Forced mandatory work sceme

[superg]

Hello people

 

Thank you for your help on my other thread Now i have a new issue:shock:

 

I am with a jobcoach and he said that i havent worked for just over one year ago.

 

so then i asked what does this mean he said that if his manager agrees that i would have to do It and if i dont they will stop my money.

 

I told him this was somthing i dont agree to and that its slave labour and a breech of my human rights.

 

The advicer said its wellfare and if his manager says i have to do it i have to do it.

 

he did not understand why i wasnt happy I said why would i work beside someone thats earning money and i am not.

 

I have done a bit of research online and people say charity shops are in on it.

 

I thought i would be good to help out but why when forced in to something I dont want to do,

 

I told him that i would work for minimum wage only as its in human rights act under slave labour

 

do you people think there is anywhere around this and could i sue them and any provider as i do not consent to slavery

 

Thanks for and advice

[Mcall]

Hello SuperG,

 

I'm in exactly the same boat at the moment. I started a thread yesterday and there's a useful link from a Mr.P which outlines what they can and can't do on a MWA. Have a read.

I agree with you that it's slave labour and disgustingly cynical this close to Xmas to get us slaves to do jobs for free that should be fully paid. Sickening in fact, but there's no way out of it - except to get a paid job, but then if we could do that then we wouldn't be signing on. Catch 22.

 

Good luck, and as they said in "Midnight Express" - May your sentence pass quickly!

[superg]

Thank you for your reply. I have read that you can with draw concent so they cant pass your info aound. I cant work out how they can force someone to work when its under human rights surely if we dont consent to it and also tell the providers we dont consent they how can they do it Human can we take the provider and the jokeshop to court.

 

Thanks sg

[Mcall]

MWA = Mandatory Work Activity. As it was explained to me by my "work coach" adviser - you CAN refuse to do it by signing off. If you want to be paid JSA we have to do it. Failure to "engage" (IE, turn up) leads to 4 week sanction. Don't turn up again, it's 13 week sanction. Nice, huh?

[superg]

Yeah I am still sure that we can stop this some how I was quite happy at first to go in a charity shop but now i found out that they are in on it. I do know that they dont like it if you report them to your MP. I told them that i was not scared of them and if i could take them to court i would think he was shocked at that.

 

I am just reading a few bits on the internet now but surely some one will know something

[Mcall]

Well please let me know if you come up with anything. Everything I've read seems to show they've now got it locked down tight after that Cait Reilly Poundland ruling a few years back.

 

Best of luck.

[SabreSheep]

You are wasting your time.

 

MWA has been ruled lawful even in the european courts.

 

It is not against your human rights.

 

I do however agree that organisations that make profit for private (Eg non charities etc) should be barred from the MWA programme

[superg]

Well guys I am not going to gave up just looking at human rights it says (( The law also protects you from forced labour – forcing you to work under the threat of punishment that you have not agreed to accept ))

and (No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.) it does mention

 

(( Nor does it apply to work the government requires you to do in a state of emergency. Finally, it does not include normal civic obligations, such as maintaining a building if you are a landlord or deducting taxes from your employees’ wages if you are an employer.)))

 

I will do more research they other thing is if we withdraw concent for information to be sent then they cant contact the companys or pass your information on

 

might be worth a try

[think about it]

Well guys I am not going to gave up just looking at human rights it says (( The law also protects you from forced labour – forcing you to work under the threat of punishment that you have not agreed to accept ))

and (No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.) it does mention

 

(( Nor does it apply to work the government requires you to do in a state of emergency. Finally, it does not include normal civic obligations, such as maintaining a building if you are a landlord or deducting taxes from your employees’ wages if you are an employer.)))

 

I will do more research they other thing is if we withdraw concent for information to be sent then they cant contact the companys or pass your information on

 

might be worth a try

 

Just a quick observation on this one, in claiming JSA you are accepting the terms and conditions of your claim. As such you have agreed to accept the 'punishment' of a sanction for non compliance with the terms and conditions of your claim. If you don't wish to be held to those terms then your option is to cease your claim. I understand its not a simple as that in terms of simply signing off but those conditions exist just as they would in any other agreement.

[SabreSheep]

Not worth a try, It has ALREADY BEEN DONE

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28158483

 

Your best approach is to try and work within the framework and hold them to the rules.

 

It cannot be "forced Labour" for the simple reason, you can sign off. You are not imprisoned.

