What are FWers' opinions on the New Zealand Community Wage program? Sally >Comments: Authenticated sender is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: "vivian Hutchinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "The Jobs Letter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "The Jobs Letter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "The Jobs Letter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 15:46:05 +0000 >X-Distribution: Moderate >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Subject: "Voices" from The Jobs Letter No. 77, 27 April 1998 >Reply-to: "The Jobs Letter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Priority: normal > >V O I C E S >------------------ >from >T H E J O B S L E T T E R 0 7 7 >a subscriber-based letter >published in New Zealand 27 April 1998 > ------------------------------------- > >ON THE COMMUNITY WAGE > >"The Coalition Government's new direction in employment treats >job seekers as people, not numbers. It's a positive for the job- >seeker because they will receive a community wage in return for >participating in training, part-time community work, or other >activities, where they are provided. > >"The philosophy behind the community wage is to treat job-seekers >as similarly as possible to those in paid work, to maximise their >employability and work-readiness. This new direction is also >about changing attitudes towards the unemployed. It will help >keep job seekers connected to the workplace and community, to >maintain their motivation, and prevent loss of confidence, skills >and self esteem." -- Peter McCardle, Employment Minister > >"The scheme is the most draconian attack on the unemployed since >the forced work schemes of the 1930s. Forcing people to work for >income support under threat of losing their benefit is no >different than slave labour, and treats the unemployed and other >beneficiaries as criminals." -- Sue Bradford, veteran employment >activist and Auckland Unemployed Workers Rights spokesperson > >"Why would being forced to work in a low-skilled, >government-provided job as part of a work scheme be any different >from receiving a government-provided benefit? Neither the benefit >nor the community work was earned by the recipient on his or her >own merits. Thus it is difficult to see how either would help to >promote self-respect ." -- Nicola Reid, political studies student >University of Auckland > >"The sheer size and compulsory nature of the scheme makes it much >worse than the current Community Taskforce where the majority of >participants are happy to be there. The government is already >1,500 places or 23% behind on its pilot work-for-the-dole scheme, >and there is no way they will be able to get the 150,000 people >working for the dole if they rely solely on community groups to >provide places. They will have to get businesses such as Telecom >and Fletchers to employ thousands of free workers to get anywhere >near their target ." -- Rod Donald, Alliance employment >spokesperson > >"The scheme is a recipe for abuse. For a start, beneficiaries are >not employees. They do not get holidays, do not seem to be >covered by anti-discrimination laws, have no personal grievance >rights, and virtually no protection against sexual harassment. >The community work positions will not be there in the numbers >needed, and there will be displacement of real jobs ." -- Angela >Foulkes, Council of Trade Unions secretary > >"Mr McCardle's consuming passion for employment policy blinkers >him. The package is a personal triumph for the former Social >Welfare official and employment centre manager. > >"The evidence of his extraordinary single-mindedness is his >maiden speech to parliament eight years ago. The bulk of it reads >like a carbon copy of Wednesday's announcement ." -- John >Armstrong, political columnist > > > >FROM THE EDITORIALS > >"No-one believes Unemployment Minister Peter McCardle's >'community wage' scheme will be an overnight cure-all. There is >no magic wand, and improvements to the jobless statistics will be >slow-grown. But it is a start where it is desperately needed. > >"Just as the government's Code of Social Responsibility takes a >small step towards re-emphasising the individual and national >value of responsible parenting, so do the obligations of the >community wage scheme move towards reminding NZ'ers that >education and work, whether we like it or not, are the country's >cornerstones." -- editorial in The Daily News, 23 April 1998 > >"It must be remembered that people are out of work in the large >majority of cases because there is insufficient employment for >the available workforce. Under these circumstances,considerable >imagination will be required to ensure that the work, training or >''other organised activity' that Mr McCardle envisages will not >interfere with work already in limited supply for the employed. > >"At the same time, the occupations that community wage receivers >will be obliged to make themselves available for should not be of >a patronising or undignified nature. That would defeat the >purpose. Mr McCardle enters an area that has challenged many >before him -- and the country is no closer to a solution." -- >editorial in The New Zealand Herald, 23 April 1998 > >"As the Director-General of Social Welfare, Margaret Bazley, has >pointed out, some New Zealanders have never seen their parents >work, nor have they expected ever to work themselves. The idea >that the State will provide without demanding something in return >is well entrenched in some quarters. If Mr McCardle's scheme does >anything to combat that attitude, it will do some good. > >"The evidence abroad for workfare schemes is, in part, >encouraging. Several misconceptions stand in its way. One is that >all who receive the dole will get work in the private sector >eventually, a clearly impossible aim. But the schemes do >establish the principle that every family must