Workfare: it doesn’t work and it’s not fair
September 2, 2008
The DWP has reviewed international literature about countries that have similar examples of workfare programmes. The three countries focused on were the US, Canada and Australia, where schemes included Workfare (”work for benefits), subsidised employment (”work for wages), unsubsidised employment and vocational/educational activities.
The research found that workfare doesn’t improve job prospects rather it can limit the chances of employment by failing to provide skills training and also time available to find work. And because of the compulsory nature of workfare, people drop-out of welfare and therefore as it acts as a deterrent it is harder to measure the tangible outcomes of welfare.
Finally, workfare can make life so much worse for people, for example, who have disabilities or are lone parents who have problems with meeting the demands placed on them to will ultimately receive penalties and sanctions that could lead to a complete withdrawal of benefits.
Additional research claims that the tough sanctions regime underpinning WfD (Work for the Dole) and other Australian labour market programmes may have a detrimental effect on labour market prospects. In 2000/01 alone, a total of 350,000 penalties were imposed that ‘counterproductively diminishe[d] many jobseekers prospects of finding employment’, with the burden falling disproportionately on young people and indigenous Australians.
What would be better for ordinary people facing unemployment whether due to disability, caring responsiblities or the mess left behind by economic crisis is proper paying work within reasonable travelling time and with proper child care and training. A housebuilding programme, a energy saving programme, free universal childcare are things that ordinary people need doing. They could provide an enormous number of jobs.
All workfare ideas spring from right-wing theories that the reason people are unemployed is that it is too cushy. Workfare is about bullying people and scapegoating the poor for the economic woes of society. It would not do of course to look into the role of the rich and powerful or the organisation of the economy in creating economic problems. Better to find groups who are relatively powerless: yes pick on the weak and hope that you are never faced with physical or mental disability or left with children and no way to earn a living.
Also all those countries have had or have very right wing governments, so why is a supposedly left wing party looking at their examples. Why does NL even consider a right wing policy, ok I’ll stop being rhetorical.
I don’t think the Ontario government was particularly right-wing at the time.
It’s good to have conclusive evidence that being beastly to the unemployed doesn’t do any good, not that it’ll stop ignorant right-wing idiots from spouting on and on about it anyway.
But it’s especially interesting to see that the carrot-based job subsidy approach can have a positive impact – that’s not necessarily something I’d have expected…
[...] ‘Work for your benefit’ schemes will only create more distress, desperation and despondency. It is a good example of how NL devalues and demeans people. And the ethos being that you can only be a productive part of this society if you are working. Also, under this present economic climate, where are the jobs? Good quality jobs as opposed to the supply-side economics that Purnell believes in. Again, and again, research by the DWP has shown through evaluating global literature that ‘work for your benefit’ schemes aka Workfare….don’t work! [...]