workfare - does anyone have a defence for it?

[nkf]

Or do I really have to start travelling miles to the co-op? I'm sure I do but what is the argument in its favour?

Please tell me why everyones up in arms about this now? it's been going on for years under the guise of New Deal, no one gave a crap in the late 90's branding the unemployed scroungers and saying they should work like dogs for their benefits.

Now it's suddenly a scandal that big companies have been using the poor as cheap labour, people sent round and round on worthless identical training courses with people like Skills Training and the dreaded A4E that give you an in house certification thats not worth the paper it's printed on etc.

Someone please tell me why the change in attitudes? because as a working class person from a council estate who was unemployed for 11 years and insulted endlessly by the middle classes who found it oh so easy to find a job, I can't help thinking this is all about class again.

When the poor working class where subjected to it, thats all fine because we are scum who don't want jobs, but now the middle and upper class little darlings are falling out of uni and finding themselves on the scrap heap it's oh so awful that they get treated with the same sense of disdain as the rest of us and used merely as a pawn in government contracted service provider games just as the rest of us have been for the past 16 odd years.

BTW I would like to point out something you lot time and time again get sorely wrong.

Companies do not get people for "free" they are paid to take them on by the goverenment, more money per week then what the benefit is paid to the people, it's not slave labour it's an endless line of subbed labour, it has led to a loss of jobs rather then the creation of em, years ago we unemployed slackers used to rely on the Xmas temp as a way of getting some work under our belts when all full-time eluded our inexperienced grasps, but such P/T work dwindles when employers can get not just free workers, but subsidised ones.

It's a no brainer, New Deal and it's subsequent incarnations are a barrier to work, they take the lowest rung of the work ladder out of circulation entirely.

Hi Ryoko I remember you from the original thread on this last November. You are bang on it. I totally agree with you. It was ok when the working classes were put through endless unpaid placements but now the middle classes are experiencing it theres an outcry. It is definately a class thing.
The one good thing because of it though is that the genie is now out of the lamp and they cant put it back in!

I left school in early 80s, lived in an area with high unemployment. Back then there was a similar scheme called YOP - youth opportunity. It paid £27 pounds per week, same as I would have received if I'd been on unemployment benefit.

I worked under this scheme for 6 months, doing incredibly basic office work like filing and making tea, answering the phone, photocopying, sharpening pencils etc. 2 weeks after I left the scheme I got a job with a local company as office junior, earning £30.00 per week (I kid you not). Worked there for 4 years, gaining very valuable experience in computerised accounting, payroll etc. When I left the company I was still only earning about £40 per week. I gradually worked my way up through various roles in several other companies and in the last employed role I had (7 years ago), I was earning £60K. I am now self employed and doing something I love.

Having a reason to get up in the morning, shower, dress smartly and be somewhere on time, showing that you are capable of following instructions, doing a task, however simple and repetitive, efficiently, quickly and correctly will stand you in good stead. The 6 months I spent working in that first office was an investment in my future. I could have just sat around doing nothing. I would have received the same amount of money. But I decided to do something that may give me a bit of an advantage in the long slog of job hunting.

On a personal level I would have taken the opportunity to get some work experience if I were jobless - no experience is ever wasted. Also on a personal level I would be very uncomfortable taking benefits for doing nothing. I would find it demoralising and demeaning. But perhaps I'm old fashioned. Also, it may be because I got my first break work-wise by offering to do holiday relief for nothing - I was kept on afterwards and it led to an interesting and extremely well-paid career.

creighton asks what I think the NMW should be set to. I believe the individual should be free to sell their labour at whatever price they see fit - I don't believe that the government should set a minimum rate for that transaction to take place. I also don't believe that there is any value in the government setting such an arbitrary figure because, as you yourself have pointed out, the NMW and the living wage are two very different things, the latter being variable across the length and breadth of the country.

I don't believe that there should be a NMW irrespective of its rate.

I think thats a dumb idea.

We need a NMW that is a living wage how is anyone meant to get anywhere otherwise? if we had it the way you want it Mr Pants there would be an endless number of workers getting booted out to make way for kids living at home paying no rent who can get away with £2 an hour without worry.

