I STILL think Tesco should fucking well PAY THEIR STAFF. Workfare is wrong!!!!

[TapselteerieO]

Still angry, I hope the protests on the 3rd of March all over the country really keep this campaign lit, it makes me furious to think people seem to assume it has been sorted.

I will boycott every company that uses schemes like this until they are ended completely.

From minimath's link - VERY LONG POST WARNING

Welfare Reform Bill: Key changes

? 3 sets of provisions on conditionality and sanctions

1. New provisions for Universal Credit

? to set work related requirements ? to impose sanctions

1. Matching provisions for contributory benefits

1. Introduction of key changes in advance of Universal Credit

? claimant commitment ? new sanctions system

Universal Credit: Recap

Universal Credit replaces:
? Income related Jobseeker?s Allowance
? Income related Employment and Support Allowance
? Income Support (including SMI)
? Child Tax Credits
? Working Tax Credits
? Housing Benefit
? Social Fund (budgeting loan elements)

But does not replace:
? Disability Living Allowance
? Contributory Benefits
? Child Benefit
? Carer?s Allowance

Start date: October 2013

Universal Credit: Conditionality framework

? The Welfare Reform Bill sets out:

• four types of work-related requirement
• four conditionality groups ~ > No work-related requirements ~ > Work-focused interviews ~ > Work preparation ~ > All work-related requirements

? No "partners" - each adult in a household will be placed into a group according to their individual capability and circumstances.

? Recorded in a claimant commitment

Universal Credit: in-work conditionality?

? Previously ? conditional out of work benefits, unconditional in-work benefits
? UC removes division ? when should conditionality stop?

? In current system at around £70 per week / £3500 per year
? Too low? Higher to support

• Sustainability of employment?
• Progression?

? And therefore help with

• Child poverty?
• Public expenditure?

? Live issue ? considering carefully the right level and approach

• extent to which in-work conditionality can be cost-effective
• extent to which (and when) we can support the delivery of greater in work conditionality

Universal Credit: Sanctions

Higher Level Sanction: e.g. leaving employment voluntarily
Applicable To: Claimants subject to all work-related requirements
1st failure: 3 months
2nd failure: 6 months
3rd failure: 3 years

Medium Level Sanction: e.g. failure to undertake all reasonable action to obtain work
Applicable To: Claimants subject to all work-related requirements
1st failure: 4 weeks
2nd failure: 3 months
3rd failure: 3 month

Lower Level Sanction: e.g. failure to undertake particular, specified work preparation action, failure to participate in a work-focused interview
Applicable To: Claimants subject to all work-related requirements
And: Claimants subject to work preparation and work-focused interview requirements
Sanction Open ended until re-engagement followed by
1st failure: 1 week
2nd failure: 2 week
3rd failure: 4 weeks

Lowest Level Sanction: Failure to participate in a work-focused interview
Applicable To: Claimants subject to work-focused interview requirements only
Sanction Open ended until re-engagement

Changes prior to Universal Credit

? Bill amends existing benefits (Income Support, JSA, ESA)

? Moving towards UC system, and to support current changes e.g.

• lone parents
• work related activity

? Introduction of claimant commitment

• Condition of entitlement for IS, JSA and ESA
• Builds on existing Jobseeker?s Agreement
• Allows all requirements & consequences to be recorded in one place

? Introduction of new sanctions system

• New system introduced to JSA
• Medium level sanctions, disentitlement but followed by fixed period
• Value of sanctions increased in ESA

===============

I'd suggest having a careful read of that. There are some stunners.
Basically, all benefits will be conditional on the claimant doing what the DWP says they must in order to become a worker.
This conditionality will apply to in-work claimants as well as non-working people.
If the claimant doesn't satisfy the conditions their benefits will be stopped for up to 3 years.
Conditionality will be set at 4 levels, depending on how 'able' a claimant is deemed. (The slide layout suggested an expected progression through the levels.)
The JC+ will have discretion to apply sanctions.
Sanctions will be introduced prior to Universal Credit.
Pre UC: sanctions will be harsher for ESA claimants.

