Canadian Contractor

News

"Re: WSIB I have to pay for our bookkeeping staff at the rate for carpenters: 9.10%"

Richart, a contractor in Ontario, explains how he has to pay three different rates of WSIB, including paying for his papercut-liable bookkeeper as if they were framing houses


Print this page

January 9, 2015 by Steve Payne

We asked contractors to post their Workers Comp rates, across the country (where applicable), and got this interesting answer from Richart, a contractor in Ontario.

When we submit our monthly WSIB form we have to calculate how much in wages we have paid in three categories. Because we are a renovation company that does multiple tasks, we have to submit as such. We have a clean record, no accidents, for approximately 10 years. Our rates for carpentry work is 9.10%, rate for siding work is 10.25%, and roofing is at 14.80%. I have asked to put our bookkeeping staff at a lower rate as an accountant would pay but WSIB rejected that and said that I have to claim them for a minimum carpentry rate as we are a renovation company. Funny how they want us to separate for the guys in the field but not the office staff.


Steve Payne

Steve Payne

Steve Payne is the editor of Canadian Contractor magazine
All posts by

Print this page



Related

Have your say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

9 Comments » for "Re: WSIB I have to pay for our bookkeeping staff at the rate for carpenters: 9.10%"
  1. Mark Tilley says:

    No news there, that’s how it is with every industry and has been for decades. (I work in trucking.)

    And as much as we don’t like WSIB, I can tell you that comp rates in the US can be far higher or even impossible to get for a new or small company operating in a state with private carrier coverage. No carrier wants to bother with a new or small company, so you get put in a “facility” type coverage that’s prohibitively expensive.

    Another way in which some states are way behind is that they still operate on installments based on beginning of year estimates instead of actual monthly payroll. And at year end (the comp board’s year end, not calendar) they send out auditors to do your annual reconcilliation instead of you doing it yourself based on your T4 submission. What a waste of manpower and efficiency!

  2. Terry Ferguson says:

    Just another example of how they make up their own rules as they go !

  3. andrew says:

    All WSIB-remitting employers should be vocal in their desire to see the elimination of WSIB’s policy on ancillary activity during the ongoing WSIB Rate Framework Consultation. Of course, ancillary activity or, for that matter, rate groups and corresponding premiums might not be the issue they are if the WSIB could capture the 40%-50% of the construction sector that does not remit WSIB premiums.

  4. Metallofu says:

    WSIB should be a choice for employers and employees.
    To many horror stories exist of people who have had a legitimate claim be denied.
    What organization, insurance company, or other would anyone with the right scruples desire to pay more money for less of a service or insurance and pay more for it.
    One can pay a fraction of the cost for work related insurance and be covered 24/7. Meanwhile, WSIB covers for far less. And with many grey areas.
    One may not be covered by slipping on ice during coffee break or lunch time.
    That’s not work time – you see. That is your own time.
    So unless they were far more realistic with their rates they will not get my support despite the fact that I’m obligated to pay for them.. Almost sounds fabianistic, eh?

    • Chris Langman says:

      You hit the nail on the head here. Open market competition is a pillar of society, why should WSIB not have to compete for business and work to remain competitive?
      Trades need to get together and stop paying these crooks

  5. Sean Keane says:

    Here is what is stated in the anti competition laws of Canada

    Prohibition where abuse of dominant position

    79. (1) Where, on application by the Commissioner, the Tribunal finds that

    (a) one or more persons substantially or completely control, throughout Canada or any area thereof, a class or species of business,

    (b) that person or those persons have engaged in or are engaging in a practice of anti-competitive acts, and

    (c) the practice has had, is having or is likely to have the effect of preventing or lessening competition substantially in a market,

    the Tribunal may make an order prohibiting all or any of those persons from engaging in that practice

    Now lets break this down as it pertains to the WSIB, granted I am not a lawyer however some would say I know a lot about dealing with this CORRUPT organization.
    According to just about every document I have read the WSIB has the “exclusive” position of being the Only insurance for workers when injured on the job. For a prime example we can look at the Unions of this Province in particular, most people do not know that Unions do not protect their workers if injured on the Job, they accept that the responsibility for at work injuries falls directly on the plate of the WSIB.
    Now the WSIB will and has contested the fact that they form a monopoly but how can they contest the true fact with in their jurisdiction of exclusivity. In my opinion they can not.
    WSIB will also contest this based on the fact there are subsequent insurance plans one can purchase from private companies for disability that can be added to a plan. Now does that not put a further financial burden on the individual, specifically in the construction Industry where it is mandated to pay for WSIB. This can certainly be seen as anti competitive. Even worse it is DISCRIMANTORY act against the construction industry. All other industries at this point are allowed to self insure and some say one tenth of the cost provided by WSIB. In fact those plans cover the individual for all perils 24/7.
    Who is missing the point here, laws are created to curb these actions in any business, why has no lawyer in this industry challenged this act.

  6. Questo says:

    Hi Sean Keane, thanks for posting this article about the anti competition laws in Canada. It seems not only about the WSIB but toward others like the ECRA/ESA and OCOT, the trades college.

    Apparently the Liberal government here in this Ontario Province forget to check the anti competition laws. That’s what I thought for long time, on the creation of these parasitic agencies, subjugating the trades people for a payment fee, or illegal to work, even trades people with almost 40 years of experience, full certified, no freedom to perform their own carriers, in special Electricians which is alarming, only here, in Europe, we do not see this kind of subjugating control.

    Communist stamped with free society, That’s` apparently is what we have, and interesting enough, its what people voted for, what kind of a cool aid have some Ontario voters drunk, make one wonder.

    I think this should be brought up to the Queens Park, and review the legislation on this matter. Should be a good start in my opinion, or the CBC.ca they may look at this issue, may alert some lawyers you know, some of them may step in to challenge this matter. That will be interesting, out the door goes the Liberals, LOL. Too much bullshit in this Province, just to protect in all kind of names, right, in someone`s hard work, and pay checks.

    I too have the same question like your last phrase.

    • Chris says:

      Little late to the party here guys

      I do low rise forming, same rate 9.1% as you guys pay, recently audited and had to product clearance certs for my subs. While on WSIB website I was checking out my competitors, namely the union contractors I am familiar with. Now get this, there rate for the same work is 4.~% and listed as Mechanical and Sheet Metal!

      I asked one of the union company owners I know, his comment, their association has negotiated this rate for them, and you can only join the association if you are union.

      I’m tempted to make an issue out of this, a very loud publicly notified issue

  7. Jamal says:

    Office staff should be a separate classificiation because there is no comparision of a construction worker on a job site everyday versus a office staff in an office every day.