This article is about the unemployment insecurity of British workers during the nineteenth century. Business downturn was occurring every five to eight years, and not only was this affecting worker’s lives personally, but it also had a huge impact on the economy. Unemployment lasting longer than a few weeks lead to “acute financial” distress. This forced them to rely on other sources such as the government or charities as a form of income.
The main evaluation is that little has been written about unemployment relief during the period between the Poor Law Amendment Act in 1834 and the adoption of national unemployment insurance in 1911. Public assistance was more generous to the unemployed then they probably should have been. This was a huge problem, and in 1870 cities throughout Britain cut the payment of relief to able-bodied males, while many skilled workers received unemployed benefits from their trade union. This showed no improvement to those who didn’t work in the union or from preventing unemployment.
This lead to the adoption compulsory unemployment insurance in 1911, paid for by a government subsidy. The controversy remained between the Poor Law Amendment Act, and compulsory unemployment insurance. This is true because the Poor Law Act still remained an important income for those who were unemployed. It also had a way of deciding who would pay the unemployment rate. They can be divided into three groups: factory owners, workers, and the remaining ratepayers (merchants, shopkeepers, landlords, tradesmen, etc.). In total they would contribute twenty 20 to 46 percent. During most of the downturns the Poor Law was able to cover everyone, but the increases in the poor rate tended caused further increases in the default rate. The good news is, charity both public and private would take a lead on the few turndowns the law could not afford. It had its ups and downs but it helped out so much and meant a lot to the unemployed workers. The citizens of Britain went through extremely hard times and managed to pull through. Their economy remained strong and everyone worked together to make it happen.
This particular article related closely to the film “Roger & Me.” The citizens of Flint, Michigan were going through extremely hard times, many being unemployed. It relates in the fact that in both places they were unemployed but they had the help of others. In Britain’s case it was the Poor Act passed established by the government with the help of charity. In Flint’s case it was the support of the community and the help of those who were successful in the community such as Miss Michigan. All of these factors come down to one thing and that is to preserve the place in which they live, and to protect their economy.
http://wf2la5.webfeat.org/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Interesting stuff, Kim. You give examples of how the community of Flint and greater Michigan helped the people recover from the factory closings. But, it's certainly not the same as having the government step in and make sure plenty of support was provided. I'm sure, though, that the US government does offer support to laid off workers. Why doesn't Moore bring this up in his "documentary"? If he did mention it, it would certainly be to say how it's totally not enough for these people. He has rhetorical goals, right? And leaving this conversation out of his piece exposes some of his motivations. A logically-minded viewer might ask themselves these questions, and Moore does his best to distract them and to shift the focus onto the humanity of the Flint residents and onto the inhumanity of GM and Roger Smith.
Post a Comment