DWP lost case on work programme legality but are appealing

[SWLABR9]

That doesn't mean they can't claim for distress and hardship.

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?382305-Judgment-from-DWP-Appeal

 

I have moved the judgment and all posts after to a thread of its own see link above.

[dinner]

if you think this scheme is anything but exploitative you are very very naive....

[antone]

if you think this scheme is anything but exploitative you are very very naive....

 

Well, I agree, but I don't think you'll find too many on here cheering the benefits of workfare.

[dinner]

Well, I agree, but I don't think you'll find too many on here cheering the benefits of workfare.

 

except on the first page of this thread

[sadone]

except on the first page of this thread

 

Ah, the 'usual suspects' I see.

Edited February 14, 2013 by sadone

[Crazy Diamond]

Just came across this thread and I am horrified by the Daily Mail style comments in the 1st couple of pages, for one moment I thought I had strayed on to MSE!

 

Cat Reilly, the brave young lady who has become the involuntary face of workfare, is not the only person to have taken this to trial, the other case at the same time was that of Jamie Wilson, but his story has not been bandied in the same fashion by the government's stooges because it doesn't quite make up for the same "yah boo sucks, student too good to work turns her nose at having to get her hands dirty" propaganda. Yes, propaganda, for that is all it is. Jamie Wilson, a more mature unemployed HGV driver, was thrown into destitution after his benefits were stopped when he refused to take part in the same programme that would have meant working without wages, 30 hours a week for six months. Not quite as appealing a poster boy for throwing rotten tomatoes at, is he...

 

Anyway, if you want to know what really went on apart from the headliners in the Telegraph or the Sun, you can find the horror story that really is workfare here:

 

http://www.boycottworkfare.org/

 

Incidentally, if there are still people stupid enough that this is a good thing, think on this: My local Asda didn't take on a single christmas temp this year. Not one. What they did instead is get 30 government-subsidised people, to whom they didn't have to pay wages, for who they didn't have to pay taxes or National Insurance or holiday pay. They thus increased their profits by getting the taxpayer to pay for these people's "wages", thereby bypassing all employment laws or workers' right. If you don't think that is a bad thing, you need to wake up. 30 people who could have come off unemployment benefits and paid into the national pot for at least a few weeks, didn't get the chance whilst the taxpayer subsidised Asda into greater profits. Repeat the pattern all over the country (see the link above for details of all the companies that take part) and ask yourselves if that's really the way the economy is going to recover and the welfare bill to reduce?

Edited February 14, 2013 by Crazy Diamond

[allinthegame]

As usual, the government is trying the easy solutions rather than going to the heart of the problem. Yes, there are a lot of people on benefits, yes, it costs the country a lot, yes, it's not fair on those who work and pay taxes BUT the crux of the problem is that there aren't enough jobs for everyone, simples!

 

If you have 10 kids and just 7 toys then some are not going to get anything this Xmas, you may try to tell some of them they've been naughty and won't be getting anything or tell some they're too old for toys, or send them over to their gran's, or make any other excuse but when it comes down to it, it's not the kids fault, there just aren't enough toys!

 

Have you guys seen the ad for Resolva weed killer which says "this perennial weed will grow again and again..." then goes on to say "kill the root, kill the weed"? That sums it all up, the governments 'measures' don't go to the root of the problem!

 

It's all well and good to 'clamp down on scroungers', investigate everyone for potential benefit fraud and employ a private company to fail most ESA assessments but that doesn't go to the root of the problem and, like the weed, it will come back again and again!

 

Rather than coming up with ways to deprive people of benefits the government should first concentrate on job creation, offer incentives to small businesses and restrict the expansion of big chains like Poundland and many others that are killing independent businesses. What can the owners of businesses that have gone bust do? Claim benefits of course!

 

When you are claiming benefits all they focus on is trying to get you off their books so they can say they are getting people back to work, however, the so-called 'training and development' opportunities just aren't there! Their programs only really address the needs of teenage school leavers rather than graduates and older adults and there's virtually nothing to encourage entrepreneurship or self-employment. On the contrary, self-employed people are routinely subjected to investigation and interviews under caution.

