Workfare versus Work Experience

[rabbitstew]

How important is prior work experience, normally, to a job as a shelf stacker? I would have thought that anyone taking that on via Workfare who then failed to get or take the job at the end of it would be ringing the death knell to any future employment as they would be assumed to have been too slack to even get that sort of work when offered to them on a plate. And I know that unpaid work experience is more or less compulsory to anyone hoping to get into publishing, for example, but I'm sure that nobody would get to keep their benefits if they got themselves a bit of that sort of work experience.

So, basically, I'm a bit unclear as to whom Workfare is supposed to really benefit, apart from those people who wanted jobs in Tesco in the first place, but who now find they can't access them unless they are on a Workfare scheme?????

I think the YouGov poll is misleading because the information in the mainstream press has been misleading. People are not getting the full facts.

do you have any evidence to back up your believe that people who disagree with you dont have the full facts?

the people polled could have answered they didnt know, if they wanted to.

Great email, TO :) Mine was shorter but similar. I went on a bit about mandatory work being illegal and anti-capitalist.

do you have any evidence to back up your believe that people who disagree with you dont have the full facts?

It seems reasonable, given the way the workfare scheme has been talked about in most of the press; the government keeps on lying and saying that it's always voluntary, whereas it isn't. Most of the press has failed to take them to account, instead repeating the government lies.

the people polled could have answered they didnt know, if they wanted to.

The point is that they believe they have all the facts. And then when you ask them if they think the scheme is always voluntary, they will say 'yes'.

Also plenty of people have tweeted photos of DWP letters saying that it is mandatory.
Did anyone see the Channel 4 news tonight.
They did a report on Asda in Harrogate.
They took on 12 unpaid work placements over Christmas and when it finished they just provided them with a standard reference letter that said that Joseph (joseph was written in biro on a dotted line on the letter) and the lines said that he/she completed the placement and his/her timekeeping was good etc.
Does anybody really believe that ref is worth the paper its written on!
Also some Asda employees told Channel 4 news anonymously that they lost out on extra hours at xmas because the store was getting those extra hours for free from workfare.
Bet the manager at that store starts demanding to know who blew the whistle when tomorrow mornings shift starts.

"I think the YouGov poll is misleading because the information in the mainstream press has been misleading People are not getting the full facts".

You mean that the entire UK media is either too lazy to report stories? Or that there is a conspiracy? I find both unbelievable.

BTW: has this current government actually relegislated on this? Isn't it entirely based on the legislation introduced by the Labour government in 2009? So perhaps complaints about setting up unfair systems should be equally addressed to those who wrote and passed the laws which introduced it in the first place.

At least this government hasn't espoused Purnell's pet idea of making Workfare placements permanent.

Well, as someone who listens to the BBC and reads The Times, it took me a long time to realise that most people on "workfare" are not opting in voluntarily and that whilst one of the schemes is supposed to be voluntary to sign up to, the others are in fact mandatory from the beginning. I eventually clicked when I read a Guardian article online, so I would say the reporting has been confusing, EdithWeston. The main focus in other mainstream media has been about complaints about the 16-24 year olds' work experience scheme and the fact that it is voluntary (except after the first week). That is not the only scheme, albeit I think it might be the only voluntary scheme.

And as for whose idea the schemes were: is that remotely relevant? The current Government doesn't have to continue with them as is - it has a choice. Until the Government can make the waters less murky, I don't think it should be rolling out mandatory work schemes to people who are on disability benefits etc. I don't think people should be forced into inappropriate work that makes them ill. And as for the "voluntary" schemes for young people - they would be a good idea if they were run properly, but the fact is, they appear to be run appallingly badly and are abused in many cases. The Government does not have sufficient oversight of what is really going on. Basically, it seems to me it is more of an attempt at a money saving exercise than a genuine and sincere effort to help those on benefits back into beneficial work. And I still need an awful lot of convincing to make me view them otherwise. If the media would report more comprehensively on the whole issue, it would be extremely helpful.

