The implementation of improved job training, improved parameters around education levels, and the removal of the “force” that Workfare participants is a complex undertaking. Working from an anti-oppressive lens, it is evident that addressing these areas is crucial. By failing to prepare workers to handle the situations that they will come up with in their day-to-day work, failing to provide them with transferable skills, and ignoring their educational assets and areas that need development, Workfare creates a mentality in workers that they are being forced against their will to work. This development of a feeling of force itself produces unmotivated and resentful employees, regardless of their strengths and talents. This leads to poor quality of work, low worker morale, poor employer-employee relationships, and high “drop-out” rates among participants. By implementing an alternative policy response that values individuals’ opinions, thoughts, feelings, differences, talents, and uniqueness among many other things, we believe that the feeling of force would be eliminated. Our proposed policy would require that both participants and those implementing the program would be in agreement and collaboration regarding how the program would best benefit each worker. Actively involving workers in their own work experience would instil in participants a sense of belonging and self-worth because they would understand that their opinion really does matter. By feeling important in the process, workers would no longer feel forced to work but would rather be optimistic because they would recognize that they really would have a lot to gain from participation, now and in the future.
Now the question turns to, how would we put this plan into action? Firstly, surveys would be distributed to all social assistance recipients 18 years of age and over. These surveys would extract information regarding the interest that this population initially would express about these innovative additions to a basic Workfare model. Examples of questions that could be included in these surveys may sound something like: “Do you currently feel motivated to work?”, “What would some incentives to work be for your specific case?”, “If you were actively involved in the securing of your own current and future well-being through your workplace, how would you feel about working?”, and things of that nature. These questions would aim to get to the root feelings of those on social assistance in order to begin to understand how the system would need to be altered to accommodate their interests and circumstances. Through the answers acquired from the surveys, we would be able to share with employers the things that this population expressed as important and what would need to be offered for them in order to keep them motivated and able to maintain their jobs. Employers would then be more educated as to what social assistance recipients’ voices are saying and what their needs are, so that they would be able to apply this new knowledge to their workplaces and help their employees grow and develop in their work settings.
A second part of the implementation plan would involve assessing education levels of each and every worker prior to placing them in a workplace. Sources have documented that in some instances in a Workfare model, workers were not always assessed educationally. Their proficiency in English and/or other languages was not evaluated, nor were their basic math skills or literacy levels. As mentioned in an earlier post, without assessing both assets and areas that need development, workers cannot be placed in jobs and be expected that things will work out. A job may be too challenging or too easy, depending on the job and the individual’s own strengths. A job may also require verbal communication in a language that the worker is not proficient in. Similarly, other talents or skills may be required that the worker simply does not possess. Education levels must be evaluated in order to ensure that each individual worker is placed in a job that they can be successful at and perhaps even enjoy. Also, areas for improvement need to be identified before placing individuals in work situations. We propose that at the very least, a high school education be necessary for placing workers in placements. Ideally, a variety of jobs would be available that may require differing levels of education (i.e. post-secondary university- or college-level) so that individuals who possess high levels of education can benefit from this and use their skills in an effective and worthwhile manner; individuals with lower levels would be able to find suitable placements as well. Without a high school education, it is difficult to find a job that will pay an individual enough to stay above the poverty line and prosper. Therefore, by implementing the requirement of at least a high school level of education we are ensuring that at the very least, jobs will be able to minimally support their employees. It is recommended that workers seek higher education if possible, and we propose that at least some workplaces in which participants of the program are placed would assist in supporting these individuals financially. This would involve loans that could be paid back in instalments, including taking a small portion of each pay cheque to put towards the full amount.
After surveying social assistance recipients prior to work placements, and after adequately assessing (and, if necessary, developing) education levels, improving job training by providing high quality collaborative training would take place via the incorporation of the employers’ education surrounding social assistance recipients’ needs into the workplace. Not only would proper and thorough orientations takes place so that each employee would feel comfortable in his or her surroundings and feel comfortable with the job(s) that are to be carried out, but discussions would be regularly held which would continually appraise both employers’ and employees’ satisfaction levels. These discussion would be on-going throughout the employment placement so that the changing needs of all individuals involved would be at the forefront and that all could work together to create the best quality of work and the best opportunities. Job training that ensures employee comfort with the task at hand would be attended to in the beginning, which would be followed by providing each worker with the kind of transferable skills that would benefit them in the future. These skills include things such as time management skills, punctuality, professional attitude and appearance, how to write a proper resume and cover letter, reliability, accountability, and cooperation skills. The thing to remember is that in our alternative policy response, it is not in anyone’s interest to try to trap workers in their menial jobs. Although a job is a job in the beginning, no one is deserving of being trapped in these sorts of jobs for the entirety of their working lives. What’s important to focus on is the growth of individuals so that they will be able to acquire and keep good jobs that will enable them to not only escape the dependency on social assistance but also to stay above the poverty line and experience satisfaction with their lives. By providing good quality job training and consistent discussions surrounding maximizing job satisfaction for all involved parties, our policy would prepare individuals well for the future and for encounters in the “real world”.
Getting the government involved in our proposed policy response is critical to ensure the best chance that the program will run successfully. We would identify Members of Parliament that sit on committees related to issues surrounding our policy and would provide the Member(s) of Parliament with the information they need regarding our policy. Working with an MP could create a powerful ally for us and our policy initiative. It would also be important for us to monitor the committee’s activities, as well as getting involved ourselves in things like town meetings or events sponsored by our MP. We would also seek to create a relationship with a public servant so that our issue could be spread throughout government staff and we would have someone available to let us know who we should speak with regarding getting our policy approved and running. This being said, we would also recognize that regular government communication would be required to be maintained—not just while we’re trying to get our policy put into place, but in general. We would want to show an interest in government issues as a whole, not simply when we want to put our own policy into place. You never know when good relationships with government workers may come in handy, either for ourselves, for them, or both. A policy brief would be created and distributed to various government officials with the help of our MP and public servant allies with the intention of sparking interest in our policy. Copies of this policy brief would also be distributed to participants in the program upon survey completion discussed above as a part of the implementation plan. Again, involving those that the policy directly effects is essential for our program.
