Sounds very different from what we have here in Ontario. As the columnist
indicated, it was just a right-wing, hot-button issue to get elected. I said
to my wife the day after Harris was elected, "You know I would be all in
favour of a real workfare program to get welfare recipients into the
workforce. The only problem is, that would cost more than just sending them
the cheques, and I guarantee you that son of a bitch isn't going to spend
the money."
I did some calculations a few days ago. If a workfare participant works 8
hours each working day (22 workdays in the average month) for his welfare
benefit of $520 a month, then he is being paid $2.95 an hour. For our
international members on the list, minimum wage in Ontario is $6.85, people
with Mcjobs get about $7.50, most factory workers get $10 - $16, and
autoworkers were getting $23 before their new contract.
----- Original Message -----
From: Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Victor Milne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: September 26, 1999 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: workfare
| Victor Milne forwarded:
| > One fact can't be ignored: Workfare's a failure
| [...]
| > How many among us have ever actually witnessed a workfare crew or
project in
| > action? How many of us have seen or experienced the results of such
labours?
| > Probably very few.
|
| I have even founded a workfare project (for my NGO), and can say that "the
| results of such labours" were not a failure, but strongly depended on (and
| varied with) the individual crew members. Some could get nothing right
and
| just disturbed the others, whereas some others (mostly >40y.o.) did a
pretty
| good job if supported. Some got a "real" job, some didn't.
|
|
| > How intriguing then to hear news yesterday that the government is now in
| > receipt of a consultant's report that says Ontario's highly popular, but
| > faltering, workfare program requires substantial spending (most
especially
| > on child care) if it's to produce real, as well as political, success.
|
| What all crew members had in common was that they needed "permanent"
| *assistance/supervision*, some only of the work itself, but most of them
| also of their person -- medical, psychological or even psychiatrical aid.
| The problem was that the official "apparatchics" were completely unable
| to provide the latter (personal) assistance -- not in quantity and not in
| quality -- due to lack of funds and of trained assistants ! (I wonder
| where they put the unemployed assistants, but I guess there are none
| around here, with an offical unemployment rate below 2%).
|
| Anyway, the program did (and still does) provide a useful work for the
| public and the environment (BikeStation with recycling) that wouldn't be
| possible on a business basis. Ironically, some similar programs are now
| being cancelled because there are "not enough unemployed available"...
|
| Chris
|
|
|
