Councils and charities to boycott workfare programme Around 350 charity organisations have signed up to boycott the community work placement part of the government’s workfare programme, including 13 councils and a selection of homelessness charities. The Keep Volunteering Voluntary campaign has said that 345 organisations have agreed to boycott the programme, including Your Homes Newcastle Youth Voice, Shelter, Shelter Cymru and Swansea Young Single Homeless Project. Union Unite has also signed up and, through its Unite Against Workfare campaign, has already secured agreements from several councils that they will not take workfare placements. These councils have said they will also encourage contractors to do the same. The 13 councils that have signed up at present are: Barking and Dagenham, Brent, Burnley, Edinburgh, Ipswich, Islington, Lambeth, Norwich, South Tyneside, St Helens, Sunderland, Thurrock and Wakefield. The scheme is part of the government’s help to work programme under which participants must either sign on at a Jobcentre every day, take up a training course or carry out a six-month, 30-hour-a-week placement. The KVV said opposition to the scheme may have led to the community work placement element being delayed. The help to work scheme was launched on 28 April, and these placements should have already begun, according to the campaign. A spokesperson for the Department for Work and Pensions said: ‘Referrals to the placements have begun and the placements will begin shortly. There has been no delay. Charities are under no obligation to be in the scheme, but those who are recognise the benefits of it.’ Related Articles Speaking out against help to work 03/06/2014 Work for dole scheme launched today 28/04/2014 Readers comments (24) mike muir | 03/06/2014 9:24 am I can see the problems with endorsing it. But, weve just agreed with DWP to take on long term unemployed placements into our furniture stores so that we can build up their skills over, typically, 18mth. Placements do need to work consistently and with real commitment, but we do have a high success rate. They dont need to fill in all those job applications and show evidence of seeking work while on their placement until this is mutually agreed as the right time. This is win-win, at least in these specific circumstances. Im not really happy with a blanket boycott of this one. Mike Muir Impact Housing Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Gresley | 03/06/2014 9:24 am Well done those who have agreed to boycott what is effectively a conscripted labour scheme. Where there is a job to be done, there is wage to be paid. * There is a growing body of evidence that private sector busienssesare now accounting for a proportion of free labpour in their business plans - this means people are being compelled to work to benefit shareholders and directors. * Each free labour placement means one less paid position. There is again a growing body of evidence that paid employeesare being dispalced (from reduced to hours to simply no work at all)by government supplied free labour. * DWPs evidence (not publicised) shows that Workfare has no positive impact on the ability or likelihood of unemployed people to find paid work. * Work experience should include experiencing all aspects of work - including the pay cheque at the end of the week. Can Inside Housing please run a survey of all council landlords and housing associations to find out who is and is not participating in this awful policy? Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment John Moss John Moss | 03/06/2014 9:28 am Shame on them. Denying the unemployed the opportunity of valuable work experience which could help them back in to paid employment. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment I am The Secret Housing Officer | 03/06/2014 9:36 am Mike Muir ...but we do have a high success rate. Would you like to share the exact figure then? Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Keith McManus | 03/06/2014 9:40 am Shame on you John Moss for using the term valuable work experience for slave labour! I have no objection to work placements but at least pay the minimum wage. The problem with work placements is the effect of moral on other work staff. Some placements dont actually want to be there, some sit texting all day, phewing sighing, and watching the clock. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment F451 F451 | 03/06/2014 9:45 am No doubt John Moss would also be against the action to reduce the 4,000 estimated slaves in the UK currently as it would offend his principles - isnt it time such outdated politicians were stuffed and exhibited in a museum. Mike Muir offers a far more reasonable support for the scheme, but leaves a point to answer. Mike - for all the reasons you justify this exploitation couldnt you recognise what you are doing as an apprenticeship, pay the participants, and thus also offer them the employment rights they deserve? The boycott is understandable. The same was done the last time the Mossite bootboys were in charge, but the response from Councils was more positive. They accepted placements where they were needed, and immediately put them on an employment contract, with pay and rights, and of course the option to become unionised and work for the rights of others to be protected. The Tory extremists soon backed off from their slave labour schemes against such opposition that empowered workers. I call it smart working. Unions could gain a lot from looking back at their previous successes. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Bill Rollinson | 03/06/2014 9:46 am Mike Muir, only a user would see it as win win! Why dont you take up the government offer to train rather than the workfare? The training scheme is more beneficial to the participant, but of course you will have some outlay, which you wont under workfare! Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment LondonSouth | 03/06/2014 9:52 am John Moss, Workfare has been shown to have the same impact as no intervention at all. It is not intended to help people into work but to punish the poor and to train the disenfranchised that their work has no value while adding to the profits of private companies. In the case of the new programme, it will have the additional impact of involving the voluntary sector in delivery of a DWP scheme - thus undermining the sectors independence and undermining the whole ethos of volunteering as voluntary. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment McMadman McMadman | 03/06/2014 10:08 am Excellent post, Gresley. This is exactly the kind of thing you get from electing an ever increasingly ultra right wing crypto fascistic junta of a coalition government that is hell bent on looking after the bankers whilst eradicating the poor. Dont think voting Labour will help - they are saying they will be just as hard in terms of welfare reform and in terms of sticking to the torylibdumb budget - no surprise from the tories in a light red tie. Leaves no choice then apart from UKIP if people really are that daft. Thankfully we can vote YES in September - its looking increasingly like the only way to protect the poor in at least one part of these islands. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Venk | 03/06/2014 10:22 am Those sent on workfare placements have no hope of securing paid work unaided. As such whether an employer benefits from cheap labour or not - the recipient benefits from gaining valuable experience and also discipline in turning up and getting on at the workplace. Criticism of the scheme is misplaced. Voluntary organisations - missing out on helping the long-term unemployed on a political stand. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment F451 F451 | 03/06/2014 10:38 am Venk should have stopped his sentance earlier: Those sent on workfare placements have no hope of securing paid work. A very accurate comment indeed. If we accept the rise of workfare we condemn our own job to the scheme at a future point - would you accept such a loss of freedom Venk, or do you really think you are elite enough to be immune? Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Mick Bailey | 03/06/2014 11:06 am Having people work 30 hours and not paying them is slavery. Stop giving people b*%$£y work experience and give them work. They can gain experience on the job. Its not as if these jobs are brain surgeons. If there is work to do, give them a job. It is immoral and the lack of backbone in this country makes me sick. If you want to know how successful it is, ask the victims. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment J H | 03/06/2014 11:52 am Jon Moss - valuable work experience that could help them BACK into paid employment If you need to get BACK into employment then that must mean you HAVE previous work experience. VALUABLE work experience - Yes very valuable to the organisation as it is free labour = increased profits. VALUABLE? - Yes going to work for nothing actually costs the person - they are paying through fares, clothing, and time to be able to work Time you got out of the theoretical bubble your Localis paper and comments here demonstrate to naive superficial effect Walk a mile in their shoes goes the expression, probably 5 miles in workfare cases! Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment J H | 03/06/2014 11:58 am So much better for social landlords to take on apprentices at the massive £2.68 per hour rate offered by South Liverpool Housing - For a 37 hour week thats a massive £99.16 per week! Apprentice Administrator £2.68 Per Hour - SLH Liverpool Chamber Training - Liverpool Main Purpose of Job: To undertake a range of tasks to support the work carried out within the Supported Housing team. Duties will include: scanning, photocopying, message taking, assisting with inputting referrals onto computer system, administering the waiting list, collating standardised letters, distributing through the post and booking meeting rooms and supporting the team by carrying out research on the web and collating information. Key accountabilities: 1. To undertake a range of tasks suited to the current level of training and development 2. To attend college and complete course work on time and to a high standard 3. To understand and comply with policies and procedures 4. To carry out work in a safe and diligent manner 5. To comply with all Health and Safety policies and procedures 6. To attend and fully participate in regular training and development reviews 7. To undertake additional duties in line with capabilities as required Key Competencies: Technical skills, be able to carry out a variety of technical duties related to the role, competently and efficiently with training and/or support as appropriate Service Excellence, to deliver the highest possible standards to our customers (both internal and external) at all times, never compromising on health and safety and being aware of the environmental impact of our activities Customer Service, to engage with our tenants in a clear and efficient manner in order to understand their needs Innovation, promote continual improvement whilst encouraging new ideas and added value solutions People Focus, help create a working environment where the success of teamwork is an everyday reality. Demonstrate a clear commitment to development and training Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment carol burr | 03/06/2014 12:04 pm surely these people will need to be trained to do the job they are given so who is this helping i wonder Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment peter milnes | 03/06/2014 12:25 pm i assume that the majority of these work placements are no different to the community service that is done for certain low grade crime. as i understand it, the pilot scheme had a very low percentage of people getting employment after their placement. