The overturning of Roe v. Wade is an opportunity for Canada to act

Sunira Chaudhri

Sunira Chaudhri

Toronto Employment Lawyer

Protests have erupted across America. People have taken to the internet to share their disgust and horror on the walking back of women’s rights.

The time for a reverse brain drain has come.

 

Late this week, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. It is expected that many U.S. states will place restrictions on, or outright ban abortion.

 

Of course, this begs the question, won’t young female U.S. workers look for greener pastures?

 

Protests have erupted across America. People have taken to the internet to share their disgust and horror on the walking back of women’s rights.

 

It’s time for Canada to act. Abortion isn’t an issue that divides our country. Our politicians do not typically knock themselves out each election on what seems to be settled law here.

 

To boot, Canada has an 18-month parental leave that can be shared between parents. An employee cannot be fired for exercising her right in taking that time when starting a family. Miscarriage has been recognized as a temporary disability in some Canadian human rights tribunals which allows women the right to protected time off from work.

 

Some companies are recognizing the high cost of fertility treatments and offering perks to employees to help with the costs. This shift isn’t entirely altruistic. Employers know that offering fertility benefits with ample parental leave support are massive retention tools.

 

Canadian laws are evolving and employers have been following in lock step.

 

With the crippling labour shortage and looming recession, Canadian companies must view this as a watershed moment to attract U.S. talent.

 

Our workplaces are progressive, and our laws continue to introduce fresh rights to employees that are unparalleled across the globe. Take for example Ontario’s right to disconnect policy that was rolled out by Minister Monte McNaughton on June 2. Employers with 25 or more employees must have a policy in place to ensure workers are generally free from work outside of normal working hours. This new law is a brilliant tool for employers to attract talent from the south, in particular remote workers looking for more flexibility.

 

As America is riddled with political upheaval and unrest, U.S. workers will naturally consider how their careers may be stifled if they choose to stay.

 

Canadian government must consider how U.S. workers can easily immigrate to our nation. Canadian employers should lean in to this moment and capitalize on attracting a talent pool that is likely ready for change.

 

Sometimes the grass really is greener on the other side.

 

On to this week’s questions:

 

Q. I have received a job offer and have been provided a week to accept the offer. The offer says the employer can change my work location and bonus at any time. Is this standard?

 

A. No. If you agree to these terms your employer may make substantial changes to your employment with no notice to you. You should seek language that is more flexible and allows for notice of any significant changes to your contract.

 

Q. I have worked at my employer for 25 years. I have no contract. I was offered 12 weeks on my termination last week. My employer says it’s all they can pay because of financial changes. Is there any point in fighting it?

 

A. Yes. Your employer’s financial position is not a legally relevant fact when it comes to your entitlement on termination. Get advice as you may be entitled to much more.

 

Have a workplace issue? Maybe I can help! Email me at sunira@worklylaw.com and your question may be featured in a future column.

 

The content of this article is general information only and is not legal advice.

More In The News

Social media poses serious threat to litigation

Trials are meant to be conducted in a vacuum. Witnesses are not permitted to hear the evidence given before them to ensure their own evidence won’t be influenced in anyway. That’s virtually impossible to achieve given the wild popularity of the Johnny Depp trial. The internet is chock full of evidence and opinions about the case.

Read More

Johnny Depp case is a contest of credibility

Depp is suing Heard for $50 million in defamation damages following a 2018 op-ed she penned in The Washington Post. In that piece, Heard wrote in part that she was a “public figure representing domestic abuse” and that “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real-time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.”

Read More