The Metropolis

Benefits of work: why the Tory welfare plan won’t work

Cila Warncke | Sunday 5 September, 2010 20:33

When the conservatives start muttering about work and welfare, pay attention; the sheep’s clothing phraseology generally masks wolfish intent. Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith’s recent consultation paper, 21st Century Welfare (DWP: “21st Century Welfare”, Crown Copyright, 2010) is a fine example of reasonable-seeming Tory policy that doesn’t bear close examination.

“The overly bureaucratic benefits system can act as a barrier to work,” he argues (“21st Century Welfare”, p. 5). Sure it can but, statistically speaking, it’s far more likely that lack of jobs is a barrier to work. According to Government statistics the unemployment rate has decreased slightly to 7.8%. Comparatively speaking, that’s good news. It is meaningless in absolute terms, however, as the vacancy rate currently stands at just under 500,000 jobs for nearly 2.5 million unemployed.

Unless the Tories can do some loaves and fishes shit with that statistic the biggest obstacle to paid employment is going to be – surprise, surprise – lack of paid employment.

Blaming benefits and “institutionalised” idleness is a hell of a lot more political fun, however, and allows the Tories to ignore the hard realities of the free-market system they so enthusiastically embrace. The whole point of capitalism, remember, is the accrual of capital. By definition, reward in under this system is unequally distributed. According to the Tories and their ilk this should serve as an incentive to work and get rich. Unfortunately a system predicated on inequality cannot deliver equality of opportunity, therefore motivation becomes a moot point. Any halfbright soul can see that success in our economic system is principally dictated bot by effort but by a number of factors largely outside of an individual’s control: age, gender, education, disability status, geographic location and race, to name a few.

Underpinning Tory ideology is the notion, ominously spelt out by IDS that people “will be expected to seek work and take work when it is available” (“21st Century Welfare”, p. 1). Sounds harmless, right? If people need jobs they should take what’s on offer. The sting in the tail of this particular serpent is that it creates a system where employers have all the power. Look at the numbers again: roughly 2.5 million jobless competing for 500K jobs. As one small business owner told me recently: “I used to have dozens of applications for every job I advertised, now I have hundreds”. Another said: “People offer to work for me for free, just to get a foot in the door.” If the Government forces people to take any available job working conditions and compensation are going to degrade in inverse proportion to the availability of workers. Why should a profit-seeking employer pay a living wage, or offer a permanent contract, when they have an unlimited supply of desperate workers? (If you are at all unclear as to how this plays out, read Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle.)

Cutting back benefits will not reduce the “’staggering’ 1.4 million [Brits] on benefits for nine or more of the last 10 years”. (Helene Mulholland, “Iain Duncan Smith reveals radical benefits plan”, Guardian, 30 July 2010) Pouring more bodies into an already saturated labour market has the opposite effect, increasing competition for even the most menial jobs to a level that completely excludes the long-term jobless. According to statistics from the Higher Education Policy Institute the graduate unemployment rate has jumped by 25% to hit 14%. (BBC News, 4 July 2010) Given the vast oversupply of highly-educated labour no employer is going hire someone who has been on the dole for five years.

Making work pay is fine rhetoric but it is fantasy to expect a profit-motivated private sector with an excess labour supply to deliver a society where work pays. As long as workers are superfluous, work cannot provide dignity and livelihood.

cilwarncke.wordpress.com

---