I absolutely despise temporary work visas. All new Canadians should flow through the regular immigration process - tying residency to a specific position gives the employer immense power over the temporary worker and erodes the power of other employees.
Conservatives bitch and moan about immigration in general but TFW programs are the real driver to devalue employee power.
Conservatives bitch and moan about immigration in general but TFW programs are the real driver to devalue employee power.
Conservative voters bitch and moan. Conservative donors and conservative politicians make sympathetic noises, but when they’re on the record the won’t actually say they’ll do a goddamn thing about immigration. Listen to what Poillevre actually says, rather than what his fanbase hears: he never actually says he’ll cut immigration, only that “immigration will reflect the needs of the Canadian economy”.
There should at minimum be a 6-12 month float after termination where there is zero change to residency obligations compared to when they were employed. That would allow the worker to seek other employment locally
That is a fair sounding consideration - I think we’d want to look at the knock on effects but it doesn’t sound terrible as a compromise… in general though, having a separate system for temporary work just lowers worker empowerment.
The TFW program needs major reform to make it not remotely cost competitive with hiring local. There should be 3 scenarios that all these companies fall under: 1. Bring in someone temporarily while local training is underway (this should be the most attractive route). 2. The work assignment is shorter than the amount of training required, the requirement is legitimately so specific that training isn’t practicable, or any other short term temporary requirement (this should be so expensive that it will be an actual last resort and can’t possibly undercut anyone local). or 3. If the person is so crucial to your day to day operations they should be sponsored for permanent residency.
Why not put the onus on the employer? Have them commit to a fixed term where they’ll be responsible for paying this person, regardless if they want to terminate their employment. You could add your floating grace period to it as well.
Overall I think there needs to be major reform in the program, beyond this. We should be making the TFW program more burdensome on employers, both to encourage investment in relevant local education/training as well as protecting those who are recruited from being exploited.
I absolutely despise temporary work visas. All new Canadians should flow through the regular immigration process - tying residency to a specific position gives the employer immense power over the temporary worker and erodes the power of other employees.
Conservatives bitch and moan about immigration in general but TFW programs are the real driver to devalue employee power.
Conservative voters bitch and moan. Conservative donors and conservative politicians make sympathetic noises, but when they’re on the record the won’t actually say they’ll do a goddamn thing about immigration. Listen to what Poillevre actually says, rather than what his fanbase hears: he never actually says he’ll cut immigration, only that “immigration will reflect the needs of the Canadian economy”.
Which means let’er rip!!
It’s ridiculous and clearly used as a way of exploiting people.
If the work is temporary, the visa shouldn’t be. These workers should all be welcome to relocate here whenever they want.
There should at minimum be a 6-12 month float after termination where there is zero change to residency obligations compared to when they were employed. That would allow the worker to seek other employment locally
That is a fair sounding consideration - I think we’d want to look at the knock on effects but it doesn’t sound terrible as a compromise… in general though, having a separate system for temporary work just lowers worker empowerment.
The TFW program needs major reform to make it not remotely cost competitive with hiring local. There should be 3 scenarios that all these companies fall under: 1. Bring in someone temporarily while local training is underway (this should be the most attractive route). 2. The work assignment is shorter than the amount of training required, the requirement is legitimately so specific that training isn’t practicable, or any other short term temporary requirement (this should be so expensive that it will be an actual last resort and can’t possibly undercut anyone local). or 3. If the person is so crucial to your day to day operations they should be sponsored for permanent residency.
Why not put the onus on the employer? Have them commit to a fixed term where they’ll be responsible for paying this person, regardless if they want to terminate their employment. You could add your floating grace period to it as well.
Overall I think there needs to be major reform in the program, beyond this. We should be making the TFW program more burdensome on employers, both to encourage investment in relevant local education/training as well as protecting those who are recruited from being exploited.
I see what you’re saying. Some sort of unemployment stipend or guaranteed severance in addition to the residency grace period would be ideal