<html﻿>﻿
﻿<head﻿>﻿<script type="text/javascript" src="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/js/bundle-playback.js?v=2N_sDSC0" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/js/wombat.js?v=txqj7nKC" charset="utf-8"></script>﻿
﻿<script>window.RufflePlayer=window.RufflePlayer||{};window.RufflePlayer.config={"autoplay":"on","unmuteOverlay":"hidden","showSwfDownload":true};</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="﻿https://web-static.archive.org/_static/﻿js/ruffle/ruffle.js"></script>
﻿<script type="text/javascript">
  ﻿  __wm.init(﻿"https://web.archive.org/web"﻿);
  __wm.wombat(﻿"http://www.newsocialist.org/magazine/11/article11.html"﻿,﻿"20071020165559"﻿,﻿"https://web.archive.org/"﻿,﻿"web"﻿,﻿"https://web-static.archive.org/_static/"﻿,
	      "﻿1192899359﻿");
</script>
﻿<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/css/banner-styles.css?v=1utQkbB3" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/css/iconochive.css?v=3PDvdIFv" />﻿
﻿<!-- End Wayback Rewrite JS Include -->
﻿
﻿<title﻿>﻿New Socialist Magazine, Strains of Resistance: A Call for Labour/Workfare Recipient Unity Against 142 - Article﻿</title>﻿
﻿<meta﻿ ﻿name="description"﻿ ﻿content="New Socialist Group socialism communism  socialists communists "﻿>﻿
﻿<meta﻿ ﻿name="keywords"﻿ ﻿content="socialism, communism, socialists, communists, marx, marxists, marxism, Marx, Marxists, Marxism, Canada, politics, anarchism, Trotsky, trotskyism, NDP, radical, revolution, revolutionary, Lenin, leninism, leninist, Luxemburg, working class, 1917, syndicalism, radicalism, union, labour, anarchy"﻿>﻿
﻿</head>﻿

﻿<body﻿ ﻿topmargin="20"﻿ ﻿leftmargin="20"﻿ ﻿marginheight="20"﻿ ﻿marginwidth="20"﻿ ﻿bgcolor="#FFFFFF"﻿>﻿

﻿<font﻿ ﻿face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"﻿ ﻿size="5"﻿ ﻿color="#000000"﻿>﻿
﻿<center﻿>﻿
﻿<b﻿>﻿Strains of Resistance:
﻿<br﻿>﻿A Call for Labour/Workfare Recipient Unity Against 142 
﻿<br﻿>﻿</b>﻿</font>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿<font﻿ ﻿face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"﻿ ﻿size="2"﻿ ﻿color="#000000"﻿>﻿
by Stephanie Beaudoin﻿<br﻿>﻿
﻿<i﻿>﻿New Socialist Magazine, December 1997 - January 1998﻿</i>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
﻿</center>﻿

