Welfare reforms

Can work, won’t work

The government weasels out of a perfectly good, useful scheme

See article

Readers' comments




The difficulty with any "welfare for work" scheme is how easy it is to abuse and distort the labour market. I am all for the unemployed being used to do the sort of work that just never gets done because the public purse will never find the money to do it. Picking up litter, removing graffiti, working with handicapped kids, all non-profit exercises.

My main objection to this scheme is that the supermarkets, etc., obviously had work that needed doing and positions that needed filling. Previously, they would have employed someone and paid them minimum wage. But with this scheme in the offing, they'd be stupid to do so. Normal hiring gets put on hold in expectation of the "free" labour coming on stream soon. It's a great way to get around the minimum wage and would soon become the only way to get a foot on the career ladder.

If the "Workfair" programmes really do gain some traction they will undermine wages for low-skilled work. This will not only effectively destroy the minimum wage, it will have a knock-on effect in skilled professions as well. In turn, corporate profits will increase and wealthy citizen's income will rise, while the lower strata of society will receive welfare instead of income.

The wealthy will therefore account for any even higher proportion of the inland revenue's tax take and we will all have to be grateful to them for the great sacrifice they have made by cutting our wages.

Mad Hatter

It's not unpaid.

It's a productive alternative to being paid to do nothing, which some think is a right.

I listened to some bolshie girl who complained that being required to work after collecting benefits for 9 months was slavery.

As I walk down path's in the local park, with rubbish under the bushes, I can think of a starting point for those on benefits to earn them.


It wasn't the government that lost its nerve, it was companies, whose duty to their shareholders does not include courage in the face of public opinion unless there is enough profit to compensate, and which clearly judged the opposition to be far more serious than the frothings of a Trotskyite groupuscule as proclaimed by the Prime Minister. Despite the alleged popularity of the scheme in theory, when it was time to stand up for it in practice, the principle enunciated by St Paul and Karl Marx that he that will not work, he shall not eat, proved weaker than that other biblical principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire.


As the previous two commenters have stated, a scheme for people on Job Seekers' Allowance to gain work experience engaging in tasks that otherwise would not be done, for charities or SMEs and so on, would be fine, but the suspicion remains that much of the work experience on offer here was a case of large companies simply filling vacancies at the taxpayers' expense. Far from being "job snobs" who don't value such work, the scheme's opponents think such jobs have a value at least equal to a proper wage paid for by the employer.

While I'm at it, I'm also pretty doubtful about the "half found paid work soon after finishing the scheme" claim. Without sources I can't be sure, but that sound suspiciously similar to the figure that 50% of people who completed the scheme last year moved off JSA at its end. That is not the same as saying 50% found paid work, and if that is considered a yardstick of success it compares unfavourably with the fact that 60% of JSA claimants move off the benefit at the end of 3 months.


The main problem with this scheme, as Skua_Sept mentioned, was/is that it largely consisted of placements in the unskilled area - many have listed shelf-stacking, sweeping etc. - where it had the effect of person after person going through that particular placement with minimal training (and thus no enhanced employability) only to be replaced by yet another placement worker in the end. Thus, it led to the reduction of overtime and shorter shifts for the current workers, and put new recruitment on hold, both of which are hardly laudable. There is also some controversy as to the government-supplied number of 50% gaining employment after this experience. Overall, this led to the public backlash the article mentions, since many people saw this as essentially subsidising the personnel costs of big companies through the benefit system.

While the idea of work-for -benefits programmes is not bad, this was extremely poorly executed. Should the placements happen in the public sector, or with local SMEs (that often cannot afford to hire extra staff), where the people being placed would have the chance to acquire actual employability skills, it would probably be far more suitable, especially since many of the young people in this programme are graduates. It would actually enhance their employability without the unpleasant impression of supplying shelf-stackers to large supermarkets on the government's money.


In general, benefits should take the form of a "right to work": if you lose your job, the government is required to place/ employ you for 35h/ week on two thirds of minimum wage (7.5k/ year - far more than I have to live with; doubly so after child benefit supplements).

This replaces JSA, housing benefit and the rest.

In general, much the same should apply (on reduced hours for same pay) for modest disability: if all you have is learning difficulties, back pains or missing legs - and if your condition is stable - you can always work as a receptionist, cook, entertainer or writer. Most disabled people could still benefit from some social engagement and self esteem - they deserve opportunities to work. And importantly: if they are able, they don't deserve our help unless they are willing to make a social contribution.

This would cost the same as the current scheme, eliminate involuntary unemployment entirely (even those falling through gaps at present), increase cash incomes for the currently unemployed and allow easier return to proper employment (skills, references, etc).

Not only should the current reform direction be upheld: it should be pursued with greater vigour.


"When the welfare state was first devised after the second world war, people had to work first in order to receive benefits. That principle has been eroded over the years. Popular pressure and a dire economy are likely to bring it back"

Good! Too many youngsters are infected with the "entitlement" bug: believing that either Daddy - or the state - should pay for everything (daddy/state choice depending on background)


In many cases, firms offer a low wage, and UB40's think it unnecessary to work because they are better off on the dole.

The dole is not meant to make people choosy about work. It is meant to protect those who cannot find work.

UB40's who choose to take the dole over work, are not only placing a burden on taxpayers, but they are also taking money away from other poor(er) people who really need it.

This scheme is a big step in the right direction.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Alibaba's IPO: Shocked, shocked!
Schumpeter -38 mins ago
World Cup predictions: Scoring ourselves
Graphic detail July 12th, 19:03
Car technology: Turbocharged
Schumpeter July 12th, 9:00


Products and events



