Mon, 18 May 1998 13:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 13:44:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: WORKFARE 2/2. To: labmovs@sheffield.ac.uk, publabor@relay.doit.wisc.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, united@cougar.com, union-d@wolfnet.com, ww@workers.org, labor-l@yorku.ca ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 12:04:40 BST From: John Drury To: Bill Bartlett Subject: WORKFARE and the dole bludger myth: the UK case I found Bill Bartlett's recent email one of the more interesting I have read since joining this list and would like to comment by referring to the UK situation and some of our own experiences as a campaign group. On Sat, 9 May 1998 22:46:45 +1000 (EST) Bill Bartlett wrote: > > Except of course some of the organisations that are getting involved in > what we call "community" housing, such as church welfare agencies, are the > same organisations that are quick to jump on any bandwagon which offers the > promise of getting their snouts in the public funding trough. Thus these > organisations were heavily involved in the previous government's Newstart > schemes, which the current government has slashed viciously. > > They are now attaching themselves, like leeches, to this government's > work-for-dole schemes, as well as circling overhead as state and federal > governments prepare to dismantle public housing. What will happen is that > these church-based charities will take over control of public housing stock > and set up large "housing associations". This is actually an issue closely > related to workfare, because the state and federal governments will > continue to subsidise these agencies in one form or another, but they will > be able to privatise the politically sensitive responsibilities such as > rent setting, who gets housed and who misses out, evictions, and so on. Some months ago (beginning in August 1997) the then Conservative government introduced a workfare scheme called 'Project Work' in a number of towns around the UK including here in Brighton. They actually tried to deny that it was really workfare as: 1, the victims received £10 on top of their dole 2, most of the organizations they were sent to work-for-their-dole for were 'voluntary' organizations or charities. In fact, of course, the £10 is nothing and was often eaten up by travel expenses. The essence of the thing was compulsory work-for-dole; and in some areas (Edinburgh) it was clear that the work being done on the scheme was that for which people would normally expect a wage for. Local charity shops in Brighton were among the most keen to employ workfare workers. They did not have enough voluteers in their shops and kidded themselves that they were giving people 'work-experience' and 'self-respect' by working in their shops. Of course this is crap. Employers are not crying out not for the kind of 'skills' one picks up by working in shops. There are six claimants chasing every job and the only demand is for the highly skilled. Relatedly, one of the most vociferous public users and supporters of the 'Project Work' scheme was a local church and 'community centre', the Brighthelm Centre, which used workfare workers to tidy their grounds etc. They complained that our campaign intimidated their 'vulnerable' clients (they also provide certain kinds of services for pensioners etc.), but it was precisely the vulnerable that they exploited - people who would have all their benefits cut off if they did not comply. The Brighthelm Centre's management publicly stated that the reason that people were unemployed was because they could not get out of bed in the morning; workfare would teach them labour-discipline. So this was what we were faced with: christian organizations and charities etc. who for the most part could not even comprehend what was wrong with forced labour. Reasoned argument was often difficult with these people. And they called the cops and whined about 'intimidation' every time we leafleted outside their premises (though that didn't stop us). There is also a parallel with what Bill B says about funding. The new workfare scheme which has superseded 'Project Work' is called 'New Deal' and is far more ambitious. Again 'voluntary' organisations (as well as others) are involved. and this time there are government bribes (for 'training'). Further Education colleges, 'community development' groups and local authorities are all trying to get involved (though not as many private employers as the government would like) because of all the money they hope to get. As we have pointed out, however, if such voluntary orgs start taking government money in this way, any independence they prided themselves on would be at risk. As in the case of Oz, local Housing Associations are one of the organizations that have already committed themselves to involvement. > I imagine that is where the workfare connection will be made, rather than > in tenant-managed housing co-ops. I'm still unsure about whether the > definition of co-op is the same in Canada, some of the co-ops there sound > much like what we call housing associations - that is they are > professionally managed rather than tenant managed. But even here in OZ > there is confusion and overlap, guess its the same there. > > [...] > > >Two credit unions' participation in the programs have been dealt perhaps > >fatal blows locally. These kinds of points were also of interest to us in the UK. While the local charities are church type groups can be dismissed as having no critical political awareness, what has been disturbing is the way 'right on' organizations have got involved in workfare schemes, despite claiming to be critical of them (e.g., gay community centre. alternative arts groups). More on this below. > Unionising the participants was problematic, it was only a 12 week course > and most just wanted to get it over with. But the final two