 South African firefighters leaving Alberta after strike over payMisc CDN | 206881 hits | Jun 09 3:29 pm | Posted by: N_Fiddledog  Three hundred South African firefighters on loan to Alberta will be packing up and leaving after only a week on the job, following a strike over the terms of their payment.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
They should get better than what they signed on for. We should be paying them what we pay our own people for this service.
True. Still, they signed a contract, and $50 a day is pretty good money in SA.
"I can say right now that every hour that every firefighter from South Africa -- or anywhere else -- has worked on these fires will be compensated in accordance with our laws in this province," Notley said.
And another story:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... -1.3625499
It sounds like they were to be paid the same as any other firefighter, 70% of he wages would be held back until they arrived back in SA, which is what caused them to strike. Seems to be more an internal dispute with their SA employer than anything to do with Alberta.
I'm betting it's due to them knowing that they would never receive that withheld 70%.
They should get better than what they signed on for. We should be paying them what we pay our own people for this service.
True. Still, they signed a contract, and $50 a day is pretty good money in SA.
WTF? Minimum wage in Alberta is $11.20 an hour or $89.60 for an eight hour day. Any contract specifiying less should be illegal, right?
Then how the hell is it fair to pay these guys less just because they're from SA?
They were to be paid their usual SA wage, plus $50 a day out of country stipend. This is what they agreed to before leaving SA. I guess once they came here and realized what the locals were making, they didn't think it was such a good deal anymore.
Now that I have this clear in my mind, Notley should have investigated this contract and made sure the workers were paid according to Alberta laws.
https://twitter.com/wo_fire
They were to be paid their usual SA wage, plus $50 a day out of country stipend. This is what they agreed to before leaving SA. I guess once they came here and realized what the locals were making, they didn't think it was such a good deal anymore.
Now that I have this clear in my mind, Notley should have investigated this contract and made sure the workers were paid according to Alberta laws.
This would be illegal in California.
But, with an NDP govt that pushes for fair wages, they should have investigated the contract and made sure the men would be paid a fair wage by our standards. As I said before, these guys would have had a human rights complaint if Notley hadn't stepped up and said she will make things right.
https://twitter.com/wo_fire
They were to be paid their usual SA wage, plus $50 a day out of country stipend. This is what they agreed to before leaving SA. I guess once they came here and realized what the locals were making, they didn't think it was such a good deal anymore.
Now that I have this clear in my mind, Notley should have investigated this contract and made sure the workers were paid according to Alberta laws.
This would be illegal in California.
I'm not a lawyer, but I did take some contract law in Engineering. The contract the firefighters signed, was signed in South Africa, so the laws of South Africa apply.
The contract that South Africa signed with Alberta would be subject to the jurisdiction that the contract stipulates.
Does that make it right? No, but then again no one forced them to sign the contract. Like the CBC article states, the $50 a day is on top of their wage, so another $350 a week makes their take home nearly double their regular pay.
But it's not right, so good for Notley for stepping up. The deal shouldn't have been signed in the first place.
I'm not a lawyer, but I did take some contract law in Engineering. The contract the firefighters signed, was signed in South Africa, so the laws of South Africa apply.
The contract that South Africa signed with Alberta would be subject to the jurisdiction that the contract stipulates.
Does that make it right? No, but then again no one forced them to sign the contract. Like the CBC article states, the $50 a day is on top of their wage, so another $350 a week makes their take home nearly double their regular pay.
Under California law it doesn't matter where your contract was signed or where your employer is home-based. All that matters is that if you physically work in California you're under California's jurisdiction. Period.
I ran into this on my first IT job (2001) with a company that was based out of Washington state. They didn't pay us overtime on our mandatory 10-12 hour working days because Washington state law didn't require it.
I called the California Labor Commission who brought down the wrath of a vengeful God upon my employer for this and a myriad of other violations. I ended up getting back pay plus triple damages and so did about 400 other people.
Two of the managers were personally fined for violations that they continued to make after the Labor Commission told them to knock it off. That was pretty sweet.
That said, I'm surprised that anywhere in Canada would be more permissive than California on such matters.
I'm not a lawyer, but I did take some contract law in Engineering. The contract the firefighters signed, was signed in South Africa, so the laws of South Africa apply.
The contract that South Africa signed with Alberta would be subject to the jurisdiction that the contract stipulates.
Does that make it right? No, but then again no one forced them to sign the contract. Like the CBC article states, the $50 a day is on top of their wage, so another $350 a week makes their take home nearly double their regular pay.
Under California law it doesn't matter where your contract was signed or where your employer is home-based. All that matters is that if you physically work in California you're under California's jurisdiction. Period.
I ran into this on my first IT job (2001) with a company that was based out of Washington state. They didn't pay us overtime on our mandatory 10-12 hour working days because Washington state law didn't require it.
I called the California Labor Commission who brought down the wrath of a vengeful God upon my employer for this and a myriad of other violations. I ended up getting back pay plus triple damages and so did about 400 other people.
Two of the managers were personally fined for violations that they continued to make after the Labor Commission told them to knock it off. That was pretty sweet.
That said, I'm surprised that anywhere in Canada would be more permissive than California on such matters.
I did a 'deep dive' into Alberta Labour laws, and IT workers (and medical personelle) are exempt from some parts of them because of irregular working hours. When I was working for IBM, they tried to weasel us out of overtime pay as well because the labour laws exclude IT workers from the section that says you must be given 8 consecutive hours off between shifts. But the law summary is poorly worded on their website, so that it implies IT workers are exempt from all sections, including the part about overtime pay.
The legislation is more clear on what the exemptions are.
Managers, supervisors and those employed in a confidential capacity;
Farm workers;
Professionals, including agrologists, architects, certified or chartered accountants, chiropractors, dentists, denturists, engineers, information systems professionals, lawyers, students-at-law, optometrists, podiatrists, psychologists and veterinarians;
Salespersons of automobiles, trucks, buses, farm machinery, road construction
equipment, heavy duty equipment, manufactured homes or residential homes;
Salespersons who solicit orders, principally outside of the employer’s place of business, who are fully or partly paid by commission (this does not apply to route salespersons);
Licensed salespersons of real estate and securities;
Licensed insurance salespersons who are paid entirely by commission income;
Salespersons who are at least 16 years old and are engaged in direct selling for licensed direct sellers;
Licensed land agents;
Extras in a film or video production;
Counselors or instructors at an educational or recreational camp that is operated on a charitable or not-for-profit basis for children, persons with disabilities, or religious purposes; and
Domestic employees (these employees are exempt only from sections 16 and 17 of the
Code concerning hours of work and notice of work times, but not from rest periods).
https://work.alberta.ca/documents/Overt ... me-Pay.pdf
Where the legislation says:
(o) an information systems professional, being an employee who is primarily engaged in the investigation, analysis, design, development, implementation, operation or management of information systems based on computer and related technologies through the objective application of specialized knowledge and professional judgment,
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page= ... splay=html
And yes, most everywhere in Canada is more permissive than California. Not on things like 'right to work', but on things like time between shifts and overtime vs time-in-lieu. When I worked cutting meat, my employer would schedule me midnight - 8am 4 days a week, then 2pm to 10pm on Sunday. Monday and Thursday off. Perfectly legal. Totally slimy.