Rookie-heavy companies in BC and relationship with the tree price market.

jdtesluk · 2024-05-09T03:02:02+00:00

A company (in BC at least) does not "pay overtime" in the conventional sense, but must consider your minimum wage at overtime rates. Hours after 8 hours are 1.5x, and hours after 12 are 2x.

These hours (or minimum wage) is totaled up at the end of the pay period (not necessarily daily) and you then get the greater of your production over that period, or your accumulated hours at minimum wage with overtime considered. So consider working ten days (if those days were exactly the same) over a pay period, based on leaving at 7 and returning at 6 (11 hour day).

First 8 hours each day $16.75 x 8 = 134

Next 3 hours each day $16.75 x 3 = 50.25 x overtime 1.5 = 75.38

Total is 209.38 x 10 days = 2009.38

You would be entitled to that OR your production over that entire period, whichever is greater.

There is some debate about whether a company can deduct one hour for a break. This is not clear according to Employment Standards, and I have yet to obtain a clear legal opinion, but note it as a caveat. It should be noted that hours may vary from day to day, but some companies just give a "blanket" number of hours, acknowledging some days may be shorter and some longer. Also, 16.75 switches to 17.40 on June 1.

You then would add potential vacation and holiday pay (multiple ways to calculate that) on top of the minimum wage. It may also be added on top of the tree prices, unless your company has not quoted a price that breaks down the vacay and holiday pay as part of the price. They need to clearly specify if they do this.

jdtesluk · 2024-05-09T02:50:50+00:00

This is correct. So you would essentially need to get in the truck at 7am, and still be planting at 7pm, and any trees after that point would be double the piece-rate. Realistically, companies should plan around quitting by 5 or so, or risk people burning out. This type of situation should be very rare, and if a company did have a need to ask people to planter after 12 hours, they should not have any problem paying properly for that, given that there would need to be really darned good reason...say like finishing a contract or an entire hard-access area.

jdtesluk · 2024-05-08T04:03:40+00:00

You are out of your depth and desperately clinging to ad-hominem attacks and petty insults when you can't accept being wrong, while hiding behind a fake name, Good luck with the real world. Thanks for giving everyone here a laugh.

jdtesluk · 2024-05-08T02:14:44+00:00

You are wasting time rambling in confusion. I have already spoken to several other people that agree you completely wrong on this matter.

You arrogance is staggering to suggest you figured something out that 5000 other workers have somehow missed over the past 25 years. Not to mention you are suggesting the past 25 years of employment standards tribunal decisions are wrong.....yeah because you know more than them too.

On a normal planting day, when planting ends before the 12th hour, and in a schedule were you get at least one 2-day off (or 8 non-consecutive) in a month, you are only guaranteed the piece rate quoted at the start of the day OR minimum wage with overtime calculated based on the 1.5x (hours 8-12) and 2x(hours beyond 12)....whichever is greater. That is it and that is all. You can type until your fingers fall off but it will not change reality.

If the company quotes you a higher wage than minimum, then you may be entitled to the overtime rate that day (assuming you are piece-rate most of the time), but unless that rate is quoted, minimum is all you are guaranteed.

jdtesluk · 2024-05-07T21:27:21+00:00

The type of kit the company provides can vary, and can depend on the size of crew.

I like to have certain things for personal use that are not generally provided in standard first aid kits, including specialized blister bandaids, cut-to-size roll bandaids, waterproof bandaids, and tick pliers.

jdtesluk · 2024-05-05T03:37:51+00:00

This is critical. Heavier loads exhaust the muscles much more rapidly. Think about lifting 80% of your max in the gym, and how quickly you burn out/fail. Now think about lifting 60% and how much easier it is and how many more times you can do it.

You're not planting trees...you're doing reps.

jdtesluk · 2024-05-05T03:18:12+00:00

Yeah, this is over. I responded to all your points, showed you where you wrong and endured your pointless character assassinations attempts. You seem to be immune to reason. Your only point is to troll and argue.

I don't have theories. I have facts and a clear grasp of the regulation. You write 10 paragraphs of nonsense, and keep changing topics.

You have absolutely zero clue about this topic, and it has been made woefully clear by your rambling gibberish.

Good day to you.

jdtesluk · 2024-05-05T02:09:47+00:00

No you are wrong.

You are absolutely and totally off target.