A lot has been covered in this posting, so let’s conclude with a short summary to refresh our memories of the key points in the implementation of better job training, educational assessment, and the removal of force. Basically, through the implementation of higher quality job training and ensuring proper assessment of education levels of each worker, the removal of the feeling of being “forced to work” is hypothesized to occur. A lot of workers who feel forced into jobs in order to receive social assistance are not effective workers and are not happy individuals. We propose to involve workers in their workplaces so that they can take their satisfaction into their own hands. This means collaborating directly with each other and employers in order to ensure that their needs are being heard and met. It also means being provided with sufficient job training to perform their current job well, as well as being provided with the skills to climb up the job ladder and hopefully receive more rewarding and meaningful work in the future. By ensuring an adequate level of education and encouraging higher education, we believe that better and more satisfying jobs will be available to workers in our alternative policy. It is part of our goal to provide workers with the tools they need to be able to become self-sufficient and independent, and by taking measures to remove force and encourage motivation, we theorize that individuals will be more partial to the idea of securing their futures and the futures of their families.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Removing the FORCE to Work Via Improved Job Training and Educational Assessment
We propose an alternative policy response to the policy of Workfare which would include improving job training, improving education, and removing the perceived force to work that Workfare participants experience. Improving job training is an important objective which relates to our overall goal of transitioning those on social assistance out of poverty because, as discussed in some previous posts, the job training that jobs offered to Workfare participants is inadequate for providing workers with worthwhile knowledge that they can apply to their current job and potential future jobs. Inadequate job training leaves Workfare participants trapped in their current jobs because they are not well enough prepared to attain employment elsewhere. Understandably, workfare participants may start at the bottom of the ladder, and a job in and of itself is an improvement from nothing at all, but in order to prepare social assistance recipients for life they need to be prepared for other types of jobs. Inadequate job training takes away workers’ rights to seeking challenging and rewarding employment. Low levels of education are also detrimental to workers’ well-being and personal growth. If a worker only has a grade 6-level education, this worker will be hard pressed to find an employment opportunity that will pay well, will include even minimal benefits, will be intellectually stimulating, or will provide opportunity for promotions. Workfare participants experience being forced to work. The entire idea of Workfare is that participants work in order to receive social assistance. Although some say that people who cannot or will not work need to be pushed into working, this view fails to recognize the individual differences that exist between people. The force that participants experience can be stressful and discouraging and can lead to even greater hardships in these individuals’ lives.
It is our recommendation that in this alternative response to Workfare, employers provide better job training to employees. This means that employers themselves need to be prepared to properly train their employees. How would this be carried out? Firstly, employers participating in this alternative program would attend a sort of class in which they would learn the best practices that train employees. Classes would be offered by a team of individuals which could include a representative from human resources development (i.e. government official), a representative from a community organization or community centre, and a member of the community. This team which includes an “expert”, a community collaborator, and a peer to the community, would provide a well-rounded approach to training techniques, as well as providing multiple perspectives so that a variety of voices would be heard. We cannot rely only on “experts” to determine the best approaches to job training. By listening to members of the community we have a better opportunity for learning what the demands are in terms of job training. Secondly, after becoming educated in this way, employers would present their learnings and their own style of application of this education to employees. A round-table discussion would enable employers and employees to be on the same page and come to an agreement on what is expected and what can be provided from and for both parties. Third, the actual implementation of the agreed-upon job training techniques is obviously key for this alternative job training to occur. Overall, our perspective on Workfare’s inadequate job training is an alternative response that entails a collaborative and participatory approach in which employers and employees work together to be in agreement upon what kind of job training employees will receive. Therefore, although exact details cannot be stated as to what precisely would be involved in this improved job training, it can be said that employees’ voices would have a main role in what would be involved.
We also recommend that education levels of each and every worker participating in the program are assessed. This includes evaluating their proficiency in English as well as other languages, evaluating their basic math skills, literacy, and their educational history. Too many Workfare participants have been placed with employers without having had their education assessed. This again is another trap for workers because their strengths that they bring to the job are ignored, and the aspects of their education that need to be developed are also overlooked. Being bilingual is an asset in many workplaces, but if this is not recognized then bilingual Workfare participants suffer from not being able to apply this asset in a workplace and potentially attain a better job. On the other hand, an individual with a low education level needs to develop their education so that he or she will not be trapped in menial labour for life. Rather than forcing them to work, a plan could be implemented to assist the under-educated individuals acquire at least a high school education, or higher, so that their future employment opportunities would be more plentiful and of better quality. Education assessment is necessary to ensure participants the best possible placements and also to identify which workers need to develop their education before working.
The feeling of being forced into work is something that can leave a worker bitter, resentful, and unmotivated to work. One view that exists is that mandatory Workfare participation will motivate welfare recipients and help them realize that they need to work; they will adopt the attitude that they can, want to, and need to work in order to receive social assistance. This has been shown to be inaccurate in many instances, as social assistance recipients’ individual situations are ignored and the assumption is made that they have nothing else to do. In fact, single parents, for example, have their hands more than full and to work is truly not feasible while simultaneously caring for young children. To put it another way, let’s try to imagine that a middle-class, white, heterosexual, single (with no children) female works an average of 40 hours per week at the job she has worked at and loved for six years. All of a sudden, she is told that in order to receive her normal pay cheques she will need to start working another job in the evening and on the weekends; otherwise, she will not receive her pay. Not only will her pay remain the same (so she won’t be paid extra for the second job that she takes on), her hard work for these six years seems to be completely irrelevant. Is this fair? Some of us would argue that this sounds ridiculous. Now let’s ask ourselves, is this different from a single woman in the same basic situation, except she has three children under the age of 2 years? She works all day every day, including evenings and weekends, supporting these children of hers. To top it off, she doesn’t get paid for this work that she does around the clock. How would she be able to be forced into working for welfare? She’d need to put her children in day care. Ok, but some reports claim that decent child care costs $1600 CAD a month. Many middle-class families with two parents working relatively well-paying jobs find this sum a difficult amount to come up with each month, let alone someone on welfare. This story provides an analogy of how that force that Workfare places upon participants is discouraging and unmotivating because it causes such a high level of stress that individuals are left feeling hopeless, helpless, and worthless. An alternative policy response would remove the force to work (ways of how to tackle this idea will be explored in a later blog posting) and instil a sense of worth in participants.
