WORK FOR THE DOLE – MUTUAL OBLIGATION?
Work for the
dole, ACCOSS, welfare and unemployment, work-fare, and the casualisation of the
Australian work force.
Due to be released from Parliament in the
near future is the latest version of the national “unemployment to employment”
scheme. It is the latest in a long line of programs designed to encourage
people to get jobs, maintain employment and cope with current operating
systems.
The proposed ‘Work for the
Dole’ scheme will fail to produce any significant results. This will be
explained in the following essay. The Federal Governments point’s of view
concerning the new work for the dole scheme; alias, ‘Workfare’; are not particularly valid for several reasons.
One prime reason is that the employment (mainly labour) sector; is
orientating toward the use of temporary/casual personnel, and is not interested
in acquiring its share of permanent employee’s. To prove or disprove the
Governments views it is necessary to do some research into related topics of
unemployment to try and establish some of the underlying issues.
For instance, to
substantiate the claim of a trend toward a temporary labour force it would be
necessary to gather some data. The data would show the amount of current casual
and temporary employment positions. Also, information showing the ratios of
unemployment in the past; and predictive research that will give future
statistics for the above categories. This research is likely to support the
theory of a trend toward a temporarily employed labour force.
To explain a case against
the ‘workfare’ system some other key issues should also be investigated. They
are inclusive of, but not restricted to; activity testing and its
application’s, a citizens duties and obligations as imposed by law, civil
rights and freedoms, and the poverty line and how to avoid it.
There seems to be very
little, if any provision for the unemployed to have input towards issues that
are affecting their lives when it comes to monetary and work issues. It does
seem that vast amounts of effort by others has been engaged to formulate plans
and structures relating to unemployment. This is no doubt keeping some people
comfortably in a job; at the expense of the unemployed; and supposedly, for the
unemployed. However, this does little to alter the employment ratios.
The 1997 Senate Committee
hearing (ACROD) makes the following statement. Youth will be brought back
(after having been through the education system for over a decade) into an
environment where a positive work attitude can be instilled into the
individual. Once these arrangements have had there effect on the individual it
is then hoped that the community will not alienate them. This shows an inherent
failure of the system to produce results with a specific target group at the
first attempt.
The Salvation Army gives a reply to this
area by citing their extensive experience at working with unemployed; they have
said the bureaucracy of contracted guidelines may well impede access for those
who are most in need of assistance: (Senate Committee. Submission 18)
J.Bessant points out a
preconceived obligation for each
citizen to be part of a common regime in order that a grant to participate in
the day-to-day events of the regime be obtained by the citizen. However what is
not mentioned is a condition of exclusion that is directed at an individual if
a failure to partake is foreseen by the regime. This exclusion subsequently
extends to the workforce with members of the employer regime who will
consequently perceive the individual as ‘un-employable’. It is likely that in a
some instances the authouritive members of this regime are drawing on
experience and concerns that are not commensurate with their own abilities or;
indeed, commensurate with the workforce. This is another area where ‘workfare’ is likely to be ineffective.
Senator J.Newman 1999 is quoted as saying
that: ‘Australians are sick and tired of being taken for mugs by dole bludgers’.
This is a clear example of the regime at work. Comments such as those made by
J.Newman are biased and can be refuted with the use of statics to prove their
biasness.
Avenues to exploit the distain towards the
unemployed already exist; it is a known fact that on many occasions it is
difficult to obtain or maintain employment without the appropriate skill,
training or paperwork. Kemp is saying that an employer who would not previously
hire a person is now suddenly going to hire and train someone. This surely must
be a result of an opportunity for financial gain for an employer, and not
connected in any way with some grandiose legendary work ethic that employers
espouse to. Here it can be seen that the Federal Government views’ are rendered
invalid: they will be without significant results, and open to exploitation.
Bessant goes on to identify
the previously mentioned regime as ‘real workers’. If real working Australians
get to earn a living and get to pay taxes it is likely that any person who is
cornered into working for the dole will not receive any increased level of
respect as a “real worker” does, until the person is re-categorised by the
regime as a ‘real worker’. It is said that an employed person is a
“demonstration” of the individuals’ character and that it is showing how they
are able to be a part of society. Displays of independence and the meeting of
civil obligations are expressed by common workers. Therefore, until the regime
accepts every individual into itself another flaw is present in the “workfare”
scheme.
Again in Bessant a
discussion of moral economies from past era’s draws a parallel between
socio-personal stability and a working life commensurate with older types of
work ethic. The “workfare” scheme is attempting to place people who currently
have no major work ethic; or at best very little, into a modern technological
work environment that is still operating under a colonial dictatorial
disciplinary work ethic that is not commensurate with the modern progressive
philosophical computer age. This discipline is upheld and maintained by a
voting majority which consists of the working class and upper middle class;
whom by their own admission would not and will not have anything to do with a
supposed lower class. And yet it is these very same classes that attempt to
disperse the archaic colonial disciplinary work ethic and regime upon the
hapless needy and unemployed.
As long as these bereft
philosophies continue the Government will always be dealing with unemployment
and ways to reduce it, and the follow-on effects. There is also opportunity for
collusion between entities who have a vested interest in dealing with people
who are registered unemployed and seeking assistance. Certain people may be
manipulated from job to job by entities for the purpose of collecting finance.
Groups who espouse philosophies of dole
bludger, non-worker, drop-out and other connotations are themselves
co-contributors to the situation of unemployment because of their very attitude
toward unemployed, hence rendering ‘workfare’ completely invalid.
The Brotherhood of St. Laurence
(Dec.2000) says:
The
real basis for any “obligation” is in fact quite simple. Community support for
a decent social security system relies to some extent on assuring the public
that people receiving benefits are not just sitting around, potentially
engaging in parasitic or (self) destructive behaviours. The public needs to be
confident that recipients with nothing else to do are ‘making an effort’, or at
least being busy.
According to ACCOSS (1999.p.3); thirty
four percent of people who completed a work for the dole program were employed
three months afterward. Eleven percent were in education or training, and
another twenty-three percent had managed to obtain some sort of paid work in a three
month period.
The
evaluation did not measure the net employment effect of work for the dole –
that is, it did not attempt to determine wether these outcomes are better or
worse than expected for a comparative group who did not participate in the program.
Moreover, the evaluation authors are at pains to reiterate that employment is
not a formal objective of Work for the Dole. There will however be further
research on the employment effect at a later date, as part of an evaluation of
the overall Mutual Obligation program. No set time frame has been given for
this evaluation.
Despite
the negative issues that can be associated with the ‘mutual obligation’ scheme
it will of course have positive effects in keeping with its sociological design
and intended purpose. If workfare is applied as an evolving dynamic policy,
which in time leads to an improved youth status, then it may be considered a
useful piece of legislation.
Nonetheless. Not until the wider community’s attitude toward unemployed people
alters substantially, is there ever going to be significant and validated results for the
underprivileged group that is identifiable as the reserve workforce.
Semester 2, 2001.