Both the UK and France have come up with plans for this over the past week, limiting access to benefits for the unemployed.
The French have gone for a definition of the rights and duties of the unemployed, which link receiving benefits to whether or not the unemployed person rejects a reasonable offer of work. The reasonable offer is defined and changes with time, so that shortly after being laid off, you have the right to expect at least 95% of your previous salary, but after a year, a reasonable job will pay you the same or more as your benefits rights. Similarly the distance you have to travel to a suitable offer is defined and does change over time, the reasonable limit being an each way journey of 1 hour by public transport or over 30 kilometres each way, whichever is longer. This system does bring a certain level of bureaucracy, as one would expect from the French, but the travel limits are interesting in a country where it is assumed you will go home for a full four course lunch.
The British "Work for Benefits" plan was revealed on Monday, and has the support of New Labour and the Conservatives (spooky). It aims to reduce the number of people receiving benefits and will look at Job-seekers Allowance as well as Incapacity Benefits. I have a few concerns about work to receive benefits - whose jobs are being taken to do this work? If people are removed from benefits but can't find work, how do they live?
While there are undeserving poor out there, there are also deserving poor who need help. I have a neighbour who is an alcoholic. He keeps being put in prison, but unless the underlying causes of his alcoholism are addressed, he is incapable of functioning according to the norms of society, so comes out, re-offends and is straight back in prison as a recidivist.
What jobs are we prepared to put people out of, in order that people on benefits can do that work? This is a similar problem to what do we do with people who are given community orders instead of prison sentences. Are these people taking jobs that others might find a good market niche and profitable for themselves?
I try not to push Internet sites that are not mainstream, but the Daily Mash had an extreme but amusing take on what the unemployed might do, and it definitely struck a chord with me. Are we pushing people into meaningless activities to justify their benefits, and if we aren't, have we just displaced a problem?
Comments