The ideas suggested above are ways that our alternative policy response to Workfare would aim to address the oppressive factors that exist in Workfare. We take a humanistic, collaborative, anti-oppressive stance that aims to involve participants in the process and focus on what’s important in each and every one of our lives. By concentrating on individual differences and development, our approach would create better incentives to work and would value each worker’s situation in relation to their abilities to work.
It is our recommendation that in this alternative response to Workfare, employers provide better job training to employees. This means that employers themselves need to be prepared to properly train their employees. How would this be carried out? Firstly, employers participating in this alternative program would attend a sort of class in which they would learn the best practices that train employees. Classes would be offered by a team of individuals which could include a representative from human resources development (i.e. government official), a representative from a community organization or community centre, and a member of the community. This team which includes an “expert”, a community collaborator, and a peer to the community, would provide a well-rounded approach to training techniques, as well as providing multiple perspectives so that a variety of voices would be heard. We cannot rely only on “experts” to determine the best approaches to job training. By listening to members of the community we have a better opportunity for learning what the demands are in terms of job training. Secondly, after becoming educated in this way, employers would present their learnings and their own style of application of this education to employees. A round-table discussion would enable employers and employees to be on the same page and come to an agreement on what is expected and what can be provided from and for both parties. Third, the actual implementation of the agreed-upon job training techniques is obviously key for this alternative job training to occur. Overall, our perspective on Workfare’s inadequate job training is an alternative response that entails a collaborative and participatory approach in which employers and employees work together to be in agreement upon what kind of job training employees will receive. Therefore, although exact details cannot be stated as to what precisely would be involved in this improved job training, it can be said that employees’ voices would have a main role in what would be involved.
We also recommend that education levels of each and every worker participating in the program are assessed. This includes evaluating their proficiency in English as well as other languages, evaluating their basic math skills, literacy, and their educational history. Too many Workfare participants have been placed with employers without having had their education assessed. This again is another trap for workers because their strengths that they bring to the job are ignored, and the aspects of their education that need to be developed are also overlooked. Being bilingual is an asset in many workplaces, but if this is not recognized then bilingual Workfare participants suffer from not being able to apply this asset in a workplace and potentially attain a better job. On the other hand, an individual with a low education level needs to develop their education so that he or she will not be trapped in menial labour for life. Rather than forcing them to work, a plan could be implemented to assist the under-educated individuals acquire at least a high school education, or higher, so that their future employment opportunities would be more plentiful and of better quality. Education assessment is necessary to ensure participants the best possible placements and also to identify which workers need to develop their education before working.
The feeling of being forced into work is something that can leave a worker bitter, resentful, and unmotivated to work. One view that exists is that mandatory Workfare participation will motivate welfare recipients and help them realize that they need to work; they will adopt the attitude that they can, want to, and need to work in order to receive social assistance. This has been shown to be inaccurate in many instances, as social assistance recipients’ individual situations are ignored and the assumption is made that they have nothing else to do. In fact, single parents, for example, have their hands more than full and to work is truly not feasible while simultaneously caring for young children. To put it another way, let’s try to imagine that a middle-class, white, heterosexual, single (with no children) female works an average of 40 hours per week at the job she has worked at and loved for six years. All of a sudden, she is told that in order to receive her normal pay cheques she will need to start working another job in the evening and on the weekends; otherwise, she will not receive her pay. Not only will her pay remain the same (so she won’t be paid extra for the second job that she takes on), her hard work for these six years seems to be completely irrelevant. Is this fair? Some of us would argue that this sounds ridiculous. Now let’s ask ourselves, is this different from a single woman in the same basic situation, except she has three children under the age of 2 years? She works all day every day, including evenings and weekends, supporting these children of hers. To top it off, she doesn’t get paid for this work that she does around the clock. How would she be able to be forced into working for welfare? She’d need to put her children in day care. Ok, but some reports claim that decent child care costs $1600 CAD a month. Many middle-class families with two parents working relatively well-paying jobs find this sum a difficult amount to come up with each month, let alone someone on welfare. This story provides an analogy of how that force that Workfare places upon participants is discouraging and unmotivating because it causes such a high level of stress that individuals are left feeling hopeless, helpless, and worthless. An alternative policy response would remove the force to work (ways of how to tackle this idea will be explored in a later blog posting) and instil a sense of worth in participants.
The ideas suggested above are ways that our alternative policy response to Workfare would aim to address the oppressive factors that exist in Workfare. We take a humanistic, collaborative, anti-oppressive stance that aims to involve participants in the process and focus on what’s important in each and every one of our lives. By concentrating on individual differences and development, our approach would create better incentives to work and would value each worker’s situation in relation to their abilities to work.
Recommendations for an Alternative Policy
Our policy alternative will be developed through an anti-oppressive lens in which attention will be directed towards the structural causes of poverty. Through this perspective we have addressed the differing needs of social assistance recipients that the initial Workfare policy did not take into account. We have argued that structural causes of poverty have been overlooked because of the overarching neo-conservative framework behind the implementation of Workfare. This neo-conservative framework individualizes the causes of poverty, and therefore creates a deviantization of the poor, placing the blame on individual qualities while removing the responsibility of the state. Our hope is to shift attention from individualization and draw it back to structural issues including that of the feminization of poverty, inequalities in wealth, barriers to employment. Our policy alternatives will account for these systemic issues by addressing the provision of child care, the development of meaningful education and job training as well as the development of a policy that acknowledges the transition from social assistance to a meaningful job of all workfare recipients.
The short term recommendations include providing those receiving social assistance with a 390/month/child childcare allowance that is not included in that individuals calculation of earnings. This will be provided regardless of working status, family member status, or provision of receipts and will be covered for a 1 year period, with the possibility of extension under extenuating circumstances. Long term recommendations include the beginnings of a national child care system in which federal funding will account for 80% of the cost of regulated child care services. By implementing these policy initiatives, the gendered nature of poverty, as well as the current child care expectations for women, will be taken into consideration, allowing women more freedom from the childcare role if they so choose. This policy will increase the quality of care for children living in low income situations, while positively affecting the labour force participation of women, allowing for a more livable balance of labour force and child care responsibilities.
