[Newsbot]

Title: South African firefighters leaving Alberta after strike over pay
Category: Misc CDN
Posted By: N_Fiddledog
Date: 2016-06-09 15:29:07
Canadian

[Canadian_Mind]

They should get better than what they signed on for. We should be paying them what we pay our own people for this service.

[DrCaleb]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

They should get better than what they signed on for. We should be paying them what we pay our own people for this service.

True. Still, they signed a contract, and $50 a day is pretty good money in SA.

[DrCaleb]

Looks like the story has been updated too.

$1:

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley says 300 South African firefighters who joined the fight against the Fort McMurray wildfire will get paid what they were promised after they threatened to leave over a payment conflict.

"I can say right now that every hour that every firefighter from South Africa -- or anywhere else -- has worked on these fires will be compensated in accordance with our laws in this province," Notley said.

And another story:

$1:

Back in South Africa, the firefighters wages range from about 2,400 rand a month (the equivalent of $205 Cdn) to 14,000 rand (about $1,200 Cdn) for a crew leader.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... -1.3625499

[andyt]

It sounds like they were to be paid the same as any other firefighter, 70% of he wages would be held back until they arrived back in SA, which is what caused them to strike. Seems to be more an internal dispute with their SA employer than anything to do with Alberta.

[2Cdo]

andyt andyt:

It sounds like they were to be paid the same as any other firefighter, 70% of he wages would be held back until they arrived back in SA, which is what caused them to strike. Seems to be more an internal dispute with their SA employer than anything to do with Alberta.

I'm betting it's due to them knowing that they would never receive that withheld 70%.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

They should get better than what they signed on for. We should be paying them what we pay our own people for this service.

True. Still, they signed a contract, and $50 a day is pretty good money in SA.

WTF? Minimum wage in Alberta is $11.20 an hour or $89.60 for an eight hour day. Any contract specifiying less should be illegal, right?

Then how the hell is it fair to pay these guys less just because they're from SA?

[andyt]

https://twitter.com/wo_fire

They were to be paid their usual SA wage, plus $50 a day out of country stipend. This is what they agreed to before leaving SA. I guess once they came here and realized what the locals were making, they didn't think it was such a good deal anymore.

Now that I have this clear in my mind, Notley should have investigated this contract and made sure the workers were paid according to Alberta laws.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

https://twitter.com/wo_fire

They were to be paid their usual SA wage, plus $50 a day out of country stipend. This is what they agreed to before leaving SA. I guess once they came here and realized what the locals were making, they didn't think it was such a good deal anymore.

Now that I have this clear in my mind, Notley should have investigated this contract and made sure the workers were paid according to Alberta laws.

This would be illegal in California.

[ShepherdsDog]

Should be illegal here too. This is a job where people are putting their lives at risk.

[andyt]

Are you sure? Alberta put out a tender for firefighters, the SA govt won that contract. Are you sure California wouldn't do the same thing?

But, with an NDP govt that pushes for fair wages, they should have investigated the contract and made sure the men would be paid a fair wage by our standards. As I said before, these guys would have had a human rights complaint if Notley hadn't stepped up and said she will make things right.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

https://twitter.com/wo_fire

They were to be paid their usual SA wage, plus $50 a day out of country stipend. This is what they agreed to before leaving SA. I guess once they came here and realized what the locals were making, they didn't think it was such a good deal anymore.

Now that I have this clear in my mind, Notley should have investigated this contract and made sure the workers were paid according to Alberta laws.

This would be illegal in California.

I'm not a lawyer, but I did take some contract law in Engineering. The contract the firefighters signed, was signed in South Africa, so the laws of South Africa apply.

The contract that South Africa signed with Alberta would be subject to the jurisdiction that the contract stipulates.

Does that make it right? No, but then again no one forced them to sign the contract. Like the CBC article states, the $50 a day is on top of their wage, so another $350 a week makes their take home nearly double their regular pay.

[andyt]

They wouldn't work 7 days a week for the whole contract. Firefighters are rotated out to get rest. It's still a lot more than they were earning back home.

But it's not right, so good for Notley for stepping up. The deal shouldn't have been signed in the first place.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I'm not a lawyer, but I did take some contract law in Engineering. The contract the firefighters signed, was signed in South Africa, so the laws of South Africa apply.

The contract that South Africa signed with Alberta would be subject to the jurisdiction that the contract stipulates.

