Fw: workfare and GDP
Consider a Future City which is totally automated. On Future Cities and Robot-for-President I have used the science fiction story of "Mars City" to make the point. Mars City is first of all, totally automated. Then what is GDP? It is whatever you want to make it! FWP. -Original Message- From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, September 30, 1999 1:34 PM Subject: Re: workfare and GDP (fwd) >Sure-I am saying it SHOULD be in GDP. For example what is the economic >value of home-maker work? >FWP. > >-- Forwarded message -- >Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:52:30 +0200 >From: Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: workfare and GDP > >Franklin Wayne Poley replied: > [FWP] >> > > (2) What is the GDP contribution >> > > of those welfare recipients before and after workfare? (ie the volunteer >> > > work done before workfare may exceed the forced work done after workfare). >> > [CR] >> > I would estimate their GDP contribution is below 0.1%. >> [FWP] >> Well, being slightly smarter than the Easter Bunny I figure that the GDP >> contribution of those on welfare doing homemaker/childcare work in their >> own homes is far, far greater than 0.1%. > >Since unpaid work is, by definition, NOT COUNTED in the GDP, and >their homemaker work is basically unpaid, I wonder how its GDP contribution >can be "far, far greater than 0.1%". Could you explain your estimate, FWP ? > >Chris > > > > > > >
Re: workfare and GDP
Franklin Wayne Poley replied: [FWP] > > > (2) What is the GDP contribution > > > of those welfare recipients before and after workfare? (ie the volunteer > > > work done before workfare may exceed the forced work done after workfare). > > [CR] > > I would estimate their GDP contribution is below 0.1%. > [FWP] > Well, being slightly smarter than the Easter Bunny I figure that the GDP > contribution of those on welfare doing homemaker/childcare work in their > own homes is far, far greater than 0.1%. Since unpaid work is, by definition, NOT COUNTED in the GDP, and their homemaker work is basically unpaid, I wonder how its GDP contribution can be "far, far greater than 0.1%". Could you explain your estimate, FWP ? Chris
Re: workfare
REH replied: > As far as I'm concerned Cook got what he deserved. > So why not learn how to balance books instead of destroy > in order to consume? > > Learn the meaning of the wheel of balance instead of > nailing yourself to it. Tell that to your fellow New Yorkers... Chris
Re: workfare
I just watched a racist piece this morning at the American Theater Alliance about Indian killers of "White Children."The crowd wept as the pregnant Mother escaped the savages and swam the raging torrent to find her husband. But then there is this post which seems to say that the benevolent loving pioneer's descendants have screwed it up. Or have they? Maybe it just goes to show you how Western spiritual practices "work."As Red Jacket a Seneca chief said after being told by a minister about the superiority of his book over RJ's way of his ancestors, "I am impressed by both your book and your words. Now we will take a little time and see about your actions, what kind of neighbors and friends you turn out to be."The preacher left without even shaking his hand. The more things change the more they stay. REH from the NYCity res. just watching. Melanie Milanich wrote: > Actually for the $520 monthly "workfare" in Ontario a person is expected to work > 17 hours per week--supposedly using the rest of the time to apply for more > permanent work. But even before it was implemented the recipient had to provide > a list of places, with names of personel directors, that (s)he applied to. I > think 10 were required per week. > Which one would think is a fulltime "job" >Today the CBC interviewed a grandmother who has legal custody of her five > grandchildren. She was forced to obtain workfare. She leaves home early and does > not get back until after they have left school, and two of the children have > serious problems with school and the law but she is now not able to attend to > their problems. > I have one "workfare", person renting a room in my house. He is in > training courses. > But since I charge him $300 a month for rent, transit fare is $88 per month, and > he has a phone for $29 per month--his $520 does not stretch for food, clothes, > personal care, > let alone books, newspapers, postage stamps, vitamins, entertainment or > socializing > (he washes his clothes with bars of soap in my bathtub and hangs them in his > window > and I won't tell you what he uses for toilet paper) and his religion requires > him to give 10 percent of income to the mosque. >There was a program on the radio this morning about the increase in evictions > since the province enacted the "Tenants Protection Act" allowing landhoards to > evict tenants and convert to condominiums and charge more. With the increase > in evictions are increasing numbers of single mothers in homeless shelters and > living on the streets. They represent the group with the largest increase in > numbers of homeless. And to top it off, the newly appointed federal Minister of > Homelessness has announced that she has finished her "research" and will shortly > present to cabinet her information. She is quoted in the newspapers to the > effect that she doesn't know if they will do anything about it, but she will > give them the information that she gathered! > john courtneidge wrote: > > > Dear Friends > > > > I snip and then comment. > > -- > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christoph Reuss) > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Subject: Re: workfare > > >Date: Mon, Sep 27, 1999, 3:00 pm > > > > > > > > > > >Victor Milne calculated: > > >> 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. > > > > > >Over here, the 'wage' is about 2-3 times higher. Considering that the > > >workfare work is very easy work that can't be compared with the stressing > > >work in private companies, and that it basically helps the candidates to > > >maintain a regular activity (and possibly to find a 'real' job), I think > > >this wage isn't too bad... > > > > > >Chris > > > > > > One intriguing aspect of wages under capitalism is that the people who do > > the crap jobs get the crap money. > > > > Given that, as income (and wealth) inequality grows, ill-health also grows > > (Richard Wilkinson's book) then we *have* to work out how to close the > > present, obscene factors of income inequality. > > > > Any ideas? > > > > j > > > >
Re: workfare
As far as I'm concerned Cook got what he deserved. So why not learn how to balance books instead of destroy in order to consume? Learn the meaning of the wheel of balance instead of nailing yourself to it. REH Christoph Reuss wrote: > > It all sounds to me like a bunch of Easter Islanders arguing over the > > value of a statue while the wood diminishes. (REH) Chris answers: > > > All right, Captain Cook, so what do you suggest ? > > Chris
Re: workfare
Actually for the $520 monthly "workfare" in Ontario a person is expected to work 17 hours per week--supposedly using the rest of the time to apply for more permanent work. But even before it was implemented the recipient had to provide a list of places, with names of personel directors, that (s)he applied to. I think 10 were required per week. Which one would think is a fulltime "job" Today the CBC interviewed a grandmother who has legal custody of her five grandchildren. She was forced to obtain workfare. She leaves home early and does not get back until after they have left school, and two of the children have serious problems with school and the law but she is now not able to attend to their problems. I have one "workfare", person renting a room in my house. He is in training courses. But since I charge him $300 a month for rent, transit fare is $88 per month, and he has a phone for $29 per month--his $520 does not stretch for food, clothes, personal care, let alone books, newspapers, postage stamps, vitamins, entertainment or socializing (he washes his clothes with bars of soap in my bathtub and hangs them in his window and I won't tell you what he uses for toilet paper) and his religion requires him to give 10 percent of income to the mosque. There was a program on the radio this morning about the increase in evictions since the province enacted the "Tenants Protection Act" allowing landhoards to evict tenants and convert to condominiums and charge more. With the increase in evictions are increasing numbers of single mothers in homeless shelters and living on the streets. They represent the group with the largest increase in numbers of homeless. And to top it off, the newly appointed federal Minister of Homelessness has announced that she has finished her "research" and will shortly present to cabinet her information. She is quoted in the newspapers to the effect that she doesn't know if they will do anything about it, but she will give them the information that she gathered! john courtneidge wrote: > Dear Friends > > I snip and then comment. > -- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christoph Reuss) > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: workfare > >Date: Mon, Sep 27, 1999, 3:00 pm > > > > > > >Victor Milne calculated: > >> 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. > > > >Over here, the 'wage' is about 2-3 times higher. Considering that the > >workfare work is very easy work that can't be compared with the stressing > >work in private companies, and that it basically helps the candidates to > >maintain a regular activity (and possibly to find a 'real' job), I think > >this wage isn't too bad... > > > >Chris > > > One intriguing aspect of wages under capitalism is that the people who do > the crap jobs get the crap money. > > Given that, as income (and wealth) inequality grows, ill-health also grows > (Richard Wilkinson's book) then we *have* to work out how to close the > present, obscene factors of income inequality. > > Any ideas? > > j > >
Re: workfare
On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Ray E. Harrell wrote: > It all sounds to me like a bunch of Easter Islanders arguing over the > value of a statue while the wood diminishes. > > REH > > Christoph Reuss wrote: > > > Franklin Wayne Poley asked: > > > Two questions: (1) In Switzerland do workfare recipients have as much > > > choice in their workfare situations as other people have in selecting > > > pre-employment, education or employment? > > > > No, but I think this applies to all countries... Basically, they can > > select the work together with their advisor, who of course will take > > their individual abilities, preferences and possibilities into account. > > > > > (2) What is the GDP contribution > > > of those welfare recipients before and after workfare? (ie the volunteer > > > work done before workfare may exceed the forced work done after workfare). > > > > I would estimate their GDP contribution is below 0.1%. Well, being slightly smarter than the Easter Bunny I figure that the GDP contribution of those on welfare doing homemaker/childcare work in their own homes is far, far greater than 0.1%. FWP. But as we all know, > > the GDP is an inappropriate metric for these kinds of work, which are of > > little economical value but of significant social and environmental value. > > (Also, these activities must not compete with commercial services.) This is > > a good opportunity (esp. for NGOs) to get things done that couldn't be done > > with 'regular' jobs, e.g. guarded bike parkings, free bike rentals, recycling > > of various stuff, restoring old buildings, cleaning up the environment, etc. > > One new service that my program introduced is a free E-bicycle courier for > > shoppers, so mothers and the elderly can go shopping without a car and > > without carrying heavy loads. > > > > Victor Milne calculated: > > > 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. > > > > Over here, the 'wage' is about 2-3 times higher. Considering that the > > workfare work is very easy work that can't be compared with the stressing > > work in private companies, and that it basically helps the candidates to > > maintain a regular activity (and possibly to find a 'real' job), I think > > this wage isn't too bad... > > > > Chris > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex; http://www.alternatives.com/fc
Re: workfare
Dear Friends I snip and then comment. -- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christoph Reuss) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: workfare >Date: Mon, Sep 27, 1999, 3:00 pm > > >Victor Milne calculated: >> 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. > >Over here, the 'wage' is about 2-3 times higher. Considering that the >workfare work is very easy work that can't be compared with the stressing >work in private companies, and that it basically helps the candidates to >maintain a regular activity (and possibly to find a 'real' job), I think >this wage isn't too bad... > >Chris One intriguing aspect of wages under capitalism is that the people who do the crap jobs get the crap money. Given that, as income (and wealth) inequality grows, ill-health also grows (Richard Wilkinson's book) then we *have* to work out how to close the present, obscene factors of income inequality. Any ideas? j
Re: workfare
It all sounds to me like a bunch of Easter Islanders arguing over the value of a statue while the wood diminishes. REH Christoph Reuss wrote: > Franklin Wayne Poley asked: > > Two questions: (1) In Switzerland do workfare recipients have as much > > choice in their workfare situations as other people have in selecting > > pre-employment, education or employment? > > No, but I think this applies to all countries... Basically, they can > select the work together with their advisor, who of course will take > their individual abilities, preferences and possibilities into account. > > > (2) What is the GDP contribution > > of those welfare recipients before and after workfare? (ie the volunteer > > work done before workfare may exceed the forced work done after workfare). > > I would estimate their GDP contribution is below 0.1%. But as we all know, > the GDP is an inappropriate metric for these kinds of work, which are of > little economical value but of significant social and environmental value. > (Also, these activities must not compete with commercial services.) This is > a good opportunity (esp. for NGOs) to get things done that couldn't be done > with 'regular' jobs, e.g. guarded bike parkings, free bike rentals, recycling > of various stuff, restoring old buildings, cleaning up the environment, etc. > One new service that my program introduced is a free E-bicycle courier for > shoppers, so mothers and the elderly can go shopping without a car and > without carrying heavy loads. > > Victor Milne calculated: > > 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. > > Over here, the 'wage' is about 2-3 times higher. Considering that the > workfare work is very easy work that can't be compared with the stressing > work in private companies, and that it basically helps the candidates to > maintain a regular activity (and possibly to find a 'real' job), I think > this wage isn't too bad... > > Chris
Re: workfare
Christoph Reuss wrote: > Franklin Wayne Poley asked: > > Two questions: (1) In Switzerland do workfare recipients have as much > > choice in their workfare situations as other people have in selecting > > pre-employment, education or employment? > > No, but I think this applies to all countries... Basically, they can > select the work together with their advisor, who of course will take > their individual abilities, preferences and possibilities into account. Greetings I think that the assumption that the case worker will take or even know the client's abilities etc., is a dangerous one, at least here in Ontario and from what I've seen locally. Bob Ewing
