Welcome to the New Statesman website. Please sign in or register to participate in the conversation.

The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

What community organising can teach workfare

The left can't afford to seem snobby about opportunities, but employers have obligations too.

The left can't afford to seem snobby about opportunities, but employers have obligations too.{C}

"I'll be part of history," says twenty-seven year old Jesus with a shy smile. He's just landed his first job as a caterer for the Olympics, but he didn't get it through conventional channels. His college told him about it, and the interview was held in his local church. Community organising is stepping up to the unemployment challenge.

"It was way different to a job centre," he says, "They just give you paper - these guys gave me a chance."

News that unemployment benefits might be cut off if claimants don't do unpaid work experience has infuriated the left this week. But the real crisis is not conditionality.

The biggest problem is that if you walk into a job centre, you often face a cold, bureaucratic system that treats you like a number rather than a human being.

London Citizens has found a way of doing things differently. An alliance of faith, community, union and civic groups, they have managed to place 1,200 people in jobs at the Olympic site in Stratford at a fraction of the cost of most corporate workfare giants.

They started by making announcements from the pulpits of churches, in classrooms and through their other member institutions. If you were looking for work, you were invited to screening events where local community leaders offered training and advice. If you were ready, you were given a formal interview.

The hollow transaction people were used to having with a stranger in a job centre was replaced with a conversation with someone they already knew and trusted. Holding the interviews in familiar locations meant that people performed with extra confidence.

"They were coming in with groups of friends excited to be in places they owned and belonged to", says Tricia Zipfel, a member of London Citizens who helped organise the scheme through her Hackney Parish, "There was a kind of ripple effect that went out when people told their friends they'd found work, and more kept coming."

In the end some 1,280 people got jobs out of 1,747 who participated. Many were in the "hard to reach" category, but London Citizens said it cost them an average of just £60 a place.

When employment contractors like A4e are facing corruption charges and the government's workfare programme seems expensive and non-transparent, this is a refreshing change.

Of course the Olympics are something of a special case. Employers are desperate to recruit, and the jobs they offer are often low skilled and time limited. Jesus said he was working "in catering", but he didn't know more than that. London Citizens succeeded in making sure all the jobs were living wage, but we need more information. At the moment their report for the IPPR is startlingly thin.

But as David Cameron's speech today shows, the left can't afford to seem snobby about opportunities. If the alternative is loneliness and under confidence in the home, there is a case for making work compulsory for those who are able. Responsibility is something all humans need to flourish; it's degrading to expect less.

What the right misses is that conditionality shouldn't stop with the claimant. Employers have obligations too. If you force people to work, it's fair to pay a living wage, and to offer genuine meritocracy. Few people mind going in at the bottom if there's a genuine chance of making it to the top. Employers should invest in their workforce and offer more than tick box training.

And government has certain conditions to meet too. We need to make sure that those at the bottom are given dignity in work and some kind of say over the bigger decisions in the company through genuine worker representation. The state also needs to provide the best investment, infrastructure and policy environment for businesses of all types, so we don't just have a low wage economy with low skilled jobs to offer.

When those conditions are met, conditionality on the claimant won't just cease to be a problem, it might not even be necessary.

Rowenna Davis is a councillor, journalist and author of Tangled up in Blue: Blue Labour and the Struggle for Labour's Soul, published by Ruskin Publishing at £8.99. She is also a Labour councillor.

Tags: unemployment

9 comments

woodsg's picture

'the left can't afford to seem snobby about opportunities'

Disappointed to read this, Rowenna. Point to a case where the left has said this and meant it. This is just a line used by the right to try and defend the indefensible. We shouldn't give it legitimacy.

Brillo's picture

I wish people would stop being complacent with the empty rhetoric around this. If someone does a job you pay them. No ifs or buts. Don't open the floodgates by saying this is okay. The only sentence worthwhile here is the following:

"If you force people to work, it's fair to pay a living wage, and to offer genuine meritocracy".

Again, the take home message, if someone does a job, you pay them.

Sir Michael's picture

Since when has objecting to slavery been considered "snobby"?

There is no "opportunity" in working, without a wage, to support the wealth of a corporation which makes 3.8 billion in profits.

That is humiliating and is an assault on human dignity, it is effectively slavery. It is truly disheartening to see the drip drip drip of the Conservatives have unbalanced the debate on this.

karmar's picture

Jobcentres don't exist to help people get jobs, impersonal or not. They exist to make life on JSA so unpleasant that you will stop claiming, or to catch you doing something wrong so that they can stop your claim. They're certainly not there to help, in my experience.

nourredine's picture

In the bible god created human being.
So we are not born to work, but conditioned to work, therefore a decent wage is the minimum and only guaranty to work.

Psyfeesh's picture

On a tangent, I would be interested to see how much the wages bills have dropped at these employers since taking on additional "voluntary" labour.
Because if employers are using these people to plug financial gaps, then imho, it is nothing short of slavery and our government is guilty of sanctioning it.

Nigel's picture

And here we see the Left's biggest problem, that when someone thoughtfully tries to start a honest open debate about a major issue that we need to address, the reaction is often overly defensive.

I'm not convinced any element of compulsion is ever going to be productive, but unless we can discuss issues like that without descending into pejoratives and overreaction, we're doomed to be an irrelevant spent force while the Right seizes the day.

And let's not act as though Rowenna is endorsing the current scheme; she states very clearly that a living wage is a basic requirement for any work.

Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley's picture

What a load of mumbo jumbo..

"If the alternative is loneliness and under confidence in the home, there is a case for making work compulsory for those who are able. Responsibility is something all humans need to flourish; it's degrading to expect less."

Our public space is built on voluntarism. Compulsion is a figment of the minds of those who seek to over-regulate the public, unnecessarily and inappropriately.. and at the moment this seems manifested by people who are employed to think one's personal business is actually their business - and just because they've got some fancy trendy employment contract ( the so-called executive effect) they're gonna hold this against us not openly as a grudge - but perhaps by defuinition as a "nudge" ( according to the latest surreptitious working practices)

Thus said, one's being lonely or flourishing at home or otherwise remains one's personal business - We should be careful who we give our data to.. See the EU justice commissioner re; data control.

Of course human beings need to flourish but what's that got to do with responsibility? Responsibility is a charge - how on earth can a charge flourish-- like some green shoot? Or something to do with this blame/compensation culture that's swamping the balance of our works and lives?

Responsibility and accountability at home, personally or domestically is one's own flourishing or even lonely business.It's no reason to force somebody to go to work.

One wonders what or who is responsible for such pretentious, preposterous terminology.
- It's these fallacious notions about compulsory work/forcing others to work that are degrading. Perish the thought!

Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley's picture

And another thing - what concerns me most seriously, in view of that awful image of the tesco advert for unpaid night shift work that's been going about on-line- is how these people are classed statistically?

the tesco job advert shows this unpaid work to bear a SOC code ( standard occupational classification) of 0. Nothing.

Remember the old saying" you can take owt from nowt"?

So-called schemes like this may completely take for granted one's basic liberty of being counted significantly at all.. never mind acknowledged as an individual human being with a right to a decent and properly defined and remunerated work/life balance.

Post new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Latest tweets