[mabbo]

I don't understand how this strategy works. Company A doesn't want to hire employees because employees have rights. Instead, they hire temps from Company B who abuses their employees' rights.

Why doesn't the government start policing the abuse of rights by Company B? Why doesn't the government pass laws that acknowledge that these employees are truly employees of Company A?

[xroche]

> Company A doesn't want to hire employees because employees have rights. Instead, they hire temps from Company B who abuses their employees' rights

See also related (and discussed on here if I am not mistaken): To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider the Janitors at Two Top Companies, Then and Now (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/03/upshot/to-understand-risi...)

Even companies that do not want to abuse their employees' rights do it at the end for all externalized jobs (cleaning or food related jobs, especially)

[rpeden]

Due to this report by the Star, that's exactly what is happening:

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/09/11/temp-work...

Good investigative journalism can light a fire under companies and politicians pretty quickly when it makes them look bad.

[URSpider94]

Read up on the concept of "moral hazard." These temp companies are small entities, often run out of homes. If you go after them, they'll simply liquidate and fold up shop. Small entities have an advantage in highly regulated environments, because the most they can lose is 100% of their assets, while they stand to gain many multiples of that. Incorporation laws prevent owners from being liable for the debts of the corporation, in most cases, so in the event of a failure, the owners dust themselves off and move on to the next.

Large corporations love to outsource risky/dangerous/questionable activities to small firms who are willing to gamble.

[njarboe]

Hazardous waste disposal companies are also small for the same reason.

[erikb]

Ignoring all the other things mentioned in comments, just assuming the simple case where Company B fully hires the employees. It's still an "advantage" for the bosses, because if things go wrong you can close Company B without much impact on the business of Company A. They just create Company C and continue.

[Asooka]

First, as stated in the article Company B practically doesn't exist and if it gets closed, it can reappear as Company C next door. Second, because the people writing these laws didn't envision such greed and now there's too much lobbying money thrown around.

[mabbo]

> now there's too much lobbying money thrown around

But this is Canada! We have strict political donation laws and campaign spending laws that really prevent lobbying from getting nuts like it is in America.

I'm mostly upset because this is in my back yard. I could be at this factory in 20 minutes in current traffic conditions.

[rtkwe]

Even with laws like that large companies have a lot of advantages in lobbying for laws. First it's much easier for a large company to get lobbyists because they have the money to hire them where workers and worker rights groups have smaller purses to draw from. Second the things companies lobby for have nice big metrics they can trot out, profitability, GDP or job growth, etc where improving working conditions for industry X doesn't have a nice big number you can trot out or even really benefits everyone in a way they can appreciate where the pro-business side can draw more direct 'regulation X killed this many jobs last year, repeal it and we swear we won't be evil.'

[forinti]

Exactly. Some of these companies don't even have any capital. If Company A withholds payment one week, they can't pay their employees. Capitalism without capital! They are best classified as leeches.

[pjc50]

Temps are usually not employees of company B, they will be contractors where B are operating as an "agency". If you look at the paperwork everyone involved will be "self-employed"

> pass laws that acknowledge that these employees are truly employees of Company A?

It's hard to draft this without completely ruling out even legitimate temp jobs. Does working at the factory for a week make you an employee? How about for a day, or an hour?

[sunir]

There already is a degree of control test for false contractors.

Who controls the persons time? Who controls their work? Who supplie equipment? Is there an opportunity for profit or loss? Do they have the right to subcontract? etc

[toopok4k3]

Yes.

[gadders]

I'm a self-employed IT Contractor. I actively don't want to be an employee.

[chrisseaton]

If you hire a plumber to do a job in your home for an hour is he now your employee?

[toopok4k3]

No.

There are clear differences on who is responsible here. We can expect a factory to be always responsible over their area as it is a larger entity and doing business and we expect them to be experts and be in control of their own domain. We can expect them to be responsible over their non skilled labourers.

A plumber is the expert in this case and he controls his domain while you are just a dumb customer.

[chrisseaton]

That's why it's not simple - you've got lots of things open to debate there - who is skilled or unskilled, who is a business, who is a 'larger' entity, who is the expert. That's why it's more complicated than just saying 'yes' with an emphatic full stop.

[toopok4k3]

Then start defining those into laws. I think my country already has those defined pretty well thanks to strong unions.

You'll never get there if you don't even start.

[m12k]

Because the government has been hi-jacked by an anti-government party?

[djrogers]

This is partisan politicizing at it's worst. The practices at this facility have been going on for decades, through many governments. It's a failure of government pure and simple, and blaming it on one side or the other does nothing to help.

[ranit]

In Canada?