this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
48 points (96.2% liked)

Canada

7185 readers
519 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Companies received approval to fill around 240,000 positions in 2023 – more than double what was permitted in 2018

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] xmunk 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I see what you're saying. Some sort of unemployment stipend or guaranteed severance in addition to the residency grace period would be ideal