Work for the dole kills jobs
By John Tomlinson
Prime ministers John Howard in Australia, Jenny Shipley in New Zealand and Tony Blair in Britain all use the same rhetoric to describe the behaviour of lone parents and the unemployed. They claim the central issue in welfare policy is the need to move people away from welfare "dependency" to independence.
The latest example is Howard's January 28 decision to force all young people who have been unemployed for more than six months to join his work for the dole scheme.
Howard is being disingenuous in suggesting that he is really addressing the issue of "dependence" on welfare. He is trying to immerse himself in a false debate because he is not prepared to engage in the real welfare debate: the income security-insecurity debate.
The attempt by political leaders in Britain, Australia and New Zealand to deflect attention from this core welfare issue has not escaped the attention of poverty activists. In 1997, at Massey University, the Auckland People's Centre sponsored an alternative conference to the New Zealand government's "Beyond Dependency" conference. The alternative conference was entitled Beyond Poverty.
Last October, the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services (NZCCSS) published a discussion paper on work for the dole schemes in which it exposed many of the flaws in the "dependency" arguments and strongly rejected the need to compel welfare recipients to work.
Politicians in Australia and New Zealand have not had the wit to create sufficient jobs for all who want them. Nor are they willing to shorten the working week so that the available work might be shared around.
The Howard government, following the New Zealand example, has diminished the welfare state. Coupled with the attack on the jobless has been a reduction in the employment conditions of workers. Whereas, under the Accord, the previous Labor government traded off wage increases for an expanded social wage and increased productivity, the Howard government has opted for a more direct attack on working conditions, implemented through employment contract legislation.
Governments in Britain, New Zealand and Australia have recognised that, unless the reserve army of labour is mobilised as a threat to those in work, a solidarity between workers and unemployed might develop. Howard's solution has been to re-instigate the 1930s "susso" schemes, compulsory work for the dole.
The ideological attractiveness of compulsory work for the dole derives from the economic fundamentalist desire to reward the rich and compel the poor.
According to right-wing political scientist David Green, the payment of unemployment benefits provides those without work with "dutiless rights". In Howard's jargon, such social security payments amount to "not being allowed the opportunity to demonstrate they are meeting their mutual obligations to the community". What he really means is, "Dole bludgers are getting something for nothing".
The political role of this government's work for the dole scheme is similar to that of the "workfare" scheme which has been in place in the United States for a few years. It plays on ill-informed voters' objections about their tax dollars being "wasted" on welfare recipients and the unemployed.
Karen Adams, a researcher with the NZCCSS, points out: "Ordinary citizens either don't know or refuse to acknowledge that creating workfare jobs lessens the demand for paid labour. This process is called displacement. Many supporters of compulsory work for the dole schemes have little understanding that it might be their job which is displaced."
Voters, who often don't have the time to study and understand this complex issue, are looking for a simple solution. Work for the dole provides it. What many people do not know is that in the United States major industry contracts are already being given to companies which use "workfare" employees, alongside prison labour.
There is nothing to prevent the Howard government from doing a similar thing here. Already, many Australian industries use prison labour.