BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Workfare is more expensive than traditional benefits

Workfare is actually a more expensive option than traditional unemployment benefit. The jobless are ultimately given at least the same amount of taxpayers' money but the state also has to pay the costs of setting up the schemes, paying for materials, the wages of supervisors, transport and childcare costs, etc. In a recession, when the numbers of the unemployed rise substantially, the costs of workfare schemes could be prohibitive and lead to the collapse of the policy. Furthermore, even if the state wanted to, they couldn't enrol everyone– ‘given that most people who lose a job find another within six months, there’s no point dragging people into these schemes who will find work anyway given a little more time’1.  1Saunders, P. (2011, July 1). Those who can work must not be paid to sit at home.Retrieved July 19, 2011, from The Australian
Workfare does not help people get jobs

Workfare schemes are of little use if there are no jobs out there for people to do. The evidence suggests that ‘the vast majority of unemployment – over 9-10ths – has nothing to do with people not wanting work, and everything to do with a lack of demand for labour’1. As such, with few jobs on offer, it is of little use to demand welfare recipients come in for work, rather than search harder and deeper for the few jobs that are available. Regardless, often the skills which employers are really demanding are specialised and at a high level, which menial make-work tasks are unlikely to provide the unemployed with. It would be far better to invest in proper education and training schemes instead. In 2003, 60 per cent of New York’s welfare recipients did not have high school diplomas; if they want this majority to find jobs, they should be paying for them to go back to school, not clean streets2. 1Dillow, C. (2010, November 8). Small Truths, Big Errors. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from Stumbling and Mumbling 2New York Times. (2003, April 15). The Mayor's Mistake on Workfare. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from The New York Times   improve this
Workfare will damage the existing labour market

Workfare harms those already in employment but on very low pay, because their menial jobs are the kind of labour that workfare projects will provide. Why should a local authority pay people to pick up litter or lay paving, if workfare teams can be made to do it for much less? If low-paid jobs are displaced, the ultimate result may be higher unemployment. In New York, public employee unions actively opposed Workfare specifically because they feared it would put public employees out of work1. Even if workfare projects are limited to labour for charities and non-profit groups, they discourage active citizenship and volunteerism as the state is assuming responsibility for these initiatives. 1 Kaus, M. (2000, April 16). Now She's Done It. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from Slate
Workfare schemes limit the opportunities to look for work

Putting the unemployed into workfare schemes actually limits their opportunities to look for work, by making them show up for make-work schemes when they could be job hunting. Even if the numbers of those claiming unemployment benefit are reduced by the threat of such a scheme, that does not necessarily remove them from welfare rolls – they may, for example, be pushed into claiming other benefits, such as disability allowances. Others may prefer to turn to crime for income rather than be forced into workfare projects that don’t pay enough to be an attractive option. The evidence of the Workfare program in Argentina suggests that the policy has little positive effect on finding jobs for participants; ‘for a large fraction of participants, the program generated dependency and did not increase their human capital’1. 1Ronconi, L., Sanguinetti, J., Fachelli, S., Casazza, V., & Franceschelli, I. (2006, June).Poverty and Employability Effects of Workfare Programs in Argentina. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from PEP
Workfare provides skills to allow the unemployed to work their way out of poverty

Workfare schemes are of little use if there are no jobs out there for people to do– something which is an issue of wider economic management. Often the skills which employers are really demanding are literacy, numeracy and familiarity with modern information technology, which menial make-work tasks are unlikely to provide the unemployed with. Far better to invest in proper education and training schemes instead. Even if such skills might be developed through workfare schemes, will forcing people into such work really mean they get the benefits? Most of the long-term unemployed are older, made redundant from declining industries; they do not lack skills but suffer instead from ageist prejudices among employers. Finally, if the ‘workfare’ jobs that unemployed people are being forced into are real jobs that need doing, then they should simply be employed to do them in the normal way (either by the state or by private companies)
Workfare will eliminate scroungers, who are a financial drain on the system

The number of people defrauding the system is very small (only 0.007% of the total cost of the benefit system). The majority of people on benefits are seeking work. They will be hindered in so doing, because instead of applying for work, attending interviews and developing relevant skills they will be forced to attend their workfare scheme. Thus, people will remain on benefits for longer, costing the government more in the long term.
Workfare schemes benefit society

Workfares have low standards that produce poor and potentially unsafe products. Individuals forced into workfare schemes lack incentives to work to a high standard, and may be actively disaffected. The work they do is therefore unlikely to benefit anyone much and raises a number of safety issues: would you drive across a bridge built by workfare labour? Would you trust your aged parent or pre-school child to a workfare carer? Would you trust them with any job that required the handling of money? Given these constraints, it is clear that the government may be unable to find enough worthwhile things for their forced labourers to do. improve this
Workfare breaks the dependency culture

