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



## treelover (Feb 7, 2012)

' I personally know a fifty-six year old man who worked at Tesco for 40 hrs a week for 6 weeks for no pay. He said he was given the worst job, constantly filling freezers in the hope he would be taken on. After the 6 weeks were up the manager asked him if he would like to stay on for some extra weeks, my friend asked "with pay"? The manager said why would he pay him when he can pick the phone up and get more unemployed people who have to work for nothing of face sanctions meaning loss of ALL benefits for up to three years!'

From Guardian CIF

Lools like Workfare is bedding in nicely, three years indentured slavery, get out of line and you are sanctioned and lose benefit...


----------



## treelover (Feb 7, 2012)

''My friend wasn't alone, he was part of twelve extra staff taken on to cover the xmas rush, no one was given a job at the end of the xmas period.

He told me they had all worked really hard and were gutted they were abused in such a way. The worst was one day he had to throw out lots of food one day over the use by date. He asked the manager if he could take some home as he was having to eat more due to being active all day. The manager refused saying if he gave him free food he wouldn't come through the front door and buy it!

I swear I will never shop at Tesco ever again.''

cont...


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 7, 2012)

Cnuts


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Feb 7, 2012)

What branch of Tesco? Do they have nice big windows?


----------



## treelover (Feb 7, 2012)

btw, Emma Harrison awarded herself a nine million pound dividend this year, all from the public purse, I wonder what Milliband has to say about that..


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 7, 2012)

This isn't really news for anyone with half a brain though is it.


----------



## Corax (Feb 7, 2012)

Link? (re: OP)


----------



## Corax (Feb 7, 2012)

Ah, guessing it's here somewhere:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2012/feb/07/work-programme-hidden-jobs-video


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 7, 2012)

Everyone should boycott Tesco. I bet Waitrose don't do this, and Asdas is cheaper.


----------



## treelover (Feb 7, 2012)

Termite Man said:


> This isn't really news for anyone with half a brain though is it.


 

Sorry, i don't get you, could you clarify?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 7, 2012)

bi0boy said:


> Everyone should boycott Tesco. I bet Waitrose don't do this, and Asdas is cheaper.


 
Funnily enough, only the other day I was looking at their website. Once they've put all the use by stuff on the shelves at marked down prices, whatever is left, the staff are able to buy

and I think what's still left after the staff have had their pickings, goes to animal charities 

Will dig out the link


----------



## treelover (Feb 7, 2012)

the thing is if Tesco's Sainsburys don't do it, then they will send them to worse places, but of course, going by the above, Tescos have been appalling...

Boycott Workfare are doing some sterling work

http://www.boycottworkfare.org/


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 7, 2012)

treelover said:


> Sorry, i don't get you, could you clarify?


 
It's not new.  It's been going on for ages


----------



## treelover (Feb 7, 2012)

'The leadership of Communication Workers Union have this week *issued a letter* to branches stating they will support DWP ’Work Experience’ at the Royal Mail. The scheme will begin with ten 30 hour a week workfare placements at a time in each region. Over the course of a year, each region will see 130 forced unpaid workers. There is no sign of any jobs at the end for those forced to take part in the scheme.'

CWU backing workfare, Turkeys for .......


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 7, 2012)

treelover said:


> Sorry, i don't get you, could you clarify?


 
it's fucking obvious that's what would happen to the people going to work for free for these companies, any one who thought otherwise is a deluded fool.


----------



## Corax (Feb 7, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Funnily enough, only the other day I was looking at their website. Once they've put all the use by stuff on the shelves at marked down prices, whatever is left, the staff are able to buy
> 
> and I think what's still left after the staff have had their pickings, goes to animal charities
> 
> Will dig out the link


I volunteered at a local soup kitchen for a while, and all the supermarkets donated stuff that had passed it's best before but not its use by. I was initially kinda surprised we were serving up salmon en croute and stuff like that!

ETA: None of which excuses anything though. The EDL have donated money to charities, doesn't mean they're not scum.


----------



## treelover (Feb 7, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> It's not new. It's been going on for ages


 

not the 3 years indenture private companies now have over claimants..


----------



## treelover (Feb 7, 2012)

Termite Man said:


> it's fucking obvious that's what would happen to the people going to work for free for these companies, any one who thought otherwise is a deluded fool.


 

meaning who?, i am posting examples for the hundreds who don't post but read...


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 7, 2012)

treelover said:


> not the 3 years indenture private companies now have over claimants..


what 3 years, thats how long they lose their benefits for not the length of the placement.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 7, 2012)

Oh sorry.  It was Ocado's claim



> *Doesn't that mean more waste?*
> 
> Not at all. In fact, because we're able to keep such a close eye on our stock levels, we have the lowest food waste of any food retailer in the world today. And what we don't use is sold to Ocado staff at reduced prices (because we won't sell anything with a short 'use-by' date to our customers), or given to a local farm. In short, nothing is wasted.


----------



## trevhagl (Feb 7, 2012)

treelover said:


> ' I personally know a fifty-six year old man who worked at Tesco for 40 hrs a week for 6 weeks for no pay. He said he was given the worst job, constantly filling freezers in the hope he would be taken on. After the 6 weeks were up the manager asked him if he would like to stay on for some extra weeks, my friend asked "with pay"? The manager said why would he pay him when he can pick the phone up and get more unemployed people who have to work for nothing of face sanctions meaning loss of ALL benefits for up to three years!'
> 
> From Guardian CIF
> 
> Lools like Workfare is bedding in nicely, three years indentured slavery, get out of line and you are sanctioned and lose benefit...


 
fuck that's appalling , evil Tory cunts


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 7, 2012)

Yep, all entirely predictable. And these aren't unforseen consequences of workfare - this is the reason why they're so desperate to get it through - to further depress the pay and working conditions of the whole workforce, not just benefits claimants. And if that's true about the CWU they need their heads looking at, not only any union supporting this scheme morally reprehensible, it's also going to fuck things up for its own membership. 

All a fucking disgrace, makes me want to go on a massive axe and machine gun rampage. The bastards.


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 7, 2012)

treelover said:


> meaning who?, i am posting examples for the hundreds who don't post but read...


I'm sure the people who read but don't post are more than capable of thinking for themselves , so unless you think they are all stupid then my point stands , if people thought the workfare scheme wouldn't be abused then they are deluded.


----------



## treelover (Feb 7, 2012)

Termite Man said:


> what 3 years, thats how long they lose their benefits for not the length of the placement.


 

I think its a three years period in which the private company(such as prison company, SERCO) basically has 'dominion' over the 'customer' example, a person gets a job, still contacted by company, leaves job, company still has 'rights' to 'encourage' customer to find work, etc upto three years, its appalling and NL brought it in...


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 7, 2012)

If you have a link to the quotes you are posting then put it up so I can email my union rep about this (USDAW which has a LOT of Tesco members)


----------



## Sweetpea (Feb 7, 2012)

Public Interest Lawyers are bringing a case along the lines that it constitutes slavery which is outlawed in Europe. http://www.publicinterestlawyers.co.uk/news_details.php?id=193


----------



## Jackobi (Feb 7, 2012)

The Work Program is a two year placement with a provider, requiring JSA claimants (also ESA claimants in the Work Related Activity Group)  to attend regular meetings with that provider and participate in job search or work preparation related activities. Mandatory Work Activity is a separate program that requires a claimant to work for 30 hours a week for four weeks in order to receive benefits. The MWA is enforced at the discretion of Jobcentre Plus advisers.


----------



## treelover (Feb 7, 2012)

Termite Man said:


> If you have a link to the quotes you are posting then put it up so I can email my union rep about this (USDAW which has a LOT of Tesco members)


 

They are all btl comments from trusted posters on Guardian CIF

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...programme-hidden-jobs-video#start-of-comments


----------



## treelover (Feb 7, 2012)

Jackobi said:


> The Work Program is a two year placement with a provider, requiring JSA claimants to attend regular meetings with that provider and participate in job search or work preparation related activities. Mandatory Work Activity is a separate program that requires a claimant to work for 30 hours a week for four weeks in order to receive benefits. The MWA is enforced at the discretion of Jobcentre Plus advisers.


 
so, are all the anecdotal posts on CIF(from high profile posters) incorrect?


----------



## Jackobi (Feb 7, 2012)

treelover said:


> so, are all the anecdotal posts on CIF(from high profile posters) incorrect?


 
Not necessarily, but the Work Program does not enforce voluntary work, it is the Mandatory Work Activity placement that does. It seems that there is some confusion distinguishing between the two separate programs. There is a maximum sanction period of three years for not complying with either.


----------



## treelover (Feb 7, 2012)

you say that so matter of fact(not criticising you) at some point challenging workfare must become a civil rights issue..


----------



## treelover (Feb 7, 2012)

btw, good new book

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/03/05/the-precariat-the-new-working-class-2/


----------



## Jackobi (Feb 7, 2012)

treelover said:


> you say that so matter of fact(not criticising you) at some point challenging workfare must become a civil rights issue..


 
I personally think the WP is a pile of bollocks and should be scrapped. The providers, such as SERCO, are creaming hundreds of millions out of the welfare budget whilst not really providing much at all except punitive measures for non-compliance.
It will obviously end the same way as Flexible New Deal, where providers failed miserably to reach projected targets, and were then offered renewed contracts to provide the Work Program. It is a complete farce. But to argue on an issue I think it is important to be clear about the facts.


----------



## treelover (Feb 7, 2012)

agreed...


----------



## JHE (Feb 7, 2012)

Jackobi said:


> The Work Program is a two year placement with a provider, requiring JSA claimants (also ESA claimants in the Work Related Activity Group) to attend regular meetings with that provider and participate in job search or work preparation related activities. Mandatory Work Activity is a separate program that requires a claimant to work for 30 hours a week for four weeks in order to receive benefits. The MWA is enforced at the discretion of Jobcentre Plus advisers.


 
Yup. That is absolutely correct.

That's not to say that the person on the Work Programme or the 'provider' that is supposedly helping the unemployed person couldn't arrange a work placement that could then become part of the individual's time on Work Programme.

I don't know what to make of the story Treelover found on the Guardian boards. I'm not going to say it is utter bollocks. It may be substantially correct. I don't know.

On the other hand, I do know what the general pattern was on Flexible New Deal (the programme which was replaced by the Work Programme). It was bloody difficult to find employers who would take unemployed people on work placements. There were exceptions: charity shops, which usually only pay their managers, using volunteers to do most of the rest of the work.

'Mandatory work-related activity' (MWRA, a work placement of 30 hrs/wk for four weeks) was part of FND at first. It had to be dropped in the end because 'providers' found it so bloody difficult to find employers willing to take people. The govt has not made MWRA a necessary part of the WP. Providers do different things, but I have not heard of any who have chosen - let alone managed - to provide everyone with work placements.

Mandatory Work Activity, as Jackobi points out, is not part of the WP, but is a separate thing. Basically it is something Jobcentre staff can impose on claimants they think are not doing what they should to get work. (Inevitably, it will be perceived as a punishment by people put on it. They will see themselves as being picked on and, rightly or wrongly, they are being picked on.)

I think Treelover and some others are determined to see the crappy programmes which are supposed to help the unemployed as schemes to provide greedy employers with free workers. The reality, I think, is just as shitty, but different: employers are not interested in us doley scum. They can have their pick of workers and they strongly tend not to pick us.

I suppose it's true that they could have free workers, at least for a while, if they wanted, but they think it'll be too much bother. In fact, one of the striking things about the current labour market is the extent to which employers opt to have temp agency workers. If judged by hourly rate, that's not cheap for the employer. They pay the agencies a lot more than the agencies pay the workers. Nevertheless, they like the flexibility and the keen desperate workers. They don't want what they think will be the problem of taking unwilling doley scum. They think we don't know how to get up in the morning and that we phone in sick every other day.


----------



## catinthehat (Feb 7, 2012)

If I were put in the position of having to do this work for benefits I would arm myself with every H and S and employment practice info that I could get my hands on and make a royal pain in the arse of myself including trying to expand union membership in my lunch hour.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

treelover said:


> btw, Emma Harrison awarded herself a nine million pound dividend this year, all from the public purse, I wonder what Milliband has to say about that..


 
"Do you want the other pissflap licked clean now, Emma?, probably.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 7, 2012)

catinthehat said:


> make a royal pain in the arse of myself including trying to expand union membership in my lunch hour.


 
What lunch hour? Don't you know that lunch is a removable feast?

I read an article, which of course I can now not find but I think it was on the BBC or the Telegraph, which showed that the vast profits of the supermarkets were down to them relying on staff on benefits. 

Cunts.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 7, 2012)

catinthehat said:


> If I were put in the position of having to do this work for benefits I would arm myself with every H and S and employment practice info that I could get my hands on and make a royal pain in the arse of myself including trying to expand union membership in my lunch hour.


 
This raises the interesting question of what happens if you get 'fired' from your mandatory work placement. Only I can imagine my attitude to my beneficiaries would be somewhat less than convivial if I was forced to work for nothing. I can also imagine stealing everything I could lift and burning everything else, management included...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> What branch of Tesco? Do they have nice big windows?


most of them do


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 7, 2012)

treelover said:


> I wonder what Milliband has to say about that..


 
Harrison's rise to power took place under Labour. These workfare policies are all Labour's handiwork. Not surprising he's got little to say on the matter.

Someone should sue the Labour party for false advertising, to the point where they are obliged to add the word 'forced' to their name.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

Quartz said:


> What lunch hour? Don't you know that lunch is a removable feast?
> 
> I read an article, which of course I can now not find but I think it was on the BBC or the Telegraph, which showed that the vast profits of the supermarkets were down to them relying on staff on benefits.
> 
> Cunts.


 
Not just the supermarkets. A significant minority of Civil Servants and local government employees need to claim tax credits and HB too. The private and public secotr employees both collude in keeping down wages.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> This raises the interesting question of what happens if you get 'fired' from your mandatory work placement. Only I can imagine my attitude to my beneficiaries would be somewhat less than convivial if I was forced to work for nothing. I can also imagine stealing everything I could lift and burning everything else, management included...


 
Potatoes up exhaust pipes, turds in filing cabinets. You could keep yourself busy during the placement just thinking up ways to surreptitiously fuck them over.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 7, 2012)

I think I'd end up in jail for beating the shit out of the manager.


----------



## Sweetpea (Feb 7, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> This raises the interesting question of *what happens if you get 'fired' from your mandatory work placement.* Only I can imagine my attitude to my beneficiaries would be somewhat less than convivial if I was forced to work for nothing. I can also imagine stealing everything I could lift and burning everything else, management included...


Benefit sanctions will be applied. This is already a well established procedure.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 7, 2012)

likesfish said:


> I think I'd end up in jail for beating the shit out of the manager.


 
This basically.


----------



## Libertad (Feb 7, 2012)

Getting fired for organising would be interesting. Legally.


----------



## JHE (Feb 7, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Getting fired for organising would be interesting. Legally.


 
Legally interesting, eh?  But practically grim and dreary.

The idea that some new temp worker could unionise people in the lunch break is more than a little naive.  The idea that an employer sacking a worker for trade unionism would admit that's the reason is even more naive.

Where do you people live?  La-la land?


----------



## Libertad (Feb 7, 2012)

JHE said:


> Legally interesting, eh? But practically grim and dreary.
> 
> The idea that some new temp worker could unionise people in the lunch break is more than a little naive. The idea that an employer sacking a worker for trade unionism would admit that's the reason is even more naive.
> 
> Where do you people live? La-la land?


 
That was implied in my post, I just didn't put an emoticon at the end.
My mistake eh Groucho?


----------



## Sweetpea (Feb 7, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Getting fired for organising would be interesting. Legally.


How?


----------



## Libertad (Feb 7, 2012)

Sweetpea said:


> How?


 
How what?


----------



## likesfish (Feb 7, 2012)

Then again with a little forethought and planning could make being a tesco manager a high risk occupation


----------



## Sweetpea (Feb 7, 2012)

Libertad said:


> How what?


How would it be interesting legally?
Sorry, I thought quoting you would provide enough clarity. I am typing click per letter using the on screen keyboard so please excuse my brevity.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 7, 2012)

I know someone who worked nights at Tesco in Lewisham, restocking shelves - whilst he was there the manager stopped people being allowed to talk to one another as it slowed them down. Many people ended up wearing walkmans...others just droned on in silence.


----------



## Libertad (Feb 7, 2012)

Organising is a legal right. The employer probably wouldn't take too kindly to it and might create a constructive dismissal. This would make for an interesting case.
The personal cost to the individual would great in terms of the loss of their benefits, but the struggle is everything eh?

I know that I'd do it, I always have and have lost a few jobs through being politically active. Not a course of action that's open to everyone.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Potatoes up exhaust pipes, turds in filing cabinets. You could keep yourself busy during the placement just thinking up ways to surreptitiously fuck them over.


Unlimited supply of frozen prawns....


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 7, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Organising is a legal right. The employer probably wouldn't take too kindly to it and might create a constructive dismissal. This would make for an interesting case.
> The personal cost to the individual would great in terms of the loss of their benefits, but the struggle is everything eh?
> 
> I know that I'd do it, I always have and have lost a few jobs through being politically active. Not a course of action that's open to everyone.


They would argue that you weren't an employee, which then leads back to the question about indentured work....yes, that could go well.


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not just the supermarkets. A significant minority of Civil Servants and local government employees need to claim tax credits and HB too. The private and public secotr employees both collude in keeping down wages.


Yes fast swarths of people have to have their wages made up in this way,it is a subsidy for the bosses


----------



## Sweetpea (Feb 7, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Organising is a legal right. The employer probably wouldn't take too kindly to it and might create a constructive dismissal. This would make for an interesting case.
> The personal cost to the individual would great in terms of the loss of their benefits, but the struggle is everything eh?
> 
> I know that I'd do it, I always have and have lost a few jobs through being politically active. Not a course of action that's open to everyone.


There is no employer in this instance, the benefit receipent is deployed to this task in order to satisfy eligibility for benefits.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2012)

Sweetpea said:


> There is no employer in instance, the benefit receptient is deployed to this task in order to satisfy eligibility for benefits.


if there's no employer, then i wonder what health and safety legislation applies.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not just the supermarkets. A significant minority of Civil Servants and local government employees need to claim tax credits and HB too. The private and public secotr employees both collude in keeping down wages.


 
Eeyar, bigham, what's your script?  Fat swarths.l..bloated swarths, vast swarths..;.I'm trying not to tek the piss, Anywqay///


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 7, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Eeyar, bigham, what's your script? Fat swarths.l..bloated swarths, vast swarths..;.I'm trying not to tek the piss, Anywqay///


nah, yer a saFE guy


----------



## Libertad (Feb 7, 2012)

Sweetpea said:


> There is no employer in this instance, the benefit receipent is deployed to this task in order to satisfy eligibility for benefits.


 
Then, as stuff_it points out, it's indentured labour which is illegal. So, wtf is a "Work Provider" if not an employer?


----------



## Sweetpea (Feb 7, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> if there's no employer, then i wonder what health and safety legislation applies.


Acas issues clear guidelines in relation to unpaid work (I hesitate to use the word voluntary here). There is also a broader duty of care already established in common law.


----------



## Libertad (Feb 7, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> if there's no employer, then i wonder what health and safety legislation applies.


 
Another interesting legal question. Let's hope that no-one has to find out.


----------



## Sweetpea (Feb 7, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Then, as stuff_it points out, it's indentured labour which is illegal. So, wtf is a "Work Provider" if not an employer?


As I pointed out earlier in the thread, Public Interest Lawyers are pursuing a Judicial Review on this basis.  http://www.publicinterestlawyers.co.uk/news_details.php?id=193


----------



## trampie (Feb 7, 2012)

If this is true, its terrible absolutely terrible, nothing more than slavery.


----------



## catinthehat (Feb 8, 2012)

JHE said:


> Legally interesting, eh? But practically grim and dreary.
> 
> The idea that some new temp worker could unionise people in the lunch break is more than a little naive. The idea that an employer sacking a worker for trade unionism would admit that's the reason is even more naive.
> 
> Where do you people live? La-la land?


Depends who the new temp worker is surely ? and who the other workers are. They would qualify for free membership with most unions if unsalaried. I agree it would be an uphill struggle to get the paid workers maybe but the point is not mass union expansion - its fucking with the ejit who wants you to stack turnips in a particular way as part of your 'training'. The unemployed are an increasingly diverse group - its not all the underclass with 25 yards breast stroke certs. In my faculty we have lost 2 Phds (with social skills yes) who cant get a job in the local Asda - probs came across as not conforming and obedient in the Psychometric test. Entryist policy as employed in car factories in the 70s. I would do it just to keep myself amused and occupied. I am pretty sure we still have right to association - might not last long but we do have it. Pick them up on every breach, every spelling error, use their policies to annoy them by insisting on them being stuck to the letter. You can keep their rules and still be a massive pain.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2012)

Sweetpea said:


> Benefit sanctions will be applied. This is already a well established procedure.


 
Outside of that rather obvious step, though, what working regulations might come into play could be interesting, as would testing in court any legislation that has been constructed to alienate these forced labourers from coverage by working regulations.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Unlimited supply of frozen prawns....


 
Works for me!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Eeyar, bigham, what's your script? Fat swarths.l..bloated swarths, vast swarths..;.I'm trying not to tek the piss, Anywqay///


 
Twas shagnasty that used the word "swarths", you goit!


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 8, 2012)

This is not about trying to get people into work in any meaningful way, hence the girl featured in press a few weeks ago who had to stop her own volunteering to do workfare. If I were an employer I'd be more impressed by someone who actually had found their own placement and doing it in something relevant to what job they wanted, than someone coerced to stack shelves.
When they pretend it's all about giving people skills, if it really was they'd be allowed to sort their own placements.
Odious tory councillor writing in local paper at least is honest, the sole aim is to cut the numbers of claimants, end of, not give people skills or help them get a job.
I wonder if anyone could claim that by working fulltime it means they're not eligible fulltime to look for paid work, because that's the line they try and pull on anyone showing any initiative to volunteer.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 8, 2012)

UK Uncut Liverpool are doing this on 3rd March: Combat Workfare http://www.facebook.com/events/236875173062726/

If you're not on facebook:


> Saturday, 3 March 2012
> 13:00 until 16:00
> 
> 
> ...


 
We'll be doing some things in March in Birmingham as well.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 8, 2012)

Termite Man said:


> This isn't really news for anyone with half a brain though is it.


 
So " no first hand accounts of the dismal excesses of workfare , etc , because we know it all already" ? Silly.


----------



## cemertyone (Feb 8, 2012)

Jackobi said:


> I personally think the WP is a pile of bollocks and should be scrapped. The providers, such as SERCO, are creaming hundreds of millions out of the welfare budget whilst not really providing much at all except punitive measures for non-compliance.
> /quote]..
> this is so true..i spent (not) 6 weeks but 13 weeks working for Sainsburys at part of one of these "work placements" and it
> was an absolute joke..the company that organised it (based at the business centre at Camberwell) were nothing short of appalling.
> ...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 8, 2012)

treelover said:


> ' I personally know a fifty-six year old man who worked at Tesco for 40 hrs a week for 6 weeks for no pay. He said he was given the worst job, constantly filling freezers in the hope he would be taken on. After the 6 weeks were up the manager asked him if he would like to stay on for some extra weeks, my friend asked "with pay"? The manager said why would he pay him when he can pick the phone up and get more unemployed people who have to work for nothing of face sanctions meaning loss of ALL benefits for up to three years!'
> 
> From Guardian CIF
> 
> Lools like Workfare is bedding in nicely, three years indentured slavery, get out of line and you are sanctioned and lose benefit...


 
Mustn't talk about neo feudalism though. That would be ridiculous and there is no evidence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Mustn't talk about neo feudalism though. That would be ridiculous and there is no evidence.


 
There's no point talking about "neo-feudalism" because this isn't about feudalism, neo or otherwise.


----------



## treelover (Feb 8, 2012)

Uk uncut seem to be getting much more, er 'militant'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2012)

treelover said:


> Uk uncut seem to be getting much more, er 'militant'


 
And why not? They know their tactics work, so why not deploy them?


----------



## treelover (Feb 8, 2012)

'People also regularly approach me to ask questions like "do you really need that wheelchair or are you doing it for the money?" and "I saw you move your leg! Are you just too lazy to walk?". Last December my city held a big Christmas market and I decided to attend. I was told to "go home" repeatedly and mocked loudly by various people. I came home and cried and couldn't go near the city centre again for some time'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/08/disabled-people-abuse-peoples-panel


this time, 'true' documented stories of abuse, they are chilling..


----------



## yardbird (Feb 8, 2012)

treelover said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/08/disabled-people-abuse-peoples-panel
> this time, 'true' documented stories of abuse, they are chilling..


 
The stories ring true to me because I've had verbal abuse, been threatened and had a stick kicked away from behind me.
The extra problem with the likes of MS etc is that they don't show.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 8, 2012)

There was a segment on R4 about discrimination against the disabled tied to government scrounger rhetoric, iirc. Needs more though obviously.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 8, 2012)

One of the times VP booked a taxi (with the Capitalcall scheme) the driver took one look at him (having the nerve to not be in a wheelchair, but using a stick, because it was a relatively good day) and said he'd "been expecting a proper disabled, not somebody like you". Even after VP produced his blue badge plus membership card, and I'd explained about the pain & fatigue and that actually he'd love to be able to use a wheelchair but the steps outside the flat and the slopes around it made one useless, the knobhead kept going on about people taking the piss and pretending to be disabled.

This, if you please, from somebody who claimed to be selling a lot on ebay (without declaring it) and simultaneously earning by taking pictures for the billboard companies to check that posters had been put up as he drove around being paid for his taxi work.  Driver from Kew Despatch, you were a total cunt among cunts.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 8, 2012)

Greebo said:


> This, if you please, from somebody who claimed to be selling a lot on ebay (without declaring it) and simultaneously earning by taking pictures for the billboard companies to check that posters had been put up as he drove around being paid for his taxi work.  Driver from Kew Despatch, you were a total cunt among cunts.


 
That reminds me of a time I was chatting to a coke dealer at a party and he was ranting on about all the refugees coming into the country and having to pay taxes to support them all. I asked him how much he actually paid in taxes. That went down well.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2012)

yardbird said:


> The stories ring true to me because I've had verbal abuse, been threatened and had a stick kicked away from behind me.
> The extra problem with the likes of MS etc is that they don't show.


 
I'm big, ugly and thuggish-looking, so I don't get too much lip, and I'm not averse to giving it back, either, if necessary, but a lot of disabled people don't have my peculiarities of personality, and so are unable to defend themselves as well as they'd like.
Me, I'm not so concerned about thick cunts having a pop. They're just cretins who follow the pack. The douchebags I dislike are the ones who are smart enough to know that what they're saying is hateful bollocks but are too selfish and/or lazy to challenge their own thinking. Some of them I'd happily stick a knife in.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> That reminds me of a time I was chatting to a coke dealer at a party and he was ranting on about all the refugees coming into the country and having to pay taxes to support them all. I asked him how much he actually paid in taxes. That went down well.


 
Hey, coke-dealers have to have someone to look down on too!

Of course, ideally it'd be other people who peddle expensive shit to the gullible, like homeopaths, rather than looking down on refugees.


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 9, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Twas shagnasty that used the word "swarths", you goit!


Guilty VP took a bullet for me


----------



## treelover (Feb 11, 2012)

*Unions call on UK high street giants to halt unpaid work schemes*

Usdaw wants chains to follow Sainsbury's and Waterstones and end long-term unpaid labour for young unemployed

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/10/unions-shops-unpaid-work-schemes


----------



## Winter (Feb 11, 2012)

Quite right.


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 11, 2012)

Winter said:


> Quite right.


If these companies are shamed into stopping this explotation more's the better.buisnesses do not like bad publicity it really hits them.when consider the amount of money spent on advertisng to give them a squeeky clean image


----------



## BigTom (Feb 11, 2012)

http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=359​​Boycott Workfare are calling to make March 3rd a national day of action, with events in Liverpool and London confirmed.. we're currently chatting about one in Birmingham but it's complicated here by the fact that there is a casuals united/edl demo in Walsall on the 3rd and that the University of Birmingham has it's guild of student elections on the monday so all the students who might come would be busy with that.​So not sure if we're going to do something or wait till later in the month as we'd been thinking.​​With all the news stories, and waterstones and sainsbury's pulling out, now is a really good time to do an action, a picket outside of Poundland, Tesco or another workfare end user, and put further pressure on these schemes.​


----------



## ovaltina (Feb 11, 2012)

Good to hear sainsburys has pulled out, I haven't got a morrisons for miles and all the other supermarkets are still involved


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 11, 2012)

trampie said:


> If this is true, its terrible absolutely terrible, nothing more than slavery.


 
Yep, it is.


----------



## Libertad (Feb 11, 2012)

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/workfare-collapses/



> Hot on the heels of Waterstones pulling out of the Government’s forced labour scheme it seems that other retailers are set to follow suit.


 
Another excellent blog offering from Johnny Void.


----------



## treelover (Feb 11, 2012)

RE: the Boycott Workfare protest, they should get in touch with RT, they love to embarrass the Uk govt, etc..


----------



## smokedout (Feb 16, 2012)

Tesco are getting a lot of grief of facebook and twitter about this at the moment: http://www.facebook.com/events/295720663821308/


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

Fucking Hell.  I work nights primarily to _escape_ the minimum wage for a higher rate.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Fucking Hell. I work nights primarily to _escape_ the minimum wage for a higher rate.


Expecting people to do an unpaid work trial for a _month_ is not on. Esp as a night shift. I'm sure if they were paying them the recruitment process would be speeded up.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Fucking Hell. I work nights primarily to _escape_ the minimum wage for a higher rate.


What is more of nightmare with that job is that it is PERMANENT!


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 16, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> What is more of nightmare with that job is that it is PERMANENT!


They reckon that was an 'error', it's a month long work "placement" that's unpaid and an interview at the end of it. Still free labour tho.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 16, 2012)

"error" lol.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Fucking Hell. I work nights primarily to _escape_ the minimum wage for a higher rate.


At least in the last recession (before labour got in) if you were on one of the employment schemes including voluntary work you got your benefits plus travel expenses, plus free stationery, stamps & copying,  plus an extra £10 a week. 

Now it's all stick and no carrot at all, not even a mouldy one.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> What is more of nightmare with that job is that it is PERMANENT!


 
I've been doing that kind of work for many years.  Are you really that wrapped up in cotton wool?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 16, 2012)

i think he may mean the fact there's no wages permanently, not the actual work ...


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

I see.  Well, I offer my apologies.


----------



## Sweetpea (Feb 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I've been doing that kind of work for many years. Are you really that wrapped up in cotton wool?


I think that the eek face was because it was erroneously advertised as permanent with no pay rather than the type of work.

ETA Sorry typing slowly, already answered.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

See post 105.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i think he may mean the fact there's no wages permanently, not the actual work ...


Yeah that's what I thought too. The paradox of permanently being on JSA and working for a massive company too for no money, ever.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I've been doing that kind of work for many years. Are you really that wrapped up in cotton wool?


No, it is the fact of someone expected to be _on JSA permanently_ that is my horror. I know two people who work nights as a permanent job, but they get paid at above NMW


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

Post 105.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I've been doing that kind of work for many years. Are you really that wrapped up in cotton wool?


*By choice.* I doubt that you were to all intents and purposes blackmailed into taking that work. I hope that you can tell the difference between being pressured into taking a crap job on your own terms and taking one because if you don't you'll lose all your benefits (and thus become homeless as well as destitute)? FWIW those 'placements' make people less able to take up interviews and less able to look for work, because they no longer have as much free time.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Post 105.


OK


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 16, 2012)

It will mean that people might face the prospect of never having a real job again.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

Greebo said:


> *By choice.* I doubt that you were to all intents and purposes blackmailed into taking that work. Has the work made you so braindead that you can't tell the difference between being pressured into taking a crap job on your own terms and taking one because if you don't you'll lose all your benefits (and thus become homeless as well as destitute)? FWIW those 'placements' make people less able to take up interviews and less able to look for work, because they no longer have as much free time.


 
Eh?


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Eh?


Walk away from one of those placements and you can get a complete sanction, for up to 3 years.  Refuse to take it up and you get a complete sanction.

At least when I took unpleasant temp jobs I knew I was free to walk away with only the short term loss of pay to worry about.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 16, 2012)

Greebo said:


> *By choice.* I doubt that you were to all intents and purposes blackmailed into taking that work. I hope that you can tell the difference between being pressured into taking a crap job on your own terms and taking one because if you don't you'll lose all your benefits (and thus become homeless as well as destitute)? FWIW those 'placements' make people less able to take up interviews and less able to look for work, because they no longer have as much free time.


Greebo, take a step back; you are misinterpreting what he said.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Greebo, take a step back; you are misinterpreting what he said.


It's already been somewhat tempered from what it was. As for post 105, fair enough.

The job could be the cushiest one in the world and IMHO it would still be wrong to not be paid for it, and to be coerced into taking it, even for a few weeks.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Walk away from one of those placements and you can get a complete sanction, for up to 3 years. Refuse to take it up and you get a complete sanction.
> 
> At least when I took unpleasant temp jobs I knew I was free to walk away with only the short term loss of pay to worry about.


 
I know that full well.

And you know nothing of my circumstances and responsibilities. I have a lot more to worry about than a short-term loss of pay. I work full-time in a crap job. I _have_ to. I can't just walk away. What does _choice _really mean in this society? Or are working class people in low-paid unskilled jobs just 'braindead'? Cunt.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 16, 2012)

Is there any kind of organised boycott of Tescos going on. I think I will be doing that, there is a choice of supermarkets where I am.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

Greebo said:


> As for post 105, fair enough.


 
I wasn't apologising to you.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> know that full well.
> 
> And you know nothing of my circumstances and responsibilities.


Well you'd know of mine, if you look around the boards



Captain Hurrah said:


> I have a lot more to worry about than a short-term loss of pay.


So do I



Captain Hurrah said:


> I work full-time in a crap job. I _have_ to. I can't just walk away.


Neither can I, my hours are unlimited, I get no sick leave, no union representation, no time off, no pension, and BTW this work often only ends with death.  But this isn't about one upmanship, or at least, it wasn't supposed to be.



Captain Hurrah said:


> What does _choice _really mean in this society? Or are working class people in low-paid unskilled jobs just 'braindead'?


Good question about choice, but haven't really got the time to go into that right now.  I made no comment about working class people in low-paid unskilled jobs being braindead - I was asking if you were, given how you *seemed* to have misunderstood the post.   IME in order to do certain types of work without at least becoming very bored indeed, people end up having to find other things to think about while working.   My apologies for any offence caused.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Expecting people to do an unpaid work trial for a _month_ is not on. Esp as a night shift. I'm sure if they were paying them the recruitment process would be speeded up.


 
Uncle Ken is getting shot of 13 day staff at our spot.  All of them will be on their three-month probation period.  Easier to get rid of.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Good question about choice, but haven't really got the time to go into that right now. I made no comment about working class people in low-paid unskilled jobs being braindead - I was asking if you were, given how you *seemed* to have misunderstood the post. IME in order to do certain types of work without at least becoming very bored indeed, people end up having to find other things to think about while working. My apologies for any offence caused.


 
Apology not accepted.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I wasn't apologising to you.


I know you weren't.  I was responding to it as a clarification of your earlier point IYSWIM.

Really got to go now, chemist among other things.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Well you'd know of mine, if you look around the boards.


 
A bit bored of violin tunes.

Instead of, and perhaps without the accompaniment of sly remarks and inaccurate inferences, you can just admit you were wrong?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2012)

fourth stage providers do this cutely. You have the Mandatory Work Placement where you are supposed to take what's on the board. 

Simple as really, if you have a job pay a person. fucking parasites


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 16, 2012)

Not only that, these fuckers like Tescos are subsidised by the general public through working families tax credits because they won't pay even their non-slave labour staff a decent wage. Why the fuck should companies that make billions in profits every year effectively have the wages of their staff subsidised by the tax payer?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

Yep.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Fucking Hell. I work nights primarily to _escape_ the minimum wage for a higher rate.


