by SUSAN MANN
It’s too early for the Ontario Human Rights Commission to say if it will investigate the gender discrimination complaint against the Seasonal Agricultural Workers program brought by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada.
Afroze Edwards, Commission senior communications officer, says “we need time to review all the materials. In addition to examining the UFCW’s documents, the Commission must review “what the issue is and whether or not the Commission has any role to play.”
The Commission’s policy section would be reviewing the documents and Edwards couldn’t say how long that will take. The Commission investigates human rights matters from a broad, systemic perspective but doesn’t investigate every complaint it receives.
In a July 31 press release, UFCW Canada says it filed a complaint with the Commission on behalf of Mexican migrant women workers, asking it to review the recruitment and selection process of the seasonal agricultural workers program. Under the current process, employers using the program “are able to discriminate against migrant women by requesting workers based on gender,” the release says.
Ken Forth, president of the Foreign Agricultural Resource Management Services, calls the complaint “frivolous. It looks like somebody making something out of nothing.” The ministries of labour in the participating Mexican and Caribbean countries “are telling us that there’s not enough women coming forward to be recruited. We don’t recruit the workers, the ministries of labour in those supply countries do.”
Forth says a grower in Nova Scotia requested 100 women workers but was only able to get 50 this year and only 40 last year.
“There are a lot of people who want female workers for things like picking strawberries and fruit and for packing but they can’t get them because there’s not enough numbers available,” Forth says.
UFCW Canada says in its release on average, women make up less than four per cent of the 17,000 migrant agriculture workers from Mexico and the Caribbean coming to Canada as part of the seasonal agricultural workers program.
UFCW Canada had filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which is mandated to resolve claims of discrimination and harassment brought under the Ontario Human Rights Code, and with the human rights commissions in British Columbia and Quebec. Stan Raper, UFCW national coordinator of the Agriculture Workers Alliance, says they’re withdrawing the complaint with the Ontario tribunal “and going right through the Commission” in Ontario.
Raper says the union is looking for changes “in the process of how they select workers. We have talked with a number of women from Mexico who were hoping to get the opportunity (to come to Canada as part of the seasonal agricultural workers program) but it was not happening so they asked us to investigate.”
Canadian employers can check off on forms requesting workers whether they want male or female workers “and that’s not really supposed to be happening,” he says, adding there are requests for more males than females. “Those practices have been eliminated in almost every job classification in the country.”
Raper says the union originally filed its complaint with the human rights commission in Mexico last year. But the Mexican commission “basically said that the Canadian side, the employers and organizations that send the workers really are the ones determining whether men or women” are sent to Canada to work on farms.
Raper expects the Ontario Commission will launch an investigation and if it does he doesn’t know how long it will take for that process to be completed.
The 48-year-old seasonal agricultural workers program allows employers to hire temporary workers from Mexico and the Caribbean when Canadian citizens and permanent residents aren’t available. Farm employers must provide proof they tried to find Canadian workers to fill the available jobs before being eligible to hire Mexican or Caribbean employees. BF
Comments
It is more than just a little embarrassing to be part of an industry which still seems to think it's perfectly OK to discriminate on the basis of sex.
The UFCW is, therefore, entirely correct to point out that allowing potential employers to indicate whether they want male or female employees is "not really supposed to be happening" because that type of selection criteria has been eliminated virtually everywhere else.
More to the point, I suggest that if the president of F.A.R.M.S was a female, rather than a male, she wouldn't have called this complaint frivolous at all.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Leave it to beaver the economist to totally miss the point . A read of the last paragraph would and should have every economist stark raving mad . It should be that there are people fighting each other to get these jobs because UI and welfare tell them they are cut off .
Just goes to show how some are as Foghorn said , Nice kid but ....
It's no wonder farmers are increasingly seen to be whiners who care about nobody but themselves - the above posting advocated the knee-jerk position, seemingly always popular with less-well educated members of the farm community, that safety nets should be cut for others, but ostensibly not for farmers.
