Posted: January 09, 2005

Just give them a job!

In today's Sydney Sun-Herald, in the article, Record sign-ons for work for the dole, Frank Walker reports that a "A record 13,000 people have signed up on work-for-the-dole projects in NSW so far this financial year, and the Federal Government says the scheme is succeeding in getting people into jobs." The Department of Employment and Workplace Relation's post-program monitoring in 2004 shown that around one-third of WfD participants were getting 'positive' outcomes, despite the fact that the WfD scheme is a mutual obligation program (forcing compliance) rather than an employment program.

The Government thinks that the fact that "one in three people who did work-for-the-dole projects got full-time jobs afterwards" is something to crow about. The article quotes the Minister as saying "It provides the long-term unemployed with a purpose; it gives them experience of working in a team. They do something which is beneficial, and it gets them into a routine of going to work." The official data reveals that there has been a 13 per cent jump in the number of people on work-for-the-dole schemes so far this year. Walker writes that "This year, $178 million is being spent assisting 80,000 unemployed people on work-for-the-dole projects."

The Minister also claimed that "Employers are now looking at those who do work for the dole as a positive, as they are helping themselves and they are contributing to the society which is helping them ..." A private sector training representative said that WfD was good for the confidence of the unemployment and is quoted by Walker as saying "After years out of work many people are isolated, have low self-esteem and low morale. Working in a team on a meaningful project like building something, cleaning graffiti or fixing up parks helps them feel they are doing something worthwhile."

There have been two major reports released in recent years examining the WfD scheme. The first, Does Work for the Dole Work? by Jeff Borland and Yi-Ping Tseng at Melbourne University examined the impact of the WfD scheme on transitions out of unemployment. Their main conclusion was that "there appear to be quite large significant adverse effects of participation in WfD." The report also says that "work-for-the-dole participants are less likely to enter paid work than those who don't take part in the scheme .. [that WfD had] ... slightly more adverse for females than males and that WfD] ... has a significant adverse effect on labour market outcomes for participants in regions with above-median rates of unemployment."

Despite commissioning the research, the Government dismissed it as irrelevant because it had only examined the pilot phase of WfD. In October 2003, Work for the Dole: Obligation or Opportunity by John and Ann Nevile (CEDA and UNSW Press) was published and the Government seized on its 'marginal support' for WfD as vindication of the scheme's success. The main conclusions of the report are: (a) while helping participants find a job is not a formal objective of Work for the Dole, the majority of participants want to be able to get a job at the end of their placement; (b) the majority of participants want to get a job and value highly relevant work experience: but, the restriction on for profit agencies being involved in Work for the Dole projects prevents many participants from gaining the type of work experience they desire; (c) ninety-five per cent of Community Work Coordinators said they would offer more training if the Department paid for it and 65 per cent said they would offer more, if it were not for the guidelines, even if they had to pay for it themselves. The authors notably concluded that "In recent years, around one quarter of Work for the Dole participants are employed three months after leaving the program. Probably between 60 and 70 per cent of those who find jobs would have done so regardless of their participation in Work for the Dole."

None of this provides great testimony for the scheme. It certainly says that the unemployed, despite the neo-liberal rhetoric to the contrary, are motivated to be part of the paid workforce and gain relevant work experience in the context of paid work. It also says a lot about the benefits of work to self-esteem and a sense of independence.

But the WfD scheme is not the solution. All of the benefits can be gained and more by providing more public sector jobs. The simple problem driving unemployment is that there are not enough jobs to go around. See my Dogs and Bones Fable to get the drift.

The other problems are: (a) WfD maintains the myth that the unemployed are to blame for their situation and should have to give something back for the pitiful support they are provided with by the public; (b) WfD is part of the compliance regime that allows the most disadvantaged Australians to be punished by way of benefit reduction or withdrawal for minor infractions of the 'punitive activity tests' In 2001, FACS data showed that breach penalties imposed on the unemployed jumped from 120,718 in 1997-98 to 346,078 in 2000-01. In 2000-01, 18 per cent of unemployed persons receiving allowances incurred a penalty.

So instead of expanding WfD, the Government should honour its obligations to the international human rights treaties, which make the access to paid employment a human right, and introduce a Job Guarantee immediately. The Argentinians have done it and have shown that the administrative and operational issues that the doomsayers so often introduce as red herrings into the debate can be solved. It is clear the unemployed want to work. The extra investment in a full award wage based Job Guarantee would be minimal relative to the benefits.

I am also somewhat confused at the current generosity that is prevailing in Australia at present when I compare it to our highly developed dislike and spitefulness for those undergoing the 'slow death' of unemployment. This is an attitude that is constantly being groomed by our Government towards our most disadvantaged citizens and we all just fall into line. Seems like double standards to me.

Blog entry posted by bill