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

I dont disagree that people could b doing something for their benefits. I volunteer a few hours a week. What i dont like is people losing their jobs & others being forced to do those jobs for less than minimum wage.

How can working for £2/3 an hour be acceptable?

What i dont like is a claimant on ESA WRAG being forced to work in a charity shop. Being too ill to go in and then being sanctioned when the charity reports them to the JC for non compliance. Then the charity has caused hardship and possibly even homelessness. This is why Shelter pulled out. Because of the conflict of interest.

To everyone here who's a big fan of the Work Programme can you just explain a few things to me?

• Of what benefit is it to the taxpayer given that we're still paying these people's JSA at around £60 a week?

• Of what benefit is it to the Treasury given that people on the WP don't earn enough to pay tax?

• Of what benefit is it the economy given that WP people don't have any more money than £60 a week to buy stuff and trigger growth which most knowledgable people agree is the only way out of this recession?

• Of what benefit is it to WP participants whose efforts to find work either through applications or volunteering are hampered by working full time? BTW every JSA claimant signs a Jobseekers' Agreement which compels them to search for work in return for benefits or else they can be sanctioned.

• How much of a benefit is it to employers participating in the scheme to have a stream of State-subsidised bodies to work for them?

• Do you feel the companies using WP participants enjoy an unfair advantage over companies who are paying the going rate?

• Do you feel that the govt is using the WP to massage the unemployment figures to avoid questions about what else they are doing for the economy?

I don't think people understand how businesses work. There is no way that a workfare person can replace a member of staff. People saying that the person should be paid minimum wage are entirely missing the point. If the firm had to pay them minimum wage, they wouldn't be there, because they aren't worth minimum wage at present.

I understand enough about business to know that these firms are enjoying an advantage against firms in the same field who pay to employ their staff denise.

Do you think this distorts the costs of running a business for employers who, for whatever reason, do not participate in the scheme?

Denise see my post on previous page about how people on low hours cant get their hours upped because of employers using workfare. And how their hours are so low that they dont even qualify for tax credits anymore because of the new rules.
There are people trying to survive on 18 hrs wages every week and then having to go to food banks FFS.
In fact for anyone who may be interested there is a very interesting article about food banks and how the working poor in the UK are having to use them in this months Marie Claire.
I nearly fainted with shock due to the fact that the glossies are finally waking up to whats going on. I wonder when Daily Mail readers will follow. Shant be holding my breath though.

"I understand enough about business to know that these firms are enjoying an advantage against firms in the same field who pay to employ their staff denise."
What advantage? You are using the false argument that workfare people are equivalent to experienced staff members, which is ridiculous.

I'm going to make this really simple by restricting the debate to people with modest though valuable skills such as folding things, putting them on shelves, tidying and speaking to customers politely.

Quite a lot of them are unemployed. They already have experience, what they need is work.

Why don't these companies give it to them at the minimum wage? That would have the bonus of us not having to pay them benefits, them paying tax and putting some of their income into the economy to help other businesses.

I think it's because their motivation is gaining a business advantage and improving dividends for shareholders by circumventing minimum wage legislation. Fair enough, I suppose.

But I wonder why the Coalition, whose Tory part is generally opposed to State intervention in the free market, is facilitating a clear business subsidy to some companies which is also damaging growth and tax receipts.

I think it's to please existing donors, disguise the fact that they don't have any ideas to get us out of the recession and appease those who don't know how the economy works but do know that the don't like lazy-arse scroungers.

If you can think of another reason, then please go ahead.

Oh, and it massages unemployment figures and pleases those voters and donors who oppose the minimum wage.

So I can see what's in it for the Government and participant companies.

But I still can't see what's in it for the rest of us.

If companies like Poundland need the staff then they should pay them the going rate and employ them.
But it's obviously 'good business sense' to take on the unemployed as they won't have to pay them and the Government will pick up the bill.
I wouldn't go as far as to say slave labour but it's pretty damn close.
They either need the staff, so therefore pay them the going rate, or they don't.
Any large company taking part in Workfare is just taking advantage of ordinary working people.
But Hey ho that's Corporate Britain for you, and our Tory government will carry on licking their arses.

What advantage? You are using the false argument that workfare people are equivalent to experienced staff members, which is ridiculous.

Because the taxpayer is currently subsidising certain favoured private businesses, giving them an unfair advantage in the market.

How can a small employer compete when Tescos can can get workers for free? Workfare companies can pay their permanent staff less as they need them to work fewer hours, and can employ fewer paid staff. If workers - many of whom are on zero hours contracts - aren't getting overtime, or even a full week's work, they are going to be more reliant on in-work benefits. Our taxes are keeping private sector costs down and their profits up, and losses have been socialised through benefits. A sly assault on the minimum wage is actually impoverishing people already in work.