 

If they are going to force people to work for their benefits (which I believe goes against the idea of a safety net) then it should be on community projects, etc. Why not get grads with relevant skills to work for CABs for example? rather than shutting them down or reducing opening hours...

 

It's high time this country woke up and smelled the coffee: Unrestrained US style capitalism just doesn't work! Without government intervention to the tune of nearly $1tn (which is totally against the principles of unrestrained capitalism), that system would have been dead in the water 3 years ago!

 

Time to admit responsibility for the situation we're in rather than blaming the 'scroungers'!

Yes I agree with this post,concentration on creating jobs,especially for the disabled,as it would seem there are no suitable jobs for those with limited capacities. Does the Government not realize that if this was done they may earn some respect from voters, whereas now there is animosity.

[osdset]

Just came across this thread and I am horrified by the Daily Mail style comments in the 1st couple of pages, for one moment I thought I had strayed on to MSE!

 

Cat Reilly, the brave young lady who has become the involuntary face of workfare, is not the only person to have taken this to trial, the other case at the same time was that of Jamie Wilson, but his story has not been bandied in the same fashion by the government's stooges because it doesn't quite make up for the same "yah boo sucks, student too good to work turns her nose at having to get her hands dirty" propaganda. Yes, propaganda, for that is all it is. Jamie Wilson, a more mature unemployed HGV driver, was thrown into destitution after his benefits were stopped when he refused to take part in the same programme that would have meant working without wages, 30 hours a week for six months. Not quite as appealing a poster boy for throwing rotten tomatoes at, is he...

 

Anyway, if you want to know what really went on apart from the headliners in the Telegraph or the Sun, you can find the horror story that really is workfare here:

 

http://www.boycottworkfare.org/

 

Incidentally, if there are still people stupid enough that this is a good thing, think on this: My local Asda didn't take on a single christmas temp this year. Not one. What they did instead is get 30 government-subsidised people, to whom they didn't have to pay wages, for who they didn't have to pay taxes or National Insurance or holiday pay. They thus increased their profits by getting the taxpayer to pay for these people's "wages", thereby bypassing all employment laws or workers' right. If you don't think that is a bad thing, you need to wake up. 30 people who could have come off unemployment benefits and paid into the national pot for at least a few weeks, didn't get the chance whilst the taxpayer subsidised Asda into greater profits. Repeat the pattern all over the country (see the link above for details of all the companies that take part) and ask yourselves if that's really the way the economy is going to recover and the welfare bill to reduce?

 

Spot on post, my thoughts as well.

[Minibits]

Spot on post, my thoughts as well.

 

Fully agree. I fail to see how any frequent user of this site can so easily gloss over the spin.

[Conniff]

Yes I agree with this post,concentration on creating jobs,especially for the disabled,as it would seem there are no suitable jobs for those with limited capacities. Does the Government not realize that if this was done they may earn some respect from voters, whereas now there is animosity.

 

How do you create a job ??

 

You can't just make jobs, this is exactly what Gordon Brown and his clowns did and look where that got the country.

 

There are so many who say 'do this' or 'do that', but they never ever say how.

[Crazy Diamond]

Well, there must be jobs already if there are that many places for unemployed people to be placed to work in! The only difference is in one case, they get paid by the employer, pay tax, national insurance, have employment rights, contribute to society... in the other case, doing exactly the same job, the government (or should I say WE, the taxpayers) subsidise the private companies into larger profits whilst the unemployment queues get longer and the workers' rights get undermined further...

[citizenB]

In the early 1970's there was something called TOPS - Training Opportunities Scheme - administered by Manpower Services Commission. Both "Labour Government" Quangos.

 

This was at the time where the old Labour Exchange was separated into Employment/Job Centres and the Benefits department, supposedly to have the people believe they were culling government departments. Those employed to administer TOPS and Manpower Services Commission were however still civil servants.

 

At the same time, those people who were either long term sick or unemployable were hived off onto Disability benefits or specific training schemes.

