Mon, 4 May 1998 13:56:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 13:56:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: Re: BILL BARTLETTS COMMENTS ON MY POSTING ON WORKFARE (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 13:47:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley To: Workfare-Discuss@icomm.ca Subject: Re: BILL BARTLETTS COMMENTS ON MY POSTING ON WORKFARE Bill has really hit the nail on the head with this posting. (Not sure if that is an expression in the land downunder. "Stirring up possums" is-and Bill has done that too). I have a hunch we'll break some new ground if we can get a clearer reply to this posting than we have had to date. What I mean is this. I think Paul, Malcolm and Wes were all taking about the prospect of using an open economy or an expanding economy to solve these problems. And I think that is feasible. What it needs is a clearer and to the point restatement with the logic tightened up a bit. Until then Bill is right on the mark. Ontario Workfare as was noted in previous postings will actually cost the taxpayers more than welfare because employers get a stipend of up to $100/month (which will add to the current welfare check of around $500) for the "trouble". (The slaves could very well get troublesome). Now, as Bill notes, just try selling that to the regular working folk who are paying the taxes when the whistle is blown and they are told that they are now PAYING MORE FOR WELFARE and that it is now WELFARE WHICH THREATENS THEIR JOBS THROUGH "DISPACEMENT". Why so? Because there are no UNTAKEN jobs out there for these workfarers-only the jobs that the taxpayers have! Workfare is a "Trojan Horse". It spells the end of trade unions and of fair wages for most people. Wheeled in under the popular but specious idea that we are JUST "putting all those bums to work". Refer to Jeremy Rifkin's quote in New City Magazine (Summer, 1997, p. 11). Rifkin says "We're seeing the beginning of proto-fascist politics for the first time in my lifetime since 1945". Rifkin then says pro-fascism is coming in because of a VACUUM IN KNOWLEDGE. And that is why this list is here. To fill that vacuum with sound knowledge. Do you wonder why it is that Mayor Guiliani of New York has instructed his employees to NOT EVEN DISCUSS WORKFARE (with some 34,000 workfarers already in chains)? Premier Harris of Ontario also doesn't discuss workfare. He and his Cabinet just issue "pronouncements" to lull the public into thinking this is the right thing to do. It is not. FWP. On Mon, 4 May 1998, Bill Bartlett wrote: > Paul Riess wrote: > > >PR: > >Though I feel, that there are not ENOUGH job-openings for ALL Welfare > >recipients, I can only repeat, that there seem to be many job-openings in > >communications, computing and other services, for which some unemployed > >could be trained. > > But I repeat, training does not in any way address the shortage of jobs > overall. I have a friend who graduated close to the top of his class in > computer science at university three years ago, he is still unemployed. Now > that proves nothing, but what training will you give him? > > > >PR: > >My proposals are intended to prepare welfare recipients for regular jobs, > >with an intermediate phase of workfare-activities PLUS separate and > >effective training. This would cost more than present welfare and needs > >additional financing (see next point). > > Yes, but there are not enough regular jobs, remember. The problem is NOT > that the unemployed lack preparation for such jobs, but that such jobs are > in short supply, so why are you so focussed on supply side solutions when > it is the demand for labour which is the problem? > > > >PR: > >Communities might be willing to finance the training of workfarers for > >regular jobs during the first stage (their main suppòrt would still come > >from general welfare), because they would obtain the benefits of such > >activities (examples: > >building more parks, manning childcare-centers etc.) > > You think communities might be happy to pay for workfare "training" schemes > for jobs that don't exist? > > >PR: > >At the second stage, when such workfarers have been placed in regular jobs, > >there would be POSITIVE SAVINGS in welfare spending, that could be applied > >to training more welfare-recipients. > > Um, there's a problem, the savings depend on there being more regular jobs > than at present. I sense your figures are somewhat rubbery, because instead > of extra regular jobs, workfare usually means LESS regular jobs. If you > tell the communities that they are being asked to pay increased taxes to > fund workfare that it might also cost them their jobs you will have a > bigger problem. If you don't tell them, I will. > > > >PR: > >You certainly have: I did not suggest to continue present practices, to let > >employers replace regular workers with former welfare recipients at less > >than regular wages, but to find them work at regular conditions. The lower > >earnings of workfarers should only be applied to services, which > >communities cannot finance as regular jobs. > > The flaw here is that municipal employers, who stand to benefit from > substantial savings in labour costs, (by replacing regular workers with > workfarers) are also the ones who usually decide what services can and can > not be afforded from the regular budget. > > >PR: > >You do not seem to have really read my proposal: > >I clearly refer to NEW ACTIVITIES, so far not yet carried out by private > >enterprise. Therefore NO regular workers would be replaced. Furthermore in > >my latest proposals such activities would pay at least the minimum wage > >and other regular social benefits. > > If they pay regular wages, under regular conditions, then they are > esentially regular jobs. There would then be no advantage to calling it > workfare, just give enough money to local municipalities so that they can > employ everyone who wants a job. That is not the plan. > > > >PR: > >Your comparison of my proposals to concentration-camp work is so patently > >unfair and unwarranted, not to deserve an answer. > > I was merely pointing out that forced labour, if it should become > widespread throughout the economy as it was in Hitler's Germany, is like a > cancer, killing other sections of the economy which cannot compete with > cheap labour. I was making an economic point, not a moral one, although the > morals of using forced labour are also quite cancerous. > > Bill Bartlett > Bracknell Tas. > > > ******************* http://www.vcn.bc.ca/fc ***********************