[Chester6]

It's forced labour as there's threats and you are forced to be there under duress and does anyone seriously expect people to choose to starve? Be made homeless etc

 

You could create a badge for whilst you are there to say you are under duress

I think people ae looking into IT as slave labour but I'm unaware of it's gone beyond looking

[think about it]

Chester, yes - there are threats of sanction but under the human rights act if it is as quoted above you're agreeing to them under the conditionality of your claim.

 

As such there is a choice, it might not be a choice you'd like to make but there is a choice. Every contract and agreement has a mutual obligation, they do 'x' and you do 'y', if they simply decided not to hold up their side of the deal then you could rightfully say that the contract/agreement had been breached and withdraw from your obligations. This instance is no different, if someone fails to meet their obligation under their JSAg then the sanction for doing so is clearly laid out.

[osdset]

Well guys I am not going to gave up just looking at human rights it says (( The law also protects you from forced labour – forcing you to work under the threat of punishment that you have not agreed to accept ))

and (No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.) it does mention

 

(( Nor does it apply to work the government requires you to do in a state of emergency. Finally, it does not include normal civic obligations, such as maintaining a building if you are a landlord or deducting taxes from your employees’ wages if you are an employer.)))

 

I will do more research they other thing is if we withdraw concent for information to be sent then they cant contact the companys or pass your information on

 

might be worth a try

You are looking at article 4 of the ECHR, and as others have stated it's been tried as a defence against workfare already and failed.

HM Gov as embodied by the DWP and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Ian Duncan Smith) can and have (in the case of the Wilson Reilly ruling) retrospectively changed the law to suit the governments agenda. I would fully expect them to rigorously attack any attempt to subvert workfare by legal means, and most people just don't have the resources in terms of finance and legal assistance to mount a challenge to the government.

 

The best you can hope to do is as SabreSheep says, hold JCP/DWP to the rules, (or at least try to).

 

I believe workfare to be a a particularly nasty method of supplying free labour to companies and so-called charities, coupled with sanctions for non compliance of other JCP imposed Muppetry it's a cosh to bludgeon the unwilling into compliance.

[SabreSheep]

I agree with odset.

 

Legally they are in the right.

 

Morally that is a different situation. One I feel that the government is ont he wrong side on. BUT many people support their approach.

 

It amazes me how many people bullied by the government vote for it or refuse to vote at all. Whilst there is some argument that they are the same, voting for someone that is not in power reduces their majority

 

EG Green Party promote a citizens income for everyone that fulfills BASIC needs. I like this ideaas it removes the nessasary expense of the beuocracy in enforcing JSA/ESA etc. BILLIONS would be saved

[jasta11]

Plus the DWP can use the old 'you haven't worked for x years so your skills will now be outdated (even if they arent) and this is valuable work experience to get you back into the employment market' - or similar tech-speak. Work Providers in particular excel at this type of reasoning.

 

Of course we all know it's slave labour of a sort, but they can always find logical-sounding ways to justify it; ie it's 'helping' you. As has been said, best thing to do is stick with it, know the rules and don't let the employer you end up with take undue advantage of you.

 

Hope you get somewhere decent - it need not be a bad experience; while I was at A4e I took a 3 month placement with a charity shop just to get away from A4e. I expected nothing from the shop but to my huge surprise it was run by really nice people who didn't exploit me and I actually enjoyed it that much I'd have accepted a paid job there - I actually found it a welcome change to my usual hectic admin jobs. I hope you get somewhere similar.

[tezza1234]

This does make me a little angry, ok morally it may be very wrong, but, if you have been on JSA for x amount of time is it not right that you start earning it a little and do not just expect it. Maybe i am wrong because i have only been on JSA for 9 weeks once in my 14 year work history, but it does stench of people wanting something for nothing, when i was on jsa i would arrive suited and booted and would have actually looked for jobs, others turned up pretty much in pj's or stinking of booze and just got signed for another fortnight.

[SabreSheep]

Most people would to some degree agree with you tezza

 

However the system is not fit for purpose and does not really support people into employment. Instead it is focussed on sacntioning by any means possible. Now the system is about sanctions and not about employment.

 

Also somethign for nothing? MOST people claiming have or even ARE paying into the system. Saying something for nothing is not accurate.

 

INSTEAD support should be given to those that need it and those unwilling to work should be the target of sanctions. No those generally trying to get off the system as quickly as possible

[tezza1234]

Most people would to some degree agree with you tezza

 

However the system is not fit for purpose and does not really support people into employment. Instead it is focussed on sacntioning by any means possible. Now the system is about sanctions and not about employment.

