Fri, 5 Jun 1998 11:39:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 11:39:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: CLTeam> Common Law: Fairness and Decency in the Workplace. (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 11:36:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley To: team-commonlaw-l@teleport.com Subject: CLTeam> Common Law: Fairness and Decency in the Workplace. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 11:32:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley To: Paul Keenan labmovs@sheffield.ac.uk Subject: Re: Social Security Payments (Value of Welfare Labour). On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Paul Keenan wrote: > Mr Franklin Wayne Poley you have introduced an aspect to the > discussion which does not fully relate to the Welfare State as > experienced in the UK (I take it from some context that you > might be cnandian - a completely different experience). > > Volunteer work in the welfare system neither adds to nor > detracts from the governments activity, which I believe is the > topic under discussion. There is no financial measurement, > therefore which HM Treasury might use in calculating whether to > gather more or less tax to support the Governments activity. There are a couple of UK subscribers on the Workfare-Discuss list and maybe they can reply. I thought that workfare had been instituted in UK at least at a preliminary stage. The message which the public receives on workfare is that those who draw from the public purse should pay back what they can in services rendered. You might say that is consistent with the English common law stated at by Prime Minister Blair as "(at least) a very minimum infrastructure of decency and fairness around people in the workplace". It seems like the decent and fair thing to do. If my neighbours are considerate enough to provide me with a subsidy (welfare) to keep body and soul together during difficult times then I should be decent and fair enough to provide a service where I can to offset the cash cost. However, it is implicit in workfare programs that we see in places like Ontario and New York City (where I have more familiarity with what is happening) that those on welfare are not presently doing work which would offset welfare cash payments and therefore must be put into work gangs and sent off to do some kind of public service. It is at this point that we immediately see that something is wrong with the statement on fairness and decency. Everybody here knows that there is an army of volunteer workers who already do a lot of good public service work. I have heard recent TV reports that there are hundreds of volunteers who help staff Vancouver Aquarium, one of the more popular tourism sites and hundreds more who staff community TV. I don't know how many volunteers there are at VCN which provides internet service to 10,000 but I would guess dozens at least. It is also known that among all these volunteers some are on welfare. So you would think that a government which is honestly concerned about fairness and decency in the workplace would do a survey of volunteer work already done on welfare. It might even exceed the cash cost of welfare. Moreover, keep in mind that there are additional administrative costs to workfare and that adds to the tax burden on the general public. And, a workfare participant who is forced to clean up the parks of Vancouver on workfare has less time to do those volunteer activities elsewhere. This is part of the "opportunity cost" of workfare. Let me give just one example of public volunteer service. VCN gives free courses on the internet. I have taken one at the introductory level and one intermediate. Now I know for a fact that some VCN teachers and tutors are on welfare. Those courses each cost over $50 when taken at the Vancouver Library where they are now being offered. I think you would find this value to volunteer welfare labour multiplied by many situations. And I am 100% sure that anyone concerned with descency and fairness in the workplace would find the value of such services before embarking on a workfare program which immediately targets and scapegoats the poor. FWP.