rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Making workers' health a public concern

Image: ComplianceAndSafety/Flickr

Canadian workers and their families gave up their right to sue employers for workplace-related injury, illness or death many decades ago. In exchange, they agreed to the transfer of the power and resources to maintain healthy and safe worksites, and to provide just compensation for workplace deaths and injuries, to various provincial and federal bodies in an implied social contract. Later, occupational health and safety rights were enshrined in legislation across the country.

These rights represented the culmination of decades of struggle by workers and their unions for safer workplaces. Most legislation was brought in during the 1970s, when union power was at its zenith. At the time, workers were optimistic that regulations would be complied with and enforced. But, workers are not being protected by this arrangement; instead, appallingly unsafe conditions are being hidden away from the public's view, and workers have been left with little or no power to ensure their health and safety at work.

The social contract that bound workers and their employers no longer works. It must be renegotiated. In this era of deregulation and funding squeezes on government regulatory programs, there isn't adequate monitoring and enforcement. Yet workers have no power to act on their own behalf. Unhealthy hazardous exposures and other travesties are framed as "covered by WHMIS" (Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System), so there's no need for the public to know about them or be concerned. But, unless we turn occupational health and safety issues into public health issues that demand everyone's concern and participation, we will make little headway in negotiating a new social contract for workers.

The Three Rs, with sass

More on this, but first a history of the "Three Rs:" the right to know, the right to participate, and the right to refuse unsafe work. (Also, the right to no discrimination for raising the issues.)

In the '70s in Canada, the father of the Three Rs was Bob Sass. With a brilliant mind and wit, and an unforgettable character, Sass is the New York City-born son of an Eastern European immigrant, a socialist who founded the Queens and Brooklyn local of the window washers' union, which later merged with the Service Employees International Union. (For more information on Bob Sass and the right-to-know occupational health and safety movement in Canada, see Doug Smith's excellent book Consulted to Death: How Canada's Workplace Health and Safety System Fails Workers.)

Sass worked as a window washer for 12 years while obtaining a degree in English and philosophy from the City University of New York. After graduation he went to work as an organizer for the local municipal workers' union, and then became education and research director for the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. He continued his academic work, gaining a degree in industrial relations and becoming Cornell University's director of labour education.

Information is not power

In 1969, Sass moved to Canada to teach at the University of Saskatchewan and, when the New Democrats under Alan Blakeney won the 1971 election, he was quickly appointed to head the government's mediation and industrial relations branch. Two years later he was promoted to associate deputy minister of labour and given responsibility for overseeing Saskatchewan's health and safety laws.

Sass's gospel of the Three Rs set people on fire. Workers could not rely on employers or governments to look after their health and safety. They had to do it themselves. The Three Rs gave them the tools to do this. But Sass's vision of the right to participate went far beyond the right to be a member of a joint health and safety committee, recommendations from which could be rejected by management because they were too costly, or because management simply chose to ignore them. Sass envisioned these rights as empowering workers to have democratic input into how their workplace was designed, the pace of work, as well as into exposures to hazardous chemicals.

Sass became critical of the right to know. Sure this right might provide workers with information about the safety of workplace products and practices. But what could they do about it? "They need the information," Sass said, "but information isn't power. Information is information. Power is power."

Advocates without power

Having the Three Rs meant that workers and committees, at best, would become quasi-regulators but without the power to impose fines, undertake remedial actions, or require employers or authorities to undertake such actions, let alone have the power to democratize the workplace.

Joint health and safety committees could be strong advocates, but they are advisory only. They have no power. Any worker will tell you that when you are in a recession, your shopfloor power goes down the drain. Now, after nearly four decades of the Three Rs, employers still control the workplace. The Big R, the right of management to manage, prevails. And cutting enforcement and "red-tape" is all part of the long-term, well-orchestrated strategy to undermine democracy in the name of the market, further weakening the fragile system of protection workers and their unions worked so hard to achieve over many decades.

So, how can workers re-establish their right to protect themselves from exposure to hazardous chemicals? How can they have a real say in important health and safety issues?

Workers' health above the bottom line

Certainly, more careful academic research needs to be done to document exposures, disease and other injuries. And, yes, unions need to do more training and advocacy. And for sure the labour movement must work to create a culture of enforcement and encourage members to assert their rights. But how can employers be encouraged to put workers' health above their bottom line, especially when many illnesses like cancers don't manifest themselves for 20 or 30 years down the road? And how can we shatter the discourse about the need for an unfettered market?

For workers to gain the power they need in order to be able to protect themselves from exposure, occupational health issues must be brought into the public arena. We can no longer leave it to the "experts" -- actuaries, psychologists, medical doctors - who, more often than not, come down on the side of the employers. Occupational health issues must become public health issues so they're not secreted away in the workplace where they can be marginalized by employers and employer-backed governments.

Building a crowd

Workplace health issues need to become part of our daily consciousness. Unions can't make that happen on their own. They need to think outside the workplace box and to build coalitions in order to build awareness, a crowd, and power. As the saying goes, "If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together."

These need to be coalitions of varied and "unlikely" partners, including public health, children's health advocacy groups, faith organizations, environmentalists who share class values, and consumer and social justice advocates. The coalitions need to be resourced and long-term and need to share decision-making and power. They will fail if only one or two groups set the agenda and ask the rest to come along after key decisions have been made. And they need to use a variety of tactics and communications tools, and can't be just social media-based.

It is often said that "It takes a village to raise a child." We hope that, in Canada, despite the onslaught of libertarian, individualistic values, Canadians still understand what that means. It's time to take this further and enliven people's hearts and minds to understand what it means when we say: "It takes a whole society to make a workplace healthy and safe, and to care for working people."

Image: ComplianceAndSafety/Flickr

This article was first published in Donald Gutstein and Mae Burrows' regular column in Our Times, "Jobs, Environment, Justice."

Thank you for reading this story...

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all. But media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our only supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help.

If everyone who visits rabble and likes it chipped in a couple of dollars per month, our future would be much more secure and we could do much more: like the things our readers tell us they want to see more of: more staff reporters and more work to complete the upgrade of our website.

We’re asking if you could make a donation, right now, to set rabble on solid footing in 2017.

Make a donation.Become a monthly supporter.


We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.