Re: workfare
Dear Friends I snip: > >But people still seemed to love the notion of it. > Perhaps since so many hate their own work and wish the curse on others? Might we discuss this? j ** BTW Victor - i recieved your e-message in an odd format, as a sort-of picture that I couldn't highlight from ?? Thanks, tho' for sending it ! * -- >From: "Victor Milne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "futurework" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: workfare >Date: Sun, Sep 26, 1999, 1:50 pm > > > >One fact can't be ignored: Workfare's a failure > > ``Practical politics consists in ignoring facts.'' > - The Education of Henry Adams > by Henry Brooks Adams, 1907 >-- > > > > > ABOUT A YEAR before the last Ontario election, communications aides in the >Harris government attended a weekend seminar to identify their core >constituency and to fine-tune their messaging. > >At it, they were told that far and away the single most popular government >initiative to that point had been workfare. And when you think of it, >that's astonishing. > >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. > >But people still seemed to love the notion of it. > >By then, the Conservative government was absolutely certain of what a >backroomer told me it had learned during the 1995 campaign that brought it >to office - that playing the welfare card was like shooting fish in a >barrel, that the Premier simply couldn't be tough enough on >social-assistance recipients to suit his supporters. > >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. > >>From the outset, the facts made this plain. But the facts were, in the >words of Henry Adams, conveniently ignored. For as Michael Kinsley wrote in >The New Yorker a week before Mike Harris was first elected, ``the passion >behind Draconian welfare reform exceeds any rational assessment of what it >is likely to achieve.'' > >There could be only three purposes for workfare. One, to cut costs; two, to >create work for those needing it; three, to capitalize on its puritanical >appeal by punishing welfare recipients and appeasing angry taxpayers. > >>From the start, we knew workfare was bad economics. The cheapest way to >provide social assistance is by mailing a cheque. A serious work >requirement - one that wasn't just, as Kinsley put it, ``a euphemism for >cutting people off'' - would cost more, not less, than existing systems, >chiefly in child care and administration. > >We know that workfare has largely failed at creating work. We can safely >conclude this because the government has been able to trot out only >anecdotal evidence of success, the odd personal testimonial by individual >clients and no statistics that support more extensive claims. > >We know this as well because of the Premier's pleadings lately for >municipalities to help with his workfare program and his recent desperate >threats to turn social-assistance recipients into farmhands. > >What he's apparently discovered is what most other jurisdictions who've >tried workfare found earlier: that it is riddled with inefficiencies and >contradictions, that at best it might lift people out of welfare but not >poverty, and most particularly that, done right, it costs. > >For all that, there's no denying that workfare succeeded on the third >score, the punitive aspect. Otherwise, how is it that a program so largely >invisible and inconsequential to the general public, so obviously >disappointing in results to its most ardent proponents, could remain so >exceedingly popular? > >As old Henry Adams also said, ``knowledge of human nature is the beginning >and end of political education.'' And beyond doubt the Harris government >understood something of human nature. > >What it played to with workfare is what the New York Times Magazine last >year called ``the new American consensus'' - ``government of, by and for >the comfortable.'' > >In other words, it didn't much matter that the program didn't work - only >that it produced benefits to the comfortable and/or made them fee
Re: workfare
Franklin Wayne Poley asked: > Two questions: (1) In Switzerland do workfare recipients have as much > choice in their workfare situations as other people have in selecting > pre-employment, education or employment? No, but I think this applies to all countries... Basically, they can select the work together with their advisor, who of course will take their individual abilities, preferences and possibilities into account. > (2) What is the GDP contribution > of those welfare recipients before and after workfare? (ie the volunteer > work done before workfare may exceed the forced work done after workfare). I would estimate their GDP contribution is below 0.1%. But as we all know, the GDP is an inappropriate metric for these kinds of work, which are of little economical value but of significant social and environmental value. (Also, these activities must not compete with commercial services.) This is a good opportunity (esp. for NGOs) to get things done that couldn't be done with 'regular' jobs, e.g. guarded bike parkings, free bike rentals, recycling of various stuff, restoring old buildings, cleaning up the environment, etc. One new service that my program introduced is a free E-bicycle courier for shoppers, so mothers and the elderly can go shopping without a car and without carrying heavy loads. Victor Milne calculated: > 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. Over here, the 'wage' is about 2-3 times higher. Considering that the workfare work is very easy work that can't be compared with the stressing work in private companies, and that it basically helps the candidates to maintain a regular activity (and possibly to find a 'real' job), I think this wage isn't too bad... Chris
Re: workfare
Victor Milne wrote: > 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 Greetings lets not forget the FORCED labour spect of Ontario's workfare plan. Of course it was an election gimmick, one that indicates Harris knows what stereotypes the people of Ontario believe or at least enough of them believe to get him elected. Whay not a voluntary job creation program with education and training components? One that includes child care. Bob Ewing
Re: workfare
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 | | |
Re: workfare
Two questions: (1) In Switzerland do workfare recipients have as much choice in their workfare situations as other people have in selecting pre-employment, education or employment? (2) What is the GDP contribution of those welfare recipients before and after workfare? (ie the volunteer work done before workfare may exceed the forced work done after workfare). FWP. On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Christoph Reuss wrote: > 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 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex; http://www.alternatives.com/fc
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
workfare
One fact can't be ignored: Workfare's a failure ``Practical politics consists in ignoring facts.'' - The Education of Henry Adamsby Henry Brooks Adams, 1907 ABOUT A YEAR before the last Ontario election, communications aides in the Harris government attended a weekend seminar to identify their core constituency and to fine-tune their messaging. At it, they were told that far and away the single most popular government initiative to that point had been workfare. And when you think of it, that's astonishing. 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. But people still seemed to love the notion of it. By then, the Conservative government was absolutely certain of what a backroomer told me it had learned during the 1995 campaign that brought it to office - that playing the welfare card was like shooting fish in a barrel, that the Premier simply couldn't be tough enough on social-assistance recipients to suit his supporters. 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. From the outset, the facts made this plain. But the facts were, in the words of Henry Adams, conveniently ignored. For as Michael Kinsley wrote in The New Yorker a week before Mike Harris was first elected, ``the passion behind Draconian welfare reform exceeds any rational assessment of what it is likely to achieve.'' There could be only three purposes for workfare. One, to cut costs; two, to create work for those needing it; three, to capitalize on its puritanical appeal by punishing welfare recipients and appeasing angry taxpayers. From the start, we knew workfare was bad economics. The cheapest way to provide social assistance is by mailing a cheque. A serious work requirement - one that wasn't just, as Kinsley put it, ``a euphemism for cutting people off'' - would cost more, not less, than existing systems, chiefly in child care and administration. We know that workfare has largely failed at creating work. We can safely conclude this because the government has been able to trot out only anecdotal evidence of success, the odd personal testimonial by individual clients and no statistics that support more extensive claims. We know this as well because of the Premier's pleadings lately for municipalities to help with his workfare program and his recent desperate threats to turn social-assistance recipients into farmhands. What he's apparently discovered is what most other jurisdictions who've tried workfare found earlier: that it is riddled with inefficiencies and contradictions, that at best it might lift people out of welfare but not poverty, and most particularly that, done right, it costs. For all that, there's no denying that workfare succeeded on the third score, the punitive aspect. Otherwise, how is it that a program so largely invisible and inconsequential to the general public, so obviously disappointing in results to its most ardent proponents, could remain so exceedingly popular? As old Henry Adams also said, ``knowledge of human nature is the beginning and end of political education.'' And beyond doubt the Harris government understood something of human nature. What it played to with workfare is what the New York Times Magazine last year called ``the new American consensus'' - ``government of, by and for the comfortable.'' In other words, it didn't much matter that the program didn't work - only that it produced benefits to the comfortable and/or made them feel better. In this, though, it might be prudent to again consult Adams, who said that ``simplicity is the most deceitful mistress that ever betrayed man.'' The simplicity of workfare, as retailed by the Harris government, was a deceit. This latest report will merely add to the body of evidence that it's a complicated and costly business. It will be interesting to see if the government is serious enough about making workfare work to spend the money required. But I think we already know the answer to that. For to invest would mean relinquishing one of two irreconcilable claims made about workfare - that it at one and the same time saves money and actually helps people by providing ``a hand up.'' And, more than anything, this government knows its constituency. Jim Coyle's column usually appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
FW New list on workfare and basic income (fwd)
Date:Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:08:07 -0400 From:"P. K. Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: New List on Workfare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII The moderator is Tim Rourke. -- Forwarded message ------ Workfare-mincome is a fairly new list that was started by people concerned about the perversion of social welfare into forced labor that is generally called workfare. The exact focus of the list continues to evolve but most subscribers are interested in strategies that can stop workfare, which means considering what the alternative to workfare is. Social programs seem to go through three stages; 1) The punitive stage of workfare, work houses, and work tests. 2) The welfare entitlement stage that gives people something to survive on, but still sees unemployment as temporary. Assistance usually inadequate and comes with demeaning means tests. 3) The highest stage of evolution, of simply giving people enough to live on and letting them do as they please with their own time. In different countries it is called Mincome, Citizen's income, Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI), and Basic Income. The question is then how to stop the regression to workfare and engineer the progression to mincome? Many subjects touch on it, from Community Work against Institutionalised Poverty, to Labor and Civil Liberties Law, to the techniques and aims of Public Opinion Polling. It is a moderated list, but no submission will be refused unless it is clearly out in orbit. This is no longer a list for people who have nothing better to do with their time and who want to have pointless debates. It is for serious anti-poverty activists who want to exchange useful information and experience about how to effectively combat workfare in their own communities, and to turn it into adequate incomes for all people. The list is fairly international, with eight countries represented, but the bulk of subscribers presently are in Ontario, Canada. Try this list out. Unsubbing is even easier that subbing. To subscribe go to http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/Workfare-Mincome or e-mail the moderator at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: FW Workfare for capital
This appears to be an incomplete picture at best. Let's examine:
> It's time to introduce "workfare for capital"
> By Jim Stanford
>
> Frank Stronach, former CEO of Magna International, once explained why
> companies weren't investing more in the production of goods and
> services.
One reason during one time period doesn't provide proof of causation
("why"). There are many reasons why the above has occurred historically
and is occurring today.
> "Why would you pour a foundation, buy machines, or hire employees," he
> asked, "if you can make as much money buying Canadian government bonds?"
>
> The figures bear him out. The average return on equity for Canadian
> business from 1990 to 1998 was 5.7%, while the average return on
> long-term Canadian bonds during the same period was 8.2%.
The rates weren't constant in each case during the 8 years. Business
decisions have been made with shorter and shorter horizons this decade,
so 8 yr averages aren't very helpful. Interest rates varied
significantly during the decade, and there could have been times when
business prospects were low and capital did find alternate placement in
government debt instruments. However, few businessmen would buy a 10
yr(or longer) bond when they might need to liquidate the position within
a year or so if business prospects improved; so the rate on 1 year
treasury bills would be a more reasonable comparison.
> Conservatives have long deplored the alleged harm that "easy public
> money" has on the work incentive of poor Canadians. In response,
> provincial politicians have cut welfare rates and the federal government
> has cut unemployment insurance benefits. And they try to justify these
> punitive cutbacks by claiming they help to break the poor's "cycle of
> dependency."
Maybe so.
> But the recipients of the biggest public welfare handouts are being left
> alone. They are the financial investors who received $77 billion in
> interest payments from Canadian taxpayers last year on their holdings of
> government bonds.
