Mon, 18 May 1998 13:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 13:40:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: WORKFARE 1/2. To: labmovs@sheffield.ac.uk, publabor@relay.doit.wisc.edu, labor-l@yorku.ca, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, united@cougar.com, union-d@wolfnet.com, ww@workers.org Dear Labo(u)r Lists: I have clipped this conversation generously to focus on a few points. This is a good backgrounder in that it makes clear that the workfare-antiworkfare movement has both commonalities and significant differences compared to previous labour movements. I will forward John Drury's posting, 2/2 in its entirety. FWP. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: Re: Quebec workfare violates human rights On Mon, 18 May 1998, Bill Bartlett wrote: > Viggo Andersen wrote: > > >"If I was your social worker I would demand that you gave > >society 7-8 hours of work every day before you were paid one > >single krone. You could reasonably shovel snow in the > >winter, sweep leaves in the autumn, weed in the summer, and > >sweep streets in the spring. I and Fremskridtspartiet don't > >want anymore letters or email from you. Therefore, all the > >email addresses you have which begin with FP... delete > >them." > > > >So this is how a Danish member of parliament thinks he has > >the right to reply to citizens protesting against a.... > > This from a politician! I assume that the work of politicians is held in > the same high regard in Denmark as elsewhere in the civilised world, that > is as something not quite as useful as tits on a bull. > > I must reveal to you that I have had the great pleasure and privilege of > debating work-for-dole with my local member of parliament, on talk-radio, > and I greatly enjoyed turning the tables by shamelessly scapegoating > politicians every time he dared to impugn the character of unemployed > people. I enjoyed reading about this. You will be pleased to hear that the "Era of the Crooked Politician" is about to come to an end here in British Columbia. I expect that this will be the first political jurisdiction in the industrial, quasi-democratic world to do so and it will lead to a stampede to oust the vermin all over the world. In 1991 an astounding 80% of B.C. voted for referendum/recall. The government (which got into power with only 40%) delayed passing legislation as long as possible. In 1996 we got the Recall and Initiative Act. It does not have a mechanism which will make it readily workable. However, the internet is such a mechanism and my projection is that it will be as ubiquitous as TV here in 5 years. At that time a politician not doing his job well will be fired faster than a failing hockey coach. They may want to shore up the welfare system now in anticipation of their future. In 5 years the "dictatorship of the proletariat" will be a reality in BC. What I am working on with the False Creek list is planning how we can make False Creek Village in the centre of Vancouver the Communication Hub for the new Peoples' Parliament which WILL hold the reins over the Victoria Parliament. > >Well, what can make me more frustrated than anything else is > >when even the most outrageous attacks on the personal rights > >of adults on public assistance are ignored or not recognized > >for what they are. The biggest lies of them all is that > >workfare is only about work. Yes there are lots of hidden agendas. Some of them border on science fiction which is something I have been discussing on another list in the context of the imminent era of personal robots and borgs. I'll forward some of that soon. It may be imaginative if not bizarre to consider the new slave class of C21 but I would say it is folly to ignore what is happening with cutting edge science now. > Working for benefit somehow brings the issue into sharper focus. People can > instantly understand that this amounts to a serious loss individual > autonomy, a loss of human dignity, an act of indecency against their > fellows. While some might APPROVE of thus humiliating others, only a fool > can honestly claim they don't understand what is going on. John Drury's posting dealt with the issues of ignorance-hypocrisy coming from the political left and right. All I can say is that he is right on the mark. Both groups need re-educating on workfare issues to break out of the old habit patterns. I am amazed by "pro-lifers" on the right whose brains seize up when you explain that if a woman on welfare doesn't eat, her unborn child doesn't survive either. "If you don't work you don't eat" they reflexively retort. "Does not compute. Does not compute." > These other humiliations of the welfare system that you and I have both > experienced have the same outcome, are intended to have the same outcome, > but are not so readily recognised. Not nearly so. The fact is that many of > the victims themselves do not even readily comprehend what is being done to > them. Since you cannot fight what you do not understand, that puts them at > a disadvantage which is difficult to overcome. Good point. The victims also need educating-and morale boosting. Remember, the bottom line to