We are publishing below a recent briefing received from Boycott Workfare:
"There will be a demonstration against Maximus and the Work Capability
Assessment on Monday 2nd March 2015 from 12pm at Albert Bridge House,
Bridge Street, Manchester, M60 9AT (meeting point St Mary's Parsonage
(the road/square off Bridge St on the Manchester side of Albert Bridge
House), Facebook event:
https://www.facebook.com/events/346833825508275 )
This demonstration is part of the national day of action against
Maximus and the WCA called by Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) on
Monday 2nd March 2015:
http://dpac.uk.net/2015/01/disabled-claimants-welcome-to-maximus-march-2nd-everywhere/
Maximus is the company taking over from Atos running the despised Work
Capability Assessments (WCAs) for sickness and disability benefits.
These crude and callous assessments have been used to strip benefits
from hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people after a quick
computer based test ruled them 'fit for work'. A growing number of
suicides have been directly linked to this stressful regime, whilst
charities, medical staff and claimants themselves have warned of the
desperate consequences for those left with no money at all by the
system.
In a huge embarrassment for the DWP, the previous contractor Atos were
chased out of the Work Capability Assessments after a sustained and
militant campaign carried out by disabled people, benefit claimants
and supporters. In a panicky effort to save these vicious assessments
Iain Duncan Smith hired US private healthcare company Maximus to take
over from Atos this coming April.
This is not the only lucrative contract the Tories have awarded this
company. Maximus are also involved in helping to privatise the NHS,
running the Fit for Work occupational health service designed to bully
and harass people on sick leave into going back to work. Maximus also
run the notorious Work Programme in some parts of the UK, meaning that
disabled people found fit for work by Maximus may then find themselves
sent on workfare by Maximus. There is no greater enemy to the lives of
sick and disabled people in the UK today than this multi-national
poverty profiteer who even are prepared to run welfare-to-work style
schemes for the brutal Saudi Arabian government.
Maximus have boasted they will not face protests due to their
involvement in the Work Capability Asessments and have even stooped as
low as hiring one prominent former disability campaigner on a huge
salary in an effort to quell protests against their activities. We
urgently need to show them how wrong they are and call for all
disabled people, benefit claimants and supporters to organise against
this vicious bunch of profiteering thugs.
Albert Bridge House is the assessment centre used in Manchester by
Atos to carry out Work Capability Asessments. The building is owned by
the DWP and it is likely that it will continue to be used for these
assessments with the premises and staff handed over from Atos to
Maximus."
Details of other national and local actions:
https://www.facebook.com/events/771842739517758/permalink/775315939170438/
Links for more info about Maximus and the WCA:
https://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/there-is-no-greater-enemy-to-sick-and-disabled-people-in-the-uk-join-the-day-of-action-against-maximus-march-2nd-2015/
http://dpac.uk.net/2015/01/maximus-the-company-that-dare-not-show-its-face-scrapwca/
https://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/09/13/meet-maximus-the-new-atos-but-even-worse/
Showing posts with label work programme. Show all posts
Showing posts with label work programme. Show all posts
Saturday, 24 January 2015
Tuesday, 23 September 2014
BOYCOTT- WORKFARE - UPDATES FOR WEEK OF ACTION!
We are publishing below the latest briefing from Boycott Workfare:
The
week of action is very soon now.Following on from our call out, we've heard
rumours of assorted local actions but are keen to hear definite stuff that
people want to announce,
For inspiration
check out
and
who we know are
both doing actions.
And Occupy
Wakefield are reported to be planning...
If you're
struggling for places to talk to check out the list at
Wednesday, 4 December 2013
B&M Stores cut wages bill by using free dole labour!
We are publishing below a recent report from Boycott Workfare.
"Workfare hands companies free labour which means fewer jobs and paid hours for everyone. But direct action and online pressure mean tens of brands now steer clear of it. Let’s step up the pressure on companies who still think they can profit from unpaid work! Take action today to shame these companies and make them realise that exploiting unemployed people might just mean fewer customers this Christmas. There’s new online action every day this week so please keep checking.
Marks
& Spencer
Marks
& Spencer’s use of workfare hit public awareness when they announced 1400 new placements in their stores and a benchmark of 2% of
the workforce to be unpaid. But this isn’t the brand’s first encounter with
workfare. Despite their CEOearning over £2 million a year, they are also profiting from
unpaid work throughanother workfare scheme in Scotland, which targets single
parents. It’s likely their involvement is much more widespread – we also heard
from someone sent on a 4 week placement at one of their outlet stores.
Last
time we took action, M&S was forced to disable comments on their Facebook
Page. Several pickets and walks of shame will pay a visit to their stores this
week. Please feel free to contact them with your thoughts as well:
By
email: Using their online form
By phone: See this useful list of numbers
Facebook: Marks and Spencer
Twitter: @marksandspencer
By phone: See this useful list of numbers
Facebook: Marks and Spencer
Twitter: @marksandspencer
B&M
Stores
In
May, B&M won an award from the workfare industry for its involvement.
But the reality of this involvement is harsh. One person has reported: “B&M stores have started using
workfare Jan 2013. Receiving free labour and stopping overtime for employees
with contracts. The people forced to do this free labour are not happy and
neither are the employees!” Boycott Workfare has had reports of workfare at
B&M stores in Bangor, Glasgow, Manchester, Southend and Northern Ireland.
Show them they can’t keep cutting their wages bill with unpaid work!
By
email: enquiries@bmstores.co.uk or
customerservices@bmstores.co.uk
By phone: 0151 728 5400 or more numbers here.
Facebook: B&M Stores
Twitter: @bmstores
By phone: 0151 728 5400 or more numbers here.
Facebook: B&M Stores
Twitter: @bmstores
Asda
Asda
has been at the heart of workfare in the UK, helping the
government relaunch its “Work Experience” scheme last year. We have had
reports that one of their stores in Manchester uses disabled people on workfare
on the night shift. They are frank about their involvement here.
Tuesday, 4 December 2012
Government work scheme described as 'worse than useless' in helping people back into work!
The government denies that its 'Mandatory Work Activity' (MWA) programme, amounts to forced labour even though it's mandatory and does force the unemployed to undertake 30 hours of unpaid work each week for up to four weeks at a time, if they want to retain their Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA).
Although research carried out by the government, indicates that the MWA fails to help the unemployed to get back into work after completing the scheme and seems to do little to get the long-term unemployed back into work, it is nevertheless being hailed by government officials as a huge success in getting people to sign off the dole.
