1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Tesco's Workfare: ''I can just get another unemployed person''

Discussion in 'UK politics, current affairs and news' started by treelover, Feb 7, 2012.

  1. BigTom

    BigTom Well-Known Member

    Quite a lot of the schemes have funding attached for training, or to subsidise wages. Lots of companies cream off this pot, see recent scandal with apprenticeships for an example.
    Need to know the name of the scheme s/he was sent on to know what the funding is
  2. jan9206

    jan9206 Member

    Thanks for the welcome Treelover and others, yes I will post this story to Boycott Workfare.

    Binka/BigTom, this guy was using JSA claimants from the 18 - 24 Work Experience programme so really they shouldn't have referred me anyway. I was misled into thinking I'd be penalised if I refused, and I've since found that that's not the case. Basically if you are 25 or over, you can still volunteer for WE if you want to, but it's no longer compulsory. I've made it clear to JCP that I'm not refusing paid employment, I'm refusing to work for free, and they seem to be on my side so far but I'll keep you informed if they give me any more hassle.
  3. jan9206

    jan9206 Member

    Ha ha ha!

    Just this minute had an email back from my JSA advisor, saying that he had a member of the Labour Market Regulatory Authority sitting next to him as he read my account of Friday's phone call from that lying scumbag; they've forwarded it to the operating team and the guy that the smarmy wanker had been badmouthing! The hypocritical gobshite has hung himself, I believe!
    ymu likes this.
  4. Balbi

    Balbi Hey, Dean Yager!

    They've changed their wording. We're not trots or socialists, we're the 'Polly Toynbee left'.

    The bastards :mad:
    frogwoman likes this.
  5. DotCommunist

    DotCommunist my world is fire and blood

  6. Balbi

    Balbi Hey, Dean Yager!

    :D @ the targeted bastardry of it.
  7. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    Even more reason to gut the bastards like fish!! :mad:
  8. treelover

    treelover Well-Known Member

    Smith to extend workfare,

    I suspect this is more about saving money on benefits by sanctioning people who inevitably drop out from these disgusting schemes, the DWP brought in a consulting company who told them the goal is to find many ways to limit benefit, such as people not filling in forms right facing a cash penalty, even if it is contreversial and they take flak, over time these micro-deductions(and not so deductions) add up...

    btw, Strange and ironic that the neo-liberal bible is called 'The Road to Serfdom'
    Greebo and BigTom like this.
  9. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    equationgirl, oryx, weepiper and 5 others like this.
  10. krink

    krink I'll do it this afternoon

    also today some paper was saying the dwp will stop benefits for 3 years if you refuse. not seen anything concrete on this though.
  11. Puddy_Tat

    Puddy_Tat lumpen proletaricat


    Sufficiently left to be a lib-dem cheerleader?

  12. BigTom

    BigTom Well-Known Member

    In a similar vein, Not the Treasury View: http://notthetreasuryview.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/dwp-analysis-shows-mandatory-work.html

    edit: just realised the guardian story clear comes directly from this as it quotes Jonathan Portes.
  13. Puddy_Tat

    Puddy_Tat lumpen proletaricat

    Does that include the effect after existing retail workers who have had their hours (and therefore their income) cut to accommodate the free labour have been forced to claim housing benefit and the like?
    shagnasty likes this.
  14. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    Highly unlikely.
  15. BigTom

    BigTom Well-Known Member

    No - this is comparing the group of JSA claimants that are sent on MWA with a matched* group of claimants who are not on MWA, so it shows that sending someone on MWA reduces the amount they claim by a small amount for a short period of time.

    *the issues of finding a matching group to compare to are mentioned in the article
  16. Puddy_Tat

    Puddy_Tat lumpen proletaricat

    I'm not all that surprised to be honest...

  17. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    From a logistical point of view, it'd be very hard for Civil Servants to collate the data too, which isn't to say it shouldn't be done, just that it'd be complex, and the figures would always lag behind the reality, IYSWIM.
  18. treelover

    treelover Well-Known Member


    Workfare sub-contractor ( to G4S amongst others) company has gone bust, the CEO of Eco Actif(yes that name!) is bleating that the DWP haven't been fair and the share of third sector contracts wasn't what they promised, she says ''it is all crap'' now

    I'm sure the claimants who were forced into cheap labour thought that all along...
    Jackobi and Greebo like this.
  19. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    Tough shit. Run with dogs, be prepared to get your arse bitten.

