A u t h o r : A d a m B r e n n a n

B A P e n d i n g

D a t e : 1 1 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 4

Gateway Report

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 2

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3

Research Question .................................................................................................................................. 4

Aim .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 4

Rationale ................................................................................................................................................. 4

Beneficiaries ............................................................................................................................................ 5

Research Methods .................................................................................................................................. 5

Results Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Forced Labour ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Social Exclusion ................................................................................................................................... 7

Poverty Trap .................................................................................................................................... 8

Marginalisation in the Work Place .................................................................................................. 8

Motives ............................................................................................................................................... 9

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 12

The Implications ................................................................................................................................ 12

Education? ........................................................................................................................................ 12

Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 13

Poverty Trap ...................................................................................................................................... 13

Personal Development Plan .............................................................................................................. 14

Increase in Back to Education ........................................................................................................... 14

Remuneration ................................................................................................................................... 14

Annotated Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 16

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 17

Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................ 18

Survey Results ................................................................................................................................... 18

Appendix B ............................................................................................................................................ 24

Interview with Local Authority Job Bridge Intern ......................................................................... 24

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 3

Introduction

Extract from - Pathways to Work 2013: 50 Point Plan To Tackle Long Term Unemployment

‘the Department of Social Protection will, with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, roll-out 3,000 new social employment scheme places in Local Authorities. This new scheme – named ‘GateWay’ – will bring the total number of places available (on all pathways to work schemes) to 44,000, an increase of 30% on 2012’ (2013)

The Gateway local authority labour activation scheme was first announced in Budget 2013.

The scheme proposes to select 3,000 persons currently on the live register. These potential

candidates will then be offered a position on the Gateway scheme with a Local Authority.

Should the candidate elect not participate in the scheme they will incur either a reduction or

suspension of their social welfare payment.

Local authorities, after making their application for candidates to the Dept of Social

Protection, will then select from a list of potential Gateway participants. According to the

Department of Social Protections (DSP) website welfare.ie, once selected these people will

then be allocated positions within the local authority in roles such as –

Village Enhancement Schemes

Landscaping

Tourism Ambassadors

Control of animals

Libraries

New projects - Brown Field Site Remediation

Welfare.ie also states with, regard to remuneration –

The minimum weekly payment for participants (based on 19.5 hours worked) is

€208. If the actual Jobseeker's Allowance (including dependents) you were getting

is €188 a week or less, then you will get the minimum Gateway weekly rate of €208

(that is €188 plus €20). If your actual weekly Jobseeker's Allowance (including

dependents) is €188.01 or more, then you will get the equivalent rate plus €20.

Participants will work 19.5 hours for a 22 month period. There is no further allowance for

work related costs such as travel, childcare, healthcare, clothing, food etc.

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 4

Research Question

Will the Gateway Pathways to Work Scheme lead to higher rates of social exclusion, by marginalising jobseekers, through a system of forced labour?

Aim

The aim of this research is to assess whether the Gateway pathways to work scheme will lead to marginalisation of scheme participants.

Objectives

1. To carry out a public survey.

2. To establish if the Gateway pathways to work scheme, is viewed as, and can be classified as, forced labour.

3. To demonstrate how Gateway Pathways to work scheme may facilitate an increase

in social exclusion.

4. To demonstrate that the Gateway Local Authority Labour Activation Scheme result in participants becoming marginalised in the work place.

5. To identify possible motivations informing the introduction of the scheme.

Rationale

The rationale for this research is to gain a greater understanding of the Gateway scheme and its role in the wider Pathways to Work government program. To address the contention, that this scheme may further marginalise jobseekers by forcing them into the workplace under the menace of welfare reduction or suspension. Through comparative research, to make viable recommendations based on programs implemented in other EU countries.

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 5

Beneficiaries

The beneficiaries of this research are prospective candidates for entry on to the scheme,

local authorities, the Department of Social Protection, Ibec, trade unions & future

governments wishing to examine past pathways to work strategies.

