to wonder why the papers haven't got this on the front page?

[LittleHouseOnTheShelf]

www.thecanary.co/2016/04/29/cameron-rocked-by-major-defeat-just-days-before-election-time/

Workfare refers to all of the programmes which are mandatory, long term and paid less than minimum wage. The Government’s Work Experience Programme, Sector Based Work Academies, Community Action Programme, Mandatory Work Activity scheme and The Work Programme all fall into this category. Under these Workfare programmes, unemployed people have been forced in long term, full time work for no more than the benefits to which they are entitled as citizens.

Workfare was ruled illegal in 2013. But instead of complying with the orders of the court, the government has continued to appeal the decision – suffering defeat after defeat. And now, the highest court in the land has told Cameron’s government that its workfare schemes are illegal, and they must pay back benefit claimants who were forced into these unlawful programmes.

It's not all over the front pages of the papers because caroldecker is correct and it does only apply to those who have previously challenged it. It's got bugger all to do with a right-wing narrative and more to do with it only being a relatively minor story. Newspaper bosses need to sell newspapers. If they put this story on the front it would not sell papers.

FunniestWins if they can work why shouldn't people do workfare?

Or... if there's work to be done, call it a proper job and employ them!

"The Job Centre tried to send me on Workfare a couple of years back, despite the fact that I was actually working! They wanted me to give up my paid hours and go and do labour somewhere, full time, for £70 a week. It's disgusting that this was ever legal"

Lilac its ridiculous and your experience shows that some should really be careful what they wish for.

It's ridiculous. I had to do workfare a few years ago. I was working 35 hours every week for six months and getting £70 a week, those who were actually employed in the shop I was in were earning £7.50 per hour (so over £260 a week) for doing the exact same thing I was. There was clearly a need for more staff but they wouldn't give me a job and pay me when they could have me working for free through workfare. I was applying for every job I could do, and some I couldn't, in the hope of getting a proper job but got nowhere for over two years.

I agree the workfare can help people get experience but it's unfair the way it's currently run. Workfare placements should be exclusive to charity shops where staff are volunteers anyway. That way unemployed people get experience which mat help them get a job but they're not replacing paid employees.

There are a small number of those on benefits that are workshy and play the system bit the vast majority are those who just want a decent chance at getting a job but don't stand a chance because companies are using people on workfare placements rather than employing more staff properly.

Workfare actually undermines people looking for work. Why employ someone on a wage when you can get one for free (paid a pittance by the tax payer).

if there's work to be done, call it a proper job and employ them!

I used to say this to people but I've given up because I've never had an adequate answer. I think the people who say it are dim, enjoy the humiliation of their fellow citizens and don't believe it could happen to them or are being contrary.

Or any or all of the above.

Why shouldn't people do workfare.
Well work fare could cost us all our jobs. Be under no illusion, after all why should an employer pay you or me to to a job. When in fact. They can get someone off the dole to work for nowt.

It amazes me that people shout about Amazon et al not paying tax, while at the same time they support large companies using slave labour.

No one gets a job through these schemes, and meanwhile companies use tax payers money to subsidize their crappy wages.

They have to pay the claimants. Good it's about time there was someone there to defend the poor.

Well exactly my point Tiny. Of course they wouldn't give you a job, and why should they. If this shitting government gave you to them to work for nothing.

I object to Workfare because it's free labour to big companies who have no intention of actually employing people. I've told my niece's story on here before - she worked for 6 months with a nursery/out of school care place (huge business with places country wide). Her assessments were all glowing until the very last one in which it was decided she 'wasnt' a good fit' and they wouldn't be offering her paid employment. They got another workfare person in after her. Two months later she got a phone call asking her to interview to replace someone was leaving and it was made very clear that the interview process was a formality so she was 'a good fit' and she should have been employed by them, but they had absolutely no intention of employing someone they'd have to pay.

If you need staff employ them and pay them. It's not like it's difficult to get rid of someone in the first two years if they don't fit your company.

Don't get me wrong. It wouldn't be so bad if people gained actually paid employment from it, but they don't, do they.

I can't understand why we have a minimum wage if people are not paid the equivalent to do workfare. It's not a minimum then, is it? The minimum is zero.

Good grief, it's like I waved a magic wand. If you shout for eejits, they will come!

I have no issue with anyone who is workshy being given an incentive to work. However, as always, with all of these stupid ideas to target the (small minority of) people who actually are unwilling to work it's people like me who get a kicking.

