Flexibility for Who? Working Time, the Ontario Employment Standards Act and the Experiences of Workers in Low-Wage and Precarious Jobs

Abstract

In Ontario, hours of work and overtime standards are regulated by the Employment Standards Act (ESA). This legislation covers most employers and employees in the province. As part of an ESA reforms process designed to promote workplace flexibility and enhance competitiveness, the Ontario ESA (2000) allowed for the extension of weekly maximum hours from 48 to 60, and the calculation of overtime pay entitlements to be based on an averaging of hours of work over up to a four-week period. Situated in the context of shifts towards greater working time flexibility, this paper examines the dynamics of working time regulation in the Ontario ESA, with a specific focus on the regulation of excess and overtime hours. The paper considers these processes in relation to general trends towards forms of labour market regulation that support employer-oriented flexibility and that download the regulation of employment standards to privatized negotiations between individual employees and their employers, tendencies present in the ESA that were sustained through further reforms introduced in 2018 and 2019. The paper draws its analysis from interviews with both workers in precarious jobs and Employment Standards Officers from the Ontario Ministry of Labour (MOL), as well as administrative data from the MOL and archival records. In the general context of the rise of precarious employment, the paper argues that ESA hours of work and overtime provisions premised upon creating working time flexibility enhance employer control over time, exacerbate time pressures and uncertainty experienced by workers in precarious jobs, and thereby intensify conditions of precariousness. The article situates the working time provisions of Ontario’s ESA in the context of an ongoing fragmentation of the regulation of working time as legislated standards are eroded in ways that make workers in precarious jobs more vulnerable to employer exploitation.

Do Nonprofit Organizations Experience Precarious Employment? The Impact of NGO Commercialization

“…Grimm and Ronneberger ( 2007 ) indicate that precarious employment may refer to self-employed and casual employees, or young well-educated people who work for years unpaid, adding, however, that they accept uncertainty as a “normal state of affairs”. Other scholars identified various groups of employees who displayed a high incidence of precariousness, including lower wages (Thomas et al 2020 ; Krings 2020 ). These include full-time employees with low salaries, certain groups of part-time workers, employees with fixed-term contracts and temporary agency workers, as well as self-employed individuals (Julia et al 2017 ).…”

Gender, Immigration and Commuting in Metropolitan Canada

“…The research is informed by recent case studies of immigrants in the Toronto urban region that underscore the impact of gender on immigrants' travel behaviour. Recent immigrants continue to be dependent on public transit although its cost, slow speed, infrequent schedule and frequent transfers are burdensome for some immigrant women (Amar & Teelucksingh 2015;Premji 2017;Farber et al 2018;Thomas et al 2020).…”

Negotiating Canada’s Labour Market: The Case of Nigerian Women in Ontario

“…Enforcement challenges are varied. It could range from the misclassification of employees by employers, leading to the exclusion of workers (who otherwise would be considered employees) from coverage under the ESA (Thomas et al 2020;Vosko, Noack, and Thomas 2016;Braley-Rattai 2021, 57) Another angle to the enforcement quagmire of legislation is that the enforcement mechanism is not as far-reaching as it should be (Vosko et al 2017, 256). In some instances, there is a shortage of legislative and regulatory guidance on interpreting legislation (Braley-Rattai 2021, 247), making uniform enforcement of legislative frameworks a going concern/near impossible.…”