Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

[81-717]

I don't see anything wrong with a business wanting to maintain a corporate brand, be it a logo'd golf shirt or a full MacDonalds uniform. It's their image, not yours.

Having a corporate brand should not supersede employees' comfort, but rather be designed to accommodate it (i.e. have company uniforms that are comfortable for the working conditions). And I doubt wearing a full suit soaked in sweat would improve their image, either.

 

[PL1]

My uniform (surgical scrubs) is provided for by my hospital. If I choose to wear my own, then I would not expect my employer to pay for them. My point here is that not all uniforms fit in the fast food retailer and emergency responders space

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Ontario proposes ban on requiring workers to pay for uniforms

...not a bad thing. And a rare moment in seeing this government doing something right for once.

Curious. Isn't a business suit and tie a "uniform"?

No, that falls under a dress code. A very different beast.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2043803904844927340

 

[afransen]

No, that falls under a dress code. A very different beast.

I'm not convinced. I used to have to wear business formal, and it was largely clothes I would not buy but to wear to this job. It felt very much like a uniform.

Does your opinion change if the workers being told to wear a certain dress code are relatively low paid?

 

[Northern Light]

I'm not convinced. I used to have to wear business formal, and it was largely clothes I would not buy but to wear to this job. It felt very much like a uniform.

Does your opinion change if the workers being told to wear a certain dress code are relatively low paid?

A Dress Code and a Uniform may have similarities, but they are not the same.

Broadly, a uniform requires you to wear identical attire to that of your colleague in like employ; where as a dress code establishes an acceptable type of attire or possibly colour.

The standard for an employer having to pay for a 'uniform' is a reasonable one, based at least in part on, this piece of clothing is not something I would wear on my free time; and not something I could wear working for a different employer.

A suit and tie is transferable. Most men would be expected to own at least one for weddings and funerals or a nice dinner date; and if you're working in a type of environment where that would be expected dress code, you likely own at least 2, with multiple dress shirts and ties.

Whereas......if you're told to wear a Tim Horton's ball cap and pullover......I rather hope you're not wearing it on a date, nor should you be wearing if you go to work for McDonalds.

In that latter scenario, the uniform is non-transferable to other uses, therefore the employer should pay.

****

Now, we can have an argument about whether the employer should pay in other contexts........ I have a friend who got hired to work on the top executive floor of a major bank.... Before her first day, in the office, she was taken by a bank staffer to a high end retail outlet where upon the bank credit card was pulled out to buy her 4 women's business suits, 2 dresses, 4 blouses, and 2 pairs of shoes. The bill was eye-watering, more than 2 months pay for her.

So....

That said, retail employers have options to keep uniform costs down, by moving many items into 'dress code' category. Target does/did this by setting a colour requirement for pants, and a general style (business casual); but provided the shirts.

This is a common choice.

An employer could take this further by requiring a dress shirt of 'x' colour and then just having you affix a name tag/ID, or wear a vest over the top etc.

A murky point might be if the employer requested colour is something most people wouldn't be caught dead in on their own time, or wouldn't be suitable to another workplace {transferability)

 

[lenaitch]

Having a corporate brand should not supersede employees' comfort, but rather be designed to accommodate it (i.e. have company uniforms that are comfortable for the working conditions). And I doubt wearing a full suit soaked in sweat would improve their image, either.

In an ideal world, perhaps, but workplaces aren't democracies. So long as a workplace complies with OHSA environmental parameters, trying to enforce subjective parameters such as 'comfort' and 'appropriate' can be an HR minefield.

 

[afransen]

That said, retail employers have options to keep uniform costs down, by moving many items into 'dress code' category. Target does/did this by setting a colour requirement for pants, and a general style (business casual); but provided the shirts.

Walmart and Home Depot do this as well with a smock/vest/apron as the uniform. I think it is reasonable.

The other thing that might be called out is PPE like safety boots, which some employers will voluntarily pay for but is not required.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I'm not convinced. I used to have to wear business formal, and it was largely clothes I would not buy but to wear to this job. It felt very much like a uniform.

Does your opinion change if the workers being told to wear a certain dress code are relatively low paid?

You misunderstand what I was saying here. There was a false comparison made wearing an official uniform with a dress code, which is a formal standard of how one has to wear something. Wearing a uniform versus making sure the shoes with that uniform are spit shined would be an example of this. So a suit and how one has to wear that suit does not fall under a uniform but is most certainly a standard set by a dress code.

To be fair, I can see why there is confusion between the two...

derek guy (@dieworkwear.bsky.social)

Robert Mueller was one of the last well-dressed men in Washington. Soft shouldered suits with white button-down collar and foulard ties. Wore his watch on the underside of his wrist, as a holdover from his military training. One of the last to carry that classic American look.

bsky.app

(About Robert Mueller's imposed dress codes while he was running the FBI in an example.)

...either way, I have no problems if there was legislation to force employers to flip the bill if the dress code they where requiring those they employ are above the means to which they are being paid.

(And I hope that makes sense.)

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Controversial Ontario fund rejected TTC training program with little explanation: documents​

From https://www.cp24.com/politics/queens-park/2026/04/14/controversial-ontario-fund-rejected-ttc-training-program-with-little-explanation-documents/

See video through the above link.