In terms of job training and education, it is recommended that a humanistic perspective that focuses on individual differences is used to empower program participants. This can be accomplished through collaborative job training which includes regular focus group-styled meetings with employers and employees to address each worker's individual needs and issues. By incorporating each person's needs and opinion into job training, what needs to improve will become evident. This means that job training will look different to each individual person. To each person as he or she needs. Some aspects of improved job training will include things like resume and cover letter writing, professional behaviour and appearance, and punctuality and time management skills in order to help them prepare for future careers. Not only will this improve job training quality, it will also improve employer-employee relations and workplace morale. Education levels will be properly assessed as well. Strengths will be noted, and areas for development will be addressed. It will be required that participants have a minimum of high school level education with a recommendation for higher education. Plans will be set up to help interested participants pay for higher education by providing loans and deducting amounts from their pay cheques, if possible. Empowerment of individuals and encouragement for healthy growth and development will motivate individuals to enjoy their work and look forward to the future. These recommendations intend to remove the force that Workfare participants have felt to work and move towards instilling an internal motivation by helping individuals become successful employees.
The failure of Ontario Works to acknowledge the transition from social assistance to work will also be addressed with recommendations for policies and practices that actually support this process in contrast to the conservative lens that people on workfare are deviants who refuse to work, and that they will favourably comply with the program "reaping the benefits" of an immediate transformation into permanent, low paid labour. Developing a policy acknowledging the need for a meaningful transition plan within Ontario works requires both short and long term recommendations, and an action plan to change public opinion and obtain government support through client-centred, agency-guided focus groups. Short term recommendations in favour of policies acknowledging the transition between social assistance and work include reducing clawback rates for the majority of recipients who need to work not only for additional job experience, but because the benefits aren't adequate, remove punitive measures against those who do not meet pre-set goals despite genuine efforts to attain them, and to develop individual schedules for each client on their own directed path to success. Long term recommendations in favour of policies acknowledging the transition between social assistance and work include developing a new government responsibility centre where authorities of social services work to establish identical definitions for defining criteria for clients to reduce overlap that creates barriers for clients on Ontario Works that are in need of more than one form of assistance, and raising asset levels to allow recipients of Ontario Works to save money month to month to cover expenses incurred when looking for a job, and facing lapses between jobs that occur due to no fault of their own (i.e. company lay-offs). The action plan to change public opinion and obtain government support of recommendations requires client-centred, agency-guided focus groups to identify short and long term changes, re-frame the public conservative ideology with language changing the deviantizing "welfare cheat" lens to an anti-oppressive "achieving self sufficiency" lens. Government action to set forth policies in Ontario Works that acknowledges the transition from social assistance to work takes place with buy in from finance ministers and the Premier of the publicly championed anti-oppressive lens of recipients of social assistance thanks to the efforts of the client-agency focus groups.
The workfare program has a multitude of issues associated with its implementation. The impact the policy has had on health is significant, as it means those who are addicted to drugs or alcohol have much more working against them if they are going to be successful in the program. However, health related issues as well as others are being explored and challenged by several grass-roots organizations so that workfare policies are changed in ways that are beneficial to all. While taking these factors into account, it must be remembered that there are a number of opinions which mark a sharp digression from the belief that workfare is “a violation of human rights” or that it’s not fair. Provincial taxpayers are the ones that contribute a great deal into welfare, and thus, the workfare program, so in understanding this perspective it becomes readily visible why many would think there should be a “workfare level of responsibility.” Many feel that people should be required to work for their financial assistance so that the recipients can be integrated back into the workforce. Again, this is only a single opinion, and it doesn’t take into account all the complex issues associated with the policy (disability, access to childcare). What it DOES is highlight the need for a program where resources such as childcare, counseling and skill upgrading are given to the workfare recipient so that there is a much higher probability of successful re-integration into the workforce.
The short term recommendations include providing those receiving social assistance with a 390/month/child childcare allowance that is not included in that individuals calculation of earnings. This will be provided regardless of working status, family member status, or provision of receipts and will be covered for a 1 year period, with the possibility of extension under extenuating circumstances. Long term recommendations include the beginnings of a national child care system in which federal funding will account for 80% of the cost of regulated child care services. By implementing these policy initiatives, the gendered nature of poverty, as well as the current child care expectations for women, will be taken into consideration, allowing women more freedom from the childcare role if they so choose. This policy will increase the quality of care for children living in low income situations, while positively affecting the labour force participation of women, allowing for a more livable balance of labour force and child care responsibilities.
In terms of job training and education, it is recommended that a humanistic perspective that focuses on individual differences is used to empower program participants. This can be accomplished through collaborative job training which includes regular focus group-styled meetings with employers and employees to address each worker's individual needs and issues. By incorporating each person's needs and opinion into job training, what needs to improve will become evident. This means that job training will look different to each individual person. To each person as he or she needs. Some aspects of improved job training will include things like resume and cover letter writing, professional behaviour and appearance, and punctuality and time management skills in order to help them prepare for future careers. Not only will this improve job training quality, it will also improve employer-employee relations and workplace morale. Education levels will be properly assessed as well. Strengths will be noted, and areas for development will be addressed. It will be required that participants have a minimum of high school level education with a recommendation for higher education. Plans will be set up to help interested participants pay for higher education by providing loans and deducting amounts from their pay cheques, if possible. Empowerment of individuals and encouragement for healthy growth and development will motivate individuals to enjoy their work and look forward to the future. These recommendations intend to remove the force that Workfare participants have felt to work and move towards instilling an internal motivation by helping individuals become successful employees.
The failure of Ontario Works to acknowledge the transition from social assistance to work will also be addressed with recommendations for policies and practices that actually support this process in contrast to the conservative lens that people on workfare are deviants who refuse to work, and that they will favourably comply with the program "reaping the benefits" of an immediate transformation into permanent, low paid labour. Developing a policy acknowledging the need for a meaningful transition plan within Ontario works requires both short and long term recommendations, and an action plan to change public opinion and obtain government support through client-centred, agency-guided focus groups. Short term recommendations in favour of policies acknowledging the transition between social assistance and work include reducing clawback rates for the majority of recipients who need to work not only for additional job experience, but because the benefits aren't adequate, remove punitive measures against those who do not meet pre-set goals despite genuine efforts to attain them, and to develop individual schedules for each client on their own directed path to success. Long term recommendations in favour of policies acknowledging the transition between social assistance and work include developing a new government responsibility centre where authorities of social services work to establish identical definitions for defining criteria for clients to reduce overlap that creates barriers for clients on Ontario Works that are in need of more than one form of assistance, and raising asset levels to allow recipients of Ontario Works to save money month to month to cover expenses incurred when looking for a job, and facing lapses between jobs that occur due to no fault of their own (i.e. company lay-offs). The action plan to change public opinion and obtain government support of recommendations requires client-centred, agency-guided focus groups to identify short and long term changes, re-frame the public conservative ideology with language changing the deviantizing "welfare cheat" lens to an anti-oppressive "achieving self sufficiency" lens. Government action to set forth policies in Ontario Works that acknowledges the transition from social assistance to work takes place with buy in from finance ministers and the Premier of the publicly championed anti-oppressive lens of recipients of social assistance thanks to the efforts of the client-agency focus groups.
