Work for dole: Theory and Practice

James Higham gives us a good overview of the topic at Orphans:

This is where the gung-ho view "get the buggers off the public purse", a commendable view in terms of those scamming the system, is anything but commendable...*

Another one is the trend with the work programme firms of breaching their brief, which was to put people into sustained employment but instead forcing them, on pain of DWP sanctions, into non-jobs which last a few weeks or a month or two, causing two things to happen.

Firstly, the non-job means that, even with WTCs and other discounts, the person is bringing in about half of what he was before – he loses his rental accommodation and it puts him on the council’s doorstep, where the new trend is “shared accommodation”, as the council has sold off half its properties to pay for the Iceland debacle or whatever. Then he ends up on the DWP’s doorstep again, signing back on.

And this morning's Metro gives us a real life example:

Cait Reilly, who has been looking for work since leaving Birmingham University, was volunteering at a museum until she was ordered to take a work placement at a Poundland store in the city.

The geology graduate spent two weeks stacking shelves and sweeping floors after being told she could lose her benefits if she did not accept the ‘mandatory’ post. She is now asking the High Court to quash regulations that her lawyers claim were created by the government ‘without parliamentary authority’ and ‘forces people into futile, unpaid labour for weeks or months at a time’.

The 22-year-old, who was not offered an interview following her placement, told her Jobcentre Plus adviser of her previous retail experience and that she did not want to give up volunteering at the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery.

Those who watched that excruciating TV series "Fairy Jobmother" will be familiar with this. All the people for whom the government-funded but privately owned welfare-to-work agency Action4Employment found these unpaid work placements were - unsurprisingly - given their cards again after two or three weeks, i.e. as soon as the period was up for which A4E can collect the back-to-work success fee, giving them a total income of £234.3 million last year. Or possibly there is some employment law that would have given these placees employment rights after two or three weeks, such as the right, er, to be paid?

* As to the "scammers", this is yet another advantage of having a flat rate, weekly Citizen's Income for all, whether working, caring, studying, volunteering, actively looking for work or simply unemployed: there will be no need to take the moral high ground and distinguish between "the scammers who are claiming and working on the side" and the honest majority who are working and who are paid the Citizen's Income as well. Or to reduce churn, the honest majority could choose to have the Citizen's Income offset against their PAYE liabilties, like the Tax Credit in Ireland, only not quite so stingy.