COVID-19: Showing Social Safety Net's Weaknesses & Low-Wage Worker Struggles - Essay Sample

Introduction

The readings “How COVID-19 has exposed holes in our social safety net by King and, “Flexibility for who? Working time, the Ontario Employment Standards Act, and the experiences of workers in low-wage and precarious jobs” by Thomas, looks at the difficulties that working-class people face because of the various changes in the organization and implementation of work is organized and implementations of new forms of employment relationships. King and Thomas, in their articles, refer to labor policy in practice to show the various changes that have had an impact on workers; one example of such policy is the Employment Standards Act (ESA). So how do these changes affect employees? In this paper, I analyze these two readings illustrating how the two writers present their employment standards analysis and how changes to the ESA can sometimes be either harmful or beneficial to employees.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Analysis of Employment Standards

The article by King looks at how the coronavirus pandemic has exposed all the things wrong with the social safety net of Canada. In his analysis, there is no enough protection of workers; the employment standards that exist are not sufficient enough in protecting the wellbeing of the typical employee. He goes on to state how, in the 1970s, the EL was at its strongest, but then overhauled over time; he states, “Fewer than half of unemployed workers now receive benefits. Onerous eligibility criteria and low wage replacement rate of 55 percent up to a maximum of insurable earnings make the program a shell of its former self.” (King, 2020).

According to King, sometimes changes are made to the employment standards for the benefit of employees, but this does not always turn out to be the outcome; this is the case with Ontario’s ESA, where an amendment was made. He claims that “…has amended the ESA during the pandemic to allow emergency leave related to COVID-19. But because this leave is unpaid, the ability of low-wage workers to take it is limited” (King, 2020); in this case, based on King’s analysis, I can say that changes to the ESA can sometimes be beneficial to employees and sometimes harmful.

A quote by Mark Thomas differentiates between employer-oriented Flexibility and employee-oriented Flexibility. The latter seeks Flexibility in work arrangements to better balance paid work with others. The employer prioritizes the removal of legal regulations, the reduction of labor costs, and the removal of union-negotiated work rules and benefits. In his article, Thomas puts forward an analysis of the management of working time in the Ontario ESA, focusing more on excess and overtime hours. As is in King’s article, Thomas claims that changes to the ESA have been more harmful than beneficial, he claims that “The manifestations of working time flexibility provisions within the Ontario ESA have produced a regulatory framework that enhances employer control over working time.” (Thomas et al. 2020). He goes on to say that because the whole process of establishing excess hours has been individualized, “the capacity for workers to control their working day is weakened due to the employer-employee power imbalance.” (Thomas et al. 2020). By this, he implies that, changes to the ESA can be beneficial, but it is not always the case.

Conclusion

From the two analysis by King and Thomas, I can be concluded that changes to the employment standards are far more harmful to the worker than they are beneficial. However, I do believe that the employment standards should be reviewed, putting more consideration on the employee rather than the employer. They should then be changed, and no more changes were done to it. The same should be the case with ESA.