Sucks to be you.

I'm quite busy these days, but I thought I would do a quick focused post. Last week the Convocation of the Law Society of Upper Canada voted in their infinite wisdom to implement an additional route to becoming a fully licensed lawyer in Ontario with the creation of the Legal Practice Program option. I'm still working through the implications of this decisions and will eventually post an analysis of it, but in the meantime check out this article from Ultra Vires (U of T's law student newspaper) which strongly suggests that Bay Street firms are taking a pass when it comes to hiring law students. 

The article suggests that hiring has fallen to historically low levels with only 379 students being hired this year; furthermore, remember that prior to the financial crisis approximately 450 students would be hired every year. While one can point to the soft (non-existent) recovery, outsourcing, reduced demand for lawyers, and hoarding of work - one thing is certain - the good old days ain't coming back and one wonders if law firms are awaiting the arrival of the LPP option which institutionalizes unpaid labour. One would wonder if tuition might be reduced as a result of the falling prospects for newly minted lawyers, but I'm not holding my breath. I note, however, that even for law students it could be much, much worse - you could be in Teachers College or in a Dietitian program. Anywho, I dug up this gem from a more humane better era, enjoy.

Brave New World: The Intersection of Technology and Employee Misclassification

This post is going to examine one of the fascinating aspects of my ongoing research into internships, which is the technological infrastructure that has allowed the proliferation of this type of exploitative labour. In Toronto websites that regularly post illegal unpaid internships postions are Craigslist, Work In Culture, Masthead, and Kijiji. These websites are the glue that holds intern culture together as they serve as the crucial link between employers and soon to be misclassified employees.

Previously I have written about how universities in Ontario regularly post illegal unpaid internships and if you're a reader who is currently a student I encourage you to log on to your school's career website and compare the posted internship positions with the laws regarding unpaid internships. Remember that unless you're student and the internship is a component of a bona fide academic program (i.e. a requirement listed in the course calendar) the chances of it complying with the Employment Standards Act, 2000 are remote at best.

The proliferation of these online postings represents some of the emerging regulatory difficulties the State faces in the Internet age (beyond the regular dilemmas that unpaid internships present) and while I haven't figured out a complete "fix" yet, some ideas that I'm playing around with include: introducing fines for third party websites that post illegal positions, but take zero responsibility for the content contained therein; creating new powers to give prosecutors at the Ministry of Labour the ability to seek ex-parte relief to compel internet service providers to disclose the ISP addresses and the physical locations of employers who anonymously post illegal positions; and, the development of an online strategy regarding employment standards at the Ministry of Labour that would update practices to bring enforcement into the twenty-first century. Those are but a few of the policy ideas I'm toying around with.

Janelle Watkins

Now an example of one company which is advertising online for applicants for an illegal unpaid internship position in Toronto. This week's unlucky contestant is The Scene in TO, a new arts website, which has all the typical bougie trappings that one expects from a pretentious culture oriented web offering. The website came to my attention after it posted a advertisement on Work In Culture looking for a SEO Intern. Regular readers of Youth and Work will recall a post from last week that explains what SEO is, but for the uninitiated it refers to the highly prized skill of search engine optimization which allows websites to boost traffic to them via deploying keywords for search engines to pick up.

The ad states that "applicants must be willing to work on a part time, unpaid basis for a minimum of six months". In terms of what the intern would be doing the ad says "the SEO Intern will be responsible for implementation and development of keyword research and tracking, link building, content creation, SEO implementation (meta images, tags, keywords) and other on-page and off-page search engine strategies". Also, they don't want an idiot, no they want someone with "a degree related to marketing, advertising, communications, or English subjects" and an "diploma in Online Marketing is helpful". There are a lot more requirements contained in the ad which strike me as ridiculous given that the successful applicant will never see a dime for their efforts, but I'll let you take a gander yourselves (photos of the impugned ad appear below).