The sad reality is that nobody but right-wing zealots, feeble-minded morons, and the obligatory, and seemingly ever-present, cesspool of anonymous red-neck farmers, gets "stark raving mad" about the socio-economic safety nets of welfare payments and EI benefits, nor should they. These programs, and others, are put in place for a purpose, and, for example, unlike supply management, are paid by the rich to help the poor.
When we have farmers on this site falling all over themselves to defend programs which benefit farmers at the expense of the poorest and most-vulnerable members of our society, and then have some anonymous jerk try to hide behind the shibboleth of "good economics", and wanting to cut the safety nets for those same people at the lowest, and most-unfortunate, end of society, it's a good thing that these farmers stay anonymous.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Every responsible economist understands, and supports, what's known as the concept of "least-worst" when it comes to responsible public policy.
This means, that when it comes to skewering the knee-jerk attitude that unemployment insurance and welfare should be gutted, or even eliminated completely, economists would almost universally point out that these programs are, when compared to the inevitable increase in health care costs, and costs to the legal system, which would ensue if EI and welfare were to be gutted, a far-less costly, and far-more socially acceptable, alternative, especially when it's funded through a progressive income tax system.
And lest anyone try to claim that, for example, supply management is also an example of the "least-worst" principle, it is not, if for no other reason than because it is financed through a regressive consumption tax which disproportionately affects the poorest members of our society.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Even more to the point, it would appear you are now talking about "Equity with the U.S. Farmer" as in Amber box programs for SM and other commodities. That being the case, then what you suggest would mean the removal of SM and a massive realignment of Amber box support programs in Canada to compete with U.S. Amber box programs so that Canada can enhance our export capabilities. There are limits to Amber box program dollars but since when did the U.S. ever pay attention to WTO suggested Amber box program $$$$$$$$$$$$$ limits so why should Canada. In fact, when Amber box is exceeded by Millions of $$$$$$,..... the U.S. simply adds in Emergency aid $$$$$$. In the past most of this Amber box and emergency $$$$$$$$ has gone to U.S. G &O farmers. I can't see any reason why the U.S. would change directions at this point in time. So, YES you are correct we should have Equity with the U.S. farmer. Unfortunately, Canada is so fixated on Growing forward 2 that they don't want to admit we are out gunned by the U.S. in Amber support.
As per usual it ends with a spiteful jab a SM when SM is not part of the story .
I would think there are more fruit/veg farms and hog farms that employ foriegn workers who are taking jobs away from those who we have to support as tax payers .
What should happen is the employers who hire foriegn workers should have to pick up the cost of every person who should and could have a job that is displaced by a foriegn worker so that the rest of us do not have to pay for some lazy ass collecting free gov money .
A jab against supply management is ALWAYS appropriate especially when the epitome of double-standards is when supply managed farmers hire foreign workers.
After all, supply management, by design, discriminates against the poorest members of society - those who are most-likely to be on EI and/or welfare in the first place, and who, all else being equal, need even bigger EI and welfare payments in order to be able to buy supply managed products.
In addition, supply managed farmers use full cost-of-production pricing based on what they'd have to pay for domestic labour, meaning that anything they can save by using foreign workers, is just another way to rip off consumers and taxpayers at the same.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Heaven help those poor EI and welfare people that have a taste for Beef and Pork! ...maybe they should try taking a foreign workers job or would that be too much to ask ?
Blaming the victims, in this case people who are on welfare and/or collecting EI, as well as assigning this blame anonymously, while always a popular pastime for the less well-educated component of the farm community and others without either a social conscience or a basic understanding of the economic basis of public policy, serves no purpose but to identify, anonymity notwithstanding, those among us who would trivialize, and/or be dismissive of, the misfortunes of others in an attempt to justify their own greed and entitlements.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
You have inadvertently hit on why the Foreign Worker Program is so popular.
Dedicated people with an good work ethic coming from poor farming communities that don't have EI or standardized Government welfare, unlike up here.
I don't get it - the anonymous rabble on this site lines up to take cheap shots at entitlement programs for the poorest segment of society, yet defends to the death entitlement programs, such as supply management, for the richest group of farmers.
