The Cedar Lounge Revolution

Waters and unemployment… August 23, 2011

There’s an awful lot to find fault with in John Waters latest hand-wringing piece on equality and other matters in the Irish Times.

Flowery language? Check. Passivity in relation to actually doing anything? Check. Consequent deafeatism/scorn in terms of the utility of attempting to do anything? You bet.

His particular brand of passivity when it comes to socio-economic matters is wearing thin on me – as is his implicit line that because absolute equality is impossible to achieve therefore there’s no point in trying. For a taste of that consider the following:

Moreover, experience suggests that any attempt to intervene in the way human beings distribute and exchange resources is doomed merely to manipulate the shapes of inequality rather than to cure the problem.

Really? Let’s put aside the chequered outcomes of the most extravagant attempts to engage with inequality – which have little or no currency in Ireland given its history and location being a Western European state, and let’s ask whether globally there isn’t clear evidence of more rather than less positive outcomes, for example in those European societies which have cleaved more to traditional social democratic outcomes as distinct from those which have abandoned such approaches or never tried them in the first place?

His latest twist is about social envy…

Thus, there will always be a “bottom”, and always the potential for those deposited there to make unhelpful and unhealthy comparisons between themselves and those “higher up”.

Ah yes, ‘unhelpful’ comparisons.

Bu more pertinently consider this:

This week, a UCD survey of unemployed people [The Experience of Unemployment in Ireland: A Thematic Analysis - Liam Delaney, Michael Egan, Nicola O'Connell, available online] painted a deeply dismaying picture of the condition imposed by dependence on State handouts. A majority of those surveyed described their experiences as degrading and lamented the absence of incentives to come off State benefits and take up part-time or low-paid work. Thus, in the name of helping people, the State succeeds mainly in dehumanising them. Perhaps, then, the issue we need to focus on is our cultural tendency to link social status with material aspiration in a way that provokes envy rather than ambition?

What’s telling about this analysis is the way Waters phrases this. It’s not that people become unemployed and therefore depend upon State provision, it is a ‘condition imposed by dependence on State handouts’. That’s a subtle yet distinct shifting of the casual relationship and one that places a particular weight upon the term ‘dependence’, a loaded term in these discussions and one used generally as a stick to beat state provision with, and indeed the State.

Then he argues that there’s insufficient incentives to return to work [though he neatly avoids describing what they might be, and probably he's being sensible there in that given that we're now experiencing 14% unemployment, and whether they would be positive or negative for those on benefit] and then on to the phrase ‘in the name of helping people, the State succeeds in dehumanizing them’. And finally almost a non sequitur in terms of ‘envy and ambition’ whose relevance to the preceding lines is entirely unclear.

Granted for those of us who have signed on anytime over the last decade or are still signing on reading the report brings a shudder of recognition, grimy social welfare offices, passive aggressive welfare officers, ludicrous ‘training’ schemes and so on. Some of the quotes from the report are dismal:

3.13.1 Chaotic Environments
Participants uniformly described social welfare offices as chaotic and unpleasant environments. The layout of the office was difficult to understand and it often took two or three visits before participants knew the ergonomics of the office. One participant described how frustration brewed in these environments, “People getting thick with each other because you’ve jumped the queue and you mightn’t necessarily even mean to jump the queue because you don’t know where you are”. One participant suggested that there should be a guide in every office who can show people how the office functions. One case was described where a new office had been built but was not opened and locals had to commute long distances to sign on, “It’s a mess altogether”. They also found that after queuing they were told they were in the wrong building. One participant suggested that radio ads be used to advertise changes of venues, “like we listen to the radio as well”.

And this which is appalling:

Related to this feeling of being dehumanised, there was a feeling that social welfare officers did not know how to properly communicate. One participant described how he felt bullied when a welfare officer told him to sell his house, “She said to me, “Well you just have to. Those days are gone, you just have to sell the house, that’s it.” And she was just so ruthless, she didn’t even look in my face.”

Perhaps that’s an outlier, then what of these more commonplace oppressions?

Another participant described getting social welfare as traumatic, “There was about 100 people in front of me and 100 people behind me and by the time I got to the counter I was practically abused by the person behind the counter and it’s just embarrassing and it’s horrible…they don’t make it easy and that’s not very helpful when you’re not working. It doesn’t have to be that hard”. One participant explained a bad experience at the welfare office, “I was just another one at the end of a very long line of people…you’re just a statistic, a number”.
Participants felt they should all be treated with respect, “like we’re all human”. Another participant felt, “People who have worked all their lives are being reduced to the level of beggars, you know, we’re back to the Victorian idea of the deserving poor being looked after by the ladies”.

But… and here’s the problem Waters does not and perhaps cannot address and it’s something those working in social welfare should note… there aren’t jobs there. Those people quoted in the report didn’t trip into unemployment as a ‘lifestyle choice’. They’re not there by accident either. The vast majority are there because jobs aren’t available or were done away with. And reading it it is clear that the vast majority want to work, want indeed to move away from being dependent upon welfare [and even if they didn't there still would not be jobs there for them].

As the conclusion to the Report notes:

While the majority of the participants interviewed expressed a strong desire to return to employment as quickly as possible, many were resigned to the notion that unemployment would continue for a number of years.

All that makes the thesis Waters presents perhaps a lot less convincing, but there is one point he makes that is entirely incorrect:

A majority of those surveyed described their experiences as degrading and lamented the absence of incentives to come off State benefits and take up part-time or low-paid work.

That he says this further makes me wonder if he has actually read the report in detail. What those who are quoted actually say is in relation to part-time or low-paid work:

This was summed up by one participant who noted, “if you have a mortgage, that type of money is no use to you. You have to pay the bills and that, especially only 20 hours a week. Anyone here wants to get out working full-time”.

And the reports authors argue:

The proliferation of part-time work is also a hindrance for those trying to re-enter the job market, one participant was offered a job which had 4 hours a week, “like the experience and all was good, but I was never actually going to make anything out of the place”.

In other words low-paid or part-time work are of little or no use for many of those on welfare for basic functional reasons in that they seem like traps where future incomes will be low and impossible to sustain and none of those interviewed, as far as I can see, argued that it was a lack of incentives that prevented them taking that sort of work up.

And moreover, many of the correspondents suggest companies are using the unemployed as cheap labour in workplace programs and that wage levels are so low that in some instances it makes no sense to abandon welfare – and why would it? A part-time or low-paid job can’t measure up to a medium paid job that’s been lost. Financially the former is not a substitute for the latter. And there may be good sense in remaining unemployed and using that as a base to get back into the workforce rather than getting locked into a low paid, labour intensive job where the opportunities to break out of it are more limited [I remember being in London in the early 1990s working in one job and simply unable to get to interviews because I couldn’t get time off – I needed the money so it became an issue of definitely losing money, and goodwill such as there was with my employer for only the .

But fundamentally those who are quoted in the report are all too aware that the reason they are unemployed is that they cannot find jobs:

Participants expressed concern that it would be many years before there is an economic recovery, “I don’t think the economy will recover in time”. Participants were pessimistic about Ireland’s economic future: “there is no production of goods that are really specific to this country, or any special knowledge, maybe financial services, but it’s not really sustainable”. The fear that the economy will take many decades to recover was expressed in nearly every focus group. There was also a feeling that too much of Ireland’s economy was sustained by US multinationals who showed no hesitancy in leaving the country to employ people at lower wages elsewhere. This was described by one participant as “frightening”.

