Workfare Revisited

Paz-Fuchs, Amir; Eleveld, Anja

doi:10.1093/indlaw/dwv030

Cited by 7 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Writing on workfare in the UK and the Netherlands, Paz-Fuchs and Eleveld observed that the relevant schemes exclude, albeit not always explicitly, participants from various labour law protections. 29 They explained that recipients are not classified as workers entitled to the national minimum wage; it is unclear to what extent they are covered by Working Time Regulations 1998; they are not protected against unfair dismissal, which is a protection that only employees have; and it is unclear whether they are covered by equality law.…”

Section: Welfare-to-workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare‐to‐Work, Structural Injustice and Human Rights

Mantouvalou¹

2020

Modern Law Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses welfare-to-work schemes, places schemes with strict conditionality in the theoretical framework of structural injustice, and argues that they may violate human rights law. Welfare-to-work schemes are schemes that impose obligations on individuals to seek and accept work on the basis that otherwise they will be sanctioned by losing access to social support. The schemes are often presented as the best route out of poverty. However, the system in the UK, characterised by strict conditionality, has ended up coercing those who are poor and disadvantaged into precarious work, and conditions of in-work poverty. Because schemes with strict conditionality force people to work in these conditions, structures of exploitation are created and sustained, becoming widespread and routine. The article further situates the problem in the theoretical framework of structural injustice, and argues that a framework of 'state-mediated structural injustice' is the best way of explaining the wrong. It finally claims that this injustice violates principles that are enshrined in human rights law, which the authorities have an obligation to examine and address.

show abstract

Section: Welfare-to-workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare‐to‐Work, Structural Injustice and Human Rights

Mantouvalou¹

2020

Modern Law Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Due to its welfare state and labour market restructuring, the Netherlands is at the forefront of labour market activation and flexibilisation (Kremer, Went, & Knottnerus, 2017;Paz-Paz-Fuchs & Eleveld, 2016). These developments have gone hand-in-hand with an increase in 'in-work poverty' (Snel, de Boom, & Engbersen, 2008;Vrooman, Josten, Hoff, Putman, & Wildeboer Schut, 2018).…”

Section: Case and Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While people who 'work hard' are believed to be deserving of (financial) rewards, those deemed not to be working hard enough (since they need income support) are obliged to do so in what is called 'workfare' programmes (McDowell, 2004;Paz-Fuchs & Eleveld, 2016;Standing, 1990). These programmes are aimed at labour market (re)integration and require welfare clients to perform all kinds of workfrom unpaid and community work to course workin return for receiving benefits.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performances for upward mobility: How Dutch workfare programmes function as temporal spaces of imagination

Arts

2020

European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The gradual retreat of many governments from actively supporting secure labour relations and social security through welfare arrangements, and the related normalisation of precarious conditions, goes hand-in-hand with a promise of the attainability of 'the good life' through work. Workfare programmes are at the centre of this, as they are aimed at 'improving' welfare clients and their position in society through performing precarious work. Based on an ethnographic study of group workshops in three Dutch workfare programmes, this article shows how welfare clients are taught the promise of upward mobility through waged labour and are required to give 'the right' performances that might (in principle if, often, not in practice) potentially enable them to be successful on the post-Fordist labour market. I argue that these workshops function as temporal spaces of imagination in which adherence to the promise of upward mobility through paid work can best be understood as a form of post-Fordist affect, one that enacts, albeit temporarily, a resolution that is frequently lacking in real life.

show abstract

“…There appear to be a number of possible reasons for this, including indications that Job Centre Plus did little or nothing to ensure that employers put adjustments in place. In addition, it is not clear that there is a legal duty on the work experience provider to make adjustments for work experience/workfare participants ( [86], p. 47). Indicating the lack of proper systems being in place to help ensure reasonable adjustments are made, a mobility disabled study participant suggested "I also think that JCP (Job Centre Plus)...should be asking all claimants about the suitability of their WRA (work related activity), in respect to their disability limitations, and if claimants are not getting Reasonable Adjustments from their WRA employers, then the JCP advisor should have a mechanism in place that allows them to take the issue up directly with the employer" (words in brackets added).…”

Section: Flexible Labour Market Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was noted above that Paz-Fuchs and Eleveld ( [86], pp. [47][48] suggest that workfare participants might currently be excluded from non-discrimination protection.…”

Section: Can the Statute Be Revised To Better Meet The Needs Of A "Flmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Has Limited the Impact of UK Disability Equality Law on Social Justice?

Harwood

2016

Laws

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature indicates that disabled workers in the UK experience more social injustice than UK workers as a whole, including in relation to employment rates and wage levels. Drawing on the author's 2015 qualitative study of 265 disabled workers, this paper considers how successful the Equality Act 2010 Reasonable Adjustments Duty has been in tackling this social injustice. It finds that in the context of the "flexible" labour force (consisting of insecure jobs), and the "reformed" welfare state, the Reasonable Adjustments Duty is ill-equipped to achieve its original purpose of reducing the substantial disadvantage that disabled workers face. As regards the "flexible" labour force, there appeared, for example, to be a strong reluctance to make reasonable adjustments for workers on zero hours contracts; while, as regards the impact of welfare reform, fear of being dismissed and facing benefit sanctions discouraged zero hours workers from pushing for adjustments which had been refused. The paper goes on to suggest a possible wording for a strengthened Reasonable Adjustments Duty. It concludes, however, that, without changes to unfair dismissal, and other labour laws, to address the wider iniquities of the flexible labour market, a strengthened duty will not be able to prevent a long term increase in social injustice for disabled workers.

show abstract

Workfare Revisited

Cited by 7 publications

References 3 publications

Welfare‐to‐Work, Structural Injustice and Human Rights

Welfare‐to‐Work, Structural Injustice and Human Rights

Performances for upward mobility: How Dutch workfare programmes function as temporal spaces of imagination

What Has Limited the Impact of UK Disability Equality Law on Social Justice?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About