Does that make it right? No, but then again no one forced them to sign the contract. Like the CBC article states, the $50 a day is on top of their wage, so another $350 a week makes their take home nearly double their regular pay.

Under California law it doesn't matter where your contract was signed or where your employer is home-based. All that matters is that if you physically work in California you're under California's jurisdiction. Period.

I ran into this on my first IT job (2001) with a company that was based out of Washington state. They didn't pay us overtime on our mandatory 10-12 hour working days because Washington state law didn't require it.

I called the California Labor Commission who brought down the wrath of a vengeful God upon my employer for this and a myriad of other violations. I ended up getting back pay plus triple damages and so did about 400 other people.

Two of the managers were personally fined for violations that they continued to make after the Labor Commission told them to knock it off. That was pretty sweet.

That said, I'm surprised that anywhere in Canada would be more permissive than California on such matters.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I'm not a lawyer, but I did take some contract law in Engineering. The contract the firefighters signed, was signed in South Africa, so the laws of South Africa apply.

The contract that South Africa signed with Alberta would be subject to the jurisdiction that the contract stipulates.

Does that make it right? No, but then again no one forced them to sign the contract. Like the CBC article states, the $50 a day is on top of their wage, so another $350 a week makes their take home nearly double their regular pay.

Under California law it doesn't matter where your contract was signed or where your employer is home-based. All that matters is that if you physically work in California you're under California's jurisdiction. Period.

I ran into this on my first IT job (2001) with a company that was based out of Washington state. They didn't pay us overtime on our mandatory 10-12 hour working days because Washington state law didn't require it.

I called the California Labor Commission who brought down the wrath of a vengeful God upon my employer for this and a myriad of other violations. I ended up getting back pay plus triple damages and so did about 400 other people.

Two of the managers were personally fined for violations that they continued to make after the Labor Commission told them to knock it off. That was pretty sweet.

That said, I'm surprised that anywhere in Canada would be more permissive than California on such matters.

I did a 'deep dive' into Alberta Labour laws, and IT workers (and medical personelle) are exempt from some parts of them because of irregular working hours. When I was working for IBM, they tried to weasel us out of overtime pay as well because the labour laws exclude IT workers from the section that says you must be given 8 consecutive hours off between shifts. But the law summary is poorly worded on their website, so that it implies IT workers are exempt from all sections, including the part about overtime pay.

The legislation is more clear on what the exemptions are.

$1:

Employees to which overtime hours and pay do not apply

Managers, supervisors and those employed in a confidential capacity;

Farm workers;

Professionals, including agrologists, architects, certified or chartered accountants, chiropractors, dentists, denturists, engineers, information systems professionals, lawyers, students-at-law, optometrists, podiatrists, psychologists and veterinarians;

Salespersons of automobiles, trucks, buses, farm machinery, road construction
equipment, heavy duty equipment, manufactured homes or residential homes;

Salespersons who solicit orders, principally outside of the employer’s place of business, who are fully or partly paid by commission (this does not apply to route salespersons);

Licensed salespersons of real estate and securities;

Licensed insurance salespersons who are paid entirely by commission income;

Salespersons who are at least 16 years old and are engaged in direct selling for licensed direct sellers;

Licensed land agents;

Extras in a film or video production;

Counselors or instructors at an educational or recreational camp that is operated on a charitable or not-for-profit basis for children, persons with disabilities, or religious purposes; and

Domestic employees (these employees are exempt only from sections 16 and 17 of the
Code concerning hours of work and notice of work times, but not from rest periods).

https://work.alberta.ca/documents/Overt ... me-Pay.pdf

Where the legislation says:

$1:

(2) Section 14(1)(a) of the Act (relating to keeping of employment records for regular and overtime hours of work) and Part 2, Divisions 3 and 4 of the Act (relating to hours of work, overtime and overtime pay) do not apply to an employee or to the employee’s employer while acting in the capacity of employer if the employee is

(o) an information systems professional, being an employee who is primarily engaged in the investigation, analysis, design, development, implementation, operation or management of information systems based on computer and related technologies through the objective application of specialized knowledge and professional judgment,

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page= ... splay=html

And yes, most everywhere in Canada is more permissive than California. Not on things like 'right to work', but on things like time between shifts and overtime vs time-in-lieu. When I worked cutting meat, my employer would schedule me midnight - 8am 4 days a week, then 2pm to 10pm on Sunday. Monday and Thursday off. Perfectly legal. Totally slimy.