of 7

Garland, C. (2016) Reductio ad absurdum: Workfare and Bogus ‘Volunteering’ to Discipline the Unwanted Surplus Labour of Capital, Work, Employment and Society Conference 2016, 6-8 Sept 2016 Leeds University Business School (LUBS), University

All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Garland, C. (2016) Reductio ad absurdum: Workfare and Bogus ‘Volunteering’ to Discipline the Unwanted Surplus Labour of Capital, Work, Employment and Society Conference 2016, 6-8 Sept 2016 Leeds University Business School (LUBS), University of Leeds,
  Work, Employment and Society Conference 2016Tuesday 6 to Thursday 8 September 2016eeds !ni"ersity #usiness School $!#S%, !ni"ersity of eedsW&'( )* C')S)S!npaid and unfree +ork stream 'eductio ad absurdum Workfare and #o-us ./olunteerin- to iscipline the !n+anted Surplus abour of CapitalChristian arland, 3lliance45#S, !ni"ersity of 5anchester Since at least the mid-1980s, parties of all shades have been in agreement over the need for ‘welfare reform’ aka ‘active labour market policies’ meaning the neoliberal imperatives of ‘welfare-to-work’, along with the immutable ‘accepted truth’ that unemploment must be individuali!ed accordingl" #owever in the $%, whilst the first notable e&ample of ‘active labour market policies’ could be said to have appeared in the mid-80s with compulsor ‘'estart’ interviews for unemploed claimants, replaced b similar measures such as ‘(ro)ect *ork’ and +ew abour’s ‘+ew eal’ the latter lasting from its introduction in the late-1990s until .011, the /onservative-led coalition government and since last ear .012 the incumbent /onservative government have intensified the various ‘workfare’ schemes in a wa previousl unseen"*ith such conspicuous ‘ramping up’ of state programmes operated b private welfare-to-work industr subcontractors and organisations commercial, public sector and voluntar acting - with or without prior knowledge - as ‘placement providers’, there has however been ver effective contestation and resistance to such a wholesale ‘re-writing’ of the substance and realit of unemploment" 3ndeed as of +ovember .01, the *( announced that it was 4not renewing5 i  two of the most punitive of such programmes, ‘6andator *ork 7ctivit’, and ‘/ommunit *ork (lacements’, the latter onl having been launched the previous ear .012" his paper will aim to criticall analse the ideological nature of the intensification of workfare and bogus ‘volunteering’ in the contemporar $%, identifing in it the neoliberal determinant of ‘fle&ible labour markets’ and indeed a social authoritarianism fre:uentl if not alwas framed in terms of ‘positive thinking’ and self-help ;iedelli < Stern .01 ii , =arland .01 iii , forthcoming .01> iv 2" o be sure, the precarious realit of underemploment and temporar emploment in the famousl ‘fle&ible labour markets’ of the $%, finds a market discipline overseen b the state and the growth industr in its own right that is ‘welfare-to-work’, in the bulwark of workfare in which inductees - are forced to - do the same thing as the paid emploees of an organisation whilst being neither, paid nor emploees" 3n addition to this ver unpaid and unfree work which is removed from the unemploment and claimant total, there is bogus ‘volunteering’ in which 1  unemploed claimants are made to ‘volunteer’ under implicit threat of ‘sanction’ for non-compliance" his paper will seek to give a critical overview of how workfare and the implicitthreat of workfare operate ver much in keeping with both ‘fle&ible labour market policies’ and indeed its far less celebrated obverse, ‘precarit’" he paper will also aim to set out some of the notable e&amples of contestation and resistance as well as defeats inflicted on workfare in the contemporar $%" ???‘*orkfare’ can be defined as different from welfare-to-work of which it is also a composite part, as the demand that unemploed claimants work unpaid for either a compan, public sector organisation, charit or increasingl a ‘social enterprise’, under threat - implicit or otherwise - of ‘sanction’ aka the removal of benefits" 3t is the contention of this paper that such punitive measures are a definite ideological strateg to discipline the unwanted surplus labour of capital, keeping it in a state of continuous and limitless insecurit under performative market pressures which also serve to present the realit of structural unemploment as individuali!ed moral failings" Reductio ad absurdum  is ver much in keeping with the title of this stream - unpaid and unfree work - and indeed the title of the conference itself, *ork in /risis@ workfare being perhaps the paradigm e&ample of unpaid and unfree work in contemporar $% societ, which is also of course an ‘advanced econom’ in which work itself is in crisis" ‘*ork’ understood as emploment ma be seen as the primar form of social reproduction in modern societ, and 6ar& :uoting /harles oudon notes,   4abour is life, and if life is not each da e&changed for food, it suffers and soon perishes" o claim that human life is a commodit, one must, therefore, admit slaver"5 v hose in receipt of what the state defines as ‘subsistence’ Aob Seeker’s 7llowance2,are the surplus labour of capital, and specificall that section of surplus unemploed2 labour reduced to negotiating the bureaucratic labrinth of the *(’s Aob /entres and third or fourth part subcontractors, under the market imperative of workfare thrown into an unending war of attrition to maintain this - ver - basic social entitlement under threat of its removal, this usuall implicit threat alwas having beena core foundation of ‘welfare to work’ or ‘active labour market policies’" ‘7ctive labour market policies’ of which workfare is a longstanding element are also a longstanding and ke component of what is still broadl termed, ‘neoliberalism’@ )ust as structural unemploment became standard over the course of the past B ears, the euphemism of ‘welfare reform’ became the accepted mantra b politicians of all shades along with polic groups, the euphemism as with so much 2  of the neoliberal vocabular hiding its true nature, in this case making what was srcinall supposed to be universal and unconditional, wholl conditional according tothe whims of the incumbent government, and it is contended here, this has come intoits own in the course of the last  ears, being intensified and accelerated with crude ideological measures having suffered however, some ver notable defeats along the wa"  7lthough workfare did e&ist prior to .011 vi  under the different governments of +ew abour, the last ears of =ordon Crown’s tenure implemented the ‘;le&ible +ew eal’ which made use of workfare, and was be:ueathed to the incoming coalition before it attempted to roll out its own - at the time - five variants of workfare@ besides the flagship ‘*ork (rogramme’ vii , it offered the ‘/ommunit 7ction (rogramme’ viii , ‘6andator *ork 7ctivit’, ‘Sector-Cased *ork 7cademies’ i& , and ‘*ork D&perience’ & "*orkfare in keeping with its veiled ideological nature, continuousl and breathlessl e&tols how ‘empowering’ it is along with the ‘opportunities’ it affords its inductees, who in spite of the neoliberal watchword of ‘choice’ reall have none" he brute material realit of being made to work unpaid or ‘volunteer’ so as to not face what this is underwritten b@ ‘sanctions’ which are not ever e&plicitl presented e&cept in small print@ so far as is possible, ‘placements’ are presented as being ‘voluntar’ so that servitude is self-managed, and conse:uences for non-compliance can be individuali!ed as wholl the doing of the individual" ;or unemploed claimants branded since the mid-90s as ‘Aobseekers’, being unemploed is a full-time unpaid2 )ob" 3ndeed, as 3vor Southwood has noted, 4he onl labour now e&changed at the Aobcentre is the performative sort@ empt gestures, feigned enthusiasm, contained hostilit, and the suppression of resentment"5 &i  ;rom their first inception before the arrival of neoliberalism proper toward the end of that decade the E0s2 and the start of the one it is most closel associated with - the 80s - ‘active labour market policies’ aka ‘welfare-to-work’ and ‘welfare reform’, performative demands were made of claimants as the condition of being able to be in receipt of the state’s definition of subsistence" Such ‘conditional’ demands usuall amounted to being re:uired to attend workshops in appling for  )obs, and gaining unaccredited certificates for doing so, and although actual ‘workfare’ did first appear albeit tentativel and without fanfare, in the $% in the earl-90s in the form of bogus volunteering, in the ‘/ommunit 7ction (rogramme’, in which claimants had to perform unpaid work 4of benefit to the local communit5 &ii , it was not until the .010s, that is became conspicuous" Corrowing the title of a well-known book, workfare reall is ‘iscipline and (unish’" isciplining the unwanted surplus labour of capital to accept that it is their own fault that the are surplus at the same time it glosses this Fictorian workhouse ideolog with went-;irst /entur ‘can-do’ self-help mantras of ‘fulfilling potential’ and ‘empowerment’, veiling the harsh realit of material