Re: uk-policy Welfare State Reform: Soul-Craft and Small Differences
At 12:29 PM 3/26/98 -0500, peter stoyko wrote: > >Greetings ... > >Thank you for your interest in my uk-policy posting. I am only a member >of the futurework moderated list, so I am not privy to all comments made >about my contribution. Let me take this opportunity, then, to comment on >your thoughtful response. > >On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Tom Walker wrote: > >> Peter, >> >> ... As you no doubt are aware, polarization in hours >> of work is an important dimension in income polarization, as has been >> documented in several statscan studies. etc Thank you both for an erudite, yet practical disussion of these key factors. As a former manufacturing manager, now pressing for Direct Democracy locally (and ultimately globally) to politics and all organizations, may I interject a whimsical comment I heard on Radio Australia (broadcast to Canada; like Tom, I am in Vancouver -- we listened to Rifkin and our Premier Clark together -- note that we got little chance to speak, Tom): "A woman remarked -- its great that the (Aussie) government have created a million jobs -- its a pity that I need three of them to make a living!" As most of us are aware, the inequities exist because of huge power imbalances between gov't, business, labour, 3rd Sector, and all the poor sods who are left out of all of these categories. It is time the poor sods had a VOTE (and I mean a REAL vote, with a money system, an electoral sytem, a governance system, an educational system ... that are not wildly tilted in favour of the elite). Even most of our MPs are "poor sods" in that they have ZERO influence on decisions. sincerely Colin Stark
re UK Policy Welfare State Reform
Peter Stoyko wrote: Greetings ... Thanks again for your interest. Perhaps I should preface my further comments by underscoring that the opinions I express here are not those of the Project nor any government agency. They are solely my own. On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Tom Walker wrote: > Peter, Thomas: Well, I almost hate to interfere with the fine correspondence that is developing between you and Tom Walker. I understand your codicil above and respect it, but I would like to add how refreshing it his to have you intelligently respond to Tom's questions. I participated quite extensively on the Reflections board started by Minister Gagliano (excuse the spelling) and corresponded with a number of people who had a common interest and depth of background understanding. The frustration I felt when the list closed down was that, other than a thank you, there was no summary or follow up on the part of the government on what had been a fairly time consuming and dedicated effort to provide some citizen input into the decision making process. The report of the advisory committee was duly published in six sections. I had meant to do an analysis of these papers but gave up as they seemed to be writing from their own agenda rather than addressing the concerns of those who voluntarily participated. You, by your correspondence on the Future Work list represent a very small window into that faceless bureaucracy known as the Federal Government and I'm sure I, as well as others, do not want to close this window. At the same time, as you can tell by Tom's questions, there is a seething desire to get some response to solutions that we feel we have arrived at through study, observation and thinking. Even more than that is the desire to be constructively involved in a give and take manner on these questions that have become important in our lives, either through direct experience or intellectual interest. What those of us on the Internet are experiencing is a microphone to speak at the public meeting. What we find is that the committee who is supposed to listen and respond to our concerns is politely distant, non committal in response and difficult to engage on specifics. For example, on the Reflection List, it would have been helpful if the advisory committee that wrote the report had engaged themselves in the list by providing background references, comments and questions. Instead, they maintained the distance of star chamber judges peering at us from the gloom of their private positions. I think it behooves both those who make policy and those that are at the effect of policy to be able to engage in dialog knowing that at the end of the day, those in government are the ones empowered to act. If these thoughts could be conveyed in a non threatening manner to those within the system, I think they would be pleasantly suprised at the respectful response they would receive and that they would benefit from the exposure to the outer world which they may not be personally involved in. With these thoughts I close and hope you continue writing. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: uk-policy Welfare State Reform: Soul-Craft and Small Differences
Greetings ... Thank you for the interesting comments. I'm afraid, however, I found them a bit desultory. Not knowing how to respond, let me just clarify my earlier statements. 1. My concern with legal rights as an instrument of 'poverty alleviation' or 'reduction of descrimination against the poor' involves their: (1.) inherent lack of potence with respect to policy issues that do not easily conform to the structure of legal institutions and discourse; and (2.) and the constraints faced when trying to give such rights teeth. When advocates of social rights in the early 2/3rds of this century talked about rights, they did not speak of rights in a formal legal sense, but as a moral appeal for a welfare state that does not leave an excluded underclass. My further concern is the lack of uniformity by which legal rights (often inappropriately called "guarantees") are applied, for clearly not all Canadian jurisdictions would be willing to add poverty discrimination to their human rights codes. More importantly, there is something rather contradictory about providing legal rights to alleviate poverty, for the impoverished are the constituency who are least likely to make use of the legal system on account of the high cost, highly esoteric language and procedures, etc. Legal action funds have proven to be a poor solution, and vulnerable to the spending whims of elected officials. My larger point is not that rights constitute a major constraint. To the contrary, they are not much of a constraint to policy makers or economic actors generally. 