Why is interest payment a "handout"? The borrowings were made by the
representatives of the "taxpayers" (most working age, voting Canadians).
Spending money that you don't have (in the current monetary/fiscal
system)involves the voluntary payment of interest. If one doesn't want
to 'handout' interest, one doesn't borrow.
> That's almost four times as much as the total cost of
> the welfare programs of all 10 provinces, and over six times the total
> UI benefits paid out last year.
Maybe so.
> Our politicians conveniently ignore the impact of all this "easy public
> money"
This is a sour grapes rant against all people who were able & willing to
spend less than they earned (or inheritanced from other earners). If the
money went into bank deposits or money market funds, would Stanford
still claim the interest was "easy public money"?
There is no difference in the macroeconomic picture since government
expenditures cycle through the economy similiarly to private
expenditures.
> on the work incentive of investors, who obviously have lost the
> will to earn an honest living.
All economic success therefore becomes dishonest once one decides to
cease working for money? Philanthropists are dishonest, all retirees are
dishonest if they have any savings. Get the logic?
> Knowing they can rake in so much money
> simply from holding pieces of paper, they have no need to undertake
> useful and productive work. Why should they bother financing the
> production of goods and services of real value when they can live as
> well, or better, just by clipping coupons from government bonds?
"real value"?This assumes that growing economic throughput is always an
unquestioned plus for humans. I suggest that GDP is not always the best
indicator of quality of life.
See the GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator) at Redefining Progress:
http://www.rprogress.org
The belief that the pieces of paper(government bonds) represent no
additional GDP is of course totally false, as the capital invested was
cycled through the economy as I already explained.
> These unfortunate investors are clearly locked into a cycle of
> dependency. All they can think of is what they will buy when they get
> their next government cheques. Will it be expensive booze? A gambling
> spree in Vegas? A cruise on a luxury liner? Another Mercedes-Benz?
Ad hominem insults reflect on the one using them. Presuming to know the
motivations, intentions, and future actions of others is hubris. The
author is the unfortunate one locked in his own mental apartheid.
> What these lazy investors need is a healthy dose of tough love. Their
> welfare rates--the interest on their r
Re: FW Workfare for capital
(Sorry if duplicate)
This appears to be an incomplete picture at best. Let's examine:
> It's time to introduce "workfare for capital"
> By Jim Stanford
>
> Frank Stronach, former CEO of Magna International, once explained why
> companies weren't investing more in the production of goods and
> services.
One reason during one time period doesn't provide proof of causation
("why"). There are many reasons why the above has occurred historically
and is occurring today.
> "Why would you pour a foundation, buy machines, or hire employees," he
> asked, "if you can make as much money buying Canadian government bonds?"
>
> The figures bear him out. The average return on equity for Canadian
> business from 1990 to 1998 was 5.7%, while the average return on
> long-term Canadian bonds during the same period was 8.2%.
The rates weren't constant in each case during the 8 years. Business
decisions have been made with shorter and shorter horizons this decade,
so 8 yr averages aren't very helpful. Interest rates varied
significantly during the decade, and there could have been times when
business prospects were low and capital did find alternate placement in
government debt instruments. However, few businessmen would buy a 10
yr(or longer) bond when they might need to liquidate the position within
a year or so if business prospects improved; so the rate on 1 year
treasury bills would be a more reasonable comparison.
> Conservatives have long deplored the alleged harm that "easy public
> money" has on the work incentive of poor Canadians. In response,
> provincial politicians have cut welfare rates and the federal government
> has cut unemployment insurance benefits. And they try to justify these
> punitive cutbacks by claiming they help to break the poor's "cycle of
> dependency."
Maybe so.
> But the recipients of the biggest public welfare handouts are being left
> alone. They are the financial investors who received $77 billion in
> interest payments from Canadian taxpayers last year on their holdings of
> government bonds.
Why is interest payment a "handout"? The borrowings were made by the
representatives of the "taxpayers" (most working age, voting Canadians).
Spending money that you don't have (in the current monetary/fiscal
system)involves the voluntary payment of interest. If one doesn't want
to 'handout' interest, one doesn't borrow.
> That's almost four times as much as the total cost of
> the welfare programs of all 10 provinces, and over six times the total
> UI benefits paid out last year.
Maybe so.
> Our politicians conveniently ignore the impact of all this "easy public
> money"
This is a sour grapes rant against all people who were able & willing to
spend less than they earned (or inheritanced from other earners). If the
money went into bank deposits or money market funds, would Stanford
still claim the interest was "easy public money"?
There is no difference in the macroeconomic picture since government
expenditures cycle through the economy similiarly to private
expenditures.
> on the work incentive of investors, who obviously have lost the
> will to earn an honest living.
All economic success therefore becomes dishonest once one decides to
cease working for money? Philanthropists are dishonest, all retirees are
dishonest if they have any savings. Get the logic?
> Knowing they can rake in so much money
> simply from holding pieces of paper, they have no need to undertake
> useful and productive work. Why should they bother financing the
> production of goods and services of real value when they can live as
> well, or better, just by clipping coupons from government bonds?
"real value"?This assumes that growing economic throughput is always an
unquestioned plus for humans. I suggest that GDP is not always the best
indicator of quality of life.
See the GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator) at Redefining Progress:
http://www.rprogress.org
The belief that the pieces of paper(government bonds) represent no
additional GDP is of course totally false, as the capital invested was
cycled through the economy as I already explained.
> These unfortunate investors are clearly locked into a cycle of
> dependency. All they can think of is what they will buy when they get
> their next government cheques. Will it be expensive booze? A gambling
> spree in Vegas? A cruise on a luxury liner? Another Mercedes-Benz?
Ad hominem insults reflect on the one using them. Presuming to know the
motivations, intentions, and future actions of others is hubris. The
author is the unfortunate one locked in his own mental apartheid.
> What these lazy investors need is a healthy dose of tough love. Their
> welfare rat
FW Workfare for capital (fwd)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:14:11 -0500 From: tim rourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: workfare for capital It's time to introduce "workfare for capital" By Jim Stanford Frank Stronach, former CEO of Magna International, once explained why companies weren't investing more in the production of goods and services. "Why would you pour a foundation, buy machines, or hire employees," he asked, "if you can make as much money buying Canadian government bonds?" The figures bear him out. The average return on equity for Canadian business from 1990 to 1998 was 5.7%, while the average return on long-term Canadian bonds during the same period was 8.2%. Conservatives have long deplored the alleged harm that "easy public money" has on the work incentive of poor Canadians. In response, provincial politicians have cut welfare rates and the federal government has cut unemployment insurance benefits. And they try to justify these punitive cutbacks by claiming they help to break the poor's "cycle of dependency." But the recipients of the biggest public welfare handouts are being left alone. They are the financial investors who received $77 billion in interest payments from Canadian taxpayers last year on their holdings of government bonds. That's almost four times as much as the total cost of the welfare programs of all 10 provinces, and over six times the total UI benefits paid out last year. Our politicians conveniently ignore the impact of all this "easy public money" on the work incentive of investors, who obviously have lost the will to earn an honest living. Knowing they can rake in so much money simply from holding pieces of paper, they have no need to undertake useful and productive work. Why should they bother financing the production of goods and services of real value when they can live as well, or better, just by clipping coupons from government bonds? These unfortunate investors are clearly locked into a cycle of dependency. All they can think of is what they will buy when they get their next government cheques. Will it be expensive booze? A gambling spree in Vegas? A cruise on a luxury liner? Another Mercedes-Benz? What these lazy investors need is a healthy dose of tough love. Their welfare rates--the interest on their risk-free government bonds--should be slashed by a percentage that at least matches the deep cuts in social assistance. And, if they still won't go out and get real jobs, they should be made to enroll in a "workfare for capital" program. In return for their welfare income, they would have to invest some of it in community development projects. Like low-cost housing, for example. Such a worfare program for unproductive investors could be patterned on the pronouncements of Ontario Premier Mike Harris in his 1995 election platform. The Common Sense Revolution was the definitive statement on the benefits of workfare. We reprint it below, with appropriate editorial changes indicated in bold-face: "We want to open up new opportunities and restore hope for investors by breaking the cycle of dependency...We should prepare financial welfare recipients to return to the real economy by requiring all able-bodied capital...either to work, or to be reinvested in the community in return for their benefits...Although the amount of money involved may not be large, the possibility of community work opens the door for financial welfare recipients to learn new skills, work towards full-time employment, and increase their self-esteem." - (CAW economist Jim Stanford is a visiting fellow with the CCPA.) Taken from The CCPA Monitor, June 1999.
