As another year passes with more workers dying while working for an employer, and the platitudes come pouring in about the importance of recogizing April 28 as the Day of Mourning for workers who have died on the job, it is better to continue to analyze critically the issue of what workplace safety means in the context of a society dominated by a class of employers rather than offer such platitudes.
This post will be briefer than earlier ones since the critical analysis of earlier posts in this series remain relevant for the current situation.
Before expanding briefly on earlier posts, it is fitting that we start with a real workplace “accident” that occurred at the Lakeland samill in Prince George, British Columbia (I lived in Prince George for two and a half years, from August 1990 to the end of 1992). From Jason Foster and Bob Barnetson (2016), Health and Safety in Canadian Workplaces:
On Monday, April 23, 2012, the Lakeland sawmill exploded and then burned, lighting the night sky of Prince George, British Columbia. The explosion and subsequent fire killed Alan Little, 43, and Glenn Roche, 46, and injured more than twenty other workers. Brian Croy, a vice-president with the United Steelworkers’ local, was sitting in a training session when the mill exploded. The room’s plywood walls were blown down on top of the workers, and Croy and his colleagues escaped through a section of outer wall that had been destroyed by the blast.
“It’s almost like you were coming out of a war zone. Everything was leveled. I met one fellow I think his fingers were blown off, and his clothing, a lot of it was gone. It was off and his hair,” Croy told The Canadian Press. Upon arriving at an outdoor first-aid station, Croyfound workers sitting on a tarp, holding up burned arms and hands while one worker lay naked on the tarp, burned black and without any hair.
A WorkSafeBC investigation found that an overheated fan shaft had ignited the dustladen air, resulting in the explosion. Wood dust is a well-known explosion hazard in sawmills. The Lakeland mill was sawing large amounts of trees killed by pine beetles. This wood is extremely dry and, when milled, creates a large amount of fine dust.
The employer had been aware of the dust issues, and five dust-related incidents (e.g., fires) had been recorded in the months leading up to the explosion. The employer had failed to remediate the hazard or, indeed, engage in adequate preventive maintenance of the mill’s systems. Internal safety inspections were inconsistently undertaken and dust buildup was not mentioned, with some workers stating “that they were tired of complaining about it as nothing was ever done. [my emphasis]
How can this incident be called an accident at all? No one intended for the explosion to occur, but there was an intention to avoid maintaining a safe workplace by management–undoubtedly in order to maximize profit by minimizing safety costs.
No one was criminally charged. WorkSafeBC did fine Lakeland Mills Ltd $724,000 for safety violations. Like many other such cases, money substituted for personal responsibility–a typical substitute in a society characterized by impersonal social relations of domination and exploitation.
These impersonal social relations (think of General Motors–it is a corporation separate from investors and workers, it can own property, sell and buy, etc.) pressure management to cut costs at all costs in order to maximize a surplus of value (profit) so that the corporation can accumulate and compete effectively against other corporations.
These impersonal social relations often lie behind what could be called the proximate cause and even the root cause of injuries, illnesses and deaths at work: the proximate cause is an immediate physical, chemical or biological cause that leads to injury, illness or death of workers. A root cause is an initial event that led to the proximate cause. From Foster and Barnetson:
When considering the cause of an injury, it is useful to distinguish between proximate cause and root cause. Proximate cause is the event that is immediately responsible for the injury. Root cause refers to the ultimate or “real” cause of an injury. For example, if a worker falls down, the proximate cause may be that the worker lost her footing on a wet surface. Yet why was the surface wet? The root cause of the injury may have been an inadequately maintained hose that leaked. Considering both the proximate cause and root cause of an injury results in a better understanding of what caused the injury and, consequently, what can be done to prevent it.
The real world, of course, is messier than the proximate-and-root-cause model suggests. There is often a chain of causality that leads to an injury. In the example above, why was the hose not properly maintained? The root cause of that may well have been inadequate staffing levels. And what caused the inadequate staffing levels? Perhaps the employer was trying to minimize the cost of production. Why would the employer be trying to minimize costs? Perhaps because the employer feels pressure to maximize profitability to retain investment in capitalist economies.
Although unions sometimes refer to the wider pursuit of profit as the underlying cause of many workplace injuries, they often do not offer any solution other than more workforce enforcement. How many workplace deaths and injuries are necessary before the so-called representatives of workers (union reps) will question those structural causes and propose to do something about them?