 
Back in the old days we (workers, that is) used to actively *expect* and demand a premium for working unsociable hours. Nowadays that's dying out faster than Tasmanian Devils.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I know that full well.
> 
> And you know nothing of my circumstances and responsibilities.


 
TBF she's neither said or implied that she does.



> I have a lot more to worry about than a short-term loss of pay. I work full-time in a crap job. I _have_ to. I can't just walk away.


 
The problem, as always, is that while you can't, your employer can.
With minimal repercussions, and they fucking know it.



> What does _choice _really mean in this society?


 
Hobson's.



> Or are working class people in low-paid unskilled jobs just 'braindead'? Cunt.


 
Another thing she hasn't said or implied.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> It will mean that people might face the prospect of never having a real job again.


 
Frankly, that's been in the works pretty much since the genesis of the Youth Training Scheme and Youth Opportunity Programme 30 years ago. Once the state knew it could coerce people that far, and business worked out the "best" way to utilise the resource, this was all pretty much lying there waiting for the approapriate time for it to be brought to the fore.
Unless people unionise and or revolt against this shit _en masse_, it will become a "norm".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> A bit bored of violin tunes.
> 
> Instead of, and perhaps without the accompaniment of sly remarks and inaccurate inferences, you can just admit you were wrong?


 
Can you?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Another thing she hasn't said or implied.


 
She made a sly insult (I am working class in a low-paid unskilled job), based on misunderstanding a post of mine, a post where I misunderstood someone else but along different lines.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Can you?


 
I already did in post 105.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Back in the old days we (workers, that is) used to actively *expect* and demand a premium for working unsociable hours. Nowadays that's dying out faster than Tasmanian Devils.


 
I did expect it.  Hence escaping the minimum wage, which isn't a _living_ wage.  I don't like having a pasty complexion and bags under my eyes. I just want/need a few more quid in my pocket.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> fourth stage providers do this cutely. You have the Mandatory Work Placement where you are supposed to take what's on the board.
> 
> Simple as really, if you have a job pay a person. fucking parasites


 
It's not as if this "work placement" crap isn't going to be a rolling commitment, either, so it's pretty easy to work out that this isn't, never has been and never will be, about "job", "job training" or "skills enhancement". It's only (and has only ever been) about extracting value from a resource without recompense.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I did expect it. Hence escaping the minimum wage, which isn't a _living_ wage. I don't like having a pasty complexion and bags under my eyes. I just want/need a few more quid in my pocket.


 
Even the so-called living wage is unattainable for loads of us. I know I never earned anything approaching it without doing 70-80 hours a week, even in "skilled" jobs, and that's not just a comment on London prices, either (as some people seem to think!).


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

I _never_ knew that. Still, I'd rather earn what I am now, than be without it. I simply can't afford to lose around 300 quid a month.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> She made a sly insult (I am working class in a low-paid unskilled job), based on misunderstanding a post of mine, a post where I misunderstood someone else but along different lines.


 
Nah, she didn't. She was making the point that you took your job voluntarily (i.e. the Job Centre didn't coerce you into it), and that while the work might be mind-numbing, you at least took it on your own terms, whereas some of these work placement folks won't get that choice.
As for class, why would she insult someone from her own class? I reckon you're being prickly.
I can understand why though. You're a member of the officer class, after all.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nah, she didn't. She was making the point that you took your job voluntarily (i.e. the Job Centre didn't coerce you into it), and that while the work might be mind-numbing, you at least took it on your own terms, whereas some of these work placement folks won't get that choice.
> As for class, why would she insult someone from her own class? I reckon you're being prickly.
> I can understand why though. You're a member of the officer class, after all.


 
Which has nothing to do with my misunderstanding of Hocus Eye's post.  I thought he was insulting the nature of the work involved (which I do as a matter of fact). I apologised to that poster upon realising my mistake and defensive outburst.  Her 'apology,' on the other hand, wasn't anything of the sort.  It was just another sly insult.

People who _know_ me from here, in real life, know which class I am a part of.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I _never_ knew that. Still, I'd rather earn what I am now, than be without it. I simply can't afford to lose around 300 quid a month.


 
Well *that's* the trap, isn't it? To attain anything like a decent (and by "decent" I *don't* mean "loads of the latest consumer goods", I mean a secure roof, warmth and food - the basic stuff) standard of living, we have to, for the most part (because theose who have a secure job with a reasonable wage are a minority), work shitty hours at shitty jobs, and then we find that we're effectively "locked in" to that role, with very little chance of escaping it, barring near-miracles and other acts of Dog.   Strange how "choice" almost always favours capitalism, isn't it.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

That's exactly what I'm talking about.  To not struggle for the_ basics_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Which has nothing to do with my misunderstanding of Hocus Eye's post. I thought he was insulting the nature of the work involved (which I do as a matter of fact). I apologised to that poster upon realising my mistake and defensive outburst. Her 'apology,' on the other hand, wasn't anything of the sort. It was just another sly insult.


 
You took it/interpreted it/perceived it as one, which isn't necessarily the same thing.



> People who _know_ me from here, in real life, know which class I am a part of.


 
I have several class memberships: Working class, low class and no class. Oh, and if the current neo-Victorian "political thinking" (hah!) is to be believed, underclass too.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You took it/interpreted it/perceived it as one, which isn't necessarily the same thing.


 
Her, too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> That's exactly what I'm talking about. To not struggle for the_ basics_.


 
Even the Romans understood "bread and circuses" in principle, even if, in practice, they often forgot.
One point I posted early last year keeps returning to me. it's that in the 1970s some chap at the LSE worked out a formula for how an average nett "workers' wage" (taken from averaging out semi-skilled and non-skilled wages across economic sectors) broke down in terms of what it was spent on. Housing costs constituted an upper ceiling of 35%. Nowadays, unless you live in social housing, you're looking at 40%-upward. Even if housing costs somehow stayed static for the next decade, that kind of imposition on income creates an awful lot of pressure, and it's not even as if, in an ever-expanding private rental sector, people get security of tenure to partially compensate for the excessive expense.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Her, too.


 
Didn't she apologise for that?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

Nope.  Long-winded whinge-insult combo wrapped up in an 'apology.'


----------



## smokedout (Feb 16, 2012)

from tescos facebook page




> A polite reminder that this comment thread is on the subject of our chocolate giveaway. We reserve the right to remove off topic posts as per out Community Rules (see the Info tab to the left of our page). We don't moderate off intelligent or constructive comments that abide by these rules. If you would like to discuss something other than chocolate then you can see if a post already exists or start your own. Best wishes David - Community Host


 


the chocolate defence


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 16, 2012)

Needs a big fuck-off troll tsunami.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Feb 16, 2012)

Total pr fail for Tesco, just goes to show you can't fuck people over in that way without getting something negative in return.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 16, 2012)

Petition to Abolish Work for your Benefit/Workfare Schemes in the UK

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/29356


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 16, 2012)

signed. For all the good it'll do.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 16, 2012)

teqniq said:


> Petition to Abolish Work for your Benefit/Workfare Schemes in the UK
> 
> http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/29356


 
duly signed


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Nope. Long-winded whinge-insult combo wrapped up in an 'apology.'


If you took it as a whinge that's your problem, not mine.  I wouldn't have even hinted at my circumstances if you hadn't first mentioned that you couldn't walk away from your job.  

FYI I'm working class, and have done various kinds of unskilled lowpaid work before.  IMHO if you want/expect to hear sneering, you'll hear it whether it's there or not.


----------



## Libertad (Feb 16, 2012)

Tesco taking a pasting on their Facebook wall, their admin. can't cope  Fill your boots and get a kick in.

http://www.facebook.com/tesco?sk=wall&filter=1


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2012)

teqniq said:


> Petition to Abolish Work for your Benefit/Workfare Schemes in the UK
> 
> http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/29356


Signed


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 16, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Tesco taking a pasting on their Facebook wall, their admin. can't cope  Fill your boots and get a kick in.
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/tesco?sk=wall&filter=1


 
About ten posts in the last minute alone. Keep up the good work internets


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

teqniq said:


> Petition to Abolish Work for your Benefit/Workfare Schemes in the UK
> 
> http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/29356


 
Signed. It may not cause the pols to shift, but it at least registers dissent.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> About ten posts in the last minute alone. Keep up the good work internets


Muahahahahahahaha.


----------



## 1%er (Feb 16, 2012)

Am I reading this right, if you are unemployed in the UK you can be forced to work in private companies but no wages just your normal benefit and if you don't go they can take you off benefit for 3 years?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> Am I reading this right, if you are unemployed in the UK you can be forced to work in private companies but no wages just your normal benefit and if you don't go they can take you off benefit for 3 years?


 
That's pretty much the size of it yeah. For a first 'offence' they only take away your benefits for three months, although that's more than enough time to starve to death if you have no income...

e2a: Being sent to one of these 'placements' is pretty arbitrary. You don't have to have been claiming benefits for years or be seen to have failed in your obligation to actively seek work. It's all at the discretion of your jobcentre plus adviser, some of whom are fairly decent while others are quite blood-curdlingly sadistic.


----------



## 1%er (Feb 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> That's pretty much the size of it yeah. For a first 'offence' they only take away your benefits for three months, although that's more than enough time to starve to death if you have no income...
> 
> e2a: Being sent to one of these 'placements' is pretty arbitrary. You don't have to have been claiming benefits for years or be seen to have failed in your obligation to actively seek work. It's all at the discretion of your jobcentre plus adviser, some of whom are fairly decent while others are quite blood-curdlingly sadistic.


If you are taken off unemployment benefit is there an other benefit you can claim?


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> Am I reading this right, if you are unemployed in the UK you can be forced to work in private companies but no wages just your normal benefit and if you don't go they can take you off benefit for 3 years?


Yes.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> If you are taken off unemployment benefit is there an other benefit you can claim?


No - you're disqualified from the whole damn lot, including housing benefit. Haven't you heard that fear of homelessness and destitution is the new whip and manacle set?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> If you are taken off unemployment benefit is there an other benefit you can claim?


 
Nope. But the council will come and take your corpse away if you die in the gutter.

e2a: Unless you live north of Oxfordshire, in which case your council will no longer have room in the budget for such spurious luxuries as removing dead folk from public thoroughfares. Better to leave them there as a warning to others.


----------



## 1%er (Feb 16, 2012)

Greebo said:


> No - you're disqualified from the whole damn lot, including housing benefit. Haven't you heard that fear of homelessness and destitution is the new whip and manacle set?


Is this the case if you are married with children or have dependents?


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2012)

AFAIK more or less, yes. The discretionary "hardship payment" (if you manage to get it) is a very long way below JSA. HB, being linked to IS and JSA, gets automatically stopped at the same time. You may (only may) be able to put in a fresh claim for HB on grounds of no other income at all, but you know how long that takes to process. Unless very lucky, you'll be evicted before you hear one way or the other.

And then, you won't be able to get rehoused through the local authority because the view will be taken that you made yourself homeless by getting yourself sanctioned.

If you want to appeal against the sanction, you're entitled by law to do so, but you don't get any money at all until the appeal is heard. Anyway, you'd have to wait months for the appeal to be heard.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 16, 2012)

Greebo said:


> AFAIK more or less, yes. The discretionary "hardship payment" (if you manage to get it) is a very long way below JSA. HB, being linked to IS and JSA, gets automatically stopped at the same time. You may (only may) be able to put in a fresh claim for HB on grounds of no other income at all, but you know how long that takes to process. Unless very lucky, you'll be evicted before you hear one way or the other.
> 
> And then, you won't be able to get rehoused through the local authority because the view will be taken that you made yourself homeless by getting yourself sanctioned.
> 
> If you want to appeal against the sanction, you're entitled by law to do so, but you don't get any money at all until the appeal is heard. Anyway, you'd have to wait months for the appeal to be heard.


 
In short, when people call this 'forced labour' they're not kidding.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> In short, when people call this 'forced labour' they're not kidding.


Word.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2012)

Get this: dole is worked to the fucking bone. It's the bare bones minimum to get by. What part of your absolute worked out needs is supposed to take that hit when you have a sanction? The food? The household sundries? yer ablutions paraphernalia?


----------



## 1%er (Feb 16, 2012)

Greebo said:


> AFAIK more or less, yes. The discretionary "hardship payment" (if you manage to get it) is a very long way below JSA. HB, being linked to IS and JSA, gets automatically stopped at the same time. You may (only may) be able to put in a fresh claim for HB on grounds of no other income at all, but you know how long that takes to process. Unless very lucky, you'll be evicted before you hear one way or the other.
> 
> And then, you won't be able to get rehoused through the local authority because the view will be taken that you made yourself homeless by getting yourself sanctioned.
> 
> If you want to appeal against the sanction, you're entitled by law to do so, but you don't get any money at all until the appeal is heard. Anyway, you'd have to wait months for the appeal to be heard.


How long has this been the case and has it been challenged thought the courts.

I find it hard to believe that it is legal in the UK to remove all financial assistance for dependents because of the act of the claimant 

I can see social services having to take loads of children into care if this is the case, they have legal duties.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> How long has this been the case and has it been challenged thought the courts.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that it is legal in the UK to remove all financial assistance for dependents because of the act of the claimant
> 
> I can see social services having to take loads of children into care if this is the case, they have legal duties.


 
They wouldn't remove your child benefit or child tax credits afaik. Those are the only things specifically earmarked for your dependents. That's not anywhere near enough to pay rent with though.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2012)

AFAIK it began when JSA began (under John Major's government).  

If it's been challenged through the courts, rather than just piecemeal appeals of individual claims, I haven't heard of it, maybe somebody else could do some trawling through the records etc?

IMHO it's iniquitous and unfair, but that doesn't stop it happening.


----------



## 1%er (Feb 16, 2012)

If what I have been told above is 100% accurate I am astounded.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 16, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Get this: dole is worked to the fucking bone. It's the bare bones minimum to get by. What part of your absolute worked out needs is supposed to take that hit when you have a sanction? The food? The household sundries? yer ablutions paraphernalia?


 
They only call them 'sanctions' because if they used the more accurate word 'punishment' then people might start muttering about how maybe there should be some sort of proof of wrongdoing involved.

And, lest we forget, even in prison they are obliged to feed you and put a roof over your head.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> If what I have been told above is 100% accurate I am astounded.


 
It is accurate.


----------



## 1%er (Feb 16, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> It is accurate.


and has it happened to someone with children?


----------



## savoloysam (Feb 16, 2012)

They admit to using the "work programme trainees"on their facebook wall

Wankers. Spam em to death.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 16, 2012)

dont know if this has been up before, but yer actual Tesco Workfare advert here :






[/quote]


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> and has it happened to someone with children?


 
Yeah, on the estate where I used to live, I'm friends with the local vicar who runs a kind of food bank, and she reckons that in the latter half of last year loads of her parishioners have been knocking on her door asking for scran coz their money's been stopped.

I'm reasonably sure you can still claim housing benefit on the basis of zero earnings if your dole gets stopped. You do have to make a new claim though, and as others have said, that takes time.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> and has it happened to someone with children?


 
It has happened to friends of mine with children. In one case the sanction was for someone missing a jobcentre appointment in order to collect his child from nursery school. The bloke in question, and by extension his two year old daughter, was left with an income of precisely fuck all. What's more, he was not allowed to discuss the matter with the person who had issued the sanction but had to spend weeks going round the houses with various call centres to get the sanction lifted and then start a new claim from scratch.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> If you are taken off unemployment benefit is there an other benefit you can claim?


 
You can *attempt* to apply for a discretionary "hardship payment", but it's not a benefit, and very hard to jump through the hoops for.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

Greebo said:


> AFAIK more or less, yes. The discretionary "hardship payment" (if you manage to get it) is a very long way below JSA.


 
It's either 60 or 80% of the already derisory Income Support rate.



> HB, being linked to IS and JSA, gets automatically stopped at the same time. You may (only may) be able to put in a fresh claim for HB on grounds of no other income at all, but you know how long that takes to process. Unless very lucky, you'll be evicted before you hear one way or the other.


 
*If* your local authority has a good HB dept, then you might be okay, but as these sanctions are likely to hit in areas where there are already significant stresses on funds, then you're likely to live somewhere that employs a bunch of arseholes like Crapita, and that means your sanctioned claimant is fucked.



> And then, you won't be able to get rehoused through the local authority because the view will be taken that you made yourself homeless by getting yourself sanctioned.


 
At the very best, again if you've got a very good local authority, you're going to get emergency accommodation, which usually means a single room for a family, where the local authority is paying the land slum-lord £500-600 a week for your hovel.



> If you want to appeal against the sanction, you're entitled by law to do so, but you don't get any money at all until the appeal is heard. Anyway, you'd have to wait months for the appeal to be heard.


 
Currently, with the strains put on the tribunal service by ESA, you're talking about 6 months plus in most urban areas.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> If what I have been told above is 100% accurate I am astounded.


I find it hard to take that people seem so unaware of this, and are so shocked when they find out.  It hasn't been kept secret.


----------



## sunny jim (Feb 16, 2012)

Ive been banned from the FB Tesco page now, so could some one inform them that Tesco's policy on the workfare fiasco will be on Newsnight tonight.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> If what I have been told above is 100% accurate I am astounded.


 
It's as accurate as you'll find. All this shit exists, all of it happens to people, and "austerity" has provided an excuse to tighten the screws.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 16, 2012)

re: calls for Boycotts that are obviously/inevitably going to surface. I'm in a remote and poor part of North Devon ( ie : 99% of N Devon ) , and Tesco is the only show in town ( of clourse , thats their M.O.)

. Hoping for a mass Tesco boycott round here would be daft, it's the only cheap, accessible option ( and within that, people mill around politely by the discount fridge, and fall upon the 're-priced' discount items on fridays / saturdays - I'm an old school afficianado of this process, used to be really self conscious about it , now it's standard , everyone's at it ) .

Calling for 'Occupy tesco's ' would make a 1000 x more sense for me, flashmob actions, taking over the stores until the mnagement come out to assure us that Workfare free-workers arent being employed etc .

Even the' filling your basket / leaving it at the checkout and saying you're not paying till tesco pays it's workers' option, if done with the knowledge / agreement / understanding of the paid workers, might work...

Boycotts CAN be a passive and individualistic means of protest, and round here, in this economic climate, with Tesco;'s stranglehold on the retails sector, would be a big ask .

Having said that,would personally stick to a boycott , just not confident of how many would / could round here . Also think Tesco will bottle this now,with  Newsnight etc


----------



## xenon (Feb 16, 2012)

teqniq said:


> Petition to Abolish Work for your Benefit/Workfare Schemes in the UK
> 
> http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/29356



Signed. The robbing cunts. (That's Tesco, not my signature.)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Yeah, on the estate where I used to live, I'm friends with the local vicar who runs a kind of food bank, and she reckons that in the latter half of last year loads of her parishioners have been knocking on her door asking for scran coz their money's been stopped.
> 
> I'm reasonably sure you can still claim housing benefit on the basis of zero earnings if your dole gets stopped. You do have to make a new claim though, and as others have said, that takes time.


 
The problem with HB is that when your JSA/Income Support is stopped, then your local authority is automatically informed, and they will cancel your claim on that authority. If you don't know the ropes, you won't know that you've got to get in and make sure that doesn't happen/that you submit a fresh claim based on your new details. You also won't know that every time your sanction is reviewed, and a "negative" decision is made, the DWP is likely to forward another notice to your local authority.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

Greebo said:


> I find it hard to take that people seem so unaware of this, and are so shocked when they find out. It hasn't been kept secret.


 
People tend to insulate themselves from things that don't affect them, unfortunately.


----------



## 1%er (Feb 16, 2012)

Greebo said:


> I find it hard to take that people seem so unaware of this, and are so shocked when they find out. It hasn't been kept secret.


This is the internet not some British only chat room 

I live in South America so excuse my ignorance on the subject of the UK benefits system


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> People tend to insulate themselves from things that don't affect them, unfortunately.


 
TBF I think 1%er doesn't live in the UK.

Edit: As he's just got in and said himself, thus making my post entirely pointless.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> This is the internet not some British only chat room
> 
> I live in South America so excuse my ignorance on the subject of the UK benefits system


 
It's the UK politics section though, old stick.


----------



## 1%er (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's as accurate as you'll find. All this shit exists, all of it happens to people, and "austerity" has provided an excuse to tighten the screws.


My surprise about this is that I thought in the UK Social services had legal duties with regard to the safety of children and that if people had no money to feed their children or safely house their children they would remove those children to a place of safety at massive cost to the state.



ViolentPanda said:


> It's the UK politics section though, old stick.


So only UK citizens can post here? Am I being discriminated against for not living in the UK, can I claim some compo for that


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's as accurate as you'll find. All this shit exists, all of it happens to people, and "austerity" has provided an excuse to tighten the screws.


 
It's all been going on for years though, since long before the big bad recession. Even workfare was a labour policy that just wasn't fully rolled out until Cameron's mob got in.

Had labour won back in 2010 I doubt the picture would be very different. They might have kept to the original idea of only sending people on workfare placements that didn't benefit the private sector and didn't replace paid positions (the same sort of rules that apply to community service sentences, which have themselves been tellingly renamed 'unpaid work' sentences as if the government actually wants to remove the distinction between criminals and the unemployed) but I wouldn't be too sure of that.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> This is the internet not some British only chat room
> 
> I live in South America so excuse my ignorance on the subject of the UK benefits system


Fair point, my knowledge of South America is also on a need to know basis.  If I don't need to know it, I don't know it.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> This is the internet not some British only chat room
> 
> I live in South America so excuse my ignorance on the subject of the UK benefits system


 
It isn't completely ridiculous for people to make an assumption that people posting in a forum about UK politics specifically will have some knowledge of UK politics, or will actually live in the UK.

And as you say, this is the internet.  Learning about benefits is but a click away!


----------



## savoloysam (Feb 16, 2012)

I like the idea of mass store walk ins, fill up trolleys and leave them by the tills in fact it's such a great idea I'm gonna do it tomorrow.


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 16, 2012)

Written to my union rep (USDAW) about this and posted on Tesco facebook page asking Tesco workers to do the same,.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 16, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> It isn't completely ridiculous for people to make an assumption that people posting in a forum about UK politics specifically will have some knowledge of UK politics, or will actually live in the UK.
> 
> And as you say, this is the internet. Learning about benefits is but a click away!


 
( plse  feel free to ignore this complete div , 1 % or anyone else who doesnt "actually live in the uk ". )


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> My surprise about this is that I thought in the UK Social services had legal duties with regard to the safety of children and that if people had no money to feed their children or safely house their children they would remove those children to a place of safety at massive cost to the state.


 
"Duty of care" only kicks in _in extremis_. We no longer have a social services system that is able to operate a preventative regime. The legislated switch over the last 15 years or so from being providers of services to being *commissioners* of services (mostly from the private and third sectors) hasn't helped. The managerialism inherent to a commissioning service takes money away from frontline services and from preventative programmes.



> So only UK citizens can post here? Am I being discriminated against for not living in the UK, can I claim some compo for that


 
No, No, and definitely not, you scrounging foreigner!


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 16, 2012)

cantsin said:


> ( plse feel free to ignore this complete div , 1 % or anyone else who doesnt "actually live in the uk ". )


 
That wasn't what I said at all, was it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's all been going on for years though, since long before the big bad recession. Even workfare was a labour policy that just wasn't fully rolled out until Cameron's mob got in.
> 
> Had labour won back in 2010 I doubt the picture would be very different. They might have kept to the original idea of only sending people on workfare placements that didn't benefit the private sector and didn't replace paid positions (the same sort of rules that apply to community service sentences, which have themselves been tellingly renamed 'unpaid work' sentences as if the government actually wants to remove the distinction between criminals and the unemployed) but I wouldn't be too sure of that.


 
Been going on since the early 1990s, creepingly. New Labour's version was a bit more subtle, but that was about the only difference. It's still the same shitting into the shoes of workers, and shitting on the heads of the unemployed. Neo-liberal shit is neo-liberal, whichever bunch of arseholes squeeze it out.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 16, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> It isn't completely ridiculous for people to make an assumption that people posting in a forum about UK politics specifically will have some knowledge of UK politics, or will actually live in the UK.
> 
> And as you say, this is the internet. Learning about benefits is but a click away!


 
would be fun/pro-active/collective,and presumably non arrestable if you havent left the store with the goods .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

cantsin said:


> ( plse feel free to ignore this complete div , 1 % or anyone else who doesnt "actually live in the uk ". )


 
Try a bit harder not to be a muppet, eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

cantsin said:


> would be fun/pro-active/collective,and presumably non arrestable if you havent left the store with the goods .


 
Which is why we probably won't see the Spanish version (exit store with full trolley, give contents away to passing people) happening over here any time soon.

Still, that day may come, I suspect.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Try a bit harder not to be a muppet, eh?


 
(huh ??? and really can't be bothered to pursue this, so feel free to ignore...)


----------



## 1%er (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Duty of care" only kicks in _in extremis_. We no longer have a social services system that is able to operate a preventative regime. The legislated switch over the last 15 years or so from being providers of services to being *commissioners* of services (mostly from the private and third sectors) hasn't helped. The managerialism inherent to a commissioning service takes money away from frontline services and from preventative programmes.


I honestly had no idea things in the UK had deteriorated to such an extent.

Even here in Brazil people would get the equivalent of the minimum wage if they were unemployed and have a child. They introduced universal benefit a few years ago, but I don't really know much about it.

There are about 16 posters here from Brazil I think, maybe one of them can explain it better.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> My surprise about this is that I thought in the UK Social services had legal duties with regard to the safety of children and that if people had no money to feed their children or safely house their children they would remove those children to a place of safety at massive cost to the state.


 
If you're thinking that any of this is done for rational reasons, even evil ones, then you really are out of touch with contemporary British politics. Obviously allowing the private sector to replace large numbers of paid staff with people dependant on state benefits is economically suicidal, as you're reducing the number of people paying tax just as you increase the number of people paying benefits.

Perhaps the rationale is that if businesses make more profit as a result of having all these free workers then the government can squeeze more revenue out of them, but for one thing the UK governement is pretty ambivalent about actually making corporations pay their taxes and for another thing fewer people earning wages means less spending power which means less profits for business. 

The same is true of so many government policies ostensibly designed to save money. Kicking large numbers of people off benefits is pretty much mathematically guaranteed to increase crime, with all the attendant costs to society. Forcing the disabled into unsuitable work is likely to increase the cost of their healthcare in the future. Lack of mental health provision has been keeping the prison system bursting at the seams for years, despite the vastly greater cost of sending someone to prison compared with the cost of a couple of visits a week from a psychiatric nurse and maybe some residential facilities here and there. Privatisation is an obvious own goal with respect to saving the taxpayer money as countless examples have already shown. Cuts to council budgets will lead to a degradation of infastructure which will cost far more to undo in the long term than will be saved in the short term. I could go on all day.

About the only explanation I can come up with for any of these policies, apart from government ministers' taste for extravagant weekend breaks on the tab of corporate lobbyists, is that Cameron and pals actually posess a burning hatred of all mankind.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 16, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> It isn't completely ridiculous for people to make an assumption that people posting in a forum about UK politics specifically will have some knowledge of UK politics, or will actually live in the UK.
> 
> And as you say, this is the internet. Learning about benefits is but a click away!


 
1%er has come here with the express intention of learning about the issue in question. He's not been ranting on about what he doesn't understand, he's been asking questions. Doesn't seem unreasonable.

I always thought a big selling point of these boards was the opportunity to learn and share knowledge tbh. Seems a funny thing to get upset about.

Incidentally, 1%er made it clear much earlier in the thread that he (or she) is not posting from the UK. Apparently I was the only one who noticed.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> 1%er has come here with the express intention of learning about the issue in question. He's not been ranting on about what he doesn't understand, he's been asking questions. Doesn't seem unreasonable.
> 
> I always thought a big selling point of these boards was the opportunity to learn and share knowledge tbh. Seems a funny thing to get upset about.
> 
> Incidentally, 1%er made it clear much earlier in the thread that he (or she) is not posting from the UK. Apparently I was the only one who noticed.


 
I know, I was a bit overexcited about something else and it came out a bit overzealous.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> About the only explanation I can come up with for any of these policies, apart from government ministers' taste for extravagant weekend breaks on the tab of corporate lobbyists, is that Cameron and pals actually posess a burning hatred of all mankind.


 
I am convinced Cameron doesn't have a heart, he has a swinging brick.


----------



## 1%er (Feb 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> If you're thinking that any of this is done for rational reasons, even evil ones, then you really are out of touch with contemporary British politics. Obviously allowing the private sector to replace large numbers of paid staff with people dependant on state benefits is economically suicidal, as you're reducing the number of people paying tax just as you increase the number of people paying benefits.
> 
> Perhaps the rationale is that if businesses make more profit as a result of having all these free workers then the government can squeeze more revenue out of them, but for one thing the UK governement is pretty ambivalent about actually making corporations pay their taxes and for another thing fewer people earning wages means less spending power which means less profits for business.
> 
> ...


It seems to me that it makes no sense on so many levels.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 16, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I know, I was a bit overexcited about something else and it came out a bit overzealous.


 
does VPanda normally follow you around giving inexplicable digs to anyone that questions/calls out the results of your "overexcitment/overzealousness" , or is he/she  similarly afflicted tnite do you reckon ?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> Am I being discriminated against for not living in the UK, can I claim some compo for that


 
Yes, OK.

You're entitled to the equivalent of a week's wages for a Tesco conscript.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> I honestly had no idea things in the UK had deteriorated to such an extent.
> 
> Even here in Brazil people would get the equivalent of the minimum wage if they were unemployed and have a child. They introduced universal benefit a few years ago, but I don't really know much about it.
> 
> There are about 16 posters here from Brazil I think, maybe one of them can explain it better.


Please do, in the right section of course.

I find the differences in benefits systems, welfare, and social provision in other countries interesting, but it's pretty difficult to get much information on it.


----------



## 1%er (Feb 16, 2012)

cantsin said:


> does VPanda normally follow you around giving inexplicable digs to anyone that questions/calls out the results of your "overexcitment/overzealousness" , or is he/she similarly afflicted tnite do you reckon ?


At the risk of starting a argument 

Could one be a sock-puppets 

Have they ever been seen together 



Puddy_Tat said:


> Yes, OK.
> 
> You're entitled to the equivalent of a week's wages for a Tesco conscript.


Without having to do the work?


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 16, 2012)

cantsin said:


> does VPanda normally follow you around giving inexplicable digs to anyone that questions/calls out the results of your "overexcitment/overzealousness" , or is he/she similarly afflicted tnite do you reckon ?


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> At the risk of starting a argument
> 
> Could one be a sock-puppets
> 
> ...


 
I do like a good sock puppet.  They aren't made enough anymore.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

cantsin said:


> does VPanda normally follow you around giving inexplicable digs to anyone that questions/calls out the results of your "overexcitment/overzealousness" , or is he/she similarly afflicted tnite do you reckon ?


 
Why not ask me? I'd only tell you that I'll have a go at anyone who appears to be acting like an arse, from the lowliest noob to hizzoner the editor himself.

I hope that answers your question.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> People tend to insulate themselves from things that don't affect them, unfortunately.


 
there are also the usual constraints such as time etc and to tell you the truth i havent looked at the news properly in months. sometimes people dont want to know about stuff because its too bad to think about, especially if they've got other shit going on in their lives. unemployment is probably a lot of people's greatest fear at the moment and why would you want to spend time thinking about this stuff? better to just push it back to the back of your mind 

i also don't think someone from brazil can be expected to know very much about our country's benefit system and there's nothing wrong with asking questions imo. in fact i wish more people would do it


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> At the risk of starting a argument
> 
> Could one be a sock-puppets
> 
> Have they ever been seen together


 
Yes, frequently.

At meetings of the Elders of Zion. Frogwoman oftens pops along too.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> 1%er has come here with the express intention of learning about the issue in question. He's not been ranting on about what he doesn't understand, he's been asking questions. Doesn't seem unreasonable.
> 
> I always thought a big selling point of these boards was the opportunity to learn and share knowledge tbh. Seems a funny thing to get upset about.
> 
> Incidentally, 1%er made it clear much earlier in the thread that he (or she) is not posting from the UK. Apparently I was the only one who noticed.


 
and i personally don't want to stop non uk posters from posting just because they don't know as much stuff.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I do like a good sock puppet. They aren't made enough anymore.


 
Too many of us were exposed to Shari Lewis and Lamb-chop in our childhood to be able to fully appreciate the sock-puppet as a tool of entertainment.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why not ask me? I'd only tell you that I'll have a go at anyone who appears to be acting like an arse, from the lowliest noob to hizzoner the editor himself.
> 
> I hope that answers your question.


 
alright, simple question, given PN says he was "bit overexcited about something else and it came out a bit overzealous." , how was I being " a bit of an arse " and wtf are you /he actually on about here ?


----------



## creak (Feb 16, 2012)

This is on Newsnight (BBC 2) right now, btw.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 16, 2012)

cantsin said:


> alright, simple question, given PN says he was "bit overexcited about something else and it came out a bit overzealous." , how was I being " a bit of an arse " and wtf are you /he actually on about here ?


 
I'm a she.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> there are also the usual constraints such as time etc and to tell you the truth i havent looked at the news properly in months. sometimes people dont want to know about stuff because its too bad to think about, especially if they've got other shit going on in their lives. unemployment is probably a lot of people's greatest fear at the moment and why would you want to spend time thinking about this stuff? better to just push it back to the back of your mind
> 
> i also don't think someone from brazil can be expected to know very much about our country's benefit system and there's nothing wrong with asking questions imo. in fact i wish more people would do it


 
My point isn't against people not knowing, it's simply that people by-and-large tend to ignore things that don't directly affect them. It's a defence, possibly even a survival mechanism.
Of course, it's a defence mechanism that'll totally fuck you over in terms of claiming what you're entitled to, but still, I can understand and appreciate why people do it.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Too many of us were exposed to Shari Lewis and Lamb-chop in our childhood to be able to fully appreciate the sock-puppet as a tool of entertainment.


 
I am afraid to google in case I am too scared for life.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> If you're thinking that any of this is done for rational reasons, even evil ones, then you really are out of touch with contemporary British politics. Obviously allowing the private sector to replace large numbers of paid staff with people dependant on state benefits is economically suicidal, as you're reducing the number of people paying tax just as you increase the number of people paying benefits.
> 
> Perhaps the rationale is that if businesses make more profit as a result of having all these free workers then the government can squeeze more revenue out of them, but for one thing the UK governement is pretty ambivalent about actually making corporations pay their taxes and for another thing fewer people earning wages means less spending power which means less profits for business.
> 
> ...


 
They do, that is what it is, well the section of mankind that isn't them, they want us all down salt mines, these wankers, they deeply resented the benefits that were bestowed upon normal people post WW2 , and now, two generations later, they're going to take it all back.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 16, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I'm a she.


 
whatever, you and VP are acting like complete timewasting plums on this thread, apologies or not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

cantsin said:


> alright, simple question, given PN says he was "bit overexcited about something else and it came out a bit overzealous." , how was I being " a bit of an arse " and wtf are you /he actually on about here ?


 
I don't know about PN, but I'm talking about you being a bit of an arse for coming out with '( plse feel free to ignore this complete div , 1 % or anyone else who doesnt "actually live in the uk ". ' for no good reason.
Is me calling you a bit of an arse any more awful than you calling him a complete div apropos of not a lot? I don't think so, but if I've damaged your self-esteem in any way, I humbly apologise.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't know about PN, but I'm talking about you being a bit of an arse for coming out with '( plse feel free to ignore this complete div , 1 % or anyone else who doesnt "actually live in the uk ". ' for no good reason.
> Is me calling you a bit of an arse any more awful than you calling him a complete div apropos of not a lot? I don't think so, but if I've damaged your self-esteem in any way, I humbly apologise.


 
there was a good reasaon, PN *was* being a complete div, and has therefore made some mealy mouthed apology to that effect since, I dont expect the same from you, and couldn't give a shit,  so get a grip and leave it now eh ffs


----------



## binka (Feb 16, 2012)

this neil o'brien from policy exchange who is on newsnight now is such an arsehole. i hope he gets set upon by a gang of thai women on his way home.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I am afraid to google in case I am too scared for life.