Re: Irish Workfare
Dear Melanie: The latest I read about, as if they haven't suffered enough, is women from the Balkans being lured to the Europe and England to work as prostitutes and your right, it goes on ad infinitum. It's disgusting, it's cruel and most of us are powerless as individuals to do anything because many of us in affluent countries who care are struggling to survive as well. And yes, I agree, it is "impossibly depressing" to know about which is why most of us, I think, in self defence choose not to read, or think about it. Thanks for posting your feelings on this matter. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde PS 99% of this could be eliminated with a Universal Basic Income -- >From: Melanie Milanich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Thomas Lunde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Irish Workfare >Date: Fri, Jul 9, 1999, 6:14 PM > > Thomas, >A few years ago on this list I quoted from a book I was reading, which I don't > recall the author or title now, however, it took your premise a bit further, and > suggested that the elite "haves" of the world were more or less desiring to kill > off the unnecessary people on the planet. I don't want to dwell on it because it > is impossibly depressing an idea, but more and more I see how the homeless are > being treated, as well as refugees and victims of various disasters locally and > around the world, and I do feel that we have lost the Judeo-Christian philosophy > that once existed in the1950s about helping our fellowmen and doing good to others, > all those kinds of things to believe in that the potential of all human beings was > valued. Also I just bought a book from the bookstore, called > Unwanted people, slavery today (or something like that I don't have it right here) > about the thousands, literally hundreds of thousands of women, children, youth and > adults who are in essense bought and sold for the sex trade, for beggars, for > endentured labourers, and in African countries pure forms of slavery, buying and > sellling people exists today. > As many countries economies collapse people turn increasingly to any way of > survival. And there are some 800 million people without enough food or clean water > willing to do anything to get out of their plight. > The Fortune 500 magazine put out its growing list of world billionaires last week, > but I don't hear any concern about all the unnecessary dying people. > Melanie > Thomas Lunde wrote: > >> -- >> >From: "Durant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Subject: Re: Irish Workfare >> >Date: Wed, Jul 7, 1999, 10:14 PM >> >> Thomas: >> >> First, this is not my writing, but a quote typed from a book - a book >> written by a popular author in 1912. They used different forms in writing >> than what we use today, so, sometimes you have to work a little to get the >> idea behind the cumbersome style. >> > >> >> >> The problem turns, remember, upon the control of the means of production. >> >> Capitalism means that this control is vested in the hands of few, while >> >> political freedom is the appanage of all. It this anomaly cannot endure, >> >> from its insecurity and from its own contradiction with its presumed moral >> >> basis, you must either have a transformation of one or of the other of the >> >> two elements which combined have been found unworkable. These two factors >> >> are (1) The ownership of the means of production by a few; (2) The freedom >> >> of all. To solve capitalism you must get rid of restricted ownership, or of >> >> freedom, or of both. >> >> >> > Eva asked: >> >> > What political freedom?? (and what the *^%$* is appanage, the >> > dictionary didn't find any means to connect it to your sentence.) >> >> Thomas: >> >> Yes, I stumbled on this word appanage too when I was transcribing and I was >> tempted to subsitute the word "appendage" but decided that perhaps I just >> did not have enough education, so I left it as written. >> >> Now, as to political freedom. Belloc maintains in greater detail in other >> parts of the book, but alludes to it here in the phrase, "this anomaly >> cannot endure" his perception of the basic contradiction between belief >> systems. On the one hand, the belief that democracy gives individuals >> freedom by allowing them to choose who represents them and how they will be >> represented by the political platforms of various parties - and I agree, >> this is a very questionable freedom - and the anomaly t
Re: Irish Workfare
-- >From: "Durant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Irish Workfare >Date: Wed, Jul 7, 1999, 10:14 PM Thomas: First, this is not my writing, but a quote typed from a book - a book written by a popular author in 1912. They used different forms in writing than what we use today, so, sometimes you have to work a little to get the idea behind the cumbersome style. > >> The problem turns, remember, upon the control of the means of production. >> Capitalism means that this control is vested in the hands of few, while >> political freedom is the appanage of all. It this anomaly cannot endure, >> from its insecurity and from its own contradiction with its presumed moral >> basis, you must either have a transformation of one or of the other of the >> two elements which combined have been found unworkable. These two factors >> are (1) The ownership of the means of production by a few; (2) The freedom >> of all. To solve capitalism you must get rid of restricted ownership, or of >> freedom, or of both. >> > Eva asked: > What political freedom?? (and what the *^%$* is appanage, the > dictionary didn't find any means to connect it to your sentence.) Thomas: Yes, I stumbled on this word appanage too when I was transcribing and I was tempted to subsitute the word "appendage" but decided that perhaps I just did not have enough education, so I left it as written. Now, as to political freedom. Belloc maintains in greater detail in other parts of the book, but alludes to it here in the phrase, "this anomaly cannot endure" his perception of the basic contradiction between belief systems. On the one hand, the belief that democracy gives individuals freedom by allowing them to choose who represents them and how they will be represented by the political platforms of various parties - and I agree, this is a very questionable freedom - and the anomaly that allows those with capital to monopolize the means of production and thereby derive others of their economic freedom. Eva continues: > > Your premise is false. Capitalism doesn't mean political freedom, > most of the time not even nominally. Economic unequality > cannot provide political equality, when economic power means > political power. > Therefore there is no reason why > non-capitalism should lead necessarily to non-freedom. Thomas: You have prefectly made Belloc's point. Capitalism is the antithesis of political freedom, which is why he argues that the dominance of capitalism will lead to slavery. The anomaly between the two belief systems is that you cannot have capitalism and freedom or you cannot have freedom and capitalism. Eva continues: > > The conditions needed for > a successful/democratic socialist transformation were missing > in the historical events so far. This is straightforward analysis > of historical data. A successful transformation has not > happened yet, which does not mean it cannot, when the conditions are > right. New systems have this nature of not yet ever being around. Thomas: Again, you must be studying Belloc in your spare time. He would have no trouble agreeing with your conclusions and the difference between 1912 and 1999 is just history. We are still stuck with capitalism because it successfully buys the collaboration of each elected government. The socialists have never had the capital to compete for the politicians support and only occasionally, as at an election time, have the politicians had to defer to the will of the people. But Belloc's observations and conclusions are frightening. We either have capitalism with slavery or we have democracy without capitalism. Given the brainwashing that we have all went through from our culture, it is inconcievable for any new thought to gain sufficient momentum to introduce change. > > >> Now there is only one alternative to freedom, which is the negation of it. >> Either a man is free to work and not to work as he pleases, or he may be >> liable to a legal compulsion to work, backed by the forces of the state. In >> the first he is a free man; in the second he is by definition a slave. We >> have, therefore, so far as this factor of freedom is concerned, no choice >> between a number of changes, but only the opportunity of one, to wit, the >> establishment of slavery in place of freedom. Eva says: > > You suggest, that people are "free to work" at present? > Because you are wrong in that case. Nobody, who > HAS TO get up and go to work for an income that > is necessary for living a life that is considered to be > satisfactory in the given social/cultural setup, is free. Thomas: NOT ME! People have to work - or starve. The difference in my lifetime is that we have moved
Re: Irish Workfare
-- >From: Bob McDaniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: FutureWork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Irish Workfare >Date: Wed, Jul 7, 1999, 8:02 PM > > Just seeking some clarification here. > > Thomas Lunde wrote: > >> >From The Servile State Page 122 >> >> Now there is only one alternative to freedom, which is the negation of it. >> Either a man is free to work and not to work as he pleases, or he may be >> liable to a legal compulsion to work, backed by the forces of the state. In >> the first he is a free man; in the second he is by definition a slave. > > This does not seem to address workfare. Is it not true that a person must first > apply for welfare in order to receive it? If some form of work is required s/he > should be so informed. At that point the applicant may refuse to work > presumably. No legal compulsion there. The person may then turn to > non-governmental sources for aid (charity). Thomas: Good question Dan. Belloc's main idea is that capitalism monoplizes the "means of production" in the hands of the few and by doing that, disenfranchises those who might or could be productive by not allowing them to be productive. Now, consider someone going on welfare and for the sake of this answer, let's eliminate the handicapped, the addicted, etc and assume that the person going on welfare is doing so because they cannot find work, or the work they may be able to find does not give them enough money for their needs. Or they have specialist training and that they are entitled to choose their work in that area in which they had developed expertise. If I was the father of six, minimum wage jobs will not solve my problem. If I was a printer, taking a job as a dishwasher would negate my experience. The welfare recipients problem is that he cannot be productive in the workforce because he cannot find work or work that utilizes his previous experience or skills - ie those controlling the means of production cannot find a use for his labour that would allow them to siphon of a profit from his efforts. Now, capitalism in a pure form would state to that person - go starve. However, the state intervened with a concept of redistribution, which basically alleviated the harsh judgement of capitalism and created a degree of income for the unemployed. Up until about 10 years ago, that was considered fair and acceptable. The tacit understanding was that this minimal help was available to all - unconditionally as a "right" of citizenship. Then came workfare, which phonetically is heard as workfair, but it is far from fair in my opinion. The conditions of societal help then became the negation of a persons "right" to choose his work and he is coerced by the laws of the state to work at whatever the state chooses to demand of him. This was a quantum shift from a free man in a society that valued him to a slave in a society that was going to get it's pound of flesh. As the "capitalists" controlled property and capital, the person unable to work for them is moved into a form of serfdom by the government - who is supposed to protect his basic rights. Now as to your second point, the right to refuse the contract and allow someone of good heart to provide charity is another way of saying that those who are disenfranchised of the right to work by those who own and use the "means of production" for their own personal gain have no common responsibility. The State has moved from a position of supporting the idea of redistributing income through welfare - to one in which the conditions of welfare support is given through enforced labour. So, the State is now in the business of creating slaves. The Capitalists have no responsibility and are free to pursue their aims. Now, truthfully, the citizens should never have been forced to see Welfare funded from their income tax. They are not the ones who disenfranchised the worker by being unable to provide employment. Rather, those who own the means of production, should be taxed for those they disenfranchise - as it is through their system of creating profit that workers do not receive the full benefit of their labours. So, quite frankly, in my opinion it is the capitalists and property owners who should by law be required to provide the "charity" that you speak of. > >> >> >> Thomas: >> >> ... it is the very business class, those >> who, as Belloc identifies as the small minority who control the means of >> production, who find the concepts of Socialism or Welfare state so abhorrent >> to their goals of personal wealth creation who are supporting the political >> moves that are leading the poor into slavery. > > While a definition of "business class" is needed here, we may _pro tem_ > consider it the equiv
Re: Irish Workfare
- Original Message - From: Bob McDaniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: FutureWork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: July 07, 1999 4:02 PM Subject: Re: Irish Workfare [snip] > > Thomas: > > > > ... it is the very business class, those > > who, as Belloc identifies as the small minority who control the means of > > production, who find the concepts of Socialism or Welfare state so abhorrent > > to their goals of personal wealth creation who are supporting the political > > moves that are leading the poor into slavery. > > While a definition of "business class" is needed here, we may _pro tem_ > consider it the equivalent of business owners. In my limited experience those > who are really ticked off by many welfare recipients is not the business class > but the so-called working poor, those hard working individuals who barely earn > more than those on welfare who do nothing in return! The working poor also > includes, I'm afraid, many small business owners who barely scrape by. > Only too true. I work in a factory, and I can tell you that the vast majority of my fellow workers are very much down on welfare recipients--even some who by their own admission were on welfare for a while. They are forever retailing stories about welfare cases who spend their money on booze or other undeserved luxuries. There is perhaps some justification for this sense of grievance at the very bottom level of the working poor. People in low-wage jobs without benefits may actually be poorer than welfare recipients since they may have to pay for things like dental work which would be supplied for the welfare recipient. I think we have a problem here analogous to the perception of a rising tide of crime when the crime rate is in fact falling. There is no use denying that some welfare recipients do have substance abuse problems. However, in my experience there are lots of other people who are--or were--on welfare and were never identified as such by the casual observer because they managed their lives well enough. As for the business owners (not that I hobnob with them) it is my impression that most of them are also anti-welfare perhaps not because they give a damn about the work ethic but rather because they can't bear to have their precious money taxed away from them. A few months ago Paul Desmarais (one of the wealthiest people in Canada) was whining about our high tax rates. Columnist Dalton Camp said he was going to apply for a consultant's position with Desmarais. Camp felt confident that he could show him how to live happily with only a billion dollars in the bank! Live long and prosper Victor Milne WebWizard HTML Design at http://www.web-wiz.org FIGHT THE BASTARDS! An anti-neoconservative website at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/pat-vic/ LONESOME ACRES RIDING STABLE at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/home.htm DDT - DON'T DO TELEMARKETING at http://www.web-wiz.org/DDT/