The workfare program has a multitude of issues associated with its implementation. The impact the policy has had on health is significant, as it means those who are addicted to drugs or alcohol have much more working against them if they are going to be successful in the program. However, health related issues as well as others are being explored and challenged by several grass-roots organizations so that workfare policies are changed in ways that are beneficial to all. While taking these factors into account, it must be remembered that there are a number of opinions which mark a sharp digression from the belief that workfare is “a violation of human rights” or that it’s not fair. Provincial taxpayers are the ones that contribute a great deal into welfare, and thus, the workfare program, so in understanding this perspective it becomes readily visible why many would think there should be a “workfare level of responsibility.” Many feel that people should be required to work for their financial assistance so that the recipients can be integrated back into the workforce. Again, this is only a single opinion, and it doesn’t take into account all the complex issues associated with the policy (disability, access to childcare). What it DOES is highlight the need for a program where resources such as childcare, counseling and skill upgrading are given to the workfare recipient so that there is a much higher probability of successful re-integration into the workforce.
Friday, November 7, 2008
The Impact of Workfare on Health: Part Two
We've examined many different ways that Workfare has impacted society: the impact on managers, the impact on workfare recipients, and also the impact on single mothers. Health care is crucial to the well-being of our society, and it has many different facets: psychological, emotional, as well as physical. If we're not psychologically or physically healthy, we're not going to be able to provide for ourselves or our families the basic necessities of life, right? Ask someone who is addicted to heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine. How do they earn a living so that they have income for food, water, shelter, and clothing? Mitigating this reality is the unfortunate case of the provincial government designing and implementing (in 1997) the Ontario Disability Support Program. It excluded "persons with dependencies on drugs or alcohol from eligibility for benefits unless they could prove they had some other substantial physical or mental impairment." What seems particularly troubling is the idea that because HIV is included in the Ontario government's definition of "disability," it may serve as an incentive for some to "become positive" so as to qualify for benefits. What does everyone think of this idea? I'm not sure what to think of it. Maybe the research on this idea is unreliable, and desperately needing...well, more! It just seems like a dramatic statement, too dramatic almost.
If someone doesn't qualify for O.D.S.P., his or her only recourse is to apply for Ontario Works which has a participation requirement. The fact that a person addicted to drugs or alcohol can claim that he or she is in a rehabilitation program, voluntarily, as part of the requirement, seems like a worthy option. The factor to remember is that many of these substance abuse programs are "abstinence based," and so if the said person fails to meet his or her responsibilities in the program, participation in Workfare will be required. Thus, it seems like a vicious circle, as anyone who works in additions and/or mental health can attest to the fact that substance use is an every day, all day problem. It's pervasive and all-consuming. What good is a person going to be in a workfare program if he or she is high while on the job? How will that affect the integrity of the workplace, the ability of the manager to control the surroundings and therefore an efficient company? What's even worse is the fact that if a person THEN fails to meet the requirements of their workfare involvement, they will be ineligible for a period of three to six months.
Definitely scary for a person who is trying to cope without the use of drugs. Especially when the length of stay in recovery programs is reduced from 28 to 21 days, albeit a way for a the province to allow more people into the program.
It's a tough situation, because while it's quite easy to make the provincial government out to be the bad guy, it cannot be denied that there are a number of factors to keep in mind. The provincial government is under pressure from "the people" to help those who are financially struggling. The government is also under pressure by the people to keep the streets safe for healthy citizens to be on. Thus, it is going to be imperative that the government devise programs where people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol can get help (thus reducing the chance that he or she will drink and drive, or exchange drugs on the streets). However, it's even more complicated because how does the government get the funding needed to operate programs such as workfare? That's right, the taxpayers!!!
It's obvious: the workfare program was a colossal disaster. The government employees did not take into account the impact that would happen on mothers, on employers, and on the health and well-being of all financially struggling individuals. However, it's important to remember that despite a possibly oppressive mindset of the policy makers (possibly is an important word to use because we don't exactly know what their beliefs are), there's only so much anyone can do. An organism is only as good as the sum of it's parts, and the various aspects of the program that make it ineffective (such as the ones we've outlined in this blog) reinforce the idea that it was just a poorly thought out policy.
If someone doesn't qualify for O.D.S.P., his or her only recourse is to apply for Ontario Works which has a participation requirement. The fact that a person addicted to drugs or alcohol can claim that he or she is in a rehabilitation program, voluntarily, as part of the requirement, seems like a worthy option. The factor to remember is that many of these substance abuse programs are "abstinence based," and so if the said person fails to meet his or her responsibilities in the program, participation in Workfare will be required. Thus, it seems like a vicious circle, as anyone who works in additions and/or mental health can attest to the fact that substance use is an every day, all day problem. It's pervasive and all-consuming. What good is a person going to be in a workfare program if he or she is high while on the job? How will that affect the integrity of the workplace, the ability of the manager to control the surroundings and therefore an efficient company? What's even worse is the fact that if a person THEN fails to meet the requirements of their workfare involvement, they will be ineligible for a period of three to six months.
Definitely scary for a person who is trying to cope without the use of drugs. Especially when the length of stay in recovery programs is reduced from 28 to 21 days, albeit a way for a the province to allow more people into the program.
