Participants in Workfare programs are often viewed as the “other”. What exactly does this mean? Well, “othering” is a term that refers to a type of discrimination that a group of individuals experiences when they are the minority group or are dominated by other groups. In the case of Workfare, participants of Workfare programs are othered because they enter into job roles in which employers, other employees, and the public sees them as not quite belonging, or not really a true fit in their work environment. The issue of othering in this context has a lot to do with the stigma attached to being on social assistance and how this stigma hurts those on social assistance in their everyday lives and the roles they attempt to fill.
Social assistance, and Workfare specifically, is a good idea with good intentions, but Workfare involves more than just an idea. When human beings are involved, opinions, thoughts, values, and beliefs are involved as well. This means that, in terms of Workfare, the idea itself may be great (let’s face it, in its simplest form, working-for-welfare is awesome; you work, you get paid for your work, everybody wins, right?) but the application of this idea in the real world may be less than great (Everybody wins? Wrong. There are many complex issues that come into play with an idea like Workfare, such as ability, eligibility, education, quality of work opportunities, individual differences, and that big one: “the future”). Although there is virtually no one idea in existence that each and every person on Earth agrees with, there are certain ideas that are more controversial, and Workfare seems to be one of them. A major flaw with Workfare is that it doesn’t take into account individual differences. What this means is that Workfare fails to recognize the unique and personal situations of Workfare participants, and tends to group workers all in one group. Generalizations like this never work, and in Workfare it is extremely detrimental to oversimplify the diversity in Workfare populations because without taking unique circumstances into account, a large number of Workfare participants are unfairly viewed by others. This unfair view is exactly what “othering” is; it’s the generalization of the Workfare participant population as people different from the rest of the working world. They’re different because they receive social assistance. They’re different because they are working in order to receive their welfare cheques. They’re different for countless reasons, but in order to really work, Workfare needs to recognize that we’re all unique individuals with unique needs. By categorizing Workfare participants as the “other” we’re perpetuating a discriminatory attitude that is hurtful, not helpful.
There is a quote that applies well to this idea of taking individual differences into consideration. The quote says: “Fair does not mean everyone getting the same thing; Fair means everyone getting what they need”. The most well-known stigma that surrounds social assistance recipients is the idea that they are lazy and looking for a free ride. Those that subscribe to this view see Workfare recipients as burdens to society who can’t find their own work, and may consider it unfair that Workfare participants have jobs found for them, whereas non-social assistance folks find their own work. It may even be deemed an unfair advantage that Workfare participants have jobs supplied for them. There seems to be some disagreement as to whether or not Workfare participants take jobs away from regular working individuals. Some sources claim that this does happen and others claim this is absolutely not the case. Whatever the fact is, there exists stigma that Workfare participants enjoy certain benefits that regular working individuals do not. Again, this generalizes the Workfare population and fails to recognize the particular hardships and unique circumstances that they may be experiencing day to day. Workfare participants are, in fact, not always getting what they need, as the quote above commands for fairness. Workfare participants are exempt from many job perks and rights that regular workers take for granted. This is unfair. While regular working individuals recognize their own day to day stresses and difficulties, they often fail to recognize those same stresses that affect Workfare participants. In order to be fair, working together to understand each other would be conducive to a state closer to what may be called “fair”.
A major benefit to working together to understand each other’s individual differences is a boost of employee morale. It’s true that Workfare policy may put a strain on employers, Workfare participants, and other employees as well. Other workers may relate to the above paragraph and may hold certain prejudices against and beliefs about Workfare participants that create a stressful, unpleasant, and perhaps even quarrelsome work environment for all involved. Educating workers, both “regular” and Workfare workers, about each other’s positions and situations may not necessarily lead to people liking each other, but understanding each other would allow for a more cooperative and sensible work environment.
Othering is never acceptable. Workfare is only one of many upon many examples of an “us-versus-them” mentality that exists in our world today. It is particularly poignant that a Workfare participant’s main source of oppression is oftentimes his or her own peers. Whether it is a fellow worker, a fellow female/male, a fellow parent, etc, Workfare participants’ peers are exceptionally misunderstanding of these workers. From our anti-oppressive standpoint, we can see that this is extremely troubling because it traps Workfare participants into that “other” position that is separate from the rest of society and from their so-called peers.
