In one of the most sweeping welfare reforms in a generation, Work and Pensions secretary, Iain Duncan-Smith recently announced that the long-term unemployed would be forced to perform menial work in order to maintain their benefits. Bart Cammaerts looks closely at this policy change, and finds little evidence that it will be cost-effective, and that it may even lead to a more unfair and unequal society.
After the announcement of the emergency budget in June, I jokingly wrote on this blog that drastically cutting public services, generating a social bloodbath would ‘not lead to a Big Society, but to a smaller and more unfair society. Unless, of course, the government expects all these newly unemployed to come and work for them as volunteers to provide the services they used to be paid for properly in return for their benefits.’
To my utter surprise the coalition government has actually taken this idea seriously. Instead of making sure that there are enough jobs around and making it worthwhile to work by for example raising the minimum wage for low paid jobs, the long-term unemployed, who need the most support, will be forced to ‘work’ as volunteers. Tasks that were proposed included collecting garbage, cleaning the parks, and other community services. At the same time the management of this forced labour scheme will self-evidently be out-sourced to the private sector.
I am not arguing here that volunteering is not useful and beneficial for society. It is not uncommon. Volunteers are the driving force of many civil society organisations, small and large. Nor am I denying that it could be beneficial for unemployed citizens to be involved, potentially learning vital skills. The problem is that a volunteer gives up his or her precious time voluntarily for a cause, organization or initiative that he or she is passionate about, cares for, wants to get involved in. The coercion of unemployed into doing services undertaken by volunteers seems to me to be a contradiction in terms.
Besides this, these proposals also represent a paradigm shift, which can be seen in other coalition government policies as well and often gets unnoticed. The coalition’s claims of radicalism are thus not entirely unfounded, only the kind of radicalism is a regressive one, rather than a progressive. Just as with the shift away from universal child benefits, the forced labour scheme undermines another of the welfare state’s cornerstones.
Unemployment benefits grew out of a system that was modeled on an insurance scheme against unemployment. When you work, you pay into the system and the system then compensates you if any periods you become unemployed. Such a scheme also institutionalises a level of solidarity between those who work and those that are unemployed. It has to be noted that the unemployment system also came to be best developed in a context when governments actively strived to attain full employment levels (i.e. about 3 per cent unemployment).
In recent decades, many limitations to this principle were introduced in different European countries, with the prime goal to activate a particularly difficult group of long-term unemployed. This group often included people from the most vulnerable parts of society, those with limited skills and education; those confronted with other structural problems preventing them to work or function in a professional environment’ people in their late 40s, early 50s made redundant and finding it impossible to find a job because it is cheaper to employ young dynamic talent, etc. These vulnerable groups are now called upon to fill the gaps in public services in return for the benefits they receive from the state for the predicament they are in (currently £65 a week for jobseekers over 25).
The main problem in the current cuts-obsessed climate is that policies to get people – and certainly long-term unemployed people – into work do not save money, they cost money, certainly in the short term. If we look across Europe a panoply of schemes and programs have been deployed to achieve this, with various degrees of success – programs to re-train workers; reductions in taxes for employers when they employ a long-term unemployed person or an older employee; subsidies for NGOs to employ unemployed people; individual attention; addressing other issues such as housing, child care, social skills, ICT-skills, etc. All these hold a cost to the state and it is precisely on these kind of services and provisions that will be cut.
For the right wing press and public opinion in southern England, this policy might sound fair, just and timely, but it is not. Society does exist and is not an aggregation of individuals. As long as our society cannot provide full employment and deal with the structural impediments to employment (such as the high cost of education) it is deeply unethical and thus unfair to force the unemployed to work for free, or in return for the replacement income they receive from the social security system. For once I find myself in agreement with the Archbishop.
Click here to respond to this post.
Please read our comments policy before posting.
