The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The rhetoric of welfare 'tough love' > Comments

The rhetoric of welfare 'tough love' : Comments

By Rachel Siewert, published 16/5/2011

The use of the phrase ‘tough love’ to describe the latest wave of mostly punitive welfare reforms makes me cringe.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
"To see a Labor Prime Minister intentionally trotting out statements which play to popular stereotypes of disadvantaged Australians is a disappointing state of affairs"

Well said Rachel - and it needs to be said loud and clear. But disappointing? Yes but I'd go further - really disgusting that the once proud and compasssionate ALP can descend to this. The attacks on the disadvantaged go on and on. So many of us rejoiced at the end of Howard but it was not the end of Howardism.

Where is the compassion that a rich country like Australia could exercise? How can that be rekindled? Where has the fair go gone? Can we get it back?

Gavin Mooney
Posted by guy, Monday, 16 May 2011 9:23:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia needs a Labor Party.
Posted by david f, Monday, 16 May 2011 10:16:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The ALP has really lost its way over the past decade.

"The biggest barrier is not the reluctance of people to work. It is the reluctance of employers to take the 'risk' of employing them. This is the reason why this ‘tough love’ rhetoric is so counter-productive."

And that is the crux of the problem. Those who can work, even part-time are not given the opportunity and many people fall through the cracks. Part of living in a First World civilised society is also accepting some people may never be able to work or they are caring for someone who is permanently disabled and ongoing support will be required.

Many years ago I had a medical condition and found it hard to find work that suited my particular medical requirements. I asked for help and was told I was not disabled enough to access those services which help disabled people find work nor when I explained my condition to employers were they willing to take me on. In the end I hid the illness as best I could and ensured any job I applied matched my needs. For the most part it turned out fine.

In the end I did not need the support but it would have made my job in finding work much easier. I was also a hidden statistic being supported at that time by my husband and receiving no other benefits. We were both fine with that, it wasn't about receiving financial support it was about finding suitable work.

Thankfully the condition has much improved and I can now work almost like a 'normal' person with less restrictions, but the experience gave me real insight to other people whose conditions, much worse than mine, can be shoved into the too hard basket.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 16 May 2011 10:16:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good article Rachel. But what about trying to make the most of a bad situation? If Labor wants to get its 'work for the dole' 'reforms' through, demand reform of Newstart as part of the package. Demand $50/week more basic Newstart payment, and $100/week more for those working two days a week... Reform of Newstart is long overdue, and these proposals may create such public sympathy that there may be support for reform...
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Monday, 16 May 2011 11:32:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*and ensured any job I applied matched my needs. For the most part it turned out fine.*

Ah there you go Pelican, you managed to solve it all by yourself.
No need for the Govt to hold your hand.

The Nappy State is not the answer. People need to learn to change
their own.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 16 May 2011 12:35:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yaby there are really two options on this issue:

a) Take your approach and let people sort it out themselves. When they can't, pay them welfare to make up for it, potentially for the rest of their lives. The more people who end up like this, the more you start to see entire suburbs that have never worked, and will never work. Guess what happens to health, crime, education etc in those, and the surrounding areas? Also, it becomes pretty expensive.

b) Take a look at who is not employing people at risk of long term disadvantage, and make them.

First step - look at the public service. What efforts have they made to employ the long term unemployed, single mums and the disabled?

Next step - top 100 companies in Australia - if anybody has the knowhow to make it work they do. Ask them what the issue is. Figure it out.

The second approach may cost more in the short term, but it costs a lot less in the long term. It does not hold people's hands or change their nappies as you suggest. It simply removes some of the barriers when they are so large as to be immovable by the individual alone. It is better for all of us that way.

On the one hand we are saying there are not enough workers - so we need to go and get them from somewhere else. On the other hand we are saying that for some people it is simply too hard to employ them. That is not a rational or dignified response.

Well said Rachel.
Posted by NaomiMelb, Monday, 16 May 2011 1:45:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Take a look at who is not employing people at risk of long term disadvantage, and make them.*

Hang on NaomiMelb, we are not a communist State!