Workfare does not break the dependency culture. People do not seek unemployment and dependency on the state. No one voluntarily seeks to live on the very low income provided by state benefits, instead people become unemployed through no fault of their own; workfare stigmatises them as lazy and needing to be forced into work by state coercion. The schemes ignore the talents and ambitions of those involved, typically using them for menial tasks and manual labour that teach them no useful skills
Workfare is more expensive than traditional benefits

Workfare schemes are an investment in people. Spending money on workfare schemes is an investment in people, who gain the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty, and the economy, which benefits from a better supply of labour. Although such schemes might cost more per person than just handing out dole money for doing nothing, their ability to deter fraudulent claimants makes them cheaper overall. Their success in moving the unemployed into real jobs also benefits the government and the wider economy, through taxation and increased consumer spending.
Workfare does not help people get jobs

Workfare does help people to get jobs by increasing the perception amongst employers that the unemployed nevertheless have the potential to be productive citizens – they’re willing and able to work, and have gained skills from being in a working environment. This counters one of the key barriers to employment, which is the prioritisation of younger generations who have not been tarred with the brush of having had to claim benefits. Furthermore, many schemes allow welfare recipients to satisfy work requirements by counting class rime, work-study jobs and internships – therefore, if education is what is felt to be missing, Workfare does not discourage participants from going back to school1. 1New York Times. (2003, April 15). The Mayor's Mistake on Workfare. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from The New York Times
Workfare schemes limit the opportunities to look for work

Workfare allows people to demonstrate both to themselves and others that a day at work will not always result in failure. This greatly benefits the self-esteem of many, who have become trapped in unemployment because their past experiences (perhaps beginning with unsuccessful schooldays) have lead them to believe that they cannot be useful and successful when doing a day at work. Workfare demonstrates that to be false by allowing them to work in a job where they can see the results of their labour, and not lose out (indeed, gain benefits) as a result. improve this
Workfare provides skills to allow the unemployed to work their way out of poverty

Workfares offer the unemployed opportunities to develop skills to work their way out of poverty. Productive work raises the expectations of those involved by increasing their self-respect and provides them with more confidence in their abilities. It also develops skills associated with work, such as time keeping, taking and giving instructions, working in a team, accepting responsibility and prioritising. Such skills may seem mundane but they are very valuable to employers and their absence among the long-term unemployed is a key reason why they find it so hard to gain jobs. Individuals who are currently working are also more attractive to potential employers than those who are unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed. The evidence suggests Workfare is a success; studies of Workfare in Maryland found that 75 per cent of those who left welfare had earnings within 2.5 years1 .1: Kaus, M. (2000, April 16). Now She's Done It. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from Slate
Workfare will eliminate scroungers, who are a financial drain on the system

Making the unemployed work for their welfare benefits calls the bluff of those claiming benefit but not really looking for jobs. Such scroungers include the incurably lazy, those who are defrauding the taxpayer by claiming welfare while holding down a paying job, and those who are working in the black economy. Furthermore, workfare schemes require applicants also search for work whilst completing the scheme1. Moving from a traditional something-for-nothing welfare scheme to a workfare system stops all these individuals from being a burden on the state, cutting welfare rolls very rapidly and allowing the government to concentrate upon assisting the truly needy. 1: Kaus, M. (2000, April 16). Now She's Done It. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from Slate
The journalist in question failed to produce any evidence that this affected Calderón’s job performance.

There is no public interest issue here, otherwise that would have been the main thrust of the story, moreover other news media would have picked up on the story as well. Instead this is a simple case of intrusion into a public figure’s private life, apparently for no reason other than it being a fairly easy story. This is exactly the kind of story that a reasonable distinction between public and private issues is meant to avoid. There is was evidence of alcoholism by President Calderon presented by the banner waving opposition[i] so a good journalist should have either found evidence as  if it was affecting Calderon’s ability to govern then there would be evidence that could be found or else she should have dropped the story rather than reporting rumour and insinuation. The fact that by doing so she endangered not only her own reputation with the president’s office but that of the show and the company clearly makes it a disciplinary matter. Intruding on anyone’s private life unnecessarily is unpleasant invading the privacy of a figure with whom one is likely to need to work in the future is professional stupidity. On both of these grounds, this particular intrusion was unnecessary. This has nothing to do with Aristegui’s freedom of speech and everything to do with Calderón’s right to privacy[ii]. [i] Booth, William, ‘Respected Mexican journalist fired for addressing Calderon drinking rumor’, Washington Post, 11 February 2011 [ii] Fox news website. Mexican president denies rumoured drinking problems. 10 February 2011.
Aristegui was fairly obviously played by the opposition; she should not have provided the coverage they desired.

