The deadline for motions for Spring Conference is almost upon us. If there are any paid-up members of the Green Party reading this who are aware that solving the many ecological problems that we face offers us an opportunity to put an end to the irrational and inhumane social problem of unemployment, I wonder if you would be so kind as to copy the text below and forward it to soc[at]greenparty.org.uk with a message to say that you are seconding it.
It needs to be with SOC by 30th November - sorry about the short notice, but there is a very narrow window for submissions to the first agenda, and I have been away.
Very grateful for any support
Richard
GREEN WAGE SUBSIDY MOTION FOR SPRING 2014
Synopsis
Unemployment
causes illness and poverty at individual and community level. It may lead to
alienation, which can play into the hands of political extremists. Youth
unemployment is high, and is known to have an economically disabling effect
throughout life.
At
the same time, there is a vast amount of work which needs to be done to heal
society and environment.
This
motion is intended to address these problems by creating a voluntary scheme
that converts JSA into a stimulus to the green sector of the economy.
Green Wage Subsidy
Add in
the PFSS after EC733:
EC734
Unemployment has become accepted as a normal part of the modern economy.
However, it has severe impacts on the health of individuals and communities. It
bears particularly hard on young people, and some studies show that they are
scarred for life by the experience of unemployment. Not just poverty and
ill-health, but anger, resentment and alienation all result from unemployment.
At the
same time as unemployment is inflicted on millions, there is a vast amount of
good work left undone, work that would heal society and environment.
Green
Wage Subsidy (GWS) aims to address these problems by turning unemployment
benefits into a support for beneficial work as set out below.
GWS also
prepares the ground for the introduction of full Citizen’s Income
EC735 Every
local authority will be [required][allowed] to set up a small Tribunal, of two or
three officers, empowered to judge, systematically according to set criteria,
whether the processes and product of employers who come before them are of net
benefit to society and/or environment.
Applicants
would typically be operating in the following fields:
Energy
·
energy conservation
·
renewable energy technologies
·
energy efficient goods development and manufacture
·
public transport
Pollution Control
·
pollution control technology
·
waste minimisation
·
repair
·
recycling
Environment
·
water management
·
sustainable agriculture
·
forestry
·
timber use
·
countryside management
Human needs
·
housing - new building and refurbishment
·
improvements to visual environment
·
education and training
·
counselling, caring and healing
·
community work
·
community enterprises such as cultural centres
·
leisure and tourism
·
innovation, research and development in these fields
EC736.
Businesses and public enterprises who believe they might qualify may go to the
Tribunals seeking "Green Accreditation”. Any economic grouping may apply:
public services including local authorities, National Health Service, social
services, co-operatives, charities, and private enterprises. The central
criterion for acceptance is that the outcome of their goods and service is to
the benefit of society and environment. Preference will be given to small local
enterprises. Large national and multinational corporations will be [scrutinised
critically in terms of their Corporate Social Welfare standards and taxation
contributions, and with a few exceptions will be unlikely to succeed] [excluded
from participation].
Successful
applicants may take on new workers (i.e. in addition to their present
establishment) from Job Centres. New workers taken on under this scheme will be
allowed to keep their current unemployment benefit in their new job. This can
be seen as a 100% extension of the present limited “Earnings Disregard”.
An appeal process will be provided to check on the
decisions of the Tribunals where necessary.
Acceptance
of a job offer will be voluntary. Refusal of a job offer will not result in any
penalty.
EC737
The employer would bring the remuneration of the GWS worker up to the
appropriate normal rate of pay for the job that is paid in the company. This
decision should take account of the Minimum Wage and Living Wage. Living Wage
for all employees is the preferred minimum level.
The
effect of this is to transform the present “Job Seekers’ Allowance” and other
forms of unemployment benefit change from being a dead, grudgingly granted
“dole” into a Green Wage Subsidy (GWS) which stimulates the green sector of the
local economy. The worker has employment and a better income as a result of
taking on work, while the employer has a bigger workforce for a smaller outlay
than would normally be the case. There is no significant cost to the Government
in the short term. There should preferably be no time limit for this
arrangement, so that in this regard it behaves in the same way as a Citizen’s
Income (CI), and as years pass, the CI could be introduced gradually as a
natural extension of the GWS.