From Foster and Barnetson:
Since perfect safety is unattainable, employers often adopt a cost-benefit approach to safety: safety should only be improved when it costs less to prevent the injury than the injury itself costs. This isn’t to suggest that employers actively wish to see their workers injured or don’t take safety seriously. Rather, it highlights that employers and managers face structural pressures (e.g., the profit imperative of capitalism) and that these pressures shape how they behave and, indeed, how they view issues like workplace safety.
Even organizations not subject to the profit motive directly are indirectly subject to similar impersonal coercion to reduce the priority of safety:
These pressures are also felt in the public and non-profit sectors, where profit affects decisions in a more indirect fashion. While neither sectorworries about profit per se, both have finite resources and face pressure to keep costs down. Broadly speaking, governments believe they must minimize taxation on businesses and individuals to maintain political support. Non-governmental (non-profit) organizations rely heavily on funding from private donors and government grants, and these funders demand efficient use of their dollars.
And again, specifically in relation to government employment:
It is also worth noting that the government is also an employer and a rather large one at that. As an employer, they are subject to the same pressures and interests as private-sector employers. While government services are not designed to “turn a profit,” governments face pressure to contain the cost of delivering services to keep taxes low. These pressures lead public-sector (and non-profit) employers to adopt the same cost-benefit approach to safety as private-sector employers. Also, in recent years, there has been an increased demand that governments adopt the practices and approaches of private enterprise in order to be more “business-like.” Those practices include intensified focus on efficiency, cost-savings, and “the bottom line,” all of which undermine commitment to health and safety.
Workplace Injury Statistics
I have referred to statistics in earlier posts that showed that official statistics of workplace injuries vastly underestimate the extent of such injuries. The following provides further statistics.
Time-Loss Injuries
From Foster and Barnetson:
The introduction to this chapter noted that there were 245,365 accepted workers’ compensation claims for time-loss injuries in 2012. As astounding as these annual time-loss injury numbers are, they profoundly understate the true level of workplace injury in Canada. The understatement of injury numbers occurs in a number of ways. First, time-loss injuries are accepted workers’ compensation claims where a worker could not report to work due to the injury. But not all workers must (or can) report their injuries to a workers’ compensation board (WCB). In fact, only about 85% of workers are covered by workers’ compensation in Canada. So, right out of the gate, we know time-loss claims represent only 85% of all time-loss injuries. Second, WCBs don’t accept every time-loss claim filed by workers. Exact data on acceptance rates is unavailable, but approximately 5% of all workers who submit a claim have that claim rejected and thus those injuries are excluded from the total above. So far, then, the 245,365claims represents only about 80% of all time-loss injuries. Third, not all workers report their injuries. The best data available suggests that 40% of injuries go unreported. All in all, this suggests the true number of timeloss injuries likely is closer to 430,000 per year.
Or, to put the above paragraph in list form:
–245,365 workers’ compensation claims were accepted.
–Only 85% of workers are covered by workers’ compensation.
–About 5% of claims get rejected.
–Around 40% of injuries never get reported.
–Real estimate: ~430,000 time-loss injuries actually happen each year!
Workplace Injuries that Do Not Lead to Time Loss
There are workplace injuries that occur but do not result in time lost from work:
Moreover, time-loss claims comprise only a fraction of all injuries. Missing from these numbers are all other injuries where the worker could go to work (albeit with an injury). This includes injuries requiring medical aid only or injuries where the employer was able to modify the worker’s duties to prevent time loss. It also includes injuries where the worker just decides to soldier on, such as burns, cuts, sprains, and strains, as well as injuries where the worker receives benefits from private medical insurance. The true number of workplace injuries is possibly as great as 10 times the reported number of time-loss injuries. The idea that there might be 2.4 million workplace injuries in Canada each year suggests that state injuryprevention efforts are not very effective. Governments’ use of the (much smaller) time loss claims numbers may reflect a desire to manage public perceptions of danger in the workplace.
Workplaces in conditions where employers have power over employees lead to many injuries, whether they are reported or not. This is a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly occurrence.
