As Canadian labour rights and responsibilities continuously advance, the legislation put forth to protect employees in the workplace will in turn enhance a business’s development. Moving into 2017, working Ontarians have seen numerous changes made to labour laws by which employee protection has become the focal point. Many businesses stand to question the equality of these laws, which often pose as inconvenient and costly disruptors to organizational operations. However, these newly established elements of workplace regulations do not overtake a business’s rights, but rather are the cornerstone of fostering a successful work environment. Through the advancement of workplace diversification, equity initiatives, and proactive harassment resources, workers and employers are now provided with the tools to establish a healthier professional relationship.
Diversity: Know Your Privilege
Throughout the process of holding organizations accountable for their efforts to manage diversity, Canadians should expect to receive equal treatment with respect to the employment process (Human Rights Code, 1990). Basing hiring practices on The Employment Equity Act (1995), a piece of legislation that encourages the employment of historically disadvantaged groups, not only diversifies the workforce, but further enables businesses to attract a talented array of employees. In my opinion, companies that strategically target employee satisfaction through operations that promotes equality, diversity and employee protection will be most attractive to top personnel. However, diversity does not equate to hiring historically disadvantaged individuals out of effort to reach a CSR quota, but rather holding all candidates to the same degree of eligibility.
As seen in the Implicit Assumptions Test, even those within the business community who are aware of the benefits of diversity find themselves burdened by the gap in prejudice hiring. As we took part in the Considering Privilege questionnaire, I realized that although I may anticipate being discriminated against as a woman in the business field, there are numerous other factors by which people are disadvantaged out of my field of vision; a candidate who is equally, if not more qualified than me may be discriminated against due to more factors out of their control. In remedy of this issue, embracing affirmative action programs or “blind” hiring will incentivize businesses to surpass their personal discriminatory filters.
Employers concerned with the consequences of enforcing seemingly discriminatory hiring practices may benefit from the limitations of Canadian legislation, as there are numerous defenses to prima facie (at first glance) discrimination. If hiring restrictions are put in place in good faith of being an occupational requirement, businesses are permitted to open the position to those capable of performing the essential duties, and therefore preserve just hiring rights. However, in future I would hope to see tighter specifications on first responder employment requirements, seeing that their physical and mental abilities are directly exhausted during employment; given the surge of traumatic events and natural disasters in 2017, elevating standards is increasingly relevant. Currently, businesses retain the right to hire based upon factors of their choosing, and this privilege does not infringe on their right to personnel selection.
Happy Employee, Happy Employer
As Canadian legislation expands, federal and provincial standards set out more in-depth and applicable guidelines surrounding healthy employer to employee relations. According to a study by Watson Wyatt Worldwide Consulting, “happy” employees directly contribute to significant market value improvement. Employment regulations must not be seen in a negative light by employers, as providing specific laws that govern the relationship then assists employers in improving their human-capital practices.
Throughout the legislation that governs Canadian workers, employers and employees alike are regulated by a series of codes that attempt to preserve the dignity of all parties. Within the Human Rights Code, citizens are protected against discrimination on all fronts, including race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability (Human Rights Code, 1990). Seeing that these rights exist nationwide, it is expected that all citizens abide by these regulations, and therefore organizations are no exception. Businesses have an obligation to uphold Canadian standards, and are not disadvantaged, but rather positioned on an equal playing field against other employers; how they respond to these laws will determine the long term success of their organization.
Although more effort is required to uphold the rights of employees, investing resources in the betterment of the employment process in turn contributes to organizational efficiency. Businesses that abide by The Employment Standards Act (2000) will benefit from the specificity of restrictions for both sides. This act then protects both parties in the event of dispute regarding leave, enforcement, pay or even offences. Acts like that of the Labour Relations Act (1995) serve as a platform that governs the procedures between union and employer, which establishes efficiency in collective bargaining and dispute resolution. In addition, The Pay Equity Act (1990) insures equal pay for equal value of work, which protects workers, and ensures companies will not lose time and talent to competitors through enforcing payment standards. Our Canadian employment acts create an equitable and manageable distribution of power, which may be applied for both parties, therefore they do not infringe on an individual employer’s rights.
Harassment Helps Nobody
It is no secret that the relationship between employee and employer is a complex element of organizational culture. Employers must be capable of simultaneously balancing the employee hierarchy and fostering a safe work environment. Unfortunately, harassment has become a prevalent part of the employment life cycle, specifically for vulnerable members of the workplace. It is found that over 40% of perpetrators are persons of authority, thus emphasizing the negative imbalance of power (Dimain, 2014). Employer’s must minimize the opportunity for these attacks, and provide resources for those impacted by assault. Through ignoring harassment, employers are actively undermining an employee’s career advancement, and contributing to the continuation of harm.
Canadian legislation attempts to act as a disruptor to these egregious acts, not overtake an employer’s right to authority over their staff. The cost associated with abiding by Bill 168 (2009), which governs over an employer’s responsibility to mitigate rick of violence and harassment, is far lesser price to pay in contrast to the aftermath of attack. Over the course of their working life, 90% of women and 76% of visible minorities will experience some form of harassment within the workplace (Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2015). The impacts of harassment go beyond that of humiliation, as those who have experienced verbal or sexual violations will often also experience various psychological scars, including elevated anxiety levels, headaches, amnesia, weight disorders, sexual damage or depression (Canadian Labour Relations, 2016). Harassment is the number one influencer of job displacement in historically disadvantaged groups, costing time and money for the firm to initiate a re-hiring process and suffer loss of talent. Through Bill-168, organizations are incentivized to engage in preventative measures like ally workshops and no-tolerance policies, which decreases the costly risk of insurance, dismissal and hiring post-harassment. In future, I would like to see regulations that cover the employer’s responsibility to protect the employee online, in this digital age. Actions guided by Bill-168 protect the dignity of both parties, and therefore does not infringe on the rights of the business to oversee their central operations.
Conclusion
As the Canadian workplace landscape shifts, the rights and regulations that govern our businesses continuously adapt to social change. These adjustments are not intended to infringe on the rights of the employer nor employee, but rather act as a guiding tool for each party to effectively and fairly contribute to an organization. Although new additions within the legislation may fluctuate in the way which they cater to a specific group, the primary objective is to create nationwide standards of protection, not favouritism. Throughout these legislations that promote the specific advancement of workplace diversification, equity initiatives, and provision of harassment resources, I believe that the Canadian workforce will be shaped towards a more constructive and healthy body of working individuals.