Research Methods

The primary research methods are a public survey (see appendix A) and interviews with

participants in other schemes (see appendix B). There is also collaboration with local news

media to gauge public reaction, on a whole, towards the scheme. The collaboration involves

a radio interview outlining the Gateway Scheme, followed by a comment line giving the

general public the opportunity to remark the issue.

Although the scheme is relatively new, I none the less discovered limited reading materials

on various web sites directly related to the scheme. There are a number of news articles and

video clips available from various sources and further information on government websites.

There are numerous academic papers available on the subject of social inclusion/exclusion,

the International Labour Organisations (ILO) website provided ample information relating to

International Labour Law.

Employment figures for Ireland are readily available from the Central Statistics Office and

the European data from the Eurostat website.

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 6

Results Analysis

Forced Labour The dept. of social protection website, wefare.ie, with regard to application for participation

on the Gateway scheme, states -

There is no application process for unemployed people who are eligible for this

scheme. Potential participants will be randomly selected and contacted by their

social welfare local office.

According to Olivia Kelly (2014) of the Irish Times –

Anyone who refuses a placement can have their dole cut or stopped.

This could be best described as Hobsons choice. Mirriam-Webster (2014) defines this as –

An apparently free choice when there is no real alternative.

The prospective candidate will be informed that they have been identified as eligible for

participation in the scheme. If selected, they will be offered a place. Should they elect to

decline the opportunity they will face a reduction or suspension of their social welfare

payment.

On March 2nd, 1931, the Irish government ratified the C29 Forced Labour Convention, 1930.

Article 1.1 of the convention states –

Each Member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this

convention undertakes to suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its

forms within the shortest possible period.

Article 2.1 states –

For the purpose of this convention the term forced or compulsory labour shall mean

all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any

penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.

Given the definition in article 2.1, the threat, or ‘menace’, of a reduction in income, and the

lack of any reasonable choice, it is logical to conclude the this scheme, can be defined as,

forced labour.

In a survey of 20 individuals, 90% of people, having read the statement in Article 2.1,

answered ‘Yes’ when asked if they felt that the Gateway scheme could be classified as

forced labour. See chart 1.1.

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 7

Chart 1.1 Source: Created by the Author (2014)

Social Exclusion Social Exclusion can be defined narrowly –

in which case it is used as a synonym for income poverty and refers specifically to either those people who are not attached to the paid labour market (exclusion from the paid workforce) or to those people in low-wage work. It is often used alongside the concept of “social cohesion” in the sense that a cohesive society is one in which (political, social and economic) stability is maintained and controlled by participation in the paid workforce. Peace (2001)

Although participants in the Gateway scheme will not be included in live register figures, neither can they be considered members of the paid workforce, as their remuneration is still considered a social welfare payment. As outlined in the introduction, participants in the Gateway scheme will receive €20 by way of a ‘top-up’ to their social welfare payment. It can be argued that individuals under the age of 25 will receive a more significant ‘top-up’, as their social welfare payment has been lowered in Budget 2013. However, this argument does not take into consideration under 25’s with dependants. The ‘top-up’ payment will be required to serve all work related costs such as, travel, childcare, food, clothing etc. During an interview (see appendix B), a job bridge participant, currently interning with a local authority, was asked if the €50 top up payment which they received was adequate to cover their work related costs? They stated –

“The payment does not cover my costs fully, between travel, childcare, clothing and food, I find that I am significantly worse off financially, since starting the internship”

The individual interviewed, worked for 35 hrs per week. Gateway participants will work 19.5 hours however it is possible that the work related costs may be equal. The Community

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 8

Employment (CE) Scheme is also based on a 19.5 hour week model. These hours can be allocated differently depending on the placement. Candidates can be either asked to work a 2.5 day week or alternatively, they can be requested to work five half days. If, as is determinable from this information, the candidate incurs expenses which outweigh the ‘top-up’ payment, then the overall household income will be reduced, due directly to their participation in this scheme. This will result in increased poverty levels. When surveyed, 89% of people felt that €20 was not sufficient to cover work related costs for Gateway participants. See Chart 1.2.