The internship violates s. 1(2) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 via a clear breach of the third prong of the six-part test which states "the person providing the training derives little, if any, benefit from the activity of the individual while he or she is being trained". There's simply no way to get around the fact that the intern is providing a valuable benefit that would otherwise cost thousands of dollars a month if an employee or outside contractor were to do the same work. Also, there's a potential to argue the fourth prong of the test addressing displacement of employees is being violated, but given the relative lack of jurisprudence I can't definitively state either way.

If you desire, send Janelle Watkins, the directing mind of The Scene In TO, an email explaining how illegal unpaid internships are a bane on young workers in Toronto. It should be noted that the Cultural Careers Council Ontario ("CCCO") operates Work In Culture and has a complicity in perpetuating precarious work for young cultural workers in Toronto, in this regard people should contact Diane Davy, the Executive Director of the CCCO, and Celia Smith, the Chair of CCCO's Board of Directors, to explain that a goverment funded organization should not be advertising illegal unpaid internships.

Why can't young medical specialists find work?

A short post today. There's an interesting article in the Toronto Star about the inability of newly graduated medical specialists to find work in Canada and at noon the paper hosted an online live-chat about the issue. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada ("the RCPSC") has been studying the issue for the past two years and is set to release a report on the matter in the next month or so. This isn't an issue that has gotten much attention, but I suspect it will going forward given that doctors are a key profession in Canadian society.

The problems behind un(der)employment for physicians is complex and it has been suggested that the problem lies with poor (perhaps non-existent) workforce planning, the fact that doctors aren't employee rather independent contractors, the end of mandatory retirement, a systemic conflict of interest where senior doctors control hiring, the imposition of neoliberal austerity budgets, and the lack of appropriate government regulation in the medical sector. The issue was recently addressed in a comprehensive op-ed piece appearing on healthydebate.ca and it provides a good primer on the issue for the uninitiated.

If you want to learn more the RCPSC has a brief note posted on their website addressing the issues; furthermore, take a look at these articles, see: here, here, and here. Next month once the RCPSC report is release I'll post a follow-up to this piece and delve into the issue a bit deeper. Finally, just because I like taking swipes at the systemic racism present in Canada's labour market, here's a short poignant clip, see:

Are Internships an Emerging Form of Cultural Apartheid in Canada?

Finding examples of employee misclassification via the job board on Toronto's Craigslist is like shooting fish in a barrel. The latest example I discovered is for what's advertised as a "Paid Internship", but it's really just another exploitative internship scam designed to subvert the social minimums set out in Ontario's Employment Standards Act, 2000 ("the ESA") such as minimum wage and vacation pay. This post is going to deconstruct an advertisement for an internship in Toronto's cultural sector and then consider whether there's a darker narrative afoot with the rise of intern culture in Canada.

Bunch Family's Rebecca Brown

This week's example is courtesy of Bunch Family, an online parenting magazine, which is owned by Toronto resident Rebecca Brown who also runs a consulting firm called Rec Room Agency. The advertisement, which was taken down, is looking for a person who can "write or contribute to daily stories for the site, including news and culture roundups, book lists, trend pieces, seasonal and DIY posts, events listings and collaborate on Bunch's regular monthly article in the The Grid. You'll gain experience with copy editing and fact-checking and assist in researching larger stories. You should be detail-oriented, careful, gregarious and not scared to pick up the phone to get information quickly!"

Wow! That's asking a lot from the intern, but wait there's more. The advertisement also requests a "CV and three online writing samples, as well as a cover letter with a little bit about your background, your experience with SEO and SEM and what makes you passionate about kid culture and the digital space."  By way of background SEO refers to search engine optimization and SEM refers to search engine marketing, both of which are highly prized technical skills used to boost traffic to websites. 

One might be wonder what's the pay for this "Paid Internship" position? Well, it's the princely sum of $150.00 for twenty to thirty hours per week. Now this may be an example of some sort of new math that employers do to feel good about themselves, but it most certainly falls below Ontario's minimum wage of $10.25 and is far from any semblance of a living wage. For twenty to thirty hours per week an employer would have to pay the employee between $205.00 and $307.50 to comply with the ESA.

