I’m soon finishing up working at the union, which means I’m going to have to deal with WINZ.1 I’ve decided that the best way to deal with this is to re-tell all contact with WINZ as an epic adventure on my blog.
The first step in this story is the WRK4U seminar. Before you can apply for a benefit (at least in Wellington) in New Zealand you must go on a WRK4U seminar. The main goal of a WRK4U seminar is to kill people with boredom before they get the chance to apply for the dole.
My seminar was very much what you’d expect at a Wellington seminar at this time of year: mostly pakeha2, mostly young, mostly men. There were five women, including me, and all the other women were students, as was the only Maori guy there.
The first thing the guy running the seminar asked us was if we had a partner. I was very pleased to see that everyone said no. While I’m not suggesting any specific person was lying (and in case there are any WINZ employees reading this I’m not in a relationship in the nature of marriage) – lying to WINZ about the nature of your relationships is an important rite of passage in this country.3
Relationships in the nature of marriage have a funny history. Women on the DPB4 were one of Muldoon’s many targets, and in the late 1970s (the DPB only became a statutory benefit in 1972) there was a real campaign against women on the DPB who knew any men. One cabinet member was explaining what a relationship in the nature of marriage meant, and he said that the woman didn’t necessarily have to be having sex with a man for the man to be financially responsible for her, because he knew lots of married people who never had sex. At the time they tried to get a woman to sign an agreement that specified that she wouldn’t have dinner with the same man more often than three times a week, or have sex with him more than once a fortnight. Whether their ideas of relationships in the nature of marriage are weird or accurate probably depends on whose marriage they were using as a basis.
The rest of the seminar involved a WINZ employee showing us over-head projector slides and explaining them to us and, as time went by, people arguing with him. The guy asked us who the major employers were in Wellington, of course everyone said the government. He agreed but then said restaurants, and then mentioned McDonalds and KFC by name (which is complete rubbish, I know the person who organises for fast-food outlets in Wellington, and they’re not that big in terms of total hours). Just in case we were thinking we should be looking for actual jobs, with fixed hours.
Then he put up a chart showing how much money we’d get on the benfit compared with how much money we’d get in a full-time job. He explained further that if you got into a job the employer would see how well you were doing, and give you a pay rise (I looked sceptical and giggled a bit at this, since this cheery picture doesn’t match either my personal, or union experience of employers’ attitudes towards pay rises). Then he said that the benefit would stay the same amount forever, and ever and you’d never get any pay increases. When I said “surely the benefit gets inflation adjusted” – he wouldn’t even answer my question and say ‘yes the benefit is inflation adjusted.’
I think the idea of the seminar was supposed to be that you sit there and listen to the WINZ guy talk. It should come as no surprise to readers (and certainly not to anyone who knows me), that I wasn’t very good at that. I can’t remember where I started butting in, but I do know that by the time he got to the working for families package entitlements I was explaining it (after that he said he thought I should get a job working for WINZ, which shut me right up).
The really good thing is that once I started, everyone else started putting their two cents in. One of the guys there didn’t have the two forms of ID they claimed to need, and another woman said ‘it’s just another stupid hurdle to try and persuade us not to apply.’
After this we had to go away again, make another call to the 0800 number and set up another time wasting appointment. Apparently you used to make the second appointment at the end of the first appointment, but they don’t do that anymore. Presumably because if just 1 in 20 people don’t have a phone and find it just too hard to ring the 0800 number, that’s many benefits they don’t have to pay each year.
The whole thing was in essence creating opportunities to shove people down the cracks. What makes me so angry is that it won’t be the people who need the benefit least who don’t get the benefit under this system, it’ll be the people who need it most. I’m fairly certain that I’ll get the benefit, and I’m also fairly certain that the woman sitting next to me, who’d been on the student allowance and was wearing a Gucci bracelet, will too. But the guy who’d been on the independent youth benefit and didn’t have a passport or a birth certificate, he probably won’t.
What bothered me most is how any form of paid work was again and again portrayed as the solution to everyone’s problems. There were posters on the wall with photos of happy workers and inane quotes such as “I love my job so I always give 100%.”
Even in a half hour seminar (well it was supposed to be half an hour), the guy took the bosses side against the workers on a number of different occasions. He used the example of someone who bought a stereo on installments one week, and the employer put him off the next. This implies that bosses can just get rid of people at will.5
I’m not saying that having a job can’t be good for someone’s life, of course it can. But they’re not necessarily; employers have a very real power over workers, and particularly in an unorganised workplace, where employees have absolutely no power, that power can make someone’s life much worse.