Chart 1.2 Source: Created by the Author (2014)

Poverty Trap

The ‘poverty ‘trap’, describes a situation whereby an individual or family living on unemployment benefits, finds themselves in a position in which ‘signing off’ to return to work will lead to a reduction in the overall household income.

Marginalisation in the Work Place

When asked if they felt marginalised in the work place, three interns currently partaking in

the job bridge scheme with local authorities answered ‘Yes’. One intern asked to provide

more detail stated –

“During my time on the internship, I have been witness to, and the subject of, several

personal insults. The permanent staff members have made it quite clear to me and the

other interns, that we are not a part of the team. We are here to fulfil a role which no

other member of staff was interested in fulfilling. The staff have even gone so far as to

adjust their break times, so as not to coincide with that of myself or my job bridge

colleagues. I am 6 months into this internship and find it difficult to muster the enthusiasm

to come in. I have spoken to management about the issue but they are unwilling to act. I

feel that if I attempt take it any further, it may make matters worse. I feel worse now

than I did when I was on the dole”

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 9

Judging by this evidence, it is clear that there would be a strong divide between permanent

local authority staff and future individuals participating in pathways to work schemes. As

there seems to be no redress for participants currently engaged in pathways to work

schemes. When surveyed 80% of people agreed that the scheme will increase social

inequality. (see Chart 1.3)

Chart 1.3 Source: Created by the Author (2014)

This constitutes the further marginalisation of job seekers. In many cases individuals, who

find themselves, on what is defined as long term unemployment, are so through no fault of

their own. Yet, they may soon find themselves forced into these demeaning positions.

Motives It would be remiss of any researcher, if they were not to address the motives and potential

benefits to government informing this scheme.

According to the Central Statistics Office (CSO) (2013) the annual average unemployment

rate for 2013 in Ireland was 13.2%. In Jan 2014 Eurostats seasonally adjusted figures (See

Table 1.1) rank Ireland 21st in Europe at 11.9%. These figures represent a drastic reduction

over a 3 month period, which is questionable. However, these numbers remain

unacceptably high.

The current government are using any and all means to reduce this number.

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 10

Table 1.1 Source: epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu

As stated in the introduction, with the inclusion of the Gateways scheme the total number

of places available on Pathways to Work programmes is 44,000. This represents, 10.9%, a

significant reduction in live register numbers. However it fails to create long term

employment. Further to this, given that this particular scheme is directed solely at Local

Authorities, it will also assist in prolonging the moratorium on recruitment currently in

place.

When surveyed 65% of people felt that the Gateway scheme will facilitate the reduction of

live register numbers. (see chart 1.3)

Chart 1.3 Source: Created by the Author (2014)

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 11

Chart 1.4 shows that 95% of people agree the Gateway scheme will assist in prolonging the

moratorium on public sector recruitment. (see chart 1.4)

Chart 1.4 Source: Created by the Author (2014)

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 12

Conclusions

The Implications On the basis of the research carried out, in particular –

Public Survey

Public Reaction to Radio Interview

Interviews with Local Authority Job Bridge participants

Clear definition of International Labour Law

Comparison with other Pathways to Work schemes

Various articles and papers relating to unemployment, social exclusion and job activation

It is clear that Gateway Local Authority Labour Activation scheme constitutes a system of forced labour, in breech of International Labour Law, namely article 2.1 of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930, which will only serve to further increase social exclusion in Irish society. The scheme has the potential to push jobseekers further into the ‘poverty trap’, making the schemes role as a job creation strategy redundant. With no measurable outcomes, the motives of the scheme are highly questionable. With the addition of this scheme, the total number of places available on pathways to work programmes in Ireland is 44,000. This allows for a 10.9% reduction in live register numbers. It is also important to note that with increased man power in local authorities the government will ease pressure to remove the moratorium on public sector recruitment.