Figures recently released by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), show that two-thirds of benefit claimants referred to the MWA programme fail to turn up for their placement because they either take a job or stop claiming state benefits. The report says that since the scheme started last May (2011), more than 90,000 claimants have been referred to MWA by Jobcentre staff. Of the 33,000 who began work placements, the remaining 57,000 found some work while others ceased claiming benefits. Anyone who is referred to the scheme and does not complete an unpaid work placement, is liable to have their benefits stopped. The DWP have confirmed that 6,000 people were stripped of their benefits for refusing to participate in the scheme.
Although critics say the scheme is forced labour, government officials say that it helps the unemployed to "develop personal discipline and other habits required for employment." Under the rules, any unemployed person judged by jobcentre staff to lack personal skills required to find and keep a job, must do unpaid work placements in return for their benefits.
Despite the government's own research findings into the efficacy of MWA, Mark Hoban, the Employment Minister who published the figures for MWA, said that the figures confirmed that the MWA scheme was "helping to push people off benefits and into work." He added:
"Some people will go to great lengths to avoid having to get a job, but sitting at home on benefits doing nothing is not an option for those who are fit and capable of work..."
While MWA might be having some effect in driving people off the dole - who don't like undertaking unpaid forced labour - it is less clear whether these people are going into paid employment. At a time when Britain is in a double-dip recession and there is little economic growth and nationally, there are 34 people applying for each vacancy it takes more than a pristine CV to get a job. In some regions, there are many more people chasing each vacancy. In October, when Jaguar Land Rover advertised 1,100 jobs at its plant in Birmingham, over 20,000 people applied.
The latest figures released by the DWP into the government's 'Work Programme', the 'worse than useless' job scheme which has helped just 1 in 25 back into work since starting in June last year, show how mainly private contractors, are failing to hit their target of getting 5.5% back into work. Although the government says that they would expect at least 5% of people to get back into work without any sort of government help, none of the 18 Work Programme contractors managed to hit their target of getting 5.5% of the 878,000 people referred to the scheme into a job lasting 6 months during the 14 months that the Work Programme was in operation. The Work Programme did in fact get less than 3.5% of people into work which was mainly short-term, part-time roles, at a cost according to the BBC 2 Newsnight programme, of £14,000 per job and not £2,100, as suggested by the government. Since the programme commenced in June last year, the government have spent in the region of £412 million on a scheme which has helped fewer people into work than would have got back into work, without any government intervention.
The government say that it is too early (14 months), to judge the Work Progamme on job outcome and 'sustainment payment alone' because the programme helps people into work for 2 years or more. But there is evidence that the official figures put out by the DWP are misleading and far worse than suggested. Had the evaluation been done in the regular way from June 2011 to May 2012, instead of June 2011 and July 2012, the figure would have dropped even lower to 2.5%.
Need less to say, it's not only by the use of statistics that government's seek to mislead the public. Disinformation and the 'scrounger' agenda have been used by the government to make the public more amenable to £18bn of cuts in welfare benefits which has been taken up and reported by some journalists, to create a stigma attached to claiming state benefits. The Chancellor George Osborne does not refer to the unemployed but the 'idlers' who are "sleeping off a life on benefits" and there is no mention of the millions of people who are desperately looking for a full-time job. On previous occasions, Osborne has claimed that some families are taking £100,000 a year in housing benefit when in fact this only applied to five families in Britain. His announcement that no one would get more state benefits than the £26,000 median wage, represented less than 1% of people on benefits who were living in high cost temporary accommodation in London. Yet this kind of strategy, which tries to portray people on benefits as living the high life at the taxpayers expense, as successfully hidden the plunge in living standards for million of others through housing benefit cuts. Today, only one-in-eight people claiming housing benefit are not in work.
Although research carried out by the government, indicates that the MWA fails to help the unemployed to get back into work after completing the scheme and seems to do little to get the long-term unemployed back into work, it is nevertheless being hailed by government officials as a huge success in getting people to sign off the dole.
Figures recently released by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), show that two-thirds of benefit claimants referred to the MWA programme fail to turn up for their placement because they either take a job or stop claiming state benefits. The report says that since the scheme started last May (2011), more than 90,000 claimants have been referred to MWA by Jobcentre staff. Of the 33,000 who began work placements, the remaining 57,000 found some work while others ceased claiming benefits. Anyone who is referred to the scheme and does not complete an unpaid work placement, is liable to have their benefits stopped. The DWP have confirmed that 6,000 people were stripped of their benefits for refusing to participate in the scheme.
Although critics say the scheme is forced labour, government officials say that it helps the unemployed to "develop personal discipline and other habits required for employment." Under the rules, any unemployed person judged by jobcentre staff to lack personal skills required to find and keep a job, must do unpaid work placements in return for their benefits.
Despite the government's own research findings into the efficacy of MWA, Mark Hoban, the Employment Minister who published the figures for MWA, said that the figures confirmed that the MWA scheme was "helping to push people off benefits and into work." He added:
"Some people will go to great lengths to avoid having to get a job, but sitting at home on benefits doing nothing is not an option for those who are fit and capable of work..."
While MWA might be having some effect in driving people off the dole - who don't like undertaking unpaid forced labour - it is less clear whether these people are going into paid employment. At a time when Britain is in a double-dip recession and there is little economic growth and nationally, there are 34 people applying for each vacancy it takes more than a pristine CV to get a job. In some regions, there are many more people chasing each vacancy. In October, when Jaguar Land Rover advertised 1,100 jobs at its plant in Birmingham, over 20,000 people applied.
The latest figures released by the DWP into the government's 'Work Programme', the 'worse than useless' job scheme which has helped just 1 in 25 back into work since starting in June last year, show how mainly private contractors, are failing to hit their target of getting 5.5% back into work. Although the government says that they would expect at least 5% of people to get back into work without any sort of government help, none of the 18 Work Programme contractors managed to hit their target of getting 5.5% of the 878,000 people referred to the scheme into a job lasting 6 months during the 14 months that the Work Programme was in operation. The Work Programme did in fact get less than 3.5% of people into work which was mainly short-term, part-time roles, at a cost according to the BBC 2 Newsnight programme, of £14,000 per job and not £2,100, as suggested by the government. Since the programme commenced in June last year, the government have spent in the region of £412 million on a scheme which has helped fewer people into work than would have got back into work, without any government intervention.
The government say that it is too early (14 months), to judge the Work Progamme on job outcome and 'sustainment payment alone' because the programme helps people into work for 2 years or more. But there is evidence that the official figures put out by the DWP are misleading and far worse than suggested. Had the evaluation been done in the regular way from June 2011 to May 2012, instead of June 2011 and July 2012, the figure would have dropped even lower to 2.5%.