In the preoccupations with Bill 136 and then Bill 160, a bill even more serious is being quietly passed in the legislature: Bill 142. More serious because the "last resort" is fast coming to mean "no resort". There is next to no coverage of it in the media. What most people know about Bill 142 is that it means that those lazy welfare bums will have to earn their keep. Workfare. That, in itself, should be enough to strike fear into the hearts of the labour unions. Two words could sum it up: cheap labour. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
The most interesting part about it is that the clause which the Tories surely meant to pass, that workfare placements will not be covered by labour laws, was defeated. Why? The Tories were literally falling asleep on the job. They have so little concern about the people that this bill will affect that they snored, read and paced the hallways while the opposition quietly opposed the motion. What this means, of course, is that the labour won't be as cheap as they'd hoped. While this looks good at surface level, what must be remembered is that the bill itself is merely the skeleton. Provincial legislation. The real regulations will be determined at the municipal level, where the clause can be distorted to mean almost anything. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
Aside from the glut of cheap labour, public sector employees would do well to remember that with their jobs on the line, due to neo-conservative mandated public sector downsizing and restructuring the province "out of debt", they could be performing their former job for a welfare cheque, while the social workers police them with their newly acquired powers (see sidebar).
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
The reasons for the absense of a significant fightback against this bill are many—some of which have very deep roots in our society. The idea that the jobs really are out there, that welfare recipients simply have to be willing to do hard work;.the stigma attached to receiving social assistance; the list of social stereotypes quickly becomes endless. The union bureaucracies, and indeed, much of their membership, in being preoccupied with looking out for what they deem to be their own interests, lack the analysis to broaden their perspective of what those interests are. They fail to understand that the reality of a lack of affordable childcare, the large number of jobs that fail to pay a living wage, and the lack of job flexibility on the employee's end are the problems that face people on welfare, and increasingly, themselves.
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
This bill will first and directly affect those currently receiving or in need of assistance. These are the people who have the most obstacles in terms of organizing resistance: no money, few resources and without the benefit of the possibility of collective action with other un/underemployed workers. These conditions may be exaberated by undereducation, racism, sexism and ablism. So how do we even begin to fight back? 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
In the absence of a centralized body which can carry out actions, such as a union; without even a workplace to shut down, the first strategies to combat welfare slashing and abuse must rely on creativity in conjunction with coalition building, and in the case of Ontario, significant focus must be at the municipal level, simply because there is much variance between them as the targets of provincial downloading. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
Public sector unions CUPE and OPSEU have demonstrated some awareness of the issues. CUPE has produced several pamphlets pointing out the reasons why workfare won't work. It has also lobbied the United Way, indicating that if the United Way provides funding to organizations with workfare placements, CUPE will withdraw support. CUPE is one of the major contributers to the United Way. OPSEU produced a document that was presented to the Standing Committee hearings which provides a good overall analysis of the dangers of Bill 142. But are they committed to truly supporting those directly affected? To my knowledge, private sector unions have ignored the issue entirely, perhaps foolhardedly believing that Harris really means it when he says that workfare placements will be kept in the public domain.
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
In Guelph, the "Coalition for Meaningful Work" began among representatives of various low income neighbourhood groups in response to workfare, before any of the other atrocities which fall under Bill 142 came to light. Given the recent revelations about the Bill, the task now looks much more enormous. The strategy is not, at this point, to expend energy trying to fight the implementation of the bill, which is simply impossible without mass support. The goal is, at present, reformist—to make the implementation of the bill as painless as possible given the circumstances. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
One of the key components of our strategy has been to move toward the creation of an advocacy board, which would consist of various community members: public sector labour representatives (the Guelph and District Labour Council has recently committed), a human rights representative, a representative from the Mental Health Association, a children's advocate, an anti-violence against women advocate, and welfare recipients. The idea is that this group will act as a watchdog, monitoring those organizations with workfare placements for safety, harrassment and worker/volunteer displacement; as educators dedicated to busting myths surrounding welfare recipients; to provide meaningful support to those cut off the system; and as advocates for full employment, recognition of childcare as work (particularily as domestic work is now included in the census), and related issues. For many, simply having a place to seek support, without fear of being cut off from benefits for legitimate concerns, will be essential. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
This, of course, will not achieve the desired change for a society which treats all of its members with dignity and respect, regardless of financial circumstance. That is what, ultimately, we are striving for. This is simply another phase in the continuous, arduous battle against systemic poverty and the issues connected to it. In the US, welfare reforms such as the ones which we are experiencing here in Ontario have been coming hard and fast for over a decade. Much can be learned from the struggles there. In the end, however, only when the dividing line ceases to be perceived between employed and unemployed workers, and is recognized where it truly is: between all workers and an oppressive corporate-run state, can we effect meaningful change. As Diane Dujon puts it in For Crying Out Loud: Women's Poverty in the United States, "We're all workers, why can't we talk?"
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿<form﻿>﻿<input﻿ ﻿type="button"﻿ ﻿value="Close"﻿ ﻿onclick="top.close()"﻿>﻿</form>﻿

﻿</body>﻿
﻿</html>﻿<!--
     FILE ARCHIVED ON ﻿16:55:59 Oct 20, 2007﻿ AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
     INTERNET ARCHIVE ON ﻿06:26:38 Mar 05, 2026﻿.
     JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET ARCHIVE.

     ALL OTHER CONTENT MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT (17 U.S.C.
     SECTION 108(a)(3)).
-->
<!--
﻿playback timings (ms):
﻿  ﻿captures_list﻿: ﻿0.616﻿
﻿  ﻿exclusion.robots﻿: ﻿0.045﻿
﻿  ﻿exclusion.robots.policy﻿: ﻿0.034﻿
﻿  ﻿esindex﻿: ﻿0.011﻿
﻿  ﻿cdx.remote﻿: ﻿146.106﻿
﻿  ﻿LoadShardBlock﻿: ﻿310.943﻿ (﻿3﻿)
﻿  ﻿PetaboxLoader3.datanode﻿: ﻿219.244﻿ (﻿4﻿)
﻿  ﻿PetaboxLoader3.resolve﻿: ﻿99.59﻿ (﻿2﻿)
﻿  ﻿load_resource﻿: ﻿195.528﻿
﻿--