Sat, 16 May 1998 14:35:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 14:35:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: Re: Quebec workfare violates human rights 2/2. To: publabor@relay.doit.wisc.edu, labor-l@yorku.ca, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, united@cougar.com, union-d@wolfnet.com Viggo-Your reply "cuts to the chase" so well that I won't even attempt a reply before forwarding it to the labor lists. Is that an expression in Denmark too? FWP. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 23:21:28 +0200 From:viggo.andersen@post3.tele.dk To: Workfare-Discuss@icomm.ca Subject: Re: Quebec workfare violates human rights At 12:45 16-05-98 -0700, Franklin Wayne Poley wrote: >On Sat, 16 May 1998 viggo.andersen@post3.tele.dk wrote: > >> Excerpt from: >> >> http://www.eagle.ca/~ncccoa/workfarewatch/wrkwtch3.html >> >> [1997, March or earlier. The site hasn't been updated >> recently, but I downloaded the files there and incidentally >> found the piece below in file wrkwtch3.html. - Viggo.] >> ---- >> Quebec workfare violates human rights >> >> The Quebec Superior Court has ruled that Quebec's Employment Enhancement >> Programmes (the province's workfare placement and training programmes) >> violate sections of the Quebec Charter of Rights which guarantee equality >> in employment and the right to provision of just and fair employment >> conditions. The court found that the programs discriminated against the >> participants on the grounds of social condition, which is prohibited under >> the Quebec Charter. >> >> The evidence showed that the training promised under the placement programs >> was non-existent, and that participants were in fact performing regular >> work requiring minimal skills. >> >> The decision is being appealed by the provincial government. While >> Ontario's Human Rights Code does not prohibit discrimination on the grounds >> of social condition, the case could have implications for other legal >> purposes in Ontario. The issue of whether the Canadian Charter of Rights >> and Freedoms prohibits discrimination against social assistance recipients >> has still not been decided by the Supreme Court > >Viggo: As we have discussed before on this list, it is 100% clear that >Workfare is a violation of the International Bill of Human Rights. The >IBHR's is clear that forced labour is proscribed and the right to >unionize will be honoured for all workers. What I found most interesting about the piece is that a Court has actually debunked workfare programs as being operated on false pretences by not delivering the promised (work) training and instead forcing recipients into "regular work requiring minimal skills" without providing the independency of the system that comes with "regular work" i.e. a job. >If a workfare parent has welfare discontinued because of refusal to take >a workfare job and cannot provide the necessities of life for his or her >children is the government not an accomplice to the crime? Yeah, but the same social authorities who cut the benefits would just use the law to take the children from the parents on the excuse that they can't provide the care for them anymore, right? Who's to prevent them from doing that too? Obviously, almost all parents on welfare would think twice before refusing anything at all, but then it's getting close to blackmail, "do as we say or lose your children." Viggo.