Jean Swanson leaves us with some food for thought in relation to resisting Workfare:
• Myths portray people on welfare as opting for a so-called life of ease on welfare instead of grinding away at jobs. In fact, life on welfare is usually desperate and the amount of money people get it only about a quarter to a half of the poverty line
• Myths charge that thousands of jobs go vacant while thousands lounge on welfare. In fact, there aren’t nearly enough jobs for all the unemployed
• Government officials and the media use a special language that blames poor people for the poor economy, and gives the impression that punitive policies are somehow really good for people on welfare
• Some working people, justifiably angry at falling wages and diminishing job security, turn unjustifiably on the poor instead of the wealthy who make economic decisions and could afford to pay more taxes
• We must fight workfare because it’s part of the competitive impoverishment of the global economy; because it’s a direct threat to the jobs and wages of those who are working; and because it won’t get anyone out of poverty
*Note: For an interesting video, visit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4vDQPDrfXQ
Monday, October 27, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Impact of Workfare on Employers
Employers that employ workfare participants are a group that is very directly impacted by the workfare policy. There are plenty of features of the policy of workfare that generate stigma from all individuals involved in the carrying out of workfare. Not only does stigma exist around being a social assistance recipient, stigma also exists around being an employer that provides work for these individuals, as well as stigma around the quality of work that these individuals are capable of producing. Although some research has shown that some social assistance recipients may in fact embody the stereotypical role of the social assistance recipient, many sources turn a blind eye to the recipients who are actually hard workers and respect their work, employers, and the opportunity provided for them. Regardless, employers have faced difficulty in ignoring the stereotype of a typical social assistance recipient and the stigma carries on.
Employers that employ workfare participants have faced feelings of worry, doubt, and frustration in relation to their workfare workers. Deborah C. Washam, president and chief executive of a community home health care agency in Kansas City claims that, of more than eighty women she hired as part of a generous welfare-to-work program, fewer than twenty five remained on the job; many of the others apparently quit over perceived slights to their dignity: "I don't think they've had much exposure to structure in their lives....As single mothers, they are on their own and see themselves as authority figures. They won't take routine supervision at work." Apparently, many among those hired, although the best qualified of those screened, had problems including absenteeism, lack of discipline about work hours, poor reading and communicative skills, and open resentment when given direction. (New York Times, 1 Sept, 1996). This example clearly shows the doubt and frustration that one employer has experienced with her workfare participants. The stigma around workfare participants’ quality of work has perpetuated so much that employers often fail to truly examine the root causes of their difficulties. In this example, Washam neglected to look at the causes of workers’ absenteeism and other issues. It could be that personal issues such as child care, health, or transportation issues compromised their performance.
Employers benefit from workfare in that they are provided with cheap labour, but then they complain about the quality of this labour. What are ways in which to improve the quality of labour? Firstly, proper training and preparation would enable workfare recipients to learn, practice, and apply skills in the workplace that would produce a higher quality of work. This could potentially lead them to seek and find job opportunities in the future, and would leave them better off because they would be skilled. Secondly, providing workfare participants with the same benefits as other regular workers (such as the observance of statutory holidays and the freedom to start and/or join a union) could alleviate feelings of stress and frustration that workfare participants experience, therefore leading to higher quality of work. Third, paying a decent wage and maintaining motivation by providing incentives to work (such as bonuses) would encourage workers. This list could go on and on, but in the interest of space-saving, it will end here. The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of measures that could be taken in order to improve the quality of work that workfare participants produce. Employers are just not willing to put these measures into place, and would rather place the blame solely on workers. It is not enough that they are getting labour at the cheapest rate possible; they expect a better quality of work than is realistically possible under the terms of workfare. Taking the workers into consideration, working to improve their work conditions, and being understanding of their usually difficult circumstances are things that employers of workfare participants need to do in order to receive a quality of work that they will be satisfied with.
Relating to the previous paragraph, workfare participants are often treated differently than other regular workers are. Employers seem to be conflicted; they expect little from workfare participants because of the negative image they have of these workers, and yet they simultaneously expect very much from workfare participants, as is evident from their strong reactions to workers’ extenuating circumstances (such as child care issues which cause them to miss a day or work or to be late). Adopting a more consistent attitude towards workfare participants would create a better working environment and would likely promote better worker attitudes as well. Adopting a more humane and understanding attitude would surely promote better worker attitudes. Employers play a large role in the lack of success of workfare in Canada. The oppression that workfare participants experience by employers, which includes lesser rights, menial labour that does not properly train them and leaves them skill-less, etc. is hurtful to workers, employers, and workfare itself. It’s no wonder workfare hasn’t worked in Canada; a lot of things are lacking that could perhaps improve the success rate of workfare.
Employers that employ workfare participants have faced feelings of worry, doubt, and frustration in relation to their workfare workers. Deborah C. Washam, president and chief executive of a community home health care agency in Kansas City claims that, of more than eighty women she hired as part of a generous welfare-to-work program, fewer than twenty five remained on the job; many of the others apparently quit over perceived slights to their dignity: "I don't think they've had much exposure to structure in their lives....As single mothers, they are on their own and see themselves as authority figures. They won't take routine supervision at work." Apparently, many among those hired, although the best qualified of those screened, had problems including absenteeism, lack of discipline about work hours, poor reading and communicative skills, and open resentment when given direction. (New York Times, 1 Sept, 1996). This example clearly shows the doubt and frustration that one employer has experienced with her workfare participants. The stigma around workfare participants’ quality of work has perpetuated so much that employers often fail to truly examine the root causes of their difficulties. In this example, Washam neglected to look at the causes of workers’ absenteeism and other issues. It could be that personal issues such as child care, health, or transportation issues compromised their performance.
