Fri, 8 May 1998 12:45:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 12:45:49 -0400 (EDT) To: Franklin Wayne Poley , Workfare-Discuss@icomm.ca From: John Hollingsworth Subject: Re: NEW DEFENSE OF WORKFARE. labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, united@cougar.com, union-d@wolfnet.com, J.Drury@sussex.ac.uk I wrote: >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: Right now, I think we're just beginning to ask the question. I think that what's appropriate is that social assistance recipients and workfare workers be supported in their efforts to organize themselves, including unionization as an option among options. One of the main reasons why unions haven't been significantly involved in workfare organization (while many unions have threatened to do so as a way of nailing the Harris government) is that the costs of doing so are probably high in terms of resources, for the return they get in union dues. (This is not an endorsement of the practice, but many unions will only charter locals of 25 or more.) >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. No. I support the entitlement to social assistance on the basis of proven need, like Jane Scharf on the workfare-discuss list and others. However, I also recognize that most of those able to generally want to work in fair conditions in employment related to their interests, skills, and capacities. I also think that the layoff - social assistance - workfare - layoff cycle is a major issue for the unions. Organizationally, I think the situation requires a labour-community alliance in which the labour and representational rights of the unemployed and workfare workers are respected as equal to those of union workers. >(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. This is hyperbole. First of all, in Ontario workfare workers work *exactly* for the minimum wage. (I expect that once the Harrass government moves people into the private sector, employers will be paying less than minimum wage with a government wage subsidy. Never expect employers be coerced into employing anybody except on their own terms.) Second, as far as I know, workfare workers are still subject to the Employment Standards Act, as the Tories were asleep at the switch in committee. But like Bill Bartlett and I recently concurred, in line with 200 years of labour history, if unions were depend on the law in order to act, we would never have had unions. If others in society and the labour movement have forgotten this, maybe they need reminding. You've put your finger on an important point though, and I don't want to come across as entirely dismissive. What would happen if workfare workers went on strike? Would they have access to a national union's strike funds, or joint union solidarity strike funds? Could they count on positive strike action on the part of front-line social service workers who issue cheques? Only time will tell, but there is definitely an important discussion to be had here, if the unions are serious. >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 think a legal challenge would be difficult and costly, but possibly worthwhile. >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. Perhaps you have a dissemination strategy? Cheers, John John Hollingsworth (613) 231-2431 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 2-216 James St. K1R 5M7 ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,