Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be purple with rage over workfare

360 replies

HoneyandHaycorns · 19/02/2012 11:53

Sorry, I know there are loads of related threads on here, but I am getting really, really really upset and angry about the fucking workfare programme. It's an absolute outrage that my taxes are funding slave labour to line the pockets of huge tax-avoiding corporations, while the most vulnerable in our society are having their lifelines snatched away from them one by one.

I want to voice my protest, but apart from writing to my MP (which I have done) what is the best way of fighting this crap?

I simply can't believe that anyone in a civilised society could possibly think this was a good idea. Why on earth would a private company ever create any new jobs if they can have government-funded slave labour for free?

Will someone please come and tell me why the fuck anybody other than the boss of tescos would conceivably think this was a good idea?

And if you can't tell me why it is a good idea, please tell me the best way to protest.

OP posts:
Tortington · 19/02/2012 18:29

its this govt run by people off the fucking telly

what with the A4E bird and Portas

BertieBotts · 19/02/2012 18:30

I don't even know how to be angry about it, I'm just sad, and scared.

thefroggy · 19/02/2012 18:35

I can't train to be a childminder, or a teaching assistant. I dont really like kids, dont get me wrong, I have two and I adore them. In general though, i'm crap with kids and crap with people. I couldn't be a carer either for the same reasons. I can't help that or change it. It's just who I am.

But I will clean bogs Grin

Glitterknickaz · 19/02/2012 18:38

Page 6 and page 7 from this official DWP document are very interesting

Page 6 details that actually attendance on workfare is 'required' - compulsory rather than voluntary as the government currently insist.

Page 7 details payments due to 'providers' - read large corporations making billions in profit.

You will note that for some groups the 'providers' can receive nearly FOURTEEN THOUSAND POUNDS for getting free labour from the government.

The average is around £1200

Original poster
HoneyandHaycorns · 19/02/2012 18:51

Interesting indeed, glitter. And unbelievable. :(

OP posts:
Glitterknickaz · 19/02/2012 18:53

So, this is what taxpayers want their money spent on?
Not money for people with disabilities, not help for carers, oh no, much better spent as sweetners for Tesco

noddyholder · 19/02/2012 18:58

Glitter that is unbelievable.

noddyholder · 19/02/2012 19:01

Where is the list of participants? Thank you. I really feel this is something people have to take a stand on for our children

gettingagrip · 19/02/2012 19:07

Listed several times on the other thread noddy

Glitterknickaz · 19/02/2012 19:07

there's a link somewhere on the frothers blog here

BertieBotts · 19/02/2012 19:09

:( :(

One of the groups with a "required" label: "Those who are seriously disadvantaged in the labour market, including some who have recently received incapacity benefits"

So, the people who are about to have their disability benefits cut because they're "not disabled enough", then? FFS!

BertieBotts · 19/02/2012 19:10

I mean, this would ACTUALLY MAKE SENSE if they just had to provide actual jobs instead of "job placements" for people.

ClothesOfSand · 19/02/2012 19:11

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. I thought the up to the £14,000 was given to agencies that get contracts from the DWP to get people on JSA or ESA paid work. It is still outrageous, but surely a different issue to workfare.

I thought the money given to companies to take on workfare people for no pay was a separate thing.

noddyholder · 19/02/2012 19:11

Thanks.

Glitterknickaz · 19/02/2012 19:16

No, that payment is to the provider - ie Tesco, Poundland, Asda etc.
The leaflet is designed to encourage companies to sign up for Workfare.

Nilgiri · 19/02/2012 19:18

OK, I understand more now.

There's the standalone Work Experience affecting 16-24 yr olds.

And then there's the Work Programme, which is all those content-free "write a CV" courses and supposed careers advice. According to the DirectGov page it can also include work experience. This can be done to people of all ages.

Glitter's DWP document is about the Work Programme, and "service providers" are companies like A4e doing the dubious training. These are the ones getting paid the fees in that document. I know they then palm the less employable people off on charities for further "assistance towards work", having pocketed part of the fee.

Where the "work experience" bit fits in the Work Programme, I don't know. I'm sure it's at least as noxious as the Work Experience for 16-24 yr olds (actually worse, since it will be inflicted on sick people and those with 20 years' employment history). And it clearly involves a host company/so-called "employer" which uses the free labour of the "work experiencer". But it's not the case that all of the £14,000 fee is going to the host company - because A4e will want a good chunk.

Glitterknickaz · 19/02/2012 19:22

That link came from here

Original poster
HoneyandHaycorns · 19/02/2012 19:30

nilgiri I think you're right.

OP posts:
mingofmongo · 19/02/2012 19:34

Workfair will target long term unemployed and force them to reconnect with the workforce. It will also be much harder to hold down a job 'cash in hand' while claiming full benefits if claimants can be assigned to a new employer at any point. So fraud will be harder.

The disabled who cant work will be excluded. Those who can work will be included, and why not? Equality innit.

I dont like that we have to pay the employer to place people (?), but at the end of the day I guess there is some payoff in terms of training/job as a result.

+1 for workfare.

BertieBotts · 19/02/2012 19:41

"I guess there is some payoff in terms of training/job as a result."

I thought this wasn't the case in what has been happening at the moment?

Nilgiri · 19/02/2012 19:41

I have equal rights, ming. But not equal functionality. That's why I'm described as dis-abled.

And people as disabled as me are being found Fit to Work. Which an employer lumbered with me might take issue with.

Original poster
HoneyandHaycorns · 19/02/2012 19:42

I dont like that we have to pay the employer to place people (?), but at the end of the day I guess there is some payoff in terms of training/job as a result.

Who says there will be jobs as a result? I don't know if the employer gets paid or not, but setting that question aside for the time being, this will surely result in fewer jobs and greater unemployment in the long term because employers will be able to use cheap forced labour instead of properly remunerated employees.

And it is inaccurate to say that all people with disabilities will be excluded. Many disabled people will have to do this if they are judged to be not quite disabled enough.

OP posts:
Nilgiri · 19/02/2012 19:43

And you've missed the point. Workfarers aren't being "placed". They're contributing taxpayer-funded labour to Tesco and most don't get a job at the end.

Glitterknickaz · 19/02/2012 19:43

So it's ok for someone in the last months of their lives to stack shelves for free?