Need less to say, it's not only by the use of statistics that government's seek to mislead the public. Disinformation and the 'scrounger' agenda have been used by the government to make the public more amenable to £18bn of cuts in welfare benefits which has been taken up and reported by some journalists, to create a stigma attached to claiming state benefits. The Chancellor George Osborne does not refer to the unemployed but the 'idlers' who are "sleeping off a life on benefits" and there is no mention of the millions of people who are desperately looking for a full-time job. On previous occasions, Osborne has claimed that some families are taking £100,000 a year in housing benefit when in fact this only applied to five families in Britain. His announcement that no one would get more state benefits than the £26,000 median wage, represented less than 1% of people on benefits who were living in high cost temporary accommodation in London. Yet this kind of strategy, which tries to portray people on benefits as living the high life at the taxpayers expense, as successfully hidden the plunge in living standards for million of others through housing benefit cuts. Today, only one-in-eight people claiming housing benefit are not in work.
Tuesday, 30 October 2012
Former A4e boss bungles interview on C4 news!
What a ghastly spectacle it was watching former A4e boss, Emma Harrison, trying to riddle off the hook as she was grilled by the channel 4 news presenter, Khrishnan Guru-Murthy, last week about A4e's abysmal performance running the government's Work Programme.
It seems that during the first year of the Work Programme, A4e have only been able to get four out of every one hundred (4.0%) of their clients into a job and have failed to meet their target of 5.5%. The government say that if no action was taken to help the unemployed into work, they would expect five out of every hundred (5.0%) to obtain a job.
Despite A4e's appalling performance, Emma Harrison, has become very wealthy due to her majority shareholding in the company. Earlier this year she was paid an £8m dividend and recently despite resigning as the Chairman and a Director of A4e, she received a further £250,000 payment. All the company's UK turnover is derived from government contracts and money from the British taxpayer. The government have given £46m to A4e to get people on the Work Programme back to work and are expected to publish their own figures on performance next month.
When questioned by Guru-Murthy about the figures which were obtained by Jackie Long, the social affairs editor for C4, Harrison could only say the figures were wrong but was unable to provide any figures herself. She did however, claim that she had been caught up in a 'political maelstrom' and had been used for political reasons. She also added: "I have been bullied, my staff have been bullied, and because of your reporting my children were bullied. Bullying entrepreneurs like me, is not good for the UK."
Despite her protestations, Emma is laughing all the way to the bank. As one former A4e employee once told me, company employees used to joke that A4e really stood for 'All 4 Emma'.
Tuesday, 14 August 2012
Workers sacked and replaced by prison labour. POA says government's use of prison labour, is immoral and disgusting!
Earlier this year the Daily Mail newspaper, ran a story that the Swedish company IKEA, had used political prisoners in STASI camps in East Germany during the 1970s and '80s to make the IKEA sofa. Mail readers were told that prisoners working three shifts a day were used to assemble cheap furniture for the company whose founder, the Swedish billionaire, Ingvar Kamprad, had been an active recruiter for a Swedish NAZI group the SSS, while a young man. In 1987, IKEA had also ordered 45,000 tables to be manufactured in Cuba, most of which, had also been made by prisoners. The newspaper stated that all this had been revealed on Swedish national television and that Kamprad, had apologised and doubled his charitable donations to £100m.
Now, as we all should know, the former GDR (East Germany) and Cuba, are Communist country's and amongst other things, what is implicit within this story written in a right-wing English newspaper, is the view that the use of prison labour is what you might expect from any beastly communist regime that imprisons its citizens for their political opinions. We are expected to be shocked by this, because we're being led to believe, that such a thing could never happen in a country like little old England.
Of course, prisoners have always undertaken work within prisons and are often glad of it. But as Britain heads towards a triple dip recession, the clueless Con-Dem government, have latched onto a novel way to boost the profits of companies which has the potential to undercut the wages of those in work, and to put more workers on the dole.
Increasingly, what we are now seeing in Britain is the use of prison labour to work outside of prison for a pittance, for the benefit of private companies, which is euphemistically described by the government as 'training' or 'work experience'.
Last week, the Guardian newspaper revealed that dozens of prisoners from Prescoed prison in Monmouthshire, Wales, were being ferried in busses to go to work in Cardiff for a call-centre that is operated by a company called 'Becoming Green' a roofing and environmental refitting company. The prisoners are being paid the princely sum of £3 per day and according to the newspaper, since being taken on, the company has fired 17 paid members of its staff. Although not 'political prisoners', the Guardian says their convictions range from murder to fraud and drug offences. A former employee of the company told the newspaper:
"As they started bringing more and more in, they (the company)started firing people... They would have kept their jobs if it wasn't for the prison thing... Everyone was pretty miffed because at the end of the day there's no way you can compete with £3 a day."
The company confirmed that since starting the prisoners, it had sacked other workers for "performance issues" but denied that they had been sacked because it was cheaper to hire prison labour. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ), said they had sought assurances from the company that the prisoners would be put into "genuinely vacant" posts.
Steve Gillan, the General Secretary of the Prison Officer's Association (POA), said:
"For any company to rely on the cheap labour of prisoners was 'immoral and disgusting'. The POA wants to see prisoners working and leading law-abiding lives, but not at the expense of other workers being sacked or laid off to facilitate it."
Now, as we all should know, the former GDR (East Germany) and Cuba, are Communist country's and amongst other things, what is implicit within this story written in a right-wing English newspaper, is the view that the use of prison labour is what you might expect from any beastly communist regime that imprisons its citizens for their political opinions. We are expected to be shocked by this, because we're being led to believe, that such a thing could never happen in a country like little old England.
Of course, prisoners have always undertaken work within prisons and are often glad of it. But as Britain heads towards a triple dip recession, the clueless Con-Dem government, have latched onto a novel way to boost the profits of companies which has the potential to undercut the wages of those in work, and to put more workers on the dole.
Increasingly, what we are now seeing in Britain is the use of prison labour to work outside of prison for a pittance, for the benefit of private companies, which is euphemistically described by the government as 'training' or 'work experience'.
Last week, the Guardian newspaper revealed that dozens of prisoners from Prescoed prison in Monmouthshire, Wales, were being ferried in busses to go to work in Cardiff for a call-centre that is operated by a company called 'Becoming Green' a roofing and environmental refitting company. The prisoners are being paid the princely sum of £3 per day and according to the newspaper, since being taken on, the company has fired 17 paid members of its staff. Although not 'political prisoners', the Guardian says their convictions range from murder to fraud and drug offences. A former employee of the company told the newspaper:
"As they started bringing more and more in, they (the company)started firing people... They would have kept their jobs if it wasn't for the prison thing... Everyone was pretty miffed because at the end of the day there's no way you can compete with £3 a day."