And:

A number of the participants expressed very little hope that they would find employment soon, “Things aren’t progressing and things aren’t looking any better so as far as I’m concerned the recession is still fucking full on. People are still losing their jobs, left, right and centre. No one is finding it any easier to get back into the working situation so I can’t see 6 months from now it changing. 6 months from now, there’s going to be another 750 people out of work. They’re all qualified. I wouldn’t have their qualifications”. Another participant felt that he would not be able to pay his mortgage in the future, “At the end of the year, my mortgage won’t be paid any more and money will start to drain so you feel under pressure, there’s always that worry in the back of your head”.

Indeed another indication that he didn’t read the report that closely is that, for example there are some snippets that demonstrate that for all his complaints about welfare it provides a life buoy in the waters of unemployment… and that there are problems as to its implementation or lack of same…

Many felt that a lack of funds meant it was difficult for them to plan ahead and that not knowing what will happen when Job Seekers Allowance ends was anxiety-inducing, “I don’t ask any questions. They haven’t asked me any…but like that will end fairly soon and I don’t know what the hell I’m going to do then”.

And, naturally:

Government social welfare policies were regarded as mean-spirited such as the cutting of the Christmas bonus, “They cut the few shillings and the bonus and you have the Government shoving money into the banks…like the rest of us don’t get big handshakes”. A similar sentiment was expressed by another participant, “You’ve no income coming in and then with the Government, they’re cutting, they’re slashing people left right and centre about this and that is totally wrong. Like there is people there that want to get out and work there”. Another participant expressed anger at corporations like the ESB and banks who charge high interest rates, “It seems that on a corporate level, there should be more understanding. But there isn’t. For the poor basically, there isn’t any”. Participants felt anger at those who worked in social welfare offices, “These people are lucky to be in a job and they’re dealing with the public, day in and day out”.

And it’s worth noting that the ‘dependence’ Waters mentions is a very complex thing indeed. People who are unemployed do indeed ‘depend’ upon the state because there’s no one else, and certainly not the private sector, who is going to pick up the pieces:

A number of participants felt that the social welfare they receive of 196 Euro a week is not enough, “It’s atrocious that you can’t survive on that. If I was to break down 196 and pay a bit of your gas bill, a bit of your ESB bill and then pay a little bit of the mortgage, you just can’t survive”. Participants found that there was simply not enough to get by on: “There’s nothing left at the end of the week…the mortgage takes most of it. What’s left then has to be spread across all the bills. Give a bit for everyone.” One participant felt that “when your money gets reduced, it means that you can’t put three into two. It can’t be done and that puts pressures on you at home as well because you have more time hanging around thinking these things…but money is the main problem”. A number of participants, over the age of 25, had moved back in with their parents to cope financially.

Indeed he simply can’t see that there are two problems here and one is vastly more amenable to change than the other. The main one is that capitalism at this point cannot deliver employment – and indeed the situation is now, obviously, appreciably worse than at any other time in the last 20 years or more given unemployment rates. Secondly that there are problems with the welfare system across a range of metrics. But the latter is much much easier to deal with than the former – even by his lights.

But note that for Waters rather than ameliorating the problem by looking at job creation and simultaneously improving the nature of the interactions between citizen and state agencies in regard to unemployment – a task that would be, from the report findings remarkably easy amounting to directing state employees to treat those they provide services for in a more courteous manner and redesigning social welfare systems and offices, and more broadly putting real heft into job creation programmes – he drifts as ever into nebulous nonsense… ‘focus on our cultural tendency…. envy rather than ambition’.

And he continues:

This insight does not render the problem more amenable, but it certainly changes the argument, implying that what is necessary is a change of cultural values to reduce the significance our culture attributes to particular forms of achievement and the rewards that accompany these.

Ah, so it’s in ourselves and if we can only learn to look at the world anew then all will be fine. A sort of sub-hippy line writ large.

That that is SFA use to someone actually signing on is, of course, lost entirely.

One last thing he might consider… Section 3.3 Media:

3.3.1 Political Commentary
There was quite a large degree of variety in people’s reported consumption of the media. Many of those same people described how they tried to avoid commentary and news based media.