Employers choose to risk their life savings in their businesses,
they are not compelled to. They are thus free to hire who they
see is fit for the job. Govt has made it harder to fire people.
No wonder employers are cautious. If they get it wrong, their
business can go down the toilet.

So you have two choices. Make it easier to fire people, then
employers will be less cautious and take a chance.

Or the Govt can hire them, train them etc.

You have as little right to compel employers to hire somebody,
as I have the right to take money from your bank account to
hire them.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 16 May 2011 2:22:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I did work it out myself Yabby but it was a hard slog and some assistance would have made a difference probably ensuring I was back in the workforce sooner. Not everyone has the same skills and abilities.

If I was not lucky enough to have an understanding husband I would have been on welfare costing the taxpayer more money. I would not want that as anything but a last resort. I suspect people with disabilities cost much less to taxpayers than the numerous bail outs, farming subsidies or business incentives costing the taxpayer millions of dollars per year.

No-one seems to balk at the humane approach to disaster relief yet the idea of someone with a disability receiving support is met with howls of indignation.

I am not advocating a Nanny State in the extreme sense that you suppose, only a basic safety net. In fact there are many areas in which I think governments should not be involved particularly as there are so many demands now on the public purse, the most essential of services are degraded. You may not agree, but I think one of the essential services is community support for those who for some reason cannot work. Otherwise we would not be much better than the Third World where many people live in poverty and on the streets. Not something to aspire to as the impact snowballs and affects everyone whether it be increased crime rates, disease and other costs to communities.

As the author says the problem is often not that people don't want to work it is employers not giving people a chance.

It is unfair to use the example of the minority of bad eggs to assume that most people receiving government assistance are not doing the best they can.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 16 May 2011 2:34:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK Yabby, yes, "make" is a strong word. It's a Monday, cut me some slack!

But there are many ways to create an environment wherein employers are more open to employing people at risk of long term disadvantage. Your solution is one option, and I would think identifying the best option comes from actually talking to employers, not haranguing the unemployed.

Sure, business is not a charity - but if we accept a right to seek reduced corporate tax rates, and we accept the right to form lobby groups to protect their interests - then we also accept that there is a responsibility to employ fairly.

That means stepping up in taking a share of employing individuals aho are traditionally pushed out of the market - remember, that group used to include women. I would suggest that changing the discrimination laws was pretty close to "making" business employ women.
Posted by NaomiMelb, Monday, 16 May 2011 2:36:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f,

Australia needs Democracy not Parties.

Australians need clarity, accountability to the cent of their tax dollar.

And not only Australians have this need. All people of the world do.

Ms. Rachel Siewert’s talk is empty political talk that gives her a stake in the gullibility of electors for the next term elections.

A country as Australia, with a Tax Law indecipherable for its length and complexity (some thirteen thousand pages of it), makes wonders for Politicians and Lawyers but not for Equity and Justice.

As for welfare: Ms. Siewert does not tell us of whose welfare she is talking about; hers, that of the six hundred and fifty odd Australian welfare organizations (whose CEF’s deal in tax-free business for their personal welfare) or, lastly, the welfare of the really disadvantaged people?

Ms. Siewert, I am sure, has never given to Australians anything but words.
Posted by skeptic, Monday, 16 May 2011 6:59:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Again just briefly: Rachel I really would appreciate a response to my proposal to tie support for the governments 'Work for the Dole' proposals to real increases in Newstart. (at least $50/week)

I realise Rachel may not even be reading this; But I hope she is; And if she is not I would appreciate a response from anyone else from The Greens.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Monday, 16 May 2011 7:16:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*but it was a hard slog*

Ah Pelican, you poor little thing :) I remind you that nobody is
born with skills, we all have to learn them as we go. A bit of
adversity teaches us how to cope and teaches us resilience.

That is exactly why so many East Germans failed so miserably, when
they were reunited with the West. They were so used to the Nanny
State, they had lost the ability to think and act for themselves.

Create a Nanny State, people will lose their ability to solve their
own problems and expect a Nanny State, feeling hard done by when
it does not change their nappies. To some extent we have that now,
because that is how many parents brought up their kids.

