Workfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Workfare is an alternative model to conventional social welfare systems. Traditional welfare benefits are available with little required of the recipient, save their 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 (under the guise of 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.

[edit] 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 in rural areas and ethnic minorities, welfare dependence -- it is claimed -- can become a way of life.^{[citation needed]}

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.

[edit] 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, the higher-level training that is provided is often criticised as it often does not reflect the employment demands of local industry. This, combined with the fact that there is sometimes a genuine shortage of employment opportunities, gives rise to the argument that the added expenses of administering workfare programs is not offset by the reduced costs of "removing" people from the welfare rolls.

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^{[citation needed]}.

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.^{[citation needed]}

Many workfare provisions are established based on public opinion. Welfare programs in general and workfare programs in specific are often designed to meet "common sense" ideas of what will work. As a result, workfare programs are often designed to guide recipients into courses of action that mirror the life experiences of the politically vocal suburbanites which may not mirror the realities for recipients.

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.