The GMB union with the work program provider Kennedy Scot has this week thrown its whole weight behind `Workfare`, with revelations it is promoting heavily the draconian model used by America to the coalition government.
Unions as a general rule have distanced themselves from workfare but the National Union of General and Municipal Workers (GMB) in its first unprincipled jaunt into the fray of a condemned policy has through a report called `Welfare to Work in the 21st Century` made recommendations that the Department of Works and Pensions pilots a US welfare-to-work programme developed by America Works.
The report authored by the University of Portsmouth and accountancy firm PKF, is notable by its lack of any real content and exceptional by the fact that amongst its four authors are two criminologists; which highlights the disjunction between criminality and how the unemployed are associated. This association is not lost on the company being promoted as `American Works` primarily works with the hardest to help: offenders, disabled and long-term unemployed, who are vilified in the UK`s press.
Describing the company `America Works` as `Innovative` at the launch of its report in the House of Lords the GMB placed heavy emphasis on the company placing over 200,000 US citizen into employment, replete was the fact that this is the number since 1984. The spin doctoring of its success is not however wasted on the American press who have questioned the cost-effectiveness of this company along with its troubled history in other cities, apart from it much vaunted success in New York.
In a statement Paul Kenny, Secretary General, GMB has said “The GMB is looking at how best to support both our members who are facing redundancy as the public sector cuts bite and those suffering the scourge of long term unemployment. We welcome the idea of pilots across the country to evaluate how best to do this.”
Loosing membership as a precursor to this move into workfare could well seem self-serving but ignores the body of evidence available that besides providing cheap labour and subsidizing employers, workfare takes jobs away from other workers and serves as a mechanism for keeping wages down and profits up. Not principles generally associated with unions, however if the management is trying to placate its masters it will suit the business world and the politicians just fine.
Comments
The report seems to be endorsing the latter, and I can't see any points where it recommends the former. I think this is a terminological issue, as "welfare-to-wor k" is an ambiguous term, and it seems that "workfare" is also used in a slightly different way in American usage and so on...
Do you have any unambiguous statement that what the GMB are supporting is actually the use of programmes that force people to work for welfare wages?
Also, interestingly, the report says 175,000 not 200,000... I doubt there's been a sudden jump of 25,000 since it was written, so it looks like either GMB or the people producing the report had their figures wrong.
TUC Green Paper on Opposing Workfare and Privatisation.
As I said, the terminology seems to be none too clear here and the uninitiated will no doubt have trouble making sense of the report, as I do. But perhaps that's what they mean by the "assistance to work" schemes, "proactive support for workers", etc that is referred to throughout the document?
"Maybe you should get acquainted with this…"
I'm not sure I follow what you're on about. What specifically, do you think this report is a clear endorsement of? Because it seems to me like it's just calling on the government to improve back-to-work programmes etc.
What is being advocated is that these 'trainers' should go into and have space in job centres. It suggests that 'training' will help unemployed people get jobs. These programmes will not increase the no. of jobs by even 1. They force the unemployed to compete harder with each other, the effect of which is also to lower wages for those in work, since if they want a wage increase they will be told there are xxx wanting your job.
It holds up the American model, based as it is on less 'generous' (the Report's words not mine) benefits. One word that doesn't appear in the Report is 'sanctions' i.e. cutting benefits to force people to take jobs or Wisconsin. Wisconsin is where they pioneered workfare and where they have also pioneered derecognition of unions in the public sector, even those led by scabs like Kenny.
Probably because we are (theoretically! ) a TUC recognised unemployed centre (for how much longer I'm not sure) Paul Kenny responded on Sunday morning to my 'ranting' and 'lies'.
He also made the samantic distinction between 'workfare' and 'welfare reform'. In fact they are 2 sides of the same lowpay coin. Pushing people into jobs and keeping people in work on notice that if they take action there are others who'll have their jobs is central to this.
Clearly the GMB is sensitive to this, hence the early morning e-mail from someone who wouldn't normally give the time of day to ordinary members (which I'm not).
See http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2011/05/kenny-replies-more-privatisation-is.html
However there were those out there who would not accept what we revealed; a one Andy Newman of the Socialist Unity website argued that “CLAIMS ABOUT GMB AND WORKFARE ARE INACCURATE AND SENSATIONALISED”.
Commenter’s were not so obliging towards the thrust of this argument…..
We along with many others will be watching the GMB`s involvement with Workfare and the Privatisation of Jobcentres and hope as Tendance Coatesy reports on his blog that;
“I can assure the GMB that this incident has not passed unnoticed by senior figures in other unions.”
RSS feed for comments to this post