Turning to the misclassification aspect of this advertisement. This internship breaches s. 1(2) of the ESA on multiple grounds, thereby removing any possibility that Bunch Family could legally pay below the minimum wage. S. 1(2) is breached by breaking prong three of the test as the employer deriving significant benefit from the intern through the writing of daily stories, fact-checking, research, and assisting with SEO/SEM initiatives; furthermore, prong six of the test is also breached by the employer paying remuneration of $150.00 per week. This isn't an internship, rather it's a case of an employer misclassifying an employee as an intern to avoid the obligations arising from the ESA.

This advertisement (BTW this isn't Bunch Family's first internship) is a great example of the day-to-day exploitation that occurs in Toronto's cultural industries. The intern was to have worked under Helen Spitzer, the senior editor at Bunch Family, who is also a prominent music journalist in Toronto; additionally, the intern would be helping with the monthly article in The Grid, a TorStar owned paper with its own problematic history with unpaid internships. This type of misclassification is quite common throughout Canada's media-landscape and is indicative of the widespread undervaluing of our cultural workers' labour. 

There's a deeper trend at play that's very troubling, it relates to who gets the opportunity to participate in sectors of the economy that create Canada's cultural history. Be it an internship at Bunch Family, The Grid, or The Walrus - there's an unstated WASPy subtext at work that demands applicants: look like us, talk like us, and be from money. If you look at the mainstream media in Toronto the city's diversity isn't reflected; there's a profound lack of racialized perspectives, differing socio-economic insights, and countless other viewpoints. Internships of this sort contributes to exclusionary conditions where historically marginalized groups are denied the opportunity to fully participate in key institutions in Canadian society and face structural glass ceilings that aren't easily broken. The alienating and socially exclusionary nature of internships can be easily characterized as an emerging form of cultural apartheid that strikes at the heart of democracy, equality, and diversity. 

If you want to read more about this issue, take a look at this great article from Briarpatch Magazine; this article from storyboard.ca discussing internships in the cultural sector; and, this wonderful article from Alexandra Kimball talking about how to succeed in journal when you can't afford an internship. Finally, here's Christian Lander telling the world why White folk love unpaid internships, see: 

Open Season: Does the University of Windsor Take Sexual Harassment Seriously?

I rarely write about the intersection of education law and human rights, but it's an area of law that I have a lot of interest in given my contention that what happens on university campuses is a bell-weather for what's on the horizon for workplace law. Last night I was alerted to a decision of the University of Windsor's Judicial Panel that's extremely problematic for its human rights implications. Given the subject matter (social media, sexual harassment, and the Charter implications) and my belief that the decision was wrongly decided I thought a wee case comment was in order.

So What's Happening in This Case?

Decision No. JPH-12/13-10 from the University of Windsor's Judicial Panel is a fascinating peek into what's happening on Canadian university campuses. It should be noted that the panel's membership was comprised of Dr. Emir Crowne (a law professor and the panel's chair), Enrique Chacon (International Student Advisor), and Stephanie Saad (the student representative).

Essentially, the case boils down to this: a student goes on Twitter during class and over a two hour span makes four questionable tweets about one of her professors in the nursing program and a another student. A hearing was held as the University of Windsor held that the impugned tweets were violations of Senate By-Law #31, the Faculty of Nursing's social media policy, and various practice standards of the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The language contained in the tweets were: (1) "i'd throw my cellphone at her, by my cellphone is more valuable #worthlessbitch"; (2) "Not the first time she got an STD"; (3) "Ofcourse she's going to volunteer to spread her legs wide #sluttyhoe"; and, (4) "our teacher showed up to class dressed like a fool, and is acting like a child #sosick #typicaldayinnursing". Tweets (1), (2), and (3) were directed at the fellow student, while tweet (4) was directed at the professor. The panel addressed tweets (1), (2), and (3) separately from tweet (4).

Unclear Implications: Does the Charter Apply to Universities in Ontario?