The company confirmed that since starting the prisoners, it had sacked other workers for "performance issues" but denied that they had been sacked because it was cheaper to hire prison labour. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ), said they had sought assurances from the company that the prisoners would be put into "genuinely vacant" posts.
Steve Gillan, the General Secretary of the Prison Officer's Association (POA), said:
"For any company to rely on the cheap labour of prisoners was 'immoral and disgusting'. The POA wants to see prisoners working and leading law-abiding lives, but not at the expense of other workers being sacked or laid off to facilitate it."
Wednesday, 27 June 2012
Claimants challenge government's forced labour scheme in the courts!
ON Tuesday (26/6/12), lawyers acting for two claimants, challenged the legality of the government's forced labour scheme known as the 'Work Programme'. Cait Reilly 23, a geology graduate from Kings Heath, Birmingham, and Jamieson Wilson 41, also from the Midlands, are asking the High Court to declare the programme unlawful.
Nathalie Leven QC, who is representing both claimants, told the court that Reilly had given up a voluntary post in a museum to take the unpaid placement at Poundland because she'd been told by the Jobcentre, that she would lose her £53.45 a week Jobseeker's Allowance if she didn't do the placement. She said that Ms. Reilly had been been illegally forced to take part in the scheme under the 'menace of penalty' which amounted to a form of forced labour, which breached article four of the European convention on human rights. The court heard that Reilly had been made to do 'menial work', which involved sweeping floors and stacking shelves, which did not contribute to her search for work to any extent. She'd also been promised a job interview with Poundland if she completed her two week training, but this never materialised. The Court was told that Poundland was a successful firm with a turnover of £500m and that Reilly's placement, did not contribute to the public interest.
The court heard that Wilson, a trained mechanical engineer and an HGV driver, (who had been unemployed since 2008), had been put on the 'Community Action Programme' and had been expected to work unpaid for six months washing and cleaning furniture, for an unnamed organisation. He'd refused to attend the programme and had been stripped of his benefits and was now relying on friends and family to survive.
Nathalie Leven told the court that thousands of people who'd been put on the unpaid schemes had no access to information setting out what they had been expected to do. This failure by the government to make information publicly available, meant that claimants did not know their rights. She pointed out that as regards Ms. Reilly, had she had access to information, she could have told her advisor that she could not have been sanctioned if she didn't agree to start the scheme. Consequently, under the 2009 Welfare Reform Act almost half a dozen of the DWP's schemes, were operating illegally and the way they were administered, was 'blatantly unlawful'. (See press release from Public Interest Lawyers).Paul Nichols QC, who is presenting the case for the government, told the court that if the 'Jobseekers' won their review, the government's employment strategy would be in disarray. He said:
'The only effect of such provision is that a person needs to do the required acts in order to be paid benefit. They are not forced to do those acts.'
Although the case is expected to end on Wednedsday, a judgement will be given in due course. For further updates see the link to 'Boycott Workfare' available on this blog.
Monday, 28 May 2012
Welfare-to-Work Scandal - whistleblower tells MPs of 'systemic fraud' and 'fictitious jobs'!
A former chief auditor of the welfare-to-work company A4e, who alleges that an 'unethical culture' within the company led to 'systemic fraud', was forced to give evidence in private last Tuesday to the Commons public accounts committee - from which the public was excluded - after objections were raised by Conservative members of the committee.
Last week the government said that it had no evidence of fraud in contracts that were held by A4e but this has been questioned by the National Audit Office (NAO), who say that the Department of Work & Pensions (DWP), missed vital evidence during its asssessment of fraud. Though Employment Minister, Chris Grayling, told MPs that an internal inquiry had found no evidence of fraud involving A4e, the DWP withdrew one of its contracts from the company to provide 'work experience' placements, because of 'significant weaknesses in internal contracts.'
In his evidence Mr. Hutchinson says that inappropriate behaviour was driven by a bonus scheme paid by A4e and that staff acted in the belief that any irregularity, would go unpunished and that they could resign without further action being taken. He also says that when his concerns were brought to the attention of senior managers within A4e, little was done to address the widespread abuse of taxpayers money. He told MPs, 'In my professional view, it was systemic.'
In his evidence to the committee, Mr. Hutchinson, also referred to serious problems with another welfare-to-work provider known as 'Working Links' which runs three major contracts on the government's £5bn 'Work Programme'. As a former employee of Working Links, which is partly owned by the State, the private sector and a charity, he told MPs that the level of fraud at Working Links, had escalated to a "farcical situation" but at the time, he'd faced a 'stonewall' from management. In his evidence he says that in May 2008, he had compiled a list of 15 different frauds in excess of £250,000 relating to four different tax-payer funded programmes and had warned Working Links that fraud within the organisation was 'endemic'.
Although all of A4e's UK turnover is derived from government contracts, the company has been criticised for its 'abysmal' record of delivering government programmes. Earlier this year, it was also reported that the founder of A4e and majority shareholder, Emma Harrison, - who unlike many of her clients, enjoys a champagne lifestyle at the taxpayers expense - received an £8.6m dividend. Despite its 'abysmal' record and being subject of a police fraud investigation, in which eight of its employees have been arrested, A4e currently holds £438m of Work Programme government contracts.
A4e and Working Links deny the accusations of systemic fraud and say that many of the allegations relate to historic contracts and that any specific allegations that have been raised, have been addressed. Although A4e has been investigated nine times by the DWP and has repaid public funds on five separate occasions, after government inquiries into alleged fraud, the company says that it has a 'zero-tolerance approach to fraud.'
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
"Feckless Brits on the dole should learn from hardworking foreigners" says old Etonian, Boris!
Cait Reilly the 22 year old geology graduate from Birmingham, has certainly rattled some cages after taking legal action against the Government for forcing her to work for her dole money which her lawyers say breached her human rights.
In recent weeks a number of celebrity pundits have taken up the cudgel with which to bash young Cait, for having had the audacity to challenge the Government for compelling her to undertake forced labour in return for her dole money. Cait told The Guardian:
Now the Mayor of London, ex-'Buller' and pampered old Etonian Boris Johnson, has entered the affray accusing unemployed Cait of 'sneering' at "millions of hard-working Brits by saying the unpaid work she did (for 'Poundland') was forced labour." He also added: "It's just amazing. She shouldn't feel above it."
Boris who as Lord Mayor of London is up for election in May, also took a swipe at 'Feckless Brits' on the dole who he believes are out of work because they lack the 'energy and appetite' for it. He sees the thousands of foreigners who work in places like 'Pret a Manger' (French for 'ready to eat') the British sandwich retail chain, hotels, coffee shops and fast food outlets, as a shining example that unemployed Brits need to learn from.
