The jobless who | don’t count Ottawa writes off jobless women | By KERRY McCUAIG Julie Atwood, her husband and four children moved from Nova Scotia two years ago to find steady employ- ment. He found a job quickly as a laborer on a construc- tion site. Six weeks after they settled in he was killed, a wall collapsed on him while at work. Atwood didn’t have long to grieve. With savings de- pleted by the move and the $500 compensation she re- ceived used to bury her husband, she had to find work. She found a job, in a small automotive parts plant as a tow motor driver, a skill she had picked up when she first started working at 18. In the less than two years she’s been with the company, she’s been laid off eight times. “I’m in that non-traditional work’’, she laughs, ‘‘but I get pretty traditional pay’’. When working Atwood brings home about $240. a week. Her hours are 7 to 3:30. Her 12-year-old gets the two school-aged children off in the mornings and drops the four-year-old at the neighbors. “‘She’s a responsible girl’’, says Atwood. ‘‘I rely on her a lot, maybe too much. She’s been a second parent in this family since she’s been 10. But she’s still a little girl and there’s things a little girl wants — books, a pretty dress, a new coat instead of a hand-me-down. My little girl has learned to stop asking.” When Atwood reads that unemployment leads to mar- riage breakup, child beating, crime and suicide she understands better than most. and policy. — problem of unemployment among women. The officially adjusted unemployment figures for July was 11%. To be counted among the officially un- employed you must be registered with Manpower and Immigration as actively seeking work. A March, 1982 Labor Force Survey found that 407,000 people were not looking but were ready and available for a job. If these discouraged workers are added to the underemployed, part-time workers unable to find full-time jobs, the real unemployment rate for Canada would exceed 2-million or 16.6% of the workforce. Disproportionately represented among these un- employed workers are women. They form 72% of the part-time labor force and have ajobless rate that runs 2% higher than that for men — 9% of the male workforce is without a job, the rate for women is over 11%. According to the 1981 Task Force on Unemployment Insurance, sponsored by Employment and Immigration Canada, high unemployment among women can be explained as a result of their poor work attachment and motivational problems. . It becomes obvious that one set of report makers don’t bother to read the others. At about the same time as the task force published its findings, the National Council of Welfare released its poverty figures. The council found that it is working wives who are keeping their families out of poverty. . Commenting on the drop in poor families from 20.8% in 1969 to 10.4% in 1980. Kenneth Battle, head of the council said, ‘‘if there are fewer poor families, it is not because people are getting larger wages or more from government programs, but because people are pooling their wages. More families have pulled themselves above the poverty line because they have working wives.” The married woman is becoming the standard in the Canadian workforce. Rather than dropping out to bear . Such views circulate They’re called the unemployed who don’t count, yet they form the bulk Canada’s 1.5 million jobless. They are women Ottawa calls secondat) earners. They are also the under 24s who comprise half the unemploy nt roles, transient and unwilling to commit themselves says Ottaw@.| freely in Parliament and are the basis for report How important is work to women? Does it matter if you’re 21 and jobless’ In the next four issues Tribune reporter Kerry McCuaig will talk to thost concerned and examine government policy. Will Ottawa’s attempt write off a large section of Canada’s unemployed work? have opted out of the health insurance plan that she can! afford their extra fees. daughter gets ‘poor people’ care because of it. Of cours? you don’t get a chance to explain to the anesthetist or thé various assistants that you never see, but who send you bills. You get the feeling that you shouldn’t question 0 complain about your child’s health care because they'l@ | doing you a favor by not charging you the same as thei! other patients.” their way out of poverty might have slightly improved: families headed by women are even more vulnerable . than before. ; ? port mothers are receiving social assistance and 450,0 are trying to raise their children on their own with if comes averaging less than $12,000 annually. Lawler says she’s sick of explaining to specialists wh? “They get waived, but I sometimes wonder if my Where the chances for a multi-earner family to fight \ . — |} ‘The married woman is becoming the standard in the Canadian workforce: Rather than dropping out to bear chil-| dren as expected, over 60% of thest women hold jobs ... their pay cheque 5 vitally necessary.’ areas Contrary to commonly held opinion, not all sole sup” More Female-led Families in Poverty The National Council on Welfare documents the ef and raise.children as expected, over 60% of these women hold jobs. And, as the council indicates, their pay cheque is vitally necessary. Yet the Employment ministry’s re- port states that more than one wage earner in a family dampens the motivation of the other to seek work. Four Months Without Ul Margaret Lawler’s husband works. He makes $4.50 an hour as a shipper-receiver for a Toronto clothing manufacturer. She doesn’t. She quit her job four months ago as a waitress in a restaurant-tavern. The boss grab- bed her once too often. Because she quit, Lawler fects of the widening gap between men’s and women’s earnings. The number of female-led families living below the poverty line is 41.5%, up from 36% in 1979, com: pared to 7% of families led by men. Unemployment! would force even more single parent families below thé poverty line. ~ At 60% of working wages, unemployment benefits ar hardly a guarantee against poverty. A report from thé Social Planning Council of Metro Toronto found that only a single person receiving the maximum possible benefit of $189 weekly would be living above the poverty line. Anyone attempting to support a spouse or family The defeatism of too many long hours spent in Manpower offices, getting referred to jobs which don’t exist. __ “The children have to be so sensitive to your moods. I’m usually pretty easy going, but I turn into a nervous wreck when I’m not working. And I sometimes wonder if the children wouldn’t get a better break if they were orphans.” Being one of Canada’s 1.3-million unemployed At- wood knows the frustration of the UIC bureaucracy. When she was laid off last October, her first cheque didn’t arrive until three days before Xmas. That time she got by on a loan from her brother who has a good job in Saskatchewan. “I know Id help him out if the situation was reversed, but still it’s not his responsibility to support us’’. The bitterness comes through when Atwood talks about her layoffs. ‘“They hang the notices on the board, your name and your clock number and you’re out the door for another six weeks. Last time I ripped the notice _—_ defect. be filled? down and stormed into the manager's office. I wanted ee oR lea him to know what 2133 looked like. Then I shoved a THE GOVERNMENT. IS ITS ONLY FAN UGLY Bye THOVSANDS OF JOBLESS RUMOUR BEING sPRenp : picture of my four kids under his nose, because I wanted him to know what they looked like too.” : ‘*The politicians they’ ve got no idea. I’d like Trudeau to know what being a single parent is really like’. Dismiss Female Unemployed Atwood obviously has plenty of reasons for wanting to hold down a job, but because she is a woman, she be- comes part of the elaborate federal effort to dismiss the PACIFIC TRIBUNE—SEPTEMBER 10, 1982—Page 10 has been penalized by UI and hasn’t received any bene- fits to date. “‘T tried to explain I had a valid reason”’, says Lawler. “They (UIC) said I would have to go to human rights and charge him, to get my job back.”’ She never went to the Ontario Human Rights Commission; not that they wouldn’t have considered her case. *‘Even if I won, I wouldn’t go back to that place © again,”” she said. She may be over the stress of sexual harassment but Lawler has taken on a new stress, that of poverty. Coupled with hassels from UI, she is now trying to get through to Manpower that she would like training to switch her job skills from waiting on tables. Lawler says she cringes whenever she hears about lifting rent review . legislation or tacking on user fees to medical insurance. A 17% rent increase for their building is under appeal and the mention of it brings an anxious frown to her brow. Even more worrying is the debate over possible user fees for health care because her six-year-old daugh- ter has just begun a series of operations to correct a birth would be out of luck. generosity of the unemployment insurance program thal is motivating people to leave their jobs without good reason. Measured against standards of poverty in Cana _ da, UI benefits are miserly. tf) to be working. Ottawa’s own figures indicate that yO! Cc without working. l and higher levels of unemployment. It is prepared 1 Cc ing the bulk of the jobless as peripheral to the job marke Ottawa feels that it can dismiss the entire unemploymet! problem. It is a well-orchestrated campaign, but it’s on@ that could backfire in government’s face. Next week: Where are all the skilled jobs waiting ® : There goes the government’s rational that it is thé It can be assumed that given the choice between po” rty ora decent living standard most people would prefé! an’t survive beyond a subsistence level in this countY Yet government is preparing people to accept highet ondemn more and more people to poverty, By dismiss” PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT MENT DOES NoT WORKERS !