Just as in our current system we have an endless line in cheap foreign skilled workers, coming here from the EU and living in shared accommodation, putting native skilled workers out of jobs purely because they have families to pay for so simply can't afford to be paid as low as the foreign workers.

Why must we strive for less? why must the worker suffer to pay the shareholder?, where has this culture come from that thinks it's fine for those in the boardroom to get a 500% increase in wages in the past 20 years while the rest of us see our standards drop, why are those on the bottom rung now seen as expendable trash rather then the bedrock that companies are built on?.

I'm honestly asking here, what the hell has gone wrong in this country because something definitely has, our values are screwed.

MrPants does not seem to realise that a company should pay for people's services by offering a decent wage as the company will profit from it. should a company pay only £1.50 an hour and expect the taxpayer to make up the difference so that the worker can pay his rent? the company profits and i/the taxpayer gets the wages bill. how is that reasonable?

What Ryoko said above. There ARE jobs - 100s of thousands of Eastern Europeans are working these jobs. This happens because housing is too expensive/childcare is too expensive and you cannot afford to take one of thise jobs and feed and house your family. And the system is so bloody complicated it disincentives anyone from taking short term/seasonal work. I LIKE to think the the Universal Credit will make this easier.....

I hav no problem with 'work experience,' but I think people should be paid fairly for a day's work, minimum wage.

Are we saying these people don't deserve a fair day's pay in return for their Labour?

In order to clarify a few wrong ideas about the workfare programs propagated by some news outlets and the coalition, here is a ten point list made by Public Interest Lawyers:

The Government's Workfare Schemes: 10 Facts

PIL acts for a number of individuals, including Cait Reilly, who are challenging the Government?s ?Back to Work? schemes in the High Court. Intensive press coverage and the Government?s attempts to salvage this programme from its current crisis have led to a skewing of the facts. The following may therefore be helpful.

1. Our clients do not object to work or to work experience. Cait Reilly was doing voluntary work experience in a museum when she was sent to Poundland. Our clients, like the vast majority of jobseekers, are desperate to find paid work of any description, including stacking shelves. The term ?job snobs? is therefore a misleading and offensive buzz word being used by the Government to discredit Britain?s 2.6 million unemployed. What our clients say they need is support from the Government to make the most of their skills and plug their skills gaps, in order to ensure that they not only enter the job market, but stay there.

1. The Government is not ?paying them... through benefits? to work, as the Deputy Prime Minister has claimed today. Jobseekers allowance ranges from £53.45 to £67.50 per week. It is paid for one specific (and obvious) purpose ? to support people whilst they seek employment. It is not remuneration for work, and even if it were it would mean that people on Back to Work schemes would be getting paid as little as £1.78 per hour, often whilst working for some of our biggest retailers. Many of those retailers are now realising that such a scenario is unacceptable and have either pulled out of the schemes or demanded that the Government thinks again.

1. People are not being given a choice. Ministers claim that work under these schemes is not forced but voluntary. This is not correct. The Community Action Programme, Work Programme and Mandatory Work Activity Scheme (the clue is in the name) are mandatory, and jobseekers will lose their jobseeker?s allowance if they do not participate. The Government says the sector-based work academy and work experience schemes are voluntarily, but Cait Reilly was told in no uncertain terms that her participation was ?mandatory?.

1. The schemes do not work. Ministers claim the schemes help people into employment. Yet, the international research the Government commissioned before introducing them gave it two very clear answers:

?There is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time available for job search and by failing to provide the skills and experience valued by employers?; and

?Workfare is least effective in getting people into jobs in weak labour markets where unemployment is high.?

1. The schemes do not target benefits scroungers or ?the something for nothing generation?: the Government?s internal guidance makes clear that such people who are taking advantage of the system are not eligible for the schemes. They must receive the appropriate sanction of removal of their jobseeker?s allowance as they are not ?jobseeking?.

1. These legal challenges are not simply about ?human rights?. What our clients object to is 1) the forced or compulsory nature of the work required, and 2) that Parliament has been by-passed by the Government in creating these schemes. They argue that this breaches basic democratic and legal requirements.