 

The course available to those who were healthy were directed to Local Colleges / Adult education facilities for Word processing skills / secretarial courses/ business studies - mostly for Women or into the Building trade - Bricklayers/plumbing/carpentry - mostly for the male population - these courses were run by either dedicated workshops - training given by Qualified builders/plumbers etc or again through Adult Education centres. The courses were of duration - 6 months basic qualifications with the opportunity to continue for higher qualifications if the trainees contributed to the cost.

 

At that time, apprenticeships were reduced because the trainees from these TOPS courses were then used.. The building trade at the time was in slump and the question I asked was why are we training all these brickies when there will be no work for them when they leave the training courses. I was told that there was required to be a certain amount of unemployed people.. a pool of qualified workers for the industry to call on when it bounced back !!

 

There was a huge hue and cry because an apprenticeship usually lasted 2 - 5 years and the longest the courses lasted - unless the trainee paid to go further - was, 2 years so there was a lot of semi trained/semi skilled workers.

 

When indeed the building industry did perk up again - there was an influx of overseas workers who were already properly trained / qualified and were prepared to work for less money. Technology moved forward in leaps and bounds and office staff were reduced - business started to use overseas call centres. Job sharing took off as did part time employment. Manufacturing was moved to Europe where business were being given tax breaks etc.. Meanwhile overseas workers continued to pour into the United Kingdom.

 

There is now a situation where there are more people than available work so a huge proportion of people are not contributing to tax and insurance - Big business and the extremely wealthy managing to avoid (legally apparently) paying the correct amount of taxes and an increase of disabled and unemployed people understandably requiring to be paid from the social fund.

 

For some strange reason we started to pay families monies to have their children looked after while they were at work - increased the amount of family allowances which gave employers the opportunity to start offering huge redundancy packages to staff who were earning large salaries and to start employing people on lower wages. Which then led to more "employed" people genuinely requiring benefits to help them pay rent / council tax etc. And even more who were unemployed for one reason or another requiring total support.

 

It seems to me, to be a vicious circle and whilst I totally disagree with the way in which funds are being withdrawn and people are being treated at the moment. I cant see that a Labour Government who presided over the total meltdown of the UK economy would be doing anything different.

Edited February 14, 2013 by citizenB

[SWLABR9]

Neither can they going by their website.

[Crazy Diamond]

I cant see that a Labour Government who presided over the total meltdown of the economy would be doing anything different.

Wow. who knew that the Labour party controlled the World Economy?

[citizenB]

Hmm, perhaps I didnt make it quite clear enough that I was referring only to the UK economy. ..

[adridude]

THe problem is that the government isn't regulating how companies do business. by this I mean they're allowing banks, telecoms companies etc... to outsource cheap labour to third world countries. This alone cost the UK hundreds of thousands of jobs. On top of that, UK has turned from being a manufacturing nation into an import nation, so the flow of money is generally in one direction, and that is out of the country.

 

If the government slapped HUGE taxes on import it would deter companies from resorting to import as a first option. Furthermore, I think that there should be a 'plant a tree' like campaign i.e. for every tree that is chopped down, one is planted. By this I mean, for every 'non uk employee' one should be employed here in the UK.

[worried33]

Just came across this thread and I am horrified by the Daily Mail style comments in the 1st couple of pages, for one moment I thought I had strayed on to MSE!

 

Cat Reilly, the brave young lady who has become the involuntary face of workfare, is not the only person to have taken this to trial, the other case at the same time was that of Jamie Wilson, but his story has not been bandied in the same fashion by the government's stooges because it doesn't quite make up for the same "yah boo sucks, student too good to work turns her nose at having to get her hands dirty" propaganda. Yes, propaganda, for that is all it is. Jamie Wilson, a more mature unemployed HGV driver, was thrown into destitution after his benefits were stopped when he refused to take part in the same programme that would have meant working without wages, 30 hours a week for six months. Not quite as appealing a poster boy for throwing rotten tomatoes at, is he...