 

Also somethign for nothing? MOST people claiming have or even ARE paying into the system. Saying something for nothing is not accurate.

 

INSTEAD support should be given to those that need it and those unwilling to work should be the target of sanctions. No those generally trying to get off the system as quickly as possible

 

That is probably where i am naive to the situation in the sense that i do not know the ins and outs, my comments were really in direct response to superg who sounds like he just does not want to and is trying to think of ways out of it.

 

Of course i am all for helping those who need it

[Mr.P]

Make yourself aware of ALL DWP issued MWA guidance, Health & Safety at Work, and EU Work Time Directives. Question any placement that could be seen as displacing a paid worker. Decline to participate in unsafe work practices or environments. Keep record of all reimbursements of travel expenses and any additional payments.

 

The last one is important. If you are given any additional cash, "just to help you out" or as "thanks for your hard work", you immediately qualify as a paid employee and entitled to NMW for all hours worked. Should that happen, pop over to the employment forum for advice on pursuing an Employment Tribunal or Small Claims Court claim.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

The appeal in the Reilly case was heard in the High Court on Friday 4th July 2014. A full transcript of the judgement handed down that day can be downloaded from this link:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/r-oao-reilly-others-v-sswp.pdf

Transcript of Ruling.

reg. 4 of the 2011 Regulations.

 

The Claimants submit that the 2013 Act was incompatible with the Claimants’ rights under Art. 6. It was an intervention in the ongoing proceedings in Reilly No. 1 which had the effect of determining the litigation in the Defendant’s favour by retrospectively validating his unlawful acts. It thereby deprived both Claimants of a fair determination of their civil rights and obligations, contrary to Art. 6. The First Claimant failed in the Supreme Court when otherwise she would have succeeded in upholding her victory in the Court of Appeal. The Second Claimant succeeded in the FTT on the grounds that the notification requirements under reg. 4 of the 2011 Regulations were not met, but the Upper Tribunal is bound to find that any such defect has been retrospectively validated, and he has no other tenable grounds of appeal. His pending appeal against the fourth sanction on those grounds will fail for the same reason.

 

The Claimants rely upon the ECtHR authorities (referred to below) to the effect that it is contrary to the rule of law, protected by Art. 6, for a State to legislate in the course of ongoing legal proceedings to decide the issues before the court, when it does so to its own advantage, as a party to the dispute. Such an interference with Art. 6 rights can only be justified by “compelling grounds in the public interest”. They submit that no such compelling grounds exist in this case.

 

The Second Claimant also relies upon A1 P1, claiming that by withholding his JSA, the Defendant deprived him of a “possession” to which he was entitled. He submits that the deprivation cannot be justified as being in the public interest.

 

The Defendant’s response is that the 2013 Act did not interfere with the Claimants’ rights under Art. 6 or A1 P1. In relation to Art. 6, the First Claimant had not been deprived of JSA, and she had been able to pursue her legal challenge to the Supreme Court. Although the effect of the 2013 Act is that the Second Claimant can no longer rely upon the invalidity of the 2011 Regulations or the defective notification under reg. 4, it is still open to him to argue that there was good cause for his failure to participate in the work programme in the forthcoming appeal to the Upper Tribunal. Moreover, the Second Claimant’s entitlement to JSA did not constitute a ‘possession’ within the meaning of A1 P1.

 

Alternatively, the Defendant submits that any interference with the Claimants’ rights under Art. 6 was justified by ‘compelling grounds in the public interest’ (applying the test in the ECtHR authorities to which I refer below). If the Second Claimant’s JSA was a ‘possession’ within the meaning of A1 P1, then deprivation of it was justified in the public interest. The cost of repaying JSA to all those who had been unlawfully sanctioned was high. Those who would otherwise be liable to sanctions for refusing to participate in work programmes should not be entitled to gain a windfall and escape sanctions as a result of a technical challenge to the Regulations.

 

The Judge ruled that Government rules designed to force benefits claimants into work placements breached European Human Rights laws.

Here is what the Court concluded:

 

Conclusions

 

I grant permission to apply for a judicial review on all grounds.

 

I conclude that:

 

 

a)The Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 was incompatible with the Claimants’ rights under Art. 6(1) ECHR;

b)Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR was not engaged.