Just this month I’ve talked to workers who were trying to fight back against really awful sexual and racial harassment, another worker who was made to work so many hours that she fell ill, and someone else who was driven out of her job. A few weeks ago I walked past an accident on the street – someone had been crushed to death at work.
There is more to this life than having our labour exploited.
- Normal people would call it the social welfare department, but not in New Zealand [↩]
- New Zealand European [↩]
- If you’re in a relationship in the nature of marriage – usually sleeping with someone more than three times a week – then they’re financially responsible for you and their income is tested before you get any help from WINZ [↩]
- solo parent benefit [↩]
- which they can’t in New Zealand [↩]
Pingback: feminist blogs
What bothered me most is how any form of paid work was again and again portrayed as the solution to everyone’s problems.
It’s a pretty good solution to the problem of “I don’t have any money”.
I’m fairly certain that I’ll get the benefit…
Out of curiosity, why are you applying? You’re clearly literate and articulate. Is there some personal concern that prevents you from working? (Pardon me if there is, and it’s something personal. I don’t mean to pry.)
I wonder how many people are aware that legislation from 1964 governs WINZ policy. You know, back when women wore pinnies, a family was a Mother, Father and 2.2 children, being gay was illegal, Tangata Whenua didn’t exist and no Asians lived here.
I look forward to reading your stories of humiliation by gatekeepers and young ‘managers’ to anyone who dares cross the WINZ office threshold. I await with glee the private and initimate details of those who are being interrrogated at reception. I also cant wait to find out where 25 copies of the same form actually get filed, the rent on that building must be huge.
In anticipation…
I’m on the other side of the world (Germany) and the whole thing sounds so familiar… Only, here they are not checking who might have dinner with whom how often, but how many beds people who share a flat have between them. (Used to be, they checked only opposite-gender flatmates, but they have caught up to the times some in recent years.)
Currently, the unemployed are given self-marketing classes, which attempt to present the old definition of a proletarian as someone who has nothing to sell but their work as the latest news, and good news at that, because having something to sell makes one an entrepreneur… very funny, in a way.
Anecdote: A friend of mine had to go to court to get his disability pension. The judge, with three years worth of paperwork in front of her said, “You are obviously quite intelligent, educated, and have been organzied enough to get this matter to court. Why don’t you work?” Implying that the only people entitled to disability pension are those too sick to navigate the system. (The answer was quite long, after all, that was what the heaps of paperwork were about. He got his pension in the end.)
I wish you good luck!
Robert New Zealand still has some vestige of a welfare state, which means people who are unemployed are entitled to a benefit while they are looking for work.
Don’t worry Sandy, there will be lots of installments.
Sounds like the New Zealand government has come up with a singularly ineffective way to administer their benefits and encourage people to seek employment rather than apply for them.
There is more to this life than having our labour exploited.
Yeah; there’s exploiting someone else’s labor so that you can get the government to reallocate their money to you while you don’t labor.
A couple of questions:
1) Why should it be the function of the government to provide money to people who are unable to support themselves? Why shouldn’t it be a private not-for-profit function?
2) Should there be a distinction in benefits eligibility between those who can work but don’t want to (for whatever reason) and those who cannot work (again, for whatever reason), or work but don’t earn enough money to support themselves? If so, what means should the agency supplying the support money use to distinguish between the two?
I recognize a moral obligation to help the poor, the sick and the needy. I personally think that it is wiser policy to teach someone to fish rather than simply giving them a fish, but sometimes you have to do the latter while they’re learning to do the former. However, if someone can fish but doesn’t care to do so I think that presenting them with the options of either fishing or starving is not inappropriate. I think it’s entirely justified to require someone to do all that they can for themselves, and only providing what assistance will make up the difference to provide for their needs. Whether NZ (or the USA) has a system that does that correctly and effectively is a valid subject for inquiry. So is “what constitutes ‘needs’?”
Oh, I see. This is unemployment benefits. We have those too. I thought it was the dole. NVM.
I didn’t necessarily get that, Robert. In reading the above I thought it was welfare. Maia, what’s the deal?
Also, how are unemployment benefits funded in NZ? In the U.S., corporations pay money to an unemployment fund. I don’t know if any portion of unemployment benefits are funded by tax money, but certainly at least a substantial portion of it is funded by employers.