2. This leads to my second clarification: I think we have to be suitably realistic about the capacity of our policy instruments. In a society and economy that is becoming increasingly diverse, blunt instruments (such as untailored regulation) can make an impact, but often one not intended by policy makers and with potentially adverse second-order consequences. Hence, "first, do no harm." My meaning is simply this: if faced with a problem (e.g. undesirable distribution of working hours), reflect on the causes of problem and the consequences of policy actions before implementing knee-jerk responses (i.e. use the state's coersive power to redistribute working hours). Thanks again for your attention. Cheers, Peter. - Peter Stoyko Carleton University Tel: (613) 520-2600 ext. 2773 Department of Political Science Fax: (613) 520-4064 B640 Loeb Building V-mail: (613) 731-1964 1125 Colonel By DriveE-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ottawa, Canada, K1S 5B6 Internet: http://www.carleton.ca/~pstoyko --
Re: uk-policy Welfare State Reform: Soul-Craft and Small Differences
Peter, I get the sense that you may be reading more into my comments than I wrote into them. I am certainly not advocating legal rights as the sole or even primary instrument for alleviating poverty. And I strongly agree with your reservations about the questionable potency, lack of uniformity and vulnerability of such an approach. However, where I see the issue of legal rights as important is as a last resort -- better a blunt instrument than no instrument at all. I also agree that we need to be realistic about the capacity of policy instruments -- both their limited capacity to do what we want them to do and their perverse potential to do what we don't want them to do. You mention your reservations about using the state's coercive power to redistribute working hours and here's where I have to question whether you might be responding to conventional proposals for shortening the work week rather than to the position that I actually hold. I maintain that the state _already_ uses its coercive powers extensively, albeit unintentionally, to redistribute work time. Not only is that a blunt instrument, but an utterly pointless one. It is extremely difficult to get people and states to stop doing something that has become a habit. If the effects are unintended, it is even harder to get people to admit that the results derive from their own actions. By the way, this fits one definition of madness: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Which brings me to a question about the Project on Governance Implications of Labour Market Polarization. It seems to me that the key terms of "governance" and "polarization" portend troubling issues regarding the foundations for a democratic society. With this in mind, I would like to inquire about the criteria governing who is involved in the research group: who gets access to the group's deliberations and on what terms? who controls the process? and to whom must the process be legitimated? More specifically, I would be interested in knowing what proportion of the research group's members have made a claim for employment/unemployment insurance during, say, the last five years? What proportion of the group have experienced frequent and/or extended periods of joblessness during the past ten years? What proportion of the research group are members of households with incomes qualifying them for maximum child tax benefits? What proportion of the group have received social assistance in the past five years? ten years? ever? What proportion of the group work at minimum wage jobs? What proportion work part-time or on-call even though they would rather work full-time? I ask these questions with all due respect to the intelligence, insight and integrity of group members. I fully expect that there are members of the research group whose analyses I would embrace. It just seems to me -- and I note Thomas Lunde's and Colin Stark's similar comments -- that there are a lot of people whose voices don't get heard or acknowledged on labour market issues. I would also be most grateful if you would pass these questions on to the other members of the group and to Harvey Lazar. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ Vancouver, B.C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
Agreement.
This week an agreement was reached between the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) and the employers' federation (NHO) about the right to have education as part of work. Every working person shall be included in this arrangement, and both parts in the agreement say the agreement should be a part of the Norwegian laws. When a person has been working at least two years in a company/institution etc. he/she has the right to one year of education. And if the education lasts not more than one year he/she has the right to return to the same position as they left. The relation between work and education is 2:1, that is every two years of work give the right to one year of education, or every year gives a half year education. Nobody has right to more than one leave for education per year, and nobody is entitled to more than three years of education in a stretch. The education should be related to occupational/working life. A worker shall tell his employer that he is going for education at least three months before he leaves. Keypersonell that it is difficult to find a substitute for may wait untill a substitute is found. And now begins the work to fund this arrangement. The goal is that persons should be able to leave with pay. Today the unemployment rate in Norway is very low, less that 3%, so it might be the right time to start to fund this arrangement. The agreement is published on the web on URL::http://www.lo.no/ in Norwegian. Tor Forde Tor Forde