*then we also accept that there is a responsibility to employ fairly*

Naomi, they do employ fairly, ie the best person for the job. Mind
you, the standards required to be a checkout chick, or a dishwasher
in some restaurant, or a cleaner, are not out of this world. People
have to learn to start at the bottom and work up.

There is simply a whole pool out there who might say they want to
work, but when you ask them to turn up in the morning, they either
don't turn up, or they have a drug issue, or a booze issue, etc.
Employers have to watch the safety laws. If they don't seem sane,
you can't let them near machinery or anything really.

Fact is, in Australia we have it so good, that people can choose
not to work because they simply can't be bothered. We'll still clothe
and feed them and give them medical care.

When I had my seafood export business, between that and the farm,
about 30 people a year went through the books, some part time, some
full time. I judged everyone by their will to turn up. That gave
me a pretty good insight into what is out there and that people
claiming to want to work, don't actually mean it all the time
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 16 May 2011 7:29:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby; Lots of people in the former East Germany simply had the industrial base pulled from under them when a united Germany pulled away from trade with the USSR. At the time we had people in the Australian Left saying they were better off on West German welfare. But now there are some on the German Right who expect former East Germans to pick up all the poorly-paid, unksilled and insecure jobs; And a good many people are feeling very disillusioned...

re: Australia/Newstart - Onernous active labour market policies already existed; Now they are more severe; The least we could do would be to raise Newstart payments accordingly; Maybe by $50/week for normal recipients; $100/week for those actively engaged in 'work for the dole' programs...
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Monday, 16 May 2011 8:13:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is your problem right there Tristan, ie attitude.

Life is not a straight line. People sitting around feeling sorry
for themselves, because the perfect job with the great conditions
is not on offer, are doing themselves a disservice.

I worked some crappy jobs, for crappy pay. But with every job,
I learned something. I met new people. I saw new ways of doing things.
I worked with machines that I did not understand before. I increased
my skills. I increased my social network. That opened new doors,
new ideas, new experience, its all a big learning trip.

The woman who founded Carman's, took a job as a student, mixing
up muesli. Hardly a glamour job. But she learned on the job.
As a housewife she went on to found Carman's Muesli. Today its on
the shelves at Coles. I am one of her customers.

So people have a choice. Change their attitude to life and see
it as one big learning trip, going from strength to strength, or
sit around feeling sorry for themselves and claiming that the system
is unfair.

My advice. Take the crappy job, you can always quit later. You don't
know where or what it will lead to, but its better then feeling sorry
for yourself.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 16 May 2011 9:21:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not a poor little thing at all Yabby - that is your perception. Relaying my own experience was to demonstrate what many disabled people who don't meet certain criteria have to work around. Why do you have to make these discussions so personal or diminish experiences different from yours as somehow lacking.

Clearly I did manage and there are many more people much worse off than I who will not ever get back into the workforce for no fault of their own. Under Howard there was some irony in the fact that wheelchair bound people had to get special taxis to work at what were invariably part-time jobs and much of their wages went on transport to and from work, they lost some other community supports because they were now 'employed', all in all it led to conditions worse than when reliant on the DSP. Thankfully some of these unforseen anomalies were addressed reasonably quickly, but this is how out of touch some of these decision makers are.