 
It was awful. half an hour a week of a cutesy blonde American (ntot very good) ventrioquist with her twee ickle lamb sock-puppet. 

"Why didn't you turn over?" I hear you asking. Simple, there were only three channels at the time, and TV was a privilege - you took what you could get, but you didn't have to like it!.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

cantsin said:


> there was a good reasaon, PN *was* being a complete div, and has made some mealy mouthed apology since, so get a grip and leave it now eh ffs


 
I already had. You're the one who wanted reasons.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 16, 2012)

creak said:


> This is on Newsnight (BBC 2) right now, btw.


 
Unsurprisingly, that didn't really say a lot. Whoever is anchoring the show (didn't catch the beginning of the show so don't know her name) didn't really challenge the scheme at all bar commenting on it getting a 'bad image'.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 16, 2012)

yeah, my point is don't have a go at him because he didn't know something (because of living outside the country). 

its nothing personal mate its just i have mates who are really uninformed about politics etc (and in some cases general knowledge type stuff), and some of them probably have wrong ideas about the benefit system, despite the fact that they're working class and among the people being fucked over the most. it makes me upset that someone could be put off activism and politics etc because of making it obvious they didn't know something and people having a go (or seeming to have a go) at them for it especially because i could really imagine people like my mates confidnce being knocked back from that (ive actually done it myself because i was surprised she dint know something and i actually ended up making her feel stupid )

i mean fuck we all don't know stuff, there's plenty of stuff i'm ill informed about. not having a go i just think sometimes on here (and i do it myself) we just tend to assume a level of knowledge and articulacy and not everyone has that

anyway


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

binka said:


> this neil o'brien from policy exchange who is on newsnight now is such an arsehole. i hope he gets set upon by a gang of thai women on his way home.


 
Or savaged by a pack of hungry feral dogs who're fed-up with the taste of fried chicken and beer-puke.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Unsurprisingly, that didn't really say a lot. Whoever is anchoring the show (didn't catch the beginning of the show so don't know her name) didn't really challenge the scheme at all bar commenting on it getting a 'bad image'.


 
That's the Beeb for you. Every action more craven than the last.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I am afraid to google in case I am too scared for life.


Entirely clean non-traumatising children's entertainment from the 1970s.  Be brave.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> and i personally don't want to stop non uk posters from posting just because they don't know as much stuff.


 
Nor do I want to set a dangerous precedent for excluding ill-informed posters from certain threads. Not least because that would pretty much limit my involvement in these boards to threads about shoplifting, reasons why telecasters are better than stratocasters* and plot holes in Doctor Who.

*The first 5,000 reasons are easy to remember. All the odd numbered reasons are simply 'Eric Clapton' whilst all the even numbered reasons are 'Mark Knopfler'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I'm a she.


 
There there dear, calm down. Try not to take it all so seriously!

You women, eh? So sensitive! Bless! 


Legs it.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Why didn't you turn over?" I hear you asking. Simple, there were only three channels at the time, and TV was a privilege - you took what you could get, but you didn't have to like it!.


 
And what's more you HAD TO STAND UP TO CHANGE CHANNELS then!

*goes off muttering about today's youth*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Entirely clean non-traumatising children's entertainment from the 1970s. Be brave.


 
It was bleeding traumatic! It was more sugary than a mile-high pile of fondant icing!


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


> And what's more you HAD TO STAND UP TO CHANGE CHANNELS then!
> 
> *goes off muttering about today's youth*


Even worse than that - you had to plan ahead because the telly needed time to warm up if it wasn't already on.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Nor do I want to set a dangerous precedent for excluding ill-informed posters from certain threads. Not least because that would pretty much limit my involvement in these boards to threads about shoplifting, reasons why telecasters are better than stratocasters and plot holes in Doctor Who.


 
To be fair though, it *is* important for people to know that even the shonkiest Tele ever made is still more of a "player's" guitar than a Strat can ever be. I've always thought of Strats as guitars for people whose necks and shoulders are too weak for the weight of a *proper* instrument.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> There there dear, calm down. Try not to take it all so seriously!
> 
> You women, eh? So sensitive! Bless!
> 
> ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


> And what's more you HAD TO STAND UP TO CHANGE CHANNELS then!
> 
> *goes off muttering about today's youth*


 
My parents had remotes before they existed. T'were us kids.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be fair though, it *is* important for people to know that even the shonkiest Tele ever made is still more of a "player's" guitar than a Strat can ever be. I've always thought of Strats as guitars for people whose necks and shoulders are too weak for the weight of a *proper* instrument.


 
As the proud owner of the shonkiest Tele ever made I have to agree with you.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be fair though, it *is* important for people to know that even the shonkiest Tele ever made is still more of a "player's" guitar than a Strat can ever be. I've always thought of Strats as guitars for people whose necks and shoulders are too weak for the weight of a *proper* instrument.


 
And if you can't bend strings with your fret hand then that's probably god's way of telling you to take up the bass. Or possibly the triangle.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> As the proud owner of the shonkiest Tele ever made I have to agree with you.


 
My mate Ray used to get a form of tremolo from his '70s Tele by playing a note, and then flexing the body and neck joint. Fender US turned out some real shockers in their time. Some people were actually glad when the Japs took over producing the low-price fender stuff and the Squiers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be fair though, it *is* important for people to know that even the shonkiest Tele ever made is still more of a "player's" guitar than a Strat can ever be. I've always thought of Strats as guitars for people whose necks and shoulders are too weak for the weight of a *proper* instrument.


the average weight of a telecaster is 7lb.

the average weight of a stratocaster is 8lb.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> And if you can't bend strings with your fret hand then that's probably god's way of telling you to take up the bass. Or possibly the triangle.


 
While a Bigsby looks "interesting" on a Tele, it doesn't really do anything excet detune the strings every time you use it, and as for Strat trems...I really dislike floating bridges, whether they're across rivers, or on guitars.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> While a Bigsby looks "interesting" on a Tele, it doesn't really do anything excet detune the strings every time you use it, and as for Strat trems...I really dislike floating bridges, whether they're across rivers, or on guitars.


better than sunken bridges


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> the average weight of a telecaster is 7lb.
> 
> the average weight of a stratocaster is 8lb.


 
Play a Strat, do you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Play a Strat, do you?


i can play many sorts of guitars


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Play a Strat, do you?


 
Nothing wrong with that. Some guitarists have confidence issues and don't want to be heard in the mix.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i can play many sorts of guitars


 
I've heard rumours that you're known for strumming your ukelele.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 16, 2012)

at the risk of mentioning tesco on this thread again...

mentioned on another thread, but a london protest this saturday organised by 'right to work' - more here


----------



## teqniq (Feb 16, 2012)

That petition I linked to was at 670ish when I signed and posted it here it's now at 1,602  nice one folks 

@ SpookyFrank I have a Gibson Les Paul copy I found in a skip. It sounds fine, when I can be arsed to play it lol.


----------



## xenon (Feb 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> My mate Ray used to get a form of tremolo from his '70s Tele by playing a note, and then flexing the body and neck joint. Fender US turned out some real shockers in their time. Some people were actually glad when the Japs took over producing the low-price fender stuff and the Squiers.



My mate's got a Tele with the B Bender thing. Which felt so wrong when i had a go. Sorta bend the neck up from the body IIRC.

I read somewhere, the Jaguar was originally a pretty poor design with crap sustain.

Mind you I'm probably a philostine I usually play super strat style Ibanez...


----------



## BigTom (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> It seems to me that it makes no sense on so many levels.


 
Hey, I'm just quoting this post because I couldn't be bothered to go back and find the one I wanted where you asked about legal challenges..
There are currently legal challenges being taken by Public Interest Lawyers, under the human rights act, against the various different schemes.  I am proud to say that I played a large part in getting these moving, as I introduced the first people who started this to PIL thinking they would take the case.. 

I'm hearing on the grapevine through unions that Poundland will be pulling out of the scheme as they do not want to have to go to the high court over it.  I'm hoping this turns out to be true - it is mentioned as a possiblity in this guardian article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/16/stores-quit-unpaid-work-schemes?newsfeed=true

At the moment, stores seem to be falling over themselves to say that they are not using workfare - Waterstones, Sainsbury's last week, coop, TK Maxx and HMV this week (although the HMV one is suspect, as there has been a report from someone who was sent there before Christmas).

fucking brilliant 

Also 1%er in answer to one of your earlier questions, presumably someone who had kids would still get child benefit - but that's only, what, £20/week or something.
Aside from that it is perfectly possible to have all financial support from the state removed if you refuse to take part in one of these schemes.
The council will have some kind of duty of care towards children, but I don't know what that extends to when the family is destitute, rather than being dysfunctional.  Additionally, childrens services are being heavily cut - in Birmingham we are facing the likely closure of 5 childrens' homes, and tens of millions of pounds of the child care and fostering budgets.
It is truly fucked up.

And if you are disabled, you will be able to get sent on unpaid workfare without any time limit!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/16/disabled-unpaid-work-benefit-cuts

How fucked up is that?


----------



## 1%er (Feb 16, 2012)

Thanks for that BigTom, I've read the links and some of links from the links.

It says Tesco employs 1000's of people, what the fuck! 3M unemployed people looking for paid work and the government telling private companies to employ unemployed people for free 

I think the forced labor case will succeeded in the ECHR

Isn't that working family tax credit also just a subsidy for companies paying low wages?


----------



## Greebo (Feb 17, 2012)

BigTom said:


> <snip>How fucked up is that?


Very.  But you knew that already.  

As fucked up as one week's Carer's Allowance not being enough to pay for even one day's respite (or careworkers to come in and do what's needed).


----------



## Greebo (Feb 17, 2012)

1%er said:


> Thanks for that BigTom, I've read the links and some of links from the links.
> 
> It says Tesco employs 1000's of people, what the fuck! 3M unemployed people looking for paid work and the government telling private companies to employ unemployed people for free <snip>


Well the current government's always going on about fairness - no doubt they think that if unemployed people can get free stuff from soup kitchens, it's only fair that businesses get freebies too.  



1%er said:


> <snip>Isn't that working family tax credit also just a subsidy for companies paying low wages?


Yes.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 17, 2012)

1%er said:


> Thanks for that BigTom, I've read the links and some of links from the links.
> 
> It says Tesco employs 1000's of people, what the fuck! 3M unemployed people looking for paid work and the government telling private companies to employ unemployed people for free
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, the cases might well succeed, but the tories want to pull out of the ECHR 

I think tax credits act as a subsidy for paying low wages yes.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 17, 2012)

1%er said:


> Thanks for that BigTom, I've read the links and some of links from the links.
> 
> It says Tesco employs 1000's of people, what the fuck! 3M unemployed people looking for paid work and the government telling private companies to employ unemployed people for free
> 
> ...


 
Yes, working tax credit's just like the speedhamland system from back in the day.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 17, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Very. But you knew that already.
> 
> As fucked up as one week's Carer's Allowance not being enough to pay for even one day's respite (or careworkers to come in and do what's needed).


 
I know, but even I was shocked when I read that.  I expected disability claimants to get workfare schemes introduced, but to have no time limit.. I just can't find the words.. hence action! (which I've been posting about elsehwere and won't repeat myself here. Saturday March 3rd, national day of action.. Boycott Workfare have been campaigning for ages on this and now it's bearing fruit.. right to work jump on the bandwagon in typical swp style.. )


----------



## 1%er (Feb 17, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Yes, working tax credit's just like the *speedhamland* system from back in the day.


I had to Google it, these rules do make it look like the UK is going back to 1795


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 17, 2012)

1%er said:


> I had to Google it, these rules do make it look like the UK is going back to 1795


 
Lol, can't yer tell old Francie passed GCSE history?


----------



## Greebo (Feb 17, 2012)

BigTom said:


> I know, but even I was shocked when I read that. I expected disability claimants to get workfare schemes introduced, but to have no time limit.. I just can't find the words.. hence action! (which I've been posting about elsehwere and won't repeat myself here. Saturday March 3rd, national day of action.. Boycott Workfare have been campaigning for ages on this and now it's bearing fruit.. right to work jump on the bandwagon in typical swp style.. )


FWIW right now, I think I'd even consider doing a deal with Genghis Khan if he'd be any good against the current fuckwittery coming out of Westminster.


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

Wish I could find it but at times like this it would be good to screeen the BBC documentary about Tesco in Kenya, the power the twenty something buyer had and the profound image of the petit pois growers saluting the Tesco flag

btw, as i said elsewhere, the dam is breaking, you can't have moving towards 3 million unemployed(probably much more in reality) and not expect a backlash and a change in public sentiment..


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

Oh, and Banksy did a graffiti of this very same theme...


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 17, 2012)

treelover said:


> oh, and banksy did a graffiti of the very same...


 
Ah, you've gotta be messing?

Bankerchops? Joke on toast.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 17, 2012)

Greebo said:


> If you took it as a whinge that's your problem, not mine. I wouldn't have even hinted at my circumstances if you hadn't first mentioned that you couldn't walk away from your job.
> 
> FYI I'm working class, and have done various kinds of unskilled lowpaid work before. IMHO if you want/expect to hear sneering, you'll hear it whether it's there or not.


 
Cry me a river.


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

99p stores
a4e
Alpha Stream – Kent
Asda
... ATS
BHS – British Home Stores [1]
Boots
Burger King
Burton
Age Concern
Alton Towers [2]
Argos
Asian Star Community Radio LTD
Barnardos
Bookers Wholesale
Carillion – Kent
British Heart Foundation
Capability Scotland
Cancer Research
Chessington World of Adventures [2]
DB Accident Repair – Kent
DC Cleaning Sussex
Diamond Glass Medway – Kent
Dorothy Perkins [1]
Envirostream – Kent
Evans [1]
Finsbury Park Business Forum
F&S Interiors – Kent
Go Response – Kent
Haringey Council
Helen & Douglas House Hospice – Maidenhead
HMV [3]
Holiday Inn
Holland & Barrett
Gorgie City Farm
Greggs the bakers
JA Glover – Kent
Jessup Electrical Wholesale Ltd – Kent
JJ Vickers & Sons Ltd – Kent
Kennedy Scott
Kent Flooring Supplies – Kent
Kent Space – Kent
Legoland Parks [2]
London Eye [2]
Madame Tussauds [2]
Marie Curie
Maplin
Matalan
Mayhem Paintball – Kent
McDonald’s
Medway Council
Medway Tyres – Kent
Miss Selfridge
Mr Gleam – Sussex
Newham Council
Newhaven Community Development
Oxfam
Olympic Glass – Kent
Omnico Plastics Ltd – Kent
Outfit [1]
Payless – Kent
PDSA
Pizza Hut
Plumbase – Kent
Poundland
Poundstretcher
PPDG
Primark
Process Plant Services Ltd – Kent
RBLI
Regency Guillotine – Kent
Richmond Fellowship
Rock Circus [2]
Romney Resource Kent
Royal Mail
RNR Performance Cars – Kent
Saffron Acres Project
Salvation Army
Savers
Sealife Centres [2]
Scope
Scout Enterprises
Servest – Kent, London
Shelter
SHOC Slough Homeless
Signs & Imaging Ltd – Kent
Slough Library
Slough Furniture Project
Southern Membranes Ltd – Kent
Southern Metal Services – Kent
southern Roofing & Building Supplies – Kent
Stephens Fresh Food – Kent
Superdrug
Swan Lifeline – Windsor
Tesco
Thorpe Park [2]
Topman [1]
Topshop [1]
The Range – Sussex
Town and Country Cleaners Kent
Wallis [1]
Warwick Castle [2]
Westvic Enamellers – Kent
WHSmith
Whittingtons Silk Flower & Plant Centre – Kent
Wilkinsons


List of companies/charities using Workfare, though best to check other sources, how on earth did charities ever think forced labour was acceptable, not surprised Wilkinsons is there..


----------



## xenon (Feb 17, 2012)

What are the numbers in the brackets signifying?


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

Sorry, link here
http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?page_id=16


----------



## xenon (Feb 17, 2012)

Ta


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2012)

> SHOC Slough Homeless


 
no way?? I did some volunteering for them ages ago.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2012)

treelover said:
			
		

> Payless – Kent


 
funny in a "not funny at all" type of way


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

The hubris of the Gov't thinking this could be done easily, yes, people were quiet when NL were in power, but we live in different times, imo this is one Govt project that could be effectively challenged...


btw, always worth reminding people on various social media, N/L created all this and Ed would still implement something similar if in power...


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=312138085500740

Owen Jones on the Tesco issue on QT

edited for winter..


----------



## Winter (Feb 17, 2012)

Even better, perhaps. On questiön time.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 17, 2012)

treelover said:


> The hubris of the Gov't thinking this could be done easily, yes, people were quiet when NL were in power, but we live in different times, imo this is one Govt project that could be effectively challenged...
> 
> 
> btw, always worth reminding people on various social media, N/L created all this and Ed would still implement something similar if in power...


 
D'ya reckon? Sad as it is, people aren't quick to identify with benefit claimants.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2012)

does anyone have any statistics for what proportion of new jobs are unpaid "volunteering" or workfare type shit? the prospect of what would happen if i lost my job is really terrifying at the moment. i'm thinking i might have to get another part time job for a few hours a week to help pay for the college course i'm doing etc but that may be easier said than done.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> D'ya reckon? Sad as it is, people aren't quick to identify with benefit claimants.


 
i had a (very small) arguement with a mate who was going on about workfare and how bad it is but then when i told him about my mums friends on our street whose daughter failed an assessment he wanted to see evidence this was happening "from a mainstream site" and said that if they failed an assessment there had to of been a reason. i was genuinely surprised he'd never heard of all the problems there were with ATOS given how much he talks about this type of stuff to me!


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 17, 2012)

treelover said:


> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=312138085500740
> 
> Owen Jones on the Tesco issue on QT
> 
> edited for winter..


Just discovered Owen Jones he seems like  a solid voice for the people. look forward to seeing and hearing more from him !!Respect!!


----------



## binka (Feb 17, 2012)

there was another story on newsnight tonight about government plans to get thousands more prisoners working full time for private companies while still inside. showed a clip of ken clarke at some sort of conference with business leaders trying to sell them the idea (i imagine he didn't find this too difficult) but ive been on the newsnight website and can see no mention of it and i've been trying to search google news but can find literally no mention what so ever anywhere on the internet.


----------



## Winter (Feb 17, 2012)

Cool young man,   I thought he ŵas very sound.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 17, 2012)

Just another middle class careerist.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 17, 2012)

treelover said:


> 99p stores
> a4e
> Alpha Stream – Kent


 
a4e?

*anime-4ever subs?*


DAMN YOU!!!!


----------



## revol68 (Feb 17, 2012)

yo can someone point in the direction of a source for the 50,000 people through the Tesco scheme figure? Even to a commie fuck like me that seems ridiculously high?

cheers


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> does anyone have any statistics for what proportion of new jobs are unpaid "volunteering" or workfare type shit? the prospect of what would happen if i lost my job is really terrifying at the moment. i'm thinking i might have to get another part time job for a few hours a week to help pay for the college course i'm doing etc but that may be easier said than done.


 
AFAIK most of these workfare placements aren't advertised as job vacancies in the usual way. Tesco seem to be saying that the advert that kicked off this backlash against them was a mistake, suggesting that it's not normal practice to advertise these 'vacancies' publically. I think it's all done under the counter at the job centre.

There certainly doesn't seem to be any effort made to find workfare jobs that are suited to particular claimants' experience, qualifications or aspirations for actual jobs. Presumably companies make it known that they wouldn't mind some free labour (or, worse but more likely, the jobcentre approaches companies and asks them if they would like some free labour) and the resulting placements are thrown into hat. A company name is then pulled from the hat, a dart thrown at a big wall with claimants' photos on it and voila, a match made in hell.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i had a (very small) arguement with a mate who was going on about workfare and how bad it is but then when i told him about my mums friends on our street whose daughter failed an assessment he wanted to see evidence this was happening "from a mainstream site" and said that if they failed an assessment there had to of been a reason. i was genuinely surprised he'd never heard of all the problems there were with ATOS given how much he talks about this type of stuff to me!


 
In your mate's defence, a lot of this stuff stretches credulity to breaking point until you or someone you know is actually put through it. The ATOS disability assesments in particular seem far too macabre to be real. It's understandable that someone would not wish to believe that such unspeakable treatment has become the norm for so many people.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 17, 2012)

...never mind.


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Even the Romans understood "bread and circuses" in principle, even if, in practice, they often forgot.
> One point I posted early last year keeps returning to me. it's that in the 1970s some chap at the LSE worked out a formula for how an average nett "workers' wage" (taken from averaging out semi-skilled and non-skilled wages across economic sectors) broke down in terms of what it was spent on. Housing costs constituted an upper ceiling of 35%. *Nowadays, unless you live in social housing, you're looking at 40%-upward.* Even if housing costs somehow stayed static for the next decade, that kind of imposition on income creates an awful lot of pressure, and it's not even as if, in an ever-expanding private rental sector, people get security of tenure to partially compensate for the excessive expense.


 
I live in social housing and with Aprils rent rise i am looking at the rent being just about 40% of my actual take home pay !


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 17, 2012)

mentalchik said:


> I live in social housing and with Aprils rent rise i am looking at the rent being just about 40% of my actual take home pay !


Some new housing association rents are higher than private ones are here. Can't quite see the point.


----------



## Sweetpea (Feb 17, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Some new housing association rents are higher than private ones are here. Can't quite see the point.


I agree, there are some days when I can't see the point in anything anymore 
I guess it's argued that they offer better security of tenure. I understand that the Govt. have been encouraging Housing Associations to charge up to 80% of market rent.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> In your mate's defence, a lot of this stuff stretches credulity to breaking point until you or someone you know is actually put through it. The ATOS disability assesments in particular seem far too macabre to be real. It's understandable that someone would not wish to believe that such unspeakable treatment has become the norm for so many people.


 good point.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Just another middle class careerist.


 
We don't have to like the man to be pleased that he's helping put information out there, last I heard.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 17, 2012)

Telling people what they already know.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> AFAIK most of these workfare placements aren't advertised as job vacancies in the usual way. Tesco seem to be saying that the advert that kicked off this backlash against them was a mistake, suggesting that it's not normal practice to advertise these 'vacancies' publically. I think it's all done under the counter at the job centre.


 
Yep, basically Tesco (and whichever other cunts, like WH Shits, are using this slave labour) forward a list to JC+, and JC+ put it on their internal network.



> There certainly doesn't seem to be any effort made to find workfare jobs that are suited to particular claimants' experience, qualifications or aspirations for actual jobs. Presumably companies make it known that they wouldn't mind some free labour (or, worse but more likely, the jobcentre approaches companies and asks them if they would like some free labour) and the resulting placements are thrown into hat. A company name is then pulled from the hat, a dart thrown at a big wall with claimants' photos on it and voila, a match made in hell.


 
Yup, this is just a scheme to provide trolley-fodder, to milk 180hrs+ of free labour from a disposable asset, then move on to the next one. All the bullshit about training, and about a guaranteed interview, what does that cost a company participating in this farce? A couple of hours of labour from an employee, that's all, showing the workfare victim the ropes. To me that looks like they come out of the equation with more than 150hrs of free labour in hand.  That's an awful lot of surplus value that these shitcunts are getting, and rather than stopping that kind of exploitation, the government have legislated to widen and deepen the rapine.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Telling people what they already know.


 
To be fair, the word "should" is missing from between "they" and "already" in your sentence, in my humble opinion. 

Like I've said elsewhere, unfortunately some people insulate themselves from this sort of stuff, so I'm in favour of anything that brings this shite a bit more into the light, even if it *is* some Oxbridger making a living out of being a semi-professional advocate for people who haven't asked him to be.  What do you expect from an (ex?)-Trot?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

mentalchik said:


> I live in social housing and with Aprils rent rise i am looking at the rent being just about 40% of my actual take home pay !


 
"Housing costs" included, at the time, general and water rates, so you need to add Council Tax and your water bill to your rent to get a true reflection, plus any sevice charge or similar you pay, chikkie.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Some new housing association rents are higher than private ones are here. Can't quite see the point.


 
It's really simple, and really disgusting.
Housing Associations are empowered to set their own rents.
Many Housing Associations have a majority tenant base who receive Housing Benefit.
By analysing the local rental market, the Housing Associations can set a rent that is competitive with the private sector, but higher than the comparable local authority social housing rents.
They do this, and get away with this cynical manipulation, because by not setting their rents *higher* than comparable private sector housing, their rents, at least in terms of Housing Benefit eligibility, are still deemed "affordable".
Sickening, isn't it?

As another poster said to me in a PM, the Housing Association "sector" made profits of over £1 billion for the financial year 2010-2011. I wonder how much (or little) of that will be reinvested into new-build?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

Sweetpea said:


> I agree, there are some days when I can't see the point in anything anymore
> I guess it's argued that they offer better security of tenure. I understand that the Govt. have been encouraging Housing Associations to charge up to 80% of market rent.


 
Housing Associations only offer "better security of tenure" if you're comparing them to the private rental sector. They still fall well short of the security of tenure one gets with local authority social housing, and Housing Associations, unlike either local authorities or private landlords, have less of a legislative burden on them w/r/t changing tenancy T & Cs. Basically they can screw tenants more easily than anyone else in the housing provision sector.
I'm not against HAs, by the way, but I'm not over-fond of the lust with which many of them have embraced the "business" part of their remit at the expense of the "provision" part.


----------



## Sweetpea (Feb 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's really simple, and really disgusting.
> Housing Associations are empowered to set their own rents.
> Many Housing Associations have a majority tenant base who receive Housing Benefit.
> By analysing the local rental market, the Housing Associations can set a rent that is competitive with the private sector, but higher than the comparable local authority social housing rents.
> ...


Also there is the attitude that the tenants who are receiving HB don't really pay their rent so cannot complain about increases.


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

This thread is in the top ten google list on Tesco Workfare


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be fair, the word "should" is missing from between "they" and "already" in your sentence, in my humble opinion.
> 
> Like I've said elsewhere, unfortunately some people insulate themselves from this sort of stuff, so I'm in favour of anything that brings this shite a bit more into the light, even if it *is* some Oxbridger making a living out of being a semi-professional advocate for people who haven't asked him to be. What do you expect from an (ex?)-Trot?


 
Depends on _who_, really.  And of course you're entitled to your humble opinion.  It's all rather inconsequential.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> What do you expect from an (ex?)-Trot?


 
oi.

and iirc, the CPGB aren't trots


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 17, 2012)

If I went on one of these schemes, sabotage would never be far from my mind. Turds in the hot food cabinet. That kind of thing.


----------



## Sweetpea (Feb 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Housing Associations only offer "better security of tenure" if you're comparing them to the private rental sector. They still fall well short of the security of tenure one gets with local authority social housing, and Housing Associations, unlike either local authorities or private landlords, have less of a legislative burden on them w/r/t changing tenancy T & Cs. Basically they can screw tenants more easily than anyone else in the housing provision sector.
> I'm not against HAs, by the way, but I'm not over-fond of the lust with which many of them have embraced the "business" part of their remit at the expense of the "provision" part.


I agree, more motivation for LA's (I'm looking at Lambeth and the Ethelred estate here) to transfer to HA's. Never mind, there will be 'free' kitchens and bathrooms for everyone that they should have had under the decent homes standards.


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

This is now all over the web and particularly on social media sites, there are thousands of very articulate and angry criticisms of workfare, tesco's and others, the MSM and the three parties give the impression that everyone supports workfare, benefit cuts, etc, its clear they have been trying to create a narrative, but not everyone is buying it..


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 17, 2012)

It's worth watching this clip from Newsnight:



BBC Newsnight - Poverty Pay in Supermarkets




> When you do your supermarket shopping at the likes of Tesco, Asda, Morrisons and Sainsbury's you are not only paying for your goods, your taxes are subsidising their huge profits and the remuneration packages for their CEOs.
> 
> Newsnight's Economics editor Paul Mason reports on the way workers' wages are being supplemented by state benefits.
> 
> Broadcast on Thursday 9 February 2012.


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

Jeremy Vine now on radio 2 discussing workfare

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006wr3p


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

Great graphic


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2012)

Wolveryeti said:


> If I went on one of these schemes, sabotage would never be far from my mind. Turds in the hot food cabinet. That kind of thing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

Sweetpea said:


> Also there is the attitude that the tenants who are receiving HB don't really pay their rent so cannot complain about increases.


 
Holders of such attitudes also miss the point, well-known to anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the subject, that the majority of HB claimants are in work, and need HB *because* of high rents/rent increases.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> oi.
> 
> and iirc, the CPGB aren't trots


 
I thought that Mr. Jones had dabbled with the Swappites when younger?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

Wolveryeti said:


> If I went on one of these schemes, sabotage would never be far from my mind. Turds in the hot food cabinet. That kind of thing.


 
Would the difference be noticed?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I thought that Mr. Jones had dabbled with the Swappites when younger?


 
the swp aren't trots. not really anyway.


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

Wolveryeti said:


> If I went on one of these schemes, sabotage would never be far from my mind. Turds in the hot food cabinet. That kind of thing.


 

Not sure about that, maybe harm customers, but all supermarkets operate 'just in time' distribution models, maybe skewer them...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> the swp aren't trots. not really anyway.


 
I know, but *they* think they are, and I don't wan't to disillusion the poor cunts.


----------



## Superdupastupor (Feb 17, 2012)

Introduce malicious sowftware patch to the self-service till network. 

21stC. Spanner in the works.


----------



## 1%er (Feb 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> oi.
> 
> and iirc, the CPGB aren't trots


slightly more groucho marx than karl marx


----------



## BigTom (Feb 17, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00nr3q1/Adrian_Goldberg_17_02_2012/

Just listening to this now - BBC Radio WM this morning on Workfare, from the start of the programme (after the news).. I'm on from somewhere about 30 minutes as someone from boycott workfare.
I think I did ok.. not looking forward to hearing my voice, that's always very odd..  

I wish I had the recording from the same programme at the end of last year (october or November, maybe December) when the legal challenge started so I could compare the callers.
From the ones I heard when I was on the radio, there was more people against workfare, than for it.  Last time was definitely pro-workfare - of course we don't know how the callers that are put through actually reflect those that call, and how that reflects those who don't call - but I think there has been a shift on this over the past few months, with many people now opposing the idea.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 17, 2012)

treelover said:


> Great graphic


 
Heh, perhaps an SEO campaign is needed to make this the new Tesco logo?


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

'I'm working at Matalan whilst I do my MA and they host "placement workers".
Paid staff on small contracts (4, 8hrs) are being reduced to their minimum hours, being sent home early to save money and having shifts cancelled with an hour's notice.
The exploited "placement" workers aren't sent home early. Why would they send them home when they're there for free. They're rota'd in for 6am starts and 3am finishes and not given training or uniforms.
Utter disgrace, whichever way you look at it.
Add Matalan to your list.'

Sounds appalling, where are the Unions?


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Heh, perhaps an SEO campaign is needed to make this the new Tesco logo?


 

whats a 'SEO campaign'


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

BigTom said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00nr3q1/Adrian_Goldberg_17_02_2012/
> 
> Just listening to this now - BBC Radio WM this morning on Workfare, from the start of the programme (after the news).. I'm on from somewhere about 30 minutes as someone from boycott workfare.
> I think I did ok.. not looking forward to hearing my voice, that's always very odd..
> ...


 
Yes, on welfare issues I'm known as a pessimist, but recently something has definitely changed, the days of action are going to be important...


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 17, 2012)

greggs say:

​


> We’ve been offering work placements of no longer than 8 weeks to unemployed people, to help them gain work experience and as a result nearly half of these people now have jobs either at Greggs or in other companies. Our scheme is entirely​voluntary and the placements are unpaid and available specifically for unemployed people, in order to help them get back into work. We don’t use placements to fill vacancies – they’re for a very short period of time to help people gain valuable experience. We’ve had a very good success rate in helping people go on to gain paid employment and we believe our approach is genuinely trying to help people.​


 
Anyone know if that's right or not? ​​​​


----------



## BigTom (Feb 17, 2012)

treelover said:


> Yes, on welfare issues I'm known as a pessimist, but recently something has definitely changed, the days of action are going to be important...


 
I think that is true - particularly with workfare, the last few weeks, it's been something of a shock tbh, I think people really are understanding that this just takes away paid jobs and is taxpayers paying companies making billions of pounds.
I think the spartacus report and stuff in the lords really helped with the wider welfare and disability stuff, I think many more people realised just how savage it is and are started to react against it.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2012)

8 weeks is still fucked up


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

'Von Hayek and Freidman actually supported such ideas as a guaranteed 'living wage' and a comfortable safety net provided by the state to those who are unable to work.'

Is this true?, obviously the Condems just cherrypick bits of Hayek, etc, they like


----------



## BigTom (Feb 17, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> greggs say:
> 
> ​
> 
> Anyone know if that's right or not? ​​​​


 
I have no idea.  There's a difficulty with this though, which is that if half of the people who did this got jobs, how many would have got jobs if they hadn't done it? I'm not sure there is even a way to guesstimate that.  Without being able to even guesstimate it, there is no way of knowing whether the experience actually helps or not.
However, I would say this.. when I was 16, I got a job at McDonalds. I had an interview, and following that a 1 month probationary period.
This probationary period gave me the experience I needed, and gave them the opportunity to find out if I could do the job.

I was paid for this.  Some people didn't pass the probationary period, or decided they didn't want the job.
Now, are we saying that companies should get the taxpayer to pay for the probationary period? Because when the argument is that these are work experience positions and lead to permanent positions, that is the underlying logic.
If greggs had jobs for half the people they took on these voluntary experience placements, it means they needed people doing those jobs - so they should interview and have probationary periods. That are paid.

Sure it's better if it is voluntary than if it is mandatory.. but it's still not good.
Work experience is for people at school. It could be improved sure, but anyone else should be getting paid.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 17, 2012)

BigTom said:


> I have no idea. There's a difficulty with this though, which is that if half of the people who did this got jobs, how many would have got jobs if they hadn't done it? I'm not sure there is even a way to guesstimate that. Without being able to even guesstimate it, there is no way of knowing whether the experience actually helps or not.
> However, I would say this.. when I was 16, I got a job at McDonalds. I had an interview, and following that a 1 month probationary period.
> This probationary period gave me the experience I needed, and gave them the opportunity to find out if I could do the job.
> 
> ...


Exactly, in a time of cuts, why is the taxpayer suddenly subsidizing big businesses recruitment process?


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

Tesco Customer Services
Freepost SCO2298
Dundee
Scotland DD1 9HF
Telephone: 0800 505555
Email: customer.service@tesco.co.

just rang them, head office


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2012)

treelover said:


> Yes, on welfare issues I'm known as a pessimist, but recently something has definitely changed, the days of action are going to be important...


 
Its partly due to the efforts of people like you that it has been brought to peoples attention.


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Its partly due to the efforts of people like you that it has been brought to peoples attention.


 
Aw shucks, not recently though, too knackered, honours go to smoked out, kaliya, sue marsh, black triangle, boycott welfare

have to say though, the early years of campaigning on this were bleak..


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2012)

treelover said:


> Aw shucks, not recently though, too knackered, honours go to smoked out, kaliya, sue marsh, black triangle, boycott welfare
> 
> have to say though, the early years of campaigning on this were bleak..


 
smokedout does an excellent job. one of my friends on facebook is almost housebound currently due to ME but like over the year or so that ive come to know her shes a complete inspriation. shes massivlely involved in disabled people against cuts in Brighton and shes done incredible things, fantastic


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

Done a year ago, someone was very prescient...


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 17, 2012)

treelover said:


> Tesco Customer Services
> Freepost SCO2298
> Dundee
> Scotland DD1 9HF
> ...


 
ooo.  a freepost address.

have i got any bricks handy?