Employers benefit from workfare in that they are provided with cheap labour, but then they complain about the quality of this labour. What are ways in which to improve the quality of labour? Firstly, proper training and preparation would enable workfare recipients to learn, practice, and apply skills in the workplace that would produce a higher quality of work. This could potentially lead them to seek and find job opportunities in the future, and would leave them better off because they would be skilled. Secondly, providing workfare participants with the same benefits as other regular workers (such as the observance of statutory holidays and the freedom to start and/or join a union) could alleviate feelings of stress and frustration that workfare participants experience, therefore leading to higher quality of work. Third, paying a decent wage and maintaining motivation by providing incentives to work (such as bonuses) would encourage workers. This list could go on and on, but in the interest of space-saving, it will end here. The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of measures that could be taken in order to improve the quality of work that workfare participants produce. Employers are just not willing to put these measures into place, and would rather place the blame solely on workers. It is not enough that they are getting labour at the cheapest rate possible; they expect a better quality of work than is realistically possible under the terms of workfare. Taking the workers into consideration, working to improve their work conditions, and being understanding of their usually difficult circumstances are things that employers of workfare participants need to do in order to receive a quality of work that they will be satisfied with.
Relating to the previous paragraph, workfare participants are often treated differently than other regular workers are. Employers seem to be conflicted; they expect little from workfare participants because of the negative image they have of these workers, and yet they simultaneously expect very much from workfare participants, as is evident from their strong reactions to workers’ extenuating circumstances (such as child care issues which cause them to miss a day or work or to be late). Adopting a more consistent attitude towards workfare participants would create a better working environment and would likely promote better worker attitudes as well. Adopting a more humane and understanding attitude would surely promote better worker attitudes. Employers play a large role in the lack of success of workfare in Canada. The oppression that workfare participants experience by employers, which includes lesser rights, menial labour that does not properly train them and leaves them skill-less, etc. is hurtful to workers, employers, and workfare itself. It’s no wonder workfare hasn’t worked in Canada; a lot of things are lacking that could perhaps improve the success rate of workfare.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Increasing Hardships for Single Mothers
The everyday lives of single mothers on welfare have drastically worsened due to welfare reforms and the development of Workfare. In Ontario in 2004 the estimated welfare income (including basic assistance plus other benefits provided through the tax system, such as the federal tax benefit and GST credit) for a single employable person was 6,973 and for a single parent with one child was 14, 251, while at the same time the Statistics Canada Low Income Tax Cutoff (LICO) for a city with a population of 500,000 or more, for a single person, was 20,337 and for a family of two was 25, 319(National Council of Welfare, 2005). Clearly, welfare recipients are living in poverty. In Margaret Little’s study she explains that the women she has interviewed, who are trying to survive under the new workfare policies, have attempted suicide, reduced their food consumption, sold almost all their household furniture and been subjected to physical and sexual abuse.
For instance, research from the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine reveals that of the single mothers who used food banks, 70 percent had gone moderately or severely hungry in the past year and 57 percent had done so in the past 30 days. Another example of increased hardships comes from a survey of single mothers in Toronto and found 27 percent of them did not have telephone services some time during the last two years (Ontario Workfare Watch, “Broken Promises”, 1999). As Little outlines, without telephones mothers cannot reach emergency services, have a much harder time seeking employment (an obligation of Workfare) and are cut off from friends and family.
Women have also been subject to increased amounts of violence and sexual harassment partly due to stringent Workfare policies as well as welfare cuts. The 1990s Statistics Canada Violence Against Women Survey reveals that one in three women had experienced acts of violence by their partners. In addition, the vulnerability of poverty increases the extent to which women suffer from acts of violence. A study of low income mothers found that 50 percent had lived with a partner who had physically assaulted them. (Falkiner et. al. V Her Majesty the Queen, October 25, 1995). Little’s research illustrates that the level of harassment and violence in women’s lives has escalated since the welfare reform and introduction of Workfare.
As less and less women are qualifying for welfare and more women are specifically avoiding it because their childcare responsibilities are incompatible with Workfare, they are having to return to, or stay with, abusive partners. The Ontario Shelter Movement has reported that since the welfare reforms increasing numbers of women are returning to abusive partners in order to provide shelter, clothing and food for themselves and their children (Ontario Association of Internal and Transition Houses, 1997).
In addition, the exposure to sexual harassment has also increased. In Little’s interviews with single mothers she explains that many have complained that landlords have attempted to exchange sex for lower rents. One women explains “he [the landlord] told me that if I had sex with him he would take $150 a month for rent”. Another woman also explains a similar experience when an ex partner offered her $5 for a hug and more for sex – if she needed the money. Single mothers can no longer turn to social assistance as a means to escape oppressive relationships. Since Workfare has been introduced, single mothers are forced to avoid it, putting themselves at greater risk of harm and in greater situations of poverty.