weeks was > scheduled to be "work experience", at various private employers. We found > out who the employers were and rang them, told them we were the Unemployed > workers Union and asked them if they were aware that many of these "work > experience" students they had agreed to host were unwilling conscripts. It > turned out they had no idea, they thought it was the usual school work > experience, they didn't know these were unemployed people working for their > dole. Unionising wasn't our strategy - not out of principle but simply because it was practially difficult. Instead, we tried to get those on the schemes and courses to get involved in our campaign. Only a few did, although this did not mean there was no resistance. On the contrary, most people let the organizers know what they thought of the scheme, and there were many drop-outs. Our problem was to go from this individual resistance to a collective response. Nevertheless, with just a samll group we were able to throw 'Project Work' locally into crisis. Nationally, the picture was not so rosy, however, and with 'New Deal' things will be a lot more difficult. > So we politely warned the employers that some of the work experience > "placements" were somewhat hostile to the whole idea of being forced to > work as unpaid slaves. We posed the question: How would YOU feel? Wouldn't > you want to do something about it? We asked them if the work experience > placements would have access to any delicate and/or valuable machinery? That's a good idea, but it needs to be done in advance. All the organizations involved in 'Project Work' had a high turnover - people were always dropping out, being sent back etc. because they weren't sufficiently motivated. The placement providers hit back by getting those of us involved in the campaign into trouble with the Employment Service - i.e., loss of dole just for criticizing the scheme! We are still fightling over cases that happened some months ago. > > > >Certainly, the "reputation for charity" describes many community agencies. > >Some, however, are more puzzling. And I have learned that, because of the > >power resources being wielded by the province (muni. transfers under Ontario > >Works/Bill 142), community agencies have taken on as 'workfare' volunteers > >people on social assistance who were already volunteering before the > >emergence of workfare. This pleases the local state, which is more easily > >able to meet provincial quotas, and presumably is not of any immediate > >consequence to the individual volunteer. One problem, though, is that the > >individual is now volunteering on a mandatory basis. > > I wouldn't interfere with that arrangement until the people themselves ask > for help though. I agree with you that their 'voluntary work' takes on a > radically different flavour when it becomes mandatory, but they people > doing it probably don't see it. You can lead a horse to water... Here I refer back to my earlier point about the involvement of 'right on' organizations in a workfare scheme which they themselves recognized was unfair to the unemployed. In Brighton, the situation was as follows. 'Project Work' was a cheap and nasty scheme with little credibility. Consequently, the placement providers were desperate - any placement would do. The unemployed conscripted onto the scheme were also desperate. Many thought that the scheme would succeed (overestimating its efficiency) and that the only solution was to to survive, as an individual, within it. Some were already doing some kind of voluntary work with right-on organizations (gay community centres, cafes for the unemployed, arts groups, volunteering etc.). So they approached the organization and the placement providers so that such activity counted as their workfare requirement. Problem solved for everyone - they get £10 for doing what they were doing anyway, the providers get another placement settled, and the right-on org do not lose their volunteer to some other exploitative bastard. But we thought No. This arrangement simply legitmizes workfare. The providers didn't have enough placements for much of the time; consequently, many of the workfare workers could have avoided a placement altogether. Having right-on organizations involved gave the whole scheme a credibility and inevitability, in the eyes of many unemployed individuals, it wouldnt otherwise have had. In other words, these 'critical' orgs simply propped up workfare; without their collusion we would have had more chance of defeating the whole thing; but as defeatists who work within rather than try to change the status quo, they assumed (wrongly) that workfare was a fait accompli. Anyway, our strategy was to write to these orgs suggesting other (voluntary) govt schemes that would allow them to keep their volunteer (and get money) and explain to them the consequences of their actions. Some then pulled out, as we suggested, others did not. In practice, they were often no better than the charity shops etc. in their understanding of the long-term consequences of legitimizing labour market practices like this. They were concerned simply with their own narrow short term situation. We let them off lightly with a letter. Most of the charity shops got a consumer boycott, mass pickets and all the associated bad publicity. In this way we forced a number of them, including the Brighthelm Centre, into humiliating pull-outs. Although they abused us, accusing of violence and other such rubbish, all we did was give out leaflets, write letters, talk to people, and assemble in numbers. In other towns, locks and windows and work was damaged and unpleasant stuff sent through the post. We had nothing against these things ourselves, but we wanted to build a mass campaign not a clandestine one. I'd be pleased to give correspondents on the list any more info about the UK anti-workfare campaigns. Johnny for Brighton Against Benefit Cuts