The biggest problem with workfare is that there's no job at the end of it. You get worked like a donkey for a few weeks, for £70 a week (minimum wage? Hardly.) then sent back to the job centre so they can get the next slave in. The companies involved have no intention of employing anyone at the end of it and the job centre's know this when they send people there.

Anyone using 'the workshy' as a reason for workfare knows bugger all about it. Generally 'the workshy' tends to cover young men who've never worked and subsidise their lifestyles in other ways. Having their dole money sanctioned is no big deal to them so they're quite happy to stick two fingers up at workfare.

Single parents like me, on the other hand, can't afford to lose a penny. The government knows this which is why it constantly targets single parents, people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups in these schemes. Then it can bang out the propaganda of 'scroungers' and Daily Mail reading thickos fall for it.

As evidenced by some of the posts on this thread.

How close are we to bringing back the workhouse?

YABU to wonder why the press aren't covering this major public interest story. I think we all know it has everything to do with whose interests the press really serves, plus a little matter of needing to devote yet more column inches to a manufactured 'crisis' in the Labour party ahead of next week's elections.

YAdefinitelyNBU to start a thread to publicise this huge, humiliating defeat for our evil government. They're utterly, utterly shameless and lacking in basic humanity, and it's shocking that this defeat has been glossed over and barely mentioned in the media.

The reason it isn't on the front pages is because it is a very minor defeat for the government. It has not ruled workfare schemes illegal.

This case started when a JSA claimant asked the courts to rule that it was illegal to force her to work at Poundland as a condition of receiving JSA. The courts decided that unemployed people had not been given enough information about the penalties they faced if they refused to work unpaid.

The Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 was rushed through with support from the Labour party to deal with the flaws in the original scheme. This Act has only been ruled incompatible with human rights legislation inasmuch as it applies to claims made before the Act was passed. The ruling only helps claimants who lodged appeals before the Act was passed. Any appeals lodged after that will fail.

Campaigners are making overblown claims for this case, suggesting that the Court of Appeal has ruled workfare illegal and that the government will have to replay money to any claimant who has refused to work. They are wrong. The judgement is very clear that workfare is legal and the government will only have to repay money to anyone who appealed prior to the 2013 Act. In total the judges believe this is going to cost the government around £1.3M.

It's a judgement that only applies to a comparativrly small group (those who got inadequate notice) so it's hardly an earth shattering defeat for the Govt.

Oh wow, I had no idea about this - clearly the mainstream media has suppressed this story over many months and years of twists and turns. Would anyone know of any more reliable news sources/websites, but perhaps not one that veers into conspiracy theories?

The reason it isn't on the front pages is because it is a very minor defeat for the government. It has not ruled workfare schemes illegal.

That's not the reason why it isn't on the front pages.

But if the Workfare jobs exist, why aren't they real jobs that the people on JSA can apply for and be paid proper wages for?! Possibly the government, if so keen to have JSA recipients working could pay the equivalent to the employer as an incentive...

That's not the reason why it isn't on the front pages

Yes it is. It is a minor defeat for the government which will not result in any change of policy and will cost a relatively small amount of money. It is absolutely not a big story however much you might wish it to be so. If the Court of Appeal had ruled workfare schemes illegal it might have made the front pages, although Livingstone's anti-Semitic comments would probably still have received top billing.

I misunderstood you. I agree, it's not a big story, and that's why it's not a splash. If it had been a real defeat it may have made it, but some papers would have reported it as the doing of meddling, unelected judges and a reason for Brexit too.

That doesn't make Workfare morally right, or even good sense from an economic standpoint. That's my view though. I don't presume to know your views on Workfare one way or the other.

no reason they shouldn't be forced to work the the number of hours that correspond to their Jobseeker's Allowance

There are many, many reasons. It's like a modern day version of the workhouse. It's also odd that it's demanded by so many ignorant right wing fascists - since it's effectively like the former communist states where unemployment was always claimed to be zero as the state gave you a job.

It's just a dickhead idea.

You get worked like a donkey for a few weeks, for £70 a week

No-one can live on £70 a week, so anyone not sleeping on a park bench must have an income of several times that. Around here, LHA for a room in a shared house is £100 a week.

If someone is really only receiving £70 from the state, and not sleeping outdoors, I can only assume they must be being subsidised by friends or family, perhaps by being given a free place to stay?