send someone into >the workforce. Enforce that principle and some of those who are >work-shy and on welfare will try to find jobs. Others may choose >to live with breadwinners and raise children. In a society in >which everyone must nevertheless eventually make a contribution, >only children and the elderly can now realistically claim that >the State owes them a living." -- editorial in The Christchurch >Press, 23 April 1998 > >" By relying largely on voluntary organisations to help >administer the new scheme, the Government is shoving a problem on >to others' shoulders in order to find a solution to a social and >political difficulty. We do not doubt that these groups and the >work trusts do an excellent job with limited resources and in >often difficult circumstances. We question, however, whether it >is the function of charities or voluntary organisations to >provide employment, skills training or even opportunities for the >unemployed, let alone absorb even a fraction of the 60,000 >intended for the scheme in its initial year. > >"The lasting solution to unemployment in New Zealand is to create >real jobs by applying imaginative solutions to the problems of >joblessness, and measures to stimulate the productive expansion >of the economy. The scale of New Zealand's job-creation needs is >no minor matter. A minimum of 3% economic growth a year is >required to absorb the more than 20,000 new job-seekers each year >joining those already looking for work, and to pay for the >existing numbers of unemployed." -- editorial in The Otago Daily >Times, 24 April 1998 > >"There is no doubt that Mr McCardle's heart is in the right >place. The worry is that his colleagues have allowed his devotion >to his scheme to overrule their wiser heads. > >"Too often large-scale work schemes result in the redistribution >of unemployment rather than its reduction. Work which would >normally be done by unsubsidised workers is instead re-labeled >community work and given to the unemployed. That can be avoided >by rigorous controls, but that in turn means a new and expensive >layer of bureaucracy. > >"Then there are the extra costs, especially if the scheme is >widened in the imminent Budget to include those on other schemes, >such as the domestic purposes benefit. The US experience is that >the costs, such as the extra allowances and subsidies Mr McCardle >has already said will be paid, along with child-care expenses, >can almost double the amount spent on benefits." -- editorial in >The Dominion, 23 April 1998 > > > >F E A T U R E >------------------ > >PENALTIES FOR NOT TOWING THE LINE . >"two strikes and you're out ." > >* For leaving a permanent job voluntarily or being dismissed: > >A minimum of four weeks stand-down, maximum of three >months, depending on your past work record. > >* For refusing a suitable job offer: > >"First offence" -- one week's suspension, > >"Second offence" -- a stand-down of 1-3 months > >* For refusing to accept community work or training : > >"First offence" -- the community wage is stopped, but resumed >if you comply within seven days. If you do not, you go straight >to a 1-3 months stand-down. > >"Second offence" -- the community wage is stopped for a week >regardless of whether or not you comply within that time, >followed by a stand-down of 1-3 months if you continue to refuse >work or training. > >"Third offence" -- automatic stand-down of 1-3 months. > >* For "unsatisfactory performance" in community work or >training, or other work-test activities : > >A 40% reduction in your community wage. > >* For households with dependent spouses and children > >If the community wage-earner has had their "pay" withdrawn for >various offences, then the households with dependents will >continue to receive about half the normal community wage rate. >This will be about $130 a week for an unemployed household, but >even this will be paid in terms of a "special needs grant". > >* For an amnesty from penalties : > >Previous offences will be "wiped from the books" after a year and >a half of "good behaviour". > > > >STATISTICS THAT MATTER > >HOW MANY AND HOW MUCH ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? > >Registered unemployed at January 1998 >187,582 people >116,590 men and 70,990 women > >90,280 people registered for less than six months >71,850 people registered for between six months and two years >25,450 people registered for more than two years 11,000 people >registered for more than four years 1,080 people registered for >more than ten years > >25,625 people aged under 20 years >68,030 people aged 20-30 years >74,880 people aged 30-50 years >17,761 people aged 50-60 years >1,286 people aged over 60 years > >Unemployment Benefits >for single person aged 25 and over : $147.34 per week >for married couple with two or more children : $260.94 per week > > >C R E D I T S >------------------- >edited by Vivian Hutchinson for the Jobs Research Trust >P.O.Box 428, New Plymouth, New Zealand >phone 06-753-4434 fax 06-759-4648 >Internet address -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >The Jobs Letter -- an essential information and media watch on >jobs, employment, unemployment, the future of work, and related >economic and education issues. > >The Jobs Research Trust -- a not-for-profit Charitable Trust >constituted in 1994 to develop and distribute information that >will help our communities create more jobs and reduce >unemployment and poverty in New Zealand. > >Our internet website at > > http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/ > >contains our back issues and key papers, >and hotlinks to other internet resources. > >ends >------ > >The Jobs Letter >essential information on an essential issue >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >phone 06-753-4434 fax 06-759-4648 >P.O.Box 428 >New Plymouth, Taranaki, New Zealand > >visit The Jobs Research Website at >http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/ >
