Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
10November 2014
for work, but since Pathways to Work
has given power to social welfare offices to
oblige clients to attend meetings, seek work,
take internships, join schemes, acquire work
experience and accept job offers, no matter
how unsuitable. Of course, many officers
apply the policies sensibly and humanely,
but this October the Taoiseach and Tánaiste
announced that the long-term unemployed
would now be the target of intensified inter-
vention. , people will be assessed
by case-officers, directed to re-training
and generally cajoled and coerced into tak-
ing whatever work is available.
Furthermore, the business of
‘returning people to work’ will
be out-sourced to private com-
panies, which will be rewarded
as people take up and retain
posts.
Does Pathways to Work
really work? Even the govern-
ment hedges its bets, by stating
that positive trends in employ-
ment growth “…are arguably
due, at least in part, to the pro-
gramme of work mandated by
Government under Pathways
to Work and the Action Plan for
Jobs”. To analyse ‘the precise
impact’ a systematic study will
be initiated.
It is disappointing that no
analysis of the impact of a pilot
or trial run of these policies
was made, as was done in the
UK. Instead, these policies are
nationwide and pervasive, for good or for
ill.
So, is an increase in employment due to
Pathways? Here we must be wary of ‘post
hoc ergo propter hoc’ arguments: that is,
the presumption that something which
precedes something causes it. According to
the Quarterly National Household Survey,
P
ROTECTION’ can sometimes be a
euphemism for threats. A classic mafia
racket is to ask businesses for money
in exchange for ‘protection’, which is actu-
ally a threat of violence for non-payment.
However, the extortion is dressed up as a
community service.
Recently, social welfare in Ireland has
turned into a ‘protection’ racket. While
officially called the ‘Department of Social
Protection’, its protection comes with
threats attached. Unlike the mafia, these are
not even thinly-veiled threats. Unemployed
people with no other means are
monitored, assessed and ordered
a r ou n d u nd er t he t h re a t o f h a v in g
their welfare payments reduced
by 1 or suspended for up to
nine weeks. Almost every single
communication carries a threat,
for instance:
“If you fail to attend, your
jobseeker’s payment may be
reduced or stopped completely.
Your payment may also be
reduced or stopped completely
if you refuse to co-operate with
Employment Services in its
efforts to arrange employment,
training or education opportu-
nities for you”.
Like the mafia, this new ‘pro-
tection’ racket is in the business
of making people offers they
can’t refuse.
Of course, those on social
welfare receive money from the
Department of Social Protection. If they
didn’t, they would be completely destitute.
Therefore, the threats to reduce or rescind
welfare entitlement are threats to expose
people to hunger, cold and homelessness. It
is not a humane policy, even if it is dressed up
as “helping people to return to work”.
Jobseekers were always obliged to look
the most reliable figures on employment
and unemployment, in employment
grew by ,, and in by ,. In
, the figure will probably be between
the two. This is not an accelerating growth in
jobs; in fact, since the population is expand-
ing and emigration decreasing, growth in
employment is scarcely keeping pace with
demography.
However, the main point is that in ,
jobs were created, despite the fact that there
were only a handful of social welfare offices
operating the Pathways programme of moni-
toring and sanctions. These Intreo offices in
Sligo, Arklow, Tallaght, and Dublin’s King’s
Inns Street were opened in October, and
surely cannot be the cause of , new
jobs. So, jobs in would have happened
anyway. saw the ‘roll-out’ of dozens
of Intreo offices across the state, and coin-
cided with an increase in jobs growth. Yet,
this jobs growth has flat-lined even though
the ‘roll-out’ continued through . So
there is not even a clear correlation between
the nationwide implementation of Pathways
and growth in jobs, much less causality.
Yet it is still quite possible that Pathways
does make people work. It mightn’t actu-
ally create jobs, unless one counts shifting
Pathways to Work effects are unclear though
it forces people to take work and join
schemes, and assails their morale.
By Tom Boland
The social
‘protection’ racket
gonna
make
offers
they
can’t
refuse
The business
of ‘returning
people to
work’ will be
out-sourced
to private
companies,
who will be
rewarded as
people take
up and retain
posts
“
NEWS SOCIAL PROTECTION
November 2014 11
people onto CE and Tús schemes or JobBridge
and Gateway internships; but this is more
like free labour for employers or public bod-
ies. However, what it may do is place such
pressure on people that they are willing to
travel abroad or to cities in order to find
work. It could also ensure that people must
either take a job or become destitute, so that
night-work, poorly remunerated strenuous
manual labour, unpredictable ‘zero-hour
contracts’ or sales-on-commission jobs
become compulsory.