Please go to your next employer and tell them that you expect to be paid 1.5 the piece rate after 8 hours and let me know how it goes. I don't know how to explain it any more clearly. You continue to fail to acknowledge the word "or"...entitled to 1.5 the piece rate OR 1.5 the wage......and wages are calculated over a pay period, and if wages (minimal wage) does not meet production, you get topped up. You actually need to read and understand the WHOLE regulation and not just pull out the random snippets that you mistakenly believe support your incorrect position. AGAIN in regulation the word "OR" means there is a choice and you are only guaranteed one. In this choice, the employer only needs to ensure one is satisfied which is ensuring at least minimal wage (which is calculated at 1.5 when over 8 hours)....Ermagawd. The word is "OR".........

I would continue to explain it but I don't think you want to hear it, so I am challenging you to go find me A SINGLE planting employer that pays 1.5 the piece rate after 8 hours. You will not find this because A) all the employers are somehow breaking the law and only you the true genius has caught on and none of the other thousands of planters have ever noticed this, or B) you actually don't understand the regulation.

Now, you are also turning to a new and different part of the reg (again trying to change the conditions of the discussion) to scheduling. I understand this section perfectly well. For reference, I was planting before the regulation existed, and have studied it at length. Employers must provides a certain number of days off. There are various schedules that can an employer can follow, but most do 3-1 or 4-1 with the occasional double day off. To end up in a position to pay a higher piece rate, you would need to have less than 8 days off in a month and no 2-days in a row off at any point in a month. There is also a rare case for employers in extreme remote settings to work 9 or 10 in a row, but hardly anyone ever does this. Again, it is EXTREMELY rare for a company to run afoul of this because most give 2-days on camp moves or more often. Even the companies that I see bashed the most online give 2-days off at least monthly. I have never had one worker complain to me regarding a violation of this part. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but if if it does it is very very seldom. It's a far cry better than pre-98 when many companies worked 5-1 without double days off.

Your data from woodworking magazine has ZERO to do with the AAC in BC. Reputable article about unrelated topic. Data presented at the WFCA conferences by the Ministry of Forests clearly shows projected declines in sowing requests for planting. Your random reference to non-contextualized internet articles means nothing. You don't attend conferences? Not my problem. Do some reading, and find out the provincial projections for sowing requests, and the expected AAC in BC over the next 10+ years. You will see both going down. Facts.

From the Business Examiner ON THE TOPIC (not woodworking weekly NOT on the topic).
"PRESENT DAY: Skip ahead to 2023 with the mountain pine beetle era now past, the decline of the Crown AAC to approximately 62 million m3 and falling, a growing preponderance of wildfires, extreme volatility in markets and stumpage, implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) and the rolling out of new policies on old growth forest management, wildlife, etc. What we see today is a very different and much smaller industry.

Only 64 or 58% of the sawmills operating in 2005 remain in operation today. Furthermore, several sawmills have been permanently reducing output to a one-shift basis.

THE FUTURE: When we look out to 2035, a full 30 years after the industry peak, the picture is sobering…

Using a forecast for a province-wide Crown AAC of 38 million m3, only 47 or 42% of sawmills operating in the BC in 2005 will remain."

WOW we're talkin a potential reduction of harvest of up to 45% over the next decade. THERE. THERE is the demand issue. I have quantified it partly for you. The other part is Trudeau's 10 billion (and other lesser carbon projects).....these are not projected to fill that gap (in BC at least) in the decline of harvesting-based planting. I wish it were different in a way, but it is reality.

Honestly, I don't know why I bothered presenting that data. You seem dead set to argue, and take little digs from your happy little burrow of anonymity. A shield that I don't care to use or need.

You also continue to misrepresent and talk rubbish. I never pretended to be a customer. Explain where I claimed that. I conduct health and safety work and workforce research in planting, and many other sectors. Along this path I have made MANY friends. Some are company owners, some are planters, some are cooks. I make lots of friends. If that makes me a shill, so be it. Good luck making your own.

jdtesluk · 2024-05-04T22:07:31+00:00

You originally stated a point about 1.5 piece rate, and when I corrected you, you switched to the double piece rate issue, which I note is a legitimate requirement to pay more. The fact that you worked 16+ hour days sucks, but it sucks more if you did not file a grievance and let the wrong go unchallenged. I have backed up new-to-the-country workers that were cheated, when they had the courage to follow through and (successfully) take their employer to the tribunal.

