Post by Niemmy on Jun 29, 2007 5:12:01 GMT -5
How not to get people into jobs
The work-for-the-dole scheme is not intended to get people working. It never was, writes Simon Castles.
It was recently announced that the work-for-the-dole scheme would widen this year to include drug addicts and the homeless. You don't hear much about the scheme these days, but there it is, still running. It remains the Federal Government's major response to youth and long-term unemployment - the flagship of their mutual obligation policy.
So why do I hate it as much now as I did when it was introduced, nearly eight years ago? Let me count the ways.
Work for the dole is a flawed and cynical program. A piece of populism masked as policy. A cruel hoax played on unemployed youth by a comfortable generation of politicians more concerned with winning the support of taxpayers than with doing anything to help the jobless. It is an odious exercise in creating scapegoats. A program designed purely to appeal to us, the employed, which fails even in its limited aims to help those without work. I could go on.
But work for the dole is not about to be scrapped. I may be out of step with popular opinion, but I'm not naive. Once you've introduced it, there's no going back. No government would dare. But we should know what we're stuck with.
AdvertisementAdvertisement
Work for the dole sounds OK. Reasonable, even. That's the secret of its success. Unemployed people are asked to give something back in return for their benefit. What could be wrong with that?
That depends, I suppose, on what we want from programs aimed at the unemployed. I would have thought most people - from hard right-wingers to bleeding hearts like me - would want a program that actually helps the unemployed get jobs. That helps them get off benefits.
Well, here's some news: work for the dole has never had any success in this area. Indeed, research by the Melbourne Institute (commissioned by the Government itself) found work-for-the-dole participants were 12 per cent less likely - repeat, less likely - to find a job than unemployed people not in the scheme. The institute blamed the stigma attached to the scheme, and the fact participants had less time to hunt for real jobs.
In 2005, in an economy as modern and ruthless as ours, having weeding programs as a response to unemployment is a sad joke.
The research warned of possible permanent scarring effects on participants, and found that the program had significant adverse effects in getting people into work.
We can interpret our backing of such a program, then, as tacit support for keeping people on the dole rather than helping them off it.
According to data from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, only 21.9 per cent of work-for-the-dole participants were in jobs three months after finishing the program. (Most of these jobs were part-time.) By comparison, three months after completing Jobstart - the program that was scrapped to make way for work for the dole - 59 per cent of participants were in work.
In other words, the Government trumpets a program with little more than one-third the success rate of the program it replaced. In any other area of public policy, this would be met with outrage. But hey, it's just the unemployed, so we not only let the program's architects get away with it, we pat them on the back.
The Government has an interesting response when it is pointed out how unsuccessful work for the dole is in getting the unemployed into work. It blithely states that work for the dole was never meant to help people into employment.
And the incredible thing is, it's true. The scheme never had as one of its objectives helping the unemployed get real work.
So the Government ditched a program that had some success in moving the long-term unemployed into work, and replaced it with a program that doesn't even aim to do this - and so, of course, fails to. Someone please explain how this makes any sense.
I mean, if work for the dole isn't about helping people get a job, what the hell is it for? As we cheer on this pointless parade, the jobless have every right to shout that the emperor is wearing no clothes.
What the long-term unemployed need is real training in real jobs, backed by intensive assistance tailored to them, as individuals. What do they get instead? Hoops to jump through. Scarring roles in a circus.
Sure, occasionally the Government will make a big song and dance about some work-for-the-dole project that could at least loosely be described as interesting and challenging. Call it the anomaly that heads the media release. But to read down the list of work-for-the-dole projects on the Government's website is indicative, and almost funny if it wasn't so distressing. Certain words and phrases keep jumping out: gardening, revegetation projects, weed eradication, grounds maintenance, improving the environment. Who would have thought there were so many ways to describe weeding?
There's nothing wrong with weeding, of course. We should all do some. And maybe in 1950s and '60s Australia, when our leaders' views were being formed and then hardened, a commitment to such odd-jobbing was enough to land you a paid job, perhaps even start you on a career.
But in 2005, in an economy as modern and ruthless as ours, and with youth facing work challenges their parents can't even imagine, having weeding programs as a response to unemployment is a sad joke.