Works Cited for last three blogs about single mothers:
Snyder, Linda. (2006). Workfare: Ten years of pickin’ on the poor. In A. Westhues (Ed.) Canadian social policy: Issues and perspectives (4th edition.; pp. 309-331) Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Mirchandani, Kiran and Chan, Wendy (2007). Criminalizing race, criminalizing poverty: Welfare fraud enforcement in Canada. Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.
Evans, Patrician. (2001). Women and social welfare in Canada: Exploring the Connections. In J. Turner and F. Turner (Ed.) Canadian Social Welfare (4th ed.; pp. 140-153). Toronto: Pearson Education Canada Inc.
Little, Margaret. (2003). The Leaner Meaner Welfare Machine: The Ontario Conservative Government’s Ideological and Material Attack on Single Mothers. In D. Brock (Ed.) Making normal: Social regulation in Canada (pg. 235-258). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
For instance, research from the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine reveals that of the single mothers who used food banks, 70 percent had gone moderately or severely hungry in the past year and 57 percent had done so in the past 30 days. Another example of increased hardships comes from a survey of single mothers in Toronto and found 27 percent of them did not have telephone services some time during the last two years (Ontario Workfare Watch, “Broken Promises”, 1999). As Little outlines, without telephones mothers cannot reach emergency services, have a much harder time seeking employment (an obligation of Workfare) and are cut off from friends and family.
Women have also been subject to increased amounts of violence and sexual harassment partly due to stringent Workfare policies as well as welfare cuts. The 1990s Statistics Canada Violence Against Women Survey reveals that one in three women had experienced acts of violence by their partners. In addition, the vulnerability of poverty increases the extent to which women suffer from acts of violence. A study of low income mothers found that 50 percent had lived with a partner who had physically assaulted them. (Falkiner et. al. V Her Majesty the Queen, October 25, 1995). Little’s research illustrates that the level of harassment and violence in women’s lives has escalated since the welfare reform and introduction of Workfare.
As less and less women are qualifying for welfare and more women are specifically avoiding it because their childcare responsibilities are incompatible with Workfare, they are having to return to, or stay with, abusive partners. The Ontario Shelter Movement has reported that since the welfare reforms increasing numbers of women are returning to abusive partners in order to provide shelter, clothing and food for themselves and their children (Ontario Association of Internal and Transition Houses, 1997).
In addition, the exposure to sexual harassment has also increased. In Little’s interviews with single mothers she explains that many have complained that landlords have attempted to exchange sex for lower rents. One women explains “he [the landlord] told me that if I had sex with him he would take $150 a month for rent”. Another woman also explains a similar experience when an ex partner offered her $5 for a hug and more for sex – if she needed the money. Single mothers can no longer turn to social assistance as a means to escape oppressive relationships. Since Workfare has been introduced, single mothers are forced to avoid it, putting themselves at greater risk of harm and in greater situations of poverty.
Works Cited for last three blogs about single mothers:
Snyder, Linda. (2006). Workfare: Ten years of pickin’ on the poor. In A. Westhues (Ed.) Canadian social policy: Issues and perspectives (4th edition.; pp. 309-331) Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Mirchandani, Kiran and Chan, Wendy (2007). Criminalizing race, criminalizing poverty: Welfare fraud enforcement in Canada. Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.
Evans, Patrician. (2001). Women and social welfare in Canada: Exploring the Connections. In J. Turner and F. Turner (Ed.) Canadian Social Welfare (4th ed.; pp. 140-153). Toronto: Pearson Education Canada Inc.
Little, Margaret. (2003). The Leaner Meaner Welfare Machine: The Ontario Conservative Government’s Ideological and Material Attack on Single Mothers. In D. Brock (Ed.) Making normal: Social regulation in Canada (pg. 235-258). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Just Another Excuse?
“Katrina recently left her violent boyfriend when she was seven months pregnant. She applied for welfare and was told that she was eligible provided she went to three job sites per day looking for work. She traipsed up and down the streets of her small town with swollen ankles inquiring about employment when she was obviously very pregnant and traumatized by the recent violence in her life. She suspects her baby was born a month early because of this stress”. (Margaret Little Interview 4, Greater Toronto Area, May 1998)
Under the Workfare policies single mothers are increasingly expected to conduct job searches which they can prove. What is involved in these job searches often varies. According to Margaret Littles’ research, some women she spoke with were required to do three searches a day, others up to ten. Some of these women were suppose to go door-to-door and obtain signatures from companies as proof that they were looking. Others were required to make telephone calls and record the responses and dates. Interviews with anti-poverty advocates explained that “inadequate job searches” are the most common reasons given for cutting people off welfare. However, issues of childcare and transportation are not taken into consideration.
