Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:04 am  

Oops-a-daisy!

Oops-a-daisy!

[DaveO]

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:10 am  

Beat me too it. Brilliant result.

[John_D]

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:24 am  

Hmm. Encouraging, for sure, but it sounds more like the lack of information as regards the compulsory nature of the work and the sanctions for not taking it that's at issue rather than the principle of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. And that's an argument we really ought not to be having in the second decade of the 20th century, let alone the second decade of the 21st.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:29 am  

Fantastic result but unfortunately there's still a long way to go.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:43 am  

so, she's used taxpayers money to sue the taxpayer to get more taxpayers money

yup, sounds great for everyone

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:48 am  

Standee wrote:

so, she's used taxpayers money to sue the taxpayer to get more taxpayers money

She is a taxpayer as she now works part time in a supermarket and has done for months..

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:54 am  

IDS = T0SSER with a capital T.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:55 am  

Damo-Leeds wrote:

She is a taxpayer as she now works part time in a supermarket and has done for months..

shows how employable she is then

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:00 pm  

If only there were enough jobs to go around then.

[DaveO]

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:02 pm  

John_D wrote: Hmm. Encouraging, for sure, but it sounds more like the lack of information as regards the compulsory nature of the work and the sanctions for not taking it that's at issue rather than the principle of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. And that's an argument we really ought not to be having in the second decade of the 20th century, let alone the second decade of the 21st. No I think it is both. The compulsion (and sanctions if you don't) to accept work placements is quite clear to see on the government web site here https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance/further-information The sanctions seem pretty much "all or nothing" to me. And the background to the case is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-16037332 If you read that you will see she was forced to stop voluntary work in a museum (the sector in which she is trying to find permanent work) to go and stack shelves for free at Poundland. I'd say she was making a better attempt at job seeking than the job centre were given where they sent her. "....when she attended the open day she discovered the training would last up to six weeks, including a two-week, unpaid retail placement. When she expressed concerns about the lack of relevance of the scheme to the work she wants to do, she said her Jobcentre Plus adviser had told her participation in the scheme was mandatory and that if she did not comply she would lose her benefits. She said she spent two weeks cleaning and stacking shelves at the Poundland store in Kings Heath, Birmingham, and was not offered an interview. "I think it's a form of manual labour in that they're forcing people to do jobs that are in no way related to what they want to do and giving them no experience for their careers," she said. Jim Duffy, Ms Reilly's solicitor, said: "Everyone agrees on the need to help the unemployed back into work, but forcing young people into pointless, unpaid labour at massive retailers who could easily afford to pay them the minimum wage demeans and frustrates them when we should be empowering and supporting them. "These Orwellian schemes are about work for its own sake rather than for any greater purpose." What being compelled to work for your JSA means is that for the 40 year old chap who was told he had to work 30 hours a week that would mean he was on £71 a week or £2.36 an hour compared to £6.19 for the minimum wage. The girl would have been on £56.25 a week given her age. If these schemes paid minimum wage instead of JSA then there would be far less argument about them so I don't think its just about the compulsion side.

John_D wrote: Hmm. Encouraging, for sure, but it sounds more like the lack of information as regards the compulsory nature of the work and the sanctions for not taking it that's at issue rather than the principle of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. And that's an argument we really ought not to be having in the second decade of the 20th century, let alone the second decade of the 21st. No I think it is both. The compulsion (and sanctions if you don't) to accept work placements is quite clear to see on the government web site here https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance/further-information The sanctions seem pretty much "all or nothing" to me. And the background to the case is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-16037332 If you read that you will see she was forced to stop voluntary work in a museum (the sector in which she is trying to find permanent work) to go and stack shelves for free at Poundland. I'd say she was making a better attempt at job seeking than the job centre were given where they sent her. "....when she attended the open day she discovered the training would last up to six weeks, including a two-week, unpaid retail placement. When she expressed concerns about the lack of relevance of the scheme to the work she wants to do, she said her Jobcentre Plus adviser had told her participation in the scheme was mandatory and that if she did not comply she would lose her benefits. She said she spent two weeks cleaning and stacking shelves at the Poundland store in Kings Heath, Birmingham, and was not offered an interview. "I think it's a form of manual labour in that they're forcing people to do jobs that are in no way related to what they want to do and giving them no experience for their careers," she said. Jim Duffy, Ms Reilly's solicitor, said: "Everyone agrees on the need to help the unemployed back into work, but forcing young people into pointless, unpaid labour at massive retailers who could easily afford to pay them the minimum wage demeans and frustrates them when we should be empowering and supporting them. "These Orwellian schemes are about work for its own sake rather than for any greater purpose." What being compelled to work for your JSA means is that for the 40 year old chap who was told he had to work 30 hours a week that would mean he was on £71 a week or £2.36 an hour compared to £6.19 for the minimum wage. The girl would have been on £56.25 a week given her age. If these schemes paid minimum wage instead of JSA then there would be far less argument about them so I don't think its just about the compulsion side.