Simultaneously, Joan Burton has aspi-
rations for the creation of a ‘living-wage’
sufficient for a decent standard of living in
Ireland, yet the Pathways system in real-
ity means that jobseekers must accept any
job at the minimum wage, which is scarcely
enough.
Without having access to the case files of
hundreds of thousands of job-seekers, we
cannot be sure if Pathways has really made
a difference for individuals actually secur-
ing a job, nor can we know how many people
have accepted work – or internships – only
because of the threat of sanction. But over-
all, it is clear that Pathways pressurises
the unemployed and guarantees a steady
stream of applicants to any job, no matter
how difficult or unappealing. The overall
effect may actually be the reduction of the
Live Register by forcing thousands of peo-
ple to take on and repeatedly quit dead-end
jobs that are monotonous, unfulfilling and
poorly remunerated.
Research carried out recently at Waterford
Institute of Technology with long-term
unemployed people showed several prob-
lems with Pathways. Firstly, they are quite
aware that they are being coerced to seek
work, regardless of whether it is suitable in
the long term; for instance, one man was told
to attend an interview or lose his benefits,
despite having no experience or interest in
the job – and little to no chance of succeed-
ing in the interview. Another described the
panic and desperation of “frantically seeking
work”, under increased pressure from the
dole office. Others pointed out that they were
being shifted from category to category just
to move them off the Live Registrar figures. A
sense of being under suspicion by the officers
who supposedly served them as ‘clients’ was
clear. For instance one man wished to work
as a volunteer, but was treated as though he
was attempting to defraud the office. Many
spoke of unemployment as depressing; some
older workers said they were “on the scrap-
heap”, others said their life was on hold, and
many that they felt “worthless”. The ques-
tion that we can’t quite answer is whether
they would feel the same if there was less
pressure from the social welfare office.
A final consequence, found in dozens of
interviews is that the pressure from the
welfare office tended to make people revise
downwards their ambition as to what kind
of work they would accept; as one woman
said, “you’d do anything, bar prostitution…
cleaning toilets, whatever”. It is only in this
sense that Pathways creates jobs – by mak-
ing unemployment so unpleasant that people
are willing to do any job whatsoever.
Many issues cloud the question of social
welfare policy. Commentators and ordinary
people are worried about the economy, the
national debt, increased tax bills, the social
housing crisis, water charges and so forth.
Comparisons to other countries are com-
plex. How to reduce unemployment is a
vexing question. Political parties have dif-
ferent positions and agendas.
However, beyond all of these technical
questions and agendas, there are ethical
questions. Should the state threaten its
own citizens? Should the state coerce cit-
izens to engage with the labour market?
There are no clear rights to social welfare
benefits enshrined in the constitution or in
law. Ireland is slowly following the exam-
ple of the US, Australia and UK, where
unemployed people are increasingly coerced
or abandoned.
The UN Universal Declaration of Human
Rights maintains the right of all human
beings to food, clothing and shelter and
also “the right to work and to free choice of
employment”. If people are entitled to basic
sustenance from the state, the question is
whether they have the right to
refuse offers of employment
which do not appeal to them.
Clearly, our current govern-
ment does not believe so, and
will coerce them to apply for
jobs and re-train regardless of
their ideals.
If people are permitted to
choose subsisting on € a
week rather than taking up
unattractive employment,
then taxpayers must support
them. This is socially benefi-
cial because it allows people
the freedom to shape their own
lives. The labour market is not a ‘free mar-
ket’ unless people can choose not to accept
work. Freedom depends on unconditionality.
Indeed, people make their most productive
contribution to society where their work is
chosen and meaningful. In the rare situa-
tion that employers cannot get workers,
they need to offer greater pay, greater ‘com-
pensation’, because clearly the work is so
unpleasant it demands it.
Beyond ‘fixing’ the economy, the social-
welfare system is an expression of the kind
of society we value.
If we really value individual liberty,
whatever about equality or fairness, then
coercion is out. If we are really humane, then
we redistribute our wealth not just in order
to facilitate ‘getting people back to work’,
but to provide for people in need no matter
what choices they make.
If we really believed in equality, we’d
raise the level of social welfare – especially
for younger citizens, whose welfare entitle-
ments have been decreased as though they
were less worthy. If we really believed in
inclusivity, we’d extend welfare payments
and the right to work, to asylum-seekers.
Social welfare exists to protect the vul-
nerable from the choice between work and
hunger; it is the difference between a civi-
lised state and a protection racket. •
Tom Boland lectures in Sociology at Waterford
Institute of Technology. He is co-editor and
author with Ray Griffin of ‘The Sociology of
Unemployment’, forthcoming in 2015 with
Manchester University Press; and co-ordinator
of the Economy and Society Summer School.
The labour
market is not a
“free market”
unless people
can choose not
to accept work
“
