Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 23:23:56 +1000 (EST)
From: Bill Bartlett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 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