Is it any wonder that the term "farmer logic" is as much of an oxymoron as "political ethics", or even the old standby - "military intelligence"?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
God helps those who help themselves . The are just blood sucking leeches .
As far as taking a roreign workers job that would mean they would actually have to work rather than just work the system .
I know people that lost good jobs due to the economy,some have tried to get farm jobs and were turned down due to the farmer prefers offshore workers, every spring the farmers post help wanted ads on sites such as kijiji seeking help, try applying for fun, you wont get a response, its there way of saying I tried to get Canadian workers,they then can get offshore workers after placing and add that they ignore anyone who applies
I know of 5 girls that had finished high school and applied to over 11 farm help wanted ads in Ontario at $11.00 per hour most farmers did not even respond back and the couple that did said they would prefer the hire offshore workers as they will not leave for a better job.
If you lose your job, would you take a minimum wage job even though EI says you do not have to take a lesser job than the one you left? Or would you collect EI as your entitlement? EI is a supply managed subsidy that affects everyone even the poorest.
EI is not a supply managed subsidy because it takes money from the rich to give to the poor, while supply management takes money from the poor to give to the rich - there is a fundamental difference.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Employers can check off a box of the forms requesting male or females workers. And "thats not really what is suppose to be happening". Where does Raper get his facts? There is NO box to check off requesting male or female workers. What some people will say to get into the paper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
www.farmsontario.ca
If there is no discrimination based on sex, why did Mr. Forth even mention the Nova Scotia farmer who requested 100 women through F.A.R.M.S, but who could get only about half that number?
Farmers are obviously requesting foreign employees on the basis of sex, something they couldn't do if they were recruiting Canadian workers, and F.A.R.M.S. seems to be trying to accomomdate these requests - both of these things are, in Canada in 2014, more than ample reason to "get into the paper".
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Raper made a statement that is false. If you bothered to read the request forms, you would have seen that Thompson. There is no box to request 'male or female workers'. End of argument. Workers in the program have to meet a variety of criteria to be eligible first. The host country determines what worker is allowed in the program, so Raper should go to those countries to raise his concerns.
The words - "Canadian employers can check off on forms requesting workers whether they want male or female workers" is neither attributed to Raper, nor, because it is not in italics, is it a direct quote.
Any reasonable reader would assume that Better Farming had obtained a copy of the application form, and was simply reporting undeniable fact - therefore, with respect to Better Farming, they either didn't check their sources and/or their usual standards of reporting accuracy and/or literary ability, slipped somewhat.
Therefore, it is entirely incorrect to conclude Raper made this claim, and for farmers to do so, is little more than the typical leap of faith made by farmers when they wish to shoot the messenger, rather than heed the message.
The undeniable fact of the matter is that Canadian farmers should heed the message because it is rather obvious that they are trying to use this program to hire workers on a gender basis, and because Mr. Forth had the data to show that they were using the F.A.R.M.S. program to do just that, it is, in 2014, an ethically questionable procedure because no other Canadian employers seem to be able to discriminate on a gender basis.
It's like this - if Canadian farmers want to make an end run around the hiring of domestic workers, the least they could do is adhere to the ethical standards of selecting foreign workers on the basis of gender neutrality when doing so.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Editor: This in in fact what Mr. Raper said.
Mr. Thompson did not read the last paragraph .
It is not about trying to make an end run around the hiring of domestic workers .
I read the entire article carefully, and read it several times.
It's like this - if Canadian farmers are to be allowed the privelege of hiring off-shore workers, they should at least shoulder the responsibility of selecting them in a manner consistent with the way they would be obliged to act if they were hiring Canadian workers.
Therefore, the appearance of being able to use discriminatory standards when hiring foreign workers that wouldn't normally be allowed when hiring domestic workers, is very-much an attempt to make an end run around the hiring of domestic workers.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Many who hire these workers have bunk houses where there might be a single bathroom and shower facilities . Also the sleeping quarters are most likely to be bunk style or many beds crammed in a room .
If a farmer was to hire 12 or 15 workers he would likely have to have seperate living/sleeping quarters if one was female . If not and he would hire a female , would he then have to ask that they send the town bicycle ? The next thing is who would foot the bill for the cost of the STD's ??