I do see from Maia’s #4 that we’re likely talking about unemployment benefits here. Maia, in the U.S. unemployment benefits run out after a fixed period of time (I think it’s 26 weeks). What are the limits in NZ? And are they funded solely by taxes, solely by employer contributions, or a mix?
Heh, the Successories-type posters are the kicker in this story.
How effective is the service at actually getting people into work? Obviously, a *good* job pays more than the benefits, but how effective are they at connecting people to good employers (not just KFC, McDonald’s, etc..)? Are there training programs for skilled labor, or basic office work classes people can take?
Ron F. – the government has economies of scale compared to even the most efficient not-for-profit (or for-profit) companies.
Compare the overhead and administrative costs between Medicare and any private health insurer, or the Social Security Administration and private pension or financial services companies, and you can see a huge savings in having the government do it.
The part about arranging things so that the people who actually need benefits the most have the hardest time accessing them sounds painfully familiar. It works that way in the UK too.
RonF unemployment benefits are funded out of general taxation (like other benefits such as the Domestic Purposes benefit, sicknes benefit, and invalids benefit). There is no limit of your length of time on an unemployment benefit.
Aaron – they actually told us at the session that 70% of jobs come from networking, and only 3-5% come from WINZ – if that’s the case why don’t they leave us alone.
Maia, here’s how it’s done in the U. S. From The State of Illinois’ Department of Employment Security website:
“The unemployment insurance (UI) system is a unique federal-state partnership, grounded in federal law but executed through state law by state officials.”
“Compulsory unemployment insurance (UI) was created during the depression of the 1930’s by the Social Security Act. Funding for the program was provided through the Federal Unemployment Act. UI was designed both to alleviate personal hardship and stabilize the economy by providing insured workers with temporary and partial replacement of wages lost by involuntary unemployment.”
“Benefits are available as a matter of right to unemployed workers who meet state qualifying and eligibility requirements. State laws vary regarding eligibility for benefits, the amount of benefits, and the amount of weeks which may be paid.”
“State unemployment benefits are financed through state payroll taxes which are held in individual state trust fund accounts in the U.S. Treasury’s Federal Unemployment Trust Fund. These funds are invested by the Secretary of the Treasury in government securities in the same manner as social security trust funds. Federal law prohibits the use of these funds for any purpose other than payment of unemployment benefits.”
“Revenues from the Federal Unemployment Tax are held in three federal accounts in the Unemployment Trust Fund:
1. The Employment Security Administration Account from which state and federal administrative costs for unemployment insurance, employment services and certain veterans employment services are appropriated.
2. The Extended Unemployment Compensation Account, which provides the federal share of extended unemployment benefits that are available during periods of high unemployment.
3. The Federal Unemployment Account from which repayable advances are made to depleted state trust fund accounts to ensure that benefit obligations are met.”
“The program is funded by an employer payroll tax and provides weekly unemployment benefits to those who meet the eligibility requirements set by state law. In general, employer contribution (tax) rates are directly related to the amount of benefits received in the past by those employees laid off from the business. ”
“Generally, to be found eligible for benefits, you must be unemployed through no fault of your own, have earned wages in “insured” employment, be available for new work, and be actively seeking work.”
“You may be disqualified from receiving benefits because you:
1) quit your job
2) were discharged for misconduct
3) refused suitable new employment
4) were involved in an ongoing labor dispute, or
5) you return to work.
There are other disqualifications, as well.”
So:
Benefits are financed mainly by employer payroll taxes, with a small amount of it coming out of general revenues.
They are not intended to replace your previous wages.
They end after a certain time, regardless of whether or not you have a new job.
An employer’s UI taxes will go up if they lay people off and those people file for benefits.
You have to get fired to get them.
If you are fired for taking drugs, stealing, not doing a good job, cursing out the boss, you went out on strike and lost your job on that basis, etc., you are not eligible.
If you are laid off of your job, but your boss offers you a similar one and you don’t take it, you are not eligible. I’m not clear on the meaning of “similar” in this context. I don’t know what the effect of having to move to take the new job or having to work a different shift has on that.