This requirement is also based on the false premises that single mothers just need an incentive to find work. However, many studies illustrate that this is not the case. For example, the largest study of welfare recipients in Ontario found that three quarters of single mothers were already looking for work (Orntein, 1995). Another study reveals that 15 percent of single mothers were already doing volunteer work before Workfare was implemented (Ontario Workfare Watch, “Broken Promises”, 1999). These studies reveal that single mothers were already looking for work, so what was the point and where is the evidence of the need for this labour force attachment policy?
For some, Workfare programs have actually restricted their ability to complete education and training that would result in stable and higher paying employment. Under Workfare policies financial support for post secondary education was eliminated in 1996. Currently, Workfare training is short term only and aimed at immediate entrance into the labour market, regardless of low wages and limited security. According to Little’s study many have had to drop out of post secondary education as a result of this policy change. One mother explains that she was one course away from a healthcare aid certificate when she had to begin her community placement, “they’re hiring healthcare aids at the hospital where I volunteer (as part of my workfare community placement) but I’m one course away. It is very frustrating”
Is workfare just another obstacle or excuse to deny people welfare? There seems to be no evidence to support the idea that people are poor because they are too lazy to find work. Could it be that workfare was just another way to recreate the poor, keeping a supply of people that are forced to work the jobs that no else wants?
Under the Workfare policies single mothers are increasingly expected to conduct job searches which they can prove. What is involved in these job searches often varies. According to Margaret Littles’ research, some women she spoke with were required to do three searches a day, others up to ten. Some of these women were suppose to go door-to-door and obtain signatures from companies as proof that they were looking. Others were required to make telephone calls and record the responses and dates. Interviews with anti-poverty advocates explained that “inadequate job searches” are the most common reasons given for cutting people off welfare. However, issues of childcare and transportation are not taken into consideration.
This requirement is also based on the false premises that single mothers just need an incentive to find work. However, many studies illustrate that this is not the case. For example, the largest study of welfare recipients in Ontario found that three quarters of single mothers were already looking for work (Orntein, 1995). Another study reveals that 15 percent of single mothers were already doing volunteer work before Workfare was implemented (Ontario Workfare Watch, “Broken Promises”, 1999). These studies reveal that single mothers were already looking for work, so what was the point and where is the evidence of the need for this labour force attachment policy?
For some, Workfare programs have actually restricted their ability to complete education and training that would result in stable and higher paying employment. Under Workfare policies financial support for post secondary education was eliminated in 1996. Currently, Workfare training is short term only and aimed at immediate entrance into the labour market, regardless of low wages and limited security. According to Little’s study many have had to drop out of post secondary education as a result of this policy change. One mother explains that she was one course away from a healthcare aid certificate when she had to begin her community placement, “they’re hiring healthcare aids at the hospital where I volunteer (as part of my workfare community placement) but I’m one course away. It is very frustrating”
Is workfare just another obstacle or excuse to deny people welfare? There seems to be no evidence to support the idea that people are poor because they are too lazy to find work. Could it be that workfare was just another way to recreate the poor, keeping a supply of people that are forced to work the jobs that no else wants?
Gender Blind Policy?
Having a “gender blind” policy such as Workfare may at first usher to mind images and notions of equality, however, a gender blind stance often ignores the different contexts and barriers that shape the lives of women and can work to reinforce inequality and economic dependency. While the role of women as care takers is a social construct, the consequences of this social construct is still very alive today. In 1996 the majority (61%) of Canadian single mothers and their children were living in poverty (National Council of Welfare, 1998). Some of the reasons accounting for this may be the lack of decent employment, lack of childcare, and the increasingly stringent welfare policies such as workfare. In 1997, women represented 55 percent of the social assistance caseload (National Council of Welfare, 1998).
In 1920 when welfare for single mothers was introduced their responsibility as the primary caretakers of their children was acknowledged. Single mothers were therefore not required to look for fulltime work. However, with the welfare reforms and introduction of Workfare, the category of single mothers was wiped clear. As a result, according to Workfare policy, single mothers as well as fathers with school aged children are expected to participate in the workforce to the same extent as single women and men. Single mothers are viewed as though they have no dependents, creating increased burdens for these families. There is also no provision of childcare to those that have to participate in Workfare which results in further economic hardship. For instance, one mother in
A policy cannot turn a blind eye to gender differences, claiming equality. While it can be seen as a good thing that policy is rejecting an essentialist identity of women, at the same time it cannot ignore the authority of experience. Women are still more likely to be taking on care giving roles at the same time as economic labour roles, and most often it is single mothers that are suffering from poverty as the previous statistic illustrated.
Women experience increased structural barriers in the labour market through occupational and wage discrimination (1999 Statistics Canada showed, women were paid 80 cents for every dollar earned by men) as well as the constraints related to their increased expectations with regards to childcare and household responsibilities. These disadvantages are magnified when women are the only providers in their families. Turning a blind eye to the differential affects of poor women, and particularly poor women of colour exacerbates their poverty.
