Verdict on workfare court case.

[carernotasaint]

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/unpaid-job-schemes-not-a-breach-of-human-rights-says-high-court-8009277.html

Thank god this ridiculous case has been thrown out of court. I assume that Ms Reilly claimed legal aid to bring it in the first place?

Why is it ridiculous? Workfare displaces paid work.

Interesting article

Not a resounding victory for the DWP - although they won the main point the judge levelled a huge amount of criticism about some really key points.

Will be interesting to see what happens next.

I think that people should read the article in full before commenting TBH.

How does it displace paid work? Are you going to suggest that businesses are going to replace paid workers with workfare people? Because that is ridiculous. You can't run a business with staff that only work for two weeks.

Have you read the article?

You can Denise, if you have a never-ending stream of 2 week workers.

Miss Reilly had to cease working in a voluntary role that was related to her degree and was a career related opportunity due to having to leave it for 6 weeks and go and work in a poundshop instead.

Mr Wilson: "The judge said his attitude was that, while it sounded like a worthwhile organisation, "he was not prepared to work for free, particularly for such a long period of time".

Mr Wilson said if he had been offered a training course "that could lead to some concrete benefit then I would jump at the chance", but what he had been offered seemed "pointless" and would keep him from entering the job market."

Both were lied to about the scheme being mandatory and the penalties that woudld be applied.

The judge levelled a lot of criticism at the DWP, and while he did not agree that the cases contravened article 4 he did not by a long chalk think everything was rosy!

Oh Mr Wilson was going to have to work 6 months full time.

Not 2 weeks.

Of course workfare replaces paid workers. Some workfare Placements run for up to 13 weeks. The companies who participate get paid. Why would u employ & pay staff when u can get paid to have people work for you.

I know people who have had their hours cut so that the company can take on jobseekers.

carernotasaint

Why is it ridiculous? Workfare displaces paid work.

Firstly, the case wasn't about it 'displacing' anything, it was whether or not the state was breaching the human rights of the claimants, which it wasn't.

Secondly, your assumption that workfare 'displaces' anyone is questionable and unprovable. Who's to say that (for example) Poundland would have hired as many staff if they hadn't taken workfare workers?

I'd like to see you try and run a business with workfare participants instead of paid staff. It doesn't matter if the company gets paid if the level of service plummets. Who is going to supervise them? Other workfarers?

WildWorld2004

Of course workfare replaces paid workers. Some workfare Placements run for up to 13 weeks. The companies who participate get paid. Why would u employ & pay staff when u can get paid to have people work for you.

Staff get better the longer they work somewhere. It's called experience. A 13-week placement is enough to become familiar with the company's system and process and to just start to get competent.

From the company's point of view, having constant floods of unskilled workers through is a threat to their productivity.

I know people who have had their hours cut so that the company can take on jobseekers.

Really.

Has anyone read the article?

The man in the case was going to have to work 6 months.

And I'm not being funny but I was quite capable of working productively in a high street shop in my saturday job after a couple of weeks. This is how the till works + be polite to the customers = something most people are capable of. Ditto shelf stacking.

If I were on JSA and they sent me to work in poundland for 3 months / 6 months they would get an excellent bargain. As they will with a lot of people looking for jobs at the moment and on JSA. And they are paid for it.

I know people who have had their hours cut so that the company can take on jobseekers.

This also badly affects families who have been affected by the new tax credits rules. From April couples have to work 24 hrs between them to qualify.
Ive seen posts on other sites and listened to radio phone ins about how workers on 12 hr/18 hr contracts who are struggling to get their hours raised to 24 but cant because their employer says there isnt enough hours. And in some cases the same employers are using workfarers after telling their paid employees (who are struggling on 18 hr contracts )that the hours arent there!

@flatpackhamster yes i know people who have had their hours cut. My sister had her hours cut from over 16 hours to under 16 hours resulting in her not being able to claim working tax credit and as a single mother that money was very much needed. A lot of the other staff at her work got their hours cut too.