Why is this level of violence of workplaces dominated by employers not acknowledged openly by unions? Or is this situation not a violent one? Injuries occur at home. That is true. However, at home people often have more control over their living conditions than they do at work. The extent of injuries at work remains hidden and needs to be acknowledge publicly and
Unions, to be sure, often do try to address health and safety issues, but they rarely address the systemic nature of the problem. If the problem is not with this or that particular employer but with the class power of employers and the associated economic, political and social structures or relations, then the solution cannot be just more effective legislation and more effective enforcement; as long as employers are forced to function as channels for structural processes of the entire economic and political system, they will try to cut corners and jeopardize the health and safety of workers.
The solution must be sought in eliminating the class power of employers and the associated economic, political and social structures or relations.
As an appendix, I have compiled a few union or union federation cliches about the Day of Mourning that is supposed to recognize workers who have died on the job in order to remember them and to prevent further injuries. Surely the best way to prevent further injuries and deaths is to fight the systemic system called capitalism that motivates managers to treat workers as costs and to reduce those costs by cutting safety corners.
Appendix
- From Day of Mourning Events and Ceremonies 2026
April 27, 2026 at 12:00 AM –
April 28, 2026 at 11:59 PM https://canadianlabour.ca/events/day-of-mourning-ceremonies-2026/):
Day of Mourning Events and Ceremonies 2026
April 27, 2026 at 12:00 AM –
April 28, 2026 at 11:59 PM
April 28 is the labour movement’s most solemn day, but also one to refocus our commitment to preventing future workplace injuries and deaths. Every year, thousands of workers, friends and families of fallen workers gather at ceremonies across Canada to recognize the National Day of Mourning for workers killed or injured on the job. As we mourn for the dead, the Canadian Labour Congress continues to fight for the living. - From (https://dayofmourning.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/2026-Day-of-Mourning-Backgrounder.pdf ):
Day of Mourning
Backgrounder
Canada
• The National Day of Mourning is observed in Canada on April 28. The day honours thoseworkers who have been killed, injured, or suffered illness due to work-related incidents.
• The Canadian Labour Congress first recognized the Day of Mourning in 1984. In 1991, this day became a national observance with the passing of the Workers Mourning Day Act, and on April 28, 1991, the federal government officially proclaimed the National Day of Mourning.
• Canada was the first nation to recognize the Day of Mourning. Since 1984, acknowledgement of the day has spread to many countries and is now observed throughout the world.
• Typically, the Canadian flag on Parliament Hill is flown at half-mast, and workers and employees observe the day in various ways including wearing ribbons, lighting candles, and observing moments of silence.British Columbia
• In 2001, WorkSafeBC, the BC Federation of Labour and the Business Council of British Columbia dedicated a permanent workers’ memorial in the Sanctuary in Hastings Park, Vancouver.
• There are approximately 45 permanent worker memorial sites sponsored by WorkSafeBC in British Columbia.
• Regional ceremonies take place across the province each year. A list of local ceremonies in B.C. is regularly updated between February and April on dayofmourning.bc.ca.
• The 2026 provincial Day of Mourning ceremony, hosted by BC Federation of Labour, will take place on the steps of the Legislature in Victoria at 12:15 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28, 2026. - From Waterloo Regional Labour Council ( https://waterloolabour.ca/events/april-28th-day-of-mourning-jour-de-deuil-national-28-avril/):
April 28th Day of Mourning / Jour de deuil national : 28 avril
April 28, 2026 at
10:30 AM – 12:00 PM
Victoria Park (meet near pavillion)
80 Schneider Ave
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 1K9
Every year, 1000 workers are killed on the job in Canada, not including deaths from occupational disease. We will be gathering near the pavilion in Victoria Park at 10:30 a.m. on April 28th, 2026 to honour victims and their families.Chaque année au Canada, plus de 1 000 travailleuses et travailleurs perdent la vie à la suite d’un accident de travail, sans compter les décès liés aux maladies professionnelles. Nous vous invitons à vous joindre à nous pour un moment de recueillement et de solidarité en hommage aux victimes et en soutien à leurs familles, au parc Victoria à Kitchener à 10h30 am.
- From the Yukon Federation of Labour (https://yukonfed.com/events/dom2026/):
Day of Mourning Ceremony April 28, 2026
April 28, 2026 at
12:00 PM – 1:00 PM PST
Workers’ Memorial at Shipyards Park
100 Ogilvie Street
Whitehorse, Yukon
Y1A 3T8
You are invited to join us at noon on April 28th, 2026, either online or in person at the Yukon Worker’s Memorial in Shipyards Park, 100 Ogilvie Street, Whitehorse, Yukon, as we reflect and honour fallen workers and their families in the Yukon territory.Marked annually in Canada on April 28, the National Day of Mourning is dedicated to remembering those who have lost their lives, suffered injury or illness on the job, or experienced a work-related tragedy [emphasis in original]
The National Day of Mourning is not only a day to remember and honour those lives lost or injured due to a workplace tragedy but also a day to collectively renew our commitment to fight for the living, improve health and safety in the workplace and prevent further injuries, illnesses and deaths.
Workplace tragedies impact everyone, and we all have a responsibility to do better for workers of today and tomorrow. Representatives of our communities will renew our pledges to keep workers and workplaces safe in an outdoor ceremony.
Please RSVP if you would like to attend in person or receive the link for the live stream to watch from anywhere with an internet connection.
The Yukon Federation of Labour would like to thank the Worker’s Safety and Compensation Board for their continued support for the National Day of Mourning.
- From The following statement on the Day of Mourning by the largest Canadian union–the Canadian Public Employees Union–at least recognizes that official statistics do not indicate the extent of the problem.
MEMORANDUM
Re: April 28 – Day of Mourning – Now is the time to prepareEvery year on April 28, we remember the millions of workers who have died or developed a disability or disease because of work. CUPE Ontario’s Health and Safety Committee is committed to ensuring this day remains one of the most important days on the calendar and that these workers are not forgotten.CUPE has always been at the forefront of recognizing this day. At our 1983 National Convention, members adopted a resolution recognizing a day to remember those who suffered a work-related fatality or life-altering ailment or disability. A year later, a similar resolution was submitted by the CUPE National Health and Safety Committee and adopted at the CLC convention. They chose April 28 that year as the Day of Mourning, coinciding with the 70th anniversary of the Ontario government’s approval of the first Worker’s Compensation Act (1914).Statistics don’t paint an accurate picture of the toll occupational hazards have on workers. Research tells us that most deaths, many injuries and illnesses caused by exposure to work-related hazards are never reported to or recognized by the WSIB. Tragically, many people die from an illness without linking it to occupational exposure. Drawing upon recent data and a growing body of research evidence, the Workers Health & Safety Centre estimates 2,430 workers were killed from hazardous work in the last year. An additional 356,674 workers are estimated to suffer from an occupational injury or illness. Though many researchers suggest that even these are conservative estimates.
Yes, Foster and Barnetson do “suggest that even these are conservative estimates.” And what is to be done about this situation, apart from creating “fair contracts?” Health and safety are necessarily–not accidentally–treated as less important than an economic structure characterized by general exchange relations and the consequent need to pursue a surplus of value (profit) above all else (see The Money Circuit of Capital).
The short and long-term impacts of psychosocial hazards are often not recognized in statistics, let alone by compensation boards. For that reason, the International Labour Organization and Canadian Labour Congress are using this year’s DoM to highlight the urgent need for psychologically safe and healthy working environments.
And CUPE likely does not recognize that it is impossible to ensure “psychologically safe and healthy working environments” in a system that pursues a surplus of value (profit) as the number one priority. When workers are treated as means for purposes undefined by them, surely that often results in psychological damage? Similarly, since they are costs in such a situation, it is often to the economic advantage of the employer to reduce expenditure on health and safety measures. CUPE contradicts itself by using such cliches as “fair wages” and “fair contracts” while simultaneously claiming that there is an “urgent need for psychologically safe and healthy working environments.” There is indeed such an urgent need, but the need will never be satisfied in the present economic structure. By using such union cliches, CUPE papers over the nature of the problem–the existence of a class of employers and the associated economic, political and social structures and relations. People, when they are treated as costs–and they must be treated as costs in such a society–will inevitably suffer from a lack of health and safety because their costs reduce profits, and some capitalists will try to cut such costs in order to increase profits. Regulation can reduce such attempts but it can never eliminate them.
Since the nature of the problem is hidden by using such cliches as “fair wages,” “fair contract,” or “decent work,” so too is the solution–the elimination of the class structure of modern society. Workers deserve much better than mere “recognition” of the Day of Mourning; they deserve to work and live in an environment that fosters their intellectual, emotional and cultural growth.
The Abolitionary 