Opposition parties in every democracy in the world produce stories or actions calling on those in power to do or say something ridiculous or making unfounded allegations just to get some coverage and damage their opponent’s credibility. Viewers and readers expect journalist to use their professional judgement in choosing where to give real stories the oxygen of publicity and when to ignore something as a publicity stunt.  Unfurling banners in parliament is clearly the latter. As a result journalists are able to present their audience with something they have good reason to believe is true. Instead Aristegui, effectively, came up with “well, some people said these, it might be true, it might not, someone should find out.” That ‘someone’ should have been her. An equivalent would be the difference between sharing some gossip about someone at work with a colleague and sending a memo about it to that person’s boss[i]. By mentioning this at all on air, the rumour is given credibility that it did not deserve and the President’s reputation was unfairly sullied. [i] William Booth (Washington Post). Mexico buzzes over Calderon’s alleged drinking. Printed in the San Francisco Chronicle. 12 February 2011.
Alcoholism is a disease, if the story was that the president had measles, it wouldn’t have got a mention.

Let’s take an historical example of the ‘well-being of the head or state’ in ‘democracies around the world’. A majority of US citizens were unaware that FDR was wheel chair bound – even after his death.[i] The fact the Churchill hit the bottle early in the morning was never mentioned to voters in the UK, even at their “darkest hour”, and still remains a matter of debate.[ii] The French have long ignored the streams of mistresses wandering in and out of the Élysée Palace throughout the history of the Fifth Republic.[iii] All of these things were well known by the journalists of their time but there was no need for the story to be revealed. The allegation of the opposition was that Calderón was a drunk, this then became a suggestion that he was an alcoholic – they’re different things. This rather suggests that now research at all was undertaken into the allegation but that a slur was repeated as though it were news. Because of popular confusion between the two, it was repeated, presumably, because it was salacious. Hardly the highest standards of journalism[iv]. [i] Anderson, Stacy, ‘FDR made 'tacit agreement' with public about disability’, The University Record Online [ii] Richards, Michael, ‘Alcohol Abuser’, The Churchill Centre and Museum at the Churchill War Rooms, London, 19 January 2009 [iii] Rocco, Fiammetta, ‘Widows in weeds, mourning mistresses - plus ca change to the French’, The Independent, 14 January 1996 [iv] UK National Union of Journalists (NUJ) Code of Conduct. The NUJ code is widely seen by British journalists as the final word on journalistic ethics. It is also widely ignored in practice.
The protest by the opposition was a news story in its own right.

A protest by opposition members of parliament alleging behaviour unbecoming of the office of president is clearly a news story. They have the right to say it – and the media should report it as just that; a claim made by the opposition. A protest with a large banner unfurled would make the news in almost any country. The British journalist Jeremy Paxman confronted newly elected Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy over his drinking. Much of the media feigned outrage over the action right the way up until he was dumped by his party – as a result of drinking too much.[i] There is a myth that it’s okay for a privileged few within the professional elites of politics and journalism to know these details about leading politicians but their constituents, the people who ultimately employ them and whose lives they control should be left in the dark that their representative is an addict. Most people wouldn’t hire a plumber who was known to have a drink problem, why should they be expected to hire a parliamentarian or president in the same situation. [i] Campbell, Menzies, ‘How drink destroyed Charles Kennedy, by Menzies Campbell’, 14 February 2008
The job of the reporter is to report the news not to decide what is news and what isn’t.

Any political reporter has a duty, first and foremost, to report on the issues being discussed by political leaders on all sides. The whole point of a democracy is that the people get to chose what and who they believe. The electorate in many countries have proven themselves remarkably willing to turn a blind eye to the peccadilloes of politicians as long as unemployment is low, wages are on the rise and housing is affordable. So for example the electorate ignored Tony Blair’s daliances with the property market and famously Bill Clinton was reelected despite already being plagued by scandals and reached his highest approval ratings after the Lewinski scandal.[i] However, others will make decisions on the basis of the perceived character of the candidate or elected official[ii]. Many politicians are keen for the virtuous aspects of their private lives – families, personal achievements, sportsmanlike activities – to be shared with a usually uninterested public, it seems only reasonable that their inner demons should enjoy the same publicity has the angels on their shoulders. Aristegui was doing her job to the letter – reporting the issues exercising the political class of the day and leaving it to the voters to decide what mattered to them and what did not. [i] ‘Poll: Clinton’s approval rating up in wake of impeachment’, CNN.com, 20 December 1998 [ii] Matthew D’Ancona. Politics in this age of austerity will be a contest of character. The Daily Telegraph. 12 May 2012.
Even accusations affects reputations and therefore ability to do the job

