Who to serve? The ethical dilemma of employment consultants in nonprofit disability employment network organisations

Australian Journal of Social Issues, Autumn, 2009 by Stephen Thornton, Greg Marston

DARREN: ... I'm erring on the side of the client, give them the benefit of the doubt but I'm not, I'm not a pushover ... I give them a chance ... but I only give them one of those chances and after that I think no that's it.

As discussed earlier, the Programme Procedures give ECs some discretion to consider the validity of the reasons for non-attendance at scheduled interviews. This second group displays a less rigid position, however, they are wary of this goodwill being abused or taken for granted by clients. While ECs in this group also agree with the principle of mutual obligation, they are less supportive of the Welfare-to-work policy due to the perceived severity of the compliance policy on some disability clients. This is articulated in terms of the age at which some clients are expected to fulfil a mutual obligation and of what they perceive to be a 'catch-all' policy:

DARREN: ... yeah I don't mind the philosophy of working for your payment but what I struggle with is ... they've put people that are 64 and a half on to this program right, its wasting their time, its wasting my time, I could be helping someone more effectively ...

RAY: ... I think I agree with the principle of mutual obligation. What I disagree with is the way that it's been implemented. We've got a little bit like a big brother system in place at the moment and I think its swept everybody into the same basket regardless of their abilities or aptitudes or level of functioning and I think that's wrong, You can't, you can't treat everybody exactly the same because people are very different and there's some people who can't fit within that system.

The ethical question being raised in these reflections is similar to the first group in that it is asking a fundamental question concerning our duties to our fellow human beings. With this second cluster of responses the answer to this question is couched more in terms of co-responsibility, rather than individual responsibility for one's actions. There is some acceptance that whether someone secures a job is in part a reflection of structural determinants, such as age and how the 'system' works. The different response of this group also comes down to a degree of resentment about the increased surveillance associated with the introduction of welfare-to-work policies, identified above as a 'big brother element'. The policies fail to respect the diversity of the client population. The moralised identity of welfare-to-work policies constructs the client population as homogenous and in need of both behavioural change and moral reform. In relation to the issue about state surveillance the ethical question concerns the right to freedom from 'unwarranted interference' (Berlin 1969). In terms of welfare-to-work policies the compliance regime requires the state and its third party contractors to intensely scrutinise the behaviour of the client so that ongoing eligibility for assistance can be determined. The second objection raised in this group about homogeneity ('treating everybody exactly the same') concerns the ethic of respecting difference. Sennett (2003: 106) argues that in the case of welfare-to-work policies social security recipients are rendered spectators to their own needs, '... objects to be worked upon by a superior power'. Thus, some of the objection comes down to a perception that the clients are denied the respect given to others deemed capable of being 'self-determining' human agents.