The panel stated that tweet (4) was "crude, insensitive and failed to adequately capture the context of the Professor's conduct" as the professor was "role-playing an individual with organic brain disease". The Judicial Panel found that tweet (4) was protected speech under section 2(b) of the Charter due to the reasoning outlined in the Court of Appeal of Alberta's decision in Pridgen v. University of Calgary ("Pridgen") stating: "[t]he fourth tweet, as we have labelled it, is therefore saved under sub-section 2(b) of the Charter as an exercise of the Respondent's freedom of expression."

At best the panel's reasoning is on legally shaky footing as while the decision conforms with the reasoning laid out in Pridgen, it doesn't reference the pertinent case law in Ontario. The most recent Pridgen decision hasn't been tested in Ontario's Courts while the lower court decision in Pridgen was panned in Lobo v. Carleton University and Telfer v. The University of Western Ontario. More troubling is the panel's apparent ignorance of the decision of Ontario's Court of Appeal in Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden which held that the regulation of student conduct wasn't governmental action for the purposes of the Charter; furthermore,  the decision in Frederick Zhang v. The University of Western Ontario clearly articulates that the s. 2(b) of the Charter does not apply when there are threats or defamation of character. I'm unclear how one can cherry pick an Alberta decision when there's "good law" on-point from Ontario's Courts.

It appears that the panel was unaware that the University of Windsor Act provides for far greater statutory power and differs significantly from Alberta's Post-Secondary Learning Act which gives the University of Calgary its powers (this is what the debate centres around in Pridgen). Essentially, it boils down to the fact that the University of Windsor arguably has a greater independence and ability to manage its own affairs than the University of Calgary, this is particularly important when one enters the realm of the powers exercised by internal quasi-judicial bodies within universities.

The foregoing being said, it appears that the panel erred in finding tweet (4) to be protected speech, rather there was a basis to finding that the student breached Senate By-Law #31. Whether the tweet was merely "uncivil" or was harassment is debatable, but given that the tweet was not part of a debate, was rooted in Ableist assumptions about how disabled persons act, and relied on stereotypical assumptions it's clear that the panel possessed the jurisdiction to address tweet (4).

Normalizing Misogyny: Trivializing Sexual Violence, Slut Shaming, and Rape Culture

In Ontario, students are entitled, as a human right, to an environment that is: free from harassment, that is safe, and that isn't a poisoned environment. In the instant case, there are intersecting forms of oppression at work here in terms of sex, gender, age, and sex-role stereotypes. When one considers the Ontario Human Rights Commission's comments on sexual harassment and education, one finds that the following are forms of sexual harassment: making sex-related comments about a person's actions; making comments about a person's actions; making comments about something because a person does not fit sex-role stereotypes; and, bullying based on sex or gender. I would suggest all the foregoing forms of sexual harassment are present in this case and largely go unaddressed by the panel.

Say it with a cake!

The reasoning of the panel related to tweets (1), (2), and (3) sits at the core of what is problematic with the decision. Starting a paragraph six the decision goes off track and enters some extremely dangerous territory. Consider that: tweet (1) threatens violence ("throw my cellphone") and deploys a highly derogatory term against a female student ("#worthlessbitch"); tweet (2) references and attacks the student's sexual history and implies that she has had multiple sexually transmitted infection ("Not the first time she got an STD"); and, tweet (3) further references the student's sexual history ("Ofcourse she's going to volunteer to spread her legs wide") and deploys yet another derogatory term ("#sluttyhoe").

Curiously, the panel only found that the impugned tweets were "uncivil", rather than harassment or sexual harassment. The panel states that '[n]one of these tweets suggests a course of vexatious comment or conduct. Nor do any of the tweets, taken individually rise to a "serious enough" level to constitute harassment. Indeed, we generally doubt whether a single tweet could ever rise to this level (given the 140 character length), but given the ability to post pictures or link to other sites, we suspect that a scenario could be imagined or arise'. In reaching this decision the panel relies on a problematic earlier decision of the University of Windsor's Judicial Panel, Ontario Human Rights Commission's Policy on Sexual Harassment and Inappropriate Gender Related Comments and Conduct, and the University of Windsor's Human Rights Policy.