Even if this were only gossip, the fact that the perception existed that the president was an alcoholic would affect how other politicians interacted with him – it is, therefore, a matter for public concern.[i] National leaders are left politically weakened by plenty of things that aren’t true. They are further undermined by things that are true but apparently trivial if they are kept secret. If that is actually what members of congress believe then it will affect their interaction with the president. By contrast, if that is not what they truly believe, then it speaks a great deal to their character that they are willing to resort to the politics of the gutter. Either way Mexicans have a reasonable right to know that the argument is going on. Aristegui did just that. It is far more worrying that a news organization would even consider dismissing her for doing her job – presumably because it inconvenienced or embarrassed someone powerful[ii]. [i] Seymour-Ure, Colin, ‘Rumour and politics’, Politics, Vol.17, No.2, 1982, pp.1-9 [ii] Kate Katharine Ferguson. Column: Politicians’ private lives make a difference. We should pay attention. Thejournal.ie. 1 August 2012.
The journalist in question failed to produce any evidence that this affected Calderón’s job performance.

It has to be accepted that a person accepts a certain loss of privacy when they stand for office. Beyond that, the issue at stake here is not whether this is good or bad journalism but whether it is journalism. By any reasonable definition a protest staged by leading members of the national legislature and concerning the character of the president would seem to qualify. As Aristegui herself argues “The health status and degree of equilibrium of a president is a matter of clear public interest.” [i] [i] Booth, William, ‘Respected Mexican journalist fired for addressing Calderon drinking rumor’, Washington Post, 11 February 2011
Aristegui was fairly obviously played by the opposition; she should not have provided the coverage they desired.

Let us say, for the sake of argument that the opposition had tabled a motion of impeachment – which would have even less impact in the long run. Would it still be inappropriate to report? What if the allegation were corruption, a partisan approach in Mexico’s interminable and bloody drug wars? Would it still not be correct to report it? Clearly something which is widely discussed in political circles and, if true, would have grave implications for the political direction of the country should be reported. Aristegui did so with all of the tact and professionalism available.
Alcoholism is a disease, if the story was that the president had measles, it wouldn’t have got a mention.

The three examples prop cites come from a quite different period in history. President Sarkozy’s personal life, in contrast to his predecessors, received massive scrutiny in the domestic and international press. Furthermore, alcoholism is a rather different case to measles if, as has been alleged online, Calderón has been drunk to the point of incapacitation at official functions, that impacts on the image of Mexico in the world. This can be shown by the laughing stock that Boris Yeltsin became around the world.[i] It should also be noted that the President having a relatively minor ailment may have been an issue as his secretary highlighted in response to the allegations "During the four years of his administration, he has never missed any event because of health problems".[ii] [i] BBC News, ‘Boris Yeltsin: Master of surprise’, 31 December 1999 [ii] Booth, William, ‘Respected Mexican journalist fired for addressing Calderon drinking rumor’, Washington Post, 11 February 2011
The protest by the opposition was a news story in its own right.

It’s not a news story, it’s a stunt. A news story would have required the journalist in question to do some work and either substantiate their claims or disprove them. Either could be done by finding evidence of wrongdoing by the president or skulduggery by the legislators. For example “Opposition resort to baseless claim in political fights” would also be a significant story if it were backed up with evidence. As the story was presented, it was just speculation put in the national media in the full knowledge that mud gets stickier and dirtier the less material it has inside it[i]. The point about the Paxman incident, as was later demonstrated, is that it was true – and the journalist in question knew it and could prove it. [i] Guillermo Gustavo Pérez Lara. El president Felipe Calderón, el alcohol y sus secuelas. Suite 101: Política y Sociedad. 8 February 2011.
The job of the reporter is to report the news not to decide what is news and what isn’t.

This is simply untrue; journalists decide what counts as news all the time. It’s called professional judgement. Indeed, it’s what they’re paid to do – sift through what is idle gossip and speculation and discover what is both true and relevant. That’s why we trust newspapers and broadcasters of record and have less time for scandal-sheets. In this incident, the reporter didn’t just say that a protest had happened, she gave it credibility by commenting on it, despite the fact that she had no proof.
Even accusations affects reputations and therefore ability to do the job

All political hothouses are rife with gossip – usually directed upwards. It’s usually not given credence by being repeated by an experienced journalist who should know better. Perhaps she was having a bad day, perhaps it was a momentary lapse of judgement, perhaps there was just nothing else happening that day but it was a pretty foolish thing to say on national television and tarnished both her reputation and that of Calderón.