Social Inequality In Canada Case Study

Introduction

One certainty regarding Canada’s diverse labour market is that, simply, some jobs are better than others, and specific people/groups experience exclusion from obtaining the good ones. Various factors such as work hours, wages, benefits, required education/skills, as well as mobility and security, determine a job’s status. Permanent, full-time, well-compensated (secure) positions fall into the “better” category, while precarious (unreliable and/or unpredictable), part-time, temporary, low-wage, benefits-absent jobs fall into the “bad” one. Complicating this labour market division is the prevalence of inequality within the market(s), driven by historical precedents and ongoing market standards which marginalize workers based on gender,

race, (dis)ability, and age. It is these marginalized groups that consistently suffer the consequences of labour market insecurity and inequality, and experience structural and social barriers to improving the conditions.
Why do such divisions exist within the labour market? Who is negatively impacted by the segmentation of jobs in the market and what are the social effects? Are insecurity and inequality on the rise in Canada? Can anything be done to diminish the gaps within (and between) the labour market(s)? This essay seeks to answer these questions by exploring the theoretical bases and causes of labour market insecurity and inequality, analyzing the effects on social groups, and determining how government and employer policies can aid in reducing work-related insecurity and inequality.
Insecurity versus Inequality
Ursule Critoph defines labour market insecurity as “the lack of dependable income and work and to the presence of dangerous and difficult working conditions,” and labour market inequality as “the different statuses, experiences, and outcomes among different groupings of individuals in Canadian society” (2013, Unit 3). Job insecurity is characterized by precariousness stemming from non-standard forms of work (part-time, multiple-job, self-employment, and/or temporary). Job inequality is characterized by status differences that are dependent on social group affiliation, negatively affecting workers on the basis of gender, visible minority, age, etc. Both insecurity and inequality are phenomena that can be explained theoretically.
The dual economy segmentation model maintains that ‘good’ jobs and ‘bad’ jobs arise out of an economic structure that includes large, profitable core sector firms (the primary labour market), and smaller-scale periphery businesses (the secondary labour market) (Krahn, Lowe & Hughes, 2012, p. 138). Divisions between the sectors occur based on types of jobs, gender, race, skill/education level, and others (Critoph, 2013, Unit 3). Core sector jobs require “more highly-trained and better educated” workers, are better compensated, more secure, and provide opportunities for upward mobility than in the periphery sector (Krahn et al, 2012, p. 138). In the periphery sector, business is more vulnerable; profit margins are lower, competition is higher, and lower-skilled work commands less compensation and security (Krahn et al, 2012, p. 138). Job insecurity is also heightened by the difficulty in unionizing periphery workers due to high turnover (Krahn et al, 2012, p. 139).
Internal labour markets, prevalent in the core sector and almost non-existent in the periphery, provide opportunities for advancement and greater security, though often only to certain groups, thus creating (imposing?) inequalities (Krahn et al, 2012, p. 140). Unions and professional associations may also increase security, but the barriers to organization and the requirements of being in a specific profession are numerous and both are rarely evident in the periphery (Krahn et al, 2012, p. 140). These mechanisms, intended to increase security and equality (for some but not all), also have the ability to enforce labour market closure, ensuring that entry into the core sector and movement between the two sectors is difficult, at best (Krahn et al, 2012, p. 142). Likewise, the secondary market perpetuates a cycle of employing workers in non-standard work, enforcing insecurity, and once entrenched in that market are unlikely to ever mobilize to the primary labour market (Krahn et al, 2012, p. 136).
Causes of Inequality in the Labour Market
There are numerous causes for inequality in Canada’s labour market, foremost that standard work is geared toward to those with maximum education/professional requirements/experience, minimal obligations outside the workplace (or with the money to afford help), and the ability to work full-time (Law Commission of Canada, 2004, p. 4).
Social Effects of Inequality and Insecurity
The disadvantaging social effects of the dual market structure on certain groups is researched and documented. Segmentation adversely affects women, racialized groups, those with disabilities, Aboriginal people, youth and older workers, of whom are concentrated in the secondary market, and hold the majority of jobs within it (Critoph, 2013, Unit 3; Krahn et al, 2012, p. 136). These groups tend to experience not only economic exclusion but also social exclusion, with the social affects stretching out from the groups themselves and into society.
Women have generally been the caregivers in society, and this unpaid (unrecognized) work has led to inequality due to time spent out of the workforce, external pressures to work fewer hours, and the necessity to maintain a work-life balance (Critoph, 2013, Unit 3).