And just as sad is that we continue to support such a program.
The work-for-the-dole scheme is not intended to get people working. It never was, writes Simon Castles.
It was recently announced that the work-for-the-dole scheme would widen this year to include drug addicts and the homeless. You don't hear much about the scheme these days, but there it is, still running. It remains the Federal Government's major response to youth and long-term unemployment - the flagship of their mutual obligation policy.
So why do I hate it as much now as I did when it was introduced, nearly eight years ago? Let me count the ways.
Work for the dole is a flawed and cynical program. A piece of populism masked as policy. A cruel hoax played on unemployed youth by a comfortable generation of politicians more concerned with winning the support of taxpayers than with doing anything to help the jobless. It is an odious exercise in creating scapegoats. A program designed purely to appeal to us, the employed, which fails even in its limited aims to help those without work. I could go on.
But work for the dole is not about to be scrapped. I may be out of step with popular opinion, but I'm not naive. Once you've introduced it, there's no going back. No government would dare. But we should know what we're stuck with.
AdvertisementAdvertisement
Work for the dole sounds OK. Reasonable, even. That's the secret of its success. Unemployed people are asked to give something back in return for their benefit. What could be wrong with that?
That depends, I suppose, on what we want from programs aimed at the unemployed. I would have thought most people - from hard right-wingers to bleeding hearts like me - would want a program that actually helps the unemployed get jobs. That helps them get off benefits.
Well, here's some news: work for the dole has never had any success in this area. Indeed, research by the Melbourne Institute (commissioned by the Government itself) found work-for-the-dole participants were 12 per cent less likely - repeat, less likely - to find a job than unemployed people not in the scheme. The institute blamed the stigma attached to the scheme, and the fact participants had less time to hunt for real jobs.
In 2005, in an economy as modern and ruthless as ours, having weeding programs as a response to unemployment is a sad joke.
The research warned of possible permanent scarring effects on participants, and found that the program had significant adverse effects in getting people into work.
We can interpret our backing of such a program, then, as tacit support for keeping people on the dole rather than helping them off it.
According to data from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, only 21.9 per cent of work-for-the-dole participants were in jobs three months after finishing the program. (Most of these jobs were part-time.) By comparison, three months after completing Jobstart - the program that was scrapped to make way for work for the dole - 59 per cent of participants were in work.
In other words, the Government trumpets a program with little more than one-third the success rate of the program it replaced. In any other area of public policy, this would be met with outrage. But hey, it's just the unemployed, so we not only let the program's architects get away with it, we pat them on the back.
The Government has an interesting response when it is pointed out how unsuccessful work for the dole is in getting the unemployed into work. It blithely states that work for the dole was never meant to help people into employment.
And the incredible thing is, it's true. The scheme never had as one of its objectives helping the unemployed get real work.
So the Government ditched a program that had some success in moving the long-term unemployed into work, and replaced it with a program that doesn't even aim to do this - and so, of course, fails to. Someone please explain how this makes any sense.
I mean, if work for the dole isn't about helping people get a job, what the hell is it for? As we cheer on this pointless parade, the jobless have every right to shout that the emperor is wearing no clothes.
What the long-term unemployed need is real training in real jobs, backed by intensive assistance tailored to them, as individuals. What do they get instead? Hoops to jump through. Scarring roles in a circus.
Sure, occasionally the Government will make a big song and dance about some work-for-the-dole project that could at least loosely be described as interesting and challenging. Call it the anomaly that heads the media release. But to read down the list of work-for-the-dole projects on the Government's website is indicative, and almost funny if it wasn't so distressing. Certain words and phrases keep jumping out: gardening, revegetation projects, weed eradication, grounds maintenance, improving the environment. Who would have thought there were so many ways to describe weeding?
There's nothing wrong with weeding, of course. We should all do some. And maybe in 1950s and '60s Australia, when our leaders' views were being formed and then hardened, a commitment to such odd-jobbing was enough to land you a paid job, perhaps even start you on a career.
But in 2005, in an economy as modern and ruthless as ours, and with youth facing work challenges their parents can't even imagine, having weeding programs as a response to unemployment is a sad joke.
And just as sad is that we continue to support such a program.