Sir, - The sexist and reactionary implication in the current "workfare" agenda is that work in the formal economy is socially more desirable than other kinds of activity (eg raising children) and that such formal employment is the only justification for monetary reward. This world-view ignores the fact that, for example, childrearers perform a vital, unpaid and invisible economic function (no children, no future workers).
So even if human labour were the sole origin of wealth, there would be an inescapable case for rewarding those who make it possible in the first place (by raising the future workers). But in fact human work is not the sole origin of wealth, since without natural energy and raw materials, it could produce nothing. Land and other resources originally belonged to everybody. They were expropriated originally and many times since then. Throughout history, honest labour undoubtedly contributed much to economic development, but so did robbery, dispossession and exploitation.
In essence, there is a natural and demonstrable entitlement on the part of members of the community to a share of the community's resources, simply by virtue of being part of that community. There is, in short, a free lunch. Or would be, if reason rather than ideology held sway. The fact that it is class-based ideology that is at work in the workfare agenda may be seen from the implicit condemnation of the "unearned" income of welfare recipients, and the deafening silence regarding the (definitely unearned) income of the rich, who benefit from inheritances, investment dividends etc.
The solution to the problems (poverty trap etc) arising from the traditional authoritarian rule that "welfare recipients may not work" is simply to remove the "not". Instead Mary Harney would impose another authoritarian rule: "welfare recipients must work." Despite its facile appeal to the prejudices of her support base, this new level of bureaucracy will involve additional expense and complexity in administration, and discourage entrepreneurship, creativity, and further education. Those currently registered as unemployed will be forced to engage in activities that may - or may not - contribute to the social good, and this will no doubt provide an agreeable massage for the statistics. But, as "workfare" in the US has amply demonstrated, they will be as poor as before and, if there is another recession, their position will be even less secure than it was in the last one. - Yours, etc., Paul O'Brien,
Christchurch,
Dublin 8.