Education? The majority of the Pathways to work schemes offer the same level of training, namely safe

pass, basic IT, Fetac level 4, manual handling, first aid etc. This has led to the job market

being flooded with job seekers with similar, if not identical training. The training is often at

quite a low academic level.

This level of training is not in keeping with the current Irish job market, the expansion of

companies such as Google, Facebook, LinkedIn requires that job seekers receive at

minimum, a Fetac level 6 level of training in order to be considered for entry level positions

in modern day organisations.

Local Authorities will have access to a fund as part of the Gateway scheme, however they

have yet to disclose the purpose of this fund, other then to say that it will utilised on

facilitation, such as Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and Training. When questioned on

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 13

RTE’s Prime Time: Does the Gateway Scheme work? (2014) regarding training, Jim Daly TD

stated –

“There is funding available to the local authorities for training such as safe pass”

Recommendations

Poverty Trap An increase in the minimum wage as apposed to a decrease in income tax, plus a

incremented social welfare reduction system would together, release people from this trap.

This would also serve to reduce welfare fraud by alleviating the need for a ‘Black Economy’.

The ‘Black Economy’ refers to work carried out by individuals and paid for in cash,

undeclared to the revenue, in some instances for fear of loss of welfare benefits.

It is vital that Ireland implements a system of measures, designed to prevent the recently

unemployed falling into the ‘poverty trap’ and becoming Long-Term unemployed. Other

European models, such as is found in France, treat the first year of unemployment as

critical. There are numerous supports in place to encourage people to ‘rebound’ back to

employment as quickly as possible.

When describing Rebond pour l'emploi, a French labour reactivation scheme, Sandrine

Gineste (2012) explains –

When individuals register as unemployed, PES counsellors undertake an initial assessment and diagnostic. Following this diagnostic, people most unlikely to return to employment can access specific support (known as reinforced support) which provides intensive support for a minimum duration of six months. Support can be delivered by the job centre (Pôle Emploi) or by a private placement operator. In the case of private placement support, three kinds of services are implemented according to job centre specifications: 1) ‘Employment Trajectory’ for those unemployed who face difficulties getting back into employment or for those with reduced employment opportunities that require a specific program of retraining for a duration of six months; 2) ’support to people who have lost their job after economic redundancies’ with a duration of one year; and 3) ‘Atout cadres’ dedicated to executives and more particularly long-term unemployed executives or those aged over 50 years (at maximum risk of LTU). It is important to note that assessments for intensive support are designed to accelerate a return to employment and decrease the risk of continued or long-term unemployment.

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 14

Personal Development Plan The introduction of a personal development plan (PDP), with realistic, measurable goals is

essential as part of a structured ‘back to work’ program. This plan must be the result of

collaboration between the job seeker and an independent career guidance advisor. Through

this, the advisor can assist job seekers in identifying, sourcing and implementing the correct

courses appropriate to them as individuals. This also provides the facility for follow up,

informal meetings to assess the PDP progress and address issues.

Increase in Back to Education It is logical to conclude, in providing access to higher education opportunities, governmental

depts. will provide an individual with the opportunity to gain long term employment.

Companies seeking employees with a recognised qualification such as a diploma, in many

cases, will provide any further training required manual handling and safe pass if required.

Such courses are often just 1-2 days, it is of little consequence to the employer if the

interviewee posses them. This renders the delivery of these courses, unless requested by

the participant as part of their personal development plan, redundant.

Remuneration The case is made that the €20 ‘top-up’ is not the totality of the remuneration for the work

carried out. It is argued that the payment of Job Seekers Allowance of €188 + €20 is what

the candidates will be paid for their work. In reality, this argument has no grounds. The

participant would receive €188 regardless of participation on any scheme.