I'm sure others will spot further important points.

Here's the link to that particular presentation.
Here again is the link to the conference.

I should be used to it by now, but that thing that gets me every time is the blind assumption that people aren't doing enough to get jobs. And yet THERE AREN'T ENOUGH JOBS! This is just going to create an enormous market for pointless 'back to work' schemes run by outfits like A4E, and a huge supply of unemployed folks who have to be made to work in order to satisfy the programme objectives ... even though there are no real jobs.

Surely this money could be better spent on creating real jobs in the public sector (like libraries and Sure Start, to name two out of hundreds!) then at least taxpayers would get some benefit from their money?

Gah.

If NMW was made higher, may businesses wouldn't be able to afford to employ people and would end up going bankrupt.

Why shouldn't people be made to make sure they are doing enough to get into employment?

Of course not everyone will succeed in getting a job because of the lack of jobs at the moment, but there are some jobs and people who are recieving benefits have a responsibility to society to do their best to get one of them. If they do what is required and still don't get a job, they will be no worse off than they would be without these measures.

I agree the right target is our elected Government. They were put there is represent the people of this country.

They don't represent us and anyone who dares to point this out is subject now to vitriolic attack and being labelled a dope smoking, Trotskyist, a supporter of the socialist workers party, a trouble maker or a jobs snob. These are just some of Chris Graylings rants.

In the press it would seem opposition to "workfare" and any argument against eroding the link between work and wages is portrayed as dangerous far left extremism.

The language being used against us is that of oppression and is designed to stoke up fear and distrust. Much the same as the fear and mistrust stoked up against all muslims (the war on terror)

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/23/jobcentre-hinders-search-for-work

I don't understand why they are getting away with the comments that it is just the "young" "workshy" "never had a job" that are being forced onto these pointless schemes.

I am not a job snob! DH works for the retailer getting all the stick after being laid off two years ago, He earns less money now than he has ever done. I have two pt jobs, one on MNW and one just above. I have a degree and some post grad qualifications.

Still here, Still angry.

Workfare Online Protest (5 Days, 5 Actions) please join on facebook. Action is planned between 7pm - 9pm Mon - Fri next week.

Combine forces :)

Thanks for the notification peekabooby, might be good to put it on the other threads too.

Good post minimaths - total agree that opposing this is bringing out a lot of right wing rhetoric, I think we must have really hurt them.

That is why we have to target these big businesses that use free government labour - we can only influence the government by hitting them where it hurts, they don't care about us but they care about the big businesses. This protest is working and that is without political affiliation, it is a basic human right to get a fair wage for work.

I buy fairtrade products because I believe that people should be paid fairly for their labour and Tesco's £3.5 billion profits last year shows they can afford to pay at least the NMW without going bust.

Yay peekabooby! I was just going to post that link (the Guardian one with the young graduate's experiences) here, but you beat me to it.

Shall I tell you about the Amazingly Effective Workfare Awareness Consciousness Raising Action I did yesterday?

(Walks into Sainsbury's. Goes up to the Customer Service desk. Very young customer service person comes over.

I clear my throat...."Hello, um...I'd just like to say that I normally shop at ASDA because I'm really poor and they are cheaper even though I do actually really think Sainsbo's are great, but I will be shopping with you for the forseeable future and that's because you have pulled out of Workfare and ASDA haven't, and I think that's great, so if you could convey that to your manager and all that would be great like......."

VYCSP: (polite but very very blank): "Er....what?"

Cue increasingly stumbling attempt to explain. She looked just as blank when I'd finished. Go me. Activist of the year.

From The New Statesman www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/02/scheme-greggs-grayling "The element of compulsion involved (keep working or you'll lose your benefits) offends against basic fairness. Unless ministers concede this point, they could soon have a workfare programme without any work."

