COMMENTARY: Not recreating the wheel no reason pay equity legislation hasn’t moved forward in NL – Saltwire

I dont own to knowing much, but if there is one truth Ive gleaned from nine years of post-secondary academics (engineering, public policy, and law if were being annoying about it): if someones making something sound complicated, its either because they dont understand it much themselves, or theyre incentivized for you to lose interest.

So when reading the comments on the long-awaited gender equity pay legislation for the province, I became endlessly curious about which of the former it was: a general lack of fundamental understanding by these politicians, or an objective to push off the public interest?

P.E.I. recently announced their pay transparency legislation to take effect June 1. While it is not technically their pay equity legislation (as that came into effect, like many other provinces in, like, oh, you know, 1988) it does do a lot with what appears to be a little and adds to the existing framework.

The legislation basically mirrors that of other provinces: requiring companies to post salaries when publicly advertising jobs and prohibiting companies from asking potential job seekers past salary information or salary expectations. It also prohibits employers from lashing out against employees who ask for pay raises or initiate discussions around pay. Thats it. Its like a few additional lines of text in the, what, entire Employment Standards Act of the province.

What it does, though, is really interesting it puts the onus back on employers to publicize pay information and reduces the ability of companies to exploit workers who may accept less (statistically, women and other minority workers) for a similar job that would normally pay more.

Like nearly all policies meant to benefit equity groups, pay equity/pay transparency legislation actually benefits everyone (at least all workers), as most studies show that pay secrecy is how you lose out on making the most you could in your position. If companies are forced to publicize job salaries on postings, everyone is able to keep a healthy understanding of their specific value to a company and have the data to demand more without penalization.

You may think, "Shucks, if we want to see how that turns out, well have to wait a little while and see if its effective." Except we dont need to because were the fourth (potentially third, at the rate B.C. is going) last province to enact such legislation. P.E.I.s new policies are virtually the same as Ontarios existing legislation.

For those of you with actual interest, Im sure the thought of reading legislation is sleep-inducing (which is a healthy response). However, as someone who has read more legislation and statutes than the average person, I can promise you it is all quite largely the same. And why wouldnt it be? Effective policy is often proven policy. Transferable legislation helps with interprovincial matters.

The MHAs are talking about this legislation like were playing some game of complex Operation and if we use the wrong word in line 2 sub (b), the buzzer goes off and our chance at gender equity is over. But thats bananas and a complete either misunderstanding of their jobs or an attempt to distract us from how unnervingly straightforward these policies are, especially with the legislation in use and well understood in almost every other province.

This is far from me saying the legislation thats out there right now is perfect but you cant adjust what doesnt exist. You misserve everyone by not having any protection while we collectively work through optimizations.

Every statute goes through multiple edits once in place some multiple times a year over often decades of modifications. Such is the cycle of life (and, of course, politics).

To suggest that the MHAs of this province cant even agree to add some words encoding a right of workers to know how much money they might make on a job or protecting them with a process if theyre being exploited is incredibly concerning. (Almost as concerning as the completely-serious comment made by elected officials that there are still pay gaps in provinces that have pay equity legislation, somehow conveniently leaving out that most of the provinces without pay equity legislation have the highest pay gap. Come on.)

I think my naivety shows through in my ability to remain impressed at those constantly weaving a fable about making hoverboards only to have somehow pulled back the curtain to (ta-da!) a reinvented wheel.

Again.

To suggest that the MHAs of this province cant even agree to add some words encoding a right of workers to know how much money they might make on a job or protecting them with a process if theyre being exploited is incredibly concerning.

I know at a critical academic even level, public policy must be adapted to the environment to which it is applied. True, evidence-driven public policy takes proven fundamentals from other jurisdictions and engages with local stakeholders, runs variables, and edits what is necessary to ensure positive outcomes are demonstrated when applied in the intended environment.

However, were not talking about something that is jurisdiction driven were merely demanding people get paid the same for the same work. Were asking that be put in writing so those who find themselves in situations where that isnt the case have the power to protect themselves, their co-workers, their families, from that inequity. That there are mechanisms for them to make that fight possible.

The only way we can accept that as a jurisdiction-based issue is if we suggest that women or other equity groups in Newfoundland and Labrador matter less than those in P.E.I. or Ontario or, comparatively, if the companies in N.L. matter more than its people. This is certainly not a complex issue I'm not even sure how the government has managed to frame it as a divisive one.

I will leave us with this thought: starting in 1991, the N.L. government fought its people tooth and nail, bringing a case all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, to avoid paying its people (a subdivision of unionized women) equal pay, in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They asked the Supreme Court to state these women deserved to be paid inequitably from others in their fields. The N.L. governments argument was they just simply couldnt pay them; the province would go bankrupt. The government asked that these women of our province be denied a right under the Constitution.

The Supreme Court allowed it (years later the back pay was issued).

That was over 30 years ago. We have seen economic busts since then, sure, but we have also seen economic booms. We did not stop to repay those women by ensuring none would suffer quietly the same fate as those who suffered it so publicly.

We did not stop and check-in to ensure an ongoing safekeeping of our neighbours during those times of wellbeing. Is this the history we desire to leave of our province?

This question of do we deserve basic pay equity and pay transparency legislation is so soundly an all of us question. The only them who lose are the corporations who are profiting off the gap between wages, and the silence on discussing wage earnings publicly.

It is shameful that there is a narrative being encouraged that others those who are asking merely for a safeguard against oppression or abuse of power. It is embarrassing that we are dragging our feet against protecting each other. But the one thing I can confidently say is it is not complicated: so it merely, apparently, interferes with some other interests.

Which begs the question whose interest are these elected officials more concerned about than the people of this province?

Lori Wareham is from Mount Pearl, N.L. She has a background in graduate-level gender-based public policy research with an interest in diversity and equity in employment law. She was recently called to the bar in Nova Scotia and is now commencing a clerkship in Ottawa.

Link:

COMMENTARY: Not recreating the wheel no reason pay equity legislation hasn't moved forward in NL - Saltwire