It appears that the panel missed a few key developments in Canadian human rights law over the last two decades; particularly, when it comes to what constitutes sexual harassment, what's the test for a single incident triggering the provisions of Ontario's Human Rights Code ("the Code"), and the intersection of social media and human rights.

The panel ignored critical decisions that speak to the nature of harassment and what type of actions constitute sexual harassment. Notably, Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd. goes unreferenced, this is one of the leading decision from the Supreme Court of Canada on sexual harassment. Nor does the panel reference the leading decisions on what constitutes sexual harassment arising from a single incident, consider the following cases: in Romano v. 1577118 Ontario Inc. the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that an employer asking an employee her preferred sexual position constituted a breach of the Code; in Murchie v. JB's Mongolian Grill a breach of the Code was established after a employee had her breast flicked by a co-worker; and, in Haykin v. Roth a breach was found after a real estate agent used the term "hot and wet" in a sexual context to a female client.

Using the reasoning contained in these aforementioned cases it's clear that tweets (1), (2), and (3) clearly constitute sexual harassment and give rise to a poisoned environment. These tweets were highly damaging public facing communications instantly disseminated to a portion of the student population at the University of Windsor that not only threatened violence, but also attacked a student's sexual history/reputation on the basis of utilizing sex-role stereotypes which were sex-related comments.

What the panel has done is essentially declare open season for students to sexually harass other students at the University of Windsor as "uncivil" language will be tolerated to an extent. The panel could have easily sent a strong message that actions that debase member of the campus community on the basis of indelible characteristics and violated human rights norms would not be tolerated, but the panel refused to do this and thereby reinforced the normalization of day-to-day sexual harassment, gender-based patterns of exclusions, and the rape culture that exists at the University of Windsor. My overarching concern here is that through this decision students may be dissuaded from reporting sexual harassment, gender-based violence, or bullying due to the perception that these human rights violations aren't taken seriously by the University of Windsor.

Final Thoughts: the Importance of "Getting it Right" on Human Rights 

Human rights law isn't rocket science, but it is a highly complex area of law that doesn't lend itself very well to dabbling. The panel's decision was ill-considered, rooted in an amateurish understanding of human rights and Charter law, and sets a dangerous new low for the University of Windsor's seeming inability to take prevailing human rights norms seriously.

In utterly butchering a case involving a relatively simple breach of a student's human rights the panel has reinforced the perception that the University of Windsor is simply unable to manage anything related to equality, equity, or human rights. Also, I'm concerned that Danielle Istl, the University of Windsor's internal legal counsel for student misconduct, is unaware of the aforementioned legal decisions referenced in this post as it appears none of them were submitted to the panel for consideration. Going forward it may be prudent for the University of Windsor to retain external legal counsel competent in human rights law to prosecute student misconduct cases where a human rights component exists.

In an era where the human damage arising from sexual harassment and bullying is easily seen these types of situations have to be taken extremely seriously and acted upon. Young people commit suicide with alarming regularity over harassment very similar to the tweets in this case and for far too long educational institutions in Canada have taken the archaic Judeo-Christian "sticks and stones" approach. That's all, I leave you with the Amanda Todd video which sums up nicely why we all need to stand up to sexual harassment, gender-based violence, and bullying, see:

Andrew Pinto's Report on Ontario's Human Rights System Released

A very short post today. The Ministry of the Attorney General has released Andrew Pinto's Report on the Ontario Human Rights Review 2012. There's a lot to wade through in it and I'll probably run an interview with an expert in the field of human rights about the findings in the next month or so. One area that I will highlight are the recommendations regarding the Human Rights Commission, it appears a lot of internal problems exist (for one, they don't have a phone number, seriously) and many recommendations regarding said problems are contained in the report. Here's a video of Osgoode Hall law professor Faisal Bhabha discussing Ontario's human rights system:

Why are law firms addicted to unpaid work?

