Workfare and the Loss of Self

Workfare is a terrible, inhumane policy thought up by a government that specialises in terrible, inhumane policies. As I’ve said before it is a truly awful time to be unfortunate and vulnerable enough to rely on the state. Not only are the benefits that allow you to survive being seriously eroded but you are treated like lying, cheating scum. Workfare is one such manifestation of this. And then there’s the ridiculous (I’d laugh if I could stop gnashing my teeth in anger) situation the government now finds itself in of Workfare having been declared illegal, but they’re going to retro-actively change the law.

Let’s have a quick re-cap of the case against Workfare.

If you are on the dole for nine months they can pack you off to a work programme. This may or may not involve you working for a company for free. They will tell you that you are doing it in exchange for benefits, but the companies are getting free (or slave) labour. Often you will be doing a job for free next to someone who gets paid for it. Imagine how that much feel for both of you. The unemployed person is being told they’re not worth the same as someone else doing exactly the same thing, and the employed person is being told their job is so worthless they can get someone else to do it for free. You may be told its work experience. It won’t be. They won’t listen to you and place you somewhere worthwhile or that may help you with your long time career aspirations and goals. They will place you with someone who has a cosy little partnership with the DWP. It also is taking jobs away from your fellow job seekers. Why would a company hire someone and pay them when the dole bunnies will do it for free? Many promises of permanent, paid employment at the end of the placement are just guff.

So, Workfare is damaging and dehumanising. Companies and the DWP are exploiting vulnerable people. What could make this worse? How about if charities were doing it? Yes, charities are using people on Workfare placements. The very organisations that claim to be helping the vulnerable in society are taking advantage of those same people, and, just because someone is a volunteer, don’t think they can’t be undermined. The message is clear; why would you want to do this because you think it is right? These fools are being forced into it. They could also, once again, be taking away hours that people rely on for social contact or to keep themselves busy in retirement or work towards a career in a specific field. I expect private companies to be prepared to do anything to make a buck, but charities? I honestly expected better.

There’s been calls for boycotts of companies using Workfare, and charities have been no exception. Frankly I think any organisation that takes advantage of people in such a way should be stripped of their charitable status. But much of this I already thought before. Then I came across this piece by Sarah Ditum expressing her regret that the Salvation Army, a charity close to her heart, were using Workfare.

I was disappointed as well. The Salvation Army are a charity that work with the poorest and most desperate people in society. I can imagine few poorer or more desperate than those on the dole, especially those who have been on the dole for so long they’ve been shipped off to a Workfare programme. It sounds like a sick joke. Ditum notes that the YMCA have similarly let the side down.

Then she made a very interesting point, and one I hadn’t considered before. The Salvation Army are an overtly religious charity. What happens when someone who, for example, is a hard line atheist and disagrees with any kind of organised religion, is asked to work for them for free? This could go for a number of charities. Suspicious of Oxfam’s practices in the UK and abroad? Tough. Can’t stand Help for Heroes rhetoric or over-simplification of complex issues? Don’t care. Disagree with the NSPCC’s  emotional blackmail in their adverts? None of our concern.

Of course, this could go for private companies as well. Someone who holds deep anti-capitalist or anti-globalisation beliefs would be loathed to be forced to work for Walmart partner, ASDA. Would an anti-sweathshop campaigner feel comfortable working in Primark? The examples can go into the thousands. No company is perfect and no charity has a cause that everyone can get behind.

Resistance, however, is pointless. Refuse and they will stop your benefits. Not only have they taken your freedom and dignity by forcing you to work for free but they’ve taken away your right as a human being to express your thoughts and views. The DWP is successfully dehumanising the unemployed, and this, although an issue burning for a long time, is just another reason to boycott Workfare.

What's Worse than Being Called a Bigot?

Oh, I don’t know. Perhaps being told that your relationship is worth less than a heterosexual one? Maybe being told that just by wanting to show a commitment to the person you love you are undermining the marriage if millions of people, your friends, family, parents, co-workers etc. Or being told that just wanting your relationship to be given the same name and recognition as others is destroying our culture might be considered by some over sensitive souls to be a little perturbing.

Yesterday the House of Commons passed a bill allowing same sex couples to get married, enjoy all the same rights as a heterosexual couple and call it a marriage. I wrote that I was in support of this motion and explained why. I was therefore happy and relieved last night when I heard that MPs had voted in favour of the bill with a sizeable majority. I thought that this was a step in the right direction. This was a public acknowledgment that a same sex relationship has the same worth as a heterosexual one.

But then today started and I woke up to a backlash. I understand people who opposed the bill voicing their disappointment. Had things gone the other way I would do the same, but this was different. This was displaying a horrific double standard coupled with a juvenile sense of entitlement. These are the people who were complaining that they had been called ‘bigotted’, ‘prejudiced’ and ‘homophobic’ over their opposition to the bill.

To start I would like to state that I think opposing the bill was categorically homophobic. I saw it as denying people rights just because they weren’t straight. It seemed like a fairly clear cut example of homophobia to me. However, I understand that this is an emotive word and people don’t like to be called it. My response to that is simple; if you don’t want to be called homophobic stop saying homophobic things, and if someone says you are being homophobic and you think you’re not ask them why. You might get a bit of an education.

But what I found truly mind boggling was the victimised mindset of these people. They felt so offended that they were called these things. They were nervous of speaking their opinions in case someone did something awful like ask them if they thought that sounded a bit prejudiced. Somehow the thought has never occurred to them that what they were saying was causing offense. It really never penetrated their victim complexes that the person you’re just told shouldn’t be allowed to get married because they happened to fall in love with the ‘wrong’ gender might be a bit upset. Oh no, we couldn’t possibly offend their precious sensibilities. Their right to hold opinions that see some people as having less worth than others trumps the right of the person whose just been told their an abomination for being gay.

If you want to be homophobic I can’t stop you. You have every right to think that, but, for fucks sake, learn to take it when someone tries to engage you as to why they find your views insulting and offensive. You are not the only injured party here. How about a little bit of mutual respect in this? The hypocrisy and double standard of this viewpoint is staggering.

Then there were the ones who decided they were part of the ‘silent majority’. This is, according to this opinion poll (and the ones discussed in this polling report), quite clearly bollocks. And even if they are part of some oppressed 51% this isn’t something to really be that concerned with if you’re not in a same sex relationship, because it doesn’t really affect you. Alright, so a few more people will be legally described as ‘married’ but, honestly, how does this impact upon existing marriages? Really? 

This comes back to a theme we’ve seen a lot recently in different contexts. Being called a racist is ‘the worst thing possible’ (what about being beaten up for being black?). Being called a rapist ‘destroys lives’ (what about people who are abused, sexually assaulted and raped?). Having your views challenged isn’t really that bad in the grand scheme of things, so get some fucking perspective. Your right to speak goes hand in hand with my right to challenge. That is freedom of speech. Many people who complain about this seem to really like that concept and bang on about it a lot.

Keep saying homophobic things and I will call you homophobic. Simple as.