Re-humanizing work

Machines do many things better than humans –except at being human.

image: This Caring Home

Advances in technology have always generated anxiety. Workers during the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century thought they would go “the way of the horse.” Steam-powered tractors had replaced horses and they feared, with spinning frames and power looms, that they were next.

The fear of job-loss due to automation is unavoidable. However, humans are better at “empathy jobs” and that’s where the future of work is heading.

A recent report from Canada’s Brookfield Institute studied Canada’s labour market and found that 42 per cent of Canadian occupations are at high risk of automation in the next 10 to 20 years (Working Without a Net: Rethinking Canada’s Social Policy in the New Age of Work from the Mowat Centre.)

The jobs most at risk are in the trades, transportation, equipment operation, natural resources, agriculture, sales and service, manufacturing, utilities, administration, and office support.

Some of these jobs in the trades, often done by men, are mind-numbing and dangerous –in locations isolated from families that lead to alcoholism, self-medication of drugs, and death from drug overdoses (the trades are over-represented in  fentanyl deaths in B.C.). Other than good wages, these are jobs that won’t be missed.

Jobs at the least risk are in arts, culture, recreation, sports, management; professional positions in law, education, health and nursing. We won’t see robots playing hockey or robot actors on the stage any time soon. Humans are still the best at jobs where the human touch is necessary like health care, child care, and care for the growing number of seniors.

However, not all empathy jobs pay equally. While some jobs are well-paid because they are unionized -such as teachers and health care workers- others like private child-care facilities are not. Some work, usually done by women, such as a daughter caring for her aging parents or a grandmother caring for grandchildren, is not paid at all.

Another source of job-growth is the hybridization of machines and humans. In the gig economy of piecemeal work, technology directs workers. Some workers like these hybrid jobs because they offer flexibility. Employers like them because workers are “contractors” not employees. As such, companies don’t have to pay benefits.

Britain is making changes to the working conditions of workers in the gig economy by ensuring that “vulnerable workers,” as defined by low wages, have access to basic holiday and sick pay.

Workers in low-paid empathy jobs and workers in the gig economy are in the same predicament –low wages with few benefits. That’s where the Canadian government could help with programs like employment insurance, sick leave and universal Pharmacare.

Investments in childcare and home care for seniors would not only employ more empathy workers but improve the conditions of all low-wage workers including those in the gig economy.

Governments stepped in during the Industrial Revolution to implement labour laws. Governments must step in now to strengthen programs to ease the transition into the digital economy.

Surely the things we value, like human interaction, can pay as well dangerous works like resource extraction. Surely workers the gig economy can have both flexibility and security.

 

Provincial health ministers should stop bickering

The provincial health ministers should resolve in the New Year to stop bickering, take the money from the feds, and use it as intended.

bickering-health

 

It’s a recurring bad movie says Canadian Medical Association president Granger Avery: “The Groundhog Day-type discussions where political leaders bat around percentages and figures at meetings in hotels have to stop. Our system needs better, and most important, our citizens deserve better (Globe and Mail, Dec.19, 2016).”

The provinces have had thirteen years of increases from the feds at 6 per cent a year to improve health delivery. “The transfers have been growing quite generously,” says Livio Di Matteo, a health-care economist at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay. “If you go back to about 2007, if you look at public-health spending, which is largely provincial, it’s grown about 40 per cent. The Canada Health Transfer to the provinces has grown about 70 per cent.”

We need to spend smarter. Canada spends more on health care than Australia, for example, with poorer outcomes as measured by life expectancy and infant mortality.

The provinces have not fixed the problem during times of plenty and now are faced with problems of an aging population. In addition to increased funding at 3.5 per cent a year, the feds have offered $11.5 billion for home care and mental health. I don’t know who writes the province’s absurd scripts: let’s refuse the offer, even though it’s what we want, because we want more.

Provincial health ministers don’t get it. B.C. Health Minister Terry Lake worries that if B.C. were to take the money offered, and start home-care programs, that the programs wouldn’t be sustainable when funding dries up. That would be true if hospital costs remain the same when home-care programs are added.

Home-care programs would reduce hospital costs. Hospital beds cost $1,100 per day whereas home care is one-quarter that cost according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Seniors take up 85 per cent of those expensive hospital beds and one-half of them remain in beds even though they are well enough to be moved because there are no long-term care facilities or home care.

Take the money spent on hospitals and spend it in the community. That would mean that four seniors would be cared for at the same cost as one in a hospital -and they would be happier.

The politics and perception of health care would have to change. Hospitals have become a measure of a politician’s success because they are highly visible monuments to health care; something that you can be sure the B.C. minister will point to often in the campaign leading up to the provincial election next May.

It’s a problem of perception, too. Home care is virtually unseen except by the few affected. It’s hard to point to the thousands of seniors happily living at home as a measure of success. British Columbians will have to change perceptions of health, from hospitals as shrines were doctors are the high priests, to a flatter hierarchy where care is diffuse and in the hands of other professionals.