In an interview with Rupert Murdoch's 'Sun' newspaper, this horny-handed son of toil, recalled his first job as a trainee reporter on The Times newspaper.
Unlike jobless Cait, it is unlikely that Boris Johnson will ever need to use a Jobcentre, fill-in a job application form or work for his dole, because of his social and political connections. Upper-class twits like Boris, who don`t have a clue about the real world of work, usually go from one arranged job to another.
Former 'shelf-stacker' turned Daily Mail columnist, Jan Moir, was even more scathing about Cait in her column on 13 January. She believes Cait is "off her trolley" and ought to be in "Cloud-cuckoo-land rather than Poundland". Ms. Moir told her readers:
"Under a government scheme designed to encourage the long-term unemployed back into work, Reilly was told that she had to leave the museum for a temporary stint at Poundland - and that she risked losing her £54 a week Jobseekers Allowance if she turned down the unpaid work experience, which involved stacking shelves and sweeping floors. Instead of meekly going to work at the discount chain, she went to law."
Though young Cait was doing unpaid voluntary work in a museum at the time the placement at 'Poundland' was foisted upon her by the Jobcentre and was seeking gainful employment, the former shelf-stacker was not impressed. She informed her readers:
Having explained that Reilly and her lawyer Jim Duffy, say that forcing her to do this kind of unpaid menial work amounts to slave labour and was against her human rights, Moir then issued a dire warning to young people like Cait, who stick up for themselves:
Many of our readers will not be surprised to learn that in 2009, Ms. Moir was awarded the "Stonewall Bigot of the Year Award" after reporting on the death of the 'Boyzone' singer Stephen Gately. Nevertheless, what Ms. Moir and Boris Johnson fail to mention, is that though Ms. Reilly was guaranteed a job interview by her Jobcentre, she didn't get an interview with Poundland. Moreover, she's also made it perfectly clear that the nature of the work was not a problem and that she would have been happy to do it, had she had a say in it and if she had been paid to do it.
Like many other young people on the Government's so-called work programme, Cait Reilly says that doing unpaid work for a major high street store, left her feeling 'useless and demeaned' and does nothing to build on young peoples' skills nor does it tackle the causes of long-term unemployment. To be unemployed today, is seen as some sort of misdemeanour which requires harsh and intrusive treatment. As Ms. Reilly pointed out in her article in The Guardian, some people on the Government's work programme, will have to do unpaid work for up to 6 months - longer than the unpaid work done by criminals given a community service order. This model of work-for-your-dole is now being securely built into the economy and as John Harris pointed out in The Guardian last August:
Jim Duffy, from Public Interest Lawyers in Birmingham, told the Daily Mail that the government had created without Parliamentary authority a complex array of schemes that allowed Jobcentres to force people into futile, unpaid labour for weeks and months at a time and added:
In recent weeks a number of celebrity pundits have taken up the cudgel with which to bash young Cait, for having had the audacity to challenge the Government for compelling her to undertake forced labour in return for her dole money. Cait told The Guardian:
"I expected criticism, but some of the comments about me have been hurtful as well as inaccurate. Jan Moir's attack in the Daily Mail, for example, overlooked the fact that I was not paid for the work I carried out and implied that I believed such work, as well as Poundland itself, to be beneath me. This is not the case - I would grab a paid job in Poundland with both hands. Similarly, Vanessa Feltz attempted to humiliate me on the radio."
Now the Mayor of London, ex-'Buller' and pampered old Etonian Boris Johnson, has entered the affray accusing unemployed Cait of 'sneering' at "millions of hard-working Brits by saying the unpaid work she did (for 'Poundland') was forced labour." He also added: "It's just amazing. She shouldn't feel above it."
Boris who as Lord Mayor of London is up for election in May, also took a swipe at 'Feckless Brits' on the dole who he believes are out of work because they lack the 'energy and appetite' for it. He sees the thousands of foreigners who work in places like 'Pret a Manger' (French for 'ready to eat') the British sandwich retail chain, hotels, coffee shops and fast food outlets, as a shining example that unemployed Brits need to learn from.
In an interview with Rupert Murdoch's 'Sun' newspaper, this horny-handed son of toil, recalled his first job as a trainee reporter on The Times newspaper.
"I remember when I first got a job, I could not believe how hard everybody had to work. I couldn't believe having left university that it really did mean getting up that early and working at week-ends. It's not forced labour - she'll learn from it."
Unlike jobless Cait, it is unlikely that Boris Johnson will ever need to use a Jobcentre, fill-in a job application form or work for his dole, because of his social and political connections. Upper-class twits like Boris, who don`t have a clue about the real world of work, usually go from one arranged job to another.
Former 'shelf-stacker' turned Daily Mail columnist, Jan Moir, was even more scathing about Cait in her column on 13 January. She believes Cait is "off her trolley" and ought to be in "Cloud-cuckoo-land rather than Poundland". Ms. Moir told her readers:
"Under a government scheme designed to encourage the long-term unemployed back into work, Reilly was told that she had to leave the museum for a temporary stint at Poundland - and that she risked losing her £54 a week Jobseekers Allowance if she turned down the unpaid work experience, which involved stacking shelves and sweeping floors. Instead of meekly going to work at the discount chain, she went to law."
Though young Cait was doing unpaid voluntary work in a museum at the time the placement at 'Poundland' was foisted upon her by the Jobcentre and was seeking gainful employment, the former shelf-stacker was not impressed. She informed her readers:
"Don`t forget that she is doing unpaid work at the museum because she wants to - not because she has to."
Having explained that Reilly and her lawyer Jim Duffy, say that forcing her to do this kind of unpaid menial work amounts to slave labour and was against her human rights, Moir then issued a dire warning to young people like Cait, who stick up for themselves:
"Life is not going well for geology graduate Cait Reilly. And shall I be the first to tell her? It is just about to get a whole lot worse ... Believe me, such a pinched sense of entitlement at this nascent stage of her career will not endear her to many putative employers."
Many of our readers will not be surprised to learn that in 2009, Ms. Moir was awarded the "Stonewall Bigot of the Year Award" after reporting on the death of the 'Boyzone' singer Stephen Gately. Nevertheless, what Ms. Moir and Boris Johnson fail to mention, is that though Ms. Reilly was guaranteed a job interview by her Jobcentre, she didn't get an interview with Poundland. Moreover, she's also made it perfectly clear that the nature of the work was not a problem and that she would have been happy to do it, had she had a say in it and if she had been paid to do it.