The fact is most disabled people are willing to undertake whatever jobs they find that fit their situation and they are not always ideal jobs but like you say, every job is an opportunity to learn and find out new things about yourself.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 16 May 2011 10:47:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have read with interest all the points both for and against. Some I agree with and some I do not. I have been a worker for most of my life and have always paid taxes. I am now 61 years of age and yes I am currently unemployed and recieve government benefits. I receive a total of $474.90 a fortnight to which my mortgage takes $451.30 a fortnight this leaves me the grand total of $23.60 a fortnight to live on, so I often go without food for days at a time. I want and need to work and every day I apply for positions of employment. But to date since being made redundant last October have had no success. I have attended seminars for mature unemployed and recently completed a course certificate 2 in security. I have removed my D.O.B. ang age from my recume as it deters prospective employers who may consider I am to old. My normal field of employment is in the transport industry as a H.R.truck driver. A point I find annoying and irritating is seldom any response to the applications of employement positions i have applied for. I do not drink alcahole or use drugs. Yes there are some recipients who rort the system and they would be in a minority. The majority of recipients want to work, but the jobs are not out there, and it is getting worse as more companies relocate off shore.
Posted by gypsy, Monday, 16 May 2011 11:01:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Then there are some businesses who are paid a subsidy from the Government to employ long term unemployed. One company is in Pakenham Victoria. The Government subsidises the wages for up to 3 months and at the end of the wage susidy for those employees they are dismissed and a new batch come in on the subsidy. I doubt if they are the only company in Australia using and rorting the system.
Televisions A Current Affair recently ran an article on a street of residents who all receive Government benefits. A lot of rhetroric has since been used against those residents labeling them as dole and welfare bludgers. Unfortunately many of the people or should I say SHEEPLE in Australia have agreed with the rhetoric used in the media to assist the Government to convince the people that most recipients of government welfare are bludging on the tax payers and by doing this makes it easier to justify the hard core stance they are using to victimise those people.
I could add a lot more but will wait and see if there are any responses constructive or negative.
Cheers
Posted by gypsy, Monday, 16 May 2011 11:20:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
b) Take a look at who is not employing people at risk of long term disadvantage, and make them.

First step - look at the public service. What efforts have they made to employ the long term unemployed, single mums and the disabled?

Correct Naomi - one further point, the Government are not paying for Security Clearances for Admin Contractors in the -12 month bracket any longer, according to a couple of my workmates.

The government jobs exist in most states for Contractors, casuals and temporary staff, however, the majority are not being filled (since Labor came to power).

Agencies are missing out on the business, employees across the country are missing out on being employed, and the government departments are not having positions filled.

How are Australians able to be employed when 'Employers/Government and Businesses are requesting Secret and Highly Protected Clearances up front in an advertisement, prior to being granted an interview?

Red tape and barriers set up by Government legislation turning away potential employees before submitting an application for positions.

Those casual, part-time and temporary contracts employ thousands of Australians, impacting upon family units to pay rent, mortgages, food and utilities. Yet, the Government changed Legislation a couple of years ago despite Criminal checks, referees and signed oaths by employees adhering to Business and Government codes of conduct.

Trying to get a young relative into a casual government job without a security clearance being paid for is ridiculous and a total waste of time.
Posted by weareunique, Monday, 16 May 2011 11:57:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Return to work Mums seeking casual, part-time or temporary 3 month, 6 month or 12 month Government (and some business) work - forget it!

One will not get to first base being granted an interview by any Agency who advertises "Protected, Highly Protected, Secret or VEI or VII required".

These requirements are advertised for most positions along with a preference that applicants hold a business or administration certificate, Year 12 Certificate, a Diploma, a Degree and the list continues.

Mums returning to work after having stayed at home with their children a few years or ten years, can expect, for the most part, a barrier and red tape placed in front of them, along with the fact that they will often be offered the lowest of wages returning to work while taking up the slack of many long term slackers, who suddenly disappear in throngs for sick leave, after a casual or part-timer appears, as occurred with another friend last week. Several enjoyed their paid sick leave, after her first two days employed, while she worked in three of their positions, while implementing a new system.

Welcome back "S" to the working world and all of its joys!
Posted by weareunique, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 12:11:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"that supposedly force unskilled people from disadvantaged backgrounds "
- stereotypes are apparently Ok to trot out when it suit's.

The author makes a good point about employers being risk adverse but that get's back to the difficulties of fnding a good balance between protecting people and over regulation.

Law's that make it more difficult to sack someone who is not working out in a business will make employers less likely to give them a chance in the first place.

Law's which make it more difficult for employers and employee's to negotiate their own terms and conditions will make it more difficult for employee's to find a job with the flexibility they might need as a single parent.

Rather than trying to force all employers to be good employers a greater focus on making it easier for employers to switch jobs and to negotiate their own conditions could well open up more opportunities.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 6:21:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy