Are the Unemployed Going To Be Forced To Work?

All the British newspapers are full of it today: the proposal by the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith MP to force people on unemployment benefits to do work placement for four weeks or lose their benefits for three months. There seems to be some confusion on the exact terms of the scheme however. The Observer is reporting it as entailing that everyone on benefits will have to participate in work placement or have their money taken away. But the Telegraph writes that the placement scheme will only be forced on those people who are 'work-shy' and failing to do enough to actually find employment. Since the White Paper containing the details will only be released later this week we will have to wait to see who is right.

In either case there is much to be said for forcing those on benefits to spend their time doing something productive in exchange for getting money from the government out of the taxes paid by those in work. (in the interest of fairness I should disclose that I myself am currently unemployed, although I am not on benefits) This is especially true with regards to the 'Telegraph version' of the proposal. Unemployment benefits are intended to help an individual who loses his job through that -hopefully short - period that he is looking for another job. It is meant to temporarily stand in stead of a regular salary so the jobless do not go hungry. It was not meant to go on forever and ever while the jobseeker sits on the sofa.

In exchange for paying unemployment benefits the government may, on behalf of society, demand from the beneficient the effort that he does whatever he can to find new employment. If he does not, why should he continue to receive benefits? This does apply to someone who is trying to find work, responding to vacancies every day, but for some reason beyond his control can't get a break. Yet if someone does not even try to do his best to find work, he should not be rewarded for his laziness. Seems quite fair to me.

If the 'Observer version' is the correct one, it is not that easy, though. Work placement schemes often involve the most menial of jobs, cleaning rubbish on the street, stuff like that. It is unlikely that doing such things will give a jobseeker any relevant experience that he needs to find payed work. But maybe that's not the point. Maybe the point is simply to give the unemployed a "sense of work", as Mr. Duncan Smith is quoted as saying on the BBC website. This might be useful, although I'm not prima vacie convinced it is. We'll just have to wait and see.

Someone who has not waited is Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The BBC has him saying the following - and I'm quoting it in full as the foolishness is worth it:

"People who are struggling to find work and struggling to find a secure future are - I think - driven further into a downward spiral of uncertainty, even despair, when the pressure is on in that way.

"People often are in this starting place, not because they're wicked, stupid or lazy, but because their circumstances are against them, they've failed to break through into something and to drive that spiral deeper - as I say - does feel a great problem."

In cases such as these, when despair has set in and a jobseeker is feeling completely useless, giving him that sense of accomplishment that comes from simply being out doing something from 9.00 till 5.00 will not harm him. It might just pull him out of that 'spiral' and give him hope. Hope that he may yet find work and hope that at least society has not yet given up on him and is contend to let him sit at home alone.