Editorial

The findings of a study aimed at pinpointing what led to a poor response to a training and employment exposure scheme for those over 40 are quite revealing. It shows that despite all the efforts that have been made so far to stamp out abuse in unemployment benefits, the problem still exists.

The scheme was devised by the Employment and Training Corporation. About 1,200 registered unemployed were entitled to join but only 300 expressed an interest and, at the end of the day, only 81 decided to take up the offer! The number is extremely small and called for a proper investigation of the situation.

Such poor response must have been very disappointing to the ETC, especially in view of the many calls made for ways and means to be found to offer alternative employment to a category of job "seekers" whose age works against them.

Age may indeed work against this category of job seekers, but it looks as if age has very little to do with the reason for their registration for employment.

Wisely, the corporation decided to go deeper into the matter and commissioned a research agency to carry out a study. Now, according to the findings, the job seekers do not seem all that desperate to find jobs.

The corporation gave four main reasons that could have led to lack of interest in the scheme - an unwillingness to work for reasons known only to the job seekers themselves; leading a comfortable life on the social assistance received; health considerations that mitigate against employment, registering for work in order to qualify for social assistance and, fourthly, engaging in the black economy.

In fact, the information given shows a situation that can well be described as both risible and tragic. For example, when respondents were asked what sort of weekly pay did they expect, the figures mentioned ranged from Lm60 to Lm200 a week!

Ninety per cent of the interviewees were long-term unemployed and 80 per cent of the sample received social assistance. Again, this is quite an interesting observation.

Only three out of five respondents claimed to have received the letter inviting participation in the scheme. The compilers point out that a letter might not have be an ideal means of communication "as it provides an easy escape route for those inclined to claim non-receipt of such letters.

The information given in the survey shows widespread abuse that should be quickly checked in the interest of all, particularly of course the taxpayers who are financing those who prefer to keep registering for work rather than join the labour market.

Such situations happen in a number of countries abroad as well. What is manifestly wrong is when political parties or trade trade unions, eager to put the party in government in a bad light, come out criticising administrations for striking workers off the unemployment register.

It is only right to support those who find themselves out of work and help them retrain themselves in a bid to find a place in the labour market again. But those who prefer to abuse the system should be told in plain language that enough is enough.