Upwords 2 Vol 7

By Mark Leahy

Tony Abbott once referred to the unemployed as ‘job-snobs.’ Jocelyn Newman remarked that there was a need for strict policies in relation to the unemployed in order to stop them ‘sitting around all day watching soap operas.’ John Howard referred to the Social Security system as being overly generous and a cause of so-called welfare dependency.

These comments are symptomatic of an ideology which seeks to demonise and criminalise the unemployed. Rather than tackle the root causes of unemployment, it is easier to blame the victims of unemployment for their own awful predicament. Forget economic rationalism as a cause of unemployment. Downsizing, multiskilling, shifting workforces offshore, the use of cheap overseas labour, even slave labour, within the new global economy, none of these cause unemployment. People are unemployed because they are lazy and lack initiative and don’t want to work.

Even the words we use when we look at the issue of using public monies illustrates our negative attitude to welfare. When we give money to business it is called investment. When we give money to farmers it is called subsidies. Only when we support individuals and families is it called welfare and welfare has a much more negative connotation than investment. Do we refer to business as being investment dependent?

These attitudes allow the Government to pursue punitive and draconian policies in relation to the unemployed:

the tightening of qualification criteria to make it harder for people to receive benefits;

the narrowing of policies relating to young people, forcing people up to the age of 25 to be dependent on their parents;

increased powers for Centrelink to recover monies it has incorrectly paid to people, regardless of the hardship this causes;

tightening up of disability tests to make it harder for genuinely disabled people to obtain a pension;

increases to Centrelink investigation and surveillance powers etc.

All of these policies place more and more pressure on people already subsisting at below poverty-line levels:

Families on low incomes have to support their children through university and through periods of unemployment, with little or no support from the Government;

people surviving on benefits, who have been overpaid due to a Centrelink mistake have their benefits reduced while Centrelink recovers the money it incorrectly paid to them;

people suffering major disabilities are forced into job programs;

sole parents incur huge debts because of changes to shared care arrangements for family payments;

young people in relationships are not allowed to be considered as de factos when it benefits them, yet are deemed to be de facto when it is to their detriment;

unemployed people are required to take on more and more and are required to navigate a complex legal and administrative system in which many of them are deprived of benefits because of simple administrative infringements etc;

young people up to the age of 25 are expected to be supported by their parents unless they can demonstrate violence or abuse.

The 'Battlers' Howard constantly evokes in his speeches refer to the very people his harsh and ruthless polices target. In his speech at Gallipoli in 1999, John Howard said the following:

"We come to seek the inspiration of stories of compassion and comfort given to others in their time of need, knowing that there are opportunities in our own lives to ease the burden of those suffering adversity and hardship. We come to draw upon the stirring example of unity and common purpose, to believe that, in whatever our differing circumstances, we are all companions with each of our countrymen and women, and together we travel a single path."

Sadly , these sentiments are not echoed in the Coalition's approach to those suffering the "adversity and hardship" of unemployment. Rather than seeking to 'ease their burden', they are treated with frequent derision, suspicion and contempt. Under the Coalition, the poor, the disabled, the unemployed, sole parents etc are considered a financial drain on those fortunate enough to have jobs, houses and middle class lifestyles. They need to be discouraged from claiming benefits and, if they do claim income support, they need to be constantly policed and punished.

Breaching is the most obvious example of these harsh penalties - reducing or depriving people of their meagre income as a result of very minor infringements of administrative requirements. These penalties are harsher than the average criminal fine and place people in considerable poverty - often leading to them losing their homes and building up massive debts with utilities etc. And when we reduce people to abject poverty, we also affect their futures lives in a negative way: lowering their sense of self-worth, making them feel that they are not respected within their own society, encouraging disillusionment and depression, making it more likely that they will become ill, not eat properly, not have decent clothes or decent living conditions; making it less likely that they will become educated or gain meaningful work..

We do not exist in isolation. When we do this to our fellow citizens, we do this to society as a whole. If we keep on broadcasting negative images of people reliant upon Social Security, if we constantly send out messages that the unemployed, sole parents, disabled etc can't be trusted and must be monitored, spied upon and punished; if we continue to blame the very people who are the victims of our public policy for their own awful predicament and, if we continue to dig the boot into people while they are down, then we will seriously undermine the good faith and civic trust that is necessary for our society to function safely, compassionately and respectfully. These policies hurt individuals, they damage families and, in doing so, they damage the social fabric which is fundamental to the health, wealth and safety of society as a whole.

Watch the Abbott and Costello Show in the coming election!

Job Network is not working -
from rorts to incompetence

Since enrolling with several Job-Network providers, I have been subjected to a number of behaviors from consultants, job-search trainers and receptionists that range from demeaning to outrageous. I have been told (by more than one provider) that graduates are ‘unemployable’ because they are always on about their “rights” and won’t accept work that is trivial, low paid or short lived. I have been told to dye my hair because ‘gray hair is not the ‘in thing,’ been refused work because I don’t have the ‘corporate image‘, am ‘too intelligent’ and therefore wouldn’t fit in with the rest of the office, etc.

My last employer, who is a current Job-Network Provider and labor hire company, was contracting temporary staff, including me, to a large government agency with wages and conditions that were inferior to the permanent staff employed by this agency at the same time. When I complained about this, I got sacked. Subsequently this Job-Network Provider lost their contract with this government agency and was required to pay compensation to me.

Finally to add insult to injury, I was required to attend a Job-Search Training Course. I attended the initial interview with a Job-Network Provider and was immediately subjected to a series of bullying, degrading and demeaning episodes. Upon attending the Job-Network Provider’s agency, I was told that the consultant whom I was booked in to see had decided to take the day off.

She was replaced with one of the administration staff, who admitted she had no qualifications whatsoever in job-training, job search techniques, counselling, social work, teaching or any other related field. In fact her only academic qualifications were that she had worked as a base-grade administration officer for ten years prior.

I was immediately threatened with the phrase, “would you like me, to ring Centrelink and tell them that you are refusing to do this course?” I signed the forms stating that I would do the course (which incidentally the agency staff member said was primarily to show Centrelink that I could get out of bed for the next three weeks) and left the agency after having also been forced to register with the Job-Network Provider, even though I was already enrolled with several other Job-Network agencies.

Some ten days later I received a letter from the provider stating that I was deemed ‘unsuitable’ to attend their course and I had been ‘exited‘. The training provider had let Centrelink know that my “behavior” had led to my being exited which led to me being interviewed by Centrelink staff and deemed ‘psychologically unstable‘. I was told that I require the services of the departmental clinical psychologist! All this because I have the audacity to question the Job-Network Provider’s itinerary of five hours a day of cold calling/cold canvassing and the sessions on the different business attire and hairstyles that participants are required to maintain every day for the next three weeks! (Almost impossible requirements for the majority of long-term unemployed individuals that struggle to feed and clothe themselves in even the most basic fashion let alone maintain a large, expensive corporate wardrobe!)

There is no denying that the old CES had its problems and was less than perfect, it was however staffed by suitably qualified individuals. This current system has consultants who range from mediocre to downright abysmal. These consultants are dealing with clients who are experiencing major social problems or even mental health issues.

Until we as a community demand an accountable efficient Job Network which truly assists us and does not waste taxpayers’ money on rorts and rip-offs, good employment services will be hard to find.

Take action to make the current and future governments accountable for our money and our future. Innovation and flexible solutions found in cooperation with the community ought to have priority over punishment and bureaucracy.

If you would like to contribute your story please sent it to us by double clicking here. You can sent your prepared file as an attachment (Word 97 or earlier docs) or simply cut and copy into the body of your e-mail.