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?????

Specifically, it is forced labour. (rabbitstew you could actually argue that the DWP is "owning" the people and forcing unpaid work, and has responsibility for feeding them.)

Many of our laws prohibit forced labour.

Furthermore, the loss of income tax from profit making companies, combined with the increased welfare bill caused by paying welfare benefits to those who are actually in full time work in eg ASDA, is a disaster for government finances. It is a bad policy. The government must think again.

I don't think party politics comes into this. I can't tell them apart any more.

Labour was NEW but forgot to drop the word labour and a few left wingers and workers were caught on the hop.

Tony Baloney and chums just wanted a ticket to rule and the chance to extend the free market economy experiment whilst no one was looking.

Mandelson and Tony stated they were extremely relaxed about the idea of a "few" people becoming very rich. They failed to add that this might be at the expense of the workers, the disabled, sick and the poor.

Anyone who works on Paye should take heed, this may effect their wage and standard of living unless we put the breaks on.

it is not forced labour. you can say no i dont want to do workfare and noone can stop you doing that.

Minto, if you say no you will starve!

Do the DWP own people?

I personally think that the DWP is contracting people out (implies control if not outright ownership) for less than NMW and that they break the human rights laws on forced labour where they mandate them to work. I think that is sufficient to establish this scheme does break the law.

It is forced labour on pain of destitution. Against both article 3 AND 4 of the human rights act and many more of our laws.

New labour's support of the scheme was a betrayal of everyone who works for a living.

The Tory government have pushed it further so that it now directly threatens the work, pay and conditions of everyone who works for a living, and everyone else who relies on that person's wage.

I believe you are correct, ChickenLickn, New Labour's support was a betrayal, however, I do think that they had the sense not to push things too far-if that is any defence.

Reading up on their new deal scheme, I believe that those who had been unemployed for 18 months had to do 3 months of work experience-but this could be 'voluntary' work and there was a choice. If they remained unemployed afterwards, they would face it again 18 months later and so on.

This government has taken it to a whole new level. In a time of high unemployment, to support this scheme when you or any of your family may wish to undertake a low-skill job (or even a modestly skilled job) is, frankly, akin to TURKEYS VOTING FOR CHRISTMAS (no apologies offered for capitals here. It deserves them).

People do not give up part of their time to pay tax - most people pay tax as they go along, they don't give up the whole of their salary one or two months a year for tax. And they are not giving money up in tax for nothing, they are contributing towards something that is supposed to be for the benefit of everyone - that's why we all have a vote, so that we get a minuscule amount of say over what sort of things our taxes are spent on and how much we hand over in tax. You might as well say that property is theft, otherwise (and money shouldn't exist at all) - why on earth should we hand over money to get our food at the supermarket? Because it is to our benefit that we get the food, just as it is generally to our benefit that we pay tax.

And if we are forced to give up some of our income in tax, then why are we happy for our employers to avoid both paying someone who works for them and paying tax on their salary?

Or maybe you are advocating the extreme alternative, where we go back to a system where money doesn't exist? Perhaps we should start with forbidding usury and see what happens from there - I think that would probably be a good idea, but I'm not quite ready to give up the idea of some kind of monetary system altogether.

I honestly do not think you have to be a loony leftie to think workfare a disgrace-just a normal person with a sense of fair play.

rabbitstew - People do not give up part of their time to pay tax - so you earn £100 per week, pay £10 in tax so 1/10 of your time at work is paying tax.

you can see it as 1/10 of every moment or 1/10 of the year, it doesnt really matter - you still have to be at work longer than you would if you did not have to pay tax. you dont have a choice about it.

if someone choses not to pay their tax, they will get fined and if they continue to refuse to pay at some point go to prison. so there is a threat of prison unless they work in order to pay their tax.

how does this make their position so different than workfare (where there is no sanction of prison)?

Barclays has been caught out dodging £500m of taxes. And people are still bitching about the unemployed... madness. Let's make Bob Diamond work for Tescos stacking shelves unpaid to make up for it. See how popular that is with the Daily Mail and Tory ministers!

What a petty way of viewing tax - having to work harder to make up for it. At least I don't have to work harder in order to ensure I can pay to see the doctor or send my children to school. Life is not all about me and my needs being met. That's why I don't see myself as having to work harder because of those awful people that want to take my money off me in order to provide a bit of infrastructure within which I can work safely.

If other people use the things tax pays for more than me, that's fine. One day I or my children might appreciate those things and if we don't, we'll be happy we were so lucky not to need them.

