When we went to our "host employers" Rita allowed herself to be exploited, simply because she didn't know any better. Rita worked overtime and on weekends for no extra reimbursement because she believed she had to place herself at the disposal of the host employer. Later, when classes had resumed and she had to miss class time because of her child's sickness, the coordinators ruthlessly docked her pay and were rude to her when she pleaded with them not to treat her harshly. Despite the fact that Rita was very competent at the computer and that her typing skills exceeded those of the student deemed most likely to succeed, she was never given credit for what she did well. Instead, she was criticized for not typing fast enough and for her "irresponsibility" for putting her child's well-being ahead of the course. Not surprisingly, Rita dropped out before the course was over.

I could go into other examples of prejudicial treatment, but I'll suffice it to say that people were treated differently and that their treatment had more to do with how they fit into the office-worker stereotype than with their actual competence at the skills we were learning.

I also did not like the fact that we were encouraged to identify with management. We were told, for instance, that identifying too strongly with our fellow employees would retard our advancement. This may be true. There was, however, no positive talk of sisterhood, solidarity, or the advantages of labor unions to off-set this message. Indeed, one instructor bemoaned the fact that letter-carriers were getting $13 an hour and we "skilled workers" could expect much less. It did not occur to me at the time but the obvious answer to this was that most unionized workers are men. Women are taught to gain power by submitting to those who have power (husbands, employers). The result? The "perfect secretary" only gets $7.50 an hour!

Was anything right with the course? The life skills component, which I had expected to despise, was actually all right. It was rather like group therapy, which I'm sure we all needed. My typing speed increased. The training allowance provided some extra money with which I could placate my children for the energy I could no longer give them. Also, it was a privilege to know many of the women who took the course.

Was the course effective? Did it get most of us out into the workforce? I don't know for sure. I haven't done a survey of the twenty-two women who took the course. Two years have passed and I run into some of them now and then. A couple are working in retail stores. Another tells me that several have started their own businesses doing housework. Our computer training was next to useless, a mere introduction to Word Perfect and spread sheets. Book-keeping was similarly rudimentary.

I am still on welfare. Every secretarial job I apply for is part-time and overwhelmed by applicants (women who have moved here from the city with their husbands and who already have excellent secretarial skills). My latest endeavor is to have business cards printed up and to offer a typing service.

How do I think things could have been better handled? Well, since we women are being pressured, whether we want to or not, to enter the paid workforce in large numbers, then that workforce should come half-way to meet us. How about flexible hours, job-site childcare, and a pay cheque that's not insulting? How about training programs that turn out women with high expectations, women who demand the respect they deserve. The benefit for employers would be happy, well-motivated workers who want to stay on the job for a long time, who look forward to going to work in the morning, and who know they will not be docked pay or guilt- tripped if they lose time because of family needs. And I would like to see training courses taught and coordinated by feminist trade union activists!
I know. Dream on.

Lona Smiley is a single mother of two living in a small community in British Columbia. She has formerly written a single mother's column for Vancouver's Maternal Health News.