EdithWeston i agree with your disbelief "You mean that the entire UK media is either too lazy to report stories? Or that there is a conspiracy? I find both unbelievable."

a possible explanation is that the average person does doesnt agree with the basic premis that it is slavery. they dont have any choice about working to pay taxes - does that mean for the proportion of the year they are just working to pay their taxes, they are slaves/forced labour?

Both are not comparable - and never were meant to be. As a former civil servant I can tell you it's just one of many scams the government uses to pull the wool over the public's eyes.

You see, workfare is simply something they use to buffer the unemployment figures so they don't seem as bad. A person on Workfare is deemed to "be in employment" On the other hand a person on work experience in not deemed to be in work.

So they can "officially" reduce the number of unemployed by simply bumping them into Workfare. "working for benefit" (an oxymoron if ever there was one) "gaining experience" etc are just a ruse to keep the public docile about the failures of governments and corporations.

Don't forget that City councils used Workfare to reduce their bills by using them instead of employing/promoting staff. Others too took advantage of it and many have not came forward.

jshm2 - if you were addressing me saying workfare and taxes are not comparable, can you explain your logic?

Who introduced them is only relevant in terms of looking at who is being "nasty" here. It is wrong to castigate the current government without being equally scathing about the last.

jshm2 - of course a mroe significant trick to unemployment figures down is to have people on incapacity benefits instead of unemplyment benefits.

OK, EdithWeston - I'm happy to be equally scathing about the last Government. I don't see what use that is to anyone, though.

Tilly, you had some choice about what work to do in order to pay your taxes, presumably? And are free to choose less work, thus paying less tax?
Neither of those are an option for out-of-work people being mandated to workfare.

This is very interesting. The government will now assign everyone a job, in every area, with a starvation allowance as pay, and will punish you if you do not comply.

This seems to be a threat to everyone who works for a living.

It does, Checken. Am bemused at how few people seem to recognise that.

Chicken, sorry I conflated you

garlicbutter - so they chose to work less and pay less tax, but are they a slave/forced labour when they are performing that work?

I am quite happy for people to be scathing about the New Tories Labour Government when they were in power, does it change what is happening now? Nope

So a fair wage for work is an unreasonable expectation in society today for the ordinary people, whilst companies like Tesco make £3.5 BILLION in profits (from ordinary people) and employ staff for nothing, instead of giving their hard pressed workers overtime or creating a job?

Food stamps next I suppose?

Tilly: Yes. Because they are ordered to do assigned jobs with no employment contract and without choice. When you do a job, you form a contract with your employer and you are free to renegotiate or end that contract. Workfare entails no such contract.

Rather than slavery, a more accurate term might be serfdom. I believe serfdom is still illegal - though wouldn't be astonished to find that's been quietly changed

The yougov polls have been reported in a misleading way.

The question asked was " In general, do you agree or disagree with this statement 'The Government pays out too much in benefits; welfare levels overall should be reduced?'
A huge majority agreed (74%), only 17% disagreed.

However latter questions make it clear that the respondents want benefits to be better targeted to those who need them, rather than those who have plenty already.

garlic - i am talking about tax. how does an employment contact affect tax?

so the employee and employer agree a contact to work X hours per week. the employee now needs to work part of this time to pay their tax and has no choice about working this time and their pay goes to HMRC - so they are working without pay.

if workfare is surfdom, surely having to work to pay tax is surfdom.

also workfare does have a contract - you can leave the scheme and accept the benefit sanction. like anyone can choose to not work and not get the income it generates.

It isn't slavery, because the person or organisation using their labour doesn't own them, pay them or have any responsibility for feeding them, whereas I think slave owners did have a few basic responsibilities for their slaves.

ps TheRealityTillyMinto - do you really "work to pay tax"? How noble of you. I don't work so that I can pay tax, but I am happy to give some of my earnings up for state education, free healthcare and various other things of which I approve, and accept that I will feel some of my tax money is wasted. I think more of my money and time would be wasted if I had to choose for myself which pet projects to support, and I would be a loathesome person if I chose to keep all my money to myself.

you have misunderstood - everyone who pays income tax works part of thier working week/month/year in order to pay their tax.

i am not commenting on their motives but practically speaking anyone who pays inocme tax spends part of their time at work, working to pay tax.

they dont have any choice about this.