In order to prevent further social exclusion there is requirement for a remuneration package

of equal value to the minimum wage, a practical example may look as follows –

Job Seekers Benefit €188.00

Less Training €50.00

19.5 hrs Min Wage @ €8.65 €168.67 Less Union/Oversight Org. Fee €5.00

Total*before deductions* €356.67

Total Gross*after deductions* €301.67 Table 1.2 Source: Created by Author (2014)

By following the above example, the employees are actively participating in their own

development. By making a contribution to their personal training, they are encouraged to

make positive choices about their own future. With the inclusion of a Union or Independent

Oversight Organisation the participants will have some form of redress should they feel that

they are in any way miss treated or marginalised.

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 15

The increase in total gross income will benefit local area both economically and socially,

through spending and a reduction in economic poverty.

Given the information provided in this report, I feel that Local Authorities have a social responsibility to boycott this scheme in its present format. There is a requirement for government to re-evaluate the parameters and address these concerns prior to commencing further.

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 16

Annotated Bibliography

International Labour Organisation (1930) C29 Forced Labour Convention 1930. Geneva : International Labour Organisation, p. 1-2 The C29 Forced Labour Convention gives definition to the term forced labour. It also outlines circumstances which can be classified as forced labour. The document, which is ratified by Ireland, instructs all members of the International Labour Organisation to abolish all forms of forced labour, within the shortest possible period. Gineste, Sandrine. (2012) European Employment Observatory (EEO) Review: Long-term unemployment. France: European Employment Observatory, P.7 The document outlines unemployment trends in France from 2007 to 2012. It provides the reader with an understanding of policy decisions aimed at preventing the recently unemployed from progressing into long term unemployment. By highlighting the point by point processes deployed by the job centre (Pôle Emploi) in tackling the issue, it reads as a general guide to effective measures in tackling unemployment. Government of Ireland (2013) Pathways To Work: 50 Point Plan to Tackle Long Term Unemployment, p.18 The Irish Government have produced this document outlining their 50 point plan to tackle long term unemployment. The plan has 5 main headings, namely, better engagement, more activation, removing disincentives, incentivising employers and reforming institutions. The document describes long term unemployment as scourge to the Irish economy, and the plan, a key element to economic recovery. Peace, Robin (2001) Social Exclusion: A Concept in Need of Definition? New Zealand : Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, Issue 16, p.26 Peace discusses the difficulties in defining social exclusion in a global context. Within this document he refers to several individual countries outlining their definition of social exclusion. He goes on to discuss the implications of those definitions. He also discusses the further implications of defining the term in governmental policy.

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 17

Bibliography

Central Statistics Office ., 2013. Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Rates. [Online]. Available from: http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/labourmarket/principalstatistics/seasonallyadjustedstandardisedunemploymentratessur/ [cited 04 March 2014] Dept. Of Social Protection ., Gateway. [Online] Available from: http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Gateway.aspx [cited 04 March 2014] Eurostat ., 2014. Unemployment Statistics. [Online]. Available from: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics#Further_Eurostat_information [cited 05 March 2014] Kelly, Olivia ., 2014. Jobseekers To Be Put To Work In Local Authorities. Irish Times Online, [Internet] 21 Feb 2014 Available from: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/jobseekers-to-be-put-to-work-in-local-authorities-1.1699335 [cited 03 March 2014] Mirriam-Webster ., 2014. Search for Hobsons Choice. [Online] Avaliable from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hobson's%20choice [cited 02 March 2014] RTE., 2014. Prime Time: Does the Gateway Scheme Work? [Internet] Dublin : RTE Avaliable From: http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2014/0304/20537837-does-the-gateway-scheme-work-part-1/ [Cited 04 March 2014]

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 18

Appendix A

Survey Results

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 19

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 20

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 21

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 22

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 23

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 24

Appendix B

Interview with Local Authority Job Bridge Intern

What is your personal opinion of the Job Bridge Scheme?

