Workfare

Information about Workfare

Workfare is an alternative model to conventional social welfare systems. Traditional welfare benefits are available with little required of the recipient, save their (sometimes) continued search for employment, if that. Under workfare, recipients have to meet certain participation requirements to continue to receive their welfare benefits. These requirements are often a combination of activities that are intended to improve the recipient's job prospects (such as training, rehabilitation and work experience) and those designated as contributing to society (such as unpaid or underpaid work). These programs, now common in the United States, Australia (as "mutual obligation") and Canada, have generated considerable debate and controversy.

In the Third World, similar schemes are designed to alleviate rural poverty among day-labourers by providing state-subsidised temporary work during those periods of the year when little agricultural work is available. For example, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) in India offers 100 days paid employment per year for those eligible, rather than unemployment benefits on the Western model.

Goals of workfare

The purported main goal of workfare is to generate a "net contribution" to society from welfare recipients. Most commonly, this means getting unemployed people into paid work, reducing or eliminating welfare payments to them and creating an income that generates taxes. Furthermore, it is argued that once a person has recent employment experience, even at entry level, they are better able to obtain gainful, long term employment. Forcing people into employment or employment-like situations also aims to break the cycle of poverty where, particularly amongst urban ethnic minorities, welfare dependence -- it is claimed -- can become a way of life.[1][2]

Some workfare systems also aim to derive contribution from welfare recipients by more direct means. These systems obligate unemployed people to undertake work that is beneficial to their community. The rationale behind these programmes is twofold; Firstly, taxpayers may feel that they get "more value for their welfare dollar" when they observe welfare recipients working for benefits, making such programs more politically popular. Secondly, putting unemployed people into a workplace-like environment attempts to address the belief that one of the biggest barriers to employment for the long-term unemployed is their lack of recent workforce experience.

Workfare is poised to re-emerge as a policy tool as Western European governments contend with an emerging and growing Muslim community, many of whom languish in ghetto conditions on the fringes of Europe's largest cities, collecting welfare benefits and struggling to find their role in their new societies.

Criticism

One main argument is that workfare tends to generate prospective employees who lack basic literacy or numeracy skills and are mostly unemployable outside the so-called "McJob" industries. Furthermore, it is argued that national training programs do not reflect the employment demands of local industry. However, in the West, many welfare recipients are immigrants that tend to settle in major urban areas like Toronto and Paris, with diverse economies and talent requirements. Hence, the notion of "local industry" in the traditional sense is diluted by the dominance of information technology and services in Western economies, and hence the wide set of skills that may address the entry-level requirements of urban economies. The natural implication is that future workfare policy should be designed in the context of demographic trends and immigration patterns.

Another argument against the workfare system is that obligating people to perform "voluntary" work or pushing them into low-paid employment (or even government wage assistance schemes) is the modern-day equivalent of slave labour. This is especially true because the jobs and tasks offered to people with little or no employability tend to be either menial or labor intensive in nature. It is argued that the creation of this artificial under-class adds to the stigma that welfare recipients are lazy, unmotivated, and would do nothing unless the state intervened. An interesting development of the information age that may change this perception is the argument that entry-level work relying on computer and administrative skills has long since superseded the type of physical labour most often associated with workfare.

The social consequences of the burdens of a workfare system are another focus of criticism. As discussed in the 2002 Michael Moore documentary film Bowling for Columbine, work requirements for welfare funds can put a strain on families with young children, especially when the families are headed by single mothers. It could also be argued that people with inherent disadvantages to finding employment (such as a disability, a speech impediment, or being of an ethnic minority) are punished for issues that are out of their control. Some states (like New York) limit educational opportunities of the children of welfare recipients. If a dependent child (included until the age of 21) wants to go to college, s/he can only enroll in an associates program; the child enrolling in a bachelor's program will trigger a cut-off of welfare money. Anecdotes like these illustrate the ineffective and sometimes unintended consequences of workfare policies, though the same argument is sometimes made of welfare policies in general.

Workfare programs are often rather punitive, demonstrating a "get tough" attitude in response to middle class concerns. President Reagan was known for stories of supposed "welfare queens" who allegedly lived wealthy lives by defrauding AFDC. While his stories are believed by many to be exaggerations of much lower-scale fraud, they resonated with many voters. Resulting program requirements often reflect widely held beliefs, while conflicting with beliefs of welfare proponents.

Finally, critics note that discussion of workfare provisions tend to focus on reducing welfare expenditures. They claim that many aspects of workfare are applied to all recipients in attempts to address more localized concerns. Work requirements, for example, may be a response to beliefs that all or most AFDC recipients are simply too lazy to work. Other measures may be designed to cut off the alleged "welfare mother" who has additional children simply to increase benefits. The resulting system treats all recipients as potential abusers, in sharp contrast to more politically popular forms of welfare, such as Social Security.

iPedia Free Information Center