How can Poundland say that they are pulling out of this WITHOUT having taken any people on the scheme? Remember the lady in all the newspaper articles about it? The graduate that was made to WORK IN POUNDLAND OR LOSE HER JSA?

They're talking bollocks.

I'm still waiting for my Local Tescos store to answer my FoI request about how many people they have had from ALL the work-for-your benefit schemes in the last 18 months, and how many of THOSE they have offered permanent PAID employment at the end of their placements.

I asked because there hasn't been A SINGLE PAID JOB offered there for over 15 months, and there has been more people in the 'Workfare' uniform of black and white than I can count, and a couple of them have confirmed to me that they were there on 'Work Experience' and 'Mandatory Work-Related Activity'. Also I have friends that are registered with employment agencies that USED to get the odd shift in there, and haven't had a single shift there for the same length of time.

I shall update when I have the answer...

If anyone is interested a new face book group has been set up to take "group action" on the companies profiting from workfare at
www.facebook.com/events/373373192687532/

Just click to join.

I was appalled by the people on QT last night, and then on This Week afterwards.

People have obviously been told to go with the 'party line' of "We don't have workfare, it's work experience for YOUNG people", when nothing could be further than the truth.

I don't think the govt. like the fact that with all the social media available nowadays, this is just not going to go away, and they can't shut the general public up !

And as for Michel Roux Jnr, talking about how he has work experience staff in his kitchens, (in the family business that he has never had to work for but Daddy did), I am stunned. What made me laugh was that before he so convincingly put his argument FOR 'work experience', he said that he gets his staff from colleges in Europe, carefully selected to come and get experience.

Not your usual 'jobseeker' then, eh, Mr Roux Jnr ?!

MrsDeeBee, I didn't see QT but This Week was like a state sponsored advert for the Government's coercive back to work schemes, it seemed completely biased and they just brushed over any of the serious issues, focussing on young people as well, as if people of all ages/backgrounds/experience don't have to do compulsory work attendance schemes.

Thanks for the link minimathsmouse, I will join later when I am not on my phone.

Monster Jobs: All of UK, listed in the past 30 days:
Full-Time:
867 Permanent
272 Temporary
Part-Time:
663 Permanent
102 Temporary

• Total of 1,904 vacancies; 46% are permanent full-time.

Office of National Statistics: Vacancies, Great Britain, Jan 2012:
Vacancies by Occupation and Location
Full-Time: 205,496
Part-Time: 85,963

• Total of 291,459 vacancies: 70% are full-time

I have tried searching for more detail on DirectGov vacancies, but no matter what criteria I put in, I get 250 jobs! On closer inspection, results contain loads of duplicates, 'Regional' vacancies which means the employer has just punted out a general search, and a ton of 'Commission Only' posts.

Anyway. At best, there are fewer than 300,000 vacancies.

JSA claimants, Great Britain, January 2012: 1,604,600

There are no data for IB/ESA claimants since May 2011.
The total is around 2.6 million.

• Total on out-of-work benefits: Approx 4,200,000.

The idea that all, or even a sizeable proportion, of these people can be got into jobs if they are just pushed a little harder makes NO sense when you look at the amount of jobs actually available. There's only one vacancy per 14 claimants!

People really need to get rid of this misunderstanding. YOU CANNOT PUSH PEOPLE INTO JOBS THAT DON'T EXIST.

And, if you push them in to temporary placements on taxpayers' money, of course businesses will reduce the number of real jobs available.

This has taken ages; I may have cross-posted with many, but want to get this down where I can find it again :)

Tapsel

It was, just appalling.

Did you see (in the DM, sorry !) that Chris Grayling was complaining that his email had been hacked ? Then quickly changed his mind...

Good to see that Emma Harrison has stepped down. Although one thing does worry me. Will Scameron try to bring in Hayley 'The Fairy Jobmother' Taylor in to replace her ?

