Arbeitslosenselbsthilfe O l d e n b u r g
Kaiserstr. 19
D-26122 Oldenburg (Oldenburg)
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 23:23:56 +1000 (EST) From: Bill Bartlett billbartlett@vision.net.au To: Workfare-Discuss@icomm.ca Subject: work-for-dole discussion paper
This dates from about mid-way through last year, I got it off the web, but can't remember exactly where. Sorry if that's no help, I just noticed it on my drive and thought I'd share it with you.
The Evatt Foundation is a Labor Party think-tank, largely government funded I gather (more largely when Labor is in power of course.) ;-)
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas.
--
Work for the Dole Making young people responsible or blaming the victims
Written by Bronwyn Pike Executive Officer Evatt Victoria Centre Assisted by Karin Ortlepp and Mai Hall
Preface
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that 'everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work, and to protection against unemployment.
Work is a most significant aspect of human experience. People work to earn enough money to purchase goods and services and to sustain their families. Work is also a means for personal growth and of deriving satisfaction. When people work they grow and develop their gifts and skills. This in turn enhances their selfesteem as others value their abilities and contribution. Work also provides an opportunity for people to contribute to the common good, to enrich society as a whole. The joint efforts of people are responsible for the building of large public institutions, providing essential services and so on. These make the world a better place for everyone to live in.
In an ideal world all these aspects of work are fulfilled. With work, peoples self-esteem is enhanced as they know they are adding to society, that their efforts are worthwhile and that they are able to take responsibility for the necessities of life.
Over the last 20 years large numbers of Australians have been unemployed or under-employed. Currently unemployment is around 9% and this amount has not varied significantly for a number of years. The rate of unemployment for young people, indigenous people, migrants and those with little education is even higher. In this context, where there is not enough work to go around or where work is unevenly distributed, the community as a whole has the responsibility to ensure that those who miss out, and their families, do not suffer, but are able to afford the basic necessities of life such as food, clothing, housing, utilities, education and health. If people are deprived of these essentials they are unable to participate in society and they then become marginalised. The consequences for individuals and the community as a whole are very negative when people become outsiders.
Most Australian people are very concerned about unemployment. In opinion polls Australians cite unemployment as the most important challenge facing the Government and the nation. The ability to address unemployment is now seen as the key test of the capacity and the credibility of a Government in power.
The current Federal Government is keenly aware that its electoral success depends on its ability to reduce unemployment. One of the first initiates it has taken is the introduction of the Work for the Dole scheme.
In February 1997 the Howard Government announced its intention to amend social security legislation to introduce a scheme whereby unemployed young people would be required to engage in part-time work in order to be eligible for unemployment benefits. There will be a mix of compulsory and voluntary work although it has been stated that social security payments could be cut to those who refuse to comply with the scheme. The Government has decided that young people will be paid award wages and therefore they will only work the hours required to get unemployment allowance payment. Participants will still be required to look for full time work and unless employed full time will be registered as unemployed.
The Work for the Dole scheme will establish projects within community welfare organizations which are community based.
* The priority group comprises 10,000 unemployed young people aged between 18 and 24 years
* Around 16 million dollars has been set aside to administer the program.
* Military - based programs and specifically targeted projects in areas of high unemployment in rural and regional Australia are also being considered.
The Governrnent claims that:
* The scheme is not designed to save money.
* The scheme will not replace real jobs
* The scheme will not artificially manipulate the rate of youth unemployment and thereby create the impression that it is lower.
* It is fair and reasonable that people receiving unemployment allowances from the community be asked to make a contribution to the community in return.
* The scheme will assist young people to acquire a work ethic and to be 'work- ready' by immersing them in the working environment.
* Greater involvement in the community, and the opportunity to make a constructive contribution, will have benefits for the participants and the community.
* The scheme will act as a disincentive for those who are able to obtain
employment but are unwilling to do so.
How does the scheme fit into the Government's broader policy framework?
The Government claims that it has the support of the community in the introduction of the Work for the Dole scheme. The community, they say, expects people to be self- reliant. They claim that the tax-paying community resents providing support to people who have no inclination to work. People believe that unemployed people should pay back the community for their income support in the same way that workers have to work for theirs. This view has been supported by some notable public commentators including Bruce Ruxton, President of the RSL, who says that young people need discipline and an improvement in their hygiene and personal appearance. Others argue that if people are occupied they are not as likely to engage in crime or anti-social behaviour and that their self-esteem and motivation will be enhanced by connection to the mainstream of social and economic activity.
Conservative forces within the Government's own ranks, such as the Lyons Forum, believe that it is the family who should take responsibility for people's welfare and not the State. The recent decision to cut unemployment benefits for 16 and 17 year olds and means-test the training allowance for those under 21 is an example ofthis. The Government has also sought to decrease the participation of women in the work force by decreasing funding for child care.