It's a tough situation, because while it's quite easy to make the provincial government out to be the bad guy, it cannot be denied that there are a number of factors to keep in mind. The provincial government is under pressure from "the people" to help those who are financially struggling. The government is also under pressure by the people to keep the streets safe for healthy citizens to be on. Thus, it is going to be imperative that the government devise programs where people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol can get help (thus reducing the chance that he or she will drink and drive, or exchange drugs on the streets). However, it's even more complicated because how does the government get the funding needed to operate programs such as workfare? That's right, the taxpayers!!!
It's obvious: the workfare program was a colossal disaster. The government employees did not take into account the impact that would happen on mothers, on employers, and on the health and well-being of all financially struggling individuals. However, it's important to remember that despite a possibly oppressive mindset of the policy makers (possibly is an important word to use because we don't exactly know what their beliefs are), there's only so much anyone can do. An organism is only as good as the sum of it's parts, and the various aspects of the program that make it ineffective (such as the ones we've outlined in this blog) reinforce the idea that it was just a poorly thought out policy.
The Impact of Workfare on Health: Part One
What elements would you say are our most basic determinants of good health? Food? Water? Shelter? Clothing? Feeling valued? I would wager a guess that the answer to that question would equate to an age old cliche: "all of the above." Nevertheless, these factors most certainly equalize our ability to live our lives free from physical duress. But who helps who IN TIMES of duress? What if the members of a family can't support each other, and therefore cannot provide the aforementioned factors? Who will step in to provide assistance? In a fair and just society, one would think the people that run the show, a.k.a., those in government. But like we've said before, if the government DOES step in, it doesn't mean the answer is going to be a good one. Sometimes the response is poorly implemented. With regard to our health and well-being, what do you think Workfare says about the belief systems of those who implemented it? What does it say about their ideology? Perhaps that our governments (not all) are kind of "socialist," in nature. What this means is the idea that: "Don't worry, we'll take care of you because you'll use our ideas. You give us your trust and your earnings and we'll take care of you." Maybe workfare says that our leaders feel we should be able to take care of our own health, regardless of our circumstances ~ forgetting that our health is contingent on being able to support ourselves with the basic necessities of life.
In the past 20 years, a lot of people have railed against the changes that have been made to our policies regarding financial assistance. These policies undoubtedly affect our health and well-being. We've got the "Marginalized Worker's Action League," an organization of unemployed individuals, "marginally employed" workers and students who came together in 1997 to pressure our government institutions to initiate fairer assistance programs (ones that steer far away from the "blame the victim" mantra ~ I realize the irony in using another cliche). Then we've got the "Society for the Promotion of Human rights in Employment," which also came together in 1997 and focuses on promoting "awareness, understanding and respect for our fundamental human rights (one of which is the prohibition of forced labour)." These are crucial steps toward standing up and saying: "Wait a minute, these programs aren't right, they are not working. We need a better way!" It seems like getting the people involved who desperately need financial assistance in the policy development would be a worthwhile option. The heads of two groups are better than one, right?
The "Ontario Public Health Association," or OPHA, as it is commonly referred to as, strives to promote the social and physical wellness of everyone in the province. As such, it pays special attention to the policies that our government leaders implement and advocates for change. Some of the recommendations it has made in the past include: voluntary participation in workfare programs, appropriate training and job placements, as well as the access to government-funded support services (which would include but is not limited to transportation and adequate childcare services). One thing that OPHA has tried to point out in their literature is that typically, social assistance has been provided through two avenues: general welfare assistance and family benefits (this would mean individuals with dependent children). When the province of Ontario elected the conservative government in 1995, it reduced social assistance benefits by 21 per cent. What came after was Ontario Works, a mandatory workfare program for those receiving social assistance.
What the heck is the message with all this rambling? It's simple: the writing is on the wall. Yes, it's true, yet another cliche. The point is that the impact left by workfare has been felt and felt big time. An area of our lives impacted hugely by this policy is the health and well-being of the citizens who have used it. A number of grass roots organizations are continuing to fight the inequalities that exist in these ways. So it's there, the work is being done to try and equalize the financial assistance that is allotted to Canadian citizens. However, one key factor that needs to be kept in mind is that while there are innumerable people who desperately need adequate assistance in getting back on their feet, there is also a "population" of people in our country who remain, and will always remain, "unemployable." Managers speak to this fact all the time; companies have tried to participate in workfare...to no avail. Not in every single case, but many where an employee was chronically late, sick, or refused to show up. It certainly makes things harder on the people who need "something" to get them back to a place where they can manage their lives independently.
In the past 20 years, a lot of people have railed against the changes that have been made to our policies regarding financial assistance. These policies undoubtedly affect our health and well-being. We've got the "Marginalized Worker's Action League," an organization of unemployed individuals, "marginally employed" workers and students who came together in 1997 to pressure our government institutions to initiate fairer assistance programs (ones that steer far away from the "blame the victim" mantra ~ I realize the irony in using another cliche). Then we've got the "Society for the Promotion of Human rights in Employment," which also came together in 1997 and focuses on promoting "awareness, understanding and respect for our fundamental human rights (one of which is the prohibition of forced labour)." These are crucial steps toward standing up and saying: "Wait a minute, these programs aren't right, they are not working. We need a better way!" It seems like getting the people involved who desperately need financial assistance in the policy development would be a worthwhile option. The heads of two groups are better than one, right?
The "Ontario Public Health Association," or OPHA, as it is commonly referred to as, strives to promote the social and physical wellness of everyone in the province. As such, it pays special attention to the policies that our government leaders implement and advocates for change. Some of the recommendations it has made in the past include: voluntary participation in workfare programs, appropriate training and job placements, as well as the access to government-funded support services (which would include but is not limited to transportation and adequate childcare services). One thing that OPHA has tried to point out in their literature is that typically, social assistance has been provided through two avenues: general welfare assistance and family benefits (this would mean individuals with dependent children). When the province of Ontario elected the conservative government in 1995, it reduced social assistance benefits by 21 per cent. What came after was Ontario Works, a mandatory workfare program for those receiving social assistance.