Re: Irish Workfare
Greetings Thomas & all, Thomas Lunde wrote: > There are but three social arrangements which can replace capitalism; > slavery, socialism, and property. > > I may imagine a mixture of any two of these three or of all the three, but > each is a dominant type, and from the very nature of the problem, no fourth > arrngement can be devised. > > The problem turns, remember, upon the control of the means of production. > Capitalism means that this control is vested in the hands of few, while > political freedom is the appanage of all. It this anomaly cannot endure, > from its insecurity and from its own contradiction with its presumed moral > basis, you must either have a transformation of one or of the other of the > two elements which combined have been found unworkable. These two factors > are (1) The ownership of the means of production by a few; (2) The freedom > of all. To solve capitalism you must get rid of restricted ownership, or of > freedom, or of both. A few of you might have followed the recent on-line seminar/forum with author Jeff Gates which focused on his book _The Ownership Solution_. Although I'm not a supporter of claims that this espoused form of 'democratic capitalism' (worker & customer ownership of increasing % of profitable businesses) is *the key* to solving the human predicament, supporters include George Soros, Stephen Schmidheiny, & M. Gorbachev. I do think it can be a part of the 'resolutique'. There is nothing quite like ownership to stimulate stewardship (in my experience). > Thomas: > > The following article is an example of a State moving slowly towards > slavery. And as the article mentions, it is the very business class, those > who, as Belloc identifies as the small minority who control the means of > production, who find the concepts of Socialism or Welfare state so abhorrent > to their goals of personal wealth creation who are supporting the political > moves that are leading the poor into slavery. First, we can see that the > plight of the poor has to increase in misery and finally as a sop, the > authorities will bring forth as a panacea to the cruelty they have created, > "under workable regulations, sufficiency and security for the dispossessed." > > Convince me that I am wrong? Only the future can inform us of that. One element that you might be discounting is the requirement of a large middle class of consumers to support the profit system. Another perception is that rational self-interest, even by the superrich, requires a sustainable future for their extended families, tribes...in a healthy, safe, aesthetically pleasing habitat. A world with a vast majority of humans as slaves seems likely to contradict both of those contingencies. My 2c (now Canadian, so worth 1ess?) :-) Steve
Re: Irish Workfare
> The problem turns, remember, upon the control of the means of production. > Capitalism means that this control is vested in the hands of few, while > political freedom is the appanage of all. It this anomaly cannot endure, > from its insecurity and from its own contradiction with its presumed moral > basis, you must either have a transformation of one or of the other of the > two elements which combined have been found unworkable. These two factors > are (1) The ownership of the means of production by a few; (2) The freedom > of all. To solve capitalism you must get rid of restricted ownership, or of > freedom, or of both. > What political freedom?? (and what the *^%$* is appanage, the dictionary didn't find any means to connect it to your sentence.) Your premise is false. Capitalism doesn't mean political freedom, most of the time not even nominally. Economic unequality cannot provide political equality, when economic power means political power. Therefore there is no reason why non-capitalism should lead necessarily to non-freedom. The conditions needed for a successful/democratic socialist transformation were missing in the historical events so far. This is straightforward analysis of historical data. A successful transformation has not happened yet, which does not mean it cannot, when the conditions are right. New systems have this nature of not yet ever being around. > Now there is only one alternative to freedom, which is the negation of it. > Either a man is free to work and not to work as he pleases, or he may be > liable to a legal compulsion to work, backed by the forces of the state. In > the first he is a free man; in the second he is by definition a slave. We > have, therefore, so far as this factor of freedom is concerned, no choice > between a number of changes, but only the opportunity of one, to wit, the > establishment of slavery in place of freedom. You suggest, that people are "free to work" at present? Because you are wrong in that case. Nobody, who HAS TO get up and go to work for an income that is necessary for living a life that is considered to be satisfactory in the given social/cultural setup, is free. The wast majority of us are wageslaves, whether we are happy with our particular situations/conscious of it or not. The state is an instrument of the status quo, it exist to enforce our status as wageslaves, and maintain the status of the owners of the means of production (private property). If we were free, no enforcement/state would be necessary, as we would work because we see the need for it or because we enjoy it, or both. > Such a solution, the direct, > immediate, and conscious reestalishment of slavery, would provide a true > soltuioh of the problems which capitalism offers. It would guarantee, under > workable regulations, sufficiency and security for the dispossessed. Such a > solution, as I shall show, is the probable goal which our society will in > fact approach. To its immediate and conscious acceptance, however, there is > an obstacle. > This is indeed, frightening. Especially as it seem to be repeated more and more often; the gist of it being, that democracy is mob's rule of the great unwashed, when clever, benevolent technocrats could govern us ever so well. Capitalism hasn't got the economic mechanism to provide continuous security for anyone - and last of all for the dispossessed. No form of government can change this. Hitler needed an artificial market (military/public work) and a war, to re-kindle the failing machinary. If you follow through your thread of thought, this is where you get. There is no capitalism with a human face, whether based on allegedly benevolent dictatorship or democracy. It hasn't got the economic machinary to support it other then for relatively short periods. That's why it is outmoded and all attempt of it's further zombification is madness, when we now have the conditions to do better. > Thomas: > > The following article is an example of a State moving slowly towards > slavery. And as the article mentions, it is the very business class, those > who, as Belloc identifies as the small minority who control the means of > production, who find the concepts of Socialism or Welfare state so abhorrent > to their goals of personal wealth creation who are supporting the political > moves that are leading the poor into slavery. First, we can see that the > plight of the poor has to increase in misery and finally as a sop, the > authorities will bring forth as a panacea to the cruelty they have created, > "under workable regulations, sufficiency and security for the dispossessed." > The whole of the middle-classes are sliding down to the uncertainties and statelessness insecurity of the underclass. This experience will sling them out of the stupor created by the virtual wealth of the last 50 years. Such awareness will bring the next revolution and the long awaited syncronisation of collective social
Re: Irish Workfare
Just seeking some clarification here. Thomas Lunde wrote: > >From The Servile State Page 122 > > Now there is only one alternative to freedom, which is the negation of it. > Either a man is free to work and not to work as he pleases, or he may be > liable to a legal compulsion to work, backed by the forces of the state. In > the first he is a free man; in the second he is by definition a slave. This does not seem to address workfare. Is it not true that a person must first apply for welfare in order to receive it? If some form of work is required s/he should be so informed. At that point the applicant may refuse to work presumably. No legal compulsion there. The person may then turn to non-governmental sources for aid (charity). > > > Thomas: > > ... it is the very business class, those > who, as Belloc identifies as the small minority who control the means of > production, who find the concepts of Socialism or Welfare state so abhorrent > to their goals of personal wealth creation who are supporting the political > moves that are leading the poor into slavery. While a definition of "business class" is needed here, we may _pro tem_ consider it the equivalent of business owners. In my limited experience those who are really ticked off by many welfare recipients is not the business class but the so-called working poor, those hard working individuals who barely earn more than those on welfare who do nothing in return! The working poor also includes, I'm afraid, many small business owners who barely scrape by. Those who sponsor workfare schemes are probably in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation and are following the short-run route of expedience. Just wondering ... -- http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/
Re: Irish Workfare
Thomas: I do apoligize for harping on the subject of slavery and the posting of quotes from the book, The Servile State by Hilaire Belloc, but reality just keeps supplying me with proof of his thesis. The lengthy article posted below by Ian Ritchie is just such a proof. >From The Servile State Page 122 There are but three social arrangements which can replace capitalism; slavery, socialism, and property. I may imagine a mixture of any two of these three or of all the three, but each is a dominant type, and from the very nature of the problem, no fourth arrngement can be devised. The problem turns, remember, upon the control of the means of production. Capitalism means that this control is vested in the hands of few, while political freedom is the appanage of all. It this anomaly cannot endure, from its insecurity and from its own contradiction with its presumed moral basis, you must either have a transformation of one or of the other of the two elements which combined have been found unworkable. These two factors are (1) The ownership of the means of production by a few; (2) The freedom of all. To solve capitalism you must get rid of restricted ownership, or of freedom, or of both. Now there is only one alternative to freedom, which is the negation of it. Either a man is free to work and not to work as he pleases, or he may be liable to a legal compulsion to work, backed by the forces of the state. In the first he is a free man; in the second he is by definition a slave. We have, therefore, so far as this factor of freedom is concerned, no choice between a number of changes, but only the opportunity of one, to wit, the establishment of slavery in place of freedom. Such a solution, the direct, immediate, and conscious reestalishment of slavery, would provide a true soltuioh of the problems which capitalism offers. It would guarantee, under workable regulations, sufficiency and security for the dispossessed. Such a solution, as I shall show, is the probable goal which our society will in fact approach. To its immediate and conscious acceptance, however, there is an obstacle. Thomas: The following article is an example of a State moving slowly towards slavery. And as the article mentions, it is the very business class, those who, as Belloc identifies as the small minority who control the means of production, who find the concepts of Socialism or Welfare state so abhorrent to their goals of personal wealth creation who are supporting the political moves that are leading the poor into slavery. First, we can see that the plight of the poor has to increase in misery and finally as a sop, the authorities will bring forth as a panacea to the cruelty they have created, "under workable regulations, sufficiency and security for the dispossessed." Convince me that I am wrong? Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- >From: Ian Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "'futurework'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: FW: Irish Workfare >Date: Wed, Jul 7, 1999, 4:13 AM > > > >> -- >> From: B Sandford[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> FYI >> >> ICQ: 20816964 >> Fax: USA(707)215-6524 >> >> *** >> News via ainriail the Irish Anarchist Bulletin list >> see http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/inter/email_lists.html >> *** >> >> Social Welfare Bill 1999 >> Hassling people into very low paid jobs >> >> >> The Scheme Workers Alliance organises people on >> employment schemes to combat cutbacks and win the >> extension of part-time workers rights. Uisce from >> 'Workers Solidarity' spoke to Leo Duffy and Seamas >> Carrehan of the SWA about the upcoming Social Welfare >> bill. >> >> The Government is continuing its campaign against >> working class people. Workfare was introduced last year >> by Mary Harney, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade & >> Employment. It forces people into shit low paid jobs by >> cutting their social welfare completely. The next phase >> in this assault is the proposed Social Welfare Bill >> 1999. >> >> Contained in it are provisions for increasing welfare >> benefits for the unemployed, pensioners and other people >> on welfare. However, the increase would not even buy a >> packet of cigarettes, the price of which was raised in >> the last budget. Hidden among these titbits from the >> Tiger's table is Article 26, a draconian piece of >> legislation directed at further oppressing the working >> class. >> >> "This Welfare Bill, and particularly the section dealing >> with vehicle checkpoints, comes at the end of a three >>
FW: Irish Workfare
> -- > From: B Sandford[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > FYI > > ICQ: 20816964 > Fax: USA(707)215-6524 > > *** > News via ainriail the Irish Anarchist Bulletin list > see http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/inter/email_lists.html > *** > > Social Welfare Bill 1999 > Hassling people into very low paid jobs > > > The Scheme Workers Alliance organises people on > employment schemes to combat cutbacks and win the > extension of part-time workers rights. Uisce from > 'Workers Solidarity' spoke to Leo Duffy and Seamas > Carrehan of the SWA about the upcoming Social Welfare > bill. > > The Government is continuing its campaign against > working class people. Workfare was introduced last year > by Mary Harney, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade & > Employment. It forces people into shit low paid jobs by > cutting their social welfare completely. The next phase > in this assault is the proposed Social Welfare Bill > 1999. > > Contained in it are provisions for increasing welfare > benefits for the unemployed, pensioners and other people > on welfare. However, the increase would not even buy a > packet of cigarettes, the price of which was raised in > the last budget. Hidden among these titbits from the > Tiger's table is Article 26, a draconian piece of > legislation directed at further oppressing the working > class. > > "This Welfare Bill, and particularly the section dealing > with vehicle checkpoints, comes at the end of a three > year sustained and covert campaign by the state against > the most vulnerable people in our society" said Seamas > Carrahen. It allows for Social Welfare inspectors to > mount checkpoints to (in theory) catch social welfare > recipients who are also working in the black economy. > > Welfare inspectors, when accompanied by a cop can stop a > vehicle suspected of "being used in the course of > employment or self-employment." Dermot Ahern, Minister > for Welfare has assured us "that the powers will > continue to be used responsibly. This programme is not > aimed at the ordinary citizen going about their > business." > > But as Leo Duffy put it "it reinforces the sense of > threat that people in vulnerable positions, on social > welfare (will be) hassled under the new welfare > arrangement". It will be used where unemployment is > endemic and it will infringe on the lives of working > class people. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties > described it as "another inroad into peoples liberty to > come and go in the course of legitimate activity." > > Even though the powers for social welfare inspectors are > only now being legislated for, these multi-agency check- > points have been in operation over the past year. When > criticised by other TDs who had never heard of these > checkpoints 'till they saw the Bill, Dermot Ahern > apologised saying "in retrospect it, perhaps, should > have been mentioned." > > Ahern "has done all of this without negotiating with any > of the people involved" said Seamas Carrehan, pointing > to the lack of consultation between Ahern's Department > and trade unions and unemployed groups. A reason that > Ahern is legislating for the checkpoints now may be that > "by formalising it in legislation it does give it a > status where it could be more easily manipulated against > vulnerable people" said Leo Duffy. > > Dermot Ahern, in defence of the checkpoints, said that > in February that 10% of vehicles stopped at certain > checkpoints revealed fraud cases. What he didn't say was > whether these particular cars had been deliberately > targeted. > > Perhaps he is implying that 10% of working class people > are criminals. According to Leo Duffy "anybody who is > carrying a plastic social welfare card is automatically > going to come under suspicion or threat". > > Seamas Carrahen described the Bill as primarily > representing "the interests of business. But the people > it represents and the people who are saying that we need > cutbacks and we cannot afford the welfare state are > actually the people, at this point, who are becoming > phenomonally wealthy". He added that the continuing > campaign against unemployment by the government is not > designed to help the unemployed. It is actually to drive > the unemployed into low wage jobs, and again that's a > business persons agenda that's being promoted by the