Since racial and sexist oppression is intrinsically connected to the disenfranchisement of the poor through current and historical process of patriarchy, colonialism and capitalism, workfare is not just an attack on the poor, but an attack on women and people of colour. Resent research by Christensen illustrates that discrimination in employment keeps non-white workers in unstable and low wage employment and as a result they are more likely to be in need of social assistance and therefore subjected to Workfare measures. These Workfare measures ignore gender and racial discrimination, cementing marginalized individuals in inadequate labour market positions. A specific example of this includes how immigrant women are disadvantaged right from their entrance into
Workfare's Impact on Workfare Participants
This blog post examines how the policy of Workfare has impacted the lives of Workfare recipients. Workfare recipients in Canada have experienced many instances of not being covered by standard labour codes. These include the inability to join unions, having no rights to minimum wage, not being able to take statutory holidays off, and having no rights to rest periods or vacations. Increased poverty is also an issue with people receiving social assistance and participating in Workfare. Research has shown that social assistance recipients’ income levels are well below the Low Income Cut Offs (LICOs) established by Statistics Canada. In relation to other blogs that discuss the impact of workfare on single mothers, it is also important to note that single parents that were social assistance recipients were deducted for the Child Tax Benefit, which put them even further behind in terms of financial well-being. The amounts provided for most child care subsidies were generally insufficient to cover real costs. Clearly, workfare was ill-prepared to provide an upright working experience for participants.
Cost restraints only enable a very short preparation for the work force. Inadequate training and preparation leaves workfare participants poorly equipped to take on the real work force and handle jobs in the “real world”. Without the training, encouragement, skill, and confidence to take on real jobs in the real work force, workfare participants are not suitably prepared and able to handle “real” work. How are we to argue that workfare really prepares its participants for work when taking the time to properly train them for future work is considered superfluous and redundant?
Although workfare has reduced cost to the government by reducing the number of people receiving social assistance in some provinces, there is a question of what exactly happens to these former social assistance recipients. They may not be “costing” the government social assistance anymore, but many of these people may have turned to homelessness or other types of inadequate living conditions after ceasing to receive social assistance. Is it really helping people to supposedly train and prepare them for real work, then to discontinue their receipt of social assistance, only to leave them struggling to survive? If one looks at the numbers alone, workfare may appear to be useful and even successful, however by taking a more qualitative look at recipients themselves, we can see that workfare doesn’t help as much as it should if it leaves people homeless, skill-less, without confidence and competence, and without motivation.
Speaking to that last point of lack of motivation, it is important to discuss the serious implications of the absence of motivation in workfare participants. To clarify, I am by no means generalizing anyone in any way. There may be many motivated workfare participants who learned valuable skills and gained confidence in their ability to fulfill future work roles. However, again I say that I am not making generalizations, and we cannot make the generalization that workfare works in all instances. If workfare participants are not properly equipped for work, as they ideally should be by workfare practices, they will lack the confidence and motivation to work. This lack of motivation perpetuates people’s negative views of welfare and workfare recipients because it reinforces society’s view that these individuals are not motivated to work. Whether workfare participants are actively looking for work or passively taking what comes to them and living day to day, if motivation is absent quality of work will be absent as well.
Many worries and negative feelings accompany being a welfare recipient or workfare participant. Mirchandani and Chan interviewed social assistance recipients about their feelings about social assistance. Common feelings reported included depression, shame, humiliation, and denigration. Some interesting quotations from recipients about the individuals’ feelings about social assistance included:
“It is a very impersonal process. You go in and you feel like utter crap first of all. It is very demoralizing. I don't care who says, it is very demoralizing to be on social assistance."
“It’s not a life to be on assistance…believe me. Every end of the month my heart is beating. Am I going to get my cheque? Is my cheque going to be suspended and for no reason?”
“There is a lot of not so good things, which are, you know, the harassment, the needing to give up every aspect of your life, every dignified thing that you don’t have to give up in your normal life if you weren't on assistance. Just the way that you are treated as not a human being but as a number”
How does workfare impact workfare participants? Above we looked at how workfare participants lived under the LICO before, during, and after participation in workfare; the denial of things that most workers take for granted such as holidays and having the option to create and/or join a union; the poor quality of job training and preparation offered by workfare; and the lack of motivation of workfare participants. It also doesn’t help that jobs in workfare are usually short-term and often demeaning. It is common knowledge that there is a stigma around receiving social assistance. Welfare recipients are often seen as lazy and a burden to society. Although workfare participants may be considered a step up from this because they are working for welfare assistance, a stigma still exists. This stigma can generate feelings of shame and inadequacy on the part of workfare participants. Shame is another factor that can contribute to lack of motivation in these situations. It is pertinent to recognize the importance of the emotions and self-worth that workfare participants experience because this can have a bearing on their quality of work and their enthusiasm about workfare. As social workers examining workfare from an anti-oppressive lens, we recognize that workfare oppresses and marginalizes workfare participants in many ways, as listed above, and that oppression causes workfare to fail. Maybe if these sources of oppression were ameliorated workfare would prove more successful, but there would be much work to be done.