What the heck is the message with all this rambling? It's simple: the writing is on the wall. Yes, it's true, yet another cliche. The point is that the impact left by workfare has been felt and felt big time. An area of our lives impacted hugely by this policy is the health and well-being of the citizens who have used it. A number of grass roots organizations are continuing to fight the inequalities that exist in these ways. So it's there, the work is being done to try and equalize the financial assistance that is allotted to Canadian citizens. However, one key factor that needs to be kept in mind is that while there are innumerable people who desperately need adequate assistance in getting back on their feet, there is also a "population" of people in our country who remain, and will always remain, "unemployable." Managers speak to this fact all the time; companies have tried to participate in workfare...to no avail. Not in every single case, but many where an employee was chronically late, sick, or refused to show up. It certainly makes things harder on the people who need "something" to get them back to a place where they can manage their lives independently.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Disincentives to Employment: Unreasonably Low Asset Levels
Unreasonably low asset levels are a problematic deterrent for Ontario Works recipients who want to pursue employment. Ontario Works sets maximum asset levels for recipients to determine how much monthly allowance they are to receive. For example, single adults are afforded a maximum asset level of $560 per month, while single adults with a lone child are afforded a maximum asset level of $1529 per month. These asset levels are set and adjusted by proof of necessities obtained from recipient’s receipts and include: pay stubs, hydro, water, and heating costs, bank account books and statements, fire insurance, rent or mortgage payments, income tax assessment or returns, and child care costs.
While monthly allowances are set to ensure that a recipient’s basic and immediate needs are covered, they do not allow any room for savings—an asset that Ontario Works recipients need if they are to successfully transition from social assistance to a job. Although existing asset levels cover current consumption, it is not enough, as there are a number of additional costs that a person has to take into account when transitioning into a job. These costs include the costs of a new wardrobe for the interview, transportation to interviews, additional child care for parents going through job interviews and an increase in phone costs to set up interviews. Without room for savings in the maximum assets level, Ontario Works recipients are afforded no assistance to assist with finding a job—a process that does cost money.
Ontario Works fails to recognize the instability of the transition that occurs when a person begins a new job. For example there is always a probationary period typically lasting 3 to 6 months whereby, should the job be terminated, the recently fired employee would need to fall back on a few months of savings while pursuing a new job. Also, since Ontario Works prepares recipients for low-skilled, low-paid labour only, these jobs are typically contract positions that could be terminated at any time at no fault of the employee. If there is not adequate savings in place before going into a new job, a person has no resources to fall back on should their job be terminated. Since Ontario works does not allow savings to be an asset, then individuals transitioning out of Ontario Works are afforded no opportunities to buffer transitional periods out of social assistance and between jobs with adequate resources.
What’s most oppressive about this predicament is that Ontario Works covers a recipient’s immediate consumption needs only. By not allowing for even a small fraction of the assets to include savings, recipients do not have the opportunity to participate in the work force ever the same way that individuals in the middle and upper class do. Since they are required to save and present receipts of all spending, including rent, utilities, food, clothing, and child care (a further oppressive and exploitative practice by Ontario Works), then recipients don’t have the option to even cut back on their basic necessities for the sake of savings, because cutting back on their spending would lower their allowance. What this means for Ontario Works recipients is that, while they have a greater incentive to work, they have a reduced incentive to save. This results in “a vow of poverty to maintain their eligibility for OW—which is surely counter-productive to the ultimate goal of reducing their reliance on welfare.”
Information about Ontario Works asset levels obtained from:
Region of Peel, Ontario Works in Peel: Your Responsibilities
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/ow/receiving/responsibilities.htm
Simcoe County Health and Social Services Home Page: Ontario Works Asset Levels
http://www.county.simcoe.on.ca/healthsocialservices/ontarioworks/aboutontarioworksfinancialassistance/assetlevels/index.htm
TD Economics Special Report: "From Welfare to Work in Ontario: Still the Road Less Travelled." September 8, 2005.
While monthly allowances are set to ensure that a recipient’s basic and immediate needs are covered, they do not allow any room for savings—an asset that Ontario Works recipients need if they are to successfully transition from social assistance to a job. Although existing asset levels cover current consumption, it is not enough, as there are a number of additional costs that a person has to take into account when transitioning into a job. These costs include the costs of a new wardrobe for the interview, transportation to interviews, additional child care for parents going through job interviews and an increase in phone costs to set up interviews. Without room for savings in the maximum assets level, Ontario Works recipients are afforded no assistance to assist with finding a job—a process that does cost money.
Ontario Works fails to recognize the instability of the transition that occurs when a person begins a new job. For example there is always a probationary period typically lasting 3 to 6 months whereby, should the job be terminated, the recently fired employee would need to fall back on a few months of savings while pursuing a new job. Also, since Ontario Works prepares recipients for low-skilled, low-paid labour only, these jobs are typically contract positions that could be terminated at any time at no fault of the employee. If there is not adequate savings in place before going into a new job, a person has no resources to fall back on should their job be terminated. Since Ontario works does not allow savings to be an asset, then individuals transitioning out of Ontario Works are afforded no opportunities to buffer transitional periods out of social assistance and between jobs with adequate resources.
What’s most oppressive about this predicament is that Ontario Works covers a recipient’s immediate consumption needs only. By not allowing for even a small fraction of the assets to include savings, recipients do not have the opportunity to participate in the work force ever the same way that individuals in the middle and upper class do. Since they are required to save and present receipts of all spending, including rent, utilities, food, clothing, and child care (a further oppressive and exploitative practice by Ontario Works), then recipients don’t have the option to even cut back on their basic necessities for the sake of savings, because cutting back on their spending would lower their allowance. What this means for Ontario Works recipients is that, while they have a greater incentive to work, they have a reduced incentive to save. This results in “a vow of poverty to maintain their eligibility for OW—which is surely counter-productive to the ultimate goal of reducing their reliance on welfare.”
Information about Ontario Works asset levels obtained from:
Region of Peel, Ontario Works in Peel: Your Responsibilities
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/ow/receiving/responsibilities.htm
Simcoe County Health and Social Services Home Page: Ontario Works Asset Levels
http://www.county.simcoe.on.ca/healthsocialservices/ontarioworks/aboutontarioworksfinancialassistance/assetlevels/index.htm
TD Economics Special Report: "From Welfare to Work in Ontario: Still the Road Less Travelled." September 8, 2005.
Disincentives to Employment: Facing the Glass Ceiling
Another barrier to employment for recipients of Ontario Works who are eager to enter the job market is the glass ceiling. Since individuals who enter Ontario Works are individuals who have proven immediate financial need, they are already oppressed as citizens in poverty. While the intention of Ontario Works is to provide training for jobs that will help recipients exit social assistance and support themselves with an income, Ontario Works fails to do so because the training and job opportunities provided are so poor that they provide recipients with basic skills that will only give them jobs that keep them in a very low income bracket, or below the poverty line.
