse. NONE. So, obviously Psycnet can demonstrate that people in that scenario have no right to sue.

As an aside, I would very much appreciate it, Psycnet, if you could actually link the bill you said was passed in 2014. Because I can't find it on the legislature's list of bills passed in the 28th Assembly, while the one and only time the word "farm" is mentioned, it is to explicitly exclude farms from certain parts of the code. I would be interested to read the actual bill and what it amended.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

In any properly crafted safety policy you would have a requirement for steel toed boots, eye protection, proper protection for chemical handling.

The kids on the farm as help is interesting though. I know that it likely was unsafe for me to drive a tractor at 12 and that wasn't the best choice. Along with sweeping grain bins without masks.

And you wouldn't let kids run around an oil battery

So somewhere in between let parents decide and no kids doing farm work is appropriate.

I have zero problem, and neither would the majority of farmers if OHS came out and said they want to educate everyone on better farm safety and work long term towards implementing policies. If that requires certain equipment like fall safety gear to be used at all times, or ear and eye protection, most people will go for that.

But of course that isn't what is happening here.

[Boblobla]

I will leave this here...

Not only is there a disconnect to how farms work, it appears that there isn't a problem with unemployment and we should all just move to BC for work...

Could laid off oilpatch workers in Alberta get jobs in British Columbia while they wait for the market to rebound?

That was the suggestion by Alberta’s Energy Minister in a speech to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Land Administration today.

“Certainly there are always talks of about mobility of jobs between provinces so maybe they can go work in B.C. until it gets better and come back home,” said Marg McCuaig-Boyd, as part of a response to a question of what retraining opportunities were available for unemployed workers.

[Smartcar]

Originally Posted by Locke

My point has been that if its all about the WCB then all we're talking about is subsidizing health care costs through one form of insurance or another.

Ie. If someone gets hurt who pays? If its the Province through health care and theres no kick-in from the farmers themselves via WCB or Insurance then yeah, that makes sense. Its a high-risk profession and they should be insured so as not be a burden on the system.

But its a dangerous profession and they're all insured, so that doesnt seem to be the problem. So what is the problem?

Is it just about moving the farmer' money from a private insurance program to a public one?

The way it's supposed to work is if someone gets hurt on the job the health care costs are paid by WCB. That's why you're supposed to report every workplace injury regardless of whether there was any missed time. I didn't know that before, I assumed WCB was intended to pay lost wages.

A farmer's private insurance doesn't pay healthcare costs if there's universal health care, the tab gets picked up by the government, i.e. all taxpayers. If a high risk industry doesn't pay WCB premiums the cost goes into general health care costs.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

The way it's supposed to work is if someone gets hurt on the job the health care costs are paid by WCB. That's why you're supposed to report every workplace injury regardless of whether there was any missed time. I didn't know that before, I assumed WCB was intended to pay lost wages.

A farmer's private insurance doesn't pay healthcare costs if there's universal health care, the tab gets picked up by the government, i.e. all taxpayers. If a high risk industry doesn't pay WCB premiums the cost goes into general health care costs.

There should be a blanket requirement to pay into WCB for all people above a certain income regardless of job. Similar to CPP.

OHS on the other hand is a different story.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

There should be a blanket requirement to pay into WCB for all people above a certain income regardless of job. Similar to CPP.

OHS on the other hand is a different story.

There are actually a lot of jobs that aren't covered by WCB. I know that psychnet was saying everyone pays, but its just not true. Office workers and things like that have no WCB coverage for example. People can also buy private coverage and opt out with proof (tradesmen for example).

[RubberDuck]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

I will leave this here...

Not only is there a disconnect to how farms work, it appears that there isn't a problem with unemployment and we should all just move to BC for work...

Or just "hunker down"

“It’s a tough time for everybody, not just oil and gas, there’s lot of jobs being lost in the services sector…this oil price is hurting a lot of Albertans, so you just have to hunker down and get through it.”

Unbelievable.

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

The way it's supposed to work is if someone gets hurt on the job the health care costs are paid by WCB. That's why you're supposed to report every workplace injury regardless of whether there was any missed time. I didn't know that before, I assumed WCB was intended to pay lost wages.

A farmer's private insurance doesn't pay healthcare costs if there's universal health care, the tab gets picked up by the government, i.e. all taxpayers. If a high risk industry doesn't pay WCB premiums the cost goes into general health care costs.

I will add that if the farm worker is permanently disabled from the accident. (Eg head injury from animal kick) it is the tax payer who picks up the tab for permanent care, housing, income, etc.

Farming industry and oil industry are foundations of Alberta life. But should they both expect taxpayers to pick up the tab for job-site accidents?

if your livelihood is taken away by a job-related accident on a farm... you have nothing unless you go to court (where only the lawyers win).

[Azure]

Again, that isn't the issue here. I think if you took the time to explain to everyone the situation, most people would be okay with paying into WCB.

It is the OHS stuff that is creating the problem.

[Regorium]

Wrong thread.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Azure

Again, that isn't the issue here. I think if you took the time to explain to everyone the situation, most people would be okay with paying into WCB.

It is the OHS stuff that is creating the problem.

While I think this blanket legislation should be adapted to family farm circumstances, somehow - WCB and OHS go hand in hand. You can't offer workers protection without insuring certain standards.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

While I think this blanket legislation should be adapted to family farm circumstances, somehow - WCB and OHS go hand in hand. You can't offer workers protection without insuring certain standards.

True.


I just think there is a better way of doing this. There needs to be full attention paid to how farms operate, the role that kids play, and how neighbors and friends always help out. Some people might think it is comical, but I doubt many farms could survive without the help of friends and family to get things done.