PROGRAMME CALLED “A COMPLETE POLICY DISASTER” – BUT GOVERNMENT EXPANDS IT ANYWAY
The government’s controversial ‘workfare’ programme – where jobseekers are forced to work for free in the hope of gaining paid jobs later – is a complete failure and does NOT get people into employment, according to official research published yesterday.
Unfortunately, the news came three hours too late – employment minister Chris Grayling had just announced that he would be pumping in £5m of extra funding to EXPAND the scheme so it could take up to 70,000 referrals a year. (Seriously, who is this joker?).
The study – by the Department of Work and Pensions itself! – showed that the mandatory work programme has been a huge, expensive mistake, the Guardian reported. Critics have called the programme “a complete policy disaster” – but Grayling put the dismal figures down to “teething problems” with rolling out the scheme.
Although being referred by jobcentre managers to mandatory unpaid work for 30 hours a week was good at pushing people off jobseeker’s allowance in the short term, the results after that paint quite a different picture. The 62-page report said:
“The results show that … an MWA [mandatory work activity] referral had no impact on the likelihood of being employed compared to non-referrals.”
The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), which was asked by the DWP to peer review the research, said Grayling’s decision to expand the scheme flew in the face of the evidence that showed it was not working.The NIESR’s director Jonathan Portes said:
“This is a complete policy disaster. It is very difficult not to conclude that, whatever your position on the morality of mandatory work programmes like these, the costs of the programme, direct and indirect, are likely to far exceed the benefits.
“The analysis shows that the programme as currently structured is not working. It has no impact on employment; it leads to a small and transitory reduction in benefit receipt and, worst of all, it may even lead to those on the programme moving from jobseeker’s allowance to employment and support allowance.”
“It is highly commendable that the department has undertaken and published this analysis. It would be even better if that hadn’t been accompanied by a policy decision which seems to fly directly in the fact of the evidence. At at time of austerity, it is very difficult to see the justification for spending millions of pounds on a programme which isn’t working.”
But Grayling insisted the findings were not representative of reality:
“This was a scheme our own Jobcentre Plus advisers wanted to introduce. This impact analysis only covers the first three months of the programme a year ago and is already out of date.
“What it shows is we had teething problems in the first three months and, since then, we’ve taken a number of steps to tighten loopholes and are continuing to do so. It’s a relatively new and experimental scheme which is improving all the time.”
For months, Graduate Fog has challenged the flawed assumption that unpaid work leads to paid jobs. Why is the government insisting that they’re right on this, when they’re so clearly wrong? Back in March, we wrote that whether these placements are ‘voluntary’ or ‘mandatory’ makes no difference – unpaid work solves nothing. We have already seen from the scandal of unpaid internships that divorcing pay from work leads nowhere good. While it may seem like a good plan – and may benefit a few in the very short-term – over time it only makes things worse for jobseekers. Unpaid roles replace paid roles, meaning there are fewer paid jobs around – so the goalposts just move further away…
*DOES UNPAID WORK LEAD TO PAID JOBS?
What is your experience of working for free – did it lead you to paid work? How much unpaid work did you have to do before you found a salaried role? Or are you still looking? What is your message to Chris Grayling, who is clearly determined to continue with this work programme regardless of the evidence that it isn’t working?
I would disagree slightly with your statement that unpaid work solves nothing – More specifically, it is a great anti-fraud mechanism. If people are forced to work set hours, then they can’t be working on the side.
However, you’re right. The decision to continue down this workfare path that has been demonstrated clearly as failing in its objectives.
I wouldn’t even mind it so much if the work being done was for public good… If I was a jobseeker, and I was told I’d be doing 30 hours a week at a charity, or maintaining a public amenity (a park, etc), or something where I felt like I was benefiting society, I’d be far less bitter about it than if it were working for Tesco, etc.
The problem is these scehemes are robbing from the taxpayers to further line the pockets of greedy private organisations.
The decision to continue down this workfare path that has been demonstrated clearly as failing in its objectives… is clearly a form of madness!**
Its beein discussed on this site many times before, but I don’t agree that supplying unpaid workers (that should normally be paid) to charities is in the public benefit.
1. It undermines the wages of those workers who’s jobs they are replacing.
2. It encourages charities to misinterpret the National Minimum Wage Act.
3. It creates less paid jobs for the overall economy.
4. It creates less worker security and worker rights.
5. It may de-skill or dumb down certain jobs.
6. It may adversely affect one area of society more than others ie. the young.
I agree Derrick.
