Cait Reilly wins appeal - working for JSA payments determined to contravene UK anti-slavery laws

[caramelwaffle]

Cait Reilly had her JSA payments sanctioned when she refused to work for "free" at Pounland instead of performing voluntary work at a museum.

A recent graduate, she lost an initial court case. The court of appeal now says that making her work at Poundland for no wage contravenes UK anti slavery laws.

She is now said to work at a supermarket (for at least minimum wage)

Interesting.

No, it's called deduction.

Perhaps you should stop stating your "deduction" as fact then.

You might also want to retune your brain as nothing Cogito said comes across as hating the poor or unemployed.

You might want to take in to account his or her past postings over the course of several months.

Whilst he or she consistently finds excuses to support the Coalition policies which are battering the poor, disabled and vulnerable, and making thousands of people poorer, including children, and increasing homelessness, he or she has said very little in support of

going after tax avoidance/evasion or reducing the cost of pensions (the majority of the welfare bill) or getting rid of the Trident program, all of which would be much better ways of reducing government spending and thereby reducing the debt and deficit.

No, it's quite apparent to me that Cogito would rather target the poor and vulnerable claiming welfare support, of which only a tiny percentage of the total budget is spent. He or she then supports schemes will are punitive rather than effective at getting people in to work.

I'll draw my own conclusions, you draw yours.

Stop stating your conclusions as fact. It makes you look unhinged.

"Is that right? So people who have worked as IT programmers, nurses, firemen, and qualified mechanics and are out of work should work stacking shelves in a supermarket?"

Yes. I've done it myself. I think work is a noble thing and any employer that 'laughed' at a CV showing someone had chosen to be gainfully employed rather than sit home doing nothing waiting for the right job to land in their lap... is not someone I'd like to work for.

I'm amazed you even ask the question. No-one has the right to think they are 'above' a job, however humble it may be.

If I present a view that seems to be pro-Coalition it's generally because the prevailing tenor of MN is very left-wing and I think you get a more interesting discussion by posing an opposing view rather than being a yes-man. OK it gets me a flaming but that's not really the point

However, your motives for being on MN ttossa - judging by the acres of things copy/pasted from various extreme left-wing texts etc - are to foment dissent, revolt and generally spread misery. You only ever post anti-government or negative threads, and have never once IME have you suggested how things could be put right.

However, I find it interesting that you think work is beneath certain people. All created equal but some more equal than others, eh? I'll store that one up for another time. :)

"Is that right? So people who have worked as IT programmers, nurses, firemen, and qualified mechanics and are out of work should work stacking shelves in a supermarket?"

Yes. I've done it myself. I think work is a noble thing and any employer that 'laughed' at a CV showing someone had chosen to be gainfully employed rather than sit home doing nothing waiting for the right job to land in their lap... is not someone I'd like to work for.

So can people chose for whom they work or not? It's a reality of the working world that if you have years of experience in a skilled field and then work 6 months in McDonalds or stacking shelves, it will put employers off from hiring you - and this means, specifically, employers in your specific area of work or expertise.

It does no one any good to have skilled people doing unskilled work. It adds nothing to their work experience, puts employers off hiring them, and takes that job away from someone for whom the job is more suited (i.e. has a matching skill set).

I'm amazed you even ask the question. No-one has the right to think they are 'above' a job, however humble it may be.

Again, you obviously think it is more important to punish people for being unemployed by getting them to work in inappropriate jobs than it is to actually help people find appropriate work and help with their careers.

This attitude is parallel to your ideas about workfare, where you think people should be forced to do unpaid work which has nothing to do with their work background or expertise, even when it has been empirically shown that these programs don't help people find jobs in the long run. The work programs also deprive others from finding paid work.

If I present a view that seems to be pro-Coalition it's generally because the prevailing tenor of MN is very left-wing and I think you get a more interesting discussion by posing an opposing view rather than being a yes-man. OK it gets me a flaming but that's not really the point

Yeah, right. I'm sure you're really just interesting in having an interesting debate rather than defend the coalition policies.

However, your motives for being on MN ttossa - judging by the acres of things copy/pasted from various extreme left-wing texts etc - are to foment dissent, revolt and generally spread misery.

'Spread misery' doesn't follow from 'foment dissent and revolt'. It is revealing that you think the later is borne from the former.

You only ever post anti-government or negative threads, and have never once IME have you suggested how things could be put right.

You haven't been paying attention, as I often make suggestions about suggested changes in economic policies.

However, I find it interesting that you think work is beneath certain people. All created equal but some more equal than others, eh? I'll store that one up for another time. smile

That's right, I don't think a qualified doctor or nurse or teacher should be stacking shelves in Tesco. If this is happening, then something is deeply wrong with the economy and should be fixed.