I favour a universal basic income guarantee, including a socially protected right to be lazy. People do not come into this world out of free will, and therefore have the right to be treated with dignity. Lazy people often do less damage to society and the environment than many industrious people, including people who are admired and richly rewarded for their work. Richard assumes that paid work is always more valuable than unpaid work. I disagree. Also, forcing people to work just to retain their benefit or at a rate below the minimum wage or the worker’s skills could contravene international (UN, ILO) or European conventions ratified by the UK.
As an American grad student studying in the UK, I am not in a position of knowledge that would allow me to comment on the financial effectiveness of the proposed policy. Therefore I only wish to comment on the fairness of the policy.
I am in disagreement with the author on this matter. I believe that it is just for the govenrment to mandate menial labor for those who, regardless of their reasons for being so, are draining the welfare system while not contributing to it.
There is the argument that the long-term unemployed are unemployed because they cannot find work. Perhpas this is so, and I will give the benefit of doubt to the majority of those that are unemployed. But I do know quite a few people (Americans and Brits) who have chosen to remain unemployed because it is “financially beneficial” to them. In the case of these people, “financially beneficial” equates to laziness. Plain and simple. Society has no room for such people, and should not tolerate the “I am entitled to something for nothing” mindset. If you are not willing to contribute to social welfare, then you should not be allowed to take from it (as a general principle). In the case of these lazy people, forced menial labor which contributes to society and thereby somewhat reimburses society for what has been taken in terms of welfare benefits, is perfectly just and perfectly fair. There is absolutely nothing precious about the time of people who choose not to work because it is finacially preferable to working. I certainly hope that the lazy free-riders are the minority.
In the case of those people who, perhaps due to their advanced and therefore undesirable age (in terms of employment), the requirement of menial labor is still justified (in most instances). The only instance in which it would not be justified is when, despite a person’s best efforts, the cards are stacked against them and they are therefore unable to find work. By work I do not mean desirable work, I mean any work. This leads me to my next point. It is well known that many people on social welfare turn down work, and therefore remain unemployed, because the work that is available to them is not desirable. Perhaps it does not meet their interests and likes, or perhaps the work does not pay a sufficient wage for subsistence. If it is the former, then that is inexcusable. In hard times, likes, interests, preferences, and desires take a back seat to what needs to be done to survive and contribute to society. If it is the later (that the work does not pay a sufficient wage for subsistence), we encounter an instance in which it is still not acceptable to turn down work (after all, some pay is better than no pay, and some social productivity and contribution is better than no social productivity and contribution), but, in the case of required menail labor, the requirement should be reduced. These people are draining the system by being subsidized for their lack of a suffciently paying job, but they are doing their best by at least working to support themselves (no matter how little this self-support might be). These people are commendable, honest, and truly care about society. They are certainly not lazy. But the fact remains that they are taking more than they are giving, and this inequality must be fixed. Therefore, for these people, forced menial labor is a just requirement, but only if it is reduced so that some sense of proportionality is achieved.
As I opened this post with, I am not sure of the financial viability of the discussed policy. But if only considering principles of fairness and distributive justice, then I have a difficult time seeing how the policy can be considered unfair. I agree that the term “volunteer” is a poor choice of words given that there is nothing voluntary about the policy. However, semantics does nothing to detract from the policy’s just status.
As you are alien to this country…I would like to point out that mandatory labour schemes whether for idiots, unemployed or, like me, of ‘advanced years’ are not considered on an individual basis rather than a ‘tick the box’ culture which only appeases Civil servant and ill-informed statistics. These schemes are nothing more than a hark back to chain gang mentallity where ’employers’ are paid to take these poor individuals and use them to do menial tasks. I am on one of these schemes and should it be useful would gladly take a job. I have a foundation degree and have worked for 30 years in order to pay my way! You do not say why you are here in this country or indeed what gives you a right to comment on it’s policies. What have you graduated in? If you have all the answers as you so bigottally think you have, take your remedies back to your own country and sort yourselves out!
Editor: Comment edited to remove offensive content