>X-BlackMail: cro.on.ca, workstation-01, [EMAIL PROTECTED], 209.82.39.72 >X-Authenticated-Timestamp: 09:37:49(EDT) on July 10, 1998 >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Unverified) >Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 09:30:55 -0400 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: OW-WATCH-L Private sector workfare announcement >To: Listserve subscribers > >As you have read by now, many newspapers in Ontario yesterday printed a CP >wire article in which the Minister of Community and Social Services >announced that the province would proceed with extending workfare to the >private sector before the end of the year. > >Although none of the details of this proposal have been released yet, we >hope that workfare opponents will not let the announcement go by >unchallenged. Our research suggests that "private sector" workfare is >usually a disaster. It does little more than provide for-profit businesses >with cheap labour, depressing wages and making real hires much less, not >more likely. > >One way to respond is to write letters to the editor of papers that >reported this announcement, to try to stimulate more critical debate. Many >smaller papers in particular are always looking for content. The following >is a model letter to the editor drawn up at the Ontario Social Safety >NetWork meeting on July 9. You are welcome to use this letter or to modify >it any way you want to address particular local issues. (You can also omit >the last paragraph if it doesn't apply to your circumstances.) Some of the >other points that could be raised depending on your local circumstances are: > >* Municipalities have spent two years developing detailed Ontario Works >Business Plans that had to be approved by the province. These plans will >now have to be revised yet again and workfare will have to go back before >local councils. > >* You may know of particular local employers who are anxious to see this >program implemented who may have, shall we say, less than savoury >reputations with respect to how they treat their employees. > >Remember: to get printed and read, a letter to the Editor usually can't be >too long and usually has to stick to a few kep points. If you want to make >a longer or more detailed argument, some papers will print "op eds" instead. > >If you do get something on this issue in your local media, we would >appreciate it if you would let us know! Thanks. > > >Our draft letter: > > >"Dear Editor: > >"[We/I] read with shock about Social Services Minister Janet Ecker's >announcement that the province would be extending "workfare" to the private >sector. > >"Throughout the implementation of the Ontario Works program the Minister >has steadfastly insisted that workfare would not be allowed in the private >sector as this would displace paid workers. The announcement that she is >establishing an 'expert' private sector panel to advise on this suggests >that she has been planning something else all along. It is not surprising >that she waited until the summer recess of the Legislature for this >announcement, shortcircuiting the legislative process where elected >representatives could voice their concerns. > >"The Tories' 30% tax cut was supposed to provide all the stimulus needed >for the private sector to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Now it >seems that we still need what amounts to a 'free labour' corporate welfare >handout. > >"The Minister will no doubt assure us that private sector workfare will >provide genuine training and not displace paid training and real >employment. The fact is that identical programs in other jurisdictions have >been nothing more than revolving door programs with little opportunity for >real training and no jobs at the end of the line--just a return to welfare >while someone else is shuffled into a dead-end position so the employer >gets to keep the subsidy. In Quebec's PAIE program, over half of >participating employers later admitted that they would have hired and paid >an employee if the subsidy had not existed. > >"As the published reports from the "Bad Boss Hotline" show, there are >plenty of employers around who routinely violate the Employment Standards >Act. What will they do to workfare placements, who are not even entitled to >these supposedly bare minimum standards? Ontario Workfare participants are >specifically excluded from the Act. Soon, because of Bill 22, they will be >denied the legal right to join a union or collectively bargain. > >[Members of the Ontario Social Safety NetWork--which includes low income >individuals, faith groups, labour, community organizations, lawyers and >educators--will continue to resist workfare and support our fellow citizens >fight for real jobs with dignity through a range of community actions; >boycotts, information pickets, community organizing and, yes, union drives >for workfare participants.] > >"Yours truly.... >