Re: FW Instead of workfare
Recently looking at job-advertisements I was amazed to see the number of (managerial, well paid) jobs in the voluntary sector while the volunteers ofcourse get some miserly expenses at best. If these jobs need to be doing, why can't they be done for decent money? If there is enough money for the managers, why not for the workers? It is an insane society where the socially responsible jobs have to rely on haphazard charity and the interconnectedness (crony) ways of the nomenclature... Eva > Sally Lerner wrote: > > > >I'd be interested in commentsto this list on an idea that some of us feel > > >would be far better than the coercive and punitive Ontario Works Program. > > >It's very simple: find people on assistance who *want* to work and/or > > >train. Then help them find volunteer work positions (and provide 'work > > >readiness mentoring' if needed) and help them find funding for the training > > >they need/want (not surprisingly, most people on assistance don't have > > >money for training courses.) > > > I agree very much with this approach, although one of the problems I see > both with Workfare and with this approach is that unless there is some > realistic expectation that there may be a job at the end of it...then it > really is just make-work and another form of blaming the victim ie. the > reason you are unemployed is because you lack job readiness "life"etc.etc. > skills or whatever the HRD buzz word of the day. This may be true but no > amount of life skilling/job readiness-inging (sp) is going to do much in > the absence of real employment opportunities. > > Now those employment opportunities could come from the public > sector--as us FWers know, there is a lot of "work" to be done even if > there aren't paid jobs to wrap around them, but (IMHO) only > transitioning (other-wise employable youth) or de-classe middle class > folks are going to make very much out of short term, contract "social" > sector employment (anyone else remember Opportunities For Youth and the > "counter sector that it resulted in). > > I think what Sally is suggesting works, for example we have made it work > with some ex-TAGS (transitioning ex-fisher) folks here in Nova Scotia but > it didn't just happen by creating a program... it took a lot of money > time and effort at creating contexts out of which real > employment/employment opportunities were able to emerge. > > Governments looking for quick fixes/magic bullets don't have the patience > to put that kind of investment into the mix. > > No verdict--possible but unlikely > > regs > > Mike Gurstein > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW Instead of workfare
Sally Lerner wrote: > >I'd be interested in commentsto this list on an idea that some of us feel > >would be far better than the coercive and punitive Ontario Works Program. > >It's very simple: find people on assistance who *want* to work and/or > >train. Then help them find volunteer work positions (and provide 'work > >readiness mentoring' if needed) and help them find funding for the training > >they need/want (not surprisingly, most people on assistance don't have > >money for training courses.) > I agree very much with this approach, although one of the problems I see both with Workfare and with this approach is that unless there is some realistic expectation that there may be a job at the end of it...then it really is just make-work and another form of blaming the victim ie. the reason you are unemployed is because you lack job readiness "life"etc.etc. skills or whatever the HRD buzz word of the day. This may be true but no amount of life skilling/job readiness-inging (sp) is going to do much in the absence of real employment opportunities. Now those employment opportunities could come from the public sector--as us FWers know, there is a lot of "work" to be done even if there aren't paid jobs to wrap around them, but (IMHO) only transitioning (other-wise employable youth) or de-classe middle class folks are going to make very much out of short term, contract "social" sector employment (anyone else remember Opportunities For Youth and the "counter sector that it resulted in). I think what Sally is suggesting works, for example we have made it work with some ex-TAGS (transitioning ex-fisher) folks here in Nova Scotia but it didn't just happen by creating a program... it took a lot of money time and effort at creating contexts out of which real employment/employment opportunities were able to emerge. Governments looking for quick fixes/magic bullets don't have the patience to put that kind of investment into the mix. No verdict--possible but unlikely regs Mike Gurstein
Re: FW Instead of workfare
> >I'd be interested in commentsto this list on an idea that some of us feel >would be far better than the coercive and punitive Ontario Works Program. >It's very simple: find people on assistance who *want* to work and/or >train. Then help them find volunteer work positions (and provide 'work >readiness mentoring' if needed) and help them find funding for the training >they need/want (not surprisingly, most people on assistance don't have >money for training courses.) Sally, As you know, the Government of Ontario has put Bill 22 (An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997) before the legislature in order to block any attempt to unionize people who are on workfare. This strikes me as being a step toward keeping the poor isolated from each other so that they cannot take organized collective action when in reality organized, collective action is what would probably be most helpful to them. Of course, Mrs. Ecker, who sponsored the Bill, says it is not directed at the poor, but rather at unions who are trying to subvert workfare and thereby deny the poor access to it. What the Bill suggests is a fear of the potential power of the poor. As long as solutions are imposed from above - like workfare - there is little to worry about. But if the poor were an organized political force proposing solutions of their own, there is no telling what might happen. Better to cut that possibility off. Ed Weick
FW Instead of workfare
I've sent the message below to a list that monitors Ontario Works (a workfare program). Comments from FWers would also be welcome.Sally To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "S. Lerner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Making work available Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: I'd be interested in commentsto this list on an idea that some of us feel would be far better than the coercive and punitive Ontario Works Program. It's very simple: find people on assistance who *want* to work and/or train. Then help them find volunteer work positions (and provide 'work readiness mentoring' if needed) and help them find funding for the training they need/want (not surprisingly, most people on assistance don't have money for training courses.) Sally Lerner, of the Futurework list http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/Research/FW
FW Workfare )fwd)
-- Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 21:47:02 -0400 I recently received some information from a union that is attempting to negotiate the following letter of agreements with their employer groups.(I am not sure if this is public information so I will not name them at this point) I am hoping that other unions and employer groups will also work to do the same, especially public sector unions, teachers, social justice groups, and social sector groups, etc. Draft Language Letter of Agreement between (employer) and (union) Whereas participants under the Ontario Works Act who are the subject of employment assistance are the be deprived of the protection of the Labour Relations Act, the Employer and the Union hereby agree as follows: i. The employer will not hire, engage or otherwise assign work or duties either directly or indirectly to any person who receives employment assistance under the Ontario Works Act unless such person is hired in accordance with the provisions of the collective agreement and such individual is entitled to all rights, benefits and privileges under the collective agreement. ii. This letter shall be appended to and form part of the collective agreement. Dated at _ (city), this _ Day of ___, 199_ For the Employer _ For the Union For more information about workfare in Ontario visit the Workfare Watch Project Website at: http://www.welfarewatch.toronto.on.ca/ Thank all, S Sherrie Tingley Barrie Action Committee for Women [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW OFL and Workfare (fwd)
>Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 22:10:04 -0400 >From: Marc Collister and Lianne Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: OW-WATCH-L OFL and Workfare >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: (Name WithHeld) > >Hello to everyone. I am working with the Ontario Coalition for Social >Justice and this crossed my desk today from the OFL. The Standing >Committee dates for the hearings on Bill 22 are particularly important. >As well, the sample press release is something the OFL has drafted and >communities can adapt it to their own needs. Just thought I would pass >it on to you. Sorry for the length, but I know how much some people hate >attachments. > >Lianne Black > >July 10, 1998 > >TO: OFL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL > >Greetings: > > RE: WORKFARE > >This week the Ontario government announced its plans to expand workfare >into the private sector. The labour movement has opposed this >wrong-headed policy of workfare from the start. There are positive >policy alternatives for job creation and economic stability for the >people of Ontario. The Alternative Budget has shown that there are >long-term and attainable solutions to unemployment. > >Labour Councils across Ontario are vital to the labour movement's >continuing opposition to workfare. We must mobilize our communities and >memberships to stop the harm being done to people by government policies >that are taking our province in the wrong direction. We must also work >closely with our community partners in towns and cities across Ontario >to develop and implement a program of community resistance to workfare. > >The attached sample press release should be of some assistance in your >continuing activities. > >You have already received a copy of the OFL presentation on Bill 22, >Prevention of Unionization Act (Ontario Works) 1998, which we delivered >on June 16 to the government's Standing Committee on Justice. A number >of affiliates also made presentations at that time. During the course of >the summer, hearings will be held by the Standing Committee in the >following cities: > > August 11 SudburyAugust 18 St. Catharines > August 12 Cornwall August 19 Toronto > August 17 Chatham > >If you would like to make a presentation contact Doug Arnott, Clerk, >Standing committee on Justice (416) 325-3506 or by fax (416) 325-3505. > >Please feel free to contact Duncan Mac Donald of the OFL staff if you >require any assistance on matters related to workfare. > >In solidarity >Wayne Samuelson >President > >_ > >SAMPLE PRESS RELEASE > >Date: > >(FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE) > > WORKFARE IN UNFAIR - BUSINESSES WILL BE PICKETED > >(YOUR TOWN) - Social Services Minister Janet Ecker has announced that >the provincial government will be extending "workfare" to the private >sector. Throughout the implementation of the Ontario Works program the >Minister steadfastly insisted that workfare would not be allowed in >private sector as this would displace paid workers. > > The announcement that she is establishing an `expert' private >sector panel to advise on this suggests that she has been planning to >introduce workfare into the private sector all along. It's not >surprising that this announcement has come during the summer recess of >the Legislature, conveniently short-circuiting the legislative >processwhere elected representatives could voice their concerns. > > "Workfare is not about putting people back to >work,"said_, president of the >Labour Council. "It's about giving employers in Ontario access to a >cheap labour force that has been conscripted for duty. It will drive >wages down here like it did in New York City." > > Instead of people actively looking for decent-paying jobs in their >communities they will be required to work at dead-end jobs during >business hours - all in the name of workfare. Study after study in other >jurisdictions has proved that workfare just doesn't work. In the >province of Quebec, a recent survey of employers participating in a >similar program reported that they would have hired full time employees >to fill job vacancies, but instead they used the government's PAIE >program. > > "I seem to recall the Harris government claims that the 30 percent >tax break was suppose to provide all the stimulus needed for the private >sector to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Now we're told >what
FW More on Milwaukee Welfare/Workfare Summit (fwd)