1. The Government schemes do not amount to slave labour, as some campaigners have suggested. The ILO?s Forced Labour Convention of 1930 defines slavery as connoting ?ownership? over an individual. What our clients are arguing is that the Government schemes are ?forced or compulsory? labour. This too is prohibited under UK civil and criminal law.

1. These schemes are not all aimed at the long-term unemployed. For example, the sector-based work academy can apply to any jobseeker, even if he or she has only been unemployed for one day.

1. Press attention has focused on the sector-based work academy, but that is only one of a plethora of complex schemes, many of which are much worse. The sector-based work academy involves 6-8 weeks of unpaid work. Other schemes involve six months, and there appears to be nothing to stop those six-month periods from being renewed. One of our clients was told that his Community Action Programme placement would last six months ?to begin with?.

10. The Government?s sums do not add up. The Employment Minister has stated that ?half? or ?something like half? of those on work experience have received permanent jobs. He has not advanced any evidence to support this, and Tesco has offered only 300 jobs having taken on 1400 unpaid workers.

For more facts, please contact:

Phil Shiner on 07715 485 248

www.publicinterestlawyers.co.uk/news_details.php?id=231Excellent

Was David Cameron right on the success of Work Experience schemes at PMQs?

During today's session of Prime Minister's Questions, David Cameron responded to a question about the Government's Work Experience programme by suggesting that half of its participants were getting work at the end of the schemes. Is this right?

fullfact.org/factchecks/benefits_work_experience_scheme_participant_outcomes-3340

Workfare is a good idea badly abused. On paper (like most ideas) it's a good way to fastrack people into a job for a while.

They get a job, the company gets some legal low paid workers instead of employing illegal immigrants and both are winners.

However corporations and large businesses have much more to gain in this. They can shift work from "normal" staff to these lower paid staff and keep the "savings" as untaxable profit.

They also have the advantage of being able to shut the door on competitors by sponging up these "workfare slaves". Thus leaving their competition to pay "normal rates".

Councils are also in the firing line. They are taking on these "workfare slaves" for a pittance instead of paying the going rate for a full time member of staff.

I am happy for my taxes to help people out of work survive. After all, the money they get goes straight back into the economoy when they spend it. I would also like my taxes used to contribute to training for those who can benefit from it. But I am not happy for multi-national corporations who dodge their taxes and make billions in profit, using the unemployed as a constant source of temporary slaves. If people want retail experience, let them volunteer in charity shops. That will do much more for a CV than "I was forced to stack shelves for nowt".

Anyone who doesn't want to stack shelves at Tesco could always try unpaid work at the Guardian (but those who are not members of ethnic minorities need not apply):

order-order.com/2012/02/28/guardian-slave-masters-recruiting/

See I don't have a problem with people getting a guaranteed job when they might be someone who is e.g. too nervous to do well at interview or looks bad on paper so a work-trial would be an ideal way to get into work. The problem I have with it as it is is that people are being expected to work a full time job for very basic subsistence 'pay' in the form of JSA and that is not survivable or reasonable. If the government set up a thing where they paid e.g. half the min wage for a person and the company paid the rest, or if the government even paid it fully for the first couple of weeks so the company could see the employee was competent, I would be fine with that. I don't think anyone really wants not to work; it's soul-destroying and miserable not to be supporting yourself (I am unemployed at the minute so I know that), so I don't think anyone would object to being given a job even if it was not their ideal one, provided they could live on it. But getting £67 a week out of which you have to pay transport, uniforms (people have talked about having to buy these on workfare), maybe childcare (dunno how it works for people with children), and then all your normal living costs as well- that is not physically possible and will make people ill through malnutrition or through stress.

Well Polly Toynbee certainly had a defence for it, back when Labour were in government.

"The Tories were right: workfare really works"

Can someone tell me what's changed hers' & others minds, or is it just that under the Tories it's bad, under Labour it's okay? Genuine question btw.

Can someone tell me what's changed hers' & others minds, or is it just that under the Tories it's bad, under Labour it's okay?

Yup.

