A Workfare Level of Responsibility

Workfare is clearly a governmental response to the people who called for assistance; assistance during times of financial hardship. That doesn't necessarily mean that the response given is going to be a good one. As well, sometimes it's the implementation of that response that is weak or lacking in thoughtfulness.

If you have mothers who are out of work and are struggling to make ends meet, how can the Workfare program expect them to take jobs without helping them with baby-sitting services for their children? Thus, it seems, the Workfare program was bound to fail since its inception. I am sure there are plenty of examples of a government institution implementing a policy to address the needs of the people, and doing so in a "haphazard" manner.

I'd like to take a look at different points of view in this debate. One side displays the idea that Workfare targets "working class populations" and constructs "them" as "non-working poor people." The other side staunchly maintains the idea that, no matter how brazen and ill-conceived, it was an attempt to get away from welfare which "drained away" taxpayer dollars. Research is readily available that displays the ways in which countries envision and ultimately create these types of policies. Examining a wide range of policies in Northern Europe and the U.S., and the subsequent public responses, there is a clear position which invokes resentment for allegedly boxing vast amounts of "non-working citizens" out of Social Security (these same people are then left to what I like to call 'Welfare/Workfare," which offers low level programs in exchange for income).

In Canada, the same type of "process" clearly took shape. Once elected, the provincial government under Mike Harris began to re-acclimate itself after the deficit that was created by the previous government under Bob Rae. As a result, social assistance rates were slashed by 22 per cent. Even here, opposing points of view are readily visible. On the one hand, the "government stated that too many people were taking advantage of the program, and that it acted as a disincentive for seeking employment." On the other hand, "critics argued that the cuts were too dramatic, and increased the hardship of Ontario's poorest residents." What did all this culminate in? Ontario Works, a program which attempted to take able-bodied citizens and reintroduce them to the workforce by placing them in training and/or job placements (the program was altered dramatically after Mike Harris' cabinet left office).

Ah, different points of view. The benchmark of free speech in Canada.

Policies in Canada aside, one can easily forget the institutions that were involved in creating workfare (the provincial government) when confronted with how passionate these points of view can be. A writer for CBC News I'll refer to as "Darla," discussed the backlash the Workfare program created when she said: "Workfare is a violation of human rights. It is a violation of international covenants that Canada has signed. It creates an under-class of workers who are exempt from minimum wage laws and labour standards. In fact, workfare is indentured labour, one step from slavery. That's why the churches and every other organization that seriously supports human rights have refused to support or participate in workfare."

But...the article that Ms. Darla wrote garnered a considerable response in itself. A respondent I'll refer to as "Northstar" says: "You make it sound inhumane to force people to work in exchange for social support. Would it not be even more inhumane to condition the welfare recipient to accept their low position in life, and thus create successive generations of social sponges that can never develop a self sufficient spirit? I do believe that Canadians want a caring society, but why must society be "the government"? Why delegate the social responsibility to such an entity? The people, the church, and the family should take on this support role; not the central government. And if that means making the welfare recipient work, so be it. This could be the necessary incentive needed to reach self sufficiency."

"Quicksilver" states: "If only we could take your insight on the workfare situation and apply it to every issue. You're absolutely right: HOW DARE WE SUGGEST THAT PEOPLE WORK IN ORDER TO BE PAID? How dare our government suggest that unemployed people who are being supported by other working people in society should have to do anything that benefits society in return for compensation?"

Workfare is a controversial subject, on both sides. It's good that there are people out there who want to deconstruct the principles we use to form policies so as to see how our thinking into their construction works. I wonder how far we could get if we took a number of thinkers from both sides and plunked them down in the same "think tank." Maybe we'd solve the problem of unemployment...maybe not.

~ Information on European & Canadian Workfare policies taken from the writings of Nanna Kildal
~ Quotes from "Darla," "Northstar," and "Quicksilver" taken from CBC News Online