Fri, 8 May 1998 08:03:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 08:03:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: Re: NEW DEFENSE OF WORKFARE. To: Workfare-Discuss@icomm.ca labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, united@cougar.com, union-d@wolfnet.com, J.Drury@sussex.ac.uk Foreward: The following discussion has been clipped to emphasize the point about "Why should unions help to organize workfarers?" At 02:29 PM 07/05/98 +0200, Andersen, Viggo wrote: >At 19:18 06-05-98 -0700, Franklin Wayne Poley wrote: > >(2) Concerning the Danish General Strike, can workfarers join it? John- I would sure hope so. Viggo- >I tell you, the very fact that the system is based on >forcing people is an extremely powerful weapon against the >system itself, it can bring down and destroy it completely. >And THEN, when that has happened it is up to the >politicians and other decision-makers to come up with >something we can all live with, because they are left with >no choice. To accomplish that recipients need to get >organized, so that local groups can over time co-operate on >national and international level as well. It is better than >nothing if recipients get unionized, but then we are again >talking about the work of workfare and missing the big >picture, so it is simply not enough. John- Viggo, these are important points that those of us on social assistance in emergent workfare states and those of us who are union workers have to grapple with, for sure. Second, it is clear that workfare is not about getting people back to work. It is about creating a second-tier reserve army of workers. Look at the experience in New York City. Another problem for our unions is that non-profit organizations in the Community Placements program, which constitutes the bulk of the workfare placements in Ontario, are largely voluntary organizations already, and their paid staff are virtually always non-union. Some people in my union have questioned why we would go ahead with organizing workfare placements when the paid workers at these same sites aren't union. FWP- John: I think your union (CUPE) should take the lead in giving the best answer possible to that question. We keep in mind that workfare is new and our information is still limited. However, to the best of my knowledge the current answer would be something like this: You (host for workfarers) may only see that you have a few welcome extra hands to do the jobs that weren't otherwise getting done. But consider (1) the terms under which that work is being done; (2) the more long term expectations as to where it will lead. (1) The terms for workfarers are little different from those of slavery. Your workfarers are not protected by labour laws. They have NO workers' rights. Therefore they work for a fraction of minimum wage. They have no right to unionize or strike. Indeed they have no rights. They even have no right to life. If they should undertake a "wildcat" strike their most basic amenities of life will be discontinued and unless private charities step in they will perish. (2) Following these few workfarers there will be a huge army of millions of workfarers in Canada and USA. They can be deployed wherever the plutocrats decide. In any work situation. They can and will replace workers, whether unionized or not, who are earning a fair wage with protection of labour laws. Not only will workfare therefore destroy fair labour practices and put an end to fair wages but it will lead to contempt for the rule of law. Workfare is clearly in major violation of the International Bill of Human Rights which mandates that all work shall be voluntary and that workers have the right to unionize. Canada is signatory to this just law and is violating it in openly. That is both immoral and illegal. Moreover it is criminal. Section 215 of the Criminal Code of Canada is 100% clear concerning the "duty to provide the necessities of life to those in your care". That applies whether we are talking about soldiers in the care of the military or patients in the care of hospitals and medical workers (refer to the recent 'tainted blood' scandal). It applies to parents on welfare who will face criminal charges if they discontinue the necessities of life to their children. Shouldn't the government officials responsible for dicontinuing the necessities of life to a striking workfare parent also be held criminally responsible for a Section 215 violation against the children of that family? I believe so. In summary, if Premier Harris' "Ontario Works" is as I think it is (subject to correction as policy becomes clearer) then what he is doing is immoral, illegal and criminal. I don't think there is anything to be gained by distorting this matter. The facts, as they come in are the facts. And those facts should be widely diseminated by unions like CUPE. FWP.