Like many other young people on the Government's so-called work programme, Cait Reilly says that doing unpaid work for a major high street store, left her feeling 'useless and demeaned' and does nothing to build on young peoples' skills nor does it tackle the causes of long-term unemployment. To be unemployed today, is seen as some sort of misdemeanour which requires harsh and intrusive treatment. As Ms. Reilly pointed out in her article in The Guardian, some people on the Government's work programme, will have to do unpaid work for up to 6 months - longer than the unpaid work done by criminals given a community service order. This model of work-for-your-dole is now being securely built into the economy and as John Harris pointed out in The Guardian last August:
"Jobcentre advisers are now being told that if a company has no vacancies for a young jobseeker, they should be 'pushy' about the possibility of an unpaid placement."
Jim Duffy, from Public Interest Lawyers in Birmingham, told the Daily Mail that the government had created without Parliamentary authority a complex array of schemes that allowed Jobcentres to force people into futile, unpaid labour for weeks and months at a time and added:
"We have no problems with Government schemes that increase the chances of people getting employment - that is the key to combating the current economic crises - but these 'work-for-benefit schemes have been proven to do nothing other than increase the cycle of unemployment and poverty..."
Monday, 16 January 2012
Graduate 'pilloried for taking legal action' against UK Government slave labour schemes, responds to critics!
WHY THE GOVERNMENT WAS WRONG TO MAKE ME WORK IN POUNDLAND FOR FREE FORCING YOUNG PEOPLE LIKE ME INTO UNPAID WORK IS WRONG – AND EVIDENCE SHOWS IT WON'T SOLVE THE UNEMPLOYMENT CRISIS.
The following article which we print in full, appeared in The Guardian on Monday 16th January 2012.
"In a routine appointment with my personal Job Centre Plus adviser last October, I was informed of an open day for people interested in potential retail jobs. Having been unemployed for some time, I was more than happy to attend, and was told by my adviser that, if chosen, I would undergo a week's "training" followed by a guaranteed job interview. It quickly became clear at the open day, however, that the period of "training" would potentially last for up to six weeks. I explained to my adviser my reservations about taking part: I was already in the middle of a work experience placement that I had organised for myself (and which was more relevant to the museum career I hope to pursue), and I already had retail experience.
I thought the "training" was optional, and it came as a shock to be told I was required to attend or risk cancellation or reduction of my £53 per week jobseekers' allowance – despite the fact I have always actively sought paid work. So I began the "placement" with Poundland – it was not training, but two weeks' unpaid work stacking shelves and cleaning floors. I came out with nothing; Poundland gained considerably.
For me, this unpaid labour scheme lasted only two weeks, but some people, as part of the government's work programme, will have to do such unpaid work for up to six months – longer than the community service orders handed out to many criminals.
The nature of such work is not the problem. I would be happy to do it if I had a say in it and, crucially, was paid. While hoping for a career in museums, I have also been applying for any job I am able to do. Like more than a million young people today, I find living on £53 a week extremely difficult, and would be delighted to find any paid work.
Many people seem to think all job seekers are lazy scroungers, sponging off the government. The reality of trying to carve out a career in a tough job market is much more difficult than many appreciate, and not a position anyone would choose to put themselves in.
Last week, I launched judicial review proceedings in the high court – a challenge to regulations that require up to 50,000 jobseekers to carry out unpaid work at major corporations. A case such as this cannot result in significant damages; from day one, my challenge has been about the principle, not the money. It is about social justice.
I expected criticism, but some of the comments about me have been hurtful as well as inaccurate. Jan Moir's attack in the Daily Mail, for example, overlooked the fact that I was not paid for the work I carried out and implied that I believed such work, as well as Poundland itself, to be beneath me. This is not the case – I would grab a paid job in Poundland with both hands. Similarly, Vanessa Feltz attempted to humiliate me on the radio. Such coverage has made taking a stand more difficult than I had imagined.
I am lucky to live in a country that offers financial support to jobseekers. I am also lucky to live in one where citizens do have the right to challenge government decisions. Making a million "neets" (not in employment, education or training) work for free for high-street chains leaves them feeling useless and demeaned, denies paid workers the chance to do overtime, and potentially takes jobs from those who need them. It does nothing to build on young unemployed peoples' skills, or to tackle the causes of long-term unemployment. I hope many more people stand up to what is a badly thought-out system created without the involvement of parliament.
The coalition's commitment to getting people into work is admirable, but this is not the right way to do it. Similar schemes have not worked in other countries, and there is evidence that coercing people into unpaid work masks rather than solves the unemployment crisis. The Department for Work and Pensions hired experts find whether "work for your benefit" schemes delivered benefits. After studying similar programmes in Canada, the US and Australia, they found no evidence such schemes increased an the chances of gaining employment. Whether or not my case is successful, I hope it will make the government think again, and work with young people rather than against them."
Cait Reilly guardian.co.uk, Sunday 15 January 2012 17.47 GMT Article history
The following article which we print in full, appeared in The Guardian on Monday 16th January 2012.
"In a routine appointment with my personal Job Centre Plus adviser last October, I was informed of an open day for people interested in potential retail jobs. Having been unemployed for some time, I was more than happy to attend, and was told by my adviser that, if chosen, I would undergo a week's "training" followed by a guaranteed job interview. It quickly became clear at the open day, however, that the period of "training" would potentially last for up to six weeks. I explained to my adviser my reservations about taking part: I was already in the middle of a work experience placement that I had organised for myself (and which was more relevant to the museum career I hope to pursue), and I already had retail experience.
I thought the "training" was optional, and it came as a shock to be told I was required to attend or risk cancellation or reduction of my £53 per week jobseekers' allowance – despite the fact I have always actively sought paid work. So I began the "placement" with Poundland – it was not training, but two weeks' unpaid work stacking shelves and cleaning floors. I came out with nothing; Poundland gained considerably.
For me, this unpaid labour scheme lasted only two weeks, but some people, as part of the government's work programme, will have to do such unpaid work for up to six months – longer than the community service orders handed out to many criminals.
The nature of such work is not the problem. I would be happy to do it if I had a say in it and, crucially, was paid. While hoping for a career in museums, I have also been applying for any job I am able to do. Like more than a million young people today, I find living on £53 a week extremely difficult, and would be delighted to find any paid work.
Many people seem to think all job seekers are lazy scroungers, sponging off the government. The reality of trying to carve out a career in a tough job market is much more difficult than many appreciate, and not a position anyone would choose to put themselves in.
Last week, I launched judicial review proceedings in the high court – a challenge to regulations that require up to 50,000 jobseekers to carry out unpaid work at major corporations. A case such as this cannot result in significant damages; from day one, my challenge has been about the principle, not the money. It is about social justice.
