What's So Bad About Workfare?

Most will have heard by now of the controversy that surrounds the government's new "workfare" program which is designed to get those who claim JSA experience in a working environment so that they may find it easier to seek employment and ultimately get off benefits. Some may consider the idea of a person working for their benefits to be a good one, and while I am in two minds about the scheme, there is much more to criticise about the scheme, than there is to praise. While the furor will undoubtedly kick up some anti-Tory rhetoric, it is worth noting that the Workfare scheme has been in the works for some time and will have undoubtedly been implemented regardless of who obtained power. It is also worth pointing out that there is very little convincing evidence that the operation of such schemes actually improve chances of obtaining future work or providing broader employment opportunities. The critics of welfare have rightly labelled it slave labour and exploitative and in the broader analysis of the program, it actually risks making the employment situation worse rather than better.

A massive campaign to end the program before it's even begun has started in the "Boycott Workfare" protests which have actually pushed for companies which signed up to the program to call for changes and some even pulling out altogether. Those who support the scheme as is, such as the ironically named "Guido Fawkes blog", named after the historical figure who most will know has become a symbolic figure of opposing government tyranny, rather than supporting it, which is inevitably done in the blog linked. A fantastic blog written actually considers in depth the historical types of slavery, and whether or not Workfare may reasonably be called "slavery" so it is definitely worth a read. I mentioned above that I am of two minds about the system, so I think it is important to provide my own perspective on the scheme as a whole. There is a massive unemployment and welfare dependency problem in this country that has been growing for a number of years (which isn't just the result of the Tories, despite what the left will try and claim) and this is a problem which every government for decades has sought to address with varying levels of success. While I think these problems need to be urgently addressed, a workfare program of the type that is currently conducted by our present government is doomed to be a massive failure on many levels.

While those who oppose the workfare scheme entirely have been labelled "job snobs" by the government, but the government must acknowledge that the idea that working night shifts stacking shelves for Tesco is beneficial work experience is simply deluded. I agree that the workfare system in principle is workable, yet the way in which the government is going about it is simply all wrong. It ignores the underlying barriers to employment, such as the minimum wage which undoubtedly discourages employers from taking on inexperienced individuals to train them up as it would inevitably be more cost-effective for an employer to simply seek out someone with relevant experience. Changes to the welfare system, which I have discussed at great length in the past, are also a necessity in addressing the real problems of the dependency culture.

Allowing private employers to become party to these schemes gives private companies a very desirable option, and ignores the very basic principle of employment, if an employer can get staff for free through this scheme, then what is to encourage them to create jobs and improve the overall employment situation? The scheme can work and it is with these changes that I think it is possible.

• The government needs to stop stereotyping: I have admittedly done it myself in the past, and we will all do it at some time in the future, we see people in the "dole queue" and we label them as layabouts, we see them as feckless or idle and while that may be the case for some, it is not the case for all. This needs to stop. There are many people, who may have had highly skilled work, and have simply been made unemployed for one reason or another. To put these people in the same class as someone who is in their 30s and never worked a day in their lives is simply wrong and counter-productive to solving problems of unemployment.
• Private companies must pay: I am willing to make a very big bet. If the government were to keep the program as it is, but were to say that private companies who were part of this scheme had to pay those who it was willing to take on temporarily under the scheme, how many do you think would be willing to be a part of it? I can make a very generous bet that the answer would be not many. 
• Charities must be given preference: In the rather likely event that no private companies (or very few at least) would be willing to take part, charities must be given preference in the workfare scheme. The fact is that very volunteers are few and far between, and our charities are under immense strain in doing the very good work they are capable of doing. Charities are a great way for people to become familiar with their community, gain a wider perspective of the difficulties of day to day life, and individuals can gain a much broader range of work experience than if they were condemned to stacking shelves at Tesco on the night shift.
• 30 hour weeks are a no no: The main problem with the workfare scheme, and one which is the likely cause of all the controversy, is that people are expected to work 30 hour weeks for their JSA money. If we are to insist that a minimum wage is a necessity, then we must acknowledge that in the literal sense, such a scheme is breaking the law as it is pushing people to work full-time hours and being paid much less than the minimum wage. What would be more acceptable, I suspect to the individual claimant and the wider public would be to simply expect JSA claimants to work under the scheme equal to the amount of hours they would need to work on the minimum wage to earn the same amount as their JSA money. This then may more reasonably be labelled "working for your benefit" rather than it being the equivalent of modern day slave labour.
• Additional education: What the scheme does not offer, and is one that is undoubtedly a significant problem, is the lack of formal education when it comes to the workplace. What I mean by this, is that there are certain elements of a person's behaviour and minimal standards of education which are expected by every employer. These may be basic literacy skills, communication skills and so on, but these are skills which are lacking in a lot of younger people when looking for work. In my own personal experience, I have encountered a number of young people who will start work on the Monday and will have been let go before the end of the week because they have acted in a way totally inappropriate for the workplace. This may be language used, general dress sense or overall behaviour, yet although in some instances these may simply be an error of judgment in the individual, there are some who act this way simply because they do not know any different. Local authorities must look at ways to provide additional workplace education, which help with the very basics of a JSA claimant of any age in seeking and keeping a job. Something as simple as CV writing, presentation skills, interpersonal skills in the workplace are all essential in improving prospects for work and while these may be seen as simple common-sense, it would be wrong of us to cast this off as a non-issue, and perhaps an additional number of hours per week could be focused on such employability focused education.

So should these things be mandatory? Not all of it. I don't think it would be right to force someone who may have been a solicitor in a law firm into a work experience placement flipping burgers at McDonald's for their JSA pay unless they were actually willing to undertake such work. If, however, a person does refuse to take up such work, in order to be able to claim such unemployment benefits, they must show that they are actively seeking work, by providing letters proving they have applied and whether or not they have been offered interviews and so on. The benefits of such a scheme if done right can be exemplary, yet the fact that we even need such a scheme is evidence of the failures of governments past and present to adequately deal with the long-term economic and social problems which are the inevitable result of its interfering policies. Time will tell on whether we see any rational changes to the scheme by the government in response to the mass protests which are forthcoming, but as the scheme is now, I am in total opposition.

Disclaimer: I apologise if the blog is not very clear, or if there are many grammatical errors (I suspect there will be many) but this has been written in a bit of a rush - late at night - and my brain isn't working very well.