Many unemployed workers are being forced to do things that, according to the letter of the law, they do not have to do.
Have a look below at the Government’s official jobseeker requirements tables to ensure the mutual obligation requirement activities your are being told to do by your job agent are fair.
For a guide to the deliberately confusing jargon and acronyms, click here.
Are you doing something you don’t have to? Check below:
The Australian, 16/12/15
Rick Morton, Michael Owen
The government is walking away from its flagship Work for the Dole scheme and will save $127 million by restricting the program and its contingent intensive support to unemployed people under 25.
The money will be recouped over three years from the program that was at one stage due to have 150,000 participants across the country.
Between July and September this year, the vast majority of work-for-the-dole participants were over 25. Estimates data shows there were 21,131 over-30s and 15,148 under-30s. On September 30, there were more than 21,000 people aged over 25 in Work for the Dole.
Work for the Dole was mandatory for those aged up to 60 under the old regime, tied to monthly appointments with the government’s Jobactive service providers , to help them find work.
Under the updated system, those receiving the “intensive” services at June 30 this year will be grandfathered, but new entrants having problems finding work and jobseekers over 25 will use regular Jobactive services.
In the three months from July to September this year, the government spent $64.5m on Work for the Dole, including $12.5m to co-ordinators.
As at June 30, almost 17 per cent of job-support clients who had found work for six months — considered a bonus milestone — were back without work after a further six months. The rate was almost 30 per cent for those with the most significant support requirements.
Work for the Dole was criticised by many in the welfare sector for being ineffective compared with other intensive training options or wage subsidies. About 19 per cent of those participating in Work for the Dole schemes were employed three months later.
Departmental data suggests wage subsidies result in job outcomes of between 47 per cent and 65 per cent after six months.
More money will be given to a national program to help school- leavers into full-time work with the $212m Transition to Work getting a $109.8m boost over four years. The program is for people aged 15-21, including those who are not on income support, to help them overcome barriers to employment and gain skills to get into the workplace.
Lisa Stewart, 29, said without compulsory Work for the Dole she would never have had the opportunity to acquire the skills to find full-time work. Ms Stewart, who left school in NSW in Year 9, ended up in Adelaide at 19 with a limited education, few skills and next to no job prospects.
She is now a fully fledged hospitality employee with the Adelaide Convention Centre and the Tandanya indigenous arts centre’s cafe, after completing a vocational education course in North Adelaide and a Work for the Dole program, where she worked three days a week.
“I’ve had a pretty rough trot throughout my life, but I am determined to better myself and get on the road to success,” she said. “They should not discriminate on how old you are. I only found myself in my mid-20s and the doors started opening through the Work for the Dole program.”
Today is the worst time in Australian post-war history to be unemployed. The AUWU have identified three major attacks currently being directed against unemployed workers.
Firstly there is the low rate of Newstart, which is currently $381.10 per fortnight below the poverty line for a single unemployed worker, assuming they are receiving maximum rent assistance. The last time Newstart was increased in real terms was in 1994.
Secondly, there is Australia’s ongoing unemployment crisis. Going by the most recent figures released by the ABS and the Department of Employment, there are 11.25 job seekers competing for each job vacancy. This ratio is at a record high and has led to the average duration of unemployment being in excess of three and a half years –an increase of more than 300% since 1995.
Finally, there is the increasingly punitive array of activities and appointments that are being imposed on unemployed workers by a privatised and largely unregulated Employment Services Industry.
This crisis is an uncomfortable reality for Australian politicians who are at the very least complicit in the shameful manner in which unemployed workers are being treated.
Rather than implementing the job creation programs that are so urgently needed to help the 1.8 million Australians looking for work, these chambers have instead continued to attack and vilify the unemployed creating generations of disadvantage.
I have brought with me today a collection of experiences from 14 unemployed workers and one former Max Employment consultant to clearly illustrate this point. I encourage all Senators present to read it.
The bill before us today represents one of the worst attacks ever launched on the unemployed in this country.
By giving the privately run Employment Service Industry sweeping new powers to impose immediate financial penalties on unemployed workers, this bill will only serve to deepen their disadvantage – ultimately pushing them further away from employment. On this basis, the AUWU recommends that the bill be rejected in its entirety.