Examples of the “job specific” training provided can be found on the Ontario Works section of the city of Kingston homepage. Education and job-specific skills for upgrading include:
Completing your Grade 12 diploma or equivalency;
Improving language skills;
Upgrading reading, math, and writing skills;
Training required for certain jobs such as basic computer skills, typing, forklift operations, personal support worker (PSW).
Furthermore, upon a search of the upcoming job-specific skills workshops, one will find that the only recent workshop offered is standard CPR/First Aid training. What does this mean for Ontario Works recipients who have dreams of learning job-specific skills to start a career when they leave social assistance? This means that they cannot do so because Ontario Works does not provide the skills and training at a post-secondary level of education that is required for one to learn the skills to pursue meaningful employment. Ontario Works recipients are provided education up to grade 12 only, which does nothing for recipients who were already in poverty because they could not afford a post-secondary education even though they were already high school graduates. While basic academic skills such as language, reading, math, and writing are required for all jobs, failure to advance beyond these skills towards training in jobs that require higher order thinking and problem solving oppresses recipients to be eligible only for the lowest paying jobs once they leave Ontario Works. Since Ontario works does not provide training at the post-secondary level, barely pays out enough for one’s own living expenses, and prepares recipients for jobs whereby they are not paid enough to even save for a post-secondary education, it traps recipients below the glass ceiling when they attempt to leave the program and apply for a job.
In a survey of former Ontario Works recipients in the city of Toronto , comparisons were made between their financial situation while on, and off Ontario Works. The average weekly rate of pay for Ontario Works recipients who had transitioned into the job market was $400, which was 30% below the average weekly rate of pay for employees in the city of Toronto . When reporting incomes, 92% of respondents reported and average income below Statistic’s Canada ’s 2001 Low income cut-off. When reflecting on job-related training, recipients had opportunities to work and receive education in the following fields: retail/sales, office worker, restaurant worker, trades worker/mechanic, with 15% identified as an obscure category of professional/manager. Clearly, Ontario Works participants are limited to basic employment training and are not afforded training in higher paying jobs that call for knowledge in fields of academia.
Following input from former Ontario Work’s recipients, the reality behind the intended advantages of the program, for recipients to leave social services and sustain their living expenses with employment is clear. The program is failing. Without meaningful post-secondary level training, and opportunities to enter jobs paying above the low-income cut-off, former recipients are trapped in low-pay work where they have no access to benefits, and no opportunities to save for an education to help them climb the career ladder. They are oppressed to find work only in low-paying jobs, whether as employees or as returnees to Ontario Works, and are unlikely to ever break through the glass ceiling in search of a meaningful, sustaining career.
Information about Ontario Works training found on the Ontario Works Section of the City of Kingston home page. http://www.cityofkingston.ca/residents/social/ontarioworks/employment.asp#top
Information from former Ontario Works recipients found in: “After Ontario Works: A survey of people who left Ontario Works in Toronto in 2001.” Toronto Community & Neighbourhood Services, 2001. http://www.toronto.ca/socialservices/pdf/afterowsurvey.pdf
Examples of the “job specific” training provided can be found on the Ontario Works section of the city of Kingston homepage. Education and job-specific skills for upgrading include:
Completing your Grade 12 diploma or equivalency;
Improving language skills;
Upgrading reading, math, and writing skills;
Training required for certain jobs such as basic computer skills, typing, forklift operations, personal support worker (PSW).
Furthermore, upon a search of the upcoming job-specific skills workshops, one will find that the only recent workshop offered is standard CPR/First Aid training. What does this mean for Ontario Works recipients who have dreams of learning job-specific skills to start a career when they leave social assistance? This means that they cannot do so because Ontario Works does not provide the skills and training at a post-secondary level of education that is required for one to learn the skills to pursue meaningful employment. Ontario Works recipients are provided education up to grade 12 only, which does nothing for recipients who were already in poverty because they could not afford a post-secondary education even though they were already high school graduates. While basic academic skills such as language, reading, math, and writing are required for all jobs, failure to advance beyond these skills towards training in jobs that require higher order thinking and problem solving oppresses recipients to be eligible only for the lowest paying jobs once they leave Ontario Works. Since Ontario works does not provide training at the post-secondary level, barely pays out enough for one’s own living expenses, and prepares recipients for jobs whereby they are not paid enough to even save for a post-secondary education, it traps recipients below the glass ceiling when they attempt to leave the program and apply for a job.
In a survey of former Ontario Works recipients in the city of Toronto , comparisons were made between their financial situation while on, and off Ontario Works. The average weekly rate of pay for Ontario Works recipients who had transitioned into the job market was $400, which was 30% below the average weekly rate of pay for employees in the city of Toronto . When reporting incomes, 92% of respondents reported and average income below Statistic’s Canada ’s 2001 Low income cut-off. When reflecting on job-related training, recipients had opportunities to work and receive education in the following fields: retail/sales, office worker, restaurant worker, trades worker/mechanic, with 15% identified as an obscure category of professional/manager. Clearly, Ontario Works participants are limited to basic employment training and are not afforded training in higher paying jobs that call for knowledge in fields of academia.
Following input from former Ontario Work’s recipients, the reality behind the intended advantages of the program, for recipients to leave social services and sustain their living expenses with employment is clear. The program is failing. Without meaningful post-secondary level training, and opportunities to enter jobs paying above the low-income cut-off, former recipients are trapped in low-pay work where they have no access to benefits, and no opportunities to save for an education to help them climb the career ladder. They are oppressed to find work only in low-paying jobs, whether as employees or as returnees to Ontario Works, and are unlikely to ever break through the glass ceiling in search of a meaningful, sustaining career.
Information about Ontario Works training found on the Ontario Works Section of the City of Kingston home page. http://www.cityofkingston.ca/residents/social/ontarioworks/employment.asp#top
Information from former Ontario Works recipients found in: “After Ontario Works: A survey of people who left Ontario Works in Toronto in 2001.” Toronto Community & Neighbourhood Services, 2001. http://www.toronto.ca/socialservices/pdf/afterowsurvey.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
