THE IRISH Congress of Trade Unions has said the introduction of any form of “compulsory workfare” by the Government would not represent a strategy for tackling joblessness.
At a meeting with Minister for Social Protection Eamon Ó Cuív yesterday, an Ictu delegation restated its opposition to proposals under which unemployed people who refused to take part in new employment opportunities in the community would lose their welfare benefits.
Plans put forward by the Minister in recent weeks would involve up to 10,000 people being offered employment on a range of projects, including the provision of childcare, working with sports clubs and on environmental initiatives such as improving forest and mountain pathways.
Mr Ó Cuív has said the aim of the scheme was to help those out of work to maintain and develop skills and to deter welfare fraud.
However, the Ictu delegation, which included its president Jack O’Connor, general secretary David Begg and its legal and social affairs officer Esther Lynch, said it was opposed to any mandatory participation in workfare schemes, which are “more about punishing the unemployed than helping them”.
Mr Begg said the meeting took place against the backdrop of the release earlier this week of the highest unemployment and emigration figures in perhaps 20 years. “The real issue here is a lack of job opportunities and Government’s failure to address the job crisis. Until we tackle that there will be no recovery . . . In our view any form of compulsory workfare does not represent a strategy for tackling joblessness. The three countries that implemented this model – the US, Australia and Canada – all abandoned it, while the UK later decided against introducing it,” said Mr Begg.
He added that what was needed was a jobs strategy and not a plan to punish the unemployed.
“At the height of the boom, we had the lowest levels of unemployment in the European Union, which is clear proof that people want work and will work when it is available.”
In a statement, the Department of Social Protection said the meeting had been “constructive” and that details in relation to the schemes would be announced in due course.
