Work For the Dole Policy

Question: Discuss about theWork For the Dole Policy. Answer: Historical Outline How and Why Work for the Dole Policy Was Formed The national government of Australia made the policy of Work for the Dole as a form of a workfare based on satisfying the mutual obligation activities like part time work, qualified studies, voluntary work, relocation and Military Funds. Permanently this policy was enacted in 1998 after being proposed in 1987 by the Liberal Party of Australia. The policy was aimed at the young people between ages 18-24 who had mixed reactions to it as some took it positively while others did not like the idea. (Sawyer 2007, p. 56-63). However, this did not prevent its launch. At first, only the job seekers between the ages of 18-24 were required to join the scheme but later on in 1999, job seekers aged 17 or 18 had to join it after a period of three months of looking for a job. (Halevi et al. 2016). The Summer Olympic Games of 2000 was an opportunity to encourage people to take up casual work because of the many temporary employment opportunities the Olympics brought. To date, people aged between 18 to 49 years are the ones expected to initiate a mutual obligation exercise for at least six months of every 12 months they earn wages. (Griffin et al. 2007) Therefore, all the people of an eligible age unemployed for three months or more and were residents of Sidney were also required to participate. This policy was formed as a youth employment plan to be used by the young people, different services, and employers. All qualified job seekers who are enlisted with an active job provider will have to take part in Work for the Dole each year for six months so they can be able to keep getting their income support if they have mutual obligation activities. (Murphy 2011, p. 525-538)Work for the dole was formed to provide the local communities with activities and opportunities that would give those looking for jobs and those yet to be employed work experiences. It provides projects and activities that will help the local unemployed to familiarize themselves with the labour market. However, these plans are not designed to take away jobs from those who are full time or part time workers. It provides an organisation with the extra workforce to help undertake activities that would usually have not been done. (Griffin et al. 2007) People aged 18 and over and are looking for jobs and get allowance have the freedom to volunteer to take part in any activity anytime. Per two weeks, the 18-20 year-olds taking part in this program usually do so for 24 hours only, 30 hours for those aged 21-39 and 12 hours for those aged 40 and over. Each placement lasts six months followed by another six months without any duty to participate. (Riley 2010, p. 23-26). In addition to their allowances, Work for the Dole members possibly will get an additional $20.80 each fortnight. Whenever the project benefactor gives required, protective clothing to the participants, necessary training like work-related health and safety preparation is also provided. However, transport expenses are not distinctly rendered. They can therefore easily engross the extra payment specifically for the full-time members. (Marchione 2010, p. 115-130) Principles at Stake Mutual Obligation The one principle of Work for the Dole policy is the mutual responsibility, and the federal government of Australia backs it up using three main justifications. The Contractual Rationale According to this argument, the jobless people are indebted to the community in exchange for the unemployment payments. While the government is willing to give those who are seeking for jobs support, it is fair that in return those people should provide something back to the community. (Passel 2008, p. 441-445) The Job Snob Rationale The policy discourages the jobless from being too discriminating about the jobs that they will accept, and it advises against breeding a generation of people willing to work but only according to their terms. Those looking for jobs are not titled to say no and decline a job they are skilled enough to do. Work for the Dole establishes to the jobless that they have no choice but to work be it while employed or unemployed. (Sawyer 2007, p. 56-63) The New Paternalist Rationale The goal of the Work for the Dole policy is taking unemployed people back in a work culture to help develop in them a positive attitude towards work. It gives them a chance to participate and be involved in the community rather than being isolated from it. (Borland et al. 2014) Media Portrayal of Work for the Dole Policy The media portrays the policy in quite a contrary perspective as to what its primary objective is. Some reports say that it improves the ability of the job seekers to work as part of a team, communicate with others and boost their self-confidence while others say the opposite. (Marchione 2010, p. 115-130). According to many reports and studies conducted, this policy rarely allows the jobless to gain work experience or skills that will be useful in future. Sometimes the media can choose to distort the truth to suit its purpose, but sometimes it states factual information. (Riley 2010, p. 23-26) Research in 2004 conducted by Jeff Borland and Yi-Ping Tseng of Melbourne University found that there were adverse effects of participation in the Work for the Dole and those who were not members of the program found it easier to find active employment. According to the Department of Employment established from the 2014-15 budget approximates that the economy of Australia will not be able to create adequate jobs to engage the population growth over the next five years. (Riley 2010, p. 23-26). Media representations concerning the unemployment in Australia are noted to be always negative and degrading. The federal government of Australias community body is making demands that the funds used for the policy should be diverted to support other policies that will better help the long-term jobless people. (Borland et al. 2014) Today, work for the dole draws far less publicity and is seemingly deep-rooted in the income provision system. This program experiences a lot of condemnation for failing to safeguard the well-being of volunteer workers and not assisting in finding work suited to their skills. Overall, a majority of its members claim that they have benefitted positively from it. (Halevi et al. 2016). References Borland, J., Tseng, Y.-P. (2014). Does "Work for the dole" work? [Parkville] Vic, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. 3(22), 87-92 Griffin, P., Lack, S., Ryan, D. (2007). Administration of the Work for the Dole Programme: Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. Canberra, Australian National Audit Office. 6(150), 65 Halevi, J., Harcourt, G. C., Kriesler, P., Neville, J. W. (2016). Post-Keynesian essays from down under theory and policy in an historical context, 3(19), 56-60 Marchione, M. (2010). Your guide to Work for the Dole and Community Work Australian Government 24(2), 115-130 Murphy, J. (2011). A decent provision: Australia welfare policy, 1870 to 1949. Farnham, Surrey, Ashgate. 10(5), 525-538. Passel, J. (2008). The Job Seeker: Open Document. (1)66, 441-445. Riley, N. (2010). The Dole Theories: Scholars joint analysis of the Dole effect in Western Australia, 27(43), 23-26 Sawyer, H. (2007). One Fundamental Value: Work for the Dole Participants' Views about Mutual Obligation. 28(6), 56-63