The Government is of the view that it must adjust the fundamentals of the economy to encourage business growth and investment and that this will in turn provide the context where business is confident to hire more staff. In an attempt to reduce the current account deficit the Government has enacted massive spending cuts. These have seen a slashing of labour market programs by around $1.3 billion.
The philosophy of individual responsibility underlies many of this current government's policies in relation to social security and the social safety net generally. There is a conviction that people should take greater responsibility for their own circumstances and not 'suck off the communal teat'. This perspective sees unemployment as a matter of choice rather than circumstance or opportunity. Notions of independence and autonomy replace interdependence, mutuality and community care.
History of 'work for the dole' schemes
The notion of working for social benefits is not new in Australian history. In the 1800's the 'Objects of Charity' were forced to work, usually in menial jobs to provide food and shelter for their families.
At the turn of the century there were distinctions made between the deserving and the undeserving poor. The belief was that those who deserved public charity and sympathy were the widowed, orphaned, sick and disabled. Those who were undeserving were seen to have contributed to their own poverty through immorality, indolence, malingering, addiction or other 'personal' sins. This distinction appears to have reemerged in the current political climate.
In the great depression the 'susso' for the unemployed was given on the condition that work was performed. Many unemployed people were forced to perform hard manual labor such as road and rail-making. After World War II there was a period of economic growth and only when unemployment levels began to rise did the notion of Work for the Dole re-appear on the public agenda. In the mid-1980's there was some interest in the American style "workfare" programs but these did not gain wide public support.
What will be the consequences of the scheme?
There is a genuine concern that the Work for the Dole scheme will provide a pool of 'free labour' to replace existing jobs. Those who are most vulnerable to losing their work are low paid, part time and casuals and those with insecure tenure. These are often the unskilled; women and people from a non- English speaking background.
Community groups are already concerned that the Government has expressed the desire for more community services to be delivered by the voluntary sector. In a climate of budget deficit the temptation to reduce funding will be hard to resist. We can already identify ways in which participants from labour market programs have been used by schools to do cyclical maintenance, when one group of trainees completes a program, another is sought from the local unemployment Case Manager as a replacement. Given that the fastest growing sector of employment is low wage employment there is the possibility that Work for the Dole will further depress wages and conditions. This could occur because low paid workers are essentially competing with unpaid workers for the same work. The changes in industrial relations legislation and the incremental deregulation of the labour market serve to exacerbate this.
Research shows integrated labour market programs are the most successful means of providing positive personal and employment outcomes for unemployed young people. Many unemployed youth already experience substantial labour market disadvantages such as lack of appropriate and relevant skills, language and literacy problems, geographic disadvantage, poverty? and relational problems. It is highly unlikely that these people will benefit from unpaid work which is divorced from support and poverty alleviation. Programs which work are those which combine individual case management, counseling and support and combination of work experience and training. A close look at existing social security conditions reveals that a level of compulsion already exists. In addition, training must be matched to the real skill shortages in industry and other work places. The capacity to successfully match unemployed youth with planned training which is connected to an identified market need is only achievable within a comprehensive labour market strategy and not a knee-jerk response.
It has been demonstrated that there is a direct correlation between the ongoing commitment of young people to labour market program participation and the investment of an organization in them.
We have already seen attempts by this government to reduce spending on social security. The initial moves saw newly arrived immigrants ineligible for social security payments for up to two years. The introduction of the 'dole diary', the means testing of benefits and the tightening of eligibility criteria for 'Austudy' all send messages to the community that this Government views social security as a necessary evil and its recipients as a burden on the public. The rhetoric of 'mutual obligation' confirms this.
There is profound concern about what the work for the dole initiative will communicate to young people themselves. The notion of 'you owe us' places an extraordinary burden of responsibility on a group of people with relatively low power and resources. Certainly we would affirm that all citizens have both rights and responsibilities to participate in and contribute to society. Young people themselves may well say to the community 'you owe us', the opportunity to have a real and meaningful job, the opportunity to grow and develop the capacity to contribute to society in a meaningful way.
The scheme communicates to young people that being unemployed is their fault and that somehow they should pay for it. Their unemployed status justifies their availability as a pool of cheap labour available to Government in order that they can accomplish tasks which would ordinarily be funded from government revenue.
A downfall of the scheme is that it is based on the assumption that young people do not want to work and therefore must be compelled to do so. In reality the negative impact of unemployment, the lack of access to finance, secure housing, and all the goods and services it provides are all disincentive enough. Young people are mainly unemployed because there is a lack of work and because of the inequitable distribution of work.
Indolent, slothful and lazy individuals are the exception and not the rule. Where low self-esteem has already been identified as a key barrier to employment this proposal of 'enforced labour' potentially exacerbates that problem.
The program raises expectations of employment when in reality the Government is doing little to address the structural causes of high youth unemployment. It is clear that the market-driven solutions are not working as business is reticent to re-invest profits in job creation and therefore the government must intervene. Some fear that the program may even lessen the commitment of Government to creating real jobs.
