Some long-term recipients of unemployment benefits in Britain will soon be told they either must do 120 hours of community service during four weeks, or go without for the next three months. Or at least that’s what Work & Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith wants. The plan is excellent, and, once reworked for our own country and perhaps extended to other benefits, begs for a chance in America.
Yes, many of the unemployed, both here and there, have been honestly straining after work; these days are hard. But it’s still fair to have them do something in return for taxpayers’ dollars, particularly while municipalities trim budgets.
Wouldn’t that be contradictory: cutting government jobs while forcing the unemployed to do work in return for benefits? Certainly, but cuts will happen regardless, as will unemployment checks, so we should make the best of things. Some local governments would take advantage of this situation to cut more jobs, but a well-run program could stifle that.
Properly implemented, this scheme might actually dig up better jobs through new experience and skills, for there is no reason why this would be chain-gangs exhausted by brutally stupid busy work as deputies frown down from their horses.
Could it cut at the dignity of the unemployed, already wounded by compulsory idleness? One would think it could heal their dignity with a socially sanctioned way to give back, and real work to occupy anxious minds, despite what the crying hearts and bleeding eyes might say about “a downward spiral of uncertainty, even despair;” surely getting outside and working with your hands does not cause emotional catastrophe.
And precisely to prevent this, it is vital to tear away all connotations of penalty, to clarify that this is not the justice of punishment but of repayment, not the rehabilitation of those who lost their way but of those who lost their money. It would, in fact, be much better to use some other term than “community service,” but we are sure that the inventors of “quantitative easing” are up to the task.
Considering the benefits, why isn’t everybody already out there volunteering? Because, strangely enough, people don’t always do what’s good for them. Perhaps they have misconceptions, thinking it’s something for yuppies, or that they’ll not make a difference. Maybe it’s always in intention and never in practice — something we are all guilty of.
Whatever the reason, the common good and the individual good are united in dragging us to the conclusion.
And what about that controversial group of disputed size, the everlasting sponges, the cheat who shoots dice for food stamps, the scoundrel who works a cash-only job or deals dope and still gets benefits, the perpetual beneficiaries of public assistance, who did indeed ask, “why bother working for a living when you can play this great welfare game?” Many will assert their scarcity, but nobody will deny their existence, who put such stigma on the system that the truly needy are either unjustly suspected or shamed unfairly into not taking their lawful benefits.
This plan can’t end benefits fraud but could dampen it by shrinking the incentives, making the deliberately unproductive contribute and “experience the habits and routines of working life,” while a time conflict could force people who work off the books to lose the wage or the benefits, either directly reducing payout, or opening a job to another who can be taken off the long list of the unemployed. What is more, it could be used to extend benefits and still discourage chronic unemployment.
Although complicated and questionable, this scheme deserves serious thought and at least a limited trial run. Like anything else, it has room for abuse and unintended consequences, but the “volunteering” of those in long-term unemployment has a unique and intriguing application.
— Gerard Keiser, linguistics and classical languages junior
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
SgtB 1 year, 6 months ago
I suggest that we just stop all of the social welfare programs period. If someone doesn't work, they don't earn a living. Let charity take care of the "unfortunate." Not government mandate.
Osborne_Black 1 year, 6 months ago
great article
kdbp1213 1 year, 6 months ago
what a concept. one actually works for his/her paycheck. who would've thought???
maybe if more people actually worked for their paycheck, we could lower the welfare rolls suggesting we pay fewer taxes suggesting we have bigger paychecks suggesting we have more money for spending suggesting more money is in our so-called free-market economy suggesting a more financially healthy usa suggesting the usa is a financial super-power again.
again, what a concept. one actually works for his/her paycheck..........