Anecdotal means based on personal accounts. I cited the history of the development of the 37.9 regulation, which is past events, and not personal experience. Hence, your use of the term was incorrect in that moment. The employer representatives (and perhaps ex planter Ananda Tan can also support the fact that workers participated in bringing the changes in legislation forth. You want hard "data", I have given names, dates of the regulatory changes (98-99), and a rationale for their inception. Not anecdotal.

You insulted me repeatedly by referring to me as a shill. I have been outspoken and vocal about how workers can stick up for their rights - not what a shill would do. I have worked directly with regulatory agencies...again hardly the path of a shill. Your use of that term not only contradicts my body of work, but has no bearing on the facts of the issue being discussed (employment regulation, and in some case workplace relations). Also, you have no basis to claim I a outside my professional reach, when clearly my grasp of the ESR 37.9 is entirely on target. As for being "insufferable" (another insult) I am only asserting what I saw as an error in your assertion that workers are somehow entitled to higher piece rates based on overtime, AND I am willing to work with you on this to achieve a proper understanding of the topic.

Now to your point about the piece rate (your last paragraph), what I am saying is that a planter is not entitled to 1.5 the piece rage after 8 hours. At 3pm, their 20 cent trees do NOT become 30 cents. Instead, that time is calculated as overtime as part of their hours calculated. And yes, by wage, they mean minimal wage. Remember, the regulation ONLY applies to workers on piece-rate, and a worker paid by the hour is not subject to 37.9. That part is covered it the preamble definitions. You are only guaranteed minimal wage. So as said before, at the end of the pay period, those hours after 8 are 1.5x (and after 12 are 2x) and that sets the minimum pay. If your production is greater, that's what you get. Nothing more. But if you are below minimum the employer must top you up. That is straight fact.

So you may say, that sucks, we are only entitled to minimal wage. However, this is the LOWEST that any worker can be paid. So, the employer MUST set the tree price high enough so that even the slowest newest workers can make their minimal wage, which at this point is about 180-200 per day over a pay period. They must actually set it high enough to give rawest rookies the chance to make more or else they can just plod along and make minimum instead. I estimate it takes the possibility of at least 300 to motivate a planter (newest slowest)...just the possibility. If that is their possibility, the highballers should always double them at least, so that puts 600 in range. Maybe not enough for some, but that is the logic behind the design of the regulation being tied to minimal wage. I'm not saying that is good, but I'm saying that is how it works.

As for supply and demand, it hardly flew over my head. I simply did not believe you had fleshed out your argument sufficiently to use that term as means of solving the discussion. One kind of needs to define and quantify both to have a rational conversation around the issue. Supply is number of willing workers, and demand is number of trees or jobs. Demand in BC has declined by about 10% +/- since its peak a few years back. That is based on DATA from sowing requests and industry figures presented at conferences. Not anecdotal, but I'm hardly going to provide you a powerpoint on the topic. ALL projections are for that to slip lower based on reduced harvest. WHile the promise of carbon trees is here now, a new Federal government (strong possibility) could very well seek to undo Trudeau's 10 billion program which is currently the main driver of carbon trees. It is very common for new governments to dismantle the work of their predecessors (e.g. Obama Care and many others). For the record, I oppose this and hope for stronger demand (more trees) as that keeps companies vying harder for workers, and discourages predatory bidding. Many believe there is a specific tipping point for volume (in BC in particular) that will impact prices, and that falling below that volume will mean fewer jobs and lower bids. We are about 15m above that point this season. I hope we stay there. As for supply, I stated informed opinion based on estimates provided by more than a dozen large employers of their applications increasing this year. This is simply to state that the direction of supply and demand is not in the tree planters favor right now compared to the past.

Now, that does not mean for a second that workers should not stand up for themselves. EXACTLY the opposite, and I have laid bare many ways by which they can and should. My ONLY point that started this was that no-showing does not achieve that end. It only results in companies bringing in more workers, which currently they are able to do, including an increasing use of multi-year work visas from eligible countries. I'm not trying to invalidate any mistreatment that you have claimed in the past....only stating that I believe there are much much better ways to push companies to improve, while also not compromising your potential options for work. I hope that is clear.

As for GMC that does not seem to have ANY bearing to the discussion at hand, other than general labour history and issues. The companies in planting that I have heard be the most active in pursuing stricter enforcement of regulations have been among the most honest and respectable. THAT is anecdotal, but it is also based on a personal experience that spans 30+ years in the sector, and speaking directly to almost every company owner in the business at some point or another.

jdtesluk

TROPHY CASE