The duty to work as precondition for human dignity: a Swiss perspective on work programmes

In Switzerland, the participation in certain work programmes is an eligibility criterion to social assistance benefits and the constitutionally granted right to the financial means required for a decent standard of living. This chapter examines whether the implementation of these programmes is in accordance with fundamental rights and more precisely, whether they respect the normative framework elaborated in Chapter 4. As will be shown, the right to financial assistance when in need has close links to human dignity. Therefore, the evaluation of the mentioned work programmes against the human rights background leads to some critical conclusions on their compatibility with international human rights law in general and human dignity in particular. Especially, the authors argue that the Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s case law lacks a comprehensive approach for the evaluation of human rights infringements in this context.

Welfare to work and the republican theory of non-domination

This chapter examines how the republican theory of non-domination can be used for a normative analysis of WTW relationships. It is argued that Lovett’s conception of non-domination captures some of the defining elements of these relationships. However, his conception of rules is (too) strongly rooted in the ideas of reasonability and impartiality, as a result of which vulnerable people in particular are at risk of being excluded from its (potentially protective) scope. Therefore, a republican normative analysis of WTW practices should also take account of Pettit’s more inclusive, democratic account of the republican theory of non-domination that is more attentive to the need for democratic oversight over discretionary spaces of welfare officers and work supervisors.

Implementing social justice within activation policies: the contribution of the capability approach

This chapter seeks to evaluate welfare-to-work policies in Switzerland through the lens of the theory of non-domination, using the theoretical tools developed by the capability approach and the French economy of conventions. Particular attention is paid to the normativity that is conveyed at each of the three stages of the policy-making process: its design by policy-makers and high civil servants, its implementation by street-level bureaucrats, and its reception by users and beneficiaries. The economy of conventions allows for a discussion of the multiple senses of justice that are embedded in the policy instruments going down the line of implementation, and the capability approach is fruitfully mobilised in assessing the various vectors of constraint and domination that may be imposed on each actor of the policy cycle. Domination is thus conceived as emerging from considerations of desert that are imposed on street-level bureaucrats and welfare recipients. Combining qualitative research and theoretical insights, this chapter suggests that allowing a greater margin for manoeuver to street-level bureaucrats may empower recipients by facilitating the convergence of interests and thus minimising the domination that a bureaucratic apparatus frequently entails.

Freedom, exit and basic income

According to a ‘republican’ argument, universal basic income increases workers' power to exit employment and so allegedly reduces workers’ vulnerability to domination from this source. However, critics argue that a basic income will have limited impact on exit power, especially if set at a modest level, and that employer domination is anyway built into standard labour contracts independently of workers’ exit power. This chapter acknowledges these criticisms, but argues that we can rescue a republican argument for basic income if we refine it so that it attends to some important but neglected distinctions: between mitigating, reducing and eliminating domination; between a basic income helping, being necessary to, or sufficient for, one or more of these effects; and by recalling that the potential impact of basic income on domination applies not just in the workplace but in other contexts such as the family and in relation to welfare bureaucracy.

Left in limbo: social assistance recipients’ evolving views on the fairness of workfare volunteerism

This chapter focuses on social assistance recipients’ evolving views on the fairness of being summoned to do volunteer work by Dutch local authorities. This ‘workfare volunteering’ is often considered the best alternative to – but also route towards – paid employment. Building on Nancy Fraser’s work on recognition and redistribution as well as Boltanski and Thévenot’s ‘worlds of justification’ framework, this chapter reveals how social assistance recipients’ perceptions of ‘workfare volunteering’ change over the course of their involvement as volunteers. While many social assistance recipients initially judged the obligation to do volunteer work as unfair, the meaning many found in their voluntary positions reversed their initial judgements. But over time – especially as the lack of sustained guidance left them as far away from the paid labour market as ever – they came to see workfare volunteering as deeply unfair. The chapter aims to further our theoretical and empirical understanding of social justice from the perspective of the subjects of welfare-to-work policies.

Pressing, repressing and accommodating: local modes of governing social assistance recipients in welfare to work programmes in the Netherlands

This chapter shows the differences between local welfare-to-work programmes in the Netherlands in terms of the ways in which social assistance recipients are directed towards paid labour: through pressing, repressing and accommodating modes of governing. Based on 13-month ethnographic research in three Dutch social assistance offices, this chapter argues, first, that the observed local differences result from decentralisation of policy design and implementation as well as increased discretionary power for case managers. Second, that the different local practices can be understood as varieties of neoliberal paternalism legitimised through various forms of stigmatisation of social assistance recipients that leave little room for them to revolt against disfunctioning policy and wrongful treatment. Third, by means of using the republican theory of non-domination, this chapter argues that the observed local differences (between as well as within municipalities) and limited room for social assistance recipients to voice their concerns indicate that Dutch welfare-to-work policies work partly in arbitrary ways and are insufficiently democratically controlled.

Limitation of welfare to work: the prohibition of forced labour and the right to freely chosen work

Welfare-to-work programmes imply a legal duty to perform work, often accompanied by sanctions which can be questioned from the angle of human rights and the freedom of work. The chapter examines the conformity of those programmes with the prohibition of forced labour and the right to freely chosen work proclaimed in international human rights instruments. It shows that the mandatory character of those programmes does not violate per se the prohibition of forced labour, neither the right to freely chosen work. However, those fundamental rights set limits and frames the development of welfare to work measures. Through a rigorous analysis of the emerging international case law, the chapter identifies six criteria for assessing the conformity of welfare-to-work programmes with those rights.

The right to work: a justification for welfare to work?

The promoters of welfare-to-work programmes sometimes state that these are based on the will to ‘better realise’ the right to work of their recipients. This chapter questions this assumption and examines whether and under which conditions, those programmes could eventually find their foundation on the fundamental right to work proclaimed in international human rights texts. It demonstrates from an analysis of the international pacts, their preparatory texts and the case law that welfare-to-work measures can only be considered as aimed at realising the right to work if they are likely to improve the chances of their recipients to later find a freely chosen, paid and productive job in the labour market. It shows that this open and abstract condition excludes a large part of welfare-to-work measures from a human rights-based justification for the type of work they value or the way they are implemented.

Workfare’s persistent philosophical and legal issues: forced labour, reciprocity and a basic income guarantee

This chapter addresses four persistent legal and philosophical issues that imbue workfare, albeit usually not explicitly. First, forced labour is a relatively common charge against workfare. If workfare is tantamount to forced labour, it cannot be justified, legally or morally. But to what extent do we truly object to forcing people to work? Second, the chapter asks what is unique about requiring people to work? Third, we address reciprocity, probably the most persuasive, most common, and most controversial argument in justifying workfare. And finally, the chapter addresses Basic Income Guarantee, which is the mirror image of forced labour: If forced labour is the epitome of the ills of capitalism, basic income is the tool to save capitalism from itself. If forced labour is the charge, basic income is the (perceived) solution. But it also addresses the problems of conditionality. For if Basic Income is not only plausible, but morally justified, it offers a strong argument against conditioning benefits on work.

Conclusion: exit, voice and the minimization of domination in welfare to work relationships

This chapter draws together the book’s main conclusions by connecting the findings of its various chapters. It first analyses the relationship between the human rights perspective presented in the book’s legal section and the republican theory of non-domination. Subsequently, it assesses the cross-national variations found in the legal and sociological chapters. Based on this analysis, it proposes institutional, organisational and legal improvements to WTW policies that seek to minimise relations of domination.