Worker safety bill turns back the clock
Re Lethal Legacy: GE widows carry on fight for justice, Dec. 19 Thanks to Sara Mojtehedzadeh and the Star for yet again focusing attention on the unsafe working conditions faced by Ontario’s workers. What must also be realized is that tragic as the GE experience is, it is but one example of a struggle going back many decades in countless workplaces. From uranium in Elliot Lake to asbestos in Sarnia and Scarborough, workers have fought for the right to return home from work in the condition they entered.
At last count, the WSIB Appeal Tribunal has in excess of 8,000 cases awaiting appeal from claims denied by the WSIB. Why? Because after years of “low ball” employer premiums to the compensation system, a huge unfunded liability became a government/employer concern. Their solution: deny worker claims rather than impose premiums equal to the injuries and fatalities suffered in the workplaces. In effect, the decades-old agreement whereby workers gave up the right to sue in exchange for fair compensation has been set aside by their action. Workers can no longer sue, but fair compensation has been removed.
MOL spokesperson Janet Deline’s statement that Bill 70 will cause employers and workers to “exceed minimum compliance and strive for excellence in the workplace,” is a sick joke. Schedules 16 and 17 of Bill 70 are a licence for employers to ignore their responsibility to maintain a safe workplace by granting employers “self compliance” as opposed to ministry workplace inspections.
Does anyone who believes in fairness and justice really believe employers will set aside their profit objectives to ensure safe workplaces? It hasn’t happened yet, so why will it happen now? Deline is simply reflecting the MOL’s compliance with employers and the WSIB in reducing employer production costs.
If workers and their survivors have to suffer to get costs down, then let it be so. Not much political capital lost as the majority of the public do not see this problem as their concern.
Bill 70 simply secures increased employer dominance in the workplace. This turns the clock back by 75 years. What remains to be seen is the response of those that believe in justice for workers. “No Justice, No Peace” comes to mind. Gordon Wilson, retired president, Ontario Federation of Labour, Port Rowan, Ont.
This sad situation raises some key questions beyond compensation. Are there occupational health and safety standards for hazardous chemicals to protect workers from exposure to chemicals in air and dust in industries in Ontario? This should be an Ontario government responsibility — to set standards, and to ensure they are being met.
Have industries been fined for exceeding guidelines or standards for emissions to air or water, or for exceeding standards for exposures under working conditions in their facilities?
Cancer may not be the only health effect from certain hazardous chemicals. The government should consider the economic and social costs as well. Barbara McElgunn, Scarborough