EC738 It
will be illegal for employers to replace their previous establishment with GWS
workers, and if workers believe that they have been so replaced they can make a
complaint to the Tribunals, who would have powers to reinstate the worker or,
in the case of repeated offences, to revoke the offending company’s
accreditation.
Participation
in the scheme will be entirely voluntary on the part of employees and
employers. The scheme will stand outside of any existent rules which provide
sanctions for claimants who refuse work, and in the event of a claimant
refusing work offered by accredited employers, there will not be any withdrawal
of benefit.
The
reason for this is that workfare and forced labour is contrary to the ethics of
the Green Party. Also, forced labour is inefficient labour.
EC739 In
order to avoid unfair competition between established companies and putative
start-up companies, it may be decided that companies applying for accreditation
must have been in existence for a period of time, for instance, at least two
years. In special local circumstances, this rule may be adjusted by the
Tribunal.
EC740
GWS money would otherwise have been given to unemployed people on condition
that they do nothing apart from being obliged to prepare themselves for work
that for most of them simply does not exist. Therefore, in the short term GWS
would present no cost to public sector finances, since the money would have
been paid out in any case. Some of the GWS money would come back to Government
in the form of increased tax revenues from firms which have benefited, and yet
more would come back to society in qualitative improvements such as improved
services, diminished inequality and improved morale. Calculations suggest
that a GWS scheme operating at 50% of full capacity would benefit the UK
economy to the tune of £10 Billion per year, at a cost (for the tribunals) of
£34 Million a year. Because the GWS is permanent (as opposed to being time
limited, which is the case with similar schemes at present) there would be a
long term cost analogous to that of CI.
Proposed
by: Richard Lawson
North
Somerset GP
Addendum: Cost of the GWS
2 comments:
Richard - I'm afraid I haven't read the full discussion on the Green Party Forum, but I've read the new motion, and I'm still not convinced.
The motion attempts to kill two birds with one stone. The two birds are:
(1) the insanity of paying people not to work when there is a huge amount of very beneficial work that could be done, and
(2) the difficulty of introducing the Citizen's Income.
The GWS attempts to kill these birds by (1) subsidising the creation of new "green" jobs, and (2) giving some people a partial Citizen's Income.
My problems with this are:
(1) A much, much, much, much simpler way of subsidising the creation of new "green" jobs is... to subsidise the creation of new "green" jobs! No tribunals, no appeals, very little bureaucracy. Dead simple. Just budget a certain amount of money for this purpose (taking into account the corresponding savings in unemployment benefits, of course).
(2) Allowing some people to have a partial Citizen's Income (and to be paid less by their employers) actually makes it more difficult, not easier, to introduce a full Citizen's Income. In round numbers, a full-time job on the living wage is £300 per week, and job-seeker's allowance is £70 per week. Under GWS, the employee is paid £230pw by the employer (£5.75p/h), and £70pw through the GWS. Next, a few years down the line, a government tries to move towards the Citizen's Income, and allows everyone to keep £70 per week. Now everyone is better off, except the people whose jobs were created through the GWS! Or, if the GWS employers are now forced to increase the pay from £230 to £300, it puts a significant strain on the greenest employers! Either scenario is ridiculously unfair.
If we're looking for a way to introduce the Citizen's Income gradually, then why not simply allow everyone to keep £N per week, and gradually increase N?
I wholeheartedly support the aims of the GWS. But I think it attempts to solve two separate problems at once, when it would be much simpler to tackle them separately.
I sense a long discussion beginning, but I anticipate it won't get anywhere (I don't expect to be able to convince you, based on previous experience!). So, to save both of our time, I'm just going to leave this comment, both here and on the forum, and allow you to shoot me down and leave it to readers to decide for themselves!
Best wishes,
Anthony
Anthony
All I would say is - do it. Just do it. That's what I am trying to do. If your way is better than what is proposed here, you will succeed.
Post a Comment