| Workfare |
Website Links For Workfare |
Information AboutWorkfare |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT WORKFARE | |
| welfare | |
|
GOALS OF WORKFARE The main goal of a workfare system is to allow current recipients of welfare to make more of a "net contribution" to society as a whole. They primarily aim to do this by getting unemployed people into paid work, reducing or eliminating the amount of welfare paid to them and giving them an income from which they will pay tax. Furthermore, it is argued that once a person has recent employment experience, even at entry level, they are more likely to obtain more 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 can become a way of life. 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 their money, making such programmes 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. OPPOSITION Opponents to workfare systems argue that there are many flaws in the various rationale and that many of the consequences of placing such a burden on society's lower classes outweigh the perceived benefits. One of the main arguments against workfare is that it 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 being a waste of money, 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 extra expense 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 labour intensive in nature. It is argued that the creation of this artificial lower-class adds to the Stigma that welfare recipients are lazy, unmotivated, and would do nothing unless the state intervened. 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 Mother s. 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 unfairly punished for issues that are out of their control. SEE ALSO |
|
|