Valuing labor is still a thorny social problem, as is evident in the recent workfare controversy. Intuitively we believe that our work should be meaningful. We set career goals years in advance. We do all of the right things in the hopes that we can do what we were meant to do, even if we do not believe in destiny or natural right. Most of us will spend years in school in the hopes that our life's work will mean something.

There is good reason for all of this anxiety. We will spend many of our adult waking hours at work, and we would like to enjoy the experience. Like security or shelter this drive is a passive concern, occupied chiefly with controlling our environment and the external world. We want to make life as pleasant as possible. At the most basic level we demand that the working experience meet the minimal conditions of human existence--namely that it not endanger anyone mentally or physically.

For many of us this may be enough. Here we have the ideal of the bureaucratic office, a tenth floor suite with a view of the skyline, a coffee machine, friendly co-workers. Everyone smiles. We make something or another; we supply some industry or serve some population. All that matters is that we are comfortable.

For most of us, comfort isn't enough. In line with the famous contributions of Locke and Marx to the theory of labor, we value the creative element of the job. Work is important to us because it allows us to leave our mark on the world, to mix some part of ourselves with objective reality. This is the drive behind much of our anxiety. We want access to jobs that "make a difference," and these seem to be in short supply. Artists often think that they have cornered the market in this regard. They think that they are the only ones to leave any trace of themselves in the world, but we know better.

It is no wonder, then, that there is such anger towards those who try to get labor on the cheap. This is the basis of Manhattan Borough President Ruth Messinger's recent attack on New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's workfare program. Messinger called Giuliani's program "chattel ownership and indentured servitude." Her attack turns on this second component of labor's value; she laments in the Forward that not enough of the participants received real jobs.

She would like to see more worker education, job training, and job creation. One scholar at a Canadian think tank devoted to welfare issues characterizes Messinger's focus as a "human resources" approach rather than a welfare approach. Such a tack is "preferable," writes the scholar, "especially because it promotes, not destroys human dignity and well-being."

Messinger's criticisms rely on the creative value of labor for moral force. They appeal to the better part of us. Unfortunately, Messinger may not win much sympathy with this argument since too many of us do not feel fulfilled by our jobs even off of workfare. It's doubtful that an electorate could be convinced to vote against Giuliani's workfare since it doesn't provide creative enough jobs.

A recent editorial in the New York Times offered another perspective. Written by a participant in the New York City workfare program, it stresses the working conditions as much as the quality of the work itself. The writer recalled how, working at a sanitation garage, he asked for a pair of gloves to protect his bruised hands which he thought might get infected. He was told that there were no gloves. There were also no lockers for the workfare workers to use. The fulltime employees have lockers, but oddly enough they had taken to locking them. The workfare workers could not change their clothes before working.

These criticisms cut straight to the first definition of the value of labor. Here changes should be made, immediately. The workfare workers must be assured that the hours they spend at work be safe and secure. We owe this minimum standard to every worker as a human being, not as an employee.

Messinger's criticism implies that the city not simply be an employer but create a model workplace. Certainly this should come in time, but first, let us demand that the city be a just and safe employer.

Noah I. Dauber's column will resume next semester.