Comment modified by editor
A very-much-single female friend of my daughter has worked for years planting trees in remote areas of British Columbia living in, if I understand correctly, campsites and whatever other basic accomodations provided by the employer.
Gender neutrality, and providing accomodation accordingly, seems to be no big deal in the once male-dominated forestry industry - why is it still such a big deal in agriculture?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Accommodations are not a big deal except there are strict rules about cubic feet of sleeping quarters for every person, water standards, washroom facilities, kitchen hardwares, fire and safety codes, beddings, enclosure standards, and other stuff that is annually inspected by the health units. The big deal is the host countries recruit the workers for the program and few women choose to leave their usually young families for 8 months of the year. There are cultural differences you obviously dont understand. You really should try harder to understand farm programs better before you comment.
Let me see if I've got this straight:
(1) The UFCW filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on behalf of an unspecified number of Mexican women claiming they were being discriminated against because farmers could specify which gender of workers they wanted to hire through the auspices of the F.A.R.M.S. program.
(2) F.A.R.M.S. spokesperson, Ken Forth, in his response, noted that an un-named Nova Scotia farm had requested twice the number of female workers that they eventually received - this clearly means that:
(A) gender preferences were being expressed
(B) F.A.R.M.S. knew about this gender preferencing
The fact that, in this case, males were being discriminated against, is moot - the point is that gender discrimination took place, thereby making any claims that it doesn't take place, silly, and even absurd.
(3) It is embarrassingly silly for F.A.R.M.S. to claim there is no gender discrimination when the example proffered by Mr. Forth clearly demonstrated just exactly that - albeit, in this case, discrimination against male workers.
(4) a member of this site's anonymous "riff-raff and rabble" constituency offers an opinion that "few women choose to leave their usually young families for 8 months of the year", but, as usual, and as always, with this site's anonymous riff-raff and rabble, offers no evidence other than the startlingly-demeaning, and highly-sexist, inference that if a woman is old enough to come to Canada to do work in agriculture, she automatically has too many children to do so, thereby, as always, giving the opinion of the rabble somewhat less than zero value.
Get over it, all you anonymous sods in this site's riff-raff and rabble squad - gender discrimination is taking place in agriculture, period, and in 2014, it is distasteful, if not also possibly illegal.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Seems the only one making a "big deal" out of it is yourself.If you had said the girl was "cutting" down trees then maybe some eyebrows would have been raised.
I think we in Agriculture are well aware of the contributions the female gender has on farms across this Country.I would even go so far as to say most family farms couldn't survive without the female imput.
You dont know anything about the off-shore program, Thompson. Farmers dont hire the workers. A request is made for a specific number of workers and the supply country sends workers from a pool of applicants. Every worker in the seasonal worker program must return to their own country by Dec. 15 each year or after 8 months in this country. If a farmer likes one of the pool workers, that worker can be requested as a named worker another crop year. You should educate yourself on some of the farm programs before you make silly embarrassing comments.
How dare you be so harsh to the
Comment deleted by editor in accordance with our guidelines.
Agreed. It appears he didn't read the application form either but comments anyway.
If you have every been to Mexico or some of these other Countries you would know that their "ethical standards" are far below ours.
The Mexican Government has and probably always will be the one managing recruitment into this program,seem typical that they would try to pond the blame onto us up here and of course our media grabs it hook,line and sinker!
If, as Better Farming now admits, Mr. Raper actually did claim there was a gender-preference box on the application form, either the italics surrounding his quote should have included it, or the words "Raper claims" should have preceded it, or, better-yet, both.
It is, however, somewhat moot that there is no gender preference box on the application form, because, by using the example of the Nova Scotia farm mentioned by Mr. Forth in the article, gender preferencing does exist, and F.A.R.M.S. obviously knows about it - In other words, there might as well be a gender preference box on the application form because somehow farmers are getting their gender preference messages through to F.A.R.M.S
In any event, hiring on the basis of gender preference is one of those things which is, seemingly everywhere but in agriculture, a thing of the past, and rightly so - it is an embarrassment that agriculture gets special rights to hire foreign workers and then we abuse this privelege by using the sort of gender preference hiring practices we wouldn't likely be allowed to use/shouldn't be allowed to use, if we were hiring Canadian workers.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
So wizard ... would you be willing to support some one in a law suit against the Manor for not hiring male dancers ? Maybe you like to go there on Lady's Night !