Minto, every working tax payer has a choice,they could decide not to pay tax and instead join worfare.

rabbit - you are still not understanding.... everyone has to work longer hours to pay their tax. how they feel about it is their choice. they can be happy about it or not. they still have to do it because what they think does not matter.

When I pay tax, I look at what I've got left over, not what I'm handing over. That way I'm still happy, because I've still got plenty left over. Apparently not all people view things that way. I can understand why not if what is left over doesn't pay the rent - then I would vote to change the tax system - but not if what's left over is several million.

mini - Minto, every working tax payer has a choice,they could decide not to pay tax and instead join worfare.

you cannot just decide to resign and sign on. you dont have an right to benefits if you do that.

You could be made redundant and then find yourself working back in the same place on workfare, though....

Minto - maybe, then, you subscribe to the anti-capitalist view that we are in fact all slaves? Under that theory, we are all sold the lie by our masters that if we work very hard we can all attain great wealth, but in fact, the majority just run faster and faster around their little hamster wheels without gaining anything more than what they started with and the chance of getting off the wheel diminishes to nothing over time, whilst those who do have great wealth get richer and richer the harder everyone else works, without actually having to work harder themselves.

But wages would be smaller if there were no tax or NI. The way most countries work, it's all built in. Your employer pays you a bit more to take your fiscal duties into account, then you all get the benefit of having roads, sewage, emergency services and so forth.

Working for three months (or whatever it is now) to help fund the country you live in is not the same as working for benefits. Workfare pays less than minimum wage, with no legal protection and no rights. Few NMW earners are liable for tax in any case, so would you also take issue with them?

The main differences, aside from the pay, are the issues of choice and legal rights. Taking choice and rights away from 4 million citizens seems a bit wrong ... and the programme will push more people into the disenfrachised group, as it reduces paid employment opportunities while increasing state costs.

There are ten or twelve countries with very low income tax. You could go and live there, Tilly! In the ones that actually function - say, Andorra - you will find you're liable for compulsory health insurance, municipal tax, etc, and more of the services you take for granted are commercial.

Alternatively, you could opt for a life of crime

this is not about me paying tax. i am not expressing my opinion whether it is good thing or a bad thing. it does not matter what i think!

everyone who works has to work longer hours to pay tax - and there is no choice for them. maybe this is why support for workfare/workexperience is so high - even though it is for tesco et al.

And what about the people who work for Tesco who can't work longer hours, because someone's taken their overtime by doing the work at no cost to Tesco? Not only are these workfare people not paying tax, they may also be stopping other people from working longer hours so that they can have some money left over after tax. Maybe rather than trying to reduce choices for more and more people, those agreeing with workfare ought to be asking themselves why their multinational employer paying less and less tax and less and less money in peoples' salaries merely seems to result in them needing to work longer and longer hours to pay tax, rather than creating any more work for them?

(rather than creating any more jobs, that is).

I didn't misunderstand you, Tilly, but perhaps you've misunderstood me.

When I say 'choice' I mean choice about how many hours to work (which impacts on how much tax you pay, as you've said), what work to do and for whom to work. Obviously such choice is pretty limited for everyone at the moment, with 14 out-of-work adults for every vacancy. But let's reduce it to basics.

As a taxpayer, you're earning more than minimum wage presumably. You therefore have, at the very least, a choice between your present work and another job at minimum wage. If you don't fancy either of those you can look at changing your role at your current workplace or going part-time. Failing all of those, you might quit your job and, after a waiting period, sign on. Then you'll be sent to work for whomever the jobcentre says, at the hours, they say, on a non-negotiable rate of £70 a week (UC, next year.)

So you have some choices, including a choice to earn NMW and not pay tax. Once you lose that level of choice you have no autonomy.

It's a whole different question form that of income tax.

(1) so there are jobs for people employed to move to (so they have a choice) but no jobs for people currently unemployed (so they dont have a choice)?

(2) someone currently employed has, a realistic choice to stop working, not be able to claim benefits? really? doesnt this put them in the same position as some refusing workfare and being denied JSA? i.e. someone with no income.

I was in my local town centre earlier today and i walked past a couple who were talking about workfare and then i walked into a little local store that we have here and they were talking about it too.
If the Gov are hoping this issue will go away any time soon i reckon they will be dissappointed.

Watch Tory slimeball Chris Grayling being interviewed on Channel 4 news regarding workfare:

righttowork.org.uk/2012/02/workfare-minister-chris-grayling-struggling-on-channel-4-news/

Try not to vomit.