*Quotes taken from: Mirchandani, K. & Chan, W. (2007). Criminalizing race, criminalizing povery: Welfare fraud enforcement in Canada. Fenwood Publishing: Blackpoint, Nova Scotia.
Cost restraints only enable a very short preparation for the work force. Inadequate training and preparation leaves workfare participants poorly equipped to take on the real work force and handle jobs in the “real world”. Without the training, encouragement, skill, and confidence to take on real jobs in the real work force, workfare participants are not suitably prepared and able to handle “real” work. How are we to argue that workfare really prepares its participants for work when taking the time to properly train them for future work is considered superfluous and redundant?
Although workfare has reduced cost to the government by reducing the number of people receiving social assistance in some provinces, there is a question of what exactly happens to these former social assistance recipients. They may not be “costing” the government social assistance anymore, but many of these people may have turned to homelessness or other types of inadequate living conditions after ceasing to receive social assistance. Is it really helping people to supposedly train and prepare them for real work, then to discontinue their receipt of social assistance, only to leave them struggling to survive? If one looks at the numbers alone, workfare may appear to be useful and even successful, however by taking a more qualitative look at recipients themselves, we can see that workfare doesn’t help as much as it should if it leaves people homeless, skill-less, without confidence and competence, and without motivation.
Speaking to that last point of lack of motivation, it is important to discuss the serious implications of the absence of motivation in workfare participants. To clarify, I am by no means generalizing anyone in any way. There may be many motivated workfare participants who learned valuable skills and gained confidence in their ability to fulfill future work roles. However, again I say that I am not making generalizations, and we cannot make the generalization that workfare works in all instances. If workfare participants are not properly equipped for work, as they ideally should be by workfare practices, they will lack the confidence and motivation to work. This lack of motivation perpetuates people’s negative views of welfare and workfare recipients because it reinforces society’s view that these individuals are not motivated to work. Whether workfare participants are actively looking for work or passively taking what comes to them and living day to day, if motivation is absent quality of work will be absent as well.
Many worries and negative feelings accompany being a welfare recipient or workfare participant. Mirchandani and Chan interviewed social assistance recipients about their feelings about social assistance. Common feelings reported included depression, shame, humiliation, and denigration. Some interesting quotations from recipients about the individuals’ feelings about social assistance included:
“It is a very impersonal process. You go in and you feel like utter crap first of all. It is very demoralizing. I don't care who says, it is very demoralizing to be on social assistance."
“It’s not a life to be on assistance…believe me. Every end of the month my heart is beating. Am I going to get my cheque? Is my cheque going to be suspended and for no reason?”
“There is a lot of not so good things, which are, you know, the harassment, the needing to give up every aspect of your life, every dignified thing that you don’t have to give up in your normal life if you weren't on assistance. Just the way that you are treated as not a human being but as a number”
How does workfare impact workfare participants? Above we looked at how workfare participants lived under the LICO before, during, and after participation in workfare; the denial of things that most workers take for granted such as holidays and having the option to create and/or join a union; the poor quality of job training and preparation offered by workfare; and the lack of motivation of workfare participants. It also doesn’t help that jobs in workfare are usually short-term and often demeaning. It is common knowledge that there is a stigma around receiving social assistance. Welfare recipients are often seen as lazy and a burden to society. Although workfare participants may be considered a step up from this because they are working for welfare assistance, a stigma still exists. This stigma can generate feelings of shame and inadequacy on the part of workfare participants. Shame is another factor that can contribute to lack of motivation in these situations. It is pertinent to recognize the importance of the emotions and self-worth that workfare participants experience because this can have a bearing on their quality of work and their enthusiasm about workfare. As social workers examining workfare from an anti-oppressive lens, we recognize that workfare oppresses and marginalizes workfare participants in many ways, as listed above, and that oppression causes workfare to fail. Maybe if these sources of oppression were ameliorated workfare would prove more successful, but there would be much work to be done.
*Quotes taken from: Mirchandani, K. & Chan, W. (2007). Criminalizing race, criminalizing povery: Welfare fraud enforcement in Canada. Fenwood Publishing: Blackpoint, Nova Scotia.
Disincentives to Employment: Oppressing Recipients Trying to Transition into the Work Force.
Ontario Works policies put disincentives to work in place thereby oppressing recipients of Ontario Works who are trying to leave the system. While it would seem that a disincentive to employment should make those in need of income attracted to Ontario Works, recipients of Ontario Works are oppressed when they face disincentives to employment because inadequate monthly allowances for work already place a disincentive to remain within the program. The disincentive to remain in the program faced by recipients makes employment more attractive, yet punitive measures in place within Ontario Works prevent them from making the full transition into the work force they need to make in order to get off social assistance.
One disincentive that makes the transition into the work force less appealing is the rather immediate loss of the Ontario Works Health Benefit. Prior to 2005, recipients of Ontario Works who left the program would lose their health benefits immediately. After 2005, a small extension period was added, with a minimum of 6 months of coverage up to a maximum of 12 months. This extension period is however inadequate, as it does not reflect the amount of time that it takes former recipients of social assistance to find more favourable employment that offers a health plan. Since Ontario Works recipients participate in low-skilled labour, it takes years of additional employment training for them to find meaningful work.
Under the Work Incentive Program of 1979, recipients making the transition into the work force were provided a 2 & ½ year transition period, giving them time to transition from the low-skilled labour they entered the job market into to more desirable jobs offering a health plan. Unfortunately, the continued retraction of funds for social assistance which had the most felt impact in 1995 reflects in the inadequate supports for a transition period within Ontario Works, thereby perpetuating disincentives to enter the work force for recipients that truly are actively seeking employment.
The retraction of funds has also impacted dental coverage, which, when in place for existing recipients, “falls short” of their needs. While benefits for children and adults with disabilities are mandatory, benefits for non-disabled adults are “permissive” with the final decision being made by municipalities. When non-disabled adults ARE permitted dental coverage, it is inadequate. The dental benefits for non-disabled adults does not offer much of the restorative dental care that they are in need of--care of a much needed cosmetic value (i.e dentures, surgery to replace a lost tooth) for many recipients that would help them with the interview process when they do seek employment.
The failure of Ontario Works to provide adequate dental care for existing recipients, and an adequate extension period on health care for transitioning recipients makes entry into the work force impossible. Inadequate coverage during transition oppresses recipients of Ontario Works who want to find jobs because the program already sets them up for immediate participation in unskilled, low-paid labour with no health coverage in place. Without an adequate transition period, recipients who attempt to enter the labour force who do not find jobs with health coverage before their transition period is up become attracted to Ontario Works because they cannot afford to work in under-paid jobs without health coverage. Individuals who fall into this trap are then forced to be oppressed by the inadequate pay offered by Ontario Works because they cannot escape a program that has no mechanisms in place to help them ensure their basic needs are covered while in transition.
Information about Ontario Works health coverage obtained from:
Income Security Strategies for Working-Aged Adult. St. Christopher House. June, 2004. http://www.stchrishouse.org/modules/ImageAV/images/IncomeFinal.pdf
TD Economics Special Report: "From Welfare to Work in Ontario : Still the Road Less Travelled." September 8, 2005.
One disincentive that makes the transition into the work force less appealing is the rather immediate loss of the Ontario Works Health Benefit. Prior to 2005, recipients of Ontario Works who left the program would lose their health benefits immediately. After 2005, a small extension period was added, with a minimum of 6 months of coverage up to a maximum of 12 months. This extension period is however inadequate, as it does not reflect the amount of time that it takes former recipients of social assistance to find more favourable employment that offers a health plan. Since Ontario Works recipients participate in low-skilled labour, it takes years of additional employment training for them to find meaningful work.
Under the Work Incentive Program of 1979, recipients making the transition into the work force were provided a 2 & ½ year transition period, giving them time to transition from the low-skilled labour they entered the job market into to more desirable jobs offering a health plan. Unfortunately, the continued retraction of funds for social assistance which had the most felt impact in 1995 reflects in the inadequate supports for a transition period within Ontario Works, thereby perpetuating disincentives to enter the work force for recipients that truly are actively seeking employment.
The retraction of funds has also impacted dental coverage, which, when in place for existing recipients, “falls short” of their needs. While benefits for children and adults with disabilities are mandatory, benefits for non-disabled adults are “permissive” with the final decision being made by municipalities. When non-disabled adults ARE permitted dental coverage, it is inadequate. The dental benefits for non-disabled adults does not offer much of the restorative dental care that they are in need of--care of a much needed cosmetic value (i.e dentures, surgery to replace a lost tooth) for many recipients that would help them with the interview process when they do seek employment.
The failure of Ontario Works to provide adequate dental care for existing recipients, and an adequate extension period on health care for transitioning recipients makes entry into the work force impossible. Inadequate coverage during transition oppresses recipients of Ontario Works who want to find jobs because the program already sets them up for immediate participation in unskilled, low-paid labour with no health coverage in place. Without an adequate transition period, recipients who attempt to enter the labour force who do not find jobs with health coverage before their transition period is up become attracted to Ontario Works because they cannot afford to work in under-paid jobs without health coverage. Individuals who fall into this trap are then forced to be oppressed by the inadequate pay offered by Ontario Works because they cannot escape a program that has no mechanisms in place to help them ensure their basic needs are covered while in transition.
Information about Ontario Works health coverage obtained from:
Income Security Strategies for Working-Aged Adult. St. Christopher House. June, 2004. http://www.stchrishouse.org/modules/ImageAV/images/IncomeFinal.pdf
TD Economics Special Report: "From Welfare to Work in Ontario : Still the Road Less Travelled." September 8, 2005.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