Garlic

Great post.

Garlic that is brilliant that you found all those figures, these are facts that people who approve of compulsory work placements choose to overlook.

MrsDeeBee - I saw that Grayling had done that, turns out someone had cc'd him into an e-mail. If he is that computer illiterate and reactionary maybe he will be stacking some shelves soon? If only.

www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/circular-07-2010-coroners-justice-act-section-71.pdf"

In establishing forced or compulsory labour, the section 71 offence will
require an element of coercion or deception between the defendant and the
victim, and the circumstances will need to be such that the defendant knew
that the arrangement was oppressive and not truly voluntary, or had been wilfully blind to the fact"

Chris Grayling and the DWP know that the workfare scheme under the work programme is not voluntary, not only are they using force, threat and withholding of wages but they are wilfully deceptive in stating that the scheme is voluntary.

Under the legislation the following factors are listed as evidence of forced labour

"The worker being given false information about the law and their
employment rights"
DWP and main contractors have the right to "mandate" people onto workfare but we are being told in press releases and speaches that it is voluntary.

"Excessive working hours being imposed by the employer"

under the proposed Universal credit some people with part time work, disabilities, health problems, terminal illness, caring responsibilities, run part time businesses or self employed can still be "mandated" to work related activity as specified by JC+ and private comapnies like a4e who are driven by profit incentive. Some people will not be physically able to meet these mandated responsibilities for a variety of reasons and the hrs may be detrimental to health/disability conditions of individuals. People who are self employed will be forced to work over the 40hrs set out under current employment legislation.

"Not being provided with safety equipment and clothing, and/or being
charged for the provision of such equipment that is essential to perform
the work"

People mandated to the work programme will be sanctioned for such minor offences as not going to hairdresser, buying clothing for interviews and we already have some evidence that "work exp" providers are failing to provide protective clothing to people on mandated work exp

"Unwarranted and perhaps unexplained deductions from wages"

or in the case of worfare and the work programme-no wages. In the case of sanctions, deductions

"The employer intentionally not paying the full tax or national insurance
contributions for the worker"

worfare employers are not paying either

"Intentionally poor or misleading information having been given about
the nature of the employment"

The DWP and Chris Grayling have mislead the public and tried to steer people away from any discussion about the work programme and have been purposfuly vague about sanctions and the fact that they "mandate" people onto it. Instead they insist it is voluntary, sanctions only apply once someone has agreed to a work exp placement. This is a wilful misrepresentation of the facts.

"Money having been exchanged with other employers/traffickers etc for
the person?s services in an arrangement which has not been agreed
with the person concerned or which is not reflected in his remuneration"

The services of these "mandated" unpaid individuals is being sub-contracted out to private companies without either their approval or without remuneration. The companies are receiving financial benefits and payments

"Threats against a persons family"

Threats to withhold family income which impact upon child poverty. In america it was found that of families on workfare, a child had more than a 30% chance of hospital admission and 50% chance of food rationing/hunger

"Withholding of wages"

They are without doubt withholding wages

Minimaths, where are your quotes from?

And what are people complaining about?

The compulsion (is that the right word?) to work

Or

The lack of payment?

Excellent link minimathsmouse! I will share that as much as possible.

Depends, OLI.
In the case of carers being forced to have work commitments even though we're caring for quite severely disabled people, but because they sleep they're not deemed 'disabled enough' So yeah compulsion to work in that respect. We may have to leave our disabled relatives with inadequate care that puts them in danger. Ditto for terminally ill people, the complusion to work for them too. For people with disabilities who will not have their work experience limited unlike able bodied people. So yes in those cases I do object to the compulsion to work.

In other cases the not being paid NMW even if you take into account any other benefits such as housing benefit. A proper days work for a proper days pay.

www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/circular-07-2010-coroners-justice-act-section-71.pdf

My original link was broken, it was working when I first posted! Try again

Tapsel

We can dream....