To what extent are the unemployed failing in their duty to society to work, and how far has the State an obligation to ensure that they have work to do 　　It is by now increasingly recognized that workers may be thrown out of work by industrial forces beyond their control, and that the unemployed are in some sense paying the price of the economic progress of the rest of the community. But concern with unemployment and the unemployed varies sharply. The issues of duty and responsibility were reopened and revitalized by the unemployment scare of 1971-2. Rising unemployment and increased sums paid out in benefits to the workless had reawakened controversies which had been inactive during most of the period of fuller employment since the war ended the Depression. It looked as though in future there would again be too little work to go round, so there were arguments about how to produce more work, how the available work should be shared out, and who was responsible for unemployment and the unemployed. 　　In 1972 there were critics who said that the State’’s action in allowing unemployment to rise was a faithless act, a breaking of the social contract between society and the worker. Yet in the main any contribution by employers to unemployment―such as laying off workers in order to introduce technological changes and maximize profits―tended to be ignored. And it was the unemployed who were accused of failing to honour the social contract, by not fulfilling their duty to society to work. In spite of general concern at the scale of the unemployment statistics, when the unemployed were considered as individuals, they tended to attract scorn and threats of punishment. Their capacities and motivation as workers and their value as members of society became suspect. Of all the myths of the Welfare State, stories of the work-shy and borrowers have been the least well-founded on evidence, yet they have proved the most persistent. The unemployed were accused of being responsible for their own workless condition, and doubts were expressed about the State’’s obligation either to provide them with the security of work or to support them through Social Security. 　　Underlying the arguments about unemployment and the unemployed is a basic disagreement about the nature and meaning of work in society. To what extent can or should work be regarded as a service, not only performed by the worker for society but also made secure for the worker by the State, and supported if necessary And apart from cash are there social pressures and satisfactions which cause individuals to seek and keep work. so that the workless need work rather than just cash What the author proposes to examine is whether