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment TED SMITH | 03/06/2014 1:07 pm As i understand it , a community sentence is for a maximum of 380 hours , whereas workfare is for about 780 hours .......thats twice the time for being unemployed as opposed to a criminal sentence.These unemployed people are also facing benefit sanctions for many different reasons over non compliance with these schemes. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Realist, Surrey | 03/06/2014 1:10 pm Commercial experience shows that when people are out of work for just 6 months - there is only 10% chance of their working in future - and only 1% if out of work for 12 months continuously. As Venk rightly suggests - getting either in to work for first time - or back in to work - means a back to basics routine of getting up early - presenting oneself at a work place etc - and accepting that 10 to 12 hours daily are set aside for that total process (allowing for commute time etc). Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment john challinor | 03/06/2014 1:24 pm Venk must be in a safe job to make a statement like This one, it is just cheap labor 30hrs a week for jobs Seekers allowance the City must be laughing up their Sleeve with this one, and is this Government not bringing In an anti slavery law in the next few months as this must Fall foul of the new law and by the way, since when has Criticism has been misplaced the PM uses it every day It must be very hard to be a Tory these days they sound more like Moscow every day and by this I mean the old Moscow of the Cold war days Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Seymour | 03/06/2014 5:06 pm JH I come from a generation when apprentices expected to be paid a tiny amount, the whole point being apprenticeships offer opportunities for young people to learn some skills that will take them into further employment. Young people who go on to higher education have to pay for the privilege, so shouldnt we see apprenticeships as opportunities? If any of my grandchildren doesnt want to go to university, Id encourage them to try for an apprenticeship. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment andy benson | 03/06/2014 5:19 pm what most of this discussion seems to overlook is that this is forced volunteering. We have no objection whatsoever to work experience as a way to help the development of skills, aptitude and the rest of it. The issue is that claimants will be told to report to a particular charity for the 30 hour 6 month stint and if they refuse, or if they dont event turn up for one day, they will stand to lose their only source of income. Benefits sanctions create destitution. It is shameful that the state should willfully create destitution. This is why we are saying that no self-respecting charity,housing association or public body should have anything to do with this scheme. Andy Benson Keep Volunteering Voluntary Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Vivienne Duke | 03/06/2014 5:32 pm Ive read all these comments with real interest. This has certainly sparked a lot of emotion in people. Im just wondering if anyone has feedback from the unemployed themselves. A friend of mine recently visited a hostel for families escaping domestic violence. He spoke to a number of young people there - all of whom were desperate to get a job and becoming depressed because of their regular trek to sign on. They actually told him that they felt in a vicious circle because all the jobs asked for work experience but they couldnt get work experience because they didnt have a job. I know of charities that give voluntary work experience to long term unemployed and I think it is such a good way for our next generation to start working in such a community driven environment. My own son is actively seeking work experience because he knows it is going to give him a better chance of getting a job if he can get references and show some work experience on his CV. I can also see the argument for slave labour but there must be a happy compromise somewhere. Rather than boycotting these programmes wouldnt it be an idea to look at how they could work for everyone and actually get some direct feedback from the people affected before getting too angry. Peoples self-esteem is shot to ribbons when they are out of work and this can have a knock on effect on other issues such as crime/health etc Im not a political person but to me it seems sensible for the persons benefits to be topped up to the level they would get paid. This must all balance out in the end for the govt in terms of tax and reduced crime/health costs Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Hwa Jurong | 04/06/2014 11:43 am Good Day !!!!! I am Hwa Jurong, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as Ill be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, youll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail: [email protected] , hwajurong12@gmail , contact@hwa-jurong ... Yours Sincerely, Hwa Jurong(MD). Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Richard OMahoney | 05/06/2014 5:06 pm Everyday I hear people talk about realism, being realistic accepting where we are.Well when the Mines werent economic to run the government closed them Capitalism.When the banks were bankrupt were they closed left to market forces?No so why do we leave our young people to the merciless exploitation of a bankrupt system.If Bankers are still rewarded as before why cant young people be paid a Living wage? What did they do wrong? Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment insidehousing.co.uk/regulation/councils-and-charities-to-boycott-workfare-programme/7003986.article?PageNo=1&SortOrder=dateadded&PageSize=50#comments
Posted on: Sun, 08 Jun 2014 10:10:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015