 

151. I grant a declaration in the following terms: “It is declared that the Jobseekers (Back to Work) Schemes Act 2013 is incompatible with the Claimants’ rights under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as given effect by section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998”.

As I read it, what it is saying is that The Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 was incompatible with the rights that Claimants have under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

All schemes validated and introduced under the authority granted by this Act, and this includes the Work Programme, would appear to have been ruled illegal unless this ruling is overturned on judicial review or appeal.

The Government and DWP, as you would expect, appealed against this decision and have chosen to leave the controversial laws in question in place in the meantime.

To the best of my knowledge the Judicial Review has been applied for and is on-going, at least it was so at the beginning of last September. Once this Review is completed the case will either come back to the UK’s highest court or be taken forward to the European Court, which is superior to UK courts these days.

 

PS Superg:

A recent thread at this link may be helpful. If nothing else it will confirm that nothing that has been said here has not been said and tried before:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?428310-The-question-of-mwa

According to the Courts you are right and those who say you are not are wrong. However the Government begs to differ. That is the brick wall we are up against. Using the law to knock down that brick wall is the only way, not breaking other laws because we object to this one.

[Mcall]

This does make me a little angry, ok morally it may be very wrong, but, if you have been on JSA for x amount of time is it not right that you start earning it a little and do not just expect it. Maybe i am wrong because i have only been on JSA for 9 weeks once in my 14 year work history, but it does stench of people wanting something for nothing, when i was on jsa i would arrive suited and booted and would have actually looked for jobs, others turned up pretty much in pj's or stinking of booze and just got signed for another fortnight.

 

I agree to an extent, but if anyone thinks surviving on £70 a week is an easy life-style choice long term, I suggest they try it for a year, and once the system has spat them out and left them in debt, ill with stress, borderline alcoholic from trying to shut out the increasingly draconian and bizarre demands of the DWP, with council tax bills, rent arrears, utility bill red letters stacking up, bailiffs knocking - it's not a "something for nothing" - it's a definite "something" - misery, fear, hopelessness and crushed self-worth. I'm speaking personally, and apologies for the rant.

[tezza1234]

I agree to an extent, but if anyone thinks surviving on £70 a week is an easy life-style choice long term, I suggest they try it for a year, and once the system has spat them out and left them in debt, ill with stress, borderline alcoholic from trying to shut out the increasingly draconian and bizarre demands of the DWP, with council tax bills, rent arrears, utility bill red letters stacking up, bailiffs knocking - it's not a "something for nothing" - it's a definite "something" - misery, fear, hopelessness and crushed self-worth. I'm speaking personally, and apologies for the rant.

 

tough to answer this except that their will be working people in the same position, obviously its not all and it is obviously a generational thing but 'living on benefits' is considered a job to some, their right to 'just get it' and come on, depends how resourceful you are as to what the £70 is spent on.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Make yourself aware of ALL DWP issued MWA guidance, Health & Safety at Work, and EU Work Time Directives. Question any placement that could be seen as displacing a paid worker. Decline to participate in unsafe work practices or environments. Keep record of all reimbursements of travel expenses and any additional payments.

 

The last one is important. If you are given any additional cash, "just to help you out" or as "thanks for your hard work", you immediately qualify as a paid employee and entitled to NMW for all hours worked. Should that happen, pop over to the employment forum for advice on pursuing an Employment Tribunal or Small Claims Court claim.

This post of yours has got me excited Mr. P. I recall vaguely reading somewhere that accepting a payment or ‘gift’ whilst on a MWA placement could result in action being taken against me.

For 2 out of the 4 weeks that I was on a placement along with about 8 others the boss at the company we were placed with called us into his ‘office’ on the Friday afternoon and gave us each £20 and thanked us for our efforts.

For the reason given above I kept quiet about that payment.

If you could explain more about this or provide links to sites where further information could be got I would be grateful.

Do you suppose that the fact that my experience was exactly 12 months ago and that I did not mention it at the time nullify any action along the lines you suggest that I might wish to take now?

[Mcall]

tough to answer this except that their will be working people in the same position, obviously its not all and it is obviously a generational thing but 'living on benefits' is considered a job to some, their right to 'just get it' and come on, depends how resourceful you are as to what the £70 is spent on.

 

Yeah, I used to read the Daily Mail too. Never actually MET one of these "some" though.

[tezza1234]

Yeah, I used to read the Daily Mail too. Never actually MET one of these "some" though.

 

Really, i have, they seem to be growing and spreading.