As the Labor party have recently indicated that they will oppose 3 of the 5 proposals in this bill, today I will focus my attentions on the other 2 apparently more popular proposals – namely the proposal to subject all unemployed workers to an immediate No Show No Pay penalty if they miss an activity, and the proposal to give Employment Service Providers expanded powers to penalise unemployed workers who fail to provide adequate proof of their job searches.
There are four major issues the Australian Unemployed Workers Union would like to raise about expanding the No Show No Pay penalty to all activities.
Firstly, the immediate No Show No Pay penalty eliminates the small window unemployed workers currently have to appeal against an unfair decision before their payment is reduced. It is worth noting that there is little protection in the act against Providers implementing this penalty arbitrarily and unfairly. These issues apply to all No Show No Pay penalties proposed in the bill.
Secondly, the proposal will lead to more cases of unemployed workers being bullied and intimidated by their Employment Service Provider. This concern is made all the more pressing considering the perverse incentives given to Employment Service Providers to penalise unemployed workers.
Thirdly, if the current average penalty duration of 2.8 days continues, this proposal will result in sanctioned unemployed workers being docked at least 20% of their already insufficient Newstart entitlement. It must be recognised that docking an unemployed workers’ entitlement – even for one day – can result in considerable impoverishment & anxiety, which can lead to a cycle of mental illness, isolation and further penalties, which will inevitably drive unemployed workers away from employment – the opposite of what this bill intends.
Finally, the Australian Unemployed Workers Union is deeply concerned that the time taken to ‘reengage’ with an activity could be even longer given the sporadic and unreliable nature of some activities.
Moving along to the proposal regarding job search penalties, I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to four areas of concern.
Firstly, unemployed workers in regional areas will be disproportionally affected by this proposal.
Secondly, the proposal will lead to job search becoming a box-ticking exercise for many unemployed and prevent them concentrating their efforts on realistic jobs.
Thirdly, there is no evidence to suggest this proposal is necessary. According to the department, since 2013 only 22 unemployed workers were investigated by DHS for poor job search. Out of these cases, DHS found no evidence of improper conduct and did not implement one single penalty.
And finally, as there is no explicit guidance in the Act of how this penalty will be implemented, there are no protections against Employment Service Providers applying this measure arbitrarily and unfairly.
I look forward to addressing any questions the Committee may have.
SOURCES
Henderson Poverty line, Melbourne institute release for June Quarter ($1035.1 per fortnight for a single with housing costs)
Maximum amount of Newstart including rent assistance: $654
ABS Labour Force September (released 15 October)
Job Vacancies (released in September)
Long Term unemployment stats: 2012 statistic qtd. in Disabled, Work and Welfare: Doing the ‘Hard Yakka’: implications of Australia’s workfare policies for disabled people. Alan Morris, Shaun Wilson and Karen Soldatic
The Australian Unemployed Workers’ Union have been invited to give evidence at the senate committee public hearing into the proposed Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2015. The public hearing will be held in Canberra at Parliament house on the morning of Friday the 13th of November.
The AUWU will be sending at least one representative to convey our grave concerns regarding the changes proposed in the bill, which if approved will give Employment Service Providers sweeping new powers to financially penalise unemployed workers. Our specific concerns are all available for you to read in our submission to the committee, available here.
To help us effectively oppose the proposal, we strongly encourage all unemployed workers to send us submissions of their experiences with employment service providers.
Specifically, we are looking for unemployed workers who have been sanctioned or financially penalised by their employment service provider to tell us about their experiences, with a particular focus on those who have received ‘No Show Ho Pay’ penalties.
In your submission to the AUWU, be sure to include information regarding:
1) The reason the Employment Service Provider gave for penalising you;
2) Whether you thought the penalty was justified or if you appealed against the penalty;
3) What were the practical effects of the penalty (i.e. did it cause you financial hardship, how did it effect your job search efforts, etc).
Please send your submissions to contact@unemployedworkersunion.com and we may table it at the senate committee.
If you would like to give evidence in person at the committee, send us an email to tell us why.