A recent graduate from a paralegal program recently informed me that Access Legal Services Profession Corporation ("Access Legal"), a North York paralegal firm, had posted an anonymous advertisement on Craigslist soliciting applications from paralegals and legal assistants for a six-month unpaid internship. Access Legal is owned by Thambipillai "Deva" Devendran, a licensed paralegal. The advertisement appears to have been posted by Mary Renuka Selvanathan who is a licensed paralegal and an employee of Access Legal.

Access Legal is a firm that primarily works in the areas of personal injury and disability litigation. The duties that the firm wants the unpaid intern to perform include: administrative tasks, making expense payments, conducting legal research, drafting legal documents, and writing file summaries. The advertisement requests that the person send a cover letter, résumé, and references. Overall this looks very much like a job and decidedly not like a training opportunity.

Thambipillai Devendran

All paralegal students (i.e. students enrolled in a paralegal program at a career college or community college) need to complete at least 120 hours at a work placement as component of their education. This occurs when they are still students and prior to being licensed by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a paralegal. That being said, due to the length of the internship and the language requesting paralegals there no possibility that this advertisement is looking for students. 

In all likelihood this unpaid internship offerred by Access Legal is in contravention of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 ("the ESA") and the associated regulations. Consider the following, the six pronged test under the s. 1(2) of the ESA would most likely be breached as this internship would offend prongs one and three of the test (those dealing with training being similar to a vocational school and the employer deriving little benefit).  While there are two other exclusions, neither s. 3(5)(2) of the ESA relating to students enrolled in post-secondary education would apply (as Access Legal's advertisement is looking for a licensed paralegal), nor would the exclusion enumerated under s. 2(1)(e) of O Reg 285/1  (it only applies to students).

This appears to be a possible case of misclassification with the aim to avoid adhering to the minimum requirements under the ESA (such as minimum wage, vacation pay, and overtime pay). It's troubling to see these sorts of labour practices being deployed by legal professionals and given the growing prevalence of unpaid work the Law Society of Upper Canada should look at regulating a living wage for new lawyers and paralegals. Young workers shouldn't be subjected to rampant exploitation that devalues their work and subjects them to the indignity of indentured servitude. If you're a recent paralegal graduate struggling with unpaid work let me know the labour market you're facing by sending me an email.

Past the Digits: Confronting the McJob Economy

Another month, another set of job numbers from north and south of the border. I thought I'd used the release of this month's figures as a vehicle to engage in a deeper analysis of what's being pushed within the confines of Canada's rarefied political class and offer up a critique about how policy makers are viewing the labour market through a set of rose-coloured glasses. This post examines the numbers, knocks around a mandarin for a little fun, and then considers whether some real policy alternatives might be on the horizon.

171,000 jobs were created in the United States in October 2012, which is a relatively strong showing given the prevailing economic uncertainty The unemployment rate increased from 7.8% to 7.9%; however, this isn't necessarily a bad sign as it would seem to indicate that more people are entering the labour market as the participation rate increases. Contrast the American job creation record with that occurred in Canada where only 1800 jobs were created which is extremely weak. The youth labour market continues to stagnate with the youth unemployment rate at 14.7% and the R8 rate sitting at 17.7% - simply put, there's been no recovery of any consequence for Canada's youth.

Beneath a surface a far more disturbing picture emerges from the longer term trends in Canada's job data. Public sector hiring is masking mounting job losses in the private sector, but this trend isn't sustainable as governments within Canada have drunk the austerity kool-aid and have committed to further structural adjustment programs aimed at slashing the number of public-sector workers. Beyond this, with Canada being an export driven economy the global economic uncertainty there could be further job losses within the already decimated manufacturing sector.

Tiff Macklem, the Bank of Canada's Senior Deputy Governor, recently misled the public when he painted a rosy picture of a strong labour market recovery in the wake of the financial crisis. Armine Yalnizyan, the CCPA's senior economist, attacks the official storyline advanced by Macklem and Canada's political class by exposing how real wages are actually declining and newly hired young workers face a low-wage reality where they can expect 40% less than the average wage.

