Other Points of View on Workfare

It's understandable why companies may not want to be involved in workfare, and I don't believe it is a stance that denotes ignorance or indifference. As a manager, one of the most salient factors to maintain in the company is efficiency; the efficiency of all areas. This ensures that productivity is never compromised and that the directives are moving forward smoothly, and therefore, operating at full capacity. For example, let's say you've got a manufacturing company called Electro Ltd., that produces stationary products such as envelopes, pencils, and printing paper. As the manager, you'd want to ensure that the factory always has enough workers on each shift. What if you've got a worker who is constantly late, absent, or who does not follow the job objectives. I would think efficiency would be effected.

Under no circumstances does this example fit every situation, nor does it mean that all people on welfare/workfare have issues with chronic lateness or absenteeism. However, taking account "the manager's" opinion, these are the ideas that come out of it. A manager may think: "If there are absolutely NO jobs out there, then how is workfare going to work in any event?" If there ARE jobs then there is a high probability that many of those on welfare COULD find a job if he or she tried. Thus, a manger's logic may dictate that perhaps many people who are on welfare don't want to work. So it follows that he or she would be quite hesitant to hire someone from the Workfare program.

This is only one opinion. Approximately 12 years ago the Social Services Department of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton (RMOC) conducted a survey on the Workfare system. Ultimately, they recommended to the nation's capital that using the Workfare system was not in their best interest. The information compiled indicated several basic assumptions regarding those on Welfare; that they don't really want to work and could if they looked for a job, that many ARE working and therefore frauding the system, and that workfare improves the abilities of it's recipients. RMOC found that the cost of implementing Workfare programs was "horrendous," and that in actuality, the recipients of the program were not more skilled than when they entered and were no closer to "self-sufficiency." Indeed, as the purveyors of this study concluded: "Very few workfare participants are given work that involves meaningful training, and only a small percentage of those who complete such programs find paying jobs." The main purpose of Workfare, RMOC says, is to "provide a pool of cheap labour for employers rather than to help those on welfare or reduce welfare costs."

Whether this is true or not, is, as they say, a matter of opinion. Many employers likely found Workfare to be an unreliable system of finding potential employees. People who were down and out and needing help probably found it unreliable too! RMOC proposed a number of alternatives that included "a program of economic incentives." This program offered "salary subsidies to employers to supplement the minimum wage on condition that those on workfare getting such jobs also receive training, skills upgrading, counseling, and follow-up support."