ATTENTION WELFARE/WORKFARE RIGHTS > > ORGANIZERS AND LEADERS: > > > > ACORN invites you to participate in a National Organizers' > > Summit on Welfare Reform this summer in Milwaukee, > > from July 25-27. > > > > ACORN, joined by labor unions, religious organizations, > > and national political leaders, is sponsoring this Summit to > > call attention to the consequences of welfare reform, and to > > highlight the work of the many organizations that are > > mobilizing welfare and workfare recipients to fight back. > > > > Over 1000 ACORN members from around the country, > > along with representatives from scores of other community, > > church, and labor organizations, will be coming to > > Milwaukee for this event. We chose Milwaukee because > > Wisconsin's W-2 program has come to symbolize the worst > > abuses of so-called welfare reform. Wisconsin's welfare > > recipients have been forced off the rolls in record numbers, > > and most have ended up in oppressive sub-minimum wage > > workfare slots, or have fallen "through the cracks" onto the > > uncertain charity of soup-kitchens, shelters, and > > overburdened relatives. A sponsoring committee led by > > Milwaukee ACORN and other local organizations working > > with W-2 recipients is hard at work planning this event. > > > > The highlight of the Summit will be a Hearing on Sunday, > > July 26, at which a panel of national leaders will be taking > > testimony from welfare and workfare recipients from around > > the country. The composition of the panel is still in > > formation, but early confirmations have come from Linda > > Chavez-Thompson, Executive Vice President of the AFL- > > CIO; Professor Frances Fox Piven, long-time expert on > > welfare rights; well-known writer Barbara Ehrenreich; and > > former Administration official Peter Edelman, who resigned > > to protest the Clinton welfare legislation. > > > > Among those testifying will be workfare workers from New > > York City who recently voted 17,000 to 200 for form a > > union; workfare recipients from Los Angeles who just won a > > precedent-setting grievance procedure; welfare recipients > > from Boston who just won a commitment from the city to > > spend welfare-to-work funds to move people into living > > wage jobs; and many other courageous leaders of an > > emerging national welfare/workfare rights movement. This > > gathering will be unique in its focus on the voices and > > experiences of welfare and workfare recipients themselves: > > the majority of ACORN members and Summit attendees > > have first-hand experience with the welfare system, and are > > involved in local and statewide fights against welfare reform. > > > > The Summit will also include workshops and training > > sessions for welfare and workfare leaders and organizers, on > > issues such as: how to build effective welfare and workfare > > rights organizations; how to impact state and federal policy > > issues; how to combine service delivery, including legal > > services, with organizing; how to work with community > > organizations, unions, and other organizations; and much > > more. > > > > This promises to be an important and well-covered event, > > which will play a significant role in amplifying the voices of > > welfare and workfare recipients who are struggling first > > hand with the consequences of this country's disastrous > > experiment in ending welfare. We hope you will join us. > > > > We have arranged inexpensive room and board at local > > colleges. For more information on this event, and to reserve > > a place, contact: Lisa Donner, at 718-246-7900 ext 243 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW Private sector workfare announcement (fwd)
>X-BlackMail: cro.on.ca, workstation-01, [EMAIL PROTECTED], 209.82.39.72 >X-Authenticated-Timestamp: 09:37:49(EDT) on July 10, 1998 >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Unverified) >Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 09:30:55 -0400 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: OW-WATCH-L Private sector workfare announcement >To: Listserve subscribers > >As you have read by now, many newspapers in Ontario yesterday printed a CP >wire article in which the Minister of Community and Social Services >announced that the province would proceed with extending workfare to the >private sector before the end of the year. > >Although none of the details of this proposal have been released yet, we >hope that workfare opponents will not let the announcement go by >unchallenged. Our research suggests that "private sector" workfare is >usually a disaster. It does little more than provide for-profit businesses >with cheap labour, depressing wages and making real hires much less, not >more likely. > >One way to respond is to write letters to the editor of papers that >reported this announcement, to try to stimulate more critical debate. Many >smaller papers in particular are always looking for content. The following >is a model letter to the editor drawn up at the Ontario Social Safety >NetWork meeting on July 9. You are welcome to use this letter or to modify >it any way you want to address particular local issues. (You can also omit >the last paragraph if it doesn't apply to your circumstances.) Some of the >other points that could be raised depending on your local circumstances are: > >* Municipalities have spent two years developing detailed Ontario Works >Business Plans that had to be approved by the province. These plans will >now have to be revised yet again and workfare will have to go back before >local councils. > >* You may know of particular local employers who are anxious to see this >program implemented who may have, shall we say, less than savoury >reputations with respect to how they treat their employees. > >Remember: to get printed and read, a letter to the Editor usually can't be >too long and usually has to stick to a few kep points. If you want to make >a longer or more detailed argument, some papers will print "op eds" instead. > >If you do get something on this issue in your local media, we would >appreciate it if you would let us know! Thanks. > > >Our draft letter: > > >"Dear Editor: > >"[We/I] read with shock about Social Services Minister Janet Ecker's >announcement that the province would be extending "workfare" to the private >sector. > >"Throughout the implementation of the Ontario Works program the Minister >has steadfastly insisted that workfare would not be allowed in the private >sector as this would displace paid workers. The announcement that she is >establishing an 'expert' private sector panel to advise on this suggests >that she has been planning something else all along. It is not surprising >that she waited until the summer recess of the Legislature for this >announcement, shortcircuiting the legislative process where elected >representatives could voice their concerns. > >"The Tories' 30% tax cut was supposed to provide all the stimulus needed >for the private sector to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Now it >seems that we still need what amounts to a 'free labour' corporate welfare >handout. > >"The Minister will no doubt assure us that private sector workfare will >provide genuine training and not displace paid training and real >employment. The fact is that identical programs in other jurisdictions have >been nothing more than revolving door programs with little opportunity for >real training and no jobs at the end of the line--just a return to welfare >while someone else is shuffled into a dead-end position so the employer >gets to keep the subsidy. In Quebec's PAIE program, over half of >participating employers later admitted that they would have hired and paid >an employee if the subsidy had not existed. > >"As the published reports from the "Bad Boss Hotline" show, there are >plenty of employers around who routinely violate the Employment Standards >Act. What will they do to workfare placements, who are not even entitled to >these supposedly bare minimum standards? Ontario Workfare participants are >specifically excluded from the Act. Soon, because of Bill 22, they will be >denied the legal right to join a union or collectively bargain. > >[Members of the Ontario Social Safety NetWork--which includes low income >individuals, faith groups, labour, community organizations, lawyers and >educators--will continue to resist workfare and support our fellow citizens >fight for real jobs with dignity through a range of community actions; >boycotts, information pickets, community organizing and, yes, union drives >for workfare participants.] > >"Yours truly >
FW Milwaukee meeting on welfaer/workfare
ATTENTION WELFARE/WORKFARE RIGHTS >> ORGANIZERS AND LEADERS: >> >> ACORN invites you to participate in a National OrganizersU >> Summit on Welfare Reform this summer in Milwaukee, >> from July 25-27. >> >> ACORN, joined by labor unions, religious organizations, >> and national political leaders, is sponsoring this Summit to >> call attention to the consequences of welfare reform, and to >> highlight the work of the many organizations that are >> mobilizing welfare and workfare recipients to fight back. >> >> Over 1000 ACORN members from around the country, >> along with representatives from scores of other community, >> church, and labor organizations, will be coming to >> Milwaukee for this event. We chose Milwaukee because >> WisconsinUs W-2 program has come to symbolize the worst >> abuses of so-called welfare reform. WisconsinUs welfare >> recipients have been forced off the rolls in record numbers, >> and most have ended up in oppressive sub-minimum wage >> workfare slots, or have fallen Rthrough the cracksS onto the >> uncertain charity of soup-kitchens, shelters, and >> overburdened relatives. A sponsoring committee led by >> Milwaukee ACORN and other local organizations working >> with W-2 recipients is hard at work planning this event. >> >> The highlight of the Summit will be a Hearing on Sunday, >> July 26, at which a panel of national leaders will be taking >> testimony from welfare and workfare recipients from around >> the country. The composition of the panel is still in >> formation, but early confirmations have come from Linda >> Chavez-Thompson, Executive Vice President of the AFL- >> CIO; Professor Frances Fox Piven, long-time expert on >> welfare rights; well-known writer Barbara Ehrenreich; and >> former Administration official Peter Edelman, who resigned >> to protest the Clinton welfare legislation. >> >> Among those testifying will be workfare workers from New >> York City who recently voted 17,000 to 200 for form a >> union; workfare recipients from Los Angeles who just won a >> precedent-setting grievance procedure; welfare recipients >> from Boston who just won a commitment from the city to >> spend welfare-to-work funds to move people into living >> wage jobs; and many other courageous leaders of an >> emerging national welfare/workfare rights movement. This >> gathering will be unique in its focus on the voices and >> experiences of welfare and workfare recipients themselves: >> the majority of ACORN members and Summit attendees >> have first-hand experience with the welfare system, and are >> involved in local and statewide fights against welfare reform. >> >> The Summit will also include workshops and training >> sessions for welfare and workfare leaders and organizers, on >> issues such as: how to build effective welfare and workfare >> rights organizations; how to impact state and federal policy >> issues; how to combine service delivery, including legal >> services, with organizing; how to work with community >> organizations, unions, and other organizations; and much >> more. >> >> This promises to be an important and well-covered event, >> which will play a significant role in amplifying the voices of >> welfare and workfare recipients who are struggling first >> hand with the consequences of this countryUs disastrous >> experiment in ending welfare. We hope you will join us. >> >> We have arranged inexpensive room and board at local >> colleges. For more information on this event, and to reserve >> a place, contact: Lisa Donner, at 718-246-7900 ext 243 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> PO`!1a;~ ~SummaryInformation(;Microsoft Word 6.0.12PO`!1a;~ >~u#;w5s*deS>w1o&dO?@z8t,e R >> I u v 0 >> g >> # >> ^ >> N >~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p >~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p >~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p- = v 3 g $ c f >> Y >> >> U >> >FB@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!pK@qNormala c"A@r!"Default >Paragraph Fontu >> Y >> u >> >u u >> UMacintosh UserCHard Disk:Desktop Folder:Lisa D:Convention >98:MILW.ANNOUNCEMENT -ee@s >> s >> s >> B >> 5=MTimes New Roman Symbol MArial MTimes"1Pht&F$0Macintosh UserMacintosh >UserPO`!1a;~ ~R @FW+P$=@CompObj\WordDocument# -ObjectPoolAP$=AP$=}~~~ >!"~$%&'()*+,-./0SummaryIn
FW Impact of workfare on the labour market (fwd)
>From: "Andrew Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: OW-WATCH-L Impact of workfare on the labour market >Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 10:27:16 -0700 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Priority: 3 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: (Name WithHeld) > >An interesting piece of research landed on my desk yesterday, courtesy of >the Russell Sage Foundation. It studied the impact of workfare on the >macro labour market of New York City. The title is "Workfare's Impact on >the New York City Labor Market" and it is by Chris Tilly of the University >of Massachusetts at Lowell. > >He estimated that the "effect of the 30,000 current workfare placements of >home relief recipients is to displace 20,000 other workers, to reduce wages >for the bottom third of the workforce by 9%, or some combination of >these... The 9% wage drop would reduce average hourly wages for the lowest >30% of New York's workforce from $6.33 to $5.76. It is worth emphasizing >that this estimate is not for City employees alone. It implies that wages >will be 9% lower than they would otherwise have been for the bottom third >of the entire New York City workforce, both public and private." > >If the impact is divided between displacement and wage reductions Tilly >found that each additional 1,000 workfare slots would displace 330 workers >and lower wages for the lowest paid by 0.15%. > >The study can be found at http://tap.epn.org/sage/9701till.html. > >Andy Mitchell >
FW More on workfare (fwd)
Date:Mon, 1 Jun 1998 20:44:17 -0400 From:Paul Riess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: COMMENTS ON THE WISCONSIN PROGRAM FOR ELIMINATING WELFARE. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The posting by [EMAIL PROTECTED] on the subject is absolutely condemning this project, citing grave defects; many of them quite justified. Nevertheless it seems to be much easier to convince the competent authorities of the need for reforms, than to obtain a complete cancellation of the program. I shall suggest necessary reforms, after commenting on some specific points: 1. This program has 4 categories for jobs. The lower two are the same as most state's workfare requirements. The recipient receives a grant for a set amount of money and must work 28 or 35 (respectively) hrs/wk in a "volunteer" position (assigned by the caseworker). These jobs are degrading, dehumanizing and do not provide any chance to move "up" in that place of employment. Neither do these "jobs" provide work experience other than having to show up on time (the idea is that welfare recipients never knew how to set an alarm clock and/or dress properly to get/hold a job). PR's comments: No examples are being given; most probably such conditions do exist, but it would have to be investigated, whether they are the rule or rare exception. One should assume that building new parks, revitalizing condemned housing, manning childcare centers or assisting senior citizens would also be included and should be considered socially valuable activities, that also give some satisfaction to participants. 2. Once that has been done to the financial planner's satisfaction, then that individual - if they wish to advantage themselves by having other types of training that are clearly likely to lead to movement up the economic ladder - -they may then come in and request that child care be able to be accessed for training purposes." PR: If correctly carried out, this is a very positive aspect of the program 3. I know a woman who was a straight-A psychology major who was being told she had to quit school to "work for her grant" (over 2/3 of this "grant" was actually child support that the state collected from the father and included in her monthly grant). Basically, she was working for 60 cents/hour for her grant and, for every hour she missed, $4.65 (min. wage at that time) was deducted from her grant. She was even sanctioned while in the hospital recovering from a heart attack because she missed her "training" which consisted of filing checks in numerical order for the courthouse. PR. The basic condition that she has to do some work for her public support is certainly justified, but she should be given the opportunity to do that only during a limited number of hours and thus have the opportunity to continue her studies. Several details show grave injustices in carrying out this program; later I shall suggest a possible solution for many such cases. 4) The types of jobs people are doing for this "training" are either jobs that most people would not take if they were paid positions (very hazardous to health, etc.) Women are required to cut down trees with no safety gear whatsoever, working in hospitals having to dispose of hazardous materials with (again) no safety gear. They are having to wear their own clothing and not even given a pair of gloves to dispose of bloody needles, etc. or are considered "busy work" (ie, filing checks in numerical order). PR: Including safety gear is also a defect that can and must be corrected, while filing in numerical order is a necessary occupation, appropriate for those welfare recipients lacking skills for other occupations. Furthermore, according to conditions stated above, they would also have access to training for jobs requiring higher skills. 5. Of course, they never mention the fact that many of these women were already in college (and doing very well) and told they had to leave school to prove they have these "soft skills." PR. These are clearly cases for reforming procedures; see below 6. The 3rd job placement position is called "subsidized employment". This is where the state pays a company to hire someone in the program at minimum wage. Basically the same assumptions were made here - they need to learn how to be "willing and able" to work - which is why the state is willing to pay a company approximately $300/mo. (for 6 months) for every person they hire at minimum wage. The company is required to do everything possible to keep the person on permanently after the 6 months is up, but we have yet to hear of this happening. What we do hear is that after 6 months, the company calls the caseworker and says, "This person isn't ready for a permanent position. Send us someone else." That company then receives $300/mo. (for 6
