For some months now the topic of whether or not the long-term unemployed should be made to work for their benefits has been tossed around Parliament. This weekend the debate surrounding the benefits reform re-ignited as the government looks to go ahead with their original proposals.  Here, we summarise exactly what the government are suggesting, outline different sides of the ‘compulsory community work’ argument being highlighted in the media, and ask, what do you think? Should the long-term unemployed be made to do community work for their benefits?

Background information

The UK currently has five million people on out-of-work benefits, with it recorded last year that three million working-age people had been receiving those benefits for two years or more. Government statistics further showed that 1.4million people have been on an out-of-work benefit for nine or more of the past ten years. The numbers mean that the UK has one of the highest rates of workless households in Europe; with 1.9m children living in homes where no-one has a job.

What exactly is being proposed?

To try and reduce these figures the government plan to make it compulsory for those unemployed on a long term basis (although ‘long-term’ has yet to be defined) to do community work, such as gardening, litter-picking or working with a charity.

Though the community work scheme is in the process of being officially outlined, initial submissions suggest that the placements will be more like ‘work experience’ than full-time jobs, lasting from two weeks to one month. The claimant would be expected to work a 30 hour week to allow them to “experience…the habits and routines of working life” again.

Any claimant who refused or failed to turn up to work on time could then have their £65 Jobseekers’ Allowance frozen for at least three months.

The ‘Work Activity scheme’ is said to be designed to help reduce welfare dependency, stop claimants from opting to take benefits rather than work, and flush out those claiming whilst doing undeclared jobs on the side.

Points against the proposal

- Unemployed people will be treated like prisoners – Community service is currently the most frequently used form of punishment for those convicted of a crime, with over 20,000 people given a community sentence last year. By making the unemployed also do community service, they are a) being “punished” in the same way as a convicted criminal, and b) reducing the impact of this prevalent court punishment for those that have caused a criminal offence.

- It will cause already vulnerable people into further despair – The Archbishop of Canterbury is against the proposals, saying he believes it could drive people “into a downward spiral of uncertainty, even despair.” He argued that people who are already genuinely struggling to find work and struggling to find a future do not need their unfortunate circumstances turned against them.

- It could cost lower sector workers their jobs – If the unemployed are made to do lower sector jobs such as litter picking and gardening, then the demand for people currently hired to perform such roles will lessen or even cease to exist. If those people then become unemployed, they could end up finding themselves doing the same role as before, but on a far smaller income provided by the benefit system.

-  It will force the wages of the average worker down – If people are made to work for free, then the whole employment system could end up restructuring.  Unemployed people, feeling that a certain job is more desirable than community work / that any money paid is better than nothing, may feel forced to accept jobs for less pay than other competitors. The result is that those competitors then also have to take less money to get another job, and so on and so on, eventually impacting the average workers wage bracket.

- Forcing people into work will mean they have less time to find better employment – People who are made to work 30-hour weeks will have less time to search and apply for job posts, meaning that they will be even more unlikely to acquire themselves a permanent position.

- It is slave labour – Forcing people to work for free is being deemed as unlawful and has been accused of being the modern day equivalent of ‘slave labour’.

Points for the proposal

- It will help to flush out ‘benefit scroungers’ – By making people do community service, it will teach those who have opted for a life on benefits rather than employment that they can no longer have their lifestyle funded by those that work. It will also put a stop to those claiming benefits whilst unlawfully working, as they will not be able to carry on their undeclared position whilst carrying out the compulsory work scheme.

- It is fairer to the taxpayer – The unemployed should give something back to those paying for their benefits by helping out in the community. There are many people who have never claimed jobseekers, and have always managed to maintain a working life even if they had to take less desirable positions. Why should they then fund people to ‘sit at home’ when these people could be filling many important roles within the community?

- Allows people to experience the workplace again – Danny Alexander, the Lib Dem Secretary to the Treasury, told the BBC’s Politics Show that the scheme was intended to “support and encourage”  people to get back into the habit of getting up and going out to work, rather than remaining isolated at home. He also said it would help people demonstrate their employability to prospective employers, after many employers said they look more favourably to people who had done some work recently than those who had been unemployed for a long time.

- It gives people more of a push to find something better employment wise – If people are forced to do jobs such as litter picking and gardening, then it may a) motivate them to up the job search to look for something better, or b) make them consider taking jobs which they may have previously felt were beneath them.

- Breaks the cycle of welfare dependency – With the current benefits system meaning that some claimants are no better off – and sometimes poorer – if they come off the dole to take jobs paying up to £15,000 a year, many have admitted they purposely didn’t take work offered to them. With the new system, those who refused to take work, take jobs that were offered to them or do voluntary work would have their handouts stopped, and so the cycle of welfare dependency at the taxpayer’s cost would come to an end.

- It will save money – 14% of Britain’s national income is currently spent on welfare. As the country struggles to pay back its £156 billion budget deficit, the benefits system is being seen as a significant area where costs can be reduced. Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary said, “The benefits system is a deeply ineffective and costly way of subsidising people’s lives. We obviously have a limited amount of money and our purpose is to improve the quality of life for the worst-off in society so they can play a part and hopefully pay tax one day themselves.’

What do you think? Let us know below!