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 17, 2012)

The daily mail - ''This is not wartime Nazi Germany'' 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...amerons-attacks-vulnerable-needy-stopped.html


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> The daily mail - ''This is not wartime Nazi Germany''
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...amerons-attacks-vulnerable-needy-stopped.html


 
Just psted that in another thread. holy shit whats the world coming to?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 17, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> The daily mail - ''This is not wartime Nazi Germany''
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...amerons-attacks-vulnerable-needy-stopped.html


 
 ^ lots


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 17, 2012)

I don't get the ''our scheme is entirely voluntary'' bit from Greggs.  Surely it's workfare that is making it mandatory, not the employers?


----------



## weepiper (Feb 17, 2012)

*falls over*


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

if you look at all the more youth orientated political sites, benefit/welfare issues are everywhere, a big change from say two years ago


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 17, 2012)

treelover said:


> This thread is in the top ten google list on Tesco Workfare


 
Oh dear, maybe I shouldn't have started that huge derail a couple of pages ago


----------



## audiotech (Feb 17, 2012)




----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 17, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'I'm working at Matalan whilst I do my MA and they host "placement workers".
> Paid staff on small contracts (4, 8hrs) are being reduced to their minimum hours, being sent home early to save money and having shifts cancelled with an hour's notice.
> The exploited "placement" workers aren't sent home early. Why would they send them home when they're there for free. They're rota'd in for 6am starts and 3am finishes and not given training or uniforms.
> Utter disgrace, whichever way you look at it.
> ...


 
Tescos apparently sent their paid staff home over the christmas bank holidays and made the workfare drones come in instead. Presumably some clever bastard at head office figured out that double time is less of a problem when the time you're doubling is free. Fucking sickening behaviour.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 17, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> greggs say:
> 
> ​
> 
> Anyone know if that's right or not? ​​​​


 
I seriously doubt you have to work at greggs for eight weeks to gain all the necessary skills to sell people lukewarm square things which some loophole in the trade descriptions act allows them to call pasties. And surely they train their new employees anyway? Surely they don't think they're doing anyone a favour by making sure staff know how to do their job?

And if they mean to hire these people then they should hire them straight out, or they're still getting something for nothing while some poor sod works for free. And 'almost half' of people getting a job 'at greggs or somewhere else' could mean anything. The fact that they are not forthcoming with the actual numbers suggests that the numbers look pretty bad.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

treelover said:


> Tesco Customer Services
> Freepost SCO2298
> Dundee
> Scotland DD1 9HF
> ...


 
Hmm, wondering if the old "bulky jiffy bag full of old waste paper, junkmail and card" ploy would cause a bit of grief to their postal licence budget?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

audiotech said:


>


 
Could the "quality guaranteed" be amended to "poverty guaranteed"?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 17, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Tescos apparently sent their paid staff home over the christmas bank holidays and made the workfare drones come in instead. Presumably some clever bastard at head office figured out that double time is less of a problem when the time you're doubling is free. Fucking sickening behaviour.


 
Ahh, that makes sense (in a twisted and evil sort of way)

So they're not only ripping off the tax payers who subsidise their workfare slaves and obviously, exploiting the slaves themselves, but they're also screwing over their own workers ... nice.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 17, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Tescos apparently sent their paid staff home over the christmas bank holidays and made the workfare drones come in instead. Presumably some clever bastard at head office figured out that double time is less of a problem when the time you're doubling is free. Fucking sickening behaviour.


 
As far as I am aware, there is no legal requirement for employers to offer pay if taking them off, or to pay double time to people working bank holidays.   Tesco only pays double time to staff on older contracts before more recent changes in conditions.  Stopped doing it some years ago for newer staff.  Might have been the old-timers they rota'd (is that a past participle?) off.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Could the "quality guaranteed" be amended to "poverty guaranteed"?


 





here you go..


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 17, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> As far as I am aware, there is no legal requirement for employers to offer pay if taking them off, or to pay double time to people working bank holidays. Tesco only pays double time to staff on older contracts before more recent changes in conditions. Stopped doing it some years ago for newer staff. Might have been the old-timers they rota'd (is that a past participle?) off.


I've worked bank holidays and never been paid double time, in loads of places. In fact the only place that ever did was Sainsburies.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2012)

yep we never got paid double time - best i think (for an extra shift) was an extra 50p an hour!


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 17, 2012)

Shit, innit.  We couldn't hold our employers to ransom though, that'd be even shitter.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 17, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'I'm working at Matalan whilst I do my MA and they host "placement workers".
> Paid staff on small contracts (4, 8hrs) are being reduced to their minimum hours, being sent home early to save money and having shifts cancelled with an hour's notice.
> The exploited "placement" workers aren't sent home early. Why would they send them home when they're there for free. They're rota'd in for 6am starts and 3am finishes and not given training or uniforms.
> Utter disgrace, whichever way you look at it.
> ...


 
We're planning some kind of stunt in Sheffield (don't know what yet, it's to be decided democratically on the day but I'm sure Tesco will be the target) - occupy and UKuncut have called it and we're going to join them (we being Unite Community branch). I'll PM you when I know more - we're having to push Unite quite a lot atm, still haven't managed to get a date for the next meeting - but we're hoping that we'll know when/where it is in time for this, as I reckon it could be a good opportunity to get more people involved.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 17, 2012)

It is one of the mad aspects of the present shitstym that people doing something (I can't say something useful when most of the "jobs" appear to be in retail) is likely to put others out of a job.

Nothing wrong with getting people off their arses though. I have little sympathy for lazy fuckers whinging on the interwebs about having to drag themselves into the horrors of a job. HOWEVER- plenty of people doing useful things  "in the community" are being forced into unpaid pointless shit jobs for these high street robbery centres.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 17, 2012)

BigTom said:


> I have no idea. There's a difficulty with this though, which is that if half of the people who did this got jobs, how many would have got jobs if they hadn't done it? I'm not sure there is even a way to guesstimate that. Without being able to even guesstimate it, there is no way of knowing whether the experience actually helps or not.
> However, I would say this.. when I was 16, I got a job at McDonalds. I had an interview, and following that a 1 month probationary period.
> This probationary period gave me the experience I needed, and gave them the opportunity to find out if I could do the job.
> 
> ...


 
Greggs kill people- the food is near poison when you consider the sugar and fat contents. For every under priced chocolate doughnut the NHS has to pay £100's in medical care. Why the fuck is the UK state subsiding these lard ladlers?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 17, 2012)

I like Greggs.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 17, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> We're planning some kind of stunt in Sheffield


 
Good to hear. Pity Mozaz isn't around to help out.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 17, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I like Greggs.


Why am I not surprised? You are welcome to them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

kenny g said:


> Nothing wrong with getting people off their arses though. I have little sympathy for lazy fuckers whinging on the interwebs about having to drag themselves into the horrors of a job. HOWEVER- plenty of people doing useful things "in the community" are being forced into unpaid pointless shit jobs for these high street robbery centres.


 
How do you distinguish the two, kenny? With your handy crystal ball?


----------



## xenon (Feb 17, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> greggs say:
> 
> ​
> 
> Anyone know if that's right or not? ​​​​



UP to 8 weeks doesn't sound like short to me. That's a nice rolling system of free labour. Even if it takes a few weeks to train someone. There's a net bennefit to these companies at a direct cost to employees. Does anything legally stop them taking in cohort after cohort of peple forced on to the scheme by Jobcentre+. (Somehow I doubt it.)

FWIW I'm not as it goes, entirely against work experience for adults. I could have done with some after leaving higher education TBH. (I don't mean stacking shelves or putting pasties in ovens though.)


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 17, 2012)

Does anyone remember the original Youth Opportunity Schemes (YOPS)? I went on one working in an off licence when I was 18, they were six month placements where your "salary" was paid not by the employer but by the Government who also paid the company to take you on. Within a week of taking me on they laid off 3 part time workers, I did all the menial shit (floor sweeping / shelf filling / warehouse tidying etc. At the end of the six month period they wanted me to stay for another six months and promised to "train me to use the till"  I said no thanks.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 17, 2012)

*Petition to Abolish Work for your Benefit/Workfare Schemes in the UK.
​*


----------



## ymu (Feb 17, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I've worked bank holidays and never been paid double time, in loads of places. In fact the only place that ever did was Sainsburies.


It's shocking. I used to get time and a half for anything more than 8 hours a day and double time on top of that at weekends (late '80s) and double time on Saturdays, triple time on Sundays and bank holidays (early '90s).

Spoke to a guy in a One Stop Shop (Tesco's chain of corner shops) who worked about 24 hours a week but was on a 12 hour contract, because that's what determined his holiday pay, no regular hours and no extra hourly pay for a 12 hour shift on Sundays.

It's fucking terrible how much worse things have got, and much of it on Labour's watch.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Feb 17, 2012)

even the Mail thinks that Cameron has 'crossed the line'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...amerons-attacks-vulnerable-needy-stopped.html


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 17, 2012)

kenny g said:


> Good to hear. Pity Mozaz isn't around to help out.


 
Who?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Who?


Activist Urbanite in Sheffield who passed away a little while ago.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 17, 2012)

Ah right, don't think I knew him.


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 17, 2012)

BBC NEWS 24 was asking for comments and Tesco deleted it. They really know how to get the media on their side!!!!


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Housing costs" included, at the time, general and water rates, so you need to add Council Tax and your water bill to your rent to get a true reflection, plus any sevice charge or similar you pay, chikkie.


makes it just over 50% then


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

mentalchik said:


> makes it just over 50% then


 
Disgusting, isn't it?


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's really simple, and really disgusting.
> Housing Associations are empowered to set their own rents.
> Many Housing Associations have a majority tenant base who receive Housing Benefit.
> By analysing the local rental market, the Housing Associations can set a rent that is competitive with the private sector, but higher than the comparable local authority social housing rents.
> ...


 

Yes i'm paying a fair bit more for my small 2 bed flat than people i know living in 2/3 bed council houses with gardens.......

also i don't get HB (and by the way i in no way resent those that do).....the whole thing stinks


----------



## audiotech (Feb 17, 2012)

The irony.........




> The DWP has started taking on claimants on Workfare placements to do administration work in Job Centres.


http://pcseuston.org.uk/if-you-dont-think-workfare-is-a-workplace-issue-you-need-to-think-again/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

mentalchik said:


> Yes i'm paying a fair bit more for my small 2 bed flat than people i know living in 2/3 bed council houses with gardens.......


 
Which is, of course, why so many of the more neo-liberally-inclined of our political class are so resistant to councils re-building local authority social housing stock, even when/though there's a *desperate* need. Right now, doing so maintains the demand on a finite supply of housing, and that keeps rental *and* property prices up, and stops the economy from nosediving into deserved oblivion.
It's yet another way that the less well-off get to pay for the mistakes and cock-ups of the rich.



> also i don't get HB (and by the way i in no way resent those that do).....the whole thing stinks


 
It's going to stink even more once the benefits cap comes in, that's for certain.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

audiotech said:


> The irony.........
> 
> 
> http://pcseuston.org.uk/if-you-dont-think-workfare-is-a-workplace-issue-you-need-to-think-again/


 
It's like a fucking Chris Morris sketch.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 17, 2012)

thanks to Norris Nuvo


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 17, 2012)

Taxpayers alliance are being very quite about this.


----------



## Pimeval Mudd (Feb 17, 2012)

audiotech said:


> The irony.........
> 
> 
> http://pcseuston.org.uk/if-you-dont-think-workfare-is-a-workplace-issue-you-need-to-think-again/


 
Irony indeed.

(I'm the Dave Plummer wot wrote that ^^)


----------



## Libertad (Feb 17, 2012)




----------



## Libertad (Feb 17, 2012)

Where are USDAW on all this?


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 17, 2012)

mentalchik said:


> makes it just over 50% then


 
What is the average price for a 2 bedroom council flat anyway - it seems the average for a 1 bedroom in tower hamlets is £75.00pw


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 17, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Where are USDAW on all this?


 
Doing fuck all, in the pockets of tesco management basically. I have contacted my rep via email and no reply yet. Even with mentions of this suppressing wages in retail I don't think they really give a fuck. Most useless union ever.


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 17, 2012)

RubyBlue said:


> What is the average price for a 2 bedroom council flat anyway - it seems the average for a 1 bedroom in tower hamlets is £75.00pw


 

Well my friends are paying just over £90 a week for a two bedroomed house with garden and i'm paying just over £100 a week for small 2 bed flat.....my rent has gone up 25% in the 5 years i've lived here


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 17, 2012)

Termite Man said:


> Doing fuck all, in the pockets of tesco management basically. I have contacted my rep via email and no reply yet. Even with mentions of this suppressing wages in retail I don't think they really give a fuck. Most useless union ever.


 
Eastern Division executive council ballot is 50% tesco workers and from what I recall the union leadership have done deals with tesco in the past to the detriment of tesco workers. It's the worst fucking union ever, dominated by tesco workers who seem to be in the pockets of tesco management.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 17, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Where are USDAW on all this?


 
Probably still trying to "Save our Sunday".


----------



## Libertad (Feb 17, 2012)

Termite Man said:


> Doing fuck all, in the pockets of tesco management basically. I have contacted my rep via email and no reply yet. Even with mentions of this suppressing wages in retail I don't think they really give a fuck. Most useless union ever.


 
Just as well the IWW are organising on this. It takes a real union to get the job done.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

Termite Man said:


> Doing fuck all, in the pockets of tesco management basically. I have contacted my rep via email and no reply yet. Even with mentions of this suppressing wages in retail I don't think they really give a fuck. Most useless union ever.


 
There was a reason we used to call it "utter shits, dicks and wankers", you know.


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> There was a reason we used to call it "utter shits, dicks and wankers", you know.


 
I'm going to keep on at my rep. I've sent them 3 emails over the last 2 days nows.


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

Pimeval Mudd said:


> Irony indeed.
> 
> (I'm the Dave Plummer wot wrote that ^^)


 

Welcome to the boards...


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 17, 2012)

mentalchik said:


> Well my friends are paying just over £90 a week for a two bedroomed house with garden and i'm paying just over £100 a week for small 2 bed flat.....my rent has gone up 25% in the 5 years i've lived here


 
for social housing 25% is a shit load! I suspect SH is a lot more then I thought it was (or rather has increased much quicker) - I did a thread about housing costs awhile ago but also guess it depends on the area and whatever


----------



## StoneRoad (Feb 17, 2012)

signed the e-petition - it was just over 4,ooo but it took a long time to get the confirmation link email ! - I wonder why ?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

Termite Man said:


> I'm going to keep on at my rep. I've sent them 3 emails over the last 2 days nows.


 
If they're anything like they used to be, someone will offer you a bribe in about a week to stop being such a trade union activist.


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> If they're anything like they used to be, someone will offer you a bribe in about a week to stop being such a trade union activist.


 
I could do with a bribe ( and since it's probably illegal to bribe people then I can still cause trouble)


----------



## weepiper (Feb 17, 2012)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

RubyBlue said:


> for social housing 25% is a shit load! I suspect SH is a lot more then I thought it was (or rather has increased much quicker) - I did a thread about housing costs awhile ago


 
I'm in a one-bed council flat in Lambeth, and the rent is £90, plus about £8 of sundry charges. Council tax is £20-something a week


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

Termite Man said:


> I could do with a bribe ( and since it's probably illegal to bribe people then I can still cause trouble)


 
When I was an USDAW rep, it used to stun me how blatant managers were about buying off "troublemakers" (i.e. anyone who actually dared contact the union). Couldn't stomach it in the end.


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 17, 2012)

100 for a one bed in lambeth is about 25% more then I would have guessed at - what are the 'sundries'?  When I left my council flat 17 years ago (2 bedroom on Hackney's Pembury) I was paying 185.00pm - no idea what it would be now on the same or similar estate.


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

reading the many fantastic posts on Tescos facebook, etc, one thing i have become aware that tbh i wasn't (until at least the student protests) is there is now a considerable amount of young people who are politically aware, determined and prepared to speak out, even if its just on websites etc. For instance, many posters refer to Lady Porter, i would have thought few would have known who she was, maybe we didn't have a year zero in terms of political consciousness...


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

weepiper said:


>


 

Blimey, where did you get that from/


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

'"Statement on Marie Curie Cancer Care and the Work Programme scheme (WorkFare)

February 17, 2012

Marie Curie Cancer Care has reviewed its position with regard to the Department for Work and Pensions' Work Programme scheme, designed to encourage people who are receiving benefits to get back to work.
... 
We participated in this scheme because we believed it could offer volunteers an opportunity to gain valuable experience. However, there is a difference between volunteering and being forced to work and if there is any chance that people with terminal illnesses could be made to take part in this scheme we would take this very seriously.

It is possible that some of our shops have provided placements for volunteers under this scheme. If any volunteers currently on the scheme are with us we would be delighted to keep them on in a voluntary capacity, although we would suggest the volunteers check with Department for Work and Pensions about how volunteering affects their benefits position.

Marie Curie will not participate in the scheme in the future.

Marie Curie Cancer Care relies on the vital support of our volunteers without which we would not be able to continue to ensure that more people have access to high quality end of life care in their own homes or in one of our hospices."'

I don't believe them, all the charities saw a chance for free labour, especially as donations are down, then again sinner repenteth..


----------



## ddraig (Feb 17, 2012)

treelover said:


> whats a 'SEO campaign'


Search Engine Optimisation i am guessing


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 17, 2012)

If you are banned from tesco facebook then move onto ASDA instead.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 17, 2012)

treelover said:


> Blimey, where did you get that from/


 
it's going about facebook tonight


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2012)

'Shiv Malik@shivmalik1Reply
Retweeted
Important move for Tesco on Work Experience. Details to come.... #workfare
Shiv is a Guardian reporter btw'

Tesco shifting, fuck me, the power of the web!

all without anyone holding placards, etc..

btw, nothing on BBC news yet?  doesn't fit the narrative


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 17, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'Shiv Malik@shivmalik1Reply
> Retweeted
> Important move for Tesco on Work Experience. Details to come.... #workfare
> Shiv is a Guardian reporter btw'
> ...


 
BBC News were banned from Tesco facebook page.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 17, 2012)

Termite Man said:


> BBC News were banned from Tesco facebook page.


 
BBC News 24 is posting on there again just now

edit, actually it looks like a lookeylikey


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 17, 2012)

Tesco have responded to the FB furore last night (though I noticed it was buried in a photo feature as opposed to being a separate post):

Jobcentre Plus yesterday wrongly advertised a short work experience placement at Tesco as a permanent, unpaid job. This has resulted in widespread misunderstanding of our position. We are happy to re-state the facts: ​
- Tesco has been working in partnership with Jobcentre Plus for many months to offer work experience opportunities lasting up to four weeks for young unemployed people who are struggling to find jobs. No one is under any obligation to take part in the scheme, and Jobcentre Plus has assured us that all of those who have come to Tesco have done so as volunteers. Tesco would not take part in any mandatory scheme. This is all about helping young people who want to find a job. ​
- We would never offer longer term work on an unpaid basis. The Department for Work and Pensions has acknowledged that the advertisement was an error on the part of Jobcentre Plus. Work experience at Tesco should, wherever possible, be a pathway to a paid job with Tesco. That has already been the case for 300 work experience participants with us so far and we hope it will be for many more people. ​
- We understand the concern that those who stay in the scheme longer than a week risk losing their benefits if they drop out before the end of their placement. We have suggested to DWP that, to avoid any misunderstanding about the voluntary nature of the scheme, this threat of losing benefit should be removed. ​
We remain committed to offering long-term, sustainable and rewarding paths into employment for thousands of young people.​
Best wishes, David - Community Host​


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

RubyBlue said:


> 100 for a one bed in lambeth is about 25% more then I would have guessed at - what are the 'sundries'? When I left my council flat 17 years ago (2 bedroom on Hackney's Pembury) I was paying 185.00pm - no idea what it would be now on the same or similar estate.


 
Stuff for estate cleaning and lighting. TBF, they do keep the place litter-free.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 17, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Tesco have responded to the FB furore last night (though I noticed it was buried in a photo feature as opposed to being a separate post):
> 
> *Jobcentre Plus yesterday wrongly advertised a short work experience placement at Tesco as a permanent, unpaid job. This has resulted in widespread misunderstanding of our position. We are happy to re-state the facts: *​
> - Tesco has been working in partnership with Jobcentre Plus for many months to offer work experience opportunities lasting up to four weeks for young unemployed people who are struggling to find jobs. No one is under any obligation to take part in the scheme, and Jobcentre Plus has assured us that all of those who have come to Tesco have done so as volunteers. Tesco would not take part in any mandatory scheme. This is all about helping young people who want to find a job. ​
> ...


 
Then what about this from last september?

http://ec.europa.eu/eures/eures-searchengine/servlet/ShowJvServlet?lg=EN&pesId=58&uniqueJvId=HBH/25785


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 17, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Then what about this from last september?
> 
> http://ec.europa.eu/eures/eures-searchengine/servlet/ShowJvServlet?lg=EN&pesId=58&uniqueJvId=HBH/25785


 
Well indeed.  It's all a crock of shit, of course, just marginally better spun than their efforts last night.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 17, 2012)

I can't post on their wall.  i'm banned.


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Stuff for estate cleaning and lighting. TBF, they do keep the place litter-free.


 Fair enough but I would have thought that would be included in the rent.  It's rather depressing that a generation of people are facing the real prospect of never having a 'real' home of their own - neither able to get a mortgage nor be eligable for social housing.  Private rentals offer no security or opportunity to turn a flat / house into a place of your own.  A lot of social housing may well be shit but at the very least it's secure and far cheaper then the private alternative.  I was lucky enough to get a council flat when I was 19 (although on a hard to let estate) - not sure where I'd be if not for that break.

As I said earlier - the average for a 1 bed SH flat in Tower Hamlets is 75pw - my 1 bed in Hackney would be around 250pw if privately rented (it's shared ownership, I own outright 50%).


----------



## binka (Feb 17, 2012)

is there any way of finding out exactly how many people have been forced to go and work for tesco? they keep banging on about 300 people getting permanent jobs out of it but if 10,000 people have been through the scheme it doesn't look quite so good. considering tesco have around 600ish large supermarkets and over a 1000 express/metro sites (and you would imagine they have all been taking advantage) then that 300 figure starts to look a bit pathetic.


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 17, 2012)

Freedom of Information case?  Would that be allowable here?


----------



## ymu (Feb 17, 2012)

binka said:


> is there any way of finding out exactly how many people have been forced to go and work for tesco? they keep banging on about 300 people getting permanent jobs out of it but if 10,000 people have been through the scheme it doesn't look quite so good. considering tesco have around 600ish large supermarkets and over a 1000 express/metro sites (and you would imagine they have all been taking advantage) then that 300 figure starts to look a bit pathetic.


That and the fact that they'd have taken on 300 people anyway _because they had 300 jobs to fill_. This is just taking some people off the dole and dumping others on it, It won't be long before someone is made redundant because their job is being done for free by workfare 'volunteers' and is then sent back to their old workplace to work for free earn their dole.

I'd say it was a pointless employment merry-go-round, but it's not - the point is massive taxpayer subsidies to employers and downward pressure on wages and conditions.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 17, 2012)

This was reposted by someone on facebook. they said they c&pd from tesco fb page but that it would probably be deleted. I couldn't see it there.



> Genuine! 2 people who have done workfare at Tesco have bravely posted their experience on Tesco's own fb site.They my be deleted soon so I've cut & pasted (names removed):​"Who said the work experience is for young people lmfao ... I'm 46 and on my 4 th week of work experience .. Catch 22 don't do it don't get benefits so I don't have a choice.. I have various health issues but have been told by d​wp that I'm able to lift empty boxes so not entitled to ESA to the disgust of my doctor and specialist .. I got put on jsa and work experience and told I have to complete or lose benefit ... Please don't think I'm a scrounger or perpetual claimant as I'm not I've only been unemployed for just over a year due to redundancy ... I would like to point out that it does give people experience but there is no garunteed job or even an interview and you must show that your actively seeking work as well as doing work experience ..... So wrong !!!"​​"This may compromise my chances of employment but I just completed this work experience scheme over christmas. I was advised to do work experience through the Job Center Plus as I had just spent 3 years focusing on my uni degree and it lead to no job opportunities so far. It mostly consisted on breaking down cardboard for hours on end whilst watching other members of staff complain about their job that theyre being paid to do, whilst chatting to customers. The majority of the time I was working on my own, if I wasnt doing the job no one else was. And on other times I had gone into Tescos it has been empty (and a mess) The Tescos I worked at claimed to earn a million pounds a week, and the managers boasted of earning a 70k per year salary. I've recently been called back for an interview and did an hour and half unpaid work sample last night for a temp job. They said they would "let me know" and the sad thing is I would still love a job at Tescos because I just want to work."​


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 17, 2012)

ymu said:


> It won't be long before someone is made redundant because their job is being done for free by workfare 'volunteers' and is then sent back to their old workplace to work for free earn their dole.


 






Redundant police officers were asked if they wanted to become volunteer 'specials' last year - more here


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

RubyBlue said:


> Freedom of Information case? Would that be allowable here?


 
You'd have to send n FOI request to JC+ rather than Tesco, as JC+ are part of DWP, and therefore a public body that has to conform to FOI minimum standards (Tesco don't).


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You'd have to send n FOI request to JC+ rather than Tesco, as JC+ are part of DWP, and therefore a public body that has to conform to FOI minimum standards (Tesco don't).


 
that.

although i wonder if the 'commercial confidentiality' get-out clause would be played.


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 17, 2012)

When I worked for BIS (former DTI) I had to deal with FoI requests but for the life of me I can't remember the exceptions - I'm going to ask an ex colleague unless anyone else can help?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 17, 2012)

RubyBlue said:


> When I worked for BIS (former DTI) I had to deal with FoI requests but for the life of me I can't remember the exceptions - I'm going to ask an ex colleague unless anyone else can help?


 
wikipedia has more.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


> that.
> 
> although i wonder if the 'commercial confidentiality' get-out clause would be played.


 
I can't see a commercial element in it. It's not like any financial information is being requested, merely a month-by-month (because that'd mean them having to break the figures down rather than just tossing out some arbitrary number, IYSWIM) account of the numbers of claimants referred by JC+ to Tesco for work placement under this and the previous government.


----------



## binka (Feb 17, 2012)

or someone could buy a share and ask the question at the next agm


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 17, 2012)

I have a share.


----------



## binka (Feb 17, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> I have a share.


in that case it's your moral duty to go to the next agm and cause a scene


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 17, 2012)

Meh.  When is it?


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 17, 2012)

binka said:


> is there any way of finding out exactly how many people have been forced to go and work for tesco? they keep banging on about 300 people getting permanent jobs out of it but if 10,000 people have been through the scheme it doesn't look quite so good. considering tesco have around 600ish large supermarkets and over a 1000 express/metro sites (and you would imagine they have all been taking advantage) then that 300 figure starts to look a bit pathetic.



Tesco stated in The Guardian article that they had taken on 1400 workfare placements and given 300 of them paid work after. 

Last paragraph in article.


----------



## Sweetpea (Feb 17, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> I have a share.


Just one 

How do you buy them?


----------



## binka (Feb 17, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Meh. When is it?


well according to tesco's corporate website the last one was july 1 2011 so i imagine it will be around the same time this year. gives you plenty of time to prepare anyway


----------



## binka (Feb 17, 2012)

Frankie Jack said:


> Tesco stated in The Guardian article that they had taken on 1400 workfare placements and given 300 of them paid work after.
> 
> Last paragraph in article.


it says 1400 in the last three months and given jobs to 300 since the scheme started. anyone know when it started?


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 17, 2012)

Frankie Jack said:


> Tesco stated in The Guardian article that they had taken on 1400 workfare placements and given 300 of them paid work after.
> 
> Last paragraph in article.


 

That has something about ''work trial'' too.  

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Jobseekers/programmesandservices/DG_173561



> Sainsbury's, which has more than 1,000 stores in the UK, says it only now participates in the work trial programme, in which people work a maximum of 16 hours a week for four weeks in an actual job vacancy, and can pull out at any point without sanction.
> Sainsbury's stressed that the work trials were "entirely voluntary" and, unlike work experience schemes, "candidates did not lose their benefits if they didn't participate".
> The supermarket added that it had taken on 4,300 employees through the scheme.


 
That just sounds like instead of Sainsburys taking someone on on 1 month probation for which they get paid, sainsburys get to try them out for free, without recruitment costs, or 1 mnth salary costs.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 17, 2012)

Sweetpea said:


> Just one
> 
> How do you buy them?


 
Yes. For reasons similar to this. No idea.



binka said:


> well according to tesco's corporate website the last one was july 1 2011 so i imagine it will be around the same time this year. gives you plenty of time to prepare anyway


 
Hm. I'm trying to think whether the thing I got in the post from them the other week was AGM related or not. It wasn't just a cheque for 6p like usual. I binned it like usual.


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I can't see a commercial element in it. It's not like any financial information is being requested, merely a month-by-month (because that'd mean them having to break the figures down rather than just tossing out some arbitrary number, IYSWIM) account of the numbers of claimants referred by JC+ to Tesco for work placement under this and the previous government.


I can't see a reason why the information shouldn't be available and I would expect, after this publicity, some paper will be showing it in the next few weeks. Tesco's stance is untennable but how many other companies are 'cashing in'? I expect Tesco to bow out within the next few weeks.

Sainsbury - although no longer involved in this scheme were happy to exploit - I spoke to one very young cashier who told me she worked without pay for 3 months although she did get a minimum pay job after that - taxpayers paid for her training (3 months??)

Also , why the fuck are tax payers paying for large companies like Tesco to under pay their workers? Forcing them to take working tax credits? Tax payers are subsidising these large corporations!

But - who are the worst? Tesco have been named and shamed, Sainsbury have done it - has M&S? How do we know - where can we 'ethically' shop?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2012)

you can't ethically shop anywhere. you can put pressure on the big stores, and protest and show your disapproval (and i really hope that people do) and it can work - as sainsburys etc is now withdrawing from the scheme due to the bad publicity, but theres no such thing as an "ethical" capitalism, which is why it's ludicrous to have a go at people for shopping at tesco etc - especially when there's nothing else around.

however, stores are very concerned about being SEEN to be ethical etc by consumers - hence the growing number of "fairtrade" products around (even if they are nothing of the sort) and promotions about what good work they're doing in various countries ...


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2012)

threee months though?  Jesus. the poor girl 

How are you meant to live??


----------



## xenon (Feb 18, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I can't see a commercial element in it. It's not like any financial information is being requested, merely a month-by-month (because that'd mean them having to break the figures down rather than just tossing out some arbitrary number, IYSWIM) account of the numbers of claimants referred by JC+ to Tesco for work placement under this and the previous government.



As an adendum. Whether those claiments  would have faced sanctions if refusing.

I know refusing to go where JC+ sends you leaves you open to having bennefits being cut off but it would be nice to see them have to outline the workings of this disgusting policy in facts and figures. (or what passes for vassilating contestible excuses.)


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> threee months though?  Jesus. the poor girl
> 
> How are you meant to live??


 she was 18 so presumably at that age you're not meant to live - just be grateful for whatever scaps you're thrown


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 18, 2012)

didn't someone challenge having to 'work' in poundland as it meant she was unable to look for the kind of work she was qualifed for?  I'll have to search....


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 18, 2012)

not everyone that age is middle class, lives with their parents or is at uni ffs. what about if you've say been kicked out of your house because you're gay or something? or if you've gone to live with a boyfriend (as my mate did, with little family support?)


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> not everyone that age is middle class, lives with their parents or is at uni ffs. what about if you've say been kicked out of your house because you're gay or something? or if you've gone to live with a boyfriend (as my mate did, with little family support?)


 tbh it makes me cry - that was my position when I left home at 16 - in that position now I would be fucked, totally and suicidal.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 18, 2012)

RubyBlue said:


> tbh it makes me cry - that was my position when I left home at 16 - in that position now I would be fucked, totally and suicidal.


 
i know so many people who'd be fucked if they were growing up now.  Cunts. What are you supposed to do if you're say a teenage parent? bastards mate, fucking bastards


----------



## ymu (Feb 18, 2012)

RubyBlue said:


> didn't someone challenge having to 'work' in poundland as it meant she was unable to look for the kind of work she was qualifed for? I'll have to search....


Yeah. She'd found herself some voluntary work that was relevant to her intended career and they forced her to work in Poundland instead. Really good case to expose the lies behind the rhetoric.

The Guardian gave her a platform after the shitstorm hit: Why the government was wrong to make me work in Poundland for free

She's launched a judicial review:



> Last week, I launched judicial review proceedings in the high court – a challenge to regulations that require up to 50,000 jobseekers to carry out unpaid work at major corporations. A case such as this cannot result in significant damages; from day one, my challenge has been about the principle, not the money. It is about social justice.
> 
> I expected criticism, but some of the comments about me have been hurtful as well as inaccurate. Jan Moir's attack in the Daily Mail, for example, overlooked the fact that I was not paid for the work I carried out and implied that I believed such work, as well as Poundland itself, to be beneath me. This is not the case – I would grab a paid job in Poundland with both hands. Similarly, Vanessa Feltz attempted to humiliate me on the radio. Such coverage has made taking a stand more difficult than I had imagined.


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i know so many people who'd be fucked if they were growing up now.  Cunts. What are you supposed to do if you're say a teenage parent? bastards mate, fucking bastards


 
tbh - if I was in that situation now - rather then when I was, I know where I would be - dead!!  That's absolutly true!


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 18, 2012)

RubyBlue said:


> tbh - if I was in that situation now - rather then when I was, I know where I would be - dead!! That's absolutly true!


 
 

just a couple years difference eh


----------



## Sweetpea (Feb 18, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Yes. For reasons similar to this. No idea.
> 
> 
> 
> Hm. I'm trying to think whether the thing I got in the post from them the other week was AGM related or not. It wasn't just a cheque for 6p like usual. I binned it like usual.


Ok thanks for the reply. I know it was used a as a tactic in the road building protests of the '90's but Friends of the Earth dealt with the purchases, I would think it would be difficult to buy a singular share. It was weird that loads of my friends were suddenly shareholders


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 18, 2012)

I was basically given one because someone wanted to put something on the agenda.  I forget what and I forget how the share was transferred.  I didn't go to the AGM.


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i know so many people who'd be fucked if they were growing up now.  Cunts. What are you supposed to do if you're say a teenage parent? bastards mate, fucking bastards


 I feel awful for those who are growing up now - not everyone, but some, going to have no chance, no fucking chance at all....When I was a kid and I ended up homeless I was given opportunities that some 16/18 year olds will NEVER have - that is sad.  Our young have been let down


----------



## Sweetpea (Feb 18, 2012)

RubyBlue said:


> didn't someone challenge having to 'work' in poundland as it meant she was unable to look for the kind of work she was qualifed for? I'll have to search....


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ate-sues-ministers-forced-work-Poundland.html
She was doing relevant volunteering work to gain experience but the workfare placement meant she had to stop, I believe.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 18, 2012)

Yeeeeha..
*Businesses reject jobs scheme that's all work and no pay *

NOT Tesco though... Yet.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 18, 2012)

RubyBlue said:


> I feel awful for those who are growing up now - not everyone, but some, going to have no chance, no fucking chance at all....When I was a kid and I ended up homeless I was given opportunities that some 16/18 year olds will
> NEVER have - that is sad. Our young have been let down


 
i know mate


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 18, 2012)

RubyBlue said:


> where can we 'ethically' shop?


 
Oxymorons R Us?


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 18, 2012)

Martin Rowson Spot on again


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 18, 2012)

Let down is too kind - exploited and exploited by those who should be helping them - treated like shit and abandonded is more like...


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2012)

Frankie Jack said:


> Yeeeeha..
> *Businesses reject jobs scheme that's all work and no pay *
> 
> NOT Tesco though... Yet.


 
it just shows how powerful consumer power can be (and brands vulnerability) months of protesting outside Gov't offices would not have achieved these results, charities need to feel the wrath as well...

