Published on February 24th, 2012 | by Glenn Coleman-Cooke
Image © Imagine, if you will, the sheer scale of righteous indignation from those of a Guardian-reading disposition if someone were to publicly suggest, say, that slavery wasn’t that bad, that it was pretty much the same as doing work experience in a supermarket. Even if they acknowledged that there are some differences, such as the trip from Africa being even more stressful than the commute to an out of town retail park, and accepted that there was a considerable difference in working conditions, the many levels of ignorance implicit in such a statement would surely raise the ire of those who enjoy being offended by such things. Why then has there been no outcry about the flood of silly hyperbole coming from the opponents of work experience for jobseekers?  Notwithstanding  the crossover between these two groups, the answer seems to be that if one is sanctimonious enough, and never wavers  from one's ideological fervour for even a moment, then one can bulldoze through inconvenient facts by sheer force of will. Take for instance the cornerstone of the objections: the fact that people are being forced en masse to work  for private companies against their will (leaving aside points like freedom to quit as so blindingly obvious that they can be taken as read). While this is certainly an emotive argument in any society that values individual freedom, it does have the considerable disadvantage of being totally untrue on two levels. The main reason this myth seems to be widespread is the case of Cait Reilly, the melodramatic geology graduate who has made headlines by suing the government for “forced labour”. Newspapers being as they are, this is the phrase at the top of every article, as it sounds suitably dramatic, and the finer points are often glossed over. If one takes a closer look, things appear rather different. The program on which Miss Reilly was enrolled, the work experience scheme, was in fact voluntary, with no compulsion to take part, only an agreement that if you do agree to go on the programme, and continue with it past the one week cooling off period, then you must see your obligation through, or risk losing money. This kind of arrangement sounds reasonable to me, and while Miss Reilly claims that she was not informed whether the placement was compulsory or not, even if this is true that makes the issue one of specific incompetence, not government policy. While there is such a thing as “mandatory work activity”, this is generally reserved for the most useless and obstinate claimants, or as the DWP puts it, those who “fail to demonstrate the focus and discipline that is a key requirement of finding and retaining employment”. The second flaw in the forced labour argument is the blindingly obvious fact that asking someone to do something in exchange for money is not forcing them. If you do not wish to undertake these programmes, even “mandatory” work activity, you do not have to, you will simply not be given any more taxpayers money.  You are simply being asked to perform certain tasks in exchange for certain monies, and if you believe that such an arrangement is not the most advantageous available to you then you are welcome to try your luck elsewhere. If however it is, then get on with it and hope something better comes along. The fact of the matter is that this scheme demonstrably works, with over 50% of participants coming off benefits as a result of it, and to suggest that it should be abandoned because you find it demeaning is not only patently absurd, but symptomatic of the trend for gross self-pity that blights modern society. Now contrary to the impression I may have given thus far, I do sympathise with Cait Reilly (nonwithstanding my contempt for 99% of people litigating on the basis of "human rights") and many like her in a similar position, as I may be in the same position myself at some point. I too am a graduate on job seekers allowance, and If I got told I had I to work at Poundland I would not like it. I would probably grumble to my parents about it being a waste of time. What I would never do however is be so pompous as to suggest that the job centre were not entitled to compel me to do so, and nor would I imagine I was entitled to other people’s money with no strings attached. If you want the money you must accept the conditions, whatever you may think of them.