'Can someone tell me what's changed hers' & others minds, or is it just that under the Tories it's bad, under Labour it's okay?'

Maybe it was trumpeted as a progressive policy in those days.

When I did New Deal I did work experience at many places, but I insisted every time that they be charities, why should I work unpaid at a big company and let them get £300 a week for the privilege of having me there, it did fuck all for my CV as the majority of employers see charity work as not proper work but it sure made me happy, working in the Cancer Research UK, YMCA and British heart foundation shops as well as the 6 months I spent working in animal home mostly cleaning out cat poor.

I was treated like a human being and was proud of my work especially in the animal home helping sick creatures get better, they even offered to give me £60 a night off the books for staying on at weekends, I declined as that would affect benefits and I ain't lying about anything thats not my way.

Only time I ever worked for a big company I hated it, WH Smith I was sent there for 4 weeks work experience, Job centre expected me to be on the tills and learning skills, instead I spent 4 weeks in a basement cleaning out all the old VHS tapes etc and filling it with DVD/CDs, on my own the entire day with just the manager checking in every few hours to make sure I was doing it, once it was all tidy I was shown the door, Job Centre was very angry that I had learned nothing but they didn't do anything about it.

I expect thats the way it is for most people, I've not signed on for 6 years but I still remember the name A4E being known as the plague of providers, they shout people into submission and put them on work placements that are nothing to do with what they where sent for, it was a scam from day one, I got sent there for retail and told immediately that they don't do that but they have a painting and decorating project down the road I could do, I told em to shove it and went back to my advisor, she was nice lady very kind and sensible she was not pleased about what I said and reported them, most people fear their advisor, they fear losing money if they say anything about any of those places, thats why they get away with it, it was all a scam, training courses that are impossible to complete, work placements advertised that don't exist, job search facilities that provide nothing but out of date newspapers, all a scam running on the basis that everyone is far too frightened to report anything for fear of having benefits cut.

Ryoko i did New Deal back in 2000 at a charity shop and my local council
I would have LOVED the chance to do it at an animal home. i love all animals especially cats.

Ryoko, that's interesting re the working for charities. I'd read that the Salvation Army has been vilified by the boycott movement for signing up to the current scheme. Just found that Oxfam, Scope & the British Heart Foundation got it in the neck too & Oxfam & Scope are out. I think my brother (v.v. long-term unemployed, as in decades) did stints in charity shops under Labour. What he may be doing under the current scheme I don't know.

Would love to hear some more responses to my previous question, frothing or otherwise! Seems a tad quiet on the 'Tories bad' perspective

Workfare would be good, if the 'employees' had a checklist of skills that they had to learn during their placement.

Their could be generic skills for a retail placement;similarly for health, admin, science etc etc.

At the moment people are going off on placement and being used to perform drudgery tasks that the company's paid employees don't do. That's not helping the placement person's CV.

The unemployed person, as soemone pointed out, should have the option of working for a charity.

Finally, Workfare should also think about the labour market for each region. For example, up here in the North East, there is desperate shortage of engineers. Thus, placements should be prioritised in engineering firms.

I approached the NHS for work experience last year, after SAHMing for a while. I felt I would be unemployable without work experience after such a long gap. I was very, very clear what my objectives were, what training I wanted, and what hours I could work (very p/t). In return, I was able to offer them some much needed 'labour' to fill a staff shortages.

It was brilliant, but I think that was only because I was so assertive about what I expected from it.

Anyone watch the piece on Newsnight last night re Workfare? It covered the Greggs issue (they've suspended involvement). The young people doing placements & existing staff that they interviewed had only praise for it. And it cited 14 of 40 placed people landing permanent jobs. The reason Greggs gave for suspending their involvement was that they had been unaware that anyone who pulled out was at risk of losing their benefits as a result.

I work for a small charity, and I'm afraid that we would be very reluctant to take on someone to gain work experience - it would simply take up far too much of paid staff time to supervise them (that is, assuming that we took the placement seriously, made sure that the person did something of value, that they were appropriately supported and managed throughout, etc). As it happens, our policy is rapidly becoming that we won't take volunteers at all, since it's often seen as discrimination in favour of the wealthy.