 

Anyway, if you want to know what really went on apart from the headliners in the Telegraph or the Sun, you can find the horror story that really is workfare here:

 

http://www.boycottworkfare.org/

 

Incidentally, if there are still people stupid enough that this is a good thing, think on this: My local Asda didn't take on a single christmas temp this year. Not one. What they did instead is get 30 government-subsidised people, to whom they didn't have to pay wages, for who they didn't have to pay taxes or National Insurance or holiday pay. They thus increased their profits by getting the taxpayer to pay for these people's "wages", thereby bypassing all employment laws or workers' right. If you don't think that is a bad thing, you need to wake up. 30 people who could have come off unemployment benefits and paid into the national pot for at least a few weeks, didn't get the chance whilst the taxpayer subsidised Asda into greater profits. Repeat the pattern all over the country (see the link above for details of all the companies that take part) and ask yourselves if that's really the way the economy is going to recover and the welfare bill to reduce?

 

Sadly its falling on deaf ears, those in full time work think they never be on workfare, because they think those on it are on it due to lazyness and no other reason. They also have the belief the shortage of jobs is a myth that with a bit of effort one will find work and as such the likes of asda taking jobs of the market is not a problem. Its a aweful day to be a brit, I am very ashamed of the attitude of this country.

[worried33]

THe problem is that the government isn't regulating how companies do business. by this I mean they're allowing banks, telecoms companies etc... to outsource cheap labour to third world countries. This alone cost the UK hundreds of thousands of jobs. On top of that, UK has turned from being a manufacturing nation into an import nation, so the flow of money is generally in one direction, and that is out of the country.

 

If the government slapped HUGE taxes on import it would deter companies from resorting to import as a first option. Furthermore, I think that there should be a 'plant a tree' like campaign i.e. for every tree that is chopped down, one is planted. By this I mean, for every 'non uk employee' one should be employed here in the UK.

 

Import taxes would work, also a tax on outsourced jobs, there is 2 problems tho.

 

The first is companies will lobby the government threatening to base elsewhere etc. and the gov cave in.

The second is taxing imports inheritly will bump inflation.

[worried33]

How do you create a job ??

 

You can't just make jobs, this is exactly what Gordon Brown and his clowns did and look where that got the country.

 

There are so many who say 'do this' or 'do that', but they never ever say how.

 

Which do you think is better.

 

Create public sector jobs funded by the taxpayer (as people like to call it), these people are working and pay taxes themselves, money circulates (key to a economy)

Or as it is now but instead the taxpayer money )as people like to call it) goes instead to paying for asda, tesco, poundshop etc. staff's wages. People on JSA have far less spending power than those on proper wages and hence less money circulation hence recession.

 

Its not rocket science. But people have certianly been brainwashed.

 

Private shareholders are not saints, if you give them tax cuts they may take it with open arms but they will certianly feel no obligation to give anything back, They also wont feel any obligation to create jobs here, watching dragons den gives an insight to how these people think with entrepenuers often attacked for not using china.

[Nystagmite]

Why doesn't the national minimum wage apply with workfare?

[worried33]

it did originally breach it, but a while back the DWP edited their website and documents to get round it, it was something they did overnight silenty no new legislation etc. but they got caught by someone who compared to the old website, but not much came of it. I cant remember now what they changed specifically to get round it tho.

[speedfreek]

Why doesn't the national minimum wage apply with workfare?

 

Because if looks, walks and quacks like a duck it's..... a giraffe!

 

A placement should in no way resemble work! The placement also should not be the replacement of an existing job or job function.

 

That sort of begs the question that if it can not be the latter how with out admitting breaking the rules can they offer you any job after your placement. Well they can't so that actually imho encourages rolling batches of claimants every 8 weeks or so. Still it covers that busy Christmas period.

 

Oh and you're classed as in training so not working so no minimum wage has to be paid.

[ee-bee]

Spot on post, my thoughts as well.

totally agree with this comment

[Conniff]

It is unlawful under WTO regulations to slap taxes on any import, that is called protectionism. There would be retaliation against your exports anyway.

Two can play at that game.