@Derrick, if people are forced to work set hours, then they are not unemployed. The whole point of JSA is to support people while they are out of work and looking for a job; therefore, if they are forced to work while being on JSA, the whole system becomes pointless. Besides, I don’t think fraud is as widespread as the Daily Mail keeps claiming, so I don’t see how punishing everyone on JSA for the crime of a few claimants is effective.
@ Kayla. I’m not sure I understand the point you are making.
FYI If people are forced to work set hours then under the NMW Act 1998 they will probably be classed as workers and therefore legally due the NMW. Workers cannot opt out of the NMW where it is due.
@Derrick, you may wish you cast your eyes over to s.3 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. Workfare is totally exempt from National Minimum Wage, regardless of set hours, set responsibilities, mutuality of obligation, etc. No person on workfare can legally challenge it from a NMW perspective.
Also, with regards to your comments on the charitable sector, I wasn’t suggesting for one minute that unpaid charitable work is an ideal – but it’s certainly more preferable to be providing that work to organisations which exist for I’d say, generally, unselfish motives rather than lining the pockets of private organisations.
The problems that you’ve highlighted about the charity sector exist *regardless* of workfare. Charities aren’t vanilla, but they’re a lesser evil than exploitative private organisations because they’re a regulated industry with tight rules on distribution of profits and wealth. Private organisations, however, are not.
Charities are getting worse, not better. Some regulation. The charities commission does not regulate on matters of employment law.
I did not say that charities are getting better, so I have no idea why you’d make it sound like I did.
And sure, the Charities Commission does not regulate on matters of employment law, but technically it does regulate it as a charitable organisation within the definition of the Charities Act 2006 which states that the purposes of the organisation must fall within one of the objectives in the charitable list (s.2(2)) and that the charity must be for a public benefit.
As a broad argument against exploitative charities, could it not be argued that the they are failing in their objective of public benefit by exploiting employment law the way they do?
Yes one could argue it, but I fear it would fall on stony ground since CC don’t regulate or rule on employment law. Thus you’d have to have won a case first and then bring the victory to CC before they would entertain any contention.
Volunteering should be made a part of the Jobseekers’ Agreement when a person begins to claim JSA. The Do-it volunteering website is organised like a vacancy noticeboard and so there’s something there for everyone, with a guideline of time put into volunteering each week. The personal and professional development benefits should be promoted and it’s a great way to ‘try out’ a career. The problem seems to be convincing the Jobcentre Plus that it is a genuine route to improving your CV and not just a way to avoid finding a job. The rules work to discourage volunteering, yet the government seems prepared to throw away millions on contracts to private sector employment organizations that have poor track records of getting people into sustainable employment. More help should be given at the beginning of unemployment and not 6-12 months down the line when the jobseeker has given up hope of getting a job.
Lets not be naively political here…. or ignore the fact that Labour introduced the insidious New Deal and Flexible New Deal, paying Welfare To Work Businesses £Billions up front (such as A4E and Working Links), and embedding Workfare within the UK Economy.
For anyone assigned to Mandatory Work Activity, and given that no Government will torpedo the practise now of its own volition, perhaps in addition to appealing against the ad-hoc decision of Admin Clerks within Job Centre Plus to assign a candidate to MWA, they should also approach the local Citizens Advice Bureau and/or Law Centre to assess whether or not they should launch a Judicial Review on the basis of the decision being illogical. Plus, if they are assigned, to instigate a claim for relevant pay.
After all, if Job Centre Plus have no logical or cohesive basis on which to assign a Graduate to MWA where there is no benefit to be gained, and if the candidate is expected to do a piece of work under the supervision of any employee, they may be instigate a claim for at least National Minimum Wage and/or to address the company adopting recruitment strategies designed to “obtain pecuniary advantage through deception” ie FRAUD.
http://www.publiclawproject.org.uk/downloads/GuideToJRProc.pdf
@Eowyn Rohan
Valid point on the judicial review, however…
Please stop referring to “obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception”. That offense no longer exists, and the offense of fraud (its replacement) would not cover what you’re suggesting.
I don’t have an issue with doing free work for charities, problem is when you have the major billion pound supermarkets and private firms filling there vacancies with unpaid staff, and the government picking up the tab.
Thank you very much, free staff who can be got rid of whenever the company feels like it, why bother go to the expense of paying people.
who wouldn’t take up the offer!!!!!
What Craig and other people fail to realise, is that the people who run the charities are millionaires? How else do you think they can afford to advertise on tv and have many stores?