A third factor, not to be underestimated, is the worsening economic climate. Recent changes in the employment and training policies of the federal government proved timely for getting our program off the ground.

To fill the needs for skilled workers, the federal government passed the new National Training Act on July 7, 1982. Under the Act, the government plans to give $108 million to provinces, industries, and non-profit training organizations over the next two years to build or expand job-training centers. Funding will be restricted, however, to programs where job demand is high.

At the same time, the province announced its intention to transfer women on provincial benefits to the municipal welfare rolls, a move which many community groups fear will force sole support mothers to regularly look for work without the skills, job experience, and daycare facilities necessary. As our target group is sole support mothers on public assistance, the program is timely.

NOT A ROSY FUTURE

STEP is certainly a step forward but our recent fight points to even tougher battles ahead for women workers. Underlying new government policy is an inherently elitist and sexist bias. Put this bias in the context that the new technology promises to eliminate more jobs than it will create, and you have a rather grim future.

We were shocked to hear one official openly state during our negotiations: "Anyone who has to be taught English grammar and typing is a damn poor target for training in word processing". Training in non-traditional occupations (machining, computer programming, word processing, etc.) is CEIC's top priority.

What does such a policy mean for women on public assistance or high school dropouts who do not already have these skills. What does this mean for the 28.4% of Canadians deemed functionally illiterate by the Parliamentary Task Force on Employment Opportunities for the 80's? Are women like Laurie and Janet to be barred from the jobs of the future because they lack basic skills? The extent of government cutbacks of basic adult education programs was dramatically documented by Dorothy MacKeracher et al in Adult Basic Education for Women: A Model for Policy Development published by CCLOW in 1979. Since 1979, the cutbacks have steadily continued.

The sexist bias is apparent when we look at the jobs considered "vital" and "productive": machinists, tool and dye markers, welders, electronic technicians, computer specialists, business and institutional managers, financial analysts and engineers. How many women do we find in these fields? And who decides what work is "vital" and "productive"? Surely we have no surplus of properly-paid childcare workers, community workers and literacy teachers. It all depends on priorities, and we women have not had much to say over that.

Women moving into non- traditional occupations is one important solution. But only one. It seems inevitable that micro technology will transform the office and industrial world as we know it by steadily reducing the quantity of human labor required. There are plenty of unemployed machinists today, alone with unemployed file clerks. To this most fundamental problem, the government has no answer.

Nothing short of a basic restructuring of our society and its priorities is needed. But every small success today, in the struggle for equal learning and training opportunities for women, is a step in the right direction. Getting the STEP Program funded is one of those successes.

Terry Dance is the primary and Academic Coordinator of STEP. A former secretary herself, she has also worked as a free-lance journalist and volunteer ESL teacher.