Obviously these Mexican women that the UFCW claim to represent don't like picking strawberries or fruit or they might be up here.
One could say they are being rather "picky" about their job selection.
Through notes numbered 644, 738, and 865, signed by Mr. Luis Morales Ramírez, Under director of inter-institutional Coordination and designed public servant from the General Coordination of the National Employment Service, this collegiate organ was informed that request number 0001400028012, as follows:
i)Regarding the component consistent of “I request information about the percentage of women hired for season 2011 under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program to Canada” we inform the petitioner that the percentage of hired women for season 2011 is 3.75%. Out of 16,491 requested workers 619 women were hired
ii) Regarding the component consistent of “I request also to know if Canadian employers have the choice to chose if they hire women or men for positions not occupied by nominal workers” we inform the petitioner that the Canadian employers DO have the choice to choose if they hire men or women for positions that are not occupied by nominal workers. The Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program Mexico-Canada (SAWP) is a labour coordination program that depends entirely from the request of agricultural workforce by Canadian employers, which is why the only instance that defines the labour profile (experience, required skills, physical characteristics among others) as well as the sex of the workers are the same Canadian employers.
(iii) regarding the component consistent of “If the employer has NO option to choose the gender of his potential employees, I want to know what justifies the low percentage of women representation in the program” we inform the petitioner that the Ministry of Labour (STPS) DOES NOT have the option to choose the sex of the workers assigned to a work contract, not as nominal workers or as selection workers. Also, in case a worker was to be replaced (as minimal worker, selection reserve, or airport reserve) STPS must respect the sex indicated by the employer in his request, because in case there is a mistake (sending a man instead of a woman or viceversa) it is responsibility of the Mexican government to replace such worker for another of the sex originally specified by the employer.
(iv) Regarding component 4, consistent of “If the employer DO have the choice to pick between a woman or a man, I request a copy of all the requests presented by Canadian employers in 2011, eliminating any personal information, but keeping the pertinent data to this request, that is, the capacity or incapacity for an employer that participates under the SAWP to choose a man or a woman as future employee”, since the petitioner prefers the information to be delivered through Internet via INFOMEX, it has been considered to deliver the EMPLOYER REQUISITIONS corresponding to 2011 in electronic archives, previously tested for personal information.
Therefore, I request this collegiate organ to approve the public versions of 4,274 Employer Requisitions of the SAWP, based on articles 29, section III and 45 of the Federal Law of Transparency and access to public information, 41, paragraph 2 and 70, section IV of its regulations, as well as Sixth, section II of the agreement that updates the integration and procedure of the Information Committee of the Ministry of Labour.
Firstly, who, or what, is a "collegiate organ"?
In addition, just exactly who is the person who made the "I request" at the start of the last paragraph?
Furthermore, even though the text of this purported letter would seem to support the claim by the UFCW that gender discrimination is taking place under the eye of F.A.R.M.S., the evidentiary value of the letter, and all of its contents, is, in the form presented herein, zero.
I mean, come on people, really, what is it about providing any sort of evidentiary support does the anonymous rabble on this site not understand?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Well, the UFCW is accomplishing its goal by stirring up all of you people with this ruse. This isn't about ethics or worker rights, it's all about the UFCW trying to win over the farm worker so they can add to their membership. Additional union dues from the migrant worker will help to pay to add to union executives' lavish lifestyle.
Sounds like the normal thing to do . Same as any economist or accountant or book keeper would do .
I would not want my wife or daughter living in the conditions that that many of these seasonal workers live and work under. To mix men and women together who are away from home for months at a time would be very bad. This may not be P.C. but it the truth instead anybody working from dec 1 to april 1 should provided good housing for there would family and be paid $16.00 per hour plus housing.
Post new comment