Tuesday’s Times has an article from John Bird, the founder and editor in chief of the Big Issue, praising the unpaid work placement scheme.
Bird hits out at those who oppose it as “middle class liberals” who have never had “a spell of unemployment”.
This is naive. The Twittersphere has been full of people tweeting about how while they oppose workfare; they have had plenty of low-paid jobs.
From following them, many are working class and some are currently unemployed.
I’ve also spoken to people who are not middle class or liberal and are opposed to workfare.
I am middle class, and some of my political views could be considered liberal. Some would not. But I have known the harsh reality of unemployment.
I know all about how it hurts to spend eight hours a day surfing for jobs, writing lengthy applications forms and setting up interviews, only to read that research has found that “most jobseekers only spent eight minutes a week looking for work.”
I’ve put a suit on and travelled all over London to job interviews.
While I was unemployed (which was not more than a few months) I volunteered at a local MIND service, and even though I cannot work at the moment I am volunteering for two days a week, and enjoying it.
So I know what it is like to be unemployed.
I know how work can often be fulfilling, and I agree with John Bird that you should take any paid job to get off benefits.
However, Bird does not consider how getting people on workfare to stack shelves – something you do not need eight weeks’ training for – may mean supermarkets do not take on paid staff.
He also does not consider that work experience – paid and unpaid (the latter for a much shorter duration than eight weeks) is taking place outside of the workfare scheme. This experience, however, is not mandatory and there is no penalty for leaving, unlike workfare
Why get Cat Reily to work for free in Poundland when she already has extensive retail experience and wants to broaden her CV so she can find a job?
If someone is working for five days a week for a corporation, they should be paid the national minimum wage, not £67.50 a week.
Indeed, paid work experience could save the taxpayer money, as we would not need to pay JSA for the time the person was taking part in work experience.
The company would pay them instead. And, if as they say some of these placements lead to jobs, why would the company not want to invest in them?
Bird is also wrong on the benefit cap.
He does not consider that people who rented in expensive areas while they were working are unable to move to a cheaper house once they are on benefits as landlords/landladies and letting agencies will usually not take on tenants on benefits.
He also does not consider that people on ESA, a benefit paid to those who are currently not able to work, are not excluded from the cap.
John Bird’s Big Issue has made a difference to the lives of many homeless people.
I see the pride in their eyes when they sell me a copy, from St Aldates to Seven Sisters. But John Bird is wrong on the benefits cap and workfare.