Look at seasonal work for example. Over busy periods such as Christmas, stores tend to take on additional temporary staff and/or offer much needed overtime to current staff. A lot of companies using workfare eliminated the need for this through free labour. So it's not good for their existing staff, or potential temporary workers who all lost out on work.

As for your point about workfare people not being equivalent to permanent staff, I'll assume that most of us here have done McJobs/Saturday jobs at some point in their career and are fully aware that shelf stacking or similar takes a few hours to pick up at most, and doesn't need a long unpaid apprenticeship. We've done those jobs, and done them for a wage.

Exactly Catkins.
I really don't understand why people don't get that.

I think its because they dont WANT to get it!

Maybe it's because they don't understand how businesses work.

I found the attitude of the panel on the Wright Stuff this morning disgusting apparently it's all right for her to refuse to work in poundland because she is a Uni student but not all right for just an unemployed untrained person to kick up fuss.

Whole thing is fundamentally wrong, as someone who was New Deal for years and worked in 5 different places I'll say the DWP should be throwing money at real training places that teach skills that will help people get jobs.

The whole unemployment system is a scam to make money from the unemployed, stupid "service providers" paid obscene amounts every year to send the unemployed round and round on a stupid system of bullshit classes that are not worth the paper they are written on and work experience where you are just endlessly used as an expendable dogs body. The whole point of it all is that it's pointless, if any of it actually did manage to get the unemployed into work it would ruin the whole racket.

DWP spreads lies saying to the public they are trying to help the unemployed and the problem is the people themselves not wanting work, where as in reality the DWP see's each "client" as £ signs, with contracts with service providers like A4E who exclusively work with the unemployed and shops like Tesco and Poundland, how many ministers have shares in the service providers who get hundreds a week for taking on each client?.

As someone who is at high risk of redundancy in the next 12 months, and experienced in shop, office and data entry work, living in the North of England, with poor employment opportunies, if I end up on workfare I don't magically become unwork-ready and unworthy of the minimum wage, surely?

Good post Sun, I totally agree.
I've just become redundant in my part time cleaning job at my local primary school which has closed down.
As I live in the middle of nowhere without a car, I'm interested in what they're going to offer me.
I still think if workfare have a place for somebody to sweep floors in Poundland, then they have a job going which should pay minimum wage.
Anybody that thinks otherwise is living in a bubble somewhere.
Corporate Britain is in charge, the Government just follow.

Yes great post Sun. I dont watch the Wright Stuff for precisely the reason you describe. (the discrimination that he and shows like his and others show towards people further down the socio economic scale. Because thats what it is. Discrimination as well as snobbery. I might have a nosy at it on Five Demand though.

Sorry to hear youve lost your job Lady Beagle.

Was one of the panel Neil Stuke by any chance?

Looks like i wont be nosying at it after all. The adverts will play but not the programme. Hmmm!

www.expressandstar.com/news/2012/08/07/poundland-to-restart-shop-floor-placements/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Found this on Boycott Workfare.

m currently working on an article for a disability magazine about workfare. I want to speak to disabled people who have experience with workfare and/or mandatory work activities. This could be disabled people with mental illness or learning disabili
ties as well as those with physical disabilities. Anyone who have been told they have to go on a work placement or risk their benefits being cut. As it's a really sensitive subject, full anonymity will be given to anyone willing to speak to me in confidence. This is such an important issue and I'm keen to speak to disabled people so we can get the message out about what's really going on. If they can contact me via this address - [email protected] or via my mobile on 07870148287 that would be great. Thank you :) Annie"

Watched the Wright stuff today they where on about it again, it's an interesting subject. Not what I was on about but the subject of Students doing "voluntary work" getting told to do workfare instead or loose the cash.

They had one caller phone up who was studying at Uni and as part of the course had to spend 6 months working for nothing at ACAS (I think it was) the job centre told her to pack it in or loose money.

Now IMO this shows there seems to be an awful lot of people around who think JSA is just a handout, if you are doing work experience as part of a uni course why the hell should you expect to get JSA? you are not looking for a job, you are continuing your training in the profession you have chosen (and 9 times out of 10 will probably not get a job in).

Why are people expecting to be given money for that? it's not up to the Job Centre to subsidise students with Job Seekers Allowance because their course based work placements don't pay.

Too many people taking advantage of the welfare state it's like communism, JSA was neaver meant to be a basic ration to subsidise Interns, Uni work placements and big companies wanting to be paid by the government more a week then the minimum wage is, to take on a slave for a bit.

Everyone got their hand in the pot and who's benefiting? Well IMO people who have most of their own cash offsure so don't feed into this madness themselves, bloody parasites.

sun I'm not clear. She said she was a student and was claiming JSA? Are you absolutely sure (a) that's what she said and (b) she was telling the truth?

Did any of the panel ask her about that? I realise The Wright Stuff isn't burdened with people with forensic questioning skills.

I could be wrong but I don't think that's allowed and I've a feeling the Jobcentre would do a little bit more than just tell you to stop claiming if they found out that's what you were doing.