The recent decision by Germany’s Federal Employment Agency (Bundesagentur für Arbeit) to provide informational brochures regarding the “Bürgergeld” (citizen’s income) benefit solely in standard German and simplified language has sparked debate amongst political parties and social welfare organizations.
Ottilie Klein, a member of the CDU’s Committee on Labor and Social Affairs, voiced support for the change, emphasizing that while on-site assistance in multiple languages should remain available at job centers for those in need, multilingual online promotional materials for social benefits are unwarranted. She argues such materials could erode trust in the social welfare system and fuel populist rhetoric. Klein advocates for attracting skilled immigration rather than encouraging reliance on social welfare programs.
Conversely, Clara Bünger, spokesperson for The Left on migration and domestic affairs, sharply criticized the move. She contends limiting access to information is counterproductive and will exacerbate existing burdens on already overwhelmed offices, leading to misunderstandings and processing delays. Bünger argues the decision amounts to harassment for individuals with limited German proficiency and dismissed suggestions it would deter benefit claims, characterizing such claims as rooted in racist ideology.
Andreas Audretsch, deputy parliamentary group leader for the Green Party, echoed concerns, stating that job centers should prioritize employment, training and further education initiatives. He criticized what he sees as a contradiction – labeling benefit recipients as “lazy” while simultaneously hindering the ability of job centers to facilitate employment opportunities.
Elena Weber, a labor market policy expert at Diakonie, highlighted the importance of ensuring access to information for all eligible individuals, including those unable to utilize automated online translation services due to age or other circumstances.
Joachim Rock, CEO of Paritätischer, strongly refuted the assertion that providing translated informational materials encourages “welfare tourism”. He emphasized that the flyers clearly state that individuals residing abroad and asylum seekers are generally not eligible for the benefit. Rock argued that the underutilization, rather than the alleged abuse, of social services is the prevailing reality and curtailing existing information resources represents a prime example of bureaucratic inefficiency.
