The Quebec Soccer Federation's Ban on Turbans

[Jacob]

Most states in the US have a workers compensation system which seems similar to what you describe.

One thing that seems different - at least from what I gather anecdotally - is that in the US employers are incentivized to prevent workers from filing compensation claims because it will cause their premiums to go up; while in Canada, I have never heard of such a sentiment.

Not sure how accurate that is, however...

[HVC]

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you pay higher WSIB premiums if you have a history of employees claiming compensation. But I think WSIB is an Ontario thing anyway.

[crazy canuck]

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you pay higher WSIB premiums if you have a history of employees claiming compensation. But I think WSIB is an Ontario thing anyway.

You are incorrect.  Extra penalties and premiums are paid if a workplace has a poor safety history.  If it gets bad enough the employer can be charged under the Act.

@ Jacob, it is for that reason that employers try to keep workplace injuries to a minimum.  It is also an offence under the Act from disuading an employee from claiming injury benefits - the penalty far outweighs any benefit the employer might obtain by doing so which provides a good deterent - which is probably why you have not heard of it happening here.  But suspect it does happen in some less reputable places.

[Neil]

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you pay higher WSIB premiums if you have a history of employees claiming compensation. But I think WSIB is an Ontario thing anyway.

But we all have different versions of it.  Alberta and Saskatchewan have WCBs.

[Jacob]

Thanks for the clarification guys

Vaguely related - I have it on good authority that the BC WCB is very well managed financially

[The Brain]

Just because there's a "-stein" or "-schmidt" there? Sounds racist.

[viper37]

Is Quebec the only Province in Canada that doesnt have a Workers Compensation scheme for injury which removed ability to sue the employer?

We have a workers compensation scheme for injury.  It does not remove anymore the ability to sue the employer, but I think it will be the CSST (Commission Santé Sécurité au Travail) who will do it, not the worker or his family.  Criminal litigation is also possible in cases of negligence.  And we still pay 2x more than Ontario or NB.

However, in this case, we were refering to an employee refusing to wear protective equipment, based on religious grounds.  At such point, he removes himself from the "system", so everything is fair game.  He or his family would probably claim that he was misinformed by the employer of the risks involved and win money.

In the actual system, it is exceptionnal for an employer not to blamed for an employees refusal of wearing protective gear.

[viper37]

Most states in the US have a workers compensation system which seems similar to what you describe.

One thing that seems different - at least from what I gather anecdotally - is that in the US employers are incentivized to prevent workers from filing compensation claims because it will cause their premiums to go up; while in Canada, I have never heard of such a sentiment.

Not sure how accurate that is, however...

The premiums will be up here too.  But since any injury would be declared as such at the hospital, it's hard to make it has if nothing happened.

[viper37]

You are incorrect.  Extra penalties and premiums are paid if a workplace has a poor safety history.  If it gets bad enough the employer can be charged under the Act.

In Quebec, smaller employers will be charged according to the general health&safety risks of the unit (group of worker doing similar tasks accross the province).  Say, a small shop with 2 employees, no matter if an employee spends 6 months a year on work related injuries or never leaves work in 6 years, the premiums will be the same.

Unless the employer is part of a mutual wich regroups employers and make their own group's history count instead of the entire province.

[Jacob]

Just because there's a "-stein" or "-schmidt" there? Sounds racist.

[dps]

The thing about this example is that a hard hat is for their own protection.  If they say 'it's against my religion, I know it puts me at risk, but I'm okay with that and won't hold the employer responsible if I get injured', then perhaps we should let them?

The issue is normally analyzed in terms of bona fide accupational requirement regarding health and safety risks.  Normally on a construction site the bona safety concern requires the hard hat regardless of whether the employee is willing to take the risk.

I don't know how it works in Canada, but generally in the U.S. the employer is liable for on-the-job injuries, even if the injuries result from the failure or refusal of the injured employee to follow proper safety procedures.  And failure to follow proper safey procedures is actually the cause of a great many on-the-job injuries.

That is not how it happens in Canada.  Here (at least outside Quebec) there is a workers compensation scheme which compensates workers for work related injuries.  Employers pay premiums for the coverage.  The bona fide occupational requirement is related to the human rights analysis.

Well, yes, what I meant was that the employer is liable in the sense that their premiums go up based on the amount of claims against them.  But I kind of shorthanded or glossed over that because my main point was that here, the failure or refusal of the injured employee to follow proper safety procedures--for whatever reason--doesn't preclude them from successfully pressing a claim. 

[viper37]

http://portal.soccercray.com/2012/05/20/montreal-sikh-teen-aneel-samra-told-he-cant-play-soccer-while-wearing-turban/

Samra said he has encountered problems with his turban before.

Though he says he is good enough, he never bothered to try out to play on an inter-city team because he knows he wouldn’t be permitted to play with his turban. Earlier this year, while playing for Beurling Academy, where he attends school, a referee warned his coach that the turban was not permitted, but the coach convinced the referee to allow Samra to play anyway.

Samra said he knows international soccer rules don't allow people to wear turbans, but in the past those rules were ignored.

The FIFA rules were so clear, that Sikhs knew international soccer rules didn't allow turbans...

[Malthus]

http://portal.soccercray.com/2012/05/20/montreal-sikh-teen-aneel-samra-told-he-cant-play-soccer-while-wearing-turban/

Samra said he has encountered problems with his turban before.

Though he says he is good enough, he never bothered to try out to play on an inter-city team because he knows he wouldn’t be permitted to play with his turban. Earlier this year, while playing for Beurling Academy, where he attends school, a referee warned his coach that the turban was not permitted, but the coach convinced the referee to allow Samra to play anyway.

Samra said he knows international soccer rules don't allow people to wear turbans, but in the past those rules were ignored.

The FIFA rules were so clear, that Sikhs knew international soccer rules didn't allow turbans...

All this article is saying is that this particular fellow thought that FIFA rules prohibited turbans. It's very likely he thought that because that's what the Quebec refs were telling him, not because he's got any particular insight into the rules.

[Admiral Yi]

 Or that he has basic reading skills.

[Malthus]

Or that he has basic reading skills.

If he had more advanced reading skills, he'd have known the Rule did not prohibit turbans?