AIBU to think that doing workfare for the same co. that made him redundant should not be happening.

[Darkesteyes]

Saw this on twitter earlier. The company made him redundant but later wanted him back on workfare. Appalling.

www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/03/dwp-benefits-electrician-work-placement-labour?CMP=share_btn_tw#start-of-comments

What's that got to do with anything I just said? Where did I say people should be forced to do voluntary work or lose their benefits?

Sorry Saucy I misread your post. But the things i mentioned are happening.

Saucy, your post at 18:57 is a perfect example of that warpedness.

The entire crux of this case is that the Mr McArthur IS being forced to work there: the JobCentre have tried to make him destitute because he has refused (and would have succeeded if hadn't had a small independent pension).

You are being silly, and disrespectful of the concepts of charity and volunteering, by pretending this is in any way linked to volunteering.

I was really struck by this bit:
help the unemployed by offering them work and training opportunities

Help them how?

If the business were offering (useful) training, that would be help.
Waged work, that would be help (indeed, an end in itself).
Unpaid work experience for two weeks for a school child who has never been in an organisation outside school, that would be help.

But six months' unwaged work for a 59 year-old at the place where he used to be paid to work? How does that help Mr McArthur? What are you hoping he'll learn?

Or are we now completely embued with the notion that "to labour for someone else" is beneficial in itself, regardless of pay? So that labouring unwaged in a factory somehow bestows benefits not obtained by gardening, or looking after the grandchildren, or having a hobby, or - shock - genuine volunteering for a cause of his own choice?

BTW, for those who haven't clicked the links, the company in question has a waged workforce of 39 people, and has had 16 people working unwaged for 6 months from the JobCentre.

It describes itself on its website as
"LAMH Recycle is a social enterprise with charitable status providing training and employment opportunities within a supportive work environment for people experiencing mental ill health and other disadvantaged groups since 1999."

It states:
"A Social Enterprise can be defined as:
“a business operating in a commercial environment but with primarily social objectives with surpluses principally reinvested for that purpose rather than being driven by the need to maximize profit for share holders and owners"

So it is intended to be a profit-making business. Woolly statement about "primarily... principally... maximize" but nothing hard and fast about where the money actually goes.

Mr McArthur worked for them for minimum wage and was happy to do so, but is now being told to do the same work without wage and sanctioned for refusing. He is 59 and clearly has a previous work history because he has a small pension. There is nothing to suggest he is mentally ill or from a disadvantaged group - unless you count being 59, which frankly is not going to be changed by training...

Exactly Pausing. Great posts.

It isn't a great post because both she and you still can't or won't grasp the difference between participating in a community scheme that's run for the benefit of the marginalised group that you are part of, and an actual paid job.

If you don't like Workfare in general or the businesses that exploit free labour, then fine. I agree. I just think there are a million and one better targets for your ire than a social enterprise that's been set up to offer work experience and life skills to the long-term unemployed.

So you're still refusing to acknowledge that this was mandated labour, not volunteering.

And refusing to answer the question of how this unwaged labouring would benefit this particular 59-year-old man, with a work history and with previous experience of this actual job at this actual factory.

This is the equivalent of greenwash, isn't it?

Stick the words "experience", "opportunity", "community" and "participation" on the front, and it must be a Good Thing™.

Never mind the pesky detail.

Or do you feel that you like the idea of this project, and therefore Mr McArthur ought to have been freely volunteering for it?

And the fact that he wasn't is a mere detail that higher minds should ignore?

Pausing i think ppl are trying to change the criteria for the definition of the word "volunteer" You only have to look at the threads where parents are asked for a voluntary contribution towards a school trip but then are chased up by the school when they say no/cant afford it.

Someone needs to inform the Oxford Dictionary quick smart that the definition of this word has changed