the new slave class of workfarers is that YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS AND NO VALUE. > To be frank, violations of personal dignity are as old as the welfare > system itself, and that is very old. In the English speaking tradition that > goes back to the Elizabethan Poor Laws, which openly sought to REGULATE the > lives of the poor. I'm not up on all the details, I only have a general > idea of their specific provisions, but I would assume that the history is > not greatly different in scandinavian countries. There it is-regulate the poor. DICTATE the life they will lead. I think the rest of society had better wake up pretty fast to where this will lead. To-day the poor. Tomorrow the middle classes. > >I've had this thought since the forwarding of the news item > >about the Ontario ban on recipients right to unionize that > >unions would commit a fatal mistake if they make it an issue > >of unionizing recipients instead of defending their *right* > >to unionize. > > Very good point. I see you have a good political instinct as well as your > other talents. Of course we both speak from the perspective of the > political climate of our own home countries, but I think the issue in > Canada will come down the same. It is much better to defend the rights of > the 'battler' (Is this a peculiarly Aust. idiom? If so it means the little > man, the underdog, as in "little Aussie battler" who struggles stoically > against great odds and more often than not tragicly succumbs) rather than > defend the privilege of the trade union movement. > > Lets face it, many people regard trade union as more interested in > defending their own special interests, which are not necessarily the same > (in the opinion of the public) as that of workers. Without wanting to get > into the argument about whether that is justified, it seems sensible to > steer clear of any impression that the union movement is using workfare > workers as pawns in some other game. > > > >First, because making it an issue of unionizing recipients > >will clearly play the whole matter into the hands of Ecker > >and the government (does any of them really care about the > >people they are fighting about, one wonders?), whereas > >making it purely an issue of recipients rights will redirect > >the attention to where it should be, on the legalized and > >not so legalized attacks on recipients and their rights, and > >not just their right to unionize which is really only a > >logical consequence of all the rest of it. > > > >Second, because it is nobody else's business whether > >recipients will use the right to unionize or not. No reason > >to worry about it at all, actually, since the workfare > >experience will probably convince most of them that for > >their own sake they better get unionized and rather today > >than tomorrow! > > > >I don't blame CUPE for wanting new members or protecting the > >ones they already have, but I do blame them for this > >expressed inability to understand workfare beyond their own > >agenda and self-interests. Because that's not the kind of > >allies that recipients need, and they sure as hell deserve > >better than being used as allies for the goals of others. In > >short, workfare cannot be unionized away, > > I don't agree here. I think a union of workfare workers could smash the > work-for-dole completely, (by winning normal wages and conditions) provided > other sections of organised labour showed the necessary solidarity to exert > the force needed. > > The political support of the general public is also necessary of course, > but here is where the government's dictatorial move to proscribe unionism > will surely play into their hands. > > But perhaps I am missing something? Why do you reason that "workfare cannot > be unionized away"? > > >it can only > >minimize the damage which will still remain considerable and > >potentially threatening to everybody, and CUPE better > >realize it. > > I recognise the danger of what you say, but I don't agree it is inevitable. > Hope that is not just wishful thinking on my part. > > Bill Bartlett > Bracknell Tas. I agree completely that a concerted union effort in Ontario will smash workfare. That will help the cause from Denmark to Australia but the battles will have to be won jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction. Workfare is smashed and replaced by FAIR WORK when workfarers can unionize like everyone else. How so? Well, it means at least minimum wage. Then it means organizing for wage parity. Computer experts here get about $60/hour less overhead. Are there computer experts on welfare? You bet there are. Of course Harris and Guiliani will have them all sweeping streets. Nothing wrong with that job. Somebody has to do it. But unionizing workfarers also means that the 10% or so on workfare will have the SAME RANGE OF JOBS AS OTHER FOLKS. Which means what? Well, just look at a standard personnel guide like CCDO which I use sometimes. There are tens of thousands of jobs held by the other 90% of society based usually on aptitudes-interests-training-experience. Why not the same for the 10% workfarers? FWP. http://www.vcn.bc.ca/fc