    When they had enough energy to think. :(
  20. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    Hmm, having read the article, it looks like a theme is emerging, which is the contracted companies whining about having to work for "payment by results". Various leeches have been whining about this for the last couple of months.

    Odds on the ConDems re-writing the rulebook so that the private sector cunts get paid in advance? :(
  21. smokedout

    smokedout criminal

    The prime contracters already get paid in advance, theres a £4/500 attachment fee which they arent passing onto to the charity sub-contracters
  22. elbows

    elbows WoeTimer

    Thats a shame isnt it :D

    Oh more bad news, how tragic:


  23. JHE

    JHE .

    It doesn't surprise me at all that the Work Programme is failing.

    The whole thing is based on false assumptions:
    • that there are many jobs available for the long-term unemployed
    • that those jobs will last as long as the ex-unemployed behave well
    • that unemployment results from faults in unemployed people
    • that the 'providers' have some expertise which enables them to repair faults in unemployed people, inculcate 'employability skills' and get them into long-term unemployment
    • that 'payment by results' will ensure that the 'providers' make a success of the programme
    It's all bollocks. It is extremely difficult to get the long-term unemployed into work. Very many of the jobs that are available nowadays are very short-term, part-time, off-and-on, insecure ones. Unemployment does not result (mainly) from faults in unemployed people, but from problems in the economy which are entirely beyond the control of the unemployed people and the 'providers'. 'Providers' try to help people into work but, despite efforts to present 'welfare-to-work' as a 'profession', they do not have any special expertise, let alone a magic wand which enables them to get the long-term unemployed into long-term work. In my opinion, very many (probably most) of the clients of 'welfare-to-work' 'providers' who get jobs would have got those jobs without the help of the 'providers'. 'Payment by results' has not been a success yet.

    I think the only thing that would lead to many more of the long-term unemployed getting back into long-term employment within the next year or two would be an enormous improvement in the labour market resulting in employers taking on workers that at the moment they would not even consider. I don't think anyone expects that to happen.

    Whether many of the 'providers' will go broke as a result of failing to get many of their long-term unemployed clients into long-term work is less clear. There will be pressure on the government to change the rules to allow failure to be reclassified as success and losses to become profits. Maybe the government will let 'providers' go bust. That would be consistent with their economic beliefs. On the other hand, the government does not want its 'flagship programme' to be recognised as a failure.
  24. nogojones

    nogojones Well-Known Member

  25. Captain Hurrah

    Captain Hurrah STALINIST Banned

    So, the bullying 'advisers' (not all of them, mind) will end up without a job. I'm sure these guys will find a new one in no time, though, given their 'get up and go' attitudes. Anything else is their own fault.
  26. BigTom

    BigTom Well-Known Member

    Workfare judgement today - the schemes have been ruled lawful, but the judge has also said that the sanctions which were applied to the person who got sent on the Community Action Programme were unlawful


    (my emphasis)

    Never thought for a second that the high court would rule against the government on this, I presume there will be an appeal to a higher court now, but the ruling about sanctions is very interesting and hopefully PIL have got that right and those who were sanctioned will get money back.
    I don't think this ruling applies to other programs but I've also heard that lots of the MWA letters have mistakes and don't comply with the basic notice requirements so might get other schemes looked at as well, or get people on other schemes to make sure they are following their own rules.
    Greebo likes this.
  27. savoloysam

    savoloysam Won an argument on the internetz once.

    There are plans in place to massively increase all types of JSA sanctions. Actively seeking sanctions that are currently two weeks may go as high 6 months.
  28. treelover

    treelover Well-Known Member

  29. Greebo

    Greebo 'scuse me, Mrs May, can I have my country back? R.I.P.

    Half a cheer - IMHO the schemes shouldn't have been ruled lawful. I'd also like those who were sanctioned to get their money back as rapidly as it was removed. But we know that won't happen.
    BigTom likes this.
  30. treelover

    treelover Well-Known Member

    'So Old Warwickian judge Foskett sides with an Old Etonian government. What a surprise.'

    from CIF

    says it all...

    btw, just tried to google him to find out more, just that he was SU president of Kings College in 1970, and his legal career, surprising how little for such an esteemed individual..
    BigTom likes this.

Share This Page