
Photo by Whitehorse Star
Aja Mason
Photo by Whitehorse Star
Aja Mason
Victims of domestic or sexualized violence will soon be granted paid and unpaid leave, thanks to the newly amended Employment Standards Act.
Victims of domestic or sexualized violence will soon be granted paid and unpaid leave, thanks to the newly amended Employment Standards Act.
“(This) will significantly lower barriers for employees by minimizing financial hardships and providing victims the time to access medical, legal and other supports as they need,” John Streicker, the minister of Community Services, said last week.
The amended act passed unanimously in the assembly Nov. 5 and received assent on Monday afternoon.
The act provides five days of paid leave and five days of unpaid leave to victims of domestic or sexualized violence working in “territorially regulated industries and professions,” according to a government press release.
Long-term leave of up to 15 unpaid weeks can also be taken, either at once or incrementally.
Leave is available after 90 days of employment.
The leave also extends to employees whose children or close friends are victims of domestic or sexualized violence.
While the bill has received assent, it won’t come into effect immediately.
According to the Yukon government, education and support materials still need to be developed before the law is implemented.
“Providing the right supports for employees and employers will allow victims to access this leave readily and in a way that ensures their confidentiality and dignity is respected,” Streicker said.
Aja Mason, the director of the Yukon Status of Women Council, said her organization applauds the government’s move supporting domestic violence victims.
The implementation, however, will require a substantial amount of nuance because the Yukon is so small, she said.
“We’re always weighing the intention versus the impact of any kind of policy,” Mason told the Star.
“So, the intention behind a policy might be really good, but the impact can often be marred with unforeseen consequences.”
Guaranteeing confidentiality will be a significant hurdle for the government, Mason explained.
“In the Yukon, because we have such a small population, and especially in the communities, the likelihood that an employee who approaches their boss for time off and that boss is connected to the abuser … is really high up here.”
Mason suggested that a two-way contract requiring an employers’ confidentiality should be required.
There is also a wide range in types of domestic violence – not just physical, but psychological and financial as well – that should be clearly defined, Mason said.
“Being very clear in the implementation of this legislation, so it’s inclusive of all these different forms of violence, is also of utmost concern for us.”
There is also a need for education among employers, so they are able to understand and manage the delicate situations associated with fleeing a violent household.
“It should be accompanied with better education and understanding of the dimension and dynamics of domestic violence, how precarious and dangerous it can be for a woman when she’s outing herself,” Mason said.
“When she’s taking leave from work and telling people that’s what’s going on, that can be one of the most dangerous stages.”
According to Statistics Canada, 264 Yukon women reported domestic violence to police in 2018.
In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.
Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.
Comments (10)
Up 8 Down 0
TMYK on Nov 19, 2020 at 9:47 am
The unfortunate side effect of poorly thought out virtue policies such as this are that private businesses will simply hire fewer women. This won't be official, they simply won't be the preferred candidate. Governments can unload these costs on private businesses. Legislating it under WCB would have been a better option, but it digs into their slush fund.
Up 9 Down 0
JustSayin' on Nov 18, 2020 at 3:02 pm
hmmm... I wonder if people are going to avoid hiring those people who are more susceptible to domestic violence.
Up 13 Down 0
Al on Nov 17, 2020 at 2:50 pm
I do take exception to the employer being on the hook. Don't you think you are punishing the wrong person? Why should a business have to provide paid leave for something in which they had nothing to do with? That's not a rhetorical question either.
However, I do have a solution. If the government thinks it is such a great idea to have the business community act as a social net up front then the government should reimburse the business for these costs. This issue belongs with the government not the Mom and Pop shop...
Up 18 Down 3
Max Mack on Nov 17, 2020 at 11:18 am
So, employers are supposed to provide 5 days of paid leave to any woman (cause let's be honest, this is all about benefits for women) who claims to experience domestic "violence", or if any of her children or friends experience domestic "violence". That is a very, very wide net.
Yet, confidentiality provisions will prevent employers from knowing the details of the alleged domestic violence? Have I got that right?
Given this and the extremely broad definitions of "violence" that the feminists and their bureaucratic acolytes promulgate, these generous leave provisions are a surefire recipe that employers will be on the hook for an awful lot of paid leave.