While I think in principle that job - bridge is an ideal solution for people looking to expand

their personal work experience within a chosen area or alternative career path, the schemes

falls short on several levels. Firstly, the work experience offered in my present situation is

mundane, repetitive and offers no scope for creativity, job satisfaction, or improvement of

skills. Secondly, I have been left to my own devises with no assessment of current work

undertaken and there has been no time line or long term plan as to what I would achieve at

the end of my work experience. This is regardless of the advertised job description offered

to applicants applying for this position. I have found this aspect of job bridge alarming, as I

have chosen to invest 9 months of my life in a programme which initially had the potential

to assist in improving my skills base and ultimately my chances of securing full time

employment in my given area / field of study and future career path.

What is your personal opinion of the your host organisation with regard to their approach

to your training and skills development?

Unfortunately I feel I have been left to my own devises, and while I have been given work to

do with some instruction there has been no follow up from my supervisor; with reference to

how I am progressing with the work, if I have encountered any problems or difficulties.

When I have voiced any questions relating to the content of the work undertaken I am met

with a blank face. I have found that in order to familiarise myself with the content of the

work I have had to be resourceful and look for back ground information myself without any

assistance from my employer. I am six months into my internship and have yet to learn any

new skills which would assist me in the future to secure gainful employment. I have had one

meeting with my host organisation discussing skills I already have and of their future plans

to instruct me in a certain programme, to date I have not been instructed in this new skill. I

have theoretically learnt nothing new during my internship through the job bridge scheme

and the only positive is that I will procure a reference at the end of the scheme stating that I

have gained work experience within a certain field. It is with regret that I say I do not hold

my host organisation in very high esteem and I feel that they have fallen short in their

approach to my training and skills development. I would not recommend this organisation

to any future or would be intern as I feel that the scope for personal development falls short

of the perceived expectations mentioned in the job description.

Gateway Report 2014

Page | 25

Have you ever felt marginalised during you job bridge placement?

During my time on the internship, I have been witness to, and the subject of, several

personal insults. The permanent staff members have made it quite clear to me and the

other interns, that we are not a part of the team. We are here to fulfil a role which no other

member of staff was interested in fulfilling. The staff have even gone so far as to adjust their

break times, so as not to coincide with that of myself or my job bridge colleagues. I am 6

months into this internship and find it difficult to muster the enthusiasm to come in. I have

spoken to management about the issue but they are unwilling to act. I feel that if I attempt

take it any further, it may make matters worse. I feel worse now than I did when I was on

the dole

Job replacement being defined in this instance as: Hosting a job bridge intern at no cost to

the organisation as opposed to hiring a paid member of staff to do the same job? In your

opinion, is the job bridge scheme open to abuse by some organisations in the form of job

replacement?

Unfortunately any scheme is theoretically open to abuse and with reference to the job

bridge scheme my current employers feel they are entitled to engage with interns through

this scheme. However, they were unaware of the implication of taking on interns and

introducing them to the work place; problems such as integrating interns with permanent

staff has seen cases of bullying and isolation directed towards the interns alongside an

unwillingness to engage with, inform and instruct interns on a daily basis. When the

problems encountered by the interns was brought to the management’s attention the

interns were told that they would have to make a formal written compliant against the

members of staff who were instigating the bullying. There was no opportunity to discuss the

problems in an informal manner so as to alleviate any problems. The interns had to then

suffer in silence the continuous abuse such as, isolation, personal remarks, and ageism .

Are you aware of any instance when an organisation has engaged in job replacement?

In my personal opinion I feel there is plenty of opportunity for this scheme to be abused,

and with reference to my current position they are using the interns to pick up the slack due

to depleted staff members and the current moratorium in place within the sector that I am

currently an intern.