I expected criticism, but some of the comments about me have been hurtful as well as inaccurate. Jan Moir's attack in the Daily Mail, for example, overlooked the fact that I was not paid for the work I carried out and implied that I believed such work, as well as Poundland itself, to be beneath me. This is not the case – I would grab a paid job in Poundland with both hands. Similarly, Vanessa Feltz attempted to humiliate me on the radio. Such coverage has made taking a stand more difficult than I had imagined.
I am lucky to live in a country that offers financial support to jobseekers. I am also lucky to live in one where citizens do have the right to challenge government decisions. Making a million "neets" (not in employment, education or training) work for free for high-street chains leaves them feeling useless and demeaned, denies paid workers the chance to do overtime, and potentially takes jobs from those who need them. It does nothing to build on young unemployed peoples' skills, or to tackle the causes of long-term unemployment. I hope many more people stand up to what is a badly thought-out system created without the involvement of parliament.
The coalition's commitment to getting people into work is admirable, but this is not the right way to do it. Similar schemes have not worked in other countries, and there is evidence that coercing people into unpaid work masks rather than solves the unemployment crisis. The Department for Work and Pensions hired experts find whether "work for your benefit" schemes delivered benefits. After studying similar programmes in Canada, the US and Australia, they found no evidence such schemes increased an the chances of gaining employment. Whether or not my case is successful, I hope it will make the government think again, and work with young people rather than against them."
Cait Reilly guardian.co.uk, Sunday 15 January 2012 17.47 GMT Article history
Thursday, 12 January 2012
Graduate forced onto Government work-for-dole scheme, takes legal action!
In November we gave details of how many major high-street stores including Sainsbury, Argos, ASDA, Tesco, Poundland, Primark, were offering no pay, work-for-your-dole placements, for claimants as a condition for retaining their unemployment benefits.
One claimant who was told by her Jobcentre that she would have to work for no pay to keep her benefits was 22 year geology graduate Cait Reilly (pictured) from Birmingham. The geology graduate spent two weeks stacking shelves and sweeping floors for no pay, for 'Poundland' in South Birmingham. Cait told The Guardian newspaper:
"It seems we were being used as free labour in the run-up to Christmas."
Although the 22 year old was not offered an interview following her placement and had told the Jobcentre Plus of her previous retail experience and that she was volunteering at the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, she was told that she would lose her benefits if she did not accept the 'mandatory' post.
Cait is now challenging the Government over a scheme which she feels compels jobseekers into "futile, unpaid labour". She is asking the High Court to quash regulations that her lawyers claim were created by the government 'without parliamentary authority' and 'force people into futile, unpaid labour for weeks or months at a time.'
Speaking to the Metro, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) said:
"Our priority is to help people off benefits and into work. It is simply absurd to suggest that we should not be providing this support and effectively leaving people at home doing nothing."
Although Poundland didn't offer Cait a job, they told the newspaper: "Our partnership with Jobcentre Plus is a positive step to get people back into work."
Action against this type of forced labour is also being challenged under the Human Rights Act by solicitors from 'Public Interest Lawyers' in Birmingham who are seeking a judicial review of the scheme on behalf of two clients who they maintain were forced to work against their will when put on the Governments 'mandatory work activity' program. This they say amounted to a breach of their human rights under article 4(2) of the Human Rights Act which states that "No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour."
Friday, 6 January 2012
Government slave labour scheme hailed as a success in getting the unemployed off the dole, but not into a job!
The Daily Malice, better known as the Daily Mail, ran an interesting story yesterday. According to the newspaper the Government have released figures that show that half of those who are on unemployment benefit who are referred for 'mandatory work activity' by the Jobcentre, prefer to stop claiming benefits rather than be dragooned into undertaking forced unpaid labour.
Government figures show that 20% of claimants referred for 'mandatory work activity' cease claiming unemployment benefit immediately and another 30%, have their benefits stopped when they fail to turn up. So impresssed is the Government with the results that it is extending 'mandatory work activity' nationwide, so as to catch a further 50,000 unemployed. A source quoted by the newspaper said that the results so far had been 'extraordinary' and added:
"This has started on a relatively small scale, to see how it would work, but nobody expected the results we are seeing...for the majority it is proving to be a push that gets them off benefits. What this demonstrates is that there really is a hardcore of claimants who have absolutely no intention of working come what may."
Although the government presents these work-for-dole schemes as offering training and work experience for the unemployed, the figures only confirm what has been known for some time, that these schemes are about forcing people off benefits in order to reduce the benefits bill. People working on the schemes are exempted from minimum wage legislation and are effectively being compelled to undertake forced labour in order to retain their unemployment benefit.
Last November, we wrote that solicitors from 'Public Interest Lawyers' in Birmingham, were acting on behalf of two clients involved in the 'mandatory work activity' programme and were seeking a judicial review of the scheme on the grounds that their clients were forced to work against their will which amounted to a breach of their human rights under article 4(2) of the Human Rights Act, which states:
"No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour."
Northern Voices blog has frequently published articles about these work-for-dole schemes (see our posting "Motivating the Workshy - New Deal Bum Deal" September 2009) which in our view amount to an appalling abuse of human rights. No one should be forced into undertaking forced labour, a practice which is more commonly associated, with totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany.
Monday, 21 November 2011
ARBEIT MACHT FREI - Government scheme for the unemployed, condemned as slavery!
The disgraced former MP for Stalybridge & Hyde, tory boy, James Purnell, is the scoundrel who introduced forced labour for the unemployed when he was Secretary of State for work and pensions, during the last Labour government.
Under the guise of work experience, the unemployed are now being dragooned by the Con-Dem Government into working unpaid for supermarkets and budget stores for up to two months in return for their dole money. The work experience programme exempts young jobseekers from the national minimum wage (NMW) for up to eight weeks when undertaking placements of up to 30 hours per week, without pay, which must be completed if they are to keep their Jobseekers Allowance (JSA). Although the scheme is voluntary and allows claimants a one week 'cooling-off' period, a person undertaking work experience, loses their benefit if they fail to complete the scheme after the first week.
Yet young people who have participated in the scheme, have told The Guardian that they were told by the Jobcentre that the scheme was mandatory and they have complained that they were kept in the dark regarding the one week cooling-off period. Many also confirmed that they were doing 30 hours unpaid labour and had to be available, between 9.00am and 10.00pm in return for their £53 a-week JSA.
The Department of Work & Pensions(DWP), have confirmed that jobcentre staff can force the unemployed into taking a placement once they have "expressed an interest" and that a person, will lose their JSA if they pull out after completing one week.
Many major high-street stores are participating in the scheme. Sainsbury, Argos, ASDA, Tesco, Poundland, Primark, have all offered no pay, work-for-your-dole placements, with no guarantee of a job at the end of it.
