Welfare-to-work

CathalMc

What would people think of a welfare-to-work, similar to what has been tried in the US?

Essentially the recipient is required, within reasonable limits, to train, or work on some project to raise their unemployment benefit above some low basic amount.

I think I am very much in favor of a system derived from this kind of thinking. I have no problem with a safety net level of welfare, but one far lower than the current levels. I also have no problem with a period of reduced but relative social welfare after leaving a job - I think that's sensible and equitable. However, after a certain period of time, if I am to continually pay, via taxes, a person that wishes to receive any more than what is sufficient to cover their basic needs, I feel that that person should not be considered unemployed, he or she is employed by the state. Therefore, as part stakeholder in the state, I'd like to see utility from these civil servants. I want my money's worth. This work may include the opportunity to contribute to infrastructure repair, community services, as well as training opportunities or unpaid internships.

What do people think of this approach? I apologize if this has been discussed previously.

thebman

I agree with it in principle but I would need to see the specific implementation to say whether I'd approve or not.

I think we need to remove the dole is free money idea from the scroungers mindset as it gives a bad reputation to anyone claiming welfare even if they have perfectly legitimate reasons to do so.

I also think we should reduce the types of welfare such as childrens allowance which doesn't really serve any purpose. Better off putting that money into school facilities IMO.

CathalMc

Well if you are able to work and longterm unemployed, and you want child support, I think its an excellent candidate for part of the compensation for work-to-welfare plan. I believe this is part of the US system.

Liam Byrne

No problem with it in theory, but then again, the US system would get value for the €90K from the scum that are in jail for serious crimes by making them build roads, etc.

We should do that first.

CathalMc

Why first?

I would have no problem offering non-punitive labor in exchange for improved conditions or a wage, but there is moral difficulty for me to force anyone to work - that way lies the elements of slavery and unconstitutionality.

worldrepublic

The final point is interesting.

Each person should have an input into what they do. Some people love working outdoors, and putting them in an office would drive them over the edge. Some with a physical disability might not be able to work outdoors. The key point is that a reasonable effort is continually made to find work. Also, if you work, the pay needs to reflect the fact: so the "unemployed" person gets the same amount of pay as others in the line of work.

Either way it is better to keep people happy and not force a disagreement. The idea is to keep the unemployed from depression, homelessness or crime. The next danger is an attitude of "containing" problem individuals. This was prevalent in 1950's Ireland: stick them in industrial schools, asylums and prisons. Let's not degenerate into that kind of cruel and unusual social "assistance", even if it is at the behest of an essentialist Irish State or the Holy Roman Catholic Church!

CathalMc

Yeah, I think I'm in general agreement with you, obviously this is a bit of a Pandora's box, since invariably someones feelings are going to get hurt. However, I don't want my state to be in the welfare happiness business - that kind of thinking led us to the current welfare levels. It should be spending that effort and money to move people out of welfare into employment through training, subsidized internships etc. But more than that, it should extract as much economic benefit from whatever non-essential cash these welfare people would desire to consume by making them work for it. Obviously in the situation of families with children, single parents, disabilities etc, a fair balance needs to be struck. If necessary, extra but economically sound work may need to be created especially for these programmes. A civil policing system, extra infrastructure, infrastructure repair, community service etc. That a person's pride might be hurt being offered these kind of jobs? Should not even enter the debate in my opinion, welfare should not be fun. But it should do its best to train you, it should restore your pride by making you work for your pay (no more of this "scrounger" slander), and it should push you to get the hell out of welfare.

I am aware that the US equivalent schemes include incentives for businesses to take on these welfare-to-work people as low-paid, subsidized employees , but I think that particular approach has a number of problems, although I like the

I might not necessarily agree with your equal payment clause, because we risk blurring the distinction between welfare and civil service. We shouldn't want these people on welfare, we shouldn't want these people wanting to be on welfare, nor should welfare be commensurate with an unlimited expansion of the civil service. There should ALWAYS be a financial disincentive to be on the programme, because it will inevitably be susceptible to the gross inefficiencies of noncompetitive public projects.

nesf

Well the biggest issue that's presently at hand is the trivial difference between the two levels of benefit.

CathalMc

Sorry, I don't understand Nesf, could you elaborate on what these levels are?

Also, whats your take on what welfare reform would be best? Do you think something like welfare-to-work is agreeable to Irish society?