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/aug/06/unpaid-work-scheme-benefits-rebate?commentpage=1#start-of-comments

The comments underneath the Guardian article are very interesting. Particularly the ones about liability insurance.

But - who is the employer?

The jobcentre is a government agency concerned with the administration of the claim.
The approved provider is a government contractor who is acting as an agent.
The employer is not employing the claimant - no pay, no terms/conditions.

The claimant has no contract with an employer.
The employer does not have to make reasonable adjustment for people who don't work for him.
The provider doesn't either.

The only contract is the Jobseekers' Agreement, in which the jobseeker and the jobcentre agree that both will do certain things. If the jobcentre decides to change the contract and the claimant signes it under duress, it would be hard to prove.

ESA claimants have no such contract, and I think that's where an effective legal challenge could come.
If WRAG claimants are being mandated to the Work Programme (and they are, and being sanctioned for failure to comply) if they have a health problem (and they do, because DWP itself says they're not fit for work) then they can't be sent anywhere unless a full risk assessment has been done and reasonable adjustments made to the workplace. If this isn't happening, it's illegal.

The other thing that's been bothering me for ages - and nobody seems to know the answer - is who insures claimants on workfare?
They're not employed by anyone, are they? Who covers personal and public liability? If you shop in Tesco and something happens which is the shop's fault, you're covered by public liability insurance; if you are an employee, presumably the company covers injuries at work.
But people on workfare aren't ordinary public, nor are they employees, so who covers their safety at work

The Work Programme is a compulsory programme and is not confined to community or charity work.
The people for whom it is mandatory are - single parents; over-50's; "long term" unemployed ie. 6 months; people who are on tag, community service, community payback; and ex-offenders.
People who do it have a fixed term - they get sent to an approved provider (who gets paid), then to an employer (who gets paid); then they work for 30 hours a week, and do 10 hours jobsearch.
They do this for anything up to 6 months for £71 or less if over 25. That's 40 hours at £1.77/hour.
Then there's the ESA claimants - however ill they are, the vast majority who are not fit for work are allocated to the WRAG (Work Related Activity Group) and for them the Work Programme is both mandatory and indefinite.

If you read the draft guidelines for Universal Credit, it's clear that all people who claim any social security benefit, including part-time workers on Tax Credits, from 16 ti 68, will be expected to do some sort of workfare. Nobody will be immune; the conditions for claiming are draconian.

I imagine it would be covered by their usual insurance as per temps, contractors, casuals etc etc

Claimants on these programmes are already working in councils (Newham, Barnet, others I daresay) NHS hospitals (Sandwell, with more to come) and - yea verily - the DWP itself.

They're working at the Post Office, they're working all over the place - they are doing work in the public and private sectors that needs doing and should be paid for by the people who want it done.

People like Serco and Ingeus operating in other countries put the criminals from their prison contracts to work in the hospitals from their hospital contracts - only a matter of time befire it happens here.

All4Emma Harrison gets to trouser £8.6 million in one year for failing to get real jobs for people.
Serco, Ingeus, G4S, on and on - all got their grubby little fingers in the NHS; the police; the catering for schools, hospitals, prisons, you name it, they're in there. And in workfare.

This is forced, indentured labour - if someone has to do a 40 hour week for less than £2 an hour, or face destitution, they have no choice in the matter. Sick and disabled too; parents, carers, over 60's.

This has to be stopped. If it isn't, there will be a backlash. It can't go on.

Manic Street Preachers - "If we tolerate this, then our children will be next".

It is our children, right now.

Not that I am an expert in this type of insurance! But there are loads of situations where people are in and working and don't have an employee / employer relationships.

Volunteers is another one, people on work experience also.

The last few comments ive posted starting from 21.34 ive copied and pasted from the comments section from the article ive linked above.

I don't see why people on benefits can't work for minimum wage to the amount of their benefits. That would be fair and realistic.