AND FUCKING A4E!


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> threee months though?  Jesus. the poor girl
> 
> How are you meant to live??


 
presumably she was still getting the dole, and if living away from parental home, would be eligible for (shared house rate) housing benefit though?

still    but not quite as bad as suggested (unless I'm missing something)


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 18, 2012)

treelover said:


> it just shows how powerful consumer power(and brands vulnerability) months of protesting outside Gov't offices would not have achieved these results, charities need to feel the wrath as well...



Think a fair zillion or so rants on Twitter and other social media made a big difference. My feeds and timelines have been full of it and filled by me too.


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2012)

'Every Lidl helps! Thanks for the free advertising! .... the Lidl management team '

Some right funnies on the Tesco FB page

I also like the way brands are being subverted, I remember the Gap protests, loads of youngsters supported them as they could find an easy way in,


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 18, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


> presumably she was still getting the dole, and if living away from parental home, would be eligible for (shared house rate) housing benefit though?
> 
> still   but not quite as bad as suggested (unless I'm missing something)


 
Lovely, if she was (at best, living at home is a nice cosy house) she was working for nothing for a massive corporation that could have afforded to provide a trial period at a reasonable rate of pay. She was used and exploited.  Also even if she was getting the dole the period she worked for free was being paid for by the taxpayer!  Sainsbury should've fucking been paying her!


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 18, 2012)

threee months though? thats not on


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2012)

'Dear Tesco,

I could not help but notice all of the posts written down here. In my opinion, I think it is completely unfair that your workers work hard for nothing. Every day during the open times, the very kind people who work here are working their very best. My mum is already considering shopping somewhere else, and when I'm older, I think I'll shop somewhere apart from tesco as well. You might think because I am a kid, that I have no right to say all of this stuff, But I feel really strongly about how my mum thinks of the free workers and I think it is completely outrageous. This is other people's futures we are talking about. We can't let the future slip away that easily.'

Great to see the young still have heart, again during the Miners Strike, you saw teenagers putting their pocket money in the buckets, then for anumber of years all that largely stopped...


----------



## machine cat (Feb 18, 2012)

Can I just skip these 16 pages and just ask.... *when* and *where* do we take them down?


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 18, 2012)

machine cat said:


> Can I just skip these 16 pages and just ask.... *when* and *where* do we take them down?


 
Widnes.  Thursday.  8pm.  You bring the rope, I'll provide the monkeys.


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2012)

Boycott Workfare 'Day of action', 3rd march...


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 18, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'Dear Tesco,
> 
> I could not help but notice all of the posts written down here. In my opinion, I think it is completely unfair that your workers work hard for nothing. Every day during the open times, the very kind people who work here are working their very best. My mum is already considering shopping somewhere else, and when I'm older, I think I'll shop somewhere apart from tesco as well. You might think because I am a kid, that I have no right to say all of this stuff, But I feel really strongly about how my mum thinks of the free workers and I think it is completely outrageous. This is other people's futures we are talking about. We can't let the future slip away that easily.'
> 
> Great to see the young still have heart, again during the Miners Strike, you saw teenagers putting their pocket money in the buckets, then for anumber of years all that largely stopped...


 
thats an amazing post.

i have to say treelover, i think the fact your becoming positive as society's attitude has changed to all of this stuff during the last months has been really good to see. i just hope you're - and we're - not let down again and some success is actually achieved. we cant let these cunts get their way.


----------



## machine cat (Feb 18, 2012)

treelover said:


> Boycott Workfare 'Day of action', 3rd march...


 
Where?


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2012)

http://www.boycottworkfare.org/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...unpaid-work-benefit-cuts-documents?CMP=twt_gu


btw, Guardian doing some sterling work, they have uncovered documents relating to the Condems plans to put sick and disabled people on unlimited workfare with full sanctions available.It gives some real insight into govt thinking and indeed the apparatchiks(cos that is what they are) at the DWP who are zealots in implementing it all.....


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 18, 2012)

The Guardian report on
*Tesco asks government to change flagship jobless scheme*

Behind the scenes, DWP officials have been desperately attempting to shore up support for the scheme which David Cameron, Nick Clegg and George Osborne have personally championed. , officials described claims that firms were thinking of withdrawing as "overheated nonsense", adding: "A vast number of businesses are involved in providing work experience schemes, including some of Britain's biggest names."
The government recently said it was extending the scheme to more than 100,000 placements a year. However, this has not stopped Sainsbury's, Waterstones and clothing giant TK Maxx announcing in recent weeks that they were pulling out.
*
*


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 18, 2012)

When I was 16 I had hopes and dreams, I had no qualifications - nothing. I left home and became a rent boy, I had no self worth, no confidence, nothing. Thanks to a scheme that helped the young homeless I got a council flat at 19 - after therapy I ended up working - getting a good job - I had continual employment for 26 years. The help I got at 16 (and the flat at 19, which I no longer live in) helped me grow into a responsible adult that I am now. The help I got enabled me to stop being a rent boy and to stop taking drugs (although I admit to a reliance on alcohol which I'm still struggling with).

If I was 16 now those dreams and hopes would never be realised - I would have ended up dead in the gutter. Thank you to the governments that did and implemented all of this.

thank you to tesco who don't care, thank you to sainsbury for only pulling out when the people only started to realise how disgraceful your behavior was.

Thank you to the government (and previous governments) who have allowed our people to be used and abused.


----------



## toblerone3 (Feb 18, 2012)

Big up. Sainsbury's, Waterstones and clothing giant TK Maxx


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 18, 2012)

Frankie Jack said:


> The Guardian report on
> *Tesco asks government to change flagship jobless scheme*
> 
> Behind the scenes, DWP officials have been desperately attempting to shore up support for the scheme which David Cameron, Nick Clegg and George Osborne have personally championed. , officials described claims that firms were thinking of withdrawing as "overheated nonsense", adding: "A vast number of businesses are involved in providing work experience schemes, including some of Britain's biggest names."
> The government recently said it was extending the scheme to more than 100,000 placements a year. However, this has not stopped Sainsbury's, Waterstones and clothing giant TK Maxx announcing in recent weeks that they were pulling out.


 
Read that as ''please change the sanctions bit so that we don't have to pull out to save face and so  give up our £11m/yr worth of  free labour''


----------



## ymu (Feb 18, 2012)

Tesco said:
			
		

> We understand the concern that those who stay in the scheme longer than a week risk losing their benefits if they drop out before the end of their placement. We have suggested to DWP that to avoid any misunderstanding about the voluntary nature of the scheme, this threat of losing benefit should be removed.


"misunderstanding"

lol


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2012)

http://www.consent.me.uk/rules/

More docs/leaks here....


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 18, 2012)

RubyBlue said:


> Lovely, if she was (at best, living at home is a nice cosy house) she was working for nothing for a massive corporation that could have afforded to provide a trial period at a reasonable rate of pay. She was used and exploited. Also even if she was getting the dole the period she worked for free was being paid for by the taxpayer! Sainsbury should've fucking been paying her!


 
I entirely agree with what you have said here.

I think what I was trying to argue was that the person in question wasn't getting absolutely bugger all as had been implied, and that they were getting the 'marginally above bugger all that the state gives out in dole' that the state 'generously' (according to the daily fail) provides.

I think the dole is set at a crap amount to start with, I think workfare is a steaming pile of shite and I think the tories (and I include a heck of a lot of new labour in that category) are a load of cunts, as are the big business who have exploited people in these dodgy schemes.

Maybe I didn't put it very well previously.

and have a 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 while I'm at it.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 18, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Read that as ''please change the sanctions bit so that we don't have to pull out to save face and so give up our £11m/yr worth of free labour''


That's exactly what they meant..


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 18, 2012)

What are contracts like for workers at tesco? If they are cutting the hours of employees they would normally be paying to do the work then they are profiting by more than the saved cost of paying the workfare people.


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2012)

The DWP has been one of the least scrutinised Gov't Depts: I remember when the Home Office 'not fit for purpose' issue was reaching a media frenzy , yet the same week Julian Worricker on '5 investigates' did a story on how 80'000 people had wrongly had their benefits stopped in a short time period, no one picked it up, no minister resigned, etc..


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 18, 2012)

I refer you to "Rule Britannia", chorus, line 3.

Even Daily Mail readers seem to want to string these slave-exploiting bastards up from the nearest lamp post.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 18, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> What are contracts like for workers at tesco? If they are cutting the hours of employees they would normally be paying to do the work then they are profiting by more than the cost of paying the workfare people.


 
Quite a lot of retail work is on part time contracts, where you're guaranteed X hours a week (and therefore get holiday entitlement based on X) but often expected to do more hours (and not at overtime rates either) if and when management feel like it.

X can in some cases be the 'zero hours' contract.

Various comments I have seen on other discussions about this suggest that the retailers involved have reduced regular staff's hours to the minimum contracted level because they have free labour on tap.

This allows the cunts to be able to say that taking conscripts on has not led to "jobs being lost / replaced" as a result of this scheme.

I don't know what level union membership is like with the big retailers - it's notoriously difficult to get low paid, part time, short contract workers to join a union, and some unions (or local reps) seem not to be that bothered about such workers...


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 18, 2012)

And yet the government respond to last years riots (which I in no way endorse) by locking everyone up, make you a criminal, reduce your life chances, whatever. No way should the tax payer pay for extra education, teaching, schools, help, advice to those living in sink estates, oh no - fuck you all....why should we help you underclass cunts better yourselves

tbh I'm so fed up - I should really be looking at ways of helping so that's what I will do


----------



## xenon (Feb 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> threee months though? thats not on



Fucking right it's not. What stops these companies using workfare peple back to back in 3 month rolling intakes anyway.

I know, repeating what's already been said. They're not training peple with useful skills anyway Crushing cardboard and stacking shelves FFS.


----------



## xenon (Feb 18, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Read that as ''please change the sanctions bit so that we don't have to pull out to save face and so  give up our £11m/yr worth of  free labour''



They don't give a shit about the sanctions, they already knew about. "Suggest." A weak attempt at establishing plausible denyability.


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2012)

This is now a major story, where is the BBC?, news, not Newsnight which covered it..


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 18, 2012)

no idea. i barely ever watch the bbc news any more - having told by a doctor ive got very low blood pressure i can probably afford to though


----------



## Winter (Feb 18, 2012)

revol68 said:


> yo can someone point in the direction of a source for the 50,000 people through the Tesco scheme figure? Even to a commie fuck like me that seems ridiculously high?
> 
> cheers



In th Graun on Friday it said 1400 people had been employed under this scheme. Of which 300 had eventually been employed.   Appalling.


----------



## Winter (Feb 18, 2012)

It was also mentioned on QuestionTime on Thursday night.


----------



## binka (Feb 18, 2012)

the guardian article linked to a couple of pages back said 1400 _in the last 3 months_ and 300 permanent jobs since the scheme began. i would have thought tesco has been taking advantage for longer than 3 months?


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2012)

'The introduction of mandatory unpaid work by the Tory-LibDem government should be remembered the next time a right-winger (or a liberal for that matter) starts prattling on about how their commitment to individual liberty is at the core of their political values.
This is a powerful reminder of the essentially authoritarian nature of Thatcherism/Blairism/neoliberalism, under which one is "freed" from the democratic public sphere in order to be made a subject of undemocratic corporate power. '

Great post on Guardian CIF...

Liberty very quiet on all this...


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 18, 2012)

interestingly talking of liberty etc - twice now recently i've been stopped from giving out papers/leaflets near the shopping centre in my local town by security guards, even though it was always OK to do that before.


----------



## Winter (Feb 18, 2012)

Tescos will stop this. The publicity is so bad.  And that's the only reason.


----------



## binka (Feb 18, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'The introduction of mandatory unpaid work by the Tory-LibDem government should be remembered the next time a right-winger (or a liberal for that matter) starts prattling on about how their commitment to individual liberty is at the core of their political values.
> This is a powerful reminder of the essentially authoritarian nature of Thatcherism/Blairism/neoliberalism, under which one is "freed" from the democratic public sphere in order to be made a subject of undemocratic corporate power. '
> 
> Great post on Guardian CIF...
> ...


they'll just argue that you are still free to starve to death


----------



## Winter (Feb 18, 2012)

It is horrific. Beyond horrific.  Cameronis building a country of collapse.


----------



## Winter (Feb 18, 2012)

While safe guarding his cronies, the very rich.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 18, 2012)

Nearly 50 protesters sat down or stood by the tills at the Tesco Express branch on Westminster Bridge Road, opposite the The Houses of Parliament.

Campaigners, forced the shop to close to customers, were demonstrating over a job advert which looked for permanent workers in exchange for expenses and jobseeker's allowance....

Tesco has amended the so-called "misunderstood" advert and says it was down to a mistake, but the row has rumbled on - the cat is out of the bag !!

As many police officers as protesters were sent to break up the demonstration. The campaigners chanted: "Tesco bosses hear us say, we won't work if you won't pay."

They also held signs based on the supermarket giant's advertising catchphrase, which read: "Tesco. Exploitation. Every little helps."

Twitter and Facebook members from Respect For the Unemployed & Benefit Claimants had highlighted the advert for a night shift worker at a store in west Suffolk on the Jobseekers' Plus website. It was offered under the Government's "sector-based work academy scheme" which is linked to payment of benefits - but Tesco said the impression that it was seeking to replace full-time workers was mistaken.

The error comes after unions called for high street chains to withdraw from Government programmes that require the unemployed to work for up to six months or face losing their benefits.

Tesco has explained that the advert was "a mistake caused by an IT error by Jobcentre Plus" which was being rectified. It was an advert for work experience with a guaranteed job interview at the end of it as part of a Government-led work experience scheme.

However, the campaigners pressed on with the protest at the Portcullis House store!

The campaign continues, end the disgusting abuse of exploitation !See More


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 18, 2012)

2 people who have done workfare at Tesco have bravely posted their experience on Tesco's own fb site.They may well be deleted soon... copied and Names removed. 

"Who said the work experience is for young people lmfao ... I'm 46 and on my 4 th week of work experience .. Catch 22 don't do it don't get benefits so I don't have a choice.. I have various health issues but have been told by dwp that I'm able to lift empty boxes so not entitled to ESA to the disgust of my doctor and specialist .. I got put on jsa and work experience and told I have to complete or lose benefit ... Please don't think I'm a scrounger or perpetual claimant as I'm not I've only been unemployed for just over a year due to redundancy ... I would like to point out that it does give people exp...erience but there is no garunteed job or even an interview and you must show that your actively seeking work as well as doing work experience ..... So wrong !!!"

"This may compromise my chances of employment but I just completed this work experience scheme over christmas. I was advised to do work experience through the Job Center Plus as I had just spent 3 years focusing on my uni degree and it lead to no job opportunities so far. It mostly consisted on breaking down cardboard for hours on end whilst watching other members of staff complain about their job that theyre being paid to do, whilst chatting to customers. The majority of the time I was working on my own, if I wasnt doing the job no one else was. And on other times I had gone into Tescos it has been empty (and a mess) The Tescos I worked at claimed to earn a million pounds a week, and the managers boasted of earning a 70k per year salary. I've recently been called back for an interview and did an hour and half unpaid work sample last night for a temp job. They said they would "let me know" and the sad thing is I would still love a job at Tescos because I just want to work."


----------



## smokedout (Feb 18, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Read that as ''please change the sanctions bit so that we don't have to pull out to save face and so give up our £11m/yr worth of free labour''


 
they don't know it, but this was the perfect place to knife welfare policy.  the whole thing depends on workfare, the way the criminal justice system depends on prisons - take away sanctions, none of it, the WRAG, Universal Credit, Work Programme, JSA for single mums, it all collapses

there's going to be a lot of scurrying around now, re-writing of rules, fibbing, but if pressure is kept up then IDS' plans could all come crashing down (and ironically welfare policy could be pushed further to the left, for want of a better word, than we could have even dreamed of under labour)

just gotta take down atos now to be really sure


----------



## BigTom (Feb 18, 2012)

http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=359 There are links to facebook events or other places with full in the post, this is the locations so far, but more announcing each day..

Saturday 3rd March:
*Birmingham* – 11.30am outside Poundland on Union Street.
*Brighton* - Brighton has already established an anti-workfare group which in January targeted Poundland. Join them at Tescos on James St from 11.30am-1pm. 
*Bristol* – 12 noon at College Green. 
*Leeds* - See Facebook event. And join the Tesco demo on Monday 20th Feb.
*Liverpool* – Take action with UK Uncut, 1pm until 4pm. Meet Next to Nowhere Social Centre, Bold Street, Liverpool. 
*London* – Meet outside BHS on Oxford Street, 11:30am. 
*Sheffield* – Meet Devonshire Green, Sheffield, 1pm. We will meet at 1pm and decide on a target. 
*Tunbridge Wells* – Meet at the Millennium clock in Tunbridge Wells at 12 noon.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 18, 2012)

The proposals in Tesco's self serving open letter to the DWP are almost as bad as the current practice. The adoption of a 'voluntary' workfare scheme would simply obscure the coercive nature of the labour market. As the employment situation gets increasingly worse capital assumes greater power of labour, job seekers will take more desperate steps and will be expected to take such steps. Employers will ask at interviews whether the applicants have undertaken the work experience scheme and will discriminate against those that haven't. The 'freedom' to partake in slavery will simply become a necessity.


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Nearly 50 protesters sat down or stood by the tills at the Tesco Express branch on Westminster Bridge Road, opposite the The Houses of Parliament.
> 
> Campaigners, forced the shop to close to customers, were demonstrating over a job advert which looked for permanent workers in exchange for expenses and jobseeker's allowance....
> 
> ...


 
was this the Right to Work protest or a seperate one?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/10100491

Ah, RTW, P/A are saying only 12 people,


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 18, 2012)

xenon said:


> As an adendum. Whether those claiments would have faced sanctions if refusing.
> 
> I know refusing to go where JC+ sends you leaves you open to having bennefits being cut off but it would be nice to see them have to outline the workings of this disgusting policy in facts and figures. (or what passes for vassilating contestible excuses.)


 
"Excuses" seem to be whim. Remember last year when it turned out that JC+ workers were arbitrarily sanctioning people because they'd been told there was a "minimum target"?  They were just making up any old shit as a reason for sanctioning people.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 18, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I refer you to "Rule Britannia", chorus, line 3.
> 
> Even Daily Mail readers seem to want to string these slave-exploiting bastards up from the nearest lamp post.


 
Surprisingly, and encouragingly, the Daily Mail has published one of the most savage attacks on the government's program you'll read and the comments box is full of supportive remarks about the article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...amerons-attacks-vulnerable-needy-stopped.html

The World Turned Upside Down.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> interestingly talking of liberty etc - twice now recently i've been stopped from giving out papers/leaflets near the shopping centre in my local town by security guards, even though it was always OK to do that before.


Thay may be able to stop you doing that _inside _the shopping centre, but they CERTAINLY can't stop you doing that anywhere _outside_ it; you should refuse to stop and challenge them to call the police.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 18, 2012)

I was sanctioned at the end of last year. They know I have medical problems. I'd been in pain all weekend and had taken Oxycodone. Monday morning I slept in and called JC+ half an hour after my signing time. THEY told me to come in the next morning. I was given the impression everything was ok and was NOT given the form to fill in stating reasons for the dealy.

Benefit duly arrived as normal on the Thursday. 

The next signing day came and went. Then on the Thursday when benefit arrived I was a whole week short. £67.50. I called them up and only then found out I'd been sanctioned for the previous late signing on and not informing them why..!!??

I'd had no corrspondance from them about any of this. and it was the next Tuesday a letter arrived telling me I was sanctioned.

I duly filled in an appeal stating everything that had happened but failed and decision was upheld.

These fuckers do what they want, when they want.

Last week I had an advisor appointment. after sitting there like an idiot for 25 mins I went up to ask what was happening. Seems Advisor was off ill and my signing card was sat on an empty desk. No one had bothered to tell me my appointment had been cancelled. I wrote in a letter of complaint but no reply as yet. Fat chance on them being sanctioned eh. 

Just spent two days on an enforced JHP Employment course on how to apply for jobs and write a CV (CVs done in pen on paper for them to type up, send to you and keep a copy of course)

I took mine on a usb chip, printed it out there and refused to give them the copy as was my right. 

Out of eight people there four, including myself, were ATOS rejects. 

JHP now have us firmly on their books ready for the Two Years of Work Program bullshit and have our data that will be stored for SEVEN YEARS. 

JHP Employability have been recieving around £800.000 a month from DWP up to and including December 2011. The talking mouth that was at the two day course stated they cannot keep up with the people being sent to them in that subsidiary (TELL Training) and even work placements are becoming impossible as there are just no businesses/charities/public bodies there to place them. *West Dumbartonshire* £1billion is being given to these povery pimps every year and now £billions more in unpaid work to multibillion pund corporations. 

Sucking the poorest for every red fucking blood cell they have.


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Surprisingly, and encouragingly, the Daily Mail has published one of the most savage attacks on the government's program you'll read and the comments box is full of supportive remarks about the article:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...amerons-attacks-vulnerable-needy-stopped.html
> 
> The World Turned Upside Down.


 

It is only an opinion piece but yes, it it is excoriating


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 18, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Surprisingly, and encouragingly, the Daily Mail has published one of the most savage attacks on the government's program you'll read and the comments box is full of supportive remarks about the article:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...amerons-attacks-vulnerable-needy-stopped.html
> 
> The World Turned Upside Down.



I'm begining to wonder if Sonia Poulton is a Daily Fail plant paid to make out the Fail has a heart among all their other rabid shite. She has just recently friended/followed me and a fair few other ranters on my facebook and twitter accounts. I wouldn't put it past them to be honest.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 18, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Widnes. Thursday. 8pm. You bring the rope, I'll provide the monkeys.


 
As long as you don't bring that mischievious-looking one who spends all his time wanking...badgers, I think you called him.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 18, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> Thay may be able to stop you doing that _inside _the shopping centre, but they CERTAINLY can't stop you doing that anywhere _outside_ it; you should refuse to stop and challenge them to call the police.


 
it depends how much of what appears to be pavement is actually privately owned (as part of the shopping centre) - an increasingly amount of what appears to be public highway isn't...


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 18, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> Thay may be able to stop you doing that _inside _the shopping centre, but they CERTAINLY can't stop you doing that anywhere _outside_ it; you should refuse to stop and challenge them to call the police.


 
i know. it was just by the entrance but still outside it - they told me to do it about 50 yards away. never had a problem before.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 18, 2012)

BigTom said:


> http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=359 There are links to facebook events or other places with full in the post, this is the locations so far, but more announcing each day..
> 
> Saturday 3rd March:
> *Birmingham* – 11.30am outside Poundland on Union Street.
> ...


 top man for posting all this up! i'll be at the London one


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 18, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hmm, wondering if the old "bulky jiffy bag full of old waste paper, junkmail and card" ploy would cause a bit of grief to their postal licence budget?


 
So, further to treelover posting Tesco's customer service address, and me posting the above, could I implore the good denizens of Urban to do the following:

1) Go to your local 99p shop or similar, and invest a quid in a couple of cheap, brand new and unmarked (unmarked with your address, unlike those used ones you usually use, that is!) "Jiffy Bags".

2) Stop off at your local Argos next time you're passing, and take a catalogue.

3) spilit the catalogue in half, down the spine (you're splitting the catalogue so that the pieces will fit, once Jiffy-bagged, into a postbox).

4) Place each half in a Jiffy bag.

5) Mail to the following address, using a postbox if at all possible.

Tesco Customer Services
Freepost SCO2298
Dundee
Scotland DD1 9HF
Telephone: 0800 505555
Email: customer.service@tesco.co.


For those of you wondering "why the fuck should I do that?", it's simple. Tesco pay for a mailing licence to use that Freepost address. They get charged based on the gross *weight* of postage received by that address per year. Each half of an Argos catalogue will add £1.50-£2.00 to their postal bill, cost them time and labour to deal with, *AND* cause them existential angst that people may be buying certain stuff from Argos, rather than from them.


For those further wondering "why an Argos catalogue, why not my out-of-date Thompson Local?", it's simple. Glazed paper is heavier than newsprint (which directories tend to be printed on)!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> interestingly talking of liberty etc - twice now recently i've been stopped from giving out papers/leaflets near the shopping centre in my local town by security guards, even though it was always OK to do that before.


 
Best defecnce against hassle is a knowledge of local bylaws, froggie. A lot of the time, when plastic coppers try to move you on, they're unaware that their powers only apply to the actual land the shopping centre/mall encloses, not to anywhere nearby.  I know it's a bit poncey to quote bylaws at such people, but it's also fun to demand that they phone the police and have you moved on, especially when you're in the right. 

E2A: Mark Thomas did an excellent segment on this on one of his TV programmes, where he started protesting near a McDonalds, and they tried to move him on.


----------



## ymu (Feb 18, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> Thay may be able to stop you doing that _inside _the shopping centre, but they CERTAINLY can't stop you doing that anywhere _outside_ it; you should refuse to stop and challenge them to call the police.


Loads of these outside 'public' spaces are privately owned, and they can get rid of you very easily if they want to. Happened to us in Brighton once, with the assistance of the police. And of course it's exactly how the City of London kept Occupy out of Paternoster Square.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 18, 2012)

ymu said:


> Loads of these outside 'public' spaces are privately owned, and they can get rid of you very easily if they want to. Happened to us in Brighton once, with the assistance of the police. And of course it's exactly how the City of London kept Occupy out of Paternoster Square.


 
This is why it's best to check local bylaws (and spend an afternoon looking up the relevant info in the planning dept).


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 18, 2012)

Frankie Jack said:


> I'm begining to wonder if Sonia Poulton is a Daily Fail plant paid to make out the Fail has a heart among all their other rabid shite. She has just recently friended/followed me and a fair few other ranters on my facebook and twitter accounts. I wouldn't put it past them to be honest.


 more likely this; know thy reader. Most DM readers ARE reactionary bigoted xenophobic curtain-twitchers, they just desperately want to believe they _do_ have a heart, and are more enlightened than that. Hence the DM's campaigning over Stephen Lawrence - and hence the occasional socially progressive article on behalf of the underclas/the disabled/the youth etc, such as this.  
It takes the hard, nasty edges off.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 18, 2012)

If anyone can think of a slightly better/snappier version of this, it'd be appreciated.. I started with, "it's not what we charge, it's what we pay" but they don't pay..


----------



## BigTom (Feb 18, 2012)

Actually, maybe just "It's what you get on workfare" ..

Edit: or even just "It's what you'll get" but that's because I'm making a poster/placard design, and it'll have Boycott Workfare writ large on it as well.. for the image on its own I think it probably wants to say workfare to make it clear..


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 18, 2012)

BigTom said:


> If anyone can think of a slightly better/snappier version of this, it'd be appreciated.. I started with, "it's not what we charge, it's what we pay" but they don't pay..


 "It's what we screw out of you by taking people on workfare placements?"


----------



## BigTom (Feb 18, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> "It's what we screw out of you by taking people on workfare placements?"


 
Nice, but has the wrong slant for what I was thinking, which is the association of getting paid £1/hr in wages (actually I think it's £1.75/hr or something at the lowest, 30 hrs at £53.50/week iirc if you're under 25), rather than the cost to the taxpayer (which we want to be represented by large numbers).


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 18, 2012)

You pay £1 per item. We pay £1 per hour.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 18, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> You pay £1 per item. We pay £1 per hour.


 
I like this one.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 18, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> You pay £1 per item. We pay £1 per hour.


 
I like this, but the second bit would need to be changed, because poundland aren't actually paying the people there on workfare.
"Workfare pays £1 per hour"?

Also, it doesn't actually pay £1 per hour, it's £1.70 something if you're under 25 and just over £2 if you're over 25.

fucking advertising. the art of lying without lying.

edit: thanks for both suggestions btw. I'm being a perfectionist.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 18, 2012)

Well their website says ''poundland Europe's biggest single price discount retailer'' so you could say ''....discount employer'' or ''....discount workfare exploiter''

or ''....benefits scrounger''


----------



## sunny jim (Feb 18, 2012)

Does anybody know if freepost would work from abroad?


----------



## Rburns (Feb 18, 2012)

What about adapting their slogan "Everything's a pound...except the wages."


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 18, 2012)

Rburns said:


> What about adapting their slogan "Everything's a pound...except the wages."


 
Poundland slogans I can find (based on google search "poundland advertising" are

"Everything's £ 1"

"Yes! Everything's £ 1"

"Top Brands for Less"

"Amazing Value Everyday!"

Some of these suggest

"No! We won't pay you even £1"

"Crap jobs for less"

"Amazing Exploitation Every Day!"


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 18, 2012)

BigTom said:


> I like this, but the second bit would need to be changed, because poundland aren't actually paying the people there on workfare.
> "Workfare pays £1 per hour"?
> 
> Also, it doesn't actually pay £1 per hour, it's £1.70 something if you're under 25 and just over £2 if you're over 25.
> ...


no probs, keep on working on it cos yer definitely getting there. I'll try and come up with something else...."it's not what we charge, it's what you pay people to work for us"?


----------



## BigTom (Feb 18, 2012)

Thanks.. keep them coming, I think there's two or three good ones there now, I'll do them all and see which get picked up, plus any others that spring to peoples minds..


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 18, 2012)

"it's not what we charge, it's what we don't pay our slave labour"


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 18, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


> "it's not what we charge, it's what we don't pay our slave labour"


Implies they should only be paid a quid an hour.

Have they got a current slogan we could butcher?


----------



## BigTom (Feb 18, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Implies they should only be paid a quid an hour.
> 
> Have they got a current slogan we could butcher?


 
puddy tat posted a list of current slogans a couple of posts back.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 18, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Implies they should only be paid a quid an hour.


 
yes, I didn't really like it

how about "it's more than what we pay our slave labour" ?


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 18, 2012)

Their current slogan is 'Poundland: Europe's biggest single price retailer' http://www.poundland.co.uk/


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 18, 2012)

Poundland: Britain's tightest single price retailer - Say no to workfare


----------



## Greebo (Feb 18, 2012)

For the older one:
"It's not what we charge, it's the way we leave our workers worse off than they were when just signing on"

And for the new one:
"Poundland: One of Europe's biggest employers and exploiters of its own customer base."


----------



## BigTom (Feb 18, 2012)

http://i.imgur.com/5xwY4l

http://i.imgur.com/Y2ycql

http://i.imgur.com/i7A3wl

Here are three of them, I don't want to rinse anyone's bandwidth if they are on a dongle.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 18, 2012)

media finally beginning to pay attention to this now: terminally ill could be forced onto workfare


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 18, 2012)

BigTom said:


> http://i.imgur.com/5xwY4l
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/Y2ycql
> 
> ...


 
the first one is best.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 18, 2012)

BigTom said:


> http://i.imgur.com/5xwY4l
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/Y2ycql
> 
> ...


First one, though the third one you could get rid of the no workfare bit to make it more placard friendly? If you look on their site the slogan is entirely under the logo.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 18, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> First one, though the third one you could get rid of the no workfare bit to make it more placard friendly? If you look on their site the slogan is entirely under the logo.


 
Do you mean take the slogan on the first one and put it underneath the logo (I hadn't looked on their site before, I see what you mean), on the assumption that the placard/poster will have Boycott Workfare on it anyway?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 18, 2012)

BigTom said:


> http://i.imgur.com/5xwY4l
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/Y2ycql
> 
> ...


 
Think the first is best - should the third be "employer" not "employee" though?


----------



## smokedout (Feb 18, 2012)

charities falling away now as well, oxfam and marie curie yesterday - now this

*Scope charity* @*scope* 
With immediate effect we have suspended our involvement with Workfare. We'll put our full response online shortly.

SCOPE are part of the Disability Consortium who are big sub-contracters of the work programme scheme - if they are actually pulling out of this, rather than just stopping workfare in their shops, then it's a big hit


----------



## BigTom (Feb 18, 2012)

https://twitter.com/#!/scope/status/170909960300003328

Scope have said they have suspended their involvement - charities really don't want to be part of this, which is great because one danger was that the anger would be channeled towards the taxper subsidy of businesses, but would be seen to be acceptible for charity (and also ex-public sector "community" stuff), even if it is still forced.
But if charities won't take part that won't be possible.

edit: jinx!


----------



## BigTom (Feb 18, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Think the first is best - should the third be "employer" not "employee" though?


 
yes. yes it should.. but the first has had the best feedback so far, so probably go with that anyway.


----------



## maomao (Feb 18, 2012)

Frankie Jack said:


> I'm begining to wonder if Sonia Poulton is a Daily Fail plant paid to make out the Fail has a heart among all their other rabid shite. She has just recently friended/followed me and a fair few other ranters on my facebook and twitter accounts. I wouldn't put it past them to be honest.


 
Suzanne Moore writes lefty pieces for them too. My theory is that despite being an evil scumbag Dacre believes in running an old fashioned newspaper with a range of columnists but still heavily weighted to the right. If newspapers controlled the output of their columnists too much they wouldn't be able to get respectable journalists to write for them.

The Mail is one of our very few allowed websites at work (by popular request after I managed to get The Guardian on there, and overall it's positive because it starts debates in the office) so one of my hobbies is writing comments that squeeze past the moderators. If you sprinkle in enough references to 'decent British people' and 'hardworking taxpayers' you can get some pretty radical things past them and 90% of the time get loads of green arrows (though probably from people like myself who are reading it through laziness or lack of choice).


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 18, 2012)

The third one has a grammatical error; it should be Europe's not Europes.  

Other than the nitpicking, like em.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 18, 2012)

maomao said:


> <snip>The Mail is one of our very few allowed websites at work (by popular request after I managed to get The Guardian on there, and overall it's positive because it starts debates in the office) so one of my hobbies is writing comments that squeeze past the moderators. If you sprinkle in enough references to 'decent British people' and 'hardworking taxpayers' you can get some pretty radical things past them and 90% of the time get loads of green arrows (though probably from people like myself who are reading it through laziness or lack of choice).


Nice one!


----------



## binka (Feb 18, 2012)

BigTom said:


> https://twitter.com/#!/scope/status/170909960300003328
> 
> Scope have said they have suspended their involvement - charities really don't want to be part of this, which is great because one danger was that the anger would be channeled towards the taxper subsidy of businesses, but would be seen to be acceptible for charity (and also ex-public sector "community" stuff), even if it is still forced.
> But if charities won't take part that won't be possible.
> ...


yes its good news that charities are dropping out but you have to wonder why they were involved in the first place? are they all so naive that they didn't realise what they were getting involved in? i find that hard to believe tbh


----------



## Belushi (Feb 18, 2012)

binka said:


> yes its good news that charities are dropping out but you have to wonder why they were involved in the first place? are they all so naive that they didn't realise what they were getting involved in? i find that hard to believe tbh


 
The big charities are run like businesses nowadays, at least at the top.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 18, 2012)

Just wrote a stern letter to virgin for tying their air miles to tescos club card points. 
I'm bringing down the fascists one piece at a time.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 18, 2012)

*Making the most of your money.*​​*Poundland*​​*Thanks to Workfare, you can be sure WE are!*​


----------



## Greebo (Feb 18, 2012)

binka said:


> yes its good news that charities are dropping out but you have to wonder why they were involved in the first place? are they all so naive that they didn't realise what they were getting involved in? i find that hard to believe tbh


*faith in humanity hat on* Maybe the charities genuinely thought they'd be helping unemployed people get experience and a recent reference?
*normal self* If you believe that, you'll believe anything.  They were after cheap staff for their shops etc and didn't bother to ask questions because they suspected that they might hear something which would make their actions unethical if they knowingly played along with it.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 18, 2012)

*Poundland*
We don't pay our workfare staff a penny never mind a pound

*Poundland*
Everything's a pound (except our workfare staff who work for free)


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 18, 2012)

dunno really.

do charities really want to be dealing with 'conscripts' rather than volunteers? 

i'm aware of one or two charities that are kinda pissed off getting job centres shoving conscripts at them...