I was laid off once (along with 600 other people). I filed the next day. I collected for 9 weeks until I got a new job. During each of those 9 weeks, I had to go into the unemployment office and give evidence that I had contacted at least 3 different employers about jobs, either through phone calls, sending in resumes, filling out an application, etc. I had to provide names, phone numbers and addresses for each employer. The caseworker could call them up, and deny me benefits for that week if they did not confirm that I had contacted them. The benefits were due to run out in 20 weeks. During time periods of high unemployment, the Feds have extended them another 20 or 26 weeks, but no more than that.
The unemployment office would provide me with contacts, etc., but they were mostly generally useless for someone looking for a skilled or professional job instead of a McJob.
Aaron V. said:
“Ron F. – the government has economies of scale compared to even the most efficient not-for-profit (or for-profit) companies.”
There are apparently other considerations besides economies of scale. Here is a speech by the Governor of Indiana on why the State’s welfare program has been turned over to a private company. The emphases are mine.
by Governor Mitch Daniels (as printed in the Northwest Times of Indiana, January 2, 2007)
This week, after two years of study, competition and negotiation, I signed a contract to reform Indiana’s welfare system. Although this proposal has been under constant attack for weeks, it is one of the most straightforward and obvious decisions our administration has faced. Here’s why.
Today’s welfare system, as run by the monstrous bureaucracy known as the Family and Social Service Administration, is totally indefensible.
Its clients know it: In surveys more than two-thirds of them condemn its customer service as poor.
The federal government knows it: Because of chronic high error rates and the worst welfare to work record in America, Indiana is facing the loss of millions of federal dollars in penalties if the system is not fixed soon.
Indiana prosecutors know it: Over the last few years, they have brought dozens of cases against welfare workers who were defrauding the public through various scams or outright theft.
The only folks who may not have known how miserably the system is performing are Hoosier taxpayers, but many of them have suspected the truth.
For Hoosier taxpayers, reform means enormous savings: a half billion dollars over the next 10 years, and that’s only on the administrative side. When today’s high rates of errors and fraud are brought down, savings will probably exceed a billion dollars.
For those who actually do deserve food stamps, Medicaid, or welfare assistance, this change means far better service, with many additional phone and Internet options. No longer will they have to contact the system only at places and times convenient to the bureaucracy, then wait a month or longer for an answer or a decision.
For employees of the system, their new private sector employment with IBM or one of its partners means equal or better pay, benefits, pensions and career prospects superior to any state government can offer them. It also means they will be freed of pushing paper and able to spend more of their time helping citizens achieve self-sufficiency.
And for the Indiana economy, the bargain we struck with IBM commits the company to bring an additional 1,000 quality jobs to our state. Without any question, this change is squarely in the public interest; leaving the system as it is would have been not just wrong but immoral.
Since the status quo lobby cannot really defend the mess they created, they resort to broadside attacks on “privatization.” Again, taxpayers beware.
There is absolutely nothing new about government delivering a service by contracting rather than hiring more people on government payrolls. That’s how we build highways, train employees, service computers, and purchase plane tickets, for example.
Almost all of Medicaid is already “privatized”: The doctors, substance abuse counselors and hospitals are not government-owned, they are private businesses. The billing and back office functions are all under private contract, exactly as welfare’s now will be. Overall, more than nine out of 10 FSSA dollars are already spent through contracts with the private sector.
We contract for service for only one reason, to get a better deal for the taxpayer. We saved $12 million a year when we “privatized” the cooking of prison food, millions more by hiring private janitorial services and collection agencies to pursue tax evaders. We “privatize” functions to save tax dollars, but each time we do there is a secondary benefit: The Indiana private economy gets a little stronger.
The private sector that some interest groups and politicians love to bash is where most Hoosiers work, and thank goodness. That’s where the money to fund government comes from; without a strong private sector, there are no taxes for government to spend in the first place.
I wince when I hear Indiana politicians bad-mouth the private sector, using words like “profit” and “private” as though they were cuss words. Every day, we are talking to companies around the nation and the world about in-sourcing new jobs to Indiana. All of them have other options, and few will take their dollars to a place where business is the target of contempt and abuse.
Indiana deserves a government run for the benefit of the taxpayer and not special interests. When you consider the source, the howls you’ve been hearing only underscore the extent to which our upcoming welfare reforms put taxpayers first.
RonF again:
Now, we’ll see how it works in practice. It’s not like fraud and theft or bad service or inefficiencies don’t occur in private business. But there’s also more recourse, since Indiana can cancel and move the contract if those occur, and the private owners have investors that put pressure on them to keep those from occurring. But economies of scale don’t seem to be doing much in the present case.