How to make workfare work better
THERE is a huge difference between slavery – forcing people to work for free, which is an abomination – and workfare – asking people who have been on benefits for a long time to work for their money, a system practiced in many countries, including in the US, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands and others. The idea is two-fold: first, that it is vital for people who have become excluded from the labour market – through no fault of their own at a time of shamefully high unemployment – to work again, even if the jobs aren’t what they would ordinarily aspire to; and second, that benefits should be a hand-up, not a hand-out, and that it is fair to demand that people put something back in return for the money. Workfare is seen as a means to save people from the horrors of long-term unemployment, a ladder to try and help them reintegrate into mainstream society.
It is strange, therefore, that so many critics of the scheme, a version of which the government is introducing to the UK, cannot see the difference between it and slavery; a human rights case has even been launched (even though recipients can quit welfare if they don’t want to work). Some activists think benefits should be unconditional: that they should be an entitlement, regardless of behaviour, that people should have the right not to work and be paid by the state regardless. There are two major problems with this. What about the rights of those being taxed to pay for this? Perhaps they should sue too. It is also deeply unfair towards the millions of people on benefits who desperately want to work, leave the dole and get back on track – and who don’t believe that it is demeaning to take part in work placements to get a foot back in the door. Some of the activists who believe they are helping the unemployed are inadvertently achieving the opposite: they are perpetuating a popular myth that everybody on out-of-work benefits is looking for a free ride, which is a disgusting slander. Some people are abusing the system – but the truth is that our tragically high levels of unemployment are a blight on our society and need to be tackled urgently.
There is one argument that has some validity: some private companies will use free labour, financed by the state. This a subsidy and means work previously done by paid staff could be done by the workfare recipients. Already, protests have forced several companies to quit the scheme; the logic could eventually mean the end to workfare placements in private firms, with the unemployed having to do community work instead. This would be valuable but probably not as much as marketable experience in the private sector. Asking companies to pay the minimum wage wouldn’t work – firms would stick to recruiting regular workers and once again shun the long-term unemployed.
So here is my solution: ask employers to bid for workfare candidates, which would make them reveal how much they value the labour. Most are likely to offer less than they pay ordinary staff but more than the zero that is currently the norm. Those offering the most – who are likely to make the best use of unemployed folk – should be signed up as workfare partners. This idea wouldn’t appease hardcore critics – but it would preserve some private sector opportunities while eliminating government subsidies to private firms.
[email protected]
Follow me on Twitter: @allisterheath