The mixing of voluntary work with compulsory work is confusing. There are already numerous opportunities for voluntary work in the community and participation in these should be encouraged. The scheme may discourage volunteerism which is a positive contribution that people can make to the community.
The scheme places the burden of responsibility for unemployment unfairly on the shoulders of young people. They were not responsible for structural readjustments in the economy, they were not responsible for globalization, they did not chose privatization or the great disparity in wages and yet they are being disproportionately affected. If the Government wishes to re-inforce the notion of mutual obligation it should require all who use public resources to contribute to them.
Additional concerns
Australia is experiencing an unprecedented period of rapid social and economic change. In this context, many people feel insecure as their known worlds are disappearing. It is easy for people to blame others out of ignorance and fear. Any reinforcing of this notion of blame only enhances the mindless scape-goating that ultra right wing forces in Australia are already engaging in.
The new 'deregulated' industrial relations environment which the Federal Government is creating is unlikely to provide the answers to youth unemployment. A likely scenario is that some low-paid work may emerge or that we will see the re-introduction of the youth wage. Given the low relative power of young people in the employment market it is hard to imagine the scenario of a young person negotiating an individual workplace contract which is just and not open to exploitation
To date there are no details of how the success or failure of the scheme will be measured. The scheme must be subject to a broad and ongoing evaluation process in terms of its economic and social outcomes at both an individual and community level. Its outcomes must also be compared to other labor market programs such as JOB START, JOB SKILLS , TRAINEESHIPS, LANDCARE AND ENVIRONMENT ACTION PROGRAM, and other programs offered through Skillshare and Jobtrain.
The Work for the Dole scheme blurs the important distinction between social security and work. When a person works, the relationship between employer and employee has reciprocal obligations. Employers are obligated to ensure that workers are paid a fair wage in a safe work environment. Work Cover, Occupational Health and Safety, Superannuation, sick, annual and long service leave and adequate rests, are examples of this. Employees are obligated to fulfill the requirements of their job contract.
Social Security recipients are obligated to ensure that they are 'work-ready' and are actively seeking meaningful employment. This means availing themselves of training opportunities and participating in job creation programs and enhancing their job seeking skills. If social security recipients are 'required to work' and they are not paid or afforded all the rights that accompany work then they are really slaves. A slave is person who is required to work without being paid. Under international labour laws even prisoners are not required to work without pay. If they are in a work program then they must be paid a fair wage.
Social security is always second best to employment. Historically it was only ever provided to sustain people if they were unable to work because they were too old, young, sick or disabled, OR in the event that there was just not enough work to go around.
There is evidence that the current government may no longer see it as their obligation to improve the opportunities for employment for everyone. They already believe that the private sector will expand employment opportunities if the Government creates the environment for economic growth. This strategy may conform to the traditional economic orthodoxy but in reality has not delivered the employment growth promised.
Will the Work for the Dole Scheme be effective in creating real work?
The reality is that there have been substantial changes in the Australian work environment over the past two decades.
* There has been a decline in the traditional manufacturing and primary
producing sector
* There has been an increased use of and reliance on technology.
* The expansion of multinational companies, competing for a pool of cheap third world labor has also effected local markets.
* Low skilled jobs which many young people in the past took when leaving
school are gradually disappearing. These jobs are often being taken by
older, more experienced job seekers who themselves are the victims of
'business downsizing' and ' industry restructuring' .
* There is more over-employment with people working longer hours much of
which is not paid.
* There is increasing use of contracted employees, more part-time and casual work and less permanent full-time work.
In addition, the wealth which has been created by economic growth and/or efficiency has not 'trickled down' or been translated into jobs. What we have seen is a transfer of wealth to shareholders and company executives and a down turn in the remuneration and conditions for workers, and high levels of unemployment.
CONCLUSION
The Government has decided to institute the Work for the Dole scheme in response to community pressure. There is a view that young people themselves will be better off if they are occupied and that this will reduce crime, drugs, vandalism and so on. Given that these are universal concerns, it is necessary to identify alternative strategies to ensure that young people are given every opportunity to be active participants in the work force. The Work for the Dole scheme will not expand the total supply of jobs; in fact it could actually contract the existing job market. This is the most profound challenge.
Whilst all would acknowledge that there is substantial work to be done in the community, this should not be performed by a pool of unemployed youth who are victims of the failure to distribute work fairly within the society. "Band-Aid" responses to youth unemployment may have some short term appeal, but in the long term, unskilled and demoralized young people become unhappy and disaffected adults. The prognosis for a healthy society in the future is not good if we cannot include young people now.
At the end of the day, however the most profound obligation falls on the community as a whole, and this includes government, business, and community sectors, to create and maintain adequate employment so that all those who seek work are able to meet that expectation.
-------------------------------------------------------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Coventry, Louise A Working Society Salvation Army 1997
Sheen, Veronica Work for the Dole Brotherhood of St. Laurence paper 1997
ACOSS Impact, March 1997 A Flawed Policy
Evatt Victoria Centre
Index of Welfare-Workfare-State Archives
Last Modified: July 1998