Cait Reilly (22), who graduated last year with a BSc in Geology, told The Guardian that she had been working for her benefits stacking and cleaning shelves for Poundland in South Birmingham, with five other claimants. Cait said:
"It seems we were being used as free labour in the run-up to Christmas."
Although she told her jobcentre that she didn't want the placement, Reilly says she was told it was mandatory and that she would lose her benefit if she didn't take it.
In Warfield, Berkshire, James Rayburn (21), spent seven weeks stacking and cleaning shelves for Tesco, unpaid, and sometimes worked the night shift. He says he was given little instruction or support but was told by his jobcentre that he would lose his benefits if he did not work without pay. He also confirmed that he was not told by the jobcentre that he had one week to refuse the placement.
While some might call this type of forced labour, slavery, which is providing big business with a pool of unpaid labour, Tesco told The Guardian that they were under the impression that the placements were voluntary and added:
"These placements are not a substitute for full-time employees."
No doubt, young Mr. Rayburn, would beg to differ. He told the newspaper:
"I reckon they should have paid me...I was basically doing what a normal member of staff does for Tesco."
Though Tesco told the newspaper they would not be offering placements over Christmas, in August, they told The Guardian that they were -
"co-operating with jobcentres to provide 3,000 four-week placements this year, and Poundland rather brazenly said that taking on unpaid benefit claimants 'doesn't replace our recruitment activity but adds to the number of colleagues we have working with us.' Neither of them, nor the equally placement-friendly ASDA, answered a question about what 'work experience'actually involves, though the clue is perhaps in the title, Work?"
Though the DWP say they do not know how many hundreds or thousands of benefit claimants are working without pay, employment minister Chris Grayling, told the newspaper:
"Our work experience scheme is proving to be a big success with over half of young people leaving benefits after they have completed their placements. It is not mandatory but once someone agrees to take part we expect them to turn up or they will have their benefit stopped."
Other government schemes such as 'mandatory work activity', and the 'work programme', also involve claimants undertaking forced labour for companies. Solicitors from 'Public Interest Lawyers' in Birmingham, who are acting on behalf of two clients involved in the 'mandatory work activity' programme, are seeking a judicial review of the scheme. They maintain that their clients were forced to work against their will, which amounted to a breach of their human rights under article
4(2)of the Human Rights Act which states:
"No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour."
Forced labour is something which one normally associates with totalitarian regimes, like NAZI Germany and not so-called free and open liberal societies, like Britain. Despite this compulsion, and the fact that these government work-for-dole schemes clearly pose a threat to people in paid employment or those seeking employment, due to the potential for displacement and substitution of dole labour for paid labour, there has been barely a squeak of opposition from the trade unions.
Under the guise of work experience, the unemployed are now being dragooned by the Con-Dem Government into working unpaid for supermarkets and budget stores for up to two months in return for their dole money. The work experience programme exempts young jobseekers from the national minimum wage (NMW) for up to eight weeks when undertaking placements of up to 30 hours per week, without pay, which must be completed if they are to keep their Jobseekers Allowance (JSA). Although the scheme is voluntary and allows claimants a one week 'cooling-off' period, a person undertaking work experience, loses their benefit if they fail to complete the scheme after the first week.
Yet young people who have participated in the scheme, have told The Guardian that they were told by the Jobcentre that the scheme was mandatory and they have complained that they were kept in the dark regarding the one week cooling-off period. Many also confirmed that they were doing 30 hours unpaid labour and had to be available, between 9.00am and 10.00pm in return for their £53 a-week JSA.
The Department of Work & Pensions(DWP), have confirmed that jobcentre staff can force the unemployed into taking a placement once they have "expressed an interest" and that a person, will lose their JSA if they pull out after completing one week.
Many major high-street stores are participating in the scheme. Sainsbury, Argos, ASDA, Tesco, Poundland, Primark, have all offered no pay, work-for-your-dole placements, with no guarantee of a job at the end of it.
Cait Reilly (22), who graduated last year with a BSc in Geology, told The Guardian that she had been working for her benefits stacking and cleaning shelves for Poundland in South Birmingham, with five other claimants. Cait said:
"It seems we were being used as free labour in the run-up to Christmas."
Although she told her jobcentre that she didn't want the placement, Reilly says she was told it was mandatory and that she would lose her benefit if she didn't take it.
In Warfield, Berkshire, James Rayburn (21), spent seven weeks stacking and cleaning shelves for Tesco, unpaid, and sometimes worked the night shift. He says he was given little instruction or support but was told by his jobcentre that he would lose his benefits if he did not work without pay. He also confirmed that he was not told by the jobcentre that he had one week to refuse the placement.
While some might call this type of forced labour, slavery, which is providing big business with a pool of unpaid labour, Tesco told The Guardian that they were under the impression that the placements were voluntary and added:
"These placements are not a substitute for full-time employees."
No doubt, young Mr. Rayburn, would beg to differ. He told the newspaper:
"I reckon they should have paid me...I was basically doing what a normal member of staff does for Tesco."
Though Tesco told the newspaper they would not be offering placements over Christmas, in August, they told The Guardian that they were -
"co-operating with jobcentres to provide 3,000 four-week placements this year, and Poundland rather brazenly said that taking on unpaid benefit claimants 'doesn't replace our recruitment activity but adds to the number of colleagues we have working with us.' Neither of them, nor the equally placement-friendly ASDA, answered a question about what 'work experience'actually involves, though the clue is perhaps in the title, Work?"
Though the DWP say they do not know how many hundreds or thousands of benefit claimants are working without pay, employment minister Chris Grayling, told the newspaper:
"Our work experience scheme is proving to be a big success with over half of young people leaving benefits after they have completed their placements. It is not mandatory but once someone agrees to take part we expect them to turn up or they will have their benefit stopped."
Other government schemes such as 'mandatory work activity', and the 'work programme', also involve claimants undertaking forced labour for companies. Solicitors from 'Public Interest Lawyers' in Birmingham, who are acting on behalf of two clients involved in the 'mandatory work activity' programme, are seeking a judicial review of the scheme. They maintain that their clients were forced to work against their will, which amounted to a breach of their human rights under article
4(2)of the Human Rights Act which states:
"No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour."
Forced labour is something which one normally associates with totalitarian regimes, like NAZI Germany and not so-called free and open liberal societies, like Britain. Despite this compulsion, and the fact that these government work-for-dole schemes clearly pose a threat to people in paid employment or those seeking employment, due to the potential for displacement and substitution of dole labour for paid labour, there has been barely a squeak of opposition from the trade unions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