----------



## Belushi (Feb 18, 2012)

Managing volunteers is a pain at the best of times, managing unwilling 'volunteers' must be a bloody nightmare.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 18, 2012)

Another one down apparently - just been told on twitter that BBC radio 4 news at 6pm have said that Matalan, who had suspended their involvement in the scheme, are pulling out!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 18, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Another one down apparently - just been told on twitter that BBC radio 4 news at 6pm have said that Matalan, who had suspended their involvement in the scheme, are pulling out!


Just heard that on Radio 4 News - good. Representatives of Matalan had apparently told of negative publicity. Let's hope a bit more negative publicity can be applied to Tesco.


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2012)

they must be shitting themselves at the DWP, this is a big flagship policy, I wonder if and when the youth(cos that is who is it) will move on to the providers, eg, Serco, A4E, etc


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 18, 2012)

*Hitler is made to work in Tesco for JSA+Expenses*


Farceboak link, not found any other yet.


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2012)

"Does the DWP realise that Tesco is now going to issue them with an ultimatum to stop the compulsory nature of this scheme and remove the threat of sanctions. 

This begs the question, was this scheme set up to benefit large corperations and their profits at their behest. Otherwise how is that Tesco has any right to issue the DWP with an ultimatum?"


Interesting comment on the Mirror article:


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2012)

It is all showing there really is no hiding place from the web...


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2012)




----------



## free spirit (Feb 18, 2012)

I actually don't think it would be in most companies best interests to be coping with a regular influx of new started to train up from scratch who they only planned to keep working for them for the few weeks they could get them for free anyway, outside of the negative publicity.

IME even in relatively basis work it takes at least several weeks for new starters to really become competent, meaning that supervisors and other workers have to spend a lot more time showing them what to do, checking their work, doing it again because it's not been done right etc during the first few weeks of work. I'd think that any company taking this approach would suffer from a decline in standards, reduced moral from the rest of the staff, loss of experienced staff who give up in disgust at the extra workload etc. which these companies are probably already starting to realise. So there's probably an element of these companies being glad to have the excuse to get out of their workfare agreements anyway.

Aside from all the other more important reasons this scheme is wrong, but I think it's worth considering that campaigners could well find the companies more open to being persuaded to abandon the scheme than if it was something that didn't have these sort of drawbacks for them.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 18, 2012)

btw, could anyone tell me what the bill was that authorised this workfare scheme to be set up, if there was one? I was just in the middle of writing to my MP about it when I realised I ought to check how he'd voted on it first, but don't know which bill it was to check this. Thanks.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 18, 2012)

People on Tesco's FB page are saying they have withdrawn; anybody got any actual proof of this?


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2012)

Btw, is the ship in the cartoon, her Madges new yacht powered by workfare to the beat of Cleggs limbs on the drums?


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> People on Tesco's FB page are saying they have withdrawn; anybody got any actual proof of this?


 

if they have this is big news..

I think they will, bad publicity on this scale is anethama to such corporations..


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 18, 2012)

Apparently people have heard it on the radio, but nothing seems very official atm. =/


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2012)

Arcadia have pulled out, Greens Top Shop, BHS, etc...


----------



## ymu (Feb 18, 2012)

free spirit said:


> btw, could anyone tell me what the bill was that authorised this workfare scheme to be set up, if there was one? I was just in the middle of writing to my MP about it when I realised I ought to check how he'd voted on it first, but don't know which bill it was to check this. Thanks.


Not sure, but Labour set it up with placements in charity and public sectors only. The Coalition changed the law in 2011 to allow private companies to get the free workers. IIRC the change was made in January 2011, but I'm not sure.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 18, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Apparently people have heard it on the radio, but nothing seems very official atm. =/


My guess is that people have misheard the news about Matalan withdrawing.

Tesco is a massive company and probably have the strength to weather a bit of criticism. Also I suspect they are linked up with the government and will support it for a quid pro quo later on.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 18, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Do you mean take the slogan on the first one and put it underneath the logo (I hadn't looked on their site before, I see what you mean), on the assumption that the placard/poster will have Boycott Workfare on it anyway?


Um....dunno. The first one it is under the Logo/company name bit....


----------



## BigTom (Feb 18, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Um....dunno. The first one it is under the Logo/company name bit....


 The first one is Britain's tightest retailer above and say not to workfare below. 
The third one all the text is under the logo and says europes biggest discount employer.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 18, 2012)

treelover said:


> Arcadia have pulled out, Greens Top Shop, BHS, etc...


 
Where have you heard/seen this - this is also big, big news.
It was Matalan that was mentioned on radio 4 news apparently, not Tesco.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 18, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Also I suspect they are linked up with the government and will support it for a quid pro quo later on.


 
Meh. I reckon the government is more keen to please Tesco than Tesco is to please the government. The second workfare looks like it's not in their best financial interests they'll drop it and let Cameron's arse flap in the breeze.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 18, 2012)

BigTom said:


> The first one is Britain's tightest retailer above and say not to workfare below.
> The third one all the text is under the logo and says europes biggest discount employer.


Um, ok dunno, all of them, ditch the comma. and on that one maybe ditch the no to workfare (if it's at a no workfare demo it's not going to matter)


----------



## binka (Feb 18, 2012)

ymu said:


> Not sure, but Labour set it up with placements in charity and public sectors only. The Coalition changed the law in 2011 to allow private companies to get the free workers. IIRC the change was made in January 2011, but I'm not sure.


looks like you are correct
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2011/jan-2011/dwp007-11.shtml


----------



## ymu (Feb 18, 2012)

binka said:


> looks like you are correct
> http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2011/jan-2011/dwp007-11.shtml


Cheers.




> Young unemployed people will get much more help to access extended work experience opportunities to get the best possible start in life, Employment Minister Chris Grayling announced today.
> 
> Under a new scheme young people will be allowed to do work experience for up to eight weeks so they can get a proper stint in a business, gaining valuable experience, getting a decent entry on their CV and providing real value to the employer. *Under the old system people were only allowed to do two weeks experience. If they tried to do more they could face a loss of benefits.*


Breathtaking.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 18, 2012)

http://righttowork.org.uk/2012/02/glasgow-tesco-protest/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

glasgow protest today at tesco


----------



## smokedout (Feb 18, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> People on Tesco's FB page are saying they have withdrawn; anybody got any actual proof of this?


 
they tweeted this morning that they “will not be taking part in any mandatory (workfare) scheme set by the Government”

the current blag seems to be pretending its not mandatory

on a similar theme, emma harrison was getting grief from the fickle bastards at the mail again this morning

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...milies-tsar-8-5m-payday-provoked-outrage.html


----------



## smokedout (Feb 18, 2012)

statement from Scope: http://www.scope.org.uk/news/scope-suspends-involvement-workfare


----------



## Gmart (Feb 18, 2012)

The thing about the slave labour system that the government is offering is that it doesn't matter how much media pressure can be brought to bear on the individual corporations, there will be hundreds who will still take advantage of it on pure competitive principles - it is the government which needs to withdraw the system itself to prevent abuse and slavery in this way. A more obvious example of a need for government to accept limits on their actions/systems could not be more obvious.


----------



## treelover (Feb 19, 2012)

smokedout said:


> they tweeted this morning that they “will not be taking part in any mandatory (workfare) scheme set by the Government”
> 
> the current blag seems to be pretending its not mandatory
> 
> ...


 

It's took years but finally the dam is breaking...

Marie Antoinette will have to look over her shoulder..


----------



## Belushi (Feb 19, 2012)

Gmart said:


> The thing about the slave labour system that the government is offering is that it doesn't matter how much media pressure can be brought to bear on the individual corporations, there will be hundreds who will still take advantage of it on pure competitive principles -


 
I'm not sure that's true. I mentioned earlier that managing volunteers is a pain at the best of times - their productivity tends to be way lower than paid staff.  People dragooned into working are likely just to be a liability.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 19, 2012)

Belushi said:


> I'm not sure that's true. I mentioned earlier that managing volunteers is a pain at the best of times - their productivity tends to be way lower than paid staff. People dragooned into working are likely just to be a liability.


 
But a liability for who? Remember most of these are unlikely to be put to anything more taxing than shelf-stacking. Although they will be dragooned they will also be scared that if they are dropped they will lose their benefits. If you have someone doing simple drudge work you can reduce a paid member of staff's hours so reducing your wage bill. It might be a pain in the arse for the lackey charged with 'mentoring' them, and it may even cause them extra work if they have to check stuff and correct stuff themselves but the tesco bean counters higher up the food chain won't care about inconveniences to them.


----------



## Gmart (Feb 19, 2012)

Belushi said:


> I'm not sure that's true. I mentioned earlier that managing volunteers is a pain at the best of times - their productivity tends to be way lower than paid staff. People dragooned into working are likely just to be a liability.


It depends on the skills needed for the job in question - if it is an unskilled job, and with the threat of benefits being withdrawn if not done, then this form of slavery is possible - although observation is certainly required, but if it is a skilled job then I agree it would be impossible.

So a manager could observe the slaves to make sure they continue working, even observing ten at a time could be more efficient than having to pay workers the going rate.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 19, 2012)

Its that kind of thinking that led to the collapse of the soviet system quimmy.


----------



## Gmart (Feb 19, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> But a liability for who? Remember most of these are unlikely to be put to anything more taxing than shelf-stacking. Although they will be dragooned they will also be scared that if they are dropped they will lose their benefits. If you have someone doing simple drudge work you can reduce a paid member of staff's hours so reducing your wage bill. It might be a pain in the arse for the lacky charged with 'mentoring' them, and it may even cause them extra work if they have to check stuff and correct stuff themselves but the tesco bean counters higher up the food chain won't care about inconveniences to them.


Curses! Beaten to it


----------



## Belushi (Feb 19, 2012)

Leonid Brezhnev, ignoring solid HR advice.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 19, 2012)

And fashion advice.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 19, 2012)

And the two CIA operatives masquerading as eyebrows.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 19, 2012)

roger roger.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 19, 2012)

Belushi said:


> Its that kind of thinking that led to the collapse of the soviet system quimmy.


 
What do I need to think to bring down this system? 

Because I'll think it, belushi, *I'll think it. *


----------



## Winter (Feb 19, 2012)

Capitalism at its filthiest, frankly.


----------



## Winter (Feb 19, 2012)

Well, here is a thought. Don't buy goods from their stores, radical or what?   I've not bought anything from them for years, since I realised how tacky they were.


----------



## jiggajagga (Feb 19, 2012)

How much longer are we "the people" going to put up with this shite from those on high ffs?


----------



## Libertad (Feb 19, 2012)

jiggajagga said:


> How much longer are we "the people" going to put up with this shite from those on high ffs?


 
"We're" not, how about you?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 19, 2012)

Gmart said:


> The thing about the slave labour system that the government is offering is that it doesn't matter how much media pressure can be brought to bear on the individual corporations, there will be hundreds who will still take advantage of it on pure competitive principles - it is the government which needs to withdraw the system itself to prevent abuse and slavery in this way. A more obvious example of a need for government to accept limits on their actions/systems could not be more obvious.


 


> Slavery and forced or compulsory labour is prohibited by UK and European human rights law, in particular by Article 4(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.  There are limited exceptions for work such as that carried out in prison.  Also excluded is work forming part of a “normal civic obligation”, but such obligations are limited to work as part of jury service and military service and the like.  Forced labour has also been prohibited by international law since 1930.


 

http://www.publicinterestlawyers.co.uk/news_details.php?id=193


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 19, 2012)

Belushi said:


> I'm not sure that's true. I mentioned earlier that managing volunteers is a pain at the best of times - their productivity tends to be way lower than paid staff. People dragooned into working are likely just to be a liability.


 
Où sont mes sabots?


----------



## Libertad (Feb 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Où sont mes sabots?


 
Partout!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 19, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Partout!


 
Ah! Bon!


----------



## Greebo (Feb 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Où sont mes sabots?


At this rate, I may even get to use torture, interrogation and execution-related vocab.  Is that a good thing?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 19, 2012)

Greebo said:


> At this rate, I may even get to use torture, interrogation and execution-related vocab. Is that a good thing?


 
Yes. yes it is!


----------



## yardbird (Feb 19, 2012)

I don't shop at Tesco.
Two isles of potato crisps and another of soda-pop freaked me out!!


----------



## treelover (Feb 19, 2012)

Another way particualrly students could challenge welfare is to highlight the role of academics in developing welfare strategies and implementation, such as Professors: Aylward, Layard, Gregg, Harrington, etc


----------



## BigTom (Feb 19, 2012)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lets-show-tesco-that-every-little-690721#.T0EDyOqVUjA.twitter



> But it highlights everything that is wrong with Tesco. This is a company that made pre-tax half-year profits of £1.9billion in 2011. How did it do it? By ruthlessly cutting prices, driving down suppliers’ costs and diversifying to sell books, DVDs and mobile phones – forcing many smaller independent shops to close.
> 
> Look around our city centres. One in seven shops on UK high streets now lies empty because of supermarket dominance.
> 
> So it’s galling to see that we are now subsidising Tesco by giving it free labour to cover night shifts stacking shelves while it makes substantial profits for shareholders and the Tesco board.


----------



## treelover (Feb 19, 2012)

Is that a Mirror editorial?, very brave that...


----------



## treelover (Feb 19, 2012)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...laims-funding-went-jobs-lasting-just-day.html


Emma Harrison being investigated for fraud, police visit A4E offices

this deserves a thread of its own, A4E is one of the key players in the Govt welfare reforms, the Condems families tsar, 'training' provider, global WTW exporter, Blunkett is an adviser, its was one of the main beneficaries of NL's largesse and faced little scrutiny, in fact it couldn't have happened without a neo-liberal revival..

btw, i've know of E/H for many years, knew close family, etc, monitored the rise of the company..

btw, nothing on local media, I wonder why?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 19, 2012)

Dear Tesco's 

Just to inform you that I regard your policy of hiring individuals for six weeks under the DWP's compulsory unemployment scheme with no renumeration to be unethical in the extreme and akin to slave labour. I am therefore deciding to boycott your store until you withdraw from the government scheme. I will also be encourging everybody I know to boycott your store as well. Furthermore, your request to the DWP that the work experience scheme be 'voluntary' does not go far enough. Under the present dire economic climate, many desperate job seekers will be coerced into taking up the scheme in the hope of securing employment at the end of it. I will only consider shopping at your store again once you follow the lead of Sainsbury's and Waterstones and withdraw from the scheme entirely.  

regards

Jeff Robinson


Dear Jeff,

Thank you for your email regarding Tesco’s involvement with the Governments work experience scheme. 
At Tesco we take our responsibility as Britain's biggest private sector employer seriously. We are committed to playing our part to help tackle unemployment in these challenging times and are creating 7,000 new jobs this year, despite the difficult economic climate.
At a time of record youth unemployment we are particularly committed to providing opportunities for young people.  First and foremost this means providing jobs for young people; we employ over 70,000 people under the age of 25, or a quarter of our workforce.   In addition, and in response to your question, we are participating in a government-led work experience scheme to help give young people valuable experience of the workplace.   The young people taking part in this programme do not replace or substitute for our permanent staff and I am pleased to say that over 300 of them have so far gone on to get jobs with us. 
This builds on our strong track record of giving opportunities to the hardest to reach in society.  We recruit on attitude, not qualifications, giving everyone the opportunity to get a job and to get on. Last month we opened our 40th Regeneration Partnership store, with a third of new jobs reserved for people who have been out of work for six months or more. These schemes have so far provided over 4,500 jobs for the long-term unemployed. 
We remain committed to doing what we can in these difficult times to providing opportunities and employment.
I hope this clarifies our stance on this matter and thank you for taking the time and trouble to contact us.
Kind regards

Lexy St Clair
Tesco Customer Service


----------



## treelover (Feb 19, 2012)

Thats a cut and paste..


----------



## treelover (Feb 19, 2012)

Oh, and she is chair of the NSPCC, she will have to resign now...


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 19, 2012)

treelover said:


> Oh, and she is chair of the NSPCC


 
wtf no way.


----------



## treelover (Feb 19, 2012)

'http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/02/19/tesco-a-good-company-and-a-responsible-employer/'

Wanker Rentoul defends Tesco


----------



## harpo (Feb 19, 2012)

treelover said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...laims-funding-went-jobs-lasting-just-day.html
> 
> 
> Emma Harrison being investigated for fraud, police visit A4E offices
> ...


 

Dacre gets hauled over the coals so starts a bit of hauling of his own.


----------



## treelover (Feb 19, 2012)

I really wonder why the media is not reporting on the A4E fraud case, is it because if they do the whole scam of WTW will have to be scrutinised

btw, my local fora seems to be banning/deleting threads relating to them..


----------



## ymu (Feb 19, 2012)

treelover said:


> I really wonder why the media is not reporting on the A4E fraud case, is it because if they do the whole scam of WTW will have to be scrutinised
> 
> btw, my local fora seems to be banning/deleting threads relating to them..


Bit paranoid there, tl. The Daily Mail have reported it, and according to them, Chris Grayling was only told last night. There's no way the rest of the media won't pick up on it.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 19, 2012)

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/chris-grayling-is-a-lying-bastard/

Chris Grayling is a lying bastard  (e2a: not about a4e, about workfare)

And yeah, I think that is a Mirror editorial. I was suprised by just how scathing they were of Tesco - a full on attack on the company, not just over workfare. Someone at the Mirror does not like them!


----------



## treelover (Feb 19, 2012)

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/303008/Scandal-of-fit-to-work-appraisals

Now its the Express attacking Atos, and in its comment(opinion) section, incredible, , I know its about the abuse of public money etc, but clearly something is changing...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 19, 2012)

It's not that incredible. The Express has also been putting out a lot about the NHS bill, too. They're both increasingly unpopular, they can both be linked back to Labour so (theoretically) aren't damning for the Tories as a whole, and they're both Cameron projects and the Tory right don't like him.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 19, 2012)

yep, hate to say it but its a sign of perceived strength of the government (or at least weakness from labour)

the mirror slaughtered blair, repeatedly on iraq because they could because the tories were dead.  they soon came back into line when things started looking flaky for brown.


----------



## sptme (Feb 19, 2012)

http://jobcentreplus.jobhits.co.uk/CUSTOMER-ASSISTANT---TESCO-id-WOF-22786

Is this another IT error?


----------



## weepiper (Feb 19, 2012)

sptme said:


> http://jobcentreplus.jobhits.co.uk/CUSTOMER-ASSISTANT---TESCO-id-WOF-22786
> 
> Is this another IT error?


 
Wow. 32 hours this time, and maybe split shifts.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 19, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> <snip>
> 
> Lexy St Clair
> 
> ...


 
That name seems oddly familiar ...

Is she famous for something else?


----------



## BigTom (Feb 19, 2012)

http://jobcentreplus.jobhits.co.uk/RETAIL-ASSISTANT-id-EAN-29944

Has this one been posted? Superdrug.. only 25hrs for this one.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 19, 2012)

treelover said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...laims-funding-went-jobs-lasting-just-day.html
> 
> 
> Emma Harrison being investigated for fraud, police visit A4E offices
> ...


 
yes


----------



## treelover (Feb 19, 2012)

Ok, anyone want to start one, i've already a few on these issues


----------



## treelover (Feb 19, 2012)

'Stephen Nolan's show tonight on Radio5Live will be discussing the workfare scheme and comments on Tescos customers (and now ex-customers) reactions are welcome by calling 0500 909 693 [free from some landlines; other networks will vary]. Text 85058 [standard network rate]. The show starts at 10pm and continues till 1am. '


Still only one story on Google on the EH fraud case, but read this...


----------



## dennisr (Feb 19, 2012)

"Job Snobs" - the lot of you

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...=10150574677360735&fb_action_types=news.reads

"I praise Tesco for offering unpaid work experience, short term, to young people because it helps them."


----------



## dennisr (Feb 19, 2012)

that told you...


----------



## weepiper (Feb 19, 2012)

dennisr said:


> "Job Snobs" - the lot of you
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...=10150574677360735&fb_action_types=news.reads
> 
> "I praise Tesco for offering unpaid work experience, short term, to young people because it helps them."


 
http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/chris-grayling-is-a-lying-bastard/


----------



## yardbird (Feb 19, 2012)

Radio5 Stephen Nolan in the next hour about Tesco/Matilan/Chris Grayling and the whole thing.
A phone-in I think, but I've got it on in the background.

About boxing at the moment.


----------



## treelover (Feb 19, 2012)

I noticed no negative comments on the ASDA/Walmart FB page, are they blocking them?


----------



## treelover (Feb 19, 2012)

Daily Mail front page demanding 'suspend back to work tsar'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-action-fraud-probe-job-placement-scheme.html

http://watchinga4e.blogspot.com/
and


----------



## Libertad (Feb 20, 2012)

Katie Hopkins on 5Live ffs. 
Her name shall also go on the list. Oh, it's already on it.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2012)

weepiper said:


> http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/chris-grayling-is-a-lying-bastard/


 
our smokedout is great


----------



## ymu (Feb 20, 2012)

He is.


----------



## Gmart (Feb 20, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> > Slavery and forced or compulsory labour is prohibited by UK and European human rights law, in particular by Article 4(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights. There are limited exceptions for work such as that carried out in prison. Also excluded is work forming part of a “normal civic obligation”, but such obligations are limited to work as part of jury service and military service and the like. Forced labour has also been prohibited by international law since 1930.
> 
> 
> http://www.publicinterestlawyers.co.uk/news_details.php?id=193


Though I applaud taking the government to court, it begs the question how, with this on the statute books, this situation ever occurred - surely there is a check to make sure that the government does not break its own rules?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 20, 2012)

Gmart said:


> Though I applaud taking the government to court, it begs the question how, with this on the statute books, this situation ever occurred - surely there is a check to make sure that the government does not break its own rules?


 
The same reasons that the US authorities bang up people indefinately in guantanamo bay, disperse peaceful protesters with tear gas and rubber bullets or wiretape their citizens I guess.


----------



## Gmart (Feb 20, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The same reasons that the US authorities bang up people indefinately in guantanamo bay, disperse peaceful protesters with tear gas and rubber bullets or wiretape their citizens I guess.


Are you offering to start a political party based against these actions? I for one would vote for you.

There is nothing stopping the elected putting such restraints on themselves, it is just that most people who stand refuse to do so.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 20, 2012)

The point is that, formally, the US constitution _does_ put these constraints on the elected. It makes fuck all difference.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 20, 2012)

Gmart said:


> Though I applaud taking the government to court, it begs the question how, with this on the statute books, this situation ever occurred - surely there is a check to make sure that the government does not break its own rules?


 
I think they probably have people who look to see if new laws break old laws, but perhaps not policy decisions.  Though they probably had to change a law to do this, not sure.
In any case, it's down to the courts to decide if someone has actually broken a law, so what is happening here is the check, ultimately.
The government will probably argue that it's not forced because you can choose to sign off and starve.. oh or you can choose to get a job, cos it's all about lifestyle choice, unemployment.

Choice, see. Not forced then, not at all.

Hence the court case, where we hope the judiciary will point out the bleeding obvious to these idiots.


----------



## yardbird (Feb 20, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Katie Hopkins on 5Live ffs.
> Her name shall also go on the list. Oh, it's already on it.


 
Katie Hopkins is completely loopy, nuts and deserving of a poke in the eye.
Nasty, shouty and just about everything.

To be so insulting and patronizing!
Fucking unbelievable


----------



## Libertad (Feb 20, 2012)

She trots out the line "There's no excuse for being unable to find a job" with such enthusiasm. Brainless slapper, her adherence to the "market forces" line does her media career no credit, she came across like a screaming teen queen.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 20, 2012)

Maplin have pulled out of workfare too now according to their Twitter


----------



## yardbird (Feb 20, 2012)

Libertad said:


> She trots out the line "There's no excuse for being unable to find a job" with such enthusiasm. Brainless slapper, her adherence to the "market forces" line does her media career no credit, she came across like a screaming teen queen.


 
Screaming banshee with no manners etc etc
but the thing that really came across is that she is no intellectual.
If fact she's THICK, she wouldn't understand subtle or polite or caring if it ran her over.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 20, 2012)

treelover said:


> Daily Mail front page demanding 'suspend back to work tsar'
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-action-fraud-probe-job-placement-scheme.html
> 
> http://watchinga4e.blogspot.com/
> and


 

Worth bearing in mind though, that the Emma Harrison/A4E fraud investigation will be used to deflect from the utter shittiness of the coalition's policies, so let's not loose focus here. Emma Harrison is a copper-plated cunt, but she's one among many, chief among them, Chris Grayling.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 20, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Maplin have pulled out of workfare too now according to their Twitter


Great news.  
Still waiting for an official statement from Maplin to that effect though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 20, 2012)

Gmart said:


> Though I applaud taking the government to court, it begs the question how, with this on the statute books, this situation ever occurred - surely there is a check to make sure that the government does not break its own rules?


 
*Theoretically*, legislation has to be passed (and parsed) by government lawyers. Unfortunately, in this world of announcing legislation before it has even been offered to the House as a bill, I'm not convinced this always happens (although obviously it is claimed to).


----------



## treelover (Feb 20, 2012)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ges-unpaid-work-scheme.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Tesco in 'crisis' talks with Govt,

is the BBC covering this yet...


----------



## maldwyn (Feb 20, 2012)

yardbird said:


> Katie Hopkins is completely loopy, nuts and deserving of a poke in the eye.
> Nasty, shouty and just about everything.
> 
> To be so insulting and patronizing!
> Fucking unbelievable


She's just a fucking idiot, my real irritation is with 5live for giving her the platform - although that Bishops is usually in need of a good bashing. And don't get me started on Wolfe.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 20, 2012)

Libertad said:


> She trots out the line "There's no excuse for being unable to find a job" with such enthusiasm. Brainless slapper, her adherence to the "market forces" line does her media career no credit, she came across like a screaming teen queen.


 
She sounds like she should be stamped on forever.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 20, 2012)

treelover said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ges-unpaid-work-scheme.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
> 
> Tesco in 'crisis' talks with Govt,
> 
> is the BBC covering this yet...


 
The Fail are still claiming that it's a voluntary scheme there. It's not. You can be thrown off benefits for refusing to go on one of these placements, not just for dropping out halfway though...

What part of the phrase 'mandatory work placement' is so ambiguous?


----------



## treelover (Feb 20, 2012)

just to say my local fora are definitely pulling threads on A4E, will be interesting to see if and how the local paper covers it..


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 20, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> The Fail are still claiming that it's a voluntary scheme there. It's not. You can be thrown off benefits for refusing to go on one of these placements, not just for dropping out halfway though...
> 
> What part of the phrase 'mandatory work placement' is so ambiguous?


 
Maybe they mean it's voluntary for Tesco to take them on....

That tesco are having crisis talks with the government to keep the scheme is proof enough that this is about benefitting tesco not the unemployed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, further to treelover posting Tesco's customer service address, and me posting the above, could I implore the good denizens of Urban to do the following:
> 
> 1) Go to your local 99p shop or similar, and invest a quid in a couple of cheap, brand new and unmarked (unmarked with your address, unlike those used ones you usually use, that is!) "Jiffy Bags".
> 
> ...


 
E2A: My dad (usually a staid Tory-voter) liked this idea so much, he's stopping off at Argos on his next visit to town.   He's not very pleased about workfare.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 20, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> That tesco are having crisis talks with the government to keep the scheme is proof enough that this is about benefitting tesco not the unemployed.


 
Yep. Tesco are obviously doing very nicely out of it or they'd not be going to such trouble to come up with a version of this that won't be a PR catastrophe for them. Presumably they know all too well that unemployment is going nowhere but up and that if workfare goes unchallenged it will soon become the norm for most benefit claimants and then they can fuck off huge numbers of proper staff and laugh all the way to the bank.

As if they don't make enough money as it is. But there's no such thing as enough these days is there?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 20, 2012)

How long, I wonder, before we hear the story of someone who has been 'offered' a workfare placement with the very employer who fired them to save money? We'll see what the apologists have to say for themselves then.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 20, 2012)

It makes the 'Community Programme Scheme', introduced in the 80's, look positively utopian in comparison now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 20, 2012)

audiotech said:


> It makes the 'Community Programme Scheme', introduced in the 80's, look positively utopian in comparison now.


 
Yep.

As I said earlier, the old YTS and YOPs programmes at least had some sort of social benefit. The only benefit with this shower of shit accrues to capitalism.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 20, 2012)

But what is good for capitalism is good for all of us. If you look purely at the evidence then the converse would appear to be true, but I can't imagine our betters would lie to us about something like that.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 20, 2012)

For all its faults, corruption one of many, the 'Community Programme Scheme' when introduced had Trade Union input, with the going rate for the job and health and safety taken into consideration (free protective gear supplied). The shit will really hit the fan when some youngster on 'workfare' is badly injured, or forbid, killed on the job.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 20, 2012)

audiotech said:


> The shit will really hit the fan when some youngster on 'workfare' is badly injured, or forbid, killed on the job.


 
Why? Nobody cares when a normal worker gets killed at work. It's not as though any level of remuneration can compensate for being dead.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 20, 2012)

Mark my words there will be a shit-storm when it does happen. Despite some going along with the rhetoric about the "work-shy" I suspect people will get very angry indeed at some 'poor young doley' on 'workfare' being killed on the job.

*Hears patter of corporate feet getting louder as they run away from this.*


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 20, 2012)

My first 'real' job was with the community programme, gardening for the elderly, and later doing home respite care. I was getting £20 a day, (not bad when you are used to 17.50 a week dole money, or £25 a week YTS)- with that experience I was able to get a job as a nursing assistant with the NHS.


----------



## Wilson (Feb 20, 2012)

when is it time to start filling those trolleys then?


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 20, 2012)

Greggs say this: 



> Hi, it’s Ken McMeikan, Greggs Chief Executive.​
> Thank you for all your comments you’ve been posting regarding the Work Experience scheme. As promised, we have spent a great deal of time reviewing this today.​
> At Greggs we’ve been really co​ncerned that over a million 16-24 year olds are currently unemployed in the UK and wanted to play our part in providing training, mentoring and hands on experience that could provide young people with a greater opportunity to get a job.
> 
> ...


----------



## weepiper (Feb 20, 2012)

copout.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2012)

work experience is what you do during you GCSEs. if they they were that serious about helping people into jobs they would fucking give them the job. Also "valuable experience" how patronising is that, what makes them think that they have never worked before?


----------



## audiotech (Feb 20, 2012)

Grayling speak.


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 20, 2012)

weepiper said:


> copout.


 
I think it's interesting that they have specified the roles people are working in, work experience in IT, accounts or payroll may be a good thing and in stark contrast to Tesco they seem to be more focused on getting people to actually have decent work experience rather than just shelf stacking. I think there is a big difference between giving someone decent experience in a field than just getting them to crush boxes for 8 weeks. I still believe that this work experience should be paid though, and maybe along with payment and the removal of the withdrawal of benefits if you drop out there needs to be specific criteria that needs to be fulfilled so it is an actual learning experience instead of cheap labour.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 20, 2012)

They would be perfectly capable of providing these wonderful work experience and mentoring opportunities without propping up a shitty workfare scheme.


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 20, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> They would be perfectly capable of providing these wonderful work experience and mentoring opportunities without propping up a shitty workfare scheme.


 
that's why I said it needs payment , the threat of benefit withdrawal removed and criteria for the experience to be a learning one. The scheme could be worthwhile if it changed from an exploitative one to one that is in the best interests of the actual person doing the work experience.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 20, 2012)

Why not just employ people?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2012)

Termite Man said:


> I think it's interesting that they have specified the roles people are working in, work experience in IT, accounts or payroll may be a good thing and in stark contrast to Tesco they seem to be more focused on getting people to actually have decent work experience rather than just shelf stacking. I think there is a big difference between giving someone decent experience in a field than just getting them to crush boxes for 8 weeks. I still believe that this work experience should be paid though, and maybe along with payment and the removal of the withdrawal of benefits if you drop out there needs to be specific criteria that needs to be fulfilled so it is an actual learning experience instead of cheap labour.


 
i had a meanial job, putting books into boxes, other people i know have transported said boxes and im sure after they were no longer needed they were taken somewhere to be crushed. whether or not it's decent experience or not it is still someones job thats being taken away and made into "work experience" a job that however shitty someone used to be paid for, and a job which that person will find that much harder to get. why pay someone to crush up boxes, with all the annoying money, pay, leave, notice, protection and rights that they get, not to mention the minimal health and safety regs, when they can get a slave to do it for them?

it doesn't matter if it is shit work, it is still someones fucking livelihood


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 20, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Why not just employ people?


 
I guess because the people on the workfare scheme have been failing at or before interview stage. This gives Greggs a chance to try some people out for free that they wouldn't have considered otherwise. Then when a vacancy comes up they have an applicant who they already know can do the job or not. Of course this also means that the person who would have got the job doesn't get it. The number of jobs which exist doesn't change so the benefits bill still stays the same.

They're still taking the voluntary line too. It's not voluntary if the Jobcentre people are making taking up workfare mandatory even if they can choose between tesco or greggs.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2012)

Termite Man said:


> that's why I said it needs payment , the threat of benefit withdrawal removed and criteria for the experience to be a learning one. The scheme could be worthwhile if it changed from an exploitative one to one that is in the best interests of the actual person doing the work experience.


 
It doesn't matter how nice you make it. Adults doing unpaid work experience ffs, in a job that's shit or not shit, it doesn't matter. Think about what this scheme is really about


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 20, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Why not just employ people?


 

Did I say the work experience should be to fill vacancies? In fact I'm pretty certain i said there should be specific criteria to fulfil so it can be a learning experience and that using people as cheap shelf stackers is not on. If someone wants to get into IT but has no relevant work experience in that area then why not give them a chance to work for 8 weeks (paid) to get that experience. Provide the prospective work experience person with agreed contracted aims for what they will get out of the scheme so when they go to an interview they can say they have had some experience doing IT in a work environment.

The way workfare has been implemented is exploitative and unfair, there is no reason the scheme can't be changed to make it beneficial to the person doing it rather than the companies who are taking advantage. Although I suspect if that were done companies like Tesco wouldn't be so  keen on it.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2012)

Termite Man said:


> Did I say the work experience should be to fill vacancies? In fact I'm pretty certain i said there should be specific criteria to fulfil so it can be a learning experience and that using people as cheap shelf stackers is not on. If someone wants to get into IT but has no relevant work experience in that area then why not give them a chance to work for 8 weeks (paid) to get that experience. Provide the prospective work experience person with agreed contracted aims for what they will get out of the scheme so when they go to an interview they can say they have had some experience doing IT in a work environment.
> 
> The way workfare has been implemented is exploitative and unfair, there is no reason the scheme can't be changed to make it beneficial to the person doing it rather than the companies who are taking advantage. Although I suspect if that were done companies like Tesco wouldn't be so keen on it.


 
it's not just the fact that people are being used as shelf stackers etc. it's the fact that although those jobs were shit, and dead end, with often little or no chance of career progression, they still used to earn just about enough to pay the bills and put food on the table. they were also relatively well protected, especially in Tescos where most of the staff are/were unionised, had relatively decent holiday pay compared to the rest of the sector, etc. even the lowest paid workers had some protection. that,now, is being wiped out. it doesn't matter if the job is shit or not. PAY PEOPLE FOR THE WORK THEY DO.


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 20, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> It doesn't matter how nice you make it. Adults doing unpaid work experience ffs, in a job that's shit or not shit, it doesn't matter. Think about what this scheme is really about


 
I have said it should be paid. I've said it should be a learning experience which to me means working alongside someone and learning from them, I've also said it should not be used for jobs like box crushing and shelf stacking. You can have 3 scenarios from this, workfare stays the same as it is, there is no provision for work experience in the benefits system or you change workfare so it does not exploit people and provides a good learning experience. Personally I don't think the first 2 scenarios benefit the people doing the experience but the third option if implemented properly could help people. We all know whats wrong with workfare, the question is do you just scrap it or try to make it something worthwhile by giving it a complete overhaul and making it unrecognisable from what it is now.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2012)

i know you didn't , i'm just making the point.

as for what you do? give them a fair days work for a fair days pay.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 20, 2012)

To me work experience implies a chance to actually learn something. You can learn to stack boxes in a few mins.

