Employment participation is a mantra that the Rudd government inherited from Howard. With labour shortages possibly fuelling wage demands, increasing the participation rate for paid workers seems like a good idea.
So Minister O’Connor on July 1 sets up a task force with a seven week time frame. “The Taskforce will provide advice to Government on the barriers to greater participation in the work force, particularly for parents and mature-age job seekers,” says the Minister’s media release but this fails to make clear that the target is not generally those not in paid work but only hard-to-employ, seriously disadvantaged Welfare to Work target groups: mainly sole parents and those on Newstart over 55. The same people who were unfairly affected by the last government’s punitive assumptions that they needed income cuts and penalties to pressure them into paid work.
However, the prognosis for this oddly short term task force is dubious as the membership excludes the participation of anyone who has experience and expertise on those most affected by the program. A collection of mainly upper income males from business and some NGOs, with some similarly elite female members is supposed to fix a mess. It also has limited time, inadequate terms of reference and no-one to explain the needs of the target groups! While I know and have respect for most members of the Taskforce, they are being set up to fail as the problems lie in faulty program assumptions, not defective regulations.
The basic assumption that needs to be questioned is that exclusion from paid work is the main disadvantage people suffer and therefore a job will fix it. The problem for sole parents who are being targeted, and incidentally some older potential workers, is that the government fails to understand balancing paid work, care and family responsibilities.
Most sole parents in the two surveys (click here for one of them) we have done are willing to take on paid jobs, if they can also respond to their children’s needs, as often the sole parent involved. This means they are less likely than coupled families to be able to do the balancing act, so pushing them into jobs is both hard and risky for their children. A non-coercive model would work better, if it could offer the support many need to make parenting and paid work a feasible mix. This could be read into the media release — “In particular the Taskforce will consider whether there are better ways of balancing the increased participation of parents with their family and community” but the terms of reference and time limits make major changes unlikely.
So why just target these sole parents? The government claimed it is addressing the labour shortages that employers identify. This sounds logical until you realise that this is not about all mothers but just those who were receiving income support.
The policy is perverse as the bulk of mothers not in paid work are actually encouraged to stay out by payment of Family Tax benefit B of up to about $50 pw if they have no paid work, which is reduced once they earn $90 a week. Where is the logic of paying public money to keep some mother out and others in paid work?
The taskforce has three scheduled meetings. The Sydney one, which I attended on Friday, gave most people less than 24 hours notice and lasted for 90 minutes. The Seniors representative had flown from Brisbane and was angry when he found most problems facing older people seeking employment were not on the agenda, only those on Newstart.
There were multiple employer representatives because the government sees them as the problem: why won’t they employ solo mothers who need time off for child needs, who haven’t worked for many years and/or have to deal with a range of physical and emotional problems? ACCI and the other industry people were terse about being used to test job searcher compliance with job hunting requirements rather than recruiting against their needs.
It is puzzling why Minister O’Connor did not take the opportunity to seriously review one area of Howard errors. In a week where there has been a public commitment to a national child protection program, some recognition that removing extra pressure from some vulnerable families would have seemed appropriate.
There is ample evidence of stress and distress of the Welfare to Work sole parent cohort and their representatives deserve to be part of the Taskforce, rather than being excluded and just allowed to put their case.
Great article Ms Cox. Yep – this Group is trying to do the impossible – fix a big mess in way too little time without even have the chance to get to grips with the premise that caused the mess in the first place.
Neither employers nor government will get it right until they start to really think about the way work is structured. As long as it’s 9-5 (or 24/7 if you work in the Federal Government) five days a week, at your
desk, potential workers across more than one demographic will vote with their feet. Single parents will stay at home with their children, baby boomers will simply retire, and the skills shortage will continue and worsen.
Here’s an idea! How about single parents job sharing with 50+ year olds? That way the parents get at least some time with their children, child care costs reduce, boomers get a more flexible work pattern, knowledge and experience get passed on, and employers get the workers they need. Staff retention would probably go up too.
It’s got to be better than trying to squeeze everyone into one way of working. Of course employers and government would have to use their imagination and put some time into getting a system like this right.
Eva Cox has missed the point. With a real unemployment figure of 2 million and 1.75 miilion on one of the six different dole payments and only 180,000 vacancies (all ABS figures) it doesn’t matter what Employment Participation Minister O’Connor does in this area. It will have no effect on anything except to ensure that the real unemployment rate will not change. Over the 25 years I worked in the old CES before I had to leave for being a whistleblower I saw more Labour Market Schemes come and go than I have had hot dinners. They all collapsed in a heap because of the above numbers of unemployed vs vacancies.
What then is to be done? Read my paper: ‘What then is to be done’. I make about 24 proposals but in
essence Job Network goes to be replaced by a small component added to Centrelink to help those who
cannot help themselves, the Tax Office supervises dole payments via a guaranteed minimum income and a four day working week (36 hours) for most workers, at no lost of income, to be financed by the current and masive cost of unemployment, is introduced until 2016 -2018 when the ageing problem may really hit and hours worked may then have to increase. If my proposals are implemented now then all will have some work to do rather than some doing all the work and we don’t end up simply with a cleaver dole queue.
Eva rightly mentions the carpetbagers who have latched on to the unemployment industry. Yes, she’s right. Avoid them like the plague. Their only intention is to gain themselves a highly paid job paid for of course out of money meant for the unemployed.
Marcus L’Estrange
8/7/08
I’m over 55 and want a career change .No one will take me on as I’m too old .I’ve paid for a retraining career change to find that I need another qualification despite having a B Ed ..more money . I have had no support from anyone as I own too many assets which I am selling to exist . I’ve worked all my life and paid tax ! No govt support is available for me ..tele marketing is my only resort !
I’m a 50 year old sole parent with 4 school age children. Previously I worked in the Australian Public Service; ironically the erstwhile Commonwealth Employment Service. When my oldest turned 16, I was required by Centrelink to start searching for work, which I have to say was quite daunting after 12 years out of the paid workforce. I eventually applied for an advertised position with Centrelink and went through an extensive recruitment process with their (private) recruitment firm. I came through with flying colours and was immediately referred to the final interview with someone from Centrelink. I had a ten minute interview where most of the questions centred around how I would cope with the children, what problems I might have with Sole Parent clients, etc, etc. I was rung an hour later by the Recruitment firm to say I hadn’t got the job. In reply to my question, they told me that Centrelink didn’t give feedback. They then asked if I could start a casual job they had immediately with, you guessed it – Centrelink. I couldn’t take it as it required evening and weekend work. All in all, a great confidence booster.