The downstream implications include higher prices for goods and services all across the board. Employers will also struggle to manage staff -- on top of the existing strain of limited resources under a mountain of government bureaucracy and regulation.
Up 22 Down 2
Gossip Girls Gone Wild! on Nov 16, 2020 at 9:18 pm
In this instance Matthew you are not wrong. Violence committed by women in the form of gossip and reputation destruction of other people is a largely overlooked phenomenon. Women are more often employed in “professional” (cough, cough) that utilize gossip as their primary function; Social Workers, Psychologists, Nurses etc. The people in these positions tend to be viewed favourably however the judgment, the gossip and the contempt for privacy rules and regulations is staggeringly incomprehensible.
Their propensity for poisoned vitriol, outright verbal aggression, psychological bullying and manipulation, and other forms of female aggression is well documented, well researched, yet under reported, and vehemently defended as innocuous chatter - What’s the problem... Are your feelings hurt? Sticks and stones... You point to their policies, codes of conduct, and their procedures, and they say, it’s not that bad, it’s not really harassment... Suck it up! However, the minute you so much as have a facial reaction to the harassment... The bullies pounce and bullies trounce...
Bullying is a big problem in the Yukon. It is a bigger problem in government, and it is the biggest problem in female dominated government agencies. It is only going to get worse the further we shift into identity politics. This will continue to be reinforced in systems that allow feelings over facts, feelings over behaviours, and, well... Just feelings - You know, the things we tell our young children to get control over before they enter the adult world... Not so much anymore -FFS!
Up 39 Down 8
Matthew on Nov 16, 2020 at 6:17 am
Also, has anyone been in a woman dominated room or job? Talk about massive cat fights, backstabbing, gossip, and general discrimination to all sides.. prove me wrong. In fact many women I know can prove this as it HAPPENS daily..
Up 36 Down 8
Matthew on Nov 16, 2020 at 6:14 am
So... Sad but true story.. a male I know was getting abused, mentally and physically. RCMP went to the house so the male could make a complaint. They laughed at him and said it's only a woman, you take care of it.. when it only works for 1 side it DOESN'T work. Sure this could have been 1 of a kind, but how many are actually out there for fear of being humiliated?
We need to get off of this thinking that the government will pay for everything and anything. It's a VERY DANGEROUS welfare state we have transitioned into where there is NO incentive to work anymore.
Up 40 Down 8
What's the penalty if it turns out the claims are unfounded? on Nov 14, 2020 at 5:46 pm
Check the court records. There are numerous allegations that never lead to convictions. Some are flat out frivolous. Would the person have to pay back the money?
I'd think that is important it would make people question "gaming" the system.
Up 36 Down 4
Gossip Girl on Nov 14, 2020 at 12:16 pm
Confidentiality within the government is an illusion often advanced by the authorities as a delusion. The ongoing breaches of ATIPP/HIPMA and other privacy rules, procedures, and law are mind boggling. It is incomprehensible and it should make you scream. You can walk by any 2 government employees at any given time in the public and they are talking about the people they are supposed to serve rather than serve up. This is a disturbing reality.
Then, there are those who talk about others in their workplaces in front of the public who are passing by, visiting etc. Then there is the gossip and chatter between employees who do not have a need to know, then the joking and the laughing about the people they supposedly serve... Then there is the information that they collect unnecessarily about you, share about you, etc.
Just think about this: Because “information” about you is shared so freely within an echo-gossip chamber you literally are not you. It does not matter what you believe.
According to the ATIPP/HIPMA Acts you are supposed to be in control of the information collected and shared about and for the purpose you control.
You can access your file information and have that file information corrected at any time. Please make sure you do so.
Contact the ATIPP office to do so. By the way - Health and Social Services is bound by HIPMA rules - Much more stringent. Protect your interests and your information. Help drain the swamp!
Up 46 Down 13
JC on Nov 13, 2020 at 4:33 pm
So, does the employer get stuck with the bill? If so, why should the employer have to pay for someone else's crime? The Liberals aren't just trying to shut down industry, but now, making it hard on the employers. We all know, there will be a great deal of abuse over this law just like all the other schemes the Liberals invent.
If I was an employer, I would just shut down the business and find a job somewhere. Why spend all my profits on something like this. If I was thinking of going into business, I would rethink the idea. On the other hand, maybe this is just another Liberal government scheme to get more votes?