Now why are young workers job prospects not neatly lining up with the spurious Canada's Economic Action Plan propaganda? It be might because we're importing low-wage, no benefits Irish or Chinese workers to steal jobs from young Canadians. It could be due to explicit support for two-tiered entitlement schemes from union leaders and conservative politicians. Or perhaps the regulatory failure that has occurred within the youth labour market where governments have absolved themselves from addresses pernicious rise of unpaid work. In reality it's all the aforementioned factors and a great many more that are hobbling the prospects of young workers in Canada.

But where's the response from government? Well, there isn't one. Despite a sizeable and growing amount of research that points out the gospel of neoliberalism is robbing a generation of any notion of economic security there has been an absolute dearth of any concrete policy alternatives within mainstream discourse within Canada's political class; however, this facade may be starting to crack slightly. Last week there was an interesting, albeit shallow, article in the Globe and Mail discussing the problems within Canada's youth labour market; furthermore, Rick Salutin, a columnist with the Toronto Star, wrote a highly critical editorial yesterday pointing out our failing approach to dealing with the school to labour market transition.

What's sorely needed are public policy approaches that combat the growing precarity, rising income inequality, widespread economic insecurity, and a lack of control that defines the lived experience of many Canadians (particularly youth in their 20s and 30s). Guy Standing, one of my favourite theorists, sketches what a progressive agenda might look like in his highly recommended book The Precariat. In the final chapter of the book he advances an agenda premised on freedom and basic security that calls for concrete action to address the maldistribution of income, the creation of a politics of time, regrowing the commons, control of knowledge, and real access to financial capital.

We exist in a different world than the one existed in the past, the worst thing that could happen would be to go back to the old norm. This old style thinking was partially on display in Justin Trudeau's first foray into public policy this week when he addresses the hollowing out of the "middle class", but it also contained some references to precarious position of youth via references to part-time jobs, stagnating wages, and rising income inequality. Whether Mr. Trudeau falls into the trap of calling for a return of the "good ole' days" or takes the more difficult (but necessary) route of addressing the needs of the growing Canadian precariat remains to be seen, but regardless there's a small modicum of relief to see that at least two of the major political parties finally paying at least lip service to the realities of the new economy. That's all I have for now. Finally, take a peek at this video of Guy Standing lecturing about the precariat, see:

Some Updates Regarding Internships

Just a brief post on the topic of unpaid internships in Canada. A couple weeks back I spoke at the Will Work For Exposure conference at Ryerson University's Centre for Labour Management Relations. I was on a panel discussing unpaid internships and from all reports everyone enjoyed the discussion that occurred. Below I've posted a video of my portion of the talk, in the video I discuss the rising threat from unpaid internships to the stability of the labour market and what can be done to stem the rise of precarious work in Canada's labour markets.

There's been a fair amount of response in the blogosphere to the panel and I've culled some of the coverage. The Canadian Media Guild posted an article entitled "Unpaid Internships: a boon or a bane".  Belinda Alzner wrote an article that I really enjoyed due to the attention she pays to the personal impact from interning, see: "Internships and the intersection of class struggle and opportunity". Storyboard.ca published an article entitled "Experience or exploitation? Conference ramps up debate on unpaid internships". The Work Beat blog has an interesting post entitled "Will Sew for Reference". Here's my favourite post simply for the pure vitriol towards the concept of unpaid labour targeting youth, see: "The Myth of Unpaid Internships".

Finally, I'm happy to report that my research has been judicially referenced for the first time! Justice Pierre Archambault of the Tax Court of Canada referred to my work on unpaid internships in his decision in Chabaud v. La Reine. Needless to say I'm pretty thrilled and hope that other judges will soon be utilizing my research in their cases.

If anyone has any feedback then please leave a comment below or drop me an email. Here's the video of my talk at the conference, see: