End Employment Dependency

SHORT VERSION:

We believe that, for the past 40 odd years Unemployment has been planned and deliberately maintained by most governments, certainly by the government here in the UK and also by the US government from which it takes its cues. (detailed evidence below)
We believe this is done to maintain and increase the power employers have over those in work, to limit the freedom, bargaining power and security of working people.
We believe the current attacks on Benefits and the Unemployed are not about saving money, nor are the Unemployed the main target. The main targets of 'Welfare Reform' are Working People not currently in receipt of Benefits. The worse Unemployment is for the Unemployed, the more powerful the threat of Unemployment is against Working people.
We Believe that Generous Welfare, without strings and conditions on the recipients, Benefits us all.
We work to defend and expand the welfare state – to increase the amount claimants receive, to remove obligations and conditions placed on them and to enable more people to claim. Our defence and advocacy on behalf of unemployed claimants is not mainly for their sake, but to improve the security, freedom and bargaining power of working people.
Long Term we campaign for an Unconditional Basic Income.
We are not merely interested in changing policy, but in changing attitudes and building a culture of entitlement. We believe that encouraging people to feel good about claiming, and to chose to claim when otherwise they might not is as important as defending and increasing benefits themselves.
We are not alone in our beliefs. We have plenty of reliable evidence for them, discussed in depth below:

LONG VERSION (with evidence):

Joan Robinson, who held a professorship of economics at Cambridge University and was a close associate of the legendary J.M. Keynes, tells us:

"The first function of unemployment (which has always existed in open or disguised forms) is that it maintains the authority of master over man. The master has normally been in a position to say: 'If you don't want the job, there are plenty of others who do.' When the man can say: 'If you don't want to employ me, there are plenty of others who will', the situation is radically altered. One effect of such a change might be to remove a number of abuses to which the workers have been compelled to submit in the past . . . [Another that] the absence of fear of unemployment might go further and have a disruptive effect upon factory discipline . . . [he may use] his newly-found freedom from fear to snatch every advantage that he can . .”1

Professor Robinson was echoing the views of economist Michael Kalecki who argued that the main cause of unemployment was the fact that governments work to deliberately maintain it in order to keep wages low and maintain the power of boss over worker. The UK and US governments openly admit that they maintain unemployment as a matter of policy. Journalist Doug Henwood of the Left Business Observer tells us:

"there's supporting testimony from Alan Greenspan. Several times during the late 1990s, Greenspan worried publicly that, as unemployment drifted steadily lower the 'pool of available workers' was running dry. The dryer it ran, the greater risk of 'wage inflation,' meaning anything more than minimal increases.”2

Business Week confirms the story.
A detailed and empirical discussion of the deliberate maintenance of unemployment by governments, and how it is done, can be found in Prof Dean Bakers The Conservative Nanny State. See especially Chapter Two. Dean Baker is a co-founder of the Center for Economic Policy Research and was professor of economics ad Bucknell University.

In 2013, The Bank of England declared that 7% Unemployment was the 'optimal rate' and announced its intentions to raise interest rates - thus ensuring that Unemployment would not fall any further – if Unemployment fell below that figure. Since then, the Bank of England target has oscillated between 7% and 6.5%. That is about two million people, capable of working, not working. This is something they aim for.

The way they justify this, is by saying mass unemployment is needed to keep inflation under control. The theory is known as the NAIRU. We will discuss the arguments they use at length in a later article. However, this is an introduction to our beliefs and we don't want to bore you. Suffice to say the arguments in defence of deliberately maintaining unemployment have no basis in empirical research. They have been thoroughly discredited by numerous economists Robinson and Baker (see link) among them. There are much less destructive ways to control inflation, but these are not used as they involve stepping on the toes of businesses, who have political clout, rather than ordinary people, who do not. Economist Prof Edward Herman explains:

“[this approach] has a huge built-in bias. It takes as granted all the other institutional factors that influence the price level-unemployment trade-off (market structures and independent pricing power, business investment policies at home and abroad, the distribution of income, the fiscal and monetary mix, etc.) and focuses solely on the tightness of the labour market as the controllable variable. Inflation is the main threat, the labour market (i.e. wage rates and unemployment levels) is the locus of the solution to the problem."3

The deliberate maintenance of unemployment does take active forms, such as the raising of interest rates already mentioned, but its passive form is much more significant. Governments have an enormous ability to mobilise resources, which could easily be used to provide employment for all, but isn’t. A measure of this ability can be seen from the recent bailouts – overwhelmingly used to defend the possessors of inordinate privilege from their own mismanagement rather than secure jobs for ordinary people. A high rate of unemployment is usually, more than anything, the result of efforts by government and the business lobby to discipline working people – this particularly demanded during a recession where falling profits result in efforts to squeeze even more from working people.

Lets say we accepted this, in our view, grotesque and absurd, argument that having millions of people who could work, out of work, is necessary for a healthy economy. Even then, for the government to blame the unemployed for unemployment, when having millions of people unemployed is their deliberate policy, is malicious, repulsive and sinister. Given the facts outlined above, efforts to solve unemployment, to 'get Britain working', by putting pressure on unemployed individuals cannot work, are not intended to work. While an unemployed individual can, by strenuous personal effort, gain employment, this comes at the expense of making someone else unemployed.

No matter how hard the unemployed strive to get work, millions will remain unemployed. Where governing institutions work to deliberately maintain unemployment, the labour market is a rigged, zero sum game. A prisoners dilemma where, whether we are in work or looking for it, playing makes us all lose.

When this is understood, Benefits for the Unemployed look absolutely essential, the most moral thing in the world. They are a most meagre and insufficient token restitution paid by government to those it has robbed of a livelihood. Reducing them, tampering with them or placing conditions on them now looks obscene.

However, our main goal is not to inspire people to pity the Unemployed. Rather we want to inspire working people to act in their own interests. The unemployed serve two purposes in the extortion of working people. The first is passive suffering. To sit as an example to disobedient workers – step out of line and that’s you. The second is the active self debasement they perform when seeking work. Driven by the misery they experience, they engage in humiliating competition with their fellows – who will accept the worst pay and conditions, who will do the most for the least – unemployment for the loser. The effects of this travel all the way up the pay scale. As competition for lower tier jobs becomes more fierce, desire for, the number of people desiring and so competition for higher tier jobs increases.

Once this is understood, we see that the 'skivers', demonised in the tabloids, in fact manage to avoid participating in this calculated attack on working people. They refuse to play, refuse to engage in this competition, refuse to undermine working people. A strong case can be made that they are better citizens and better people than those who abandon their dignity in the desperate pursuit of work. At the very least they manage to avoid behaviour which damages the position of working people.

To be clear we have no objection to people seeking jobs in which their dignity is preserved and respected, jobs they enjoy which positively contribute to their personal development and inner life. However, in the current situation most unemployed are pressed by the DWP to see such work as a pipe dream, to abandon such hopes and take any offer – however humiliating. If we want people to have dignified and fulfilling work we need to improve their bargaining power and end employment dependency by giving them other options.

We are taught to respect the motives of those who embrace personal responsibility, who have a 'moral' drive to contribute no matter what and refuse 'handouts' out of pride. However we must recognise that this behaviour is deeply destructive. These people are willing victims and willing participants in a scam which harms us all. As Oscar Wilde puts it:

“As for the virtuous poor, one can pity them, of course, but one cannot possibly admire them. They have made private terms with the enemy and sold their birthright for very bad pottage.”

Most people believe that 'contributing' to the improvement of society is the moral thing for people to do. However, when the economy is run in the warped and exploitative manner outlined in this article it is naïve and counterproductive to believe that this can or should be done by seeking and performing paid work. We believe that working to mitigate and abolish the unhealthy dynamics we outline and ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth is much more important than 'contributing' to a bloated economy which is trampling ordinary people and destroying the planet. Blindly seeking to contribute actively hampers this.

In our view it is absolutely immoral for an unemployed person to take personal responsibility for their situation. It is equally immoral to accept any guilt, shame or stigma. Worse, but much more understandable, is for an unemployed person to accept undignified work. As far as social responsibility goes, the first duty of the unemployed is to seek what happiness they can, to live with dignity and not to debase themselves in the pursuit of work. Wilde again:

“Man should not be ready to show that he can live like a badly-fed animal.He should decline to live like that, and should either steal or go on the rates [dole],which is considered by many to be a form of stealing. As for begging,it is safer to beg than to take, but it is finer to take than to beg.”

The more comfortable life is for the unemployed, the weaker the impact of unemployment on those in work, which Robinson outlines, becomes. Thus we work to defend and expand benefits – ending employment dependency by giving people other options. We believe changing attitudes is as important as changing policy. Thus we work to educate people – that those in work and the unemployed have the same interests, that we are being played off against each other, that an injury to one is an injury to all. We believe that the work ethic is a harmful and anti-social attitude and we campaign against it. We work to build the self esteem of Unemployed People, we want them happy, relaxed and proud. We want people to take their benefits with self assured glee, then clamour angrily for more. We believe in Dignity – and that to abandon it in the workplace is not a noble sacrifice, but something which harms everyone, not just you

Our ultimate policy goal is an Unconditional Basic Income. Think its unfair that the unemployed get benefits while those in work don't? Then give benefits to everyone unconditionally. No means testing, no bureaucracy, no-one falls through the cracks. We will cover this at length in a later article.

What do we want most of all? A mentality of entitlement. Do they owe us a living? Of course they fucking do. This is not a utopian dream, indeed, the basis for an Unconditional Basic Income is already written into law. Article 25 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Ours... to fight for.

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood"

What we actually do.

---
References:

1 Robinson, Joan, Collected Economic Papers: vol. 1, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1973, pp. 84-5
2 Doug Henwood, After the New Economy, pp. 206-73

3 Herman, Edward S., Beyond Hypocrisy, South End Press, Boston, 1992, pg 94

Watch This Space

We are a relatively new organisation. Over time, this article will be regularly updated and expanded Like us on Facebook and your news-feed will automatically keep you updated with everything we do.

Picket your local Job Centre

This is one we have tried and tested - to great effect.

Stand outside the Jobcentre and make your views known. Placards help. As people come in or out, shake their hand and thank them for claiming benefits. If they aren't in a hurry tell them at length why what their doing is positive, responsible and a boon to society. Give them a leaflet – use one of ours or make your own.

Anyone who has been required to attend the Jobcentre will tell you what a horrible atmosphere it has, how powerless and vulnerable those who attend are made to feel. Do something to change this. The presence of sympathetic protesters will provide a much needed boost the morale of those required to attend. It will also make Jobcentre staff cautious and limit their negative behaviour. You will brighten many peoples days, and probably feel really good about yourself afterwards.

Befriend the Sick/Disabled and accompany them to Assessments

(Note to lawyers: Private Providers (esp Atos) have a history of using litigation to silence online criticism of the 'Work Capability Assessment'. Note that criticism here is not directed at the private providers - who are only following orders - but at the DWP which pulls their strings.)

In recent years, the DWP has notoriously hampered the collection of statistics in order to prevent the consequences of their 'reforms' becoming known. However, by their own admission over 1300 people died within six weeks of being told to prepare to return to work (being placed in the 'work related activity group') following one of the new assessments – outsourced to private companies.

These assessments ignore the views of patients GP's and are often not even performed by doctors. 38% of decisions which deprive the sick/disabled of their benefits are overturned on appeal. This figure nearly doubles when the patient receives proper legal representation. It is clear that these assessments have been designed to reduce the number of claimants and meet political targets at the expense of accurately assessing the needs and capabilities of patients.

The enormous number of decisions overturned in appeal, and the much greater effectiveness of appeal when the patient has professional legal representation shows how unprepared many sick/disabled people are to demonstrate their condition in such a way as to have it taken seriously and get the help they need. Help them with this.

One of the first things noted in the assessment is whether the patient came alone or with someone. The latter results in their claim being taken more seriously. The assessments have been identified as intimidating by many patients and supportive organisations/professionals. Having someone with them will give patients confidence and help them speak up about problems they may have otherwise not mentioned due to embarrassment, helping them to jump the hoops to get the help they need - even if you don't directly contribute to the outcome.

Of course you can directly contribute to the outcome. The assessments are based on an obtuse and mechanistic 'points' system. Helping patients to understand this, and what they need to demonstrate in order to 'score' may be vital to a successful outcome. Help them to get the maximum entitlement. If you decide to do this, this is well worth reading.

Ask to have the assessment recorded.

Talk to your Friends

In the current war on welfare, attitudes are as important as policies. Many who can claim, chose not to due to stigma. When unemployed people have the misery of poverty and insecurity compounded with shame, the fear of unemployment, felt by those in work becomes that much greater. Negative attitudes to welfare are shamelessly screamed and broadcast in the Murdoch Press, the Mail/Express, the Telegraph etc. They face little organised opposition – with the Guardian and Independent obsessed with appearing neutral and avoiding strong positions.

It falls on us to promote healthier attitudes.

Boycott Workfare

Refuse to give companies who take part in Workfare Schemes - which force people on beneftits to work for well below the minimum wage, undermining your labour rights and hampering the creation of real jobs - your custom. Engage in protests and activism to damage their reputation and brand image. These tactics have proven successful time and time again. Argos, Homebase, Pizza Hut, Holland & Barrett, McDonalds, Maplin, Matalan, Shoe Zone, WH Smiths and Wilkinson have all withdrawn from Workfare Schemes following boycotts and protests. Help add to this list.

Write to your MP

Intuitively, this may sound pointless. However, if you include your name and address, your local MP has a statutory obligation to reply to your communication. If they do not, you can report them to the Parliamentary Standards Authority. Contrary to appearances, MP's are people and have to sleep at night. Make them confront the consequences of their policies. If nothing else lack of sleep will hamper them in their evil doings. Polite and concise logic will work much better than anger or abuse.

Claim Benefits

Pretty obvious, but many people who are entitled to Benefits do not claim them, whether due to stigma or because they didn't know what they were entitled to. Don't be one of these people. Know your rights and claim them!

End Employment Dependency

Thursday, 25 June 2015

Upcoming Articles...

What is Employment Dependency?

Why an Unconditional Basic Income?

What are Concessions?

The Taxpayer Myth

The Debt Scare

Inflation

Wednesday, 24 June 2015

Pamphlet - What is Unemployment and who Benefits from it?

Friday, 19 June 2015

What we Believe and Stand For