Racialized groups tend to be underrepresented in the primary market and experience isolation in the secondary market due to inequality, both facts which emphasize a lack of social integration (Critoph, 2013, Unit 3). Government/employer focus on accommodating persons with disabilities does not address issues of institutionalization, segregation, or exclusion that accompany their labour market experience (Critoph, 2013, Unit 3). Aboriginal workers have a low participation rate in the labour market (which may be attributed to lower levels of education), which socially and economically exclude them (Critoph, 2013, Unit 3). Older workers refusing to leave the labour force create obstacles for younger workers to attain those secure jobs (Critoph, 2013, Unit 3). Youth seem to face working conditions that experienced workers do not have to endure, which translates to fewer learning and/or advancement opportunities (Critoph, 2013, Unit 3). A “history of employment in marginal jobs” for these groups creates a cycle for the lack of mobility between labour market sectors (Krahn et al, 2012, p. 142). Subsequently, the stress and conditions associated with nonstandard work and the insecurity it creates are also “associated

with increased risks to health and safety” (Critoph, 2013, Unit 3).
Labour Market Trends in Canada
As the shift into a service-based economy continues, and the profit motive in our capitalist economy prevails, the overall composition of the labour market has shifted, and this shift escalates insecurity and inequality. Nonstandard work arrangements are steadily growing in Canada (Krahn et al, 2012, p. 92), evidenced by sharp rises (more than double) in the number of people working part-time, and in the number of temporary jobs added (+43.5%) between 1997 and 2007 (Statistics Canada, 2007, pp. 59, 68). Much of the time, the choice to take nonstandard work is not really a choice but a circumstance of the rough labour market or employment environment (Krahn et al, 2012, p. 92). There is less security and more precariousness in nonstandard jobs because they “typically pay less, provide fewer benefits, are less likely to be covered by labour legislation” (and also tend to dictate future wage prospects) than standard forms of work (Krahn et al, 2012, p. 92). The rise in the rate of part-time and temporary work contributes to growing insecurity in Canada’s labour market (Krahn et al, 2012, p. 95; Critoph, 2013, Unit 3). Additionally, the threat of unemployment is a “source of significant insecurity for Canadian workers,” especially those in nonstandard work arrangements (Critoph, 2013, Unit 3). Recently, the threat of unemployment has turned into a reality for many, with a rise of .4% in September 2016, primarily in the part-time sector (Statistics Canada, 2016).
Reducing Inequality through Policy
The law determines the value of work, the nature of the employment relationship, and the protections and rights bestowed in the workplace, but it is society that decides who to reward and why (Law Commission of Canada, 2004, pp.

1, 41). Legislation created to support standard work arrangements has not been modified to support the changes in work currently. Nonstandard work causes insecurity in numerous ways, including exemption from the protections offered by employment standards and labour legislation (Critoph, 2013, Unit 3). Governments have created a regulatory framework that adds to the insecure, unequal labour market, securing management rights while decreasing social supports and overlooking below-poverty level minimum wages (Critoph, 2013, Unit

3).
Lobbyists promote the concept of a “living wage” to try to lift people out of poverty, not only to provide basic needs but also to allow “social participation” in the community (Critoph, 2013, Unit 3).
Krahn p 156
Ehrenreich p. 235-236
Conclusion
While the boundaries between the segments of Canada’s dual labour market are not fixed, social exclusion due to workplace and labour market inequality is an accepted norm in Canada, and a growing pervasiveness of nonstandard work intensifies the insecurity and inequality that certain groups of workers experience. Barbara Ehrenreich comments on the increasing prevalence of downward mobility that “…once you fall into the low-wage, survival-job trap, there's a good chance that you will remain there” (2006, p. 210). Some workers start out in this “trap” and have little opportunity to overcome it to enjoy a reasonable standard of living, neither while working or when absent from the workforce. Ongoing insecurity increases inequality. Increasing inequality widens the gap between the labour market sectors. The widened gap creates more barriers to mobility and decreases the chances that secondary market workers will ever attain a higher standard of work.
There is no better lobby group to widen the primary labour market and change the way employers cost-save than the unemployed and underemployed (Ehrenreich, 2006, p. 236). I agree with Ehrenreich that change cannot be left up to employers and governments as they have the most to gain from perpetuating inequality and insecurity. The way to make change is for the marginalized, unemployed, and underemployed to unify/organize in common purpose. If this is the largest and fastest-growing segment of the labour market population, surely meaningful impact is possible.