The Ontario government rejected a program that would have helped 21 high school graduates learn trades at Toronto’s transit system using a boilerplate letter with little explanation, documents obtained by CTV News show.

Ontario’s opposition parties say the “STEP+” program could have been one of many deserving applicants that weren’t given cash by the controversial $2.5 billion Skills Development Fund (SDF), even as money flowed to other programs including those connected to an adult entertainment club and someone who identified as the Ford family dentist.

“It sounds to me like exactly the kind of program that the Skills Development Fund was designed to support,” said NDP Leader Marit Stiles in an interview.

“The question you have to ask is, did they get rejected because they didn’t have a connection to the Conservative Party, to Doug Ford, to [Labour Minister] Dave Piccini?”

Since December, Piccini has faced an investigation by the legislature’s Integrity Commissioner into whether he broke any laws in his handling of the Skills Development Fund, which was flagged by Ontario’s Auditor-General as not fair transparent, or accountable, who also pointed out that lobbyists netted an outsized share of grants.

Piccini hasn’t said whether he’s been interviewed by the Commissioner, Cathryn Motherwell, but said last week he is “assisting her office with the investigation.”

In the TTC’s application, which was obtained by CTV News through a Freedom of Information request, the transit agency said the graduates would be provided with paid employment at the TTC’s maintenance and repair facilities as well as a Level 1 Apprentice Training course at Centennial College.

“This project is important because as more people retire from the skilled trades, attracting young apprentices into the field is critical to maintain a healthy workforce for decades to come, especially in public transit because it often requires specialized skills,” the application says.

The program, whose cost was pegged at $2.6 million, was supported by letters from Centennial College Associate Dean David Weatherhead and Toronto School District System Superintendent Roni Felsen.

“The Motive Power trades have always had a difficult time attracting young talent, and first-year apprentices find it challenging to land a job with a quality employer. This STEP+ program is the remedy. It will introduce more high school graduates to this industry and give them an opportunity to gain experience as an apprentice,” Felsen wrote.

On April 14, 2025, a staffer at the Ministry of Labour wrote to say, “After careful review of your application, we regret to inform you that your organization’s application…was not selected for funding.

“Due to the large volume of applications received, the ministry is unable to offer individual debrief sessions,” the letter says.

On April 23, 2025, a TTC analyst wrote back to say, “We would appreciate any feedback available. Our project falls within the parameters of the program and we submitted a strong application… please let me know if it is possible to receive feedback.”

There’s no response recorded in the package released under freedom of information.

TTC provided documents, while Ministry’s FOI response lags​

The application was provided to CTV News by the TTC in 27 days, which is under the established legal timeline of 30 calendar days.

Meanwhile, other requests to the Ministry of Labour for information on other applications to the Skills Development Fund haven’t been answered since September—about 7 times as long.

Reached at an unrelated announcement, Piccini said his staff are busy.

“To compare the two is a bit unfair. Given the high volume that the government receives and the diligent work we do to make sure that individuals and organizations have their information protected,” he said.

Opposition leaders say that transparency is important, given where some of the money went.

“Ten million for a strip club owner, a few million for the family dentist. The stench of the Skills Development Fund is not going to be scrubbed off easily,” said Liberal interim leader John Fraser in media scrums at Queens Park.

Green Party leader Mike Schreiner pointed out that Ontario’s PC government is in the midst of changing provincial Freedom of Information laws to exempt the premier, cabinet ministers, and parliamentary assistants from being subject to the province’s FOI laws.

“People have not forgotten that this government wasted $2.5 billion funneling money into a program that was there for workers into the hands of PC connected insiders and lobbyists and now they want to bring in FOI legislation that will restrict our ability to learn the details and depths of this particular scandal and other scandals. I don’t think people are going to forget that,” Schreiner said.

---

https://twitter.com/x/status/2044192737444913585

 

[Mihairokov]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2043803904844927340

They've actually just Streisand Effect'd themselves. Everybody knows the Ford government is corrupt but getting journalists fired is another level of corrupt and shady entirely.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2043777645834285406

 

[lenaitch]

(About Robert Mueller's imposed dress codes while he was running the FBI in an example.)

As did Mark Carney when he first took office.

The other thing that might be called out is PPE like safety boots, which some employers will voluntarily pay for but is not required.

Employment expenses not reimbursed by the employer are claimable (but I'm not sure if they calculate out at dollar for dollar). Footwear is such a fit and comfort issue most employers leave it to the employee the buy. Even the military gave up on issuing it.

 

[evandyk]

BC has long made it illegal for employers to require an employee to pay for a uniform. The employer is even required to clean the uniform or reimburse cleaning expenses. The law does distinguish between a uniform and a dress code.

 

[thettctransitfanatic]

Ontario expanding areas where alcohol can be consumed in provincial parks | Globalnews.ca

Ontario expanding areas where alcohol can be consumed in provincial parks​

Visitors to Ontario provincial parks this summer will be able to drink alcohol in more areas starting this summer.

Todd McCarthy, minister of environment, conservation and parks, says updated rules around where alcohol can be consumed “are intended to improve the overall park experience and support local tourism.”
The new rules will allow adults 19 and older to drink alcohol beyond their individual campsites, including picnic areas, beaches and other day use areas.
The government enabled the changes in a red tape reduction bill last year and now says they will take effect for the 2026 season.