To justify an 8 week placement, you'd have to be learning a trade or some sort of knowledge work.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> To me work experience implies a chance to actually learn something. You can learn to stack boxes in a few mins.
> 
> To justify an 8 week placement, you'd have to be learning a trade or some sort of knowledge work.


 
And still be paid. Seriously what is happening to our society? since when did being paid any wages (even the minimum wage) for work become controversial? i genuinely despair


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 20, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> And still be paid.


 
Sure.

But it makes no sense at all to make people stack boxes for 8 weeks. What the fuck are they supposed to be learning that'll do them any good?

Some kid with the appropriate BTEC shadowing a plumber for 8 weeks, that makes sense.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 20, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> They would be perfectly capable of providing these wonderful work experience and mentoring opportunities without propping up a shitty workfare scheme.


not sure about that actually. Under the old JSA system at least (last time I looked) there were strict limits on the amount of unpaid work you could do per week, which would have made it pretty much impossible for any firm to run a decent voluntary work experience programme without people having to sign off.

So I can see why firms who genuinely wanted to do this sort of thing properly would have little option but to do it via this scheme.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Sure.
> 
> But it makes no sense at all to make people stack boxes for 8 weeks. What the fuck are they supposed to be learning that'll do them any good?


 
how to have fun and make a shit job into a bit of a laugh, and ride around on those trolley things.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 20, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> how to have fun and make a shit job into a bit of a laugh, and ride around on those trolley things.


 
Good point


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 20, 2012)

Pallet truck racing!


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 20, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i know you didn't , i'm just making the point.
> 
> as for what you do? give them a fair days work for a fair days pay.


 
but if there are no jobs they just stay on the dole. I completely agree that the work experience shouldn't be used to take peoples jobs away, and that people should be paid for doing it. 

If workfare is scrapped what would be an acceptable replacement for it and how would it work? It's all well and good saying workfare is unfair but without a credible alternative I can only see it being slightly altered to diminish the fury at the more exploitative elements of the scheme.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 20, 2012)

I guess I'm recalling my two summer jobs when I was at uni.

One summer as a fitter's labourer where I learned to weld, thread pipe, hotwire a stacker truck and a whole bunch of useful stuff like that.

Another summer stuck in a hut full of wasps crushing boxes covered in sugar syrup.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2012)

> If workfare is scrapped what would be an acceptable replacement for it and how would it work?


 
(short and paid) Probationary periods and work. the same way as its always worked.


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 20, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Probationary periods and work.


 
ok lets say 2 people go for a job, one has a years experience working in IT but is currently stacking shelves at Tesco after they were made redundant and the other has IT qualifications but no experience and is unemployed, who do you think is more likely to get the job? If there is a way to get the unemployed person the IT experience it can help them move into the job that they want. A company would not employ 2 people on a probationary basis to see who is most suitable to the job.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2012)

Termite Man said:


> ok lets say 2 people go for a job, one has a years experience working in IT but is currently stacking shelves at Tesco after they were made redundant and the other has IT qualifications but no experience and is unemployed, who do you think is more likely to get the job? If there is a way to get the unemployed person the IT experience it can help them move into the job that they want. A company would not employ 2 people on a probationary basis to see who is most suitable to the job.


 
who said it would be the same company? and they have and they do. why can people not see alternatives to something thats only arose on a big scale in the last 5 years? (not having a go at you btw)


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 20, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> who said it would be the same company? and they have and they do. why can people not see alternatives to something thats only arose on a big scale in the last 5 years? (not having a go at you btw)


 

I can see lots of alternatives, what I'm arguing is that the government seem very keen on this idea and I don't think it's going to be completely scrapped if they do bow to pressure and change it, if it is then thats great but if they are insistent on this being a good idea then surely it's sensible to look at ways of making it work to benefit the people doing the work experience instead of the companies exploiting it.


----------



## Libertad (Feb 20, 2012)

Termite Man said:


> If workfare is scrapped what would be an acceptable replacement for it and how would it work?


 
(Re-)Nationalisation of all services and a major public works building programme.
 Self-build social housing schemes with apprenticeships, new hospitals and schools.

You know the sort of thing, all that Socialism stuff an' ting.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 20, 2012)

Good grief, it's worse than I thought.

On 'workfare'.
"...reports suggest that the vast majority of placements are in the retail sector."
"There is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding work."

There's also the 'Mandatory Work Activity'....,



> .....a compulsory four week work experience scheme for jobseekers who are meeting the terms of their Jobseekers Agreement (the requirement placed upon JSA claimants to actively look for work and to demonstrate to Jobcentre Advisers that they are undertaking jobsearch and applying for vacancies) but are perceived by advisers ‘not to be doing enough to look for work’, is now also operational.


This is purportedly of ‘community benefit’ and recent data suggest "all is not well". This early data appears to have been leaked and it appears too that significant numbers of those referred stop claiming altogether, which raises some concerns.


Then there's the 'Work Program'......



> .....which most unemployed people are referred to after a year (nine months for young people) allows providers to refer jobseekers to any form of provision they think appropriate, which could in theory involve unlimited unpaid work experience.


In addition, we have the 'Community Action Programme'....



> .....for the very long-term unemployed (those out of work for over two years) is currently being piloted and involves unpaid work of up to 26 weeks.


There's even more!



> Last week’s papers suggested that the Work Related Activity that those claiming Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) are required to undertake could shortly be extended to require unlimited unpaid work.


Here we have the consensus of expert opinion and academic research on this plethora of unpaid work which:



> ......achieves at best very little and at worst makes paid employment for claimants less likely while simultaneously reducing the hours of existing staff and limiting the number of paid vacancies in the jobs market.


http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/welfare-turns-into-workfare-but-unpaid-work-wont-solve-the-jobs-crisis


.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 20, 2012)

_"After protests hit London, Manchester and Leeds at the weekend, alongside an onslaught upon Tesco's presence in social media the company and others are feeling the squeeze. 99p Stores and Tk Maxx are the latest companies to drop out of the scheme, whilst Matalan is reviewing its participation in it, which comes on top of Sainsbury's and Waterstones."
_Nice to see - a small beginning but, still fine...

*Mass anger forces more companies to abandon workfare schemes*
www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/13907/20-02-2012/mass-anger-forces-more-companies-to-abandon-workfare-schemes


----------



## free spirit (Feb 20, 2012)

100,000 places per year x 6 week placements replacing minimum wage jobs for 18-20 year olds would equate to £120 million a year worth of free labour for the companies benefiting, and £120 million worth of jobs being taken effectively from the unemployed who could otherwise have been getting paid for doing this work.

Also, this is £120 million being removed from the sections of society where this money would have the most impact as an economic stimulus, and the greatest negative impact on the wider economy when that money is removed. The money is instead going to shareholders, directors etc where it will have the least economic stimulus effect.

utterly ridiculous economic policy, without even getting into the morality of forcing people to take unpaid work for multinational corporations.


----------



## binka (Feb 21, 2012)

what do you think the government are bribing tesco with to stop them abandoning the scheme? i cant see why else they are sticking with it when the likes of the 99p store and tk maxx have already realised how damaging this coule be


----------



## Nylock (Feb 21, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be fair though, it *is* important for people to know that even the shonkiest Tele ever made is still more of a "player's" guitar than a Strat can ever be. I've always thought of Strats as guitars for people whose necks and shoulders are too weak for the weight of a *proper* instrument.


..You mean like a Les Paul 

(them things are proper weighty hehe)


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 21, 2012)

Libertad said:


> (Re-)Nationalisation of all services and a major public works building programme.
> Self-build social housing schemes with apprenticeships, new hospitals and schools.
> 
> You know the sort of thing, all that Socialism stuff an' ting.


 
Tory government, I don't see that happening

although all that would be lovely


----------



## Nylock (Feb 21, 2012)

Frankie Jack said:


> I was sanctioned at the end of last year. They know I have medical problems. I'd been in pain all weekend and had taken Oxycodone. Monday morning I slept in and called JC+ half an hour after my signing time. THEY told me to come in the next morning. I was given the impression everything was ok and was NOT given the form to fill in stating reasons for the dealy.
> 
> Benefit duly arrived as normal on the Thursday.
> 
> ...


It's for shenanigans like this that our local JC+ is known as 'the joke shop'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 21, 2012)

audiotech said:


> Mark my words there will be a shit-storm when it does happen. Despite some going along with the rhetoric about the "work-shy" I suspect people will get very angry indeed at some 'poor young doley' on 'workfare' being killed on the job.
> 
> *Hears patter of corporate feet getting louder as they run away from this.*


 
I'm not sure I agree that people will be angry at the death of a "young doley" while doing workfare. It'll be dismissed by most as "just one of those things.

When it's the 2nd or 3rd death, that's when they'll start cottoning on. How do we know there could be more than one? Well, it's inevitable if companies are as lackadaisical about the health of their slaves as they are about the health of their employees.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 21, 2012)

free spirit said:


> not sure about that actually. Under the old JSA system at least (last time I looked) there were strict limits on the amount of unpaid work you could do per week, which would have made it pretty much impossible for any firm to run a decent voluntary work experience programme without people having to sign off.
> 
> So I can see why firms who genuinely wanted to do this sort of thing properly would have little option but to do it via this scheme.


 

So you don't think it's possible that the utter lack of alternatives has been engineered?


----------



## chilango (Feb 21, 2012)

D'you remember the Simon Jones campaign?

http://www.simonjones.org.uk/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 21, 2012)

chilango said:


> D'you remember the Simon Jones campaign?
> 
> http://www.simonjones.org.uk/


 
Yes.
And bear in mind how long ago he died, and yet has workplace health and safety got better? Not on your nellie!  And yet here's the government happy to send tens of thousands into workplaces that aren't even safe for the paid employees, let alone the helots.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 21, 2012)

I see that the govt is on the counter attack and some bright marketing bod has come up with the phrase "job snobs" for those of us who are arguing against unpaid work..

I think this is going to fail badly for them, because it's the unpaid bit of unpaid work, rather than the work bit, that is being so strongly objected to, along with the forced nature of it.

cba to find and link to the daily mail and telegraph articles (Grayling and IDS respectively) from this morning that used that phrase, I don't think anyone here really needs or wants to read them.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 21, 2012)

boycott workfare/Tesco flyers (pdf):

http://auntiefarr.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/boycott-workfare-boycott-tesco/


----------



## dennisr (Feb 21, 2012)

_Tesco has offered to pay all work experience candidates referred to the supermarket through Jobcentre Plus and give them a job at the end of their placement if they do well, in a move designed to curb the growing anger towards the company over unpaid placements._
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-experience-candidates-and-give-them-job.html

Feeling the heat?


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 21, 2012)

dennisr said:


> _Tesco has offered to pay all work experience candidates referred to the supermarket through Jobcentre Plus and give them a job at the end of their placement if they do well, in a move designed to curb the growing anger towards the company over unpaid placements._
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-experience-candidates-and-give-them-job.html
> 
> Feeling the heat?


 



> The British Chambers of Commerce today urged the Government and employers not to let the debate on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook drive policy decisions on tackling youth unemployment.


 
Better than letting the BCC drive policy decisions.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 21, 2012)

BigTom said:


> I think this is going to fail badly for them, because it's the unpaid bit of unpaid work, rather than the work bit, that is being so strongly objected to


 
This needs emphasising.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 21, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> work experience is what you do during you GCSEs. if they they were that serious about helping people into jobs they would fucking give them the job. Also "valuable experience" how patronising is that, what makes them think that they have never worked before?


It's Tories, they forget. My mum is a full on right winger and after a year or two of freelancing trying to set up a business for her and looking after her while she was ill it was all 'well you've been out of work so long, why not some cleaning - that's about your level now'. 



Termite Man said:


> but if there are no jobs they just stay on the dole. I completely agree that the work experience shouldn't be used to take peoples jobs away, and that people should be paid for doing it.
> 
> If workfare is scrapped what would be an acceptable replacement for it and how would it work? It's all well and good saying workfare is unfair but without a credible alternative I can only see it being slightly altered to diminish the fury at the more exploitative elements of the scheme.


Quite, if they paid them min wage for the duration of the placement then people would clamour to get onto these job experience programs. Even the very few people who are actually workshy would want to do it. It's really not that complicated. Certainly I've not managed to get more than a few weeks work this year, all agency and much of it min wage. It's still better than nowt.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 21, 2012)

dennisr said:


> _Tesco has offered to pay all work experience candidates referred to the supermarket through Jobcentre Plus and give them a job at the end of their placement if they do well, in a move designed to curb the growing anger towards the company over unpaid placements._
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-experience-candidates-and-give-them-job.html
> 
> Feeling the heat?


I notice that the article doesn't mention how much Tesco will be paying these 'voluntary' workers. Also I wonder how it will be judged, how well they have done. So far it looks like just a PR statement.

Oh and what a pity that politicians should be listening to people on social networking sites. They never listen to people in other contexts once they have got into power.

The jury needs more time to think on this one.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 21, 2012)

That says they were down to take 3000 and have done 1500 so far. the rest will be paid (how much?) for a 4 week stint and offered a job at the end providing they complete successfully. It sounds not _too_ bad. 

This won't be on top of any other jobs. So no job creation just one person getting a job instead of someone else. ok whatever.
what job will they be offered and where?
some of the previous 1500 were on there longer than 4 weeks and were free. So Tesco still come out with savings on that score.
The money they spend on paying people to work for them for the rest of the scheme is money spent on PR effectively.
And they're still pushing ''the voluntary nature of the scheme''. Mandatory is not voluntary.

Let's see.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 21, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> That says they were down to take 3000 and have done 1500 so far. the rest will be paid (how much?) for a 4 week stint and offered a job at the end providing they complete successfully. It sounds not _too_ bad.
> 
> This won't be on top of any other jobs. So no job creation just one person getting a job instead of someone else. ok whatever.
> what job will they be offered and where?
> ...


 
From facebook



> Nope. This isn't a win. There's far too much ambiguity in that statement. There's a tonne of questions to be answered before I'm even half satisfied.. How do young people get to 'choose' between the DWP experience and Tesco's own version? How much are Tesco paying, is it the same as JSA? What do they mean by 'satisfactorily complete' the work experience, what are the terms of this? Are they set in stone or something that the company can use to still get rid of 1400 placements for every 300 taken on? (It certainly isn't going to be a 'come all ye faithful' to EVERY unemployed young person!).... Plus, perhaps even more importantly... they haven't withdrawn from Workfare!!


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 21, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not sure I agree that people will be angry at the death of a "young doley" while doing workfare. It'll be dismissed by most as "just one of those things.


 
indeed.

an alarming proportion of the general public has been persuaded (by the big business party and the big business press who might just have vested interests) that "elf 'n safety" is a load of politically correct nonsense, and if anyone has an accident at work it's their own fault for not using the common sense that comes with being a daily mail reader.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 21, 2012)

https://twitter.com/#!/superdrug/status/171642837153218560

Superdrug have suspended their involvement, saying they won't take anyone new until the scheme is entirely voluntary.

Tesco, it's all a bit murky isn't it.  The question of how much are they offering to pay is an interesting one - will they pay minimum wage? the going rate of the position that is guaranteed at the end of it? will this be classed as an apprenticeship, allowing them to pay £2.50/hr iirc?

If, and it's a big if, the way it was setup was that people would get paid the rate for the job they will get at the end of it, and it is totally voluntary, then I have no problem with it.
That's called getting a job.. you apply, interview, probationary period (which will now be called "work experience" ) and then job..

Anyway, we shall see whether this becomes clearer in the next few days, but for now we should be continuing to call for them to withdraw completely.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 21, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


> indeed.
> 
> an alarming proportion of the general public has been persuaded (by the big business party and the big business press who might just have vested interests) that "elf 'n safety" is a load of politically correct nonsense, and if anyone has an accident at work it's their own fault for not using the common sense that comes with being a daily mail reader.


 

Pisses me right off. So many people maimed, and we don't see the media commenting on those tens of thousands per year who get too damaged to continue in the same employment, any more than we see them remarking on deaths at work.


----------



## elbows (Feb 21, 2012)

Well so much for 'detoxifying the Tory brand' eh. Policies that are so toxic that corporations feel the need to distance themselves from them, such are the joys.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 21, 2012)

Let's have a larf.


----------



## treelover (Feb 21, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Better than letting the BCC drive policy decisions.


 

The BCC has been one of the key elements of the 'training' industry since the 80's..


----------



## BigTom (Feb 21, 2012)

http://www.tescoplc.com/news/news-releases/2012/tesco-offers-choice-on-work-experience/

This is the tesco press release about it.. does seem odd that people can stay on the govt. scheme for benefits, or get paid..

Meanwhile Tesco have said that people on the 4 week placement will get the same pay as those starting in store, which iirc is slightly above minimum wage. 
https://twitter.com/#!/TescoMedia/status/172012794810609664


----------



## treelover (Feb 21, 2012)

Interesting to see the Fairtrade Foundation being equivocal about its relationship with Tesco, anyway these are concrete victories primarily won by young people, one has to ask where were the unions?

anyway, what about ASDA/Walmart?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 21, 2012)

First batch of Argos catalogues (4) bagged up and ready for the postbox. 

Not proper on-the-street activism by a long shot, but something to do that'll erode their profits slightly, anyway.


----------



## Balbi (Feb 21, 2012)

Chris Grayling was on fivelive and repeatedly stressed the anti-workfare people were 'extremist anti-capitalists'. And then the texts from mothers, teachers etc flooded in


----------



## yardbird (Feb 21, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> First batch of Argos catalogues (4) bagged up and ready for the postbox.
> 
> Not proper on-the-street activism by a long shot, but something to do that'll erode their profits slightly, anyway.


Power to you.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 21, 2012)

This has made the headline on the BBC 6 News.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 21, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> First batch of Argos catalogues (4) bagged up and ready for the postbox.
> 
> Not proper on-the-street activism by a long shot, but something to do that'll erode their profits slightly, anyway.


 
Every little helps!  (I will go and slap myself now after that pun.  I am so sorry).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 21, 2012)

yardbird said:


> Power to you.


 
Power to Greebo. She's the one who picked up the extra catalogues and the envelopes.


----------



## treelover (Feb 21, 2012)

Btw, will Tesco and others be able to 'reconfigure' their FB pages, etc or is the nature of F/B that it needs to be open, etc to succeed..


----------



## BigTom (Feb 21, 2012)

treelover said:


> Interesting to see the Fairtrade Foundation being equivocal about its relationship with Tesco, anyway these are concrete victories primarily won by young people, one has to ask where were the unions?
> 
> anyway, what about ASDA/Walmart?


 
I think Poundland and ASDA are lined up behind Tesco as the next big targets, poundland especially. 

As for the unions, they are nowhere on this, the TUC has said it doesn't support workfare, and USDAW have done a press release or two.  IWW is the only union that has done concrete work on it, supporting the campaign here locally with some cash and having a look to see about representing people on workfare if they have any kind of workplace dispute and exactly what position they would be in wrt employment law.
I know that IWW members locally would have made up the bulk of the campaign group here, though not in a union capacity.



ViolentPanda said:


> First batch of Argos catalogues (4) bagged up and ready for the postbox.
> 
> Not proper on-the-street activism by a long shot, but something to do that'll erode their profits slightly, anyway.


 
Fuck that, it's proper activism, you are hitting them in the wallet, the only place they have any emotions.  
It's also well funny, and the kind of thing that people who wouldn't normally do anything more than wirte a letter to their MP would do.  I really like this action and was planning on picking up some argos catalogues tomorrow to send on.  Remember Argos are taking workfare people too, so you are hitting their profit line as well by taking their catalogues.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 21, 2012)

treelover said:


> Btw, will Tesco and others be able to 'reconfigure' their FB pages, etc or is the nature of F/B that it needs to be open, etc to succeed..


 
What do you mean by "reconfigure"? 
They could always delete any posts they wanted to, and they could set the page so that no-one can comment or post except an admin.

Not letting anyone else post would pretty much defeat the point of any social media marketing strategy though.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 21, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Chris Grayling was on fivelive and repeatedly stressed the anti-workfare people were 'extremist anti-capitalists'. And then the texts from mothers, teachers etc flooded in


 
 really? Fuck me, they've proper lost it on this one if that's their new line.  Do they really not understand that almost everyone has woken up to the reality of what workfare means?

 I'm seeing this as a really good thing - they don't know what argument to take to keep this thing running, they've lost it on the making scroungers work line because people realise that it's just costing others their jobs, and are much more annoyed about giving money to tesco than to scroungers anyway, they've lost the "valuable work experience" line because of the nature of the jobs, so now they are reduced to attacking people as extreme anti-capitalists, because we want to get paid to work! lolsome.


----------



## treelover (Feb 21, 2012)

Hubris, same on the NHS, like with Thatcher it will be their downfall..


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 21, 2012)

BBC News reporting Tesco only offering paid work experience, but naturally BBC show some young twonk who found it a great idea (he went from stacking shelves to being a trainee woodworker wtf, what a poor example).  Had to lol at a Tesco boss saying Tesco is the ultimate meritocracy.


----------



## treelover (Feb 21, 2012)

'
Friend of mine (former jobseeker in UK) signed off recently - lucky I know - just before he was about to be bumped onto the work programme, next day work programme company phones him and asks whether he'll be attending the programme
Him: I signed off, don't need too
them: Doesn't matter, when you're coming in?
Him: Advisor signed me off and am already receiving help with my cv and interview techniques with a voluntary organisation so there's no need
them: Listen, you've registered onto the programme - it says so on our computer WHEN YOU COMING IN?
<At this point lady adopts an extremely aggressive/hectoring tone>
them: YOU'D BE ON THE PROGRAMME WHENEVER YOU SIGN ON AGAIN ANYWAY SO ARE YOU COMING IN?
him: I'd signed off and am only the programme if I sign on again within the next 6 months.
<lady issues a torrent of threats to person words including 'money' 'deep trouble' 'this is now on our system' and puts down phone>
Question: How common is this? My suggestion to him was to register a complaint with the job centre was this right or wrong advice?
Furthermore wasn't the person tasked by Cameron to come up with this programme awarded herself the government contract to this programme? Odd no?

This is the sort of domain these private companies will increasingly have over millions.

and it all began under NL, its such a shame these campaigns didn't take off much earlier..


----------



## treelover (Feb 21, 2012)

its definitely going to make it harder to push disabled and sick people into co-erced work, the outcry will now  be even greater,what a difference a couple of weeks makes..


----------



## elbows (Feb 21, 2012)

treelover said:


> its definitely going to make it harder to push disabled and sick people into co-erced work, the outcry will now be even greater,what a difference a couple of weeks makes..


 
Yeah. A little while before the Tories got elected but it was starting to look a bit inevitable, I tried to find a silver lining. I thought that maybe the tories would push too hard on too many fronts at once, and come unstuck. Happily there have been signs in the last year that this is coming true, especially in recent weeks. But remembering the Major years I should not get carried away with the idea that they will doom themselves before too much damage is done. But as they are mostly clueless extremists I will carry on hoping.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 21, 2012)

BigTom said:


> really? Fuck me, they've proper lost it on this one if that's their new line. Do they really not understand that almost everyone has woken up to the reality of what workfare means?


 
Yeah when I was listening earlier the BBC presenter  was asking people why they wanted to lose people jobs. Which seemed to be missing the point in a spectacular and obvious way.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 21, 2012)

R4 had a dreadful segment on it at lunchtime - the report started off by talking about how it was a scheme to get people into jobs etc, then moved on to interview somebody who was in his second placement and said it was pretty good. He mentioned that he'd been in one before which was rubbish and all he did was get the crap jobs and not learn anything, and the interviewer actually had a go at him and said "but wasn't that part of the steps of getting you back to work and better than not doing anything?"


----------



## binka (Feb 21, 2012)

grayling looking clueless on channel four news. he has blamed it on 'anti capitalist campaigners' three times in the last 5 minutes


----------



## Balbi (Feb 21, 2012)

binka said:


> grayling looking clueless on channel four news. he has blamed it on 'anti capitalist campaigners' three times in the last 5 minutes


 
 A whole new set of anti-caps just got born. It's like when they adjust the poverty level and you get a hundred thousand new poor people.

Overton window innit.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 21, 2012)

This campaign has been going on for a while now, and suddenly Right to Work are popping up on every news bulletin as its spokesmen. Has anyone noticed the SWP involved at all before this weekend?


----------



## ddraig (Feb 21, 2012)

BBC catches up
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17116473
ooh Tesco 'voice concerns' now, cheeky twunts 



> _
> 
> 
> 
> ...


oh ffs! epic


----------



## weepiper (Feb 21, 2012)

ddraig said:


> BBC catches up
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17116473
> ooh Tesco 'voice concerns' now, cheeky twunts
> 
> ...


 
Innit, you know what would protect the unemployed from loneliness and depression? A job! That they get paid for doing!

Fucking paternalistic Victorian bullshit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 21, 2012)

ddraig said:


> BBC catches up
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17116473
> ooh Tesco 'voice concerns' now, cheeky twunts
> 
> ...


 
Going by Clegg's line he should stick himself on workfare. He's virtually unemployed, and he's obviously lonely and depressed, given that everyone hates the Lib-Dems.

What a cocksucker.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 21, 2012)

if they cared about 'loneliness and depression' in the unemployed, old, young, disenfranchised or wider community they wouldn't cut funding and shut places where people can meet, be active, help others and do stuff in their locality.
and/or pay people when they are doing a job
raaaaaaaa true toryism


----------



## ddraig (Feb 21, 2012)

look how grey he is in that photo too!





proper sold whatever soul he had and had any lofty liberal ideas and policies battered and bled out of him


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 21, 2012)

ddraig said:


> if they cared about 'loneliness and depression' in the unemployed, old, young, disenfranchised or wider community they wouldn't cut funding and shut places where people can meet, be active, help others and do stuff in their locality.
> and/or pay people when they are doing a job
> raaaaaaaa true toryism


 
<torycunt><Zachor>
But going meeting people and being active stops you job-seeking! Don't you understand? This is all for our own good!
</torycunt></Zachor>


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 21, 2012)

ddraig said:


> look how grey he is in that photo too!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Nah, probably dyeing his hair grey so his constituteunts in Sheffield don't cop a look at him and chase him down the lanes with pitchforks and burning brands!


----------



## Libertad (Feb 21, 2012)

BigTom said:


> As for the unions, they are nowhere on this, the TUC has said it doesn't support workfare, and USDAW have done a press release or two. IWW is the only union that has done concrete work on it, supporting the campaign here locally with some cash and having a look to see about representing people on workfare if they have any kind of workplace dispute and exactly what position they would be in wrt employment law.
> I know that IWW members locally would have made up the bulk of the campaign group here, though not in a union capacity.


 
Support your Wobblies: http://iww.org.uk/about/main


----------



## treelover (Feb 21, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> This campaign has been going on for a while now, and suddenly Right to Work are popping up on every news bulletin as its spokesmen. Has anyone noticed the SWP involved at all before this weekend?


 
Er, didn't want to be the first to mention this, its not right, at the LP conf the weekend of the STW march in manchester some years back,  they totally ignored the stop the welfare reform bill lobby/protest and they were still in town, they did nothing on this..


----------



## treelover (Feb 21, 2012)

ddraig said:


> BBC catches up
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17116473
> ooh Tesco 'voice concerns' now, cheeky twunts
> 
> ...


 
The BBC are asking for peoples experiences of work experience(read Workfare) I expect them to publish a large number of postitive experiences...


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 21, 2012)

*Work experience scheme in disarray as Tesco and other retailers change tack*




> Argos and Superdrug said they were suspending their involvement pending talks with ministers from the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the scheme, which has been personally championed by senior coalition figures, is voluntary and that jobseekers would no longer fear having their benefits removed if they pulled out of placements after the first week.
> Argos said it wanted "to ensure the scheme is voluntary … [and] no one is disadvantaged by working on this programme". The Arcadia group, which is majority-owned by the billionaire Sir Philip Green, said it would be terminating the pilot scheme at its BHS stores at the end of this month. Pizza Hut was reviewing its limited involvement at five of its stores.


----------



## treelover (Feb 21, 2012)

incredible really, two weeks ago all this seemed immutable...


----------



## Libertad (Feb 21, 2012)

http://righttowork.org.uk/2012/02/tesco-withdraws-from-workfare-protest-works/

Parasitic wankers


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 21, 2012)

Fucking hate when orgs like Right to Work take loadsa credit for something they joined in at the horses arse..


----------



## BigTom (Feb 21, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> This campaign has been going on for a while now, and suddenly Right to Work are popping up on every news bulletin as its spokesmen. Has anyone noticed the SWP involved at all before this weekend?


 
Yeah, they were doing nothing. Then bang.. typical. 
Anyway, they are doing a demo in Brum tomorrow along with ones elsewhere.. I've been calling around and hope to have lots of IWW and Boycott Workfare branded flags and placards there and out swappie the swappies .
Shame, because the local swpers are mostly ok, and I didn't think they would call a demo on wednesday, but would instead put their efforts solely into building for sat 3rd March.. guess the call came down from on high.

The first line of that article, that claims this as a victory for Right to Work "and other campaigns". This is one of the reasons why the swp are so disliked. Boycott Workfare along with local groups like LCAP and Brighton Benefits Campaign have been campaigning and working on this for years.  It was, I think, someone from Boycott Workfare that found and publicised the tesco advert that took this to national news, but RtW can't even find it in their hearts to mention them by name.  Certianly it was because of BW and local networks that this became a national news story. RtW hold a single, one hour or so demo, and it's them that have done it? 
fucksake.

Anyway, It's been nice to bitch about this, really should try to keep this thread on track about workfare and the victories that we are having, but also totally respect the need others may have to get this off their chest


----------



## treelover (Feb 21, 2012)

Libertad said:


> http://righttowork.org.uk/2012/02/tesco-withdraws-from-workfare-protest-works/
> 
> Parasitic wankers


 
They have just been on the 10 o clock news, shame on them, a strange looking guy with a beanie hat on, the campaign has very very broad support and he was not representative at all..

maybe time for boycott workfare, etc to come out of the shadows..


----------



## 8115 (Feb 21, 2012)

Ooh, I've just remembered that A4E are being investigated for fraud.  That's cheered me right up again.  Night!


----------



## treelover (Feb 21, 2012)

Labour have been nearly silent on all this, says it all..


----------



## treelover (Feb 21, 2012)

main item on Newsnight now, I really hope RTW are not interviewed!


----------



## creak (Feb 21, 2012)

treelover said:


> main item on Newsnight now, I really hope RTW are not interviewed!


This is a bit cringeworthy...


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 21, 2012)

treelover said:


> main item on Newsnight now, I really hope RTW are not interviewed!


 
People waving copies of the Socialist Worker have brought the scheme down, according to Tory minister.


----------



## treelover (Feb 21, 2012)

The B/W campaign is so much broader tham the SWP, I'm pretty angry as it allows the condems to say its a few militants, etc, not that the SWP are really such..


----------



## free spirit (Feb 21, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> So you don't think it's possible that the utter lack of alternatives has been engineered?


I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

That situation's been pretty much the same since JSA started, it was one of the major problems with it when anyone actually did want to do proper voluntary work to gain experience, or doing community work for it's own sake, or preparing to start up a business etc. The maximum you could legitimately do was 16 hours a week, unless you were able to do it as a new deal placement. (not sure how up to date this info is mind, it was 10-14 years ago that this was really directly affecting me).

The stupid thing was that the justification for this was always that you were supposed to be spending that time searching for work, and you couldn't be searching for work properly if you were volunteering full time... now they've suddenly reversed this position entirely and are forcing people into 2 month long full time placements. It's like they've just gone from one extreme straight to the other without thinking that maybe they ought to try something in the middle instead.


----------



## treelover (Feb 21, 2012)

Whats becoming clear is the total lack of scrutiny the initial welfare reforms under Nl received from the media, analysysts,  academics, etc,


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 21, 2012)

Frankie Jack said:


> *Work experience scheme in disarray as Tesco and other retailers change tack*


Rare bit of good news, well done to all those involved in the campaign opposing this.


----------



## treelover (Feb 22, 2012)

The Emma Harrison/A4E affair/issue is again on the front page of the Daily Mail, did she upset Dacre?


----------



## Winter (Feb 22, 2012)

Apparently you "only" have to work 30 hours a week on this scheme so you have lots of free time to look for a job.  So that's five hours less than the normal 9-5, then.  

It's really hard to label the fuck-wittery of this government in order of their stupidity.   But this nonsense is up there In the top three.  Even the groups in the health service that they invited to talk yesterday who they thought supported then,didn't,as it turned out!

Bunch of idiots.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 22, 2012)

After I was invalided off the railway, I started an access to higher education course, and was helping out at my local school, and doing some exam invigulation work to supplement my invalidaty benefit. As soon as the vultures had deemed me 'fit to work' I was ordered to stop my college course as it was preventing me from being available for work, otherwise they would stop my benefits; which with my part time jobs amounted to 75p a week!
So I told them to fuck off and never went back.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 22, 2012)

Winter said:


> Apparently you "only" have to work 30 hours a week on this scheme so you have lots of free time to look for a job. So that's five hours less than the normal 9-5, then.


 
And, of course, shelf-stacking is the night-shift, so you're asleep during the day so you can't look for work!


----------



## dennisr (Feb 22, 2012)

*Tesco raises minimum wage to ‘small bowl of rice’*
_Tesco has made a dramatic U-turn on a policy of using ‘slave youths’ to stock its shelves, and has now agreed to feed them enough calories to keep them alive._

http://newsthump.com/2012/02/22/tesco-raises-minimum-wage-to-small-bowl-of-rice


----------



## Quartz (Feb 22, 2012)

Today's editorial cartoon in the Telegraph is a biting two-fer.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 22, 2012)

8115 said:


> Ooh, I've just remembered that A4E are being investigated for fraud. That's cheered me right up again. Night!


 
Good, I hope there's some dirt on Ingeus (formerly Work Directions) too. Surely there must be?


----------



## treelover (Feb 22, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Good, I hope there's some dirt on Ingeus (formerly Work Directions) too. Surely there must be?


 
Ah, i wondered where WD's had gone to, where do they get these names from...


----------



## treelover (Feb 22, 2012)

Great news, Anne Marie Reilly of Boycott Welfare is on the Daily Politics, no SWP this time, but she is getting a hard time off Brillopad..

holding her own though...

Caroline Flint basically supporting the schemes, odious Blairite


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 22, 2012)

Winter said:


> Apparently you "only" have to work 30 hours a week on this scheme so you have lots of free time to look for a job. So that's five hours less than the normal 9-5, then.
> 
> It's really hard to label the fuck-wittery of this government in order of their stupidity. But this nonsense is up there In the top three. Even the groups in the health service that they invited to talk yesterday who they thought supported then,didn't,as it turned out!
> 
> Bunch of idiots.


They only expect you to actually spend five hours looking though, or maybe less. 'Do three things a week' is what my jobseeker's agreement says. When I went on two weeks running and showed them what I'd actually done to look for work and told them I had an unconditional uni offer for October they said they wouldn't even review me and 'oh, you didn't need to do that much!'. 

They forget that it takes far more than five hours to actually stand a chance of getting an actual job, especially anything decent. A mate just spent two days doing an application form (she got an interview but then she's massively overqualified for the job).


----------



## treelover (Feb 22, 2012)

'George Osborne has said that if people don’t “volunteer” for one of the 250,000 workfare places on the “Work Experience” scheme, they should be mandated onto another forced work scheme’'

from another blog, breathtaking...


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 22, 2012)

Osborne would have folk out doing community service I bet.


----------



## Random (Feb 22, 2012)

Has anyone been debunking those claims about top bosses who started out stacking shelves?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2012)

treelover said:


> Great news, Anne Marie Reilly of Boycott Welfare is on the Daily Politics, no SWP this time, but she is getting a hard time off Brillopad..
> 
> holding her own though...
> 
> Caroline Flint basically supporting the schemes, odious Blairite


 
Well, Flint *is* the daft cunt who wanted to attach conditionality to social housing tenancies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Osborne would have folk out doing community service I bet.