compulsion and social authoritarianism, with ‘fake smiles and first names’ and ‘forced informalit’, the ‘/old 3ntimacies’ of emotional labour identified b Dva 3llou! &iii  ‘(unishment’ is both the fact of material compulsion and of course the even harsher punishment of being rendered destitute from ‘sanctions’ aka the withdrawal of subsistence benefits, the 3  entire benefit sstem being strewn with interpretive tripwires to trip the unwar claimant" ;ar from ‘help and support, active labour market policies and workfare, are what the alwas were, Gsecuring compliance through threat of sanctionsG &iv " 3n spite of this, the *( believes the word ‘support’ to be a generic abstract noun, applicableto whatever it does as the government department charged with administering minimal social entitlements, including its diametric opposites, compulsion and coercion" Contestin- and 'esistin- Workfare he variants of workfare in the $% were reduced from E to  in +ovember .01, after the decision to do so was buried in the *( press release alread cited" he contestation of and resistance to workfare has it should be noted, been highl effective over the past four ears in both ‘actual’ protests and virtual online ones b numerous groups and individuals &v , the latter turning ‘branding’ and ‘reputation management’ back on itself on social media especiall, to result in around 100 organisations - companies, charities, public sector, and social enterprises - ending involvement in one, several, or indeed all of the *(’s schemes, and included in that figure are all the national charities publicl stating that the would not be involved with the ill-fated ‘/ommunit *ork (lacements’ announced in late .01B b former chancellor =eorge Hsborne and launched in earl .01, but scrapped in late .01, having cost I.B,800,000 &vi " 6andator *ork 7ctivit was worth a total of IBE million, IB. million plus another I million to further - unsuccessfull - intensif and e&tend the scheme, which remained available to ‘Aob /entre work coaches’ to impose arbitraril on claimants regardless of how long the had been claiming and regardless of whether or not the had spent the re:uired two ears on the ‘*ork (rogramme’" ;rom earl .01. when ‘workfare’ - the umbrella term referring to the at the time  schemes - first became apparent as a ma)or strateg for the coalition government for ‘reducing unemploment’, the accompaning publicit and media storm around two claimants’ legal challenge meant that all subse:uent attempts to roll out workfare would be dogged b controvers" 7 ear later, the verdict from the #igh /ourt againstthe *( that the schemes challenged b /ait 'eill and Aamison *ilson were 4flawed5, meant several ears of appeals b the *(, and several repeat verdicts ruling against it" &vii  Hver the last four ears against the continuous and ongoing campaign against workfare in all its forms, the *( has battled the 3nformation /ommissioner and successive court rulings that it must disclose the names of ‘placement providers’ for 6andator *ork 7ctivit, finall having to disclose them without further appeal in Aul.01> &viii " his final ruling could be seen as the apogee of the $% contestation of and resistance to workfare, along with the scrapping of ‘/ommunit *ork (lacements’ the ear after the were launched b the e&-chancellor of the e&che:uer, the combined cost of both failed schemes nearing IB00 million" 7s such it is a good 4  place to conclude this paper on unpaid and unfree work and its ideological veiling as ‘help and support’" he contention of this paper is perhaps best distilled in the *(’s new preferred euphemism for conditionalit which it should be remembered amounts to workfare and sanctions2 and the class pro)ect this is for those in work   but who must supplement their meagre earnings with benefits@ ‘in-work progression’, meaning holding emploees but not emploers responsible for underemploment and obligating them - but not emploers - to increase wages andJor hours" 3ndeed in conclusion it ma be agreed with 6ar& and Dngels, that in an advanced econom such as the $%’s where work itself is in crisis but must be upheld - including in its unpaid and unfree forms - as essential for social reproduction of the structure of e&isting societ 43f in all ideolog men and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura , this phenomenon arises )ust as much from their historical life-process as the inversion of ob)ects on the retina does from their phsical life-process"5 &i&   5
Related Search
Related Docs
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks