How retrenchment has eroded the social safety net in canada - Assignment Example

Running Head: SOCIAL POLICY OF CANADA 2. Discuss how retrenchment has eroded the social safety net in Canada, with specific emphasis on the ideological underpinnings that led this movement, and your assessment on current circumstances/future implications. Draw on your own reflections of the main concepts from Part 3 of the course to support your position. July 20, 2015 Part 1: how retrenchment has eroded the social safety net in Canada A number of external environment factors have increased the number of unemployed and jobless people in Canada. The number of jobless in Canada in 2014 stands at more than 8.7% of the people eligible for jobs, leading to more than 307,000 people without jobs. However, the percentage of unemployed, who collect employment insurance is decreasing and now stands at 17%. The reasons for this anomaly are seen in the structure of the federal program to support unemployed Canadians, which no longer provide a social security net. To qualify for the benefits, a person must have been working full time; the employee should have paid out the EI premiums, and must be registered with the employee insurance board. Globalization has changed the manner in which Canadians work and lives, and about 34% of Canadians are now forced to work part time for shorter hours in unrecognised positions, where they are paid by the hours logged (The Canadian Press, 2014). This pattern of working has forced many Canadians without any protection in case they are retrenched. Lightman (2003) argues that Canada is different from its Southern neighbour, USA, in that social security and safety net, food banks, government-sponsored programs for the poor and unemployed, received popular support from the people. However, this created a wider rift between the relatively affluent people, those with a thriving business and jobs, and the poor. Since the 1990s liberal immigration, policies have brought in a deluge of immigrants, many of them from India and Asian countries. These immigrants, many of them hardworking, created a social conflict of sorts, since they were reluctant to pay for the unemployed and homeless. While Canada grew economically and it was considered as a great place to live, the poor were marginalised even more. The fact that in many provinces, people with foreign origins won the elections, increased the tensions and the gaps between the haves and the have nots. In other words, the social security net has become increasingly polarized, and dehumanized. This transformation impacts the retrenched workers, who must now come to terms their ethnic origins. Hubert (2003) notes that unemployed and retrenched workers, faces humiliation and frustration since they must move from agency to agency, meet confusing and conflicting regulations, fill out complex forms, and face suspicion and hostility. On the other hand, social services face increasing cuts, forced by the economy, and they have to be selective about the person that receives assistance. The need of the retrenched worker, the state of desperation and poverty, does not have any bearing on the help and aid received. A dehumanization of the social safety net in evident. Retrenchment of workers, has forced social agencies to take up outcome-based assistance, where numerical and quantitative results from social welfare programs become more important, rather than the humanitarian aspect. In other words, the burden of payment to the retrenched worker is reduced. The views of Harell et al., (2008) are somewhat in line with the arguments put forth by Hubert. Canadians are averse to extending social benefits and show resistance in paying the unemployed. However, they are willing to pay for the working poor, who avail of child welfare benefits. Public opinion is that welfare is a dirty word, and the retrenched worker is to be discouraged from receiving any benefits. The logic and fallacy of this argument is that a worker does not willingly lose the job, but external forces drive him out. The Canadian government, keeping this opinion in mind, have reduced the expenditure to support the unemployed, while supporting marginal families, who are working. This has further increased the restrictive practices for the retrenched workers. Therefore, the question of the burden posed by the retrenched worker on the social welfare is without merit. According Lightman (2003), Canada has a number of social welfare schemes such as Health and Social Transfer Scheme of 1976, Guaranteed Income Supplement 1967, Personal Social services 1978, Medicare, and many others. Over the decades, these schemes and assistance packages were devolved to the provinces. The central government retained only some part of the unemployment benefits schemes and GIS. Therefore, in a short period of a few years, the 10 provinces had the freedom to decide their unemployment and retrenchment schemes, while broadly complying with the central government directives. In the initial years, the provinces developed their own schemes and the Northern areas, where fisheries and forest products provides the maximum jobs, developed their own schemes. The working season is less than 12 weeks, while workers spend the rest of the year, relatively unemployed. However, the workforce in this area had the freedom to move to other region and earn a living. This in turn created a migrant workforce that continued to draw benefits under the 12/ 40 schemes. Under the 12/40 scheme, workers contributed to the unemployment scheme for 12 weeks while drawing the benefits for the remainder 40 weeks. Such profligate spending was not sustainable and such schemes overloaded the system, and the provincial government was forced to pay out more than it earned as contributions, thereby increasing the deficit. The story was repeated for the cyclic oil sector which aw increased activity during the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s, but which faced recession from 1990. All these schemes increased the burden on the system, and the social security net has become increasingly weak. Put plainly, there is not enough money to disburse. Lightman et al. (2005) notes that the Canadian social policy, mirrors the social policy of USA, and it appears that all the bad and restrictive elements of US policies are replicated in the Canadian context. As a result, benefits and social welfare were reduced, the number of recipients was culled, and restrictive terms such as full time employment used as a prerequisite to further reduce the number of qualifying recipients. The restrictive practices were further tightened to discriminate among disabled people and patients with episodic disabilities were not eligible for benefits. These disadvantaged groups, further added to the rolls of retrenched people and added to the burden on the social safety net. Lightman (2003) points out that many governments include the Canadian government frequently fail the most vulnerable. The progress for social policy therefore remains uncertain and bleak. Certain social policies such as the pension plan and social housing allotments are increasing. Many other schemes have added to the burden and eroded the social safety net. About 824,000 people turned to charitable food and this is an increase of 24% over 1997. Around 3.7 million Canadians live in food insecure households. It would be wrong to say that only retrenchment is the cause for this problem. Personal Reflections: Retrenchment and layoffs are very traumatic events, and workers without having sufficient savings, often become destitute. The social safety net is designed to provide some type of security and comfort for retrenched workers, and Canada has implemented several such schemes such as Employee Insurance. Workers, who qualify for payments, receive some amount of payment, until they can find another job. The crucial element in this discussion is qualify, and the Canadian government has tightened the norms for qualification. Temporary, part time, and contract workers are not eligible for payment under this scheme. In addition, several other requirements, progressively act as barriers for the retrenched worker to claim benefits from the social security safety net. One of the main problems is the large number of workers who have lost their jobs, and paying benefits to these workers, has placed a huge burden on the system. One would therefore assume that the retrenchment has eroded the social safety net in Canada. However, this argument is wrong since it is clear from the discussions that many other schemes such as pension, Medicare, food for children disability benefits, etc., face the same problem of fewer funds. Therefore, there is a systemic failure on the part of the Canadian government to take care of the vulnerable, which need help. The problem of less funds and increasing poverty is linked to the overall recession, job losses, closure of many traditional industries, the lack of opportunities and jobs, and the lack of re-skilling and training to take up new job opportunities. It is true that retrenchment and joblessness over the past few years have consumed funds from provincial governments. However, as seen by the arguments put forth by Lightman (2003), provincial governments promoted schemes such as the 12/40, which benefitted only a few workers. Many of these schemes were mismanaged, discriminatory, restrictive, and they only succeeded in denying help to the vulnerable. All these schemes, in addition to economic downturn, closure of industries, and the fact the Canada follows USA policies, have closed the social safety net to the needy. Supporting all the unemployed and the retrenched workers is bound to be very expensive. While there is no denying the fact that the social safety net is threatened and overburdened with payments, retrenchment, and unemployment payment is one of the burdens it faces. Part 2. In an age when globalization strongly influences the marketplace and has a profound impact, does a country like Canada actually have control over its social policy? An important aspect of social policies in Canada is that USA, and events across the world, helped to develop and shape the policies. The pressure on the system, following the World Wars and Keynesian theories helped to turn Canada into some kind of a welfare state. The implication was that the state helped to fund universities and education, provide housing, medical welfare, along with other initiatives for the poor. Unemployment insurance was one of the defining programs for the Canadian social security program. These reforms provided a safety net, and it was in line with the policies of USA and other developed nations. Funds and revenues were available in sufficient measures, and Canada, kept on increasing its burden on the social net. One in five Canadians felt the need to avail of the benefits. Globalization forces gripped the world, and it appeared to enforce certain uniformity in policies (Lightman, 2003). However, post 2000, when several cataclysmic events such as the dotcom bubble, 9/11, the subprime and resulting market crash, financial recession of 2007, oil price surge and slump, etc., the number of unemployed and retrenched workers rose dramatically. The governments in USA, UK, Canada, and other developed countries, tried hard to keep survive, and prevent bankruptcy. Countries such as Greece, faced with a massive deficit, were forced to take up austerity measures, and even USA and other countries, reduced their spending drastically. Globalization forces, now demand that governments should increases taxes, reduce the number of beneficiaries under pension and unemployment, and reduce state funded health insurance benefits (Hicks, 2008). In other words, globalization forces, forced the governments to change their social policies. Considering the above arguments, it is clear that Canada does not have power over the social policies. References Harell, A., Soroka, S. & Mahon, A. (2008). Is welfare a dirty word? Canadian public opinion on social assistance polices. Policy Options, September 2008, 53-56. Hicks, P. (2008). Social Policy in Canada: Looking Back, Looking Ahead. Working Paper 46, School of Policy Studies, Queens University, Canada. Hubert, P. (2003). Integrated Service Delivery to Humanize the Welfare to Work System. Pathways Skill Development and Placement Centre, Ontario Lightman, E. (2003). Social policy in Canada. Don Mills ON: Oxford University Press. Lightman, E., Mitchell, A., & Herd, D. (2005). One year on: Tracking the experiences of current and former welfare recipients in Toronto. Journal of Poverty: Innovations on Social, Political and Economic Inequalities, 9(4), 5-26. The Canadian Press, (2014). Few jobless in Toronto are collecting employment insurance. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/few-jobless-in-toronto-are-collecting-employment-insurance-1.2755981 Read More