 
As well as having a personal helot to chop his coke into appropriately plump lines.


----------



## treelover (Feb 22, 2012)

Question about A4E asked in parliament, Cameron saying it happened on Labours watch, no mention of his judgement in keeping them on...


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 22, 2012)

Random said:


> Has anyone been debunking those claims about top bosses who started out stacking shelves?


 
Our latest ex-public school boy in charge got his job by a kind word from a multi-millionaire friend to another titled multi-millionaire friend, who also happens to have a titled billionaire friend.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 22, 2012)

treelover said:


> Great news, Anne Marie Reilly of Boycott Welfare is on the Daily Politics, no SWP this time, but she is getting a hard time off Brillopad..
> 
> holding her own though...
> 
> Caroline Flint basically supporting the schemes, odious Blairite


 
cheers, will watch that on iplayer later - I was on BBC Radio WM again this morning, following the Tesco news and also Poundland told the BBC today that they are reviewing the scheme (Guardian had that last week, so I don't know if that means they are looking at it today or just restating their position).

It's Adrian Goldberg's show and workfare was from 9am to around 10:15 (I'm on after 10), not up on iplayer yet though.  I missed the first half hour of the show where they had Katie someone from the apprentice on defending the scheme - I heard what she said in one of the later news, she talked about unemployed as "these kinds of people" and said they were lazy and untrustworthy and how could nay employer possibly employ these people without getting a trial first, and in any case they wouldn't do this unless they were forced.
She also said that if people refused they should not be allowed to vote!

Every caller said she was mad, and the interesting thing is that in the 45 minutes I heard not one person on the phone was really for this scheme - they had some people who were saying that there were some lazy people who didn't want a job and they should be forced, but also accepting that many people now were really trying and it wasn't there fault.
Also someone who supported having work experience schemes but not this.
generally people very pissed off about private companies being involved, seeing it completely as a substitute for paid work, taking away paid jobs etc., it's great.
I genuinely think this is going to fall apart, possibly even before the 3rd March.  I look forward this week to poundland pulling out and having to change the location of our demo in Birmingham.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 22, 2012)

Todays media:

Incredible article in the Independent that attempts to take every straw man argument going about workfare and throw them together in the hope that something sticks: http://ht.ly/9dgyK

Guardian take down of IDS' bile in the mail: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/21/free-labour-job-snob-iain-duncan-smith

Governemnt work experience scheme in disarray (Guardian) http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/21/back-work-scheme-disarray-tesco?newsfeed=true

Says Superdrug and Argos have suspended their involvement, the BHS (arcadia) will not continue after the end of its pilot programme this month, and that Pizza Hut are reviewing their involvement.
Burger King and someone else were also mentioned on BBC Radio WM this morning as reviewing their involvement.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2012)

Iain Duncan Smith and Chris Grayling are desperate to sell their narrative to the public. Would that desperation be *anything* to do with their ideologically-based "welfare" reforms having been the only policy to be found in their neo-liberalist storehouse of ideas?
They *know* they've got nowhere to go on this, that you can't u-turn if there's no available or (more importantly) ideologically-acceptable alternative. 
This is going to be a true war of wills. We're going to need to hold fast, whatever they throw at us, or we're sunk, and this sort of imposition will only get worse.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 22, 2012)

Editorial from the independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...our-is-unjustified-7237442.html#disqus_thread



> But the far bigger error, amid the furore that followed, was the Government's abject failure to defend a rather sensible, if limited, effort to tackle youth unemployment.
> 
> ...
> 
> Wrong on both counts. Not only is it unfair to accuse Tesco of exploitation for taking part in a government-run job creation scheme. It is also not true that the employees are working for free. They are, after all, being paid jobseeker's allowance.


 
Not sure what's happened at the indy today, I thought they were against workfare, sure they had an article last week slating it. Seems odd, I can understand the comment piece, papers do (and should) get commentators whose ideological views run against the paper, but this is an editorial.

And yeah, VP you are right to say we have to hold fast and keep going, but with real confidence on this issue.


----------



## Nylock (Feb 22, 2012)

The indy is not being edited by one of it's 'guest' editors today? I hope so cos it would be a sad development if workfare is getting a pasting from the mail and a thumbs-up from the indy...


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 22, 2012)

Nylock said:


> The indy is not being edited by one of it's 'guest' editors today? I hope so cos it would be a sad development if workfare is getting a pasting from the mail and a thumbs-up from the indy...


I've only ever read pro workfare, anti 'doley' things everytime I've seen it, so no surprise really.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 22, 2012)

treelover said:


> Question about A4E asked in parliament, Cameron saying it happened on Labours watch,


 
It's his fucking watch now. He's responsible.


----------



## treelover (Feb 22, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I've only ever read pro workfare, anti 'doley' things everytime I've seen it, so no surprise really.


 
Steve Richards, an indy senior commentator once described those on IB as 'feckless'


----------



## BigTom (Feb 22, 2012)

Good demo/leafleting session outside Tesco tonight, had the pleasure of watching SWP hand out flyers with no Right to Work or SWP branding but with the IWW logo (and Boycott Workfare, Birmingham Trades Council and Birmingham Against th Cuts), until their own leaflets showed up late 
My 200 leaflets went within half an hour, a couple of people actually joined in, which is very rare  - one had a son who had been on a workfare placement at (a different) Tesco.

Also had someone come and chat to me, because her son had been on a placement at Superdrug (she was very happy to hear they suspended their involvement today).  After this, he'd been offered a job - 7 hours.. and told if he didn't take it, he would lose his benefits.

So when we got told how many people end up with jobs, we need to be asking are they full time jobs, how many hours did they get, because if they are getting zero-hour contracts with the assumption of just 7 hours work a week, it's another thing that most people will be sympathetic about - what if the 300 people who got jobs with tesco were only employed on Saturdays or Sundays? Suddenly the scheme looks even worse than it does now.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 22, 2012)

The way I've pitched this scheme to my nan and my (r/w) brother is not on 'think about the fact that these people are being pimped for scraps' cos they have no sympathy for dole claimants. What HAS had them sit up and notice is when I explain that this isn't make work jobs, rather free labour undercutting the already employed. Dave made the leap to 'how long before some cunt gets laid off cos all the free people have eaten his hours and then took back on at dole rate' without prompting.

Along with hb caps and nhs reforms these madcap schemes _aren't even saleable to liberals or right wingers. _I just hope the coalition can fuck themselves before they manage to fuck the rest of us.


----------



## StraightOuttaQ (Feb 22, 2012)

Which Tesco? Hopefully been gatecrashing the big new opening of Yardley!

Anyone seen this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...e-programme-are-jobs-snobs-says-minister.html 

Job Snobs? Hypocrites? Either he hasn't got a clue whats going on inside the front doors of his own Jobcentres,  or he's barefaced lying. See the case of Cait Reilly.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 22, 2012)

StraightOuttaQ said:


> Which Tesco? Hopefully been gatecrashing the big new opening of Yardley!
> 
> Anyone seen this?
> 
> ...


 
New Street - someone this evening mentioned Yardley Tesco - is it opening this weekend?

I posted a link to a guardian take down of that article.. really they have lost this, they've very quickly moved on from the "job snobs" line, cos it failed point blank..


----------



## StraightOuttaQ (Feb 22, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> . 'Do three things a week' is what my jobseeker's agreement says..


 
Think of it like this ; A JSAG is a legally binding document between yourself and the Secretary of State (via their representative). It outlines exactly what you have agreed to do. If you do not adhere to it, you are legally in violation of it, which is where the whole sanctions thing comes in. Do only and exactly what it says, and have proof, and you should be OK.


----------



## StraightOuttaQ (Feb 22, 2012)

BigTom said:


> New Street - someone this evening mentioned Yardley Tesco - is it opening this weekend?
> 
> I posted a link to a guardian take down of that article.. really they have lost this, they've very quickly moved on from the "job snobs" line, cos it failed point blank..


 
Yardley tesco is *NOW* open. Big story on bham mail net about the grand opening. Think it was today or yesterday. Would be VERY bad if the brand new multimillion pound prestige project got campaigned against in the midst of its opening few days when everyone flocks there...

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/...mingham-after-ten-year-battle-97319-30378451/ 

Would be awkward if they got a picket on their first day of opening. Big family fun day for Saturday too - they must be expecting a HELL of a lot of people that day. It'd make the news, im sure.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 22, 2012)

Chris Grayling accuses the Guardian of being a 'left wing newspaper' because of its exposure of the scheme. For some strange reason he has not mentioned  the Daily Mail which is also against this workfare scheme. The government is trying to run with the idea that the opposition to this scheme is an extremist left wing anti-capitalist campaign. I do hope it is.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 22, 2012)

StraightOuttaQ said:


> Yardley tesco is *NOW* open. Big story on bham mail net about the grand opening. Think it was today or yesterday. Would be VERY bad if the brand new multimillion pound prestige project got campaigned against in the midst of its opening few days when everyone flocks there...
> 
> http://www.birminghammail.net/news/...mingham-after-ten-year-battle-97319-30378451/
> 
> Would be awkward if they got a picket on their first day of opening. Big family fun day for Saturday too - they must be expecting a HELL of a lot of people that day. It'd make the news, im sure.


 
yeah.. it would be good, I'm committed to leafletting Kings Heath on Saturday though, and I've got to do it to build locally.   Hopefully the person who mentioned it this evening will sort something out there for saturday.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 22, 2012)

StraightOuttaQ said:


> Think of it like this ; A JSAG is a legally binding document between yourself and the Secretary of State (via their representative). It outlines exactly what you have agreed to do. If you do not adhere to it, you are legally in violation of it, which is where the whole sanctions thing comes in. Do only and exactly what it says, and have proof, and you should be OK.


I'm 100% safe*, but sound advice for those that aren't.

*unconditional offer from at least one uni in the bag already.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 22, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Chris Grayling accuses the Guardian of being a 'left wing newspaper' because of its exposure of the scheme.


 
Perhaps the government should spend less time throwing its toys out the pram and more time creating policies that are worthy of public scrutiny, as opposed to those which can only function without it.



Quartz said:


> It's his fucking watch now. He's responsible.


 
A thousand times this. I'm sure during his time in opposition Cameron had plenty of chances to object to the original version of this policy. For some reason I can recall no such objections from him or anyone on his benches.



Nylock said:


> The indy is not being edited by one of it's 'guest' editors today? I hope so cos it would be a sad development if workfare is getting a pasting from the mail and a thumbs-up from the indy...


 
The independent ranks somewhere below the right wing broadsheets in my estimation, and has for some years now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2012)

StraightOuttaQ said:


> Which Tesco? Hopefully been gatecrashing the big new opening of Yardley!
> 
> Anyone seen this?
> 
> ...


 
Like I said above, Duncan Smith and Grayling are scrabbling round, *desperately* trying to keep their "reforms" on-track. Their entire reform platform is predicated on this scheme, and others like it, being taken up by business and accepted (however grudgingly) by claimants. A movement away from acceptance leaves their reforms (and, obviously, their careers) teetering on very precarious ground.

So, expect to hear more of this bullshit about dissenters to workfare being "job snobs" (Iain Duncan Shit), and "extremist anti-capitalists" (Piss Grayling), in fact, expect them to up the pace *and* the ante on this - remember that if one part of the "austerity" platform crumbles, the rest will be destabilised too.

Dig in, and hold fast!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Perhaps the government should spend less time throwing its toys out the pram and more time creating policies that are worthy of public scrutiny, as opposed to those which can only function without it.


 
Ah, policy. This is where things started to go even wronger than usual w/r/t "parliamentary democracy".
We used to have a system whereby policy was formulated at least partially on the basis of the needs of the electorate. Since the latter part of the Thatcher era, we've moved in an ever-accelerating manner toward a system of policy formulation on the basis of the requirements of capitalism and the economy. 



> A thousand times this. I'm sure during his time in opposition Cameron had plenty of chances to object to the original version of this policy. For some reason I can recall no such objections from him or anyone on his benches.


 
The whole "blame the other side" _schtick_ has become so ingrained that first new labour, and now the coalition, feel licenced to act as if they possess a "get out of jail free" card.


----------



## treelover (Feb 23, 2012)

its interesting that the word, Workhouse' is re-entering the public lexicon, when some of us were campaigning on the welfare issues a few years ago, we had to debate whether using the term was a goer as so many didn't know what it was.

Btw, given the BBC's and ch4 output of history programmes, i can't recollect any about the workhouse, yet many of us will have heard familily conversations oh how awful it was, though many families covered this partof their history up...


----------



## killer b (Feb 23, 2012)

everyone's read oliver twist ffs - and victorian britain tends to be heavily covered in the school history curiculum. of course people know what the workhouse is.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 23, 2012)

killer b said:


> everyone's read oliver twist ffs - and victorian britain tends to be heavily covered in the school history curiculum. of course people know what the workhouse is.


I don't think we did much about Victorian social history even at A level to be honest.
You've got to remember a lot of rightwingers think the workhouse was a good thing and not a sort of British gulag or concentration camp for the pooor.


----------



## killer b (Feb 23, 2012)

i don't dispute that, but to suggest many people wouldn't know what the workhouse was is a nonsense.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 23, 2012)

killer b said:


> i don't dispute that, but to suggest many people wouldn't know what the workhouse was is a nonsense.


I dunno, after someone my age had never heard of WW2 I could believe anything!


----------



## wtfftw (Feb 23, 2012)

I only know the Tudors.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 23, 2012)

StraightOuttaQ said:


> Which Tesco? Hopefully been gatecrashing the big new opening of Yardley!


 
Saturday (25th Feb), 2:30pm, new Tesco at Yardley.. Youth Fight For Jobs person calling this one.. meet at the yardley roundabout.

Pleased he's done it late enough that I should be able to get there from leafletting in Kings Heath, even if I'll be a bit late. 

I hope he has some connections with the Yardley community because they fought long and hard against this tesco and they might well join in solidarity with tesco hatred


----------



## BigTom (Feb 23, 2012)

Boots withdraw..  http://www.facebook.com/BootsOfficialUK/posts/10150690209353832



> We would like to clarify our position in relation to the Workfare Scheme posts.​
> Every year, Boots UK stores and support office provide a significant number of work placements for young people across the country to provide positive opportunities to start building their careers. ​
> As a company our policy has never been to participate in schemes which compel people to work on a mandatory basis or use people on work placement to replace paid employment. We do offer voluntary placements to individuals who want to gain work experience for periods of up to two weeks as part of our local community stores activities. We are currently restating this policy to store managers.​
> Boots UK’s policy and ambition is and has always been to provide positive opportunities for people and we are committed to further developing our programme through existing and forthcoming initiatives that will enable us to practically deliver this ambition, and to make a real difference for young people in the UK.​


 
Actually, sounds like they never took part, I don't *think* there were any 2 week schemes on this, so although I don't like to see anyone volunteering for private companies, there's no big issue for me with this, and after all those 2 week placements might well include school/college work experience..


----------



## coltrane (Feb 23, 2012)

treelover said:


> its interesting that the word, Workhouse' is re-entering the public lexicon, when some of us were campaigning on the welfare issues a few years ago, we had to debate whether using the term was a goer as so many didn't know what it was.


 
From C Grayling's Wikipedia Page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Grayling) in the Life and Career section:

"On leaving the BBC in 1993, he ran several television production companies, *including managing the corporate communications division of Workhouse Ltd from 1992-5*"

It's Wikipedia, so it should be taken with a pinch of salt, but it has been on his page since 30th Sep 2007. I reckon someone would have removed it by now if it was untrue.

So slapheaded toerag is back in his old role in his current job.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 23, 2012)

http://helpmeinvestigate.com/welfar...nt-government-work-experience-schemes-compare

This looks useful as a guide to the different schemes - I don't know well enough to say whether it is all correct or not though


----------



## BigTom (Feb 23, 2012)

coltrane said:


> From C Grayling's Wikipedia Page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Grayling) in the Life and Career section:
> 
> "On leaving the BBC in 1993, he ran several television production companies, *including managing the corporate communications division of Workhouse Ltd from 1992-5*"
> 
> ...


 

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/e7972eba81e28cd8284282506f1c5a7d/compdetails

They certainly existed but can't see much information on them online anymore.  there are 2 other workhouse LTD but both were incorporated after 1995.
This one is also registered in the right category for a TV production company.
Perhaps someone with better google-fu than me would be able to confirm it, but it seems likely to be true, and as you say you'd think it would have been removed by now if it wasn't


----------



## BigTom (Feb 23, 2012)

http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/people-come-off-jsa-at-the-same-rate-regardle

People come off JSA at the same rate regardless of whether they go on a work experience programme.

Very useful for when people are talking about 50% come off benefits.. read through the links as well, becasue Ben has basically just lifted this from those two articles (though it's clear he's done that)


----------



## sim667 (Feb 23, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I dunno, after someone my age had never heard of WW2 I could believe anything!


 
Most of the students we see through here dont have a clue about world wars, victorians, all the malachy.

Certinaly gives them a shock when we dig out the war photography for them


----------



## treelover (Feb 23, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Boots withdraw.. http://www.facebook.com/BootsOfficialUK/posts/10150690209353832
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, sounds like they never took part, I don't *think* there were any 2 week schemes on this, so although I don't like to see anyone volunteering for private companies, there's no big issue for me with this, and after all those 2 week placements might well include school/college work experience..


 
shouldn't say this, but if i were a youngster, I would have no problems with working in Boots, especially near the make up counter!..


----------



## Balbi (Feb 24, 2012)

Grayling was on today this morning, and apparently anyone opposing workfare is a member of the SWP!

The dizzy cunt.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 24, 2012)

Poundland distance themselves, but it's not clear if they are pulling out
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9699000/9699291.stm  (see 8:10)
and
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/now-poundland-snubs-workfare-programme-7440154.html

On the BBC apparently it said
"Poundland: It has agree to continue "Work Experience" scheme, but will
not get incolved in any other Mandatory Work scheme"

So essentially doing similar (though not as much as) tesco and boots - will continue to take people but only if threat of sanctions is removed..

So still able to get free labour, still undermining paid jobs.. and you can bet that there will still be a lot of pressure on and from the job centre to get people onto these placements..


----------



## BigTom (Feb 24, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Grayling was on today this morning, and apparently anyone opposing workfare is a member of the SWP!
> 
> The dizzy cunt.


 
It's proper laughable really.. I'm surprised they are even still trying this line, have they not been listening to any of the radio call in shows or something?


----------



## Libertad (Feb 24, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Good demo/leafleting session outside Tesco tonight, had the pleasure of watching SWP hand out flyers with no Right to Work or SWP branding but with the IWW logo (and Boycott Workfare, Birmingham Trades Council and Birmingham Against th Cuts), until their own leaflets showed up late


 
Made my day.


----------



## happie chappie (Feb 24, 2012)

Heard Grayling on the radio this morning. So incensed with what he had to say I sent him the following email. I was hard pushed not to include any swearwords:

“I’ve just heard your interview on Radio 4. I am not a “front” for any organisation - left wing or otherwise and I am disgusted with any programme where people are expected to work for nothing.

If a “work experience” is so wonderful, why aren’t the companies, many of which are making massive profits, paying at least the minimum wage?

I will be boycotting them until they do.

By the way, Sainsbury’s does have a work experience scheme, but everyone on it is paid by the company. 

Either you are dissembling or an idiot - probably both”.

I shall post up any reply.


----------



## happie chappie (Feb 24, 2012)

By the way, companies are very sensitive to any criticism that they are in any way “bad” employers.

I rang Tesco to complain about their employment policies today and the person on the other end of the phone said they have had lots of calls about this in the last few days.

The person read from a prepared script and said that one of the reasons Tesco hadn’t paid people on work experience was because it would adversely affect their benefits (such as housing benefit) – ie they were doing unemployed people a favour!

It’s always worth ring up the head offices to check.

Both Morrisons and Sainsbury’s told me they do not have anyone working for them who is not paid by the company.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 24, 2012)

happie chappie said:


> The person read from a prepared script and said that one of the reasons Tesco hadn’t paid people on work experience was because it would adversely affect their benefits (such as housing benefit) – ie they were doing unemployed people a favour!


 
It wouldn't, so long as they were only paid for a month and got a rapid reclaim to go back on JSA, as you get a month's run-on with housing benefit when you start work afaik


----------



## happie chappie (Feb 24, 2012)

I forgot to mention that Tesco told me that out of the 7,000 people who had participated in the workfare scheme, 300 had subsequently secured permanent employment  - only 4.28% of those involved.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 24, 2012)

happie chappie said:


> I forgot to mention that Tesco told me that out of the 7,000 people who had participated in the workfare scheme, 300 had subsequently secured permanent employment - only 4.28% of those involved.


And as mentioned before there's no indication of how may hours we're talking about.


----------



## treelover (Feb 24, 2012)

Good work HP...


----------



## happie chappie (Feb 24, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> And as mentioned before there's no indication of how may hours we're talking about.


 
Yes – and fewer than 1 in 20 of scheme participants getting a Tesco job is hardly a ringing endorsement of the quality of the work experience the company is giving them.

I suppose if the kind of experience you’re after is one of being exploited at work then strictly speaking it is “work experience”.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 24, 2012)

BigTom said:


> http://www.tescoplc.com/news/news-releases/2012/tesco-offers-choice-on-work-experience/
> 
> This is the tesco press release about it.. does seem odd that people can stay on the govt. scheme for benefits, or get paid..
> 
> ...


 
Could it be that by remaining in the government scheme your benefits are protected provided you comply with the requirements, whereas if you go on the 4 week paid scheme your claim is stopped, and you'd have to re-start it, meaning you've got to wait God knows how long for your dole to start again when you get laid off after 4 weeks?


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 24, 2012)

I have a degree and work in a supermarket. By Tory standards I am the most educated man possible.
Why am I not getting a million pound bonus to stop me leaving the country?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Grayling was on today this morning, and apparently anyone opposing workfare is a member of the SWP!
> 
> The dizzy cunt.


 
The Swappies fantasise about having that many members to buy papers from them take part in cohesive political action!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 24, 2012)

treelover said:


> Great news, Anne Marie Reilly of Boycott Welfare is on the Daily Politics, no SWP this time, but she is getting a hard time off Brillopad..
> 
> holding her own though...
> 
> Caroline Flint basically supporting the schemes, odious Blairite


 
Do you know if there's a Boycott Welfare group in Sheffield tl? Could do with linking up with them for a couple of actions we're organising with the Unite Community group (and to offer our help in anything they're doing).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2012)

BigTom said:


> It's proper laughable really.. I'm surprised they are even still trying this line, have they not been listening to any of the radio call in shows or something?


 
Like I said yesterday, they're desperate for their narrative to be taken up, and desperate enough that Grayling is prepared to show himself up for the cunt he is by attempting to retail such a load of bollocks.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 24, 2012)

seems to be a favoured tory tactic of the moment, Gove last month calling opposition to his academies as 'trots'. Clutching at straws.


----------



## treelover (Feb 24, 2012)

'Last night, Sainsbury’s said it cut all ties with A4e, after finding the company had persuaded some of its store managers that it was authorised to provide jobless workers for unpaid work experience.
A Sainsbury’s spokesman said: "We have constantly reminded A4e that they should not place workers in our stores and that we wanted to stick within our own scheme. However, people from A4e managed to convince some of our store managers that their scheme had been authorised by our head office. This was finished as soon as this was found out.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/910...resigns-after-fraud-probe-at-her-company.html

Sainsburys cuts all ties with A4E, they know which way the wind is blowing...

'The police investigation is being overseen by Thames Valley Police, but Fiona Mactaggart MP has written to the SFO asking for an inquiry. '

Oh, and calls for the SFO to get involved are growing...


----------



## treelover (Feb 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Do you know if there's a Boycott Welfare group in Sheffield tl? Could do with linking up with them for a couple of actions we're organising with the Unite Community group (and to offer our help in anything they're doing).


 

don't think so, not sure, tbh..


----------



## treelover (Feb 24, 2012)

' What began as a revolt against a Tesco job advert which notoriously offered a salary of "JSA + Expenses" has thrown the entire future of the programme into doubt.'

From the New Statesman, it really is astounding how quickly this billion pound project is unravelling, when the press does its job properly we may begin to have a democracy again..


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 24, 2012)

Discussing the work scheme on BBC News 24 at the moment


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 24, 2012)

treelover said:


> ' What began as a revolt against a Tesco job advert which notoriously offered a salary of "JSA + Expenses" has thrown the entire future of the programme into doubt.'
> 
> From the New Statesman, it really is astounding how quickly this billion pound project is unravelling, when the press does its job properly we may begin to have a democracy again..


 
How well are they actually doing their job though?   Is anyone doing a good job of asking how many hours they are getting if offered a job, how paid staff hours are affected when unpaid staff are doing their 4 week, 8 week,12 week stints, or challenging the arguments/excuses being offered by Grayling Tesco etc?  

I don't know as I've not been paying as much attention the last couple of days.


----------



## ymu (Feb 24, 2012)

Good work HC.



happie chappie said:


> I forgot to mention that Tesco told me that out of the 7,000 people who had participated in the workfare scheme, 300 had subsequently secured permanent employment - only 4.28% of those involved.


Doesn't matter how many people got jobs. Even if 100% of them were employed afterwards, the jobs existed whether or not they were provided with slave labour by the DWP. They're just putting a slightly different set of people on the dole. Pointless, and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with this nonsensical spin. It is meaningless.

I guess I should find a phone number and do some ranting of my own.


----------



## binka (Feb 24, 2012)

happie chappie said:


> I forgot to mention that Tesco told me that out of the 7,000 people who had participated in the workfare scheme, 300 had subsequently secured permanent employment - only 4.28% of those involved.


thats the first time ive heard the 7000 figure for total participants. all that had ever been mentioned previously was 1400 _in the last 3 months_ which sounded like a suspiciously short time frame to reference.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 24, 2012)

binka said:


> thats the first time ive heard the 7000 figure for total participants. all that had ever been mentioned previously was 1400 _in the last 3 months_ which sounded like a suspiciously short time frame to reference.


 
Yep, same for me but nice to hear what the figure is so we get a good number, it must be out there somewhere if they are quoting it over the phone.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Do you know if there's a Boycott Welfare group in Sheffield tl? Could do with linking up with them for a couple of actions we're organising with the Unite Community group (and to offer our help in anything they're doing).


 
Are you behind the Sheffield action on 3rd March then?  If not, someone is organising in your neck of the woods 
I haven't spoken to them but do you know any of the IWW members in/around Sheffield, because I should imagine they would like to be involved..


----------



## smokedout (Feb 24, 2012)

online poll on sky fwiw

http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16176384


----------



## Nylock (Feb 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Do you know if there's a *Boycott Welfare* group in Sheffield..?


..The local Conservative party office maybe? 

Sorry, couldn't resist 

/gets coat


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 24, 2012)

smokedout said:


> online poll on sky fwiw
> 
> http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16176384


 
63% in favour of workfare 

Also, clicking that link showed me yet another picture of that ghastly Harrison woman


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 24, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Are you behind the Sheffield action on 3rd March then? If not, someone is organising in your neck of the woods
> I haven't spoken to them but do you know any of the IWW members in/around Sheffield, because I should imagine they would like to be involved..


 
Yes, me and a few others from various groups around the city. As far as I know none of the IWWers are involved but we'd value their input if anyone wants to put me in contact with them.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 24, 2012)

Nylock said:


> ..The local Conservative party office maybe?
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist
> 
> /gets coat


 
I left myself wide open for that one I suppose


----------



## BigTom (Feb 24, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> 63% in favour of workfare
> 
> Also, clicking that link showed me yet another picture of that ghastly Harrison woman


 
It's an incredibly biased question they are asking though.. if they'd used the word "forced" we'd be getting a different result, especially if it mentioned private companies.

Think I might start a poll.. Should the unemployed be forced to take paid jobs away from people by doing unpaid work for profitable companies?

What do you reckon?


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 24, 2012)

BigTom said:


> It's an incredibly biased question they are asking though.. if they'd used the word "forced" we'd be getting a different result, especially if it mentioned private companies.
> 
> Think I might start a poll.. Should the unemployed be forced to take paid jobs away from people by doing unpaid work for profitable companies?
> 
> What do you reckon?


 
You should at least write to sky and say that's what it should say.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 24, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> You should at least write to sky and say that's what it should say.


 
I'd have to register to post in their comments, and I don't see any point in writing to sky, it's not like they will change the question (especially to what I put).


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 24, 2012)

We'll with comments you're not really talking to sky, but to people reading the comments, which is more valuable anyway, probably.


----------



## Zabo (Feb 24, 2012)

A good feature on today's BBC, R4 "World At One"

Usual place.


----------



## coltrane (Feb 24, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Grayling was on today this morning, and apparently anyone opposing workfare is a member of the SWP!
> 
> The dizzy cunt.


 
Just managed to listen to idiot Grayling on the Today programme this morning.

He said after being asked if he still had confidence in A4E in view of the recent revelations about their activities (including a new one of A4E repeatedly pestering Sainsburys to take on people on work experience) :

"I always very clearly take the view, anyone whether it is an individual or an organisation is innocent until proven guilty"

In that case, why the fuck does people's dole (and Housing Benefit) get stopped immediately when a "doubt" is raised?

He is a one man bullshit spewing industry.

His "Job Snob" soundbite should be rammed up/in every orifice he has got to prevent him spreading more shit all over the place. The nasty, vindictive, clueless fuckwit that he is.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 24, 2012)

coltrane said:


> Just managed to listen to idiot Grayling on the Today programme this morning.<snip>He is a one man bullshit spewing industry.
> 
> His "Job Snob" soundbite should be rammed up/in every orifice he has got to prevent him spreading more shit all over the place. The nasty, vindictive, clueless fuckwit that he is.


Word.


----------



## binka (Feb 24, 2012)

when grayling was being interviewed on channel four news a couple of days ago jon snow said something along the lines of " 'a fair days work for a fair days pay' used to be a tory motto" obviously i'm a lot younger than most of you old timers so can any of you remember if that's true?


----------



## ddraig (Feb 24, 2012)

heard it plenty of times in the past but not aware of it being particularly tory

e2a tho a google of the phrase does mention 'conservative motto' a lot


----------



## treelover (Feb 24, 2012)

_Where you are providing support for JSA participants, which is work experience you must mandate participants to this activity. This is to avoid the National Minimum Wage Regulations, which will apply if JSA participants are not mandated.”_
http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/201...s-from-the-work-programme-providers-guidance/

Which can be seen in this screenshot:

This leak is dynamite, and the fact the wording has now been taken off the site, well if would be if the Tories had any principles and resigned...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2012)

binka said:


> when grayling was being interviewed on channel four news a couple of days ago jon snow said something along the lines of " 'a fair days work for a fair days pay' used to be a tory motto" obviously i'm a lot younger than most of you old timers so can any of you remember if that's true?


 
I've only ever heard it from workers, myself, not the cunts that exploit them, who're usually interested in making the day's pay as unfair as possible.
Does the stupid cunt think that most people don't "get" basic capitalist economics?


----------



## binka (Feb 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've only ever heard it from workers, myself, not the cunts that exploit them, who're usually interested in making the day's pay as unfair as possible.
> Does the stupid cunt think that most people don't "get" basic capitalist economics?


yes i thought it didn't sound right but i don't know much about the olden days. it was jon snow who said it though and grayling didn't object to him attributing it to tories


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 24, 2012)

binka said:


> when grayling was being interviewed on channel four news a couple of days ago jon snow said something along the lines of " 'a fair days work for a fair days pay' used to be a tory motto" obviously i'm a lot younger than most of you old timers so can any of you remember if that's true?


 

the problem comes when you find out what their idea of a fair days pay might be.............


----------



## elbows (Feb 24, 2012)

Ah here we go, the Guardian got what they were looking for...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/24/jobseekers-unpaid-work-placements




> The Guardian has now discovered through a freedom of information request that a major government contractor, Avanta, has compelled jobseekers to work as unpaid cleaners in houses, flats, offices and council premises under the work programme.
> The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has previously stated that all mandatory schemes must be for "community benefit". However, under government rules, this can be defined as increasing the profit of organisations where the unemployed are sent to work without pay.


----------



## yardbird (Feb 24, 2012)

Bugger King have just pulled out


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 24, 2012)

> Grayling made a passionate defence of the scheme insisting it was not workfare or exploitative.
> 
> He said: "The idea that people are being press-ganged for long periods of time to work for nothing to provide cheap labour for big companies is totally untrue."


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2...nce-tesco-chris-grayling?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 24, 2012)

elbows said:


> Ah here we go, the Guardian got what they were looking for...
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/24/jobseekers-unpaid-work-placements


Was just going to post that elbows. Glad the Guardians Shiv Malik and others are going into other Work Providers activities. Im sure there will be much more uncovered.

I sincerely hope this all blows up in those smug Tory DWP faces. 

Jeeezo I despise these bastards.


----------



## coltrane (Feb 24, 2012)

treelover said:


> _Where you are providing support for JSA participants, which is work experience you must mandate participants to this activity. This is to avoid the National Minimum Wage Regulations, which will apply if JSA participants are not mandated.”_
> http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/201...s-from-the-work-programme-providers-guidance/
> 
> Which can be seen in this screenshot:
> ...


 
If you download the current modified pdf file from the DWP website and look at Document Properties you see that the pdf file was:

"Created: 2012-02-24 15:07:49

Modified: 2012-02-24 15:08:39"

Enough proof that the Provider Guidance file was modified today.

I have an older version of that document from last year (dated 8th Jun 2011) that has the notorious paragraph 14 quote about mandating people onto work experience to avoid Minimum Wage Regulations.

There is also advice to providers on the correct may to mandate customers so that sanctions can be more easily applied.

This comes from a box under paragraph 3

"*Consequence* 
If you fail to mandate a participant correctly (as outlined above), or the 
Mandatory Activity Notification is not recorded in a way that meets the criteria 
outlined above Jobcentre Plus Decision Makers may be unable to impose 
sanctions. This will waste both your time and that of Jobcentre Plus."

Perish the thought that the likes of A4E or the DWP should waste any of their precious time.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2012)

yardbird said:


> Bugger King have just pulled out


 
Quoted 'cos I loves it!


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 24, 2012)

coltrane said:


> If you download the current modified pdf file from the DWP website and look at Document Properties you see that the pdf file was:
> 
> "Created: 2012-02-24 15:07:49
> 
> ...


Good stuff Coltrane.


----------



## treelover (Feb 24, 2012)

elbows said:


> Ah here we go, the Guardian got what they were looking for...
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/24/jobseekers-unpaid-work-placements


 
The Guardian is doing brilliant work on this..

started to buy the paper again..


----------



## treelover (Feb 24, 2012)

btw, did anyone watch the guy from 'Myworksearch.com' have a go at the unemployed and robustly defend Workfare, mmm, an online company, hostage to fortune and all that..


----------



## elbows (Feb 24, 2012)

My eyebrows got a workout when reading this bit of the Guardian article also.




> Nonetheless, evidence sent to a government committee suggests some employers have been replacing temporary staff and taking away overtime hours.
> Minutes from the social security advisory committee, an official and impartial body set up to advise the DWP on welfare policy, suggest evidence had already surfaced by December that employers were using unpaid schemes to fill seasonal vacancies.
> "Many retail jobs required staff to work for 16 hours each week, with overtime payable for any hours worked beyond that. Work experience allowed for 25 hours work activity, so overtime to permanent staff was being reduced or removed," the minutes noted. "There was also evidence to suggest that work experience placements were being taken on to cover Christmas vacancies."
> A DWP official told the committee that Jobcentre Plus required employers to sign a declaration confirming no jobs would be displaced through participation in the work experience scheme, but said the department was "working with other stakeholders to explore what more it could do to protect against that".


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 24, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17113209

Does nick say what I think he says at around 30s 

Can anyone get it up on youtube before it is lost.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 24, 2012)

I don't think I've wanted to witness so many members of government given a real brutal kicking in all my days. Politicians have always been shit talