I've been asked recently what I think of a GLI (as opposed to a patchwork of income security programs that in reality do not give people enough money to "pay the rent and feed the kids" - or themselves, for that matter.
Keeping both EI and social assistance rates so low as to be an incentive to work is cruel, demeaning and unrealistic. The fact is that many people on Ontario Works are so poor they don't have enough to ensure they can get out and find a job. In a focus group on the Deprivation Index that I facilitated for Daily Bread last spring, one man simply pointed to the stubble on his chin, indicating that he couldn't afford to buy himself razors to shave before a job interview.
Most people I know will do almost anything to avoid having to apply for "welfare", including accepting exploitative employment. There has to be something in our public policy to force employers to respect workers, including paying a livable wage. I fail to see why Sobey's grocery stores cannot give their cashiers full-time hours and pharmacare/dental benefits.
Any argument for a GLI, dependent obviously on the public purse, has to include considerations of incentives for employers to pay living wages and maintain appropriate employment standards. Much as I think this is a good idea, and I'm glad to see the idea back in public discourse, I don't want to see this used as an excuse for treating workers/employees in such a disgusting way.
That is the short answer I'm giving to that question when I'm asked.
But, a good argument for the decision-makers needs more fleshing out.
Hi, Chandra:
I've been asked recently what I think of a GLI (as opposed to a patchwork of income security programs that in reality do not give people enough money to "pay the rent and feed the kids" - or themselves, for that matter.
Keeping both EI and social assistance rates so low as to be an incentive to work is cruel, demeaning and unrealistic. The fact is that many people on Ontario Works are so poor they don't have enough to ensure they can get out and find a job. In a focus group on the Deprivation Index that I facilitated for Daily Bread last spring, one man simply pointed to the stubble on his chin, indicating that he couldn't afford to buy himself razors to shave before a job interview.
Most people I know will do almost anything to avoid having to apply for "welfare", including accepting exploitative employment. There has to be something in our public policy to force employers to respect workers, including paying a livable wage. I fail to see why Sobey's grocery stores cannot give their cashiers full-time hours and pharmacare/dental benefits.
Any argument for a GLI, dependent obviously on the public purse, has to include considerations of incentives for employers to pay living wages and maintain appropriate employment standards. Much as I think this is a good idea, and I'm glad to see the idea back in public discourse, I don't want to see this used as an excuse for treating workers/employees in such a disgusting way.
That is the short answer I'm giving to that question when I'm asked.
But, a good argument for the decision-makers needs more fleshing out.
Pat