Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 20:44:17 -0400 From: Paul Riess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: COMMENTS ON THE WISCONSIN PROGRAM FOR ELIMINATING WELFARE. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The posting by [EMAIL PROTECTED] on the subject is absolutely condemning this project, citing grave defects; many of them quite justified. Nevertheless it seems to be much easier to convince the competent authorities of the need for reforms, than to obtain a complete cancellation of the program. I shall suggest necessary reforms, after commenting on some specific points: 1. This program has 4 categories for jobs. The lower two are the same as most state's workfare requirements. The recipient receives a grant for a set amount of money and must work 28 or 35 (respectively) hrs/wk in a "volunteer" position (assigned by the caseworker). These jobs are degrading, dehumanizing and do not provide any chance to move "up" in that place of employment. Neither do these "jobs" provide work experience other than having to show up on time (the idea is that welfare recipients never knew how to set an alarm clock and/or dress properly to get/hold a job). PR's comments: No examples are being given; most probably such conditions do exist, but it would have to be investigated, whether they are the rule or rare exception. One should assume that building new parks, revitalizing condemned housing, manning childcare centers or assisting senior citizens would also be included and should be considered socially valuable activities, that also give some satisfaction to participants. 2. Once that has been done to the financial planner's satisfaction, then that individual - if they wish to advantage themselves by having other types of training that are clearly likely to lead to movement up the economic ladder - -they may then come in and request that child care be able to be accessed for training purposes." PR: If correctly carried out, this is a very positive aspect of the program 3. I know a woman who was a straight-A psychology major who was being told she had to quit school to "work for her grant" (over 2/3 of this "grant" was actually child support that the state collected from the father and included in her monthly grant). Basically, she was working for 60 cents/hour for her grant and, for every hour she missed, $4.65 (min. wage at that time) was deducted from her grant. She was even sanctioned while in the hospital recovering from a heart attack because she missed her "training" which consisted of filing checks in numerical order for the courthouse. PR. The basic condition that she has to do some work for her public support is certainly justified, but she should be given the opportunity to do that only during a limited number of hours and thus have the opportunity to continue her studies. Several details show grave injustices in carrying out this program; later I shall suggest a possible solution for many such cases. 4) The types of jobs people are doing for this "training" are either jobs that most people would not take if they were paid positions (very hazardous to health, etc.) Women are required to cut down trees with no safety gear whatsoever, working in hospitals having to dispose of hazardous materials with (again) no safety gear. They are having to wear their own clothing and not even given a pair of gloves to dispose of bloody needles, etc. or are considered "busy work" (ie, filing checks in numerical order). PR: Including safety gear is also a defect that can and must be corrected, while filing in numerical order is a necessary occupation, appropriate for those welfare recipients lacking skills for other occupations. Furthermore, according to conditions stated above, they would also have access to training for jobs requiring higher skills. 5. Of course, they never mention the fact that many of these women were already in college (and doing very well) and told they had to leave school to prove they have these "soft skills." PR. These are clearly cases for reforming procedures; see below 6. The 3rd job placement position is called "subsidized employment". This is where the state pays a company to hire someone in the program at minimum wage. Basically the same assumptions were made here - they need to learn how to be "willing and able" to work - which is why the state is willing to pay a company approximately $300/mo. (for 6 months) for every person they hire at minimum wage. The company is required to do everything possible to keep the person on permanently after the 6 months is up, but we have yet to hear of this happening. What we do hear is that after 6 months, the company calls the caseworker and says, "This person isn't ready for a permanent position. Send us someone else." That company then receives $300/mo. (for 6 months) for that person and at the end of the 6 months, the cycle continues with a new person. PR: See below NOW HERE ARE MY PROPOSAL FOR REFORMING THE PROGRAM. Any reasonable person must admit, that through subsidizing jobs in private enterprise (without creating new ones), regular workers would be replaced to the detriment of the public treasury. This is a basic defect of the whole program, that would have to be eliminated. What could and should be done is to help former welfare recipients to obtain jobs through training and advice on available openings. They should become regular workers with at least the minimum wage and regular social benefits. Possibly few such openings do exist at present, therefore their number should be increased through INDUSTRIAL POLICIES, where NEW PRIVATE ACTIVITIES would be encouraged through different incentives, conditioned on employing a minimum % of former welfare recipients. Any company interested in the offered incentives, would have to explain their requirements in skills and/or needed training. Should their requirements or the training costs be excessive, their bid would have to be rejected. Any former welfare recipients received as workers, but found to be unsatisfactory, could only be replaced with other welfare recipients. Otherwise, once having obtained a job, participants would be on their own. All the other points pointed out are very unfortunate shortcomings in procedure, that might be corrected through one simple but most important measure: Creating an objective and impartial arbitration board, WITH SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY, where any participant (or outside groups supporting them) could seek redress for perceived injustices, without having to fear reprisals. One would have to study carefully, who should be the members of such boards: I would possibly suggest to include representatives of participants, supervising authorities, the judiciary and academics from pertinent faculties. Greetings Paul Riesz