You seem to think that claiming welfare whilst looking for appropriate work is worse than a doctor stacking shelves. This says a lot about your attitude towards the unemployed.

You're quite wrong. I was brought up, like most working-class people of my age, to believe that there is no such thing as dirty work & no-one should be too proud to roll up their sleeves and get stuck into a job - any job - in order to look after their family if they are capable of doing so. That isn't punishing anyone. Work is a blessing.

See I don't like the attitude of this girl, so I'm not pleased she won, although I don't agree with big firms getting free labour. There are probably thousands of people across the country desperate to get into museum work. Such people have history/ archaeology/ museum studies/ paleontology/ anthropology/ librarianship degrees. Relevent to museum work. Not geology degrees.

Most people realise that the only way to be in a position to do voluntary work is by working PT somewhere else as well while being supported by parents or spouse. Why the hell does she get to follow her hobby with the taxpayer supporting her? She needs to grow up and to realise the world doesn't owe her a living.

Telegraph link

"Is that right? So people who have worked as IT programmers, nurses, firemen, and qualified mechanics and are out of work should work stacking shelves in a supermarket"

Fucking right they should.

Tallulah - does it then follow that those who don't have parents (or a spouse) either willing or able to support them cannot do these voluntary jobs that might enable then to eventually get a paid job doing what they want to do?

Should these jobs only be for those whose parents are wealthy enough to financially support them to do the voluntary work that is classed as essential in some fields before you get a paid job in that field?

Or should these jobs be open to people from all socio-economic backgrounds, despite not having parents able to financially support them during the process of gaining experience in that field by volunteering, which in certain careers is deemed essential?

Bit confused at the statement 'working for free'?

Surely you could classify her benefits as a wage or is it more palatable that she get paid for doing nothing in today's society?

My reply to the young lady would be 'Beggars can't be choosers' I would like to have a certain job but there are no vacancies where I live. In my mind I don't have the option in working in that field voluntarily and ha ing the government pick up the tan as there is a mortgage to pay and good to put on the table. Both of which are my responsibility and not the governments.

Cat Reilly thought it wasn't suitable for her??

Step back and look at that phrase.

Cat Reilly IMO shouldn't have a choice.

I disagree with the way the scheme affects the workforce but not making claimants work at places they may not find to their liking. FFS how many of us work somewhere we really love over somewhere that pays us enough to live?

Appalling typing. Bloody big fingers and iPhone!

Madame

Bit confused at the statement 'working for free'?

Surely you could classify her benefits as a wage or is it more palatable that she get paid for doing nothing in today's society?

a) If her benefits are her 'wage', then she is working way way below the national minimum wage, which is both illegal and immoral.

b) Most people who claim JSA have paid in to the system through NI payments.

c) In any case, the whole point of social security is that society as a whole contributes to the welfare and temporary support of the unemployed until they find a job, regardless of who they are an how much they have paid in. A similar principle works for the NHS: everyone who can afford to pays in. Some people pay in more, some less, but treatment isn't given out according to how rich you are or your contribution.

My reply to the young lady would be 'Beggars can't be choosers' I would like to have a certain job but there are no vacancies where I live. In my mind I don't have the option in working in that field voluntarily and having the government pick up the tab as there is a mortgage to pay and good to put on the table. Both of which are my responsibility and not the governments.

Quitting your job and having the state support you whilst you volunteer in a job of your liking is a very different situation from what this woman found herself in. She is not trying to volunteer permanently in a job which she likes. She is simply resisting offering free labour to a company which will not, in any way, enhance her skills or experience, and in fact, actually moved her away from a place where she was getting skills and experience.

Madame-

I disagree with the way the scheme affects the workforce

Yes, it (workfare) pushes wages down for everyone and decreases the number of real paid jobs.

but not making claimants work at places they may not find to their liking. FFS how many of us work somewhere we really love over somewhere that pays us enough to live?

It's not a matter of making them work where they don't like to. Workfare is wrong in principle, as it is forced unpaid labour. It doesn't help people find work, it depresses wages, as reduces the number of paid jobs. It's wrong all around. The whole scheme is a disgrace and should be shut down.

Whilst working for companies such as Poundland, Homebase, Tesco people on benefits doing workfare schemes are not being paid a minimum wage, they are not getting the opportunity to look for a paid job, and these companies profit whilst cutting their employees hours to increase their profits.

Employees make N.I contributions, people on workfare schemes don't, so less N.I contributions mean less money for everyone who benefits from the welfare state. National Insurance is used to pay for: the NHS, unemployment benefit, sickness and disability allowances and the state pension.

Please follow Boycott Workfare:

www.boycottworkfare.org/

on Twitter or facebook to keep up with campaigns.

Thanks guys!