Bob Barnetson

Bloody Lucky: the careless worker myth in Alberta, Canada

Abstract As the Canadian province of Alberta has adopted neoliberal prescriptions for government, it has increasingly attributed workplace injuries to worker carelessness. Blaming workers for their injuries appears to be part of a broader strategy (which includes under-reporting injury levels and masking ineffective state enforcement with public condemnation of injurious work) to contain the potential political consequences associated with unsafe workplaces. This reflects the state’s sometimes conflicting goals of maintaining the production process and the political legitimacy of the government and the capitalist social formation. This case study considers the political dynamics of occupational health and safety in Alberta to understand the escalating use of the careless worker myth over time. Alberta’s emphasis on employer self-regulation has resulted in a large number of annual workplace injuries. The 2008 “Bloody Lucky” safety awareness campaign intensified this attribution of blame via gory videos aimed at young workers. This case study examines the validity of this attribution to reveal that this campaign provides workers, particularly young workers, with inaccurate information about injury causation, which may impede their ability and motivation to mitigate workplace risks.

The Construction of Migrant Work and Workers by Alberta Legislators, 2000-2011

This paper uses narrative analysis to explore how Alberta government Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) “constructed” migrant work and migrant workers in legislature and media statements between 2000 and 2011. Government MLAs asserted that migrant work (1) was economically necessary and (2) posed no threat to Canadian workers. Government MLAs also asserted that international migrant workers (3) had questionable occupational, linguistic or cultural skills and (4) caused negative social and economic impacts in Canada. Taken individually, these narratives appear contradictory, casting migrant work as good but migrant workers as bad. Viewed together, these narratives comprise an effort to dehumanize temporary and permanent international migrant workers. This (sometimes racialized) “othering” of migrant workers justifies migrant workers’ partial citizenship and suppresses criticism of their poor treatment.Cet article utilise l’analyse narrative pour explorer comment les membres du gouvernement de l’Assemblée législative de l’Alberta (députés) ont « construit » le travail des migrants et des travailleurs migrants avec leur déclarations dans la législature et les médias entre 2000 et 2011. Les députés du gouvernement ont affirmé que le travail migrant (1) était nécessaire économiquement et (2) ne représentait aucune menace pour les travailleurs canadiens. Les députés du gouvernement ont également affirmé que les travailleurs migrants internationaux (3) avaient des compétences professionnelles, linguistiques ou culturelles douteuse et (4) avaient des impacts négatifs sociaux et économiques au Canada. Pris individuellement, ces récits semblent contradictoires, décrivant le travail migrant comme bon, mais les travailleurs migrants comme mauvais. Prises ensemble, ces récits constituent un effort pour déshumaniser les travailleurs migrants internationaux temporaires et permanents. Cette « altérisation » (parfois racialisé) des travailleurs migrants justifie la citoyenneté partielle des travailleurs migrants et supprime la critique de leur mauvais traitement.

Framing and blaming: construction of workplace injuries by legislators in Alberta, Canada

Abstract Background: Legislators in the Canadian province of Alberta have successfully resisted pressure to increase state injury-prevention efforts. Objectives: This study seeks to identify the narratives used by legislators to manage political pressure for increased injury-prevention efforts. Methods: Narrative analysis of legislative transcripts from 2000 to 2012. Results: Three narratives are identified in the data: (1) injuries are caused by ignorance and inattention, (2) workplaces are safe and getting safer, and (3) risk is inevitable and mitigation is (too) expensive. Each narrative has 2–4 subcomponents. Conclusions: The consistency of the messages delivered by legislators over time suggests an intentional effort to frame workplace injury in ways that manage political pressure for greater state efforts to prevent workplace injuries while maintaining the government’s legitimacy. The narratives used by legislators draw on widely held beliefs about workplace injuries, including the careless worker myth and the notion that safety pays.

Fear Factory: Retaliation and Rights Claiming in Alberta, Canada:

Fear of retaliation poses a significant barrier to workers exercising their employment rights and claiming statutory benefits. This study of 2000 workers in the western Canadian province of Alberta found modest overall levels of worker fear (16%) of retaliation. Much higher fear levels (>40%) are reported in the most dangerous workplaces. Fear levels also escalated as the exercise of rights became more active, concrete, and potentially costly and disruptive for the employer. Workers who did not claim workers’ compensation benefits or refuse unsafe work flagged fear of retaliation as a significant factor. These findings raise serious questions about the effectiveness of making workers primarily responsible for triggering the enforcement of employment rights.

Dead quiet in the hinterlands: the construction of workplace injuries in western Canadian newspapers, 2009–2014

ABSTRACT Media reports profoundly misrepresent the nature of workplace injuries and fatalities in Canada. This study uses a new dataset comprising 409 urban and rural newspaper reports in western Canada to confirm the over-representation of fatalities, injuries to men, acute physical injuries, and injuries in blue-collar occupations found in earlier exploratory work. This misleading social construction of injuries may skew public policy and management decision-making about injury prevention. The study also confirms the existence of three key media frames: injuries are “under investigation,” “human tragedies,” and “before the court.” Together, these frames cast workplace injuries as isolated events that happen to “others” for which no one is responsible (except maybe the worker), thereby suggesting that the public need not be concerned about workplace safety. Contrary to expectations, no significant differences were found between the reporting of urban and rural newspapers.

“Fortis Et Liber” Unless You Are a Farm Worker

Precarious employment entails both a heightened risk of injury and a greater likelihood of exclusion from statutory injury-compensation schemes. The contrasting cases of workers’ compensation entitlements among firefighters and farm workers in the anti-union Canadian province of Alberta provide a preliminary insight into how issue framing can be used to gain mandatory workers’ compensation coverage for workers. In addition to careful and timely critiques of legislator justifications, farm-worker advocates may be able to (a) generate shared framings among farm workers and farmers by creating a credible liability threat, (b) leverage preferential workers’ compensation access accorded to noncitizens into policy change, (c) challenge the constitutionality of the exclusion, and (d) trigger a framing process among farm workers via social media to increase pressure on legislators. These strategies offer a way to undermine the interlocking interests of farmers, politicians, and agribusiness that constrain efforts to achieve broad statutory inclusion of farm workers and achieve greater access to workers’ compensation benefits for them.