Chris Grayling can dismiss those campaigning against his scheme – but he may have lost sight of the national mood
While fury engulfs the varied toil-while-you-claim benefit schemes, it is worth remembering that real work experience can be valuable. Sociologists say acquaintances matter more than any qualifications in getting a job – it really is who you know, not what you know – and contacts with employers will not be forged at home on the dole. For slump-era youngsters who have never had the chance of a job, exposure to almost any culture of work can only be a Good Thing: yes, including in high-street stores. Heaven knows enough journalists found their way to their desks through an internship.
Volunteering while claiming the dole used to be barred, and it was right to lift this ban – it closed off a route into employment. But the all-important question is what constitutes decent work experience. In essence it has to do what it says on the tin – that is, provide real experience from which one can actually learn, as opposed to the dismal dead end of unremunerated labour. Important in the distinction between the two is time: a day or two's taste of even menial work might teach the uninitiated something about employed life, although this "education" would clearly not take long to complete. With less skilled and more routine work, there is less training to do and any unpaid spell should be measured in days, not months. A good scheme would take account of older workers' experience and young people's ambitions. In one reported case, however, a mundane placement came at the expense of a more interesting internship which fitted better with the individual's dreams. Above all, fair work experience must be undertaken freely. Any teacher will tell you that you can't impart much knowledge to someone desperate to get out of the classroom, and non-paying employers will run into the same problem.
Ministers duck and dive around the question of compulsion, seeking cover under the complexities of five different schemes – each of which has different rules about docking benefits. But all operate within a harsh regime – ever since 1986, extra conditions for unemployment benefits have been continually piled on top of one another; meanwhile, the dole has been steadily ratcheted down from 17% to less then 10% of average male earnings over the last 35 years. Desperately cash-strapped people are harried at every turn, and even though they are supposed to sign up voluntarily to the highest-profile scheme, once they do so they risk a financial punishment they can ill afford if they walk out after the first few days. No matter that, as ministers insist, actual sanctions have thus far been rarely used: the scheme operates on the basis of an unacceptable threat. And on the evidence that is available, it is not much good at landing people jobs. Before extending unlimited work experience to disabled people, under clause 54 of the welfare reform bill, Whitehall ought to reflect that Labour's New Deal for Lone Parents achieved much better results, through a mix of cash rewards and relatively gentle prompting.
But it is not these nuances of social policy that have left high-street giants stepping back, and Chris Grayling floundering on the Today programme. The minister of work is no foaming reactionary, but a former SDP man. As he has drifted right, however, he may have lost sight of the public mood. Middle Britain may have a punishing attitude to scroungers, but it is equally angry about unhired hands being asked to boost the coffers of the likes of Tesco and – in a different way – A4e. If the maxim were exploitation today begets opportunity tomorrow, we could scrap the minimum wage and free employers to trade the promise of prospects for pay. Voters, however, refuse to think of things this way. Mr Grayling can damn the campaigners who resist his scheme as a Socialist Worker front. The Stop the War Coalition were often described the same way, but – true or not – that hardly negated their central point.