FW Comments on workfare-Australia (fwd)
;work- ready' by immersing them in the working environment. * Greater involvement in the community, and the opportunity to make a constructive contribution, will have benefits for the participants and the community. * The scheme will act as a disincentive for those who are able to obtain employment but are unwilling to do so. How does the scheme fit into the Government's broader policy framework? The Government claims that it has the support of the community in the introduction of the Work for the Dole scheme. The community, they say, expects people to be self- reliant. They claim that the tax-paying community resents providing support to people who have no inclination to work. People believe that unemployed people should pay back the community for their income support in the same way that workers have to work for theirs. This view has been supported by some notable public commentators including Bruce Ruxton, President of the RSL, who says that young people need discipline and an improvement in their hygiene and personal appearance. Others argue that if people are occupied they are not as likely to engage in crime or anti-social behaviour and that their self-esteem and motivation will be enhanced by connection to the mainstream of social and economic activity. Conservative forces within the Government's own ranks, such as the Lyons Forum, believe that it is the family who should take responsibility for people's welfare and not the State. The recent decision to cut unemployment benefits for 16 and 17 year olds and means-test the training allowance for those under 21 is an example ofthis. The Government has also sought to decrease the participation of women in the work force by decreasing funding for child care. The Government is of the view that it must adjust the fundamentals of the economy to encourage business growth and investment and that this will in turn provide the context where business is confident to hire more staff. In an attempt to reduce the current account deficit the Government has enacted massive spending cuts. These have seen a slashing of labour market programs by around $1.3 billion. The philosophy of individual responsibility underlies many of this current government's policies in relation to social security and the social safety net generally. There is a conviction that people should take greater responsibility for their own circumstances and not 'suck off the communal teat'. This perspective sees unemployment as a matter of choice rather than circumstance or opportunity. Notions of independence and autonomy replace interdependence, mutuality and community care. History of 'work for the dole' schemes The notion of working for social benefits is not new in Australian history. In the 1800's the 'Objects of Charity' were forced to work, usually in menial jobs to provide food and shelter for their families. At the turn of the century there were distinctions made between the deserving and the undeserving poor. The belief was that those who deserved public charity and sympathy were the widowed, orphaned, sick and disabled. Those who were undeserving were seen to have contributed to their own poverty through immorality, indolence, malingering, addiction or other 'personal' sins. This distinction appears to have reemerged in the current political climate. In the great depression the 'susso' for the unemployed was given on the condition that work was performed. Many unemployed people were forced to perform hard manual labor such as road and rail-making. After World War II there was a period of economic growth and only when unemployment levels began to rise did the notion of Work for the Dole re-appear on the public agenda. In the mid-1980's there was some interest in the American style "workfare" programs but these did not gain wide public support. What will be the consequences of the scheme? There is a genuine concern that the Work for the Dole scheme will provide a pool of 'free labour' to replace existing jobs. Those who are most vulnerable to losing their work are low paid, part time and casuals and those with insecure tenure. These are often the unskilled; women and people from a non- English speaking background. Community groups are already concerned that the Government has expressed the desire for more community services to be delivered by the voluntary sector. In a climate of budget deficit the temptation to reduce funding will be hard to resist. We can already identify ways in which participants from labour market programs have been used by schools to do cyclical maintenance, when one group of trainees completes a program, another is sought from the local unemployment Case Manager as a replacement. Given that the fastest growing sector of employment is low wage employment there is the possibility that Work for the Dole will further depress wages and conditio
Workfare in Ontario
Date:Fri, 15 May 1998 18:07:33 -0400 From:Roy Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: human rights violation in Ontario MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII The Government of Ontario is in the midst of committing a violation of international human rights norms of the most egregious sort. On Thursday, May 14, 1998, it introduced into the legislature a "An Act to Prevent Unionization" of workfare participants. The Act does not simply remove workfare people from the coverage of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, it says specifically that "no person shall do any of the following with respect to his or her participation in a community participation activity: 1. Join a trade union 2. Have the terms and conditions under which he or she participates determined through collective bargaining. 3. Strike" This Act puts the Ontario government into a very small group of outlaw governments that openly, explicity and blatantly forbid Freedom of Association. Many governments make it difficult for workers to associate in practice, but given the rock solid global consensus supported by organizations from across the political spectrum that Freedom of Assn is a fundamental human right, almost none outrightly forbid it. The Act, if passed, almost certainly will be struck down since it obviously offends Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms but that will take some time. In the meantime this action is a direct thrust against the corpus of human rights standards and each day that it stands unchallenged is a threat to the entire structure of human rights and thus to democracy itself. Please protest loudly. Roy J. Adams Chair, Steering Committee, Society for the Promotion of Human Rights in Employment (SPHRE) A message of protest may be sent to Mike Harris, premier of Ontario via the Ontario Government's Web Page at: http://www.gov.ont.ca/MBS/english/premier/reply.html For more info on SPHRE see: http://www.mtsu.edu/~rlhannah/sphre.html
[PNEWS] Workfare Replaces (Paid) Ci
/* Written 5:03 PM Apr 13, 1998 by [EMAIL PROTECTED] in web:p.news */
/* -- "[PNEWS] Workfare Replaces (Paid) Ci" -- */
The second NY Times article on Workfare ("Many Participants in Workfare Take
the Place of City Workers," 4/13/98) details how the Giuliani administration
is reducing the City's work force and replacing it with thousands of Workfare
participants -- with compensation in the form of welfare several times less
than standard (if not all that generous) city wages/benefits. No wonder
Giuliani has ordered his agencies to say N*O*T*H*I*N*G to the press.
Replacing City workers with WEPers explicitly violates state laws authorizing
this program. Needless to say many WEPers are former workers laid off from
jobs and not re-hired for reasons of age and other 'new era' bars to
employment in the face of NYC's 9+% unemployment rate.
Stanley Hill (head of the District 37 representing 120,000 municipal workers
and Giuliani supporter) where are you? And go Judge Jane Solomon who ordered
the City to provide basics for WEPers -- proper work clothes, boots, toilet
facilities, etc.
Ed Kent [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PNEWS] Workfare: Operation Coverup
/* Written 5:25 PM Apr 12, 1998 by [EMAIL PROTECTED] in web:p.news */ /* -- "[PNEWS] Workfare: Operation Coverup" -- */ The NY Times is running a four day series on NYC's Workfare programs: Today (4/12/98): "An uncertain road to a real job." Monday: "A Low-cost city labor force." Tuesday: "The scramble for child care." Wednesday: "Trimming the rolls; Tough or too touch?" The Mayor, according to the first article, has apparently ordered members of his administration to say N*O*T*H*I*N*G in response to NY Times or any other queries about WEP. "City Hall's message seems to be that the press -- and the voters and taxpayers -- should celeberate what the Mayor decrees to be reforms but should not look beyond the press releases, or check the record, or ask difficult questions," said Bill Keller, The Times's managing editor. "That's a remarkably cyncial view of the responsibilities of public office." Sound familiar? What really horrifies in this matter is the ticking clock that will drive all people off welfare after a maximum lifetime support of 5 years (and much less in many nearby states). Any one who knows anything about the subject is aware that 2/3 or more of those on welfare are children; many others are variously disabled. And, of course, thousands of our CUNY students have been and are being driven out of college by the WEP program, blocking their efforts to get off welfare. Ed Kent [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Fwd) A Problem With Workfare
re-destributing overtime, even if it could be administeres, is still not a solution... Eva --- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 08:45:19 -0800 (PST) From: Ken Boettcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: A Problem With Workfare To:Recipients of The_People List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Status: THE PEOPLE APRIL 1998 Vol. 108 No. 1 GETTING TO WORK A MAJOR PROBLEM OF WORKFARE In past issues, THE PEOPLE has discussed the many flaws in the government's program to transfer welfare recipients to workfare, such as providing low income and dead-end jobs for them, unsafe working conditions, lack of protective clothing in certain more hazardous jobs, and using minimum-wage workfare workers to fill jobs formerly held by higher paid unionized workers. Another serious problem is the transportation low- income workers need to get to their jobs. Transportation can be expensive, particularly when the cost must be deducted from wages that are among the lowest paid to any workers. That burden becomes even greater when low-income workers must travel many miles to where their jobs are located. Three-quarters of the welfare recipients live either in the central cities or in rural areas, but two-thirds of the new jobs are now in the suburbs. Only one in 20 of those on welfare owns a car. In Cleveland, for instance, more than half the available entry-level jobs require an 80-minute or more commute on public transit for residents of the inner city. The Clinton administration has sought to budget funds for new alternatives in transportation to aid people leaving welfare for work, but Congress does not want a high price tag on the effort. The federal government is promoting city-to-suburb commuting efforts with van pools and shuttle buses. The demonstration project known as Bridges to Work has been sponsoring transportation of workfare workers to jobs in business parks near several large cities. Mark Allen Hughes, who is directing the Bridges to Work project, commented, "If a low-wage worker faces a long commute, that job might as well be on Mars. But a two-hour commute on public transit can be reduced to 30 or 45 minutes with a little engineering." (PITTSBURGH POST GAZETTE, Oct. 7, 1997.) Some states have begun using jitney and van pools and improved bus services. Some others are more innovative in trying to help low-income people get to work. One Tennessee rural county, for instance, has been offering no-interest auto loans to welfare families. Kentucky leases various old government vehicles, including police cars, at low cost to workers leaving welfare status for work. All these endeavors reveal federal, state and local officials scrambling desperately to deal with the results of poverty rather than tackling its basic cause. Their remedial actions will go on forever as long as the capitalist system exists. Getting workers to jobs does not guarantee that they will receive enough from those jobs to live a decent life or even that the jobs they secure will remain viable into the future in these days of downsizing and layoffs. Jobs exist only as long as labor is profitable to capitalistic enterprise. There are never enough jobs to go around in the capitalist system, even during good times. Getting workers from home to work is only part of the problem for many of these people moving off welfare. Some will find only late-night jobs or week-end jobs, when public transportation operates on a limited schedule. A large number of new workers will be single mothers struggling not only to get to work but to find care for their children while they are away at work. For mothers who have night jobs, this in an even more serious problem, and a potentially dangerous one for their children. Those mothers fortunate enough to find day jobs would have to put in 10 to 16 hours a day getting their children to and from school and day care and themselves to and from work. Poverty and inequality are endemic to capitalism and no amount of tinkering with that system will abolish poverty for all times. Well-meaning reformers continue to try chasing down all capitalism's inefficiencies, but the inherent nature of the economy continually overrides these piecemeal efforts. The permanent cure will come only with the permanent replacement of the unjust and destructive economic organization that continues to cause all our misery. --B.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW-L National Day of Action for Workfare/Welfare Justice, December 10, 1997 (fwd)
>Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 20:20:07 -0500 (EST) >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: Labor Research and Action Project <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: JwJ National Day of Action for Workfare/Welfare Justice, December >10, 1997 > >Jobs with Justice has called a National Day of Action for Workfare/Welfare >Justice for December 10, 1997. A number of organizations have endorsed this >National Day of Action. > >The themes for the Day of Action will be: > > * Jobs -- The real issue is the creation of full-time jobs paying a >liveable wage. > > * Workers' Rights -- Displacing workers from their jobs and creating >exploitative > workfare jobs without any "employee" rights or protections is not >reform. > >* Justice -- We cannot stand by while poor people are vilified, children >go hungry > and greedy corporations divert scarce public dollars into private >profits. > >Tactics and targets will vary from state to state -- actions will be locally >determined. > >Individuals have begun planning for the Day of Action in at least 25 states >and 31 cities. > >To find out whether anything is already being planned in your area, or to get >suggestions for possible actions you can plan, contact Jobs with Justice at > > (202)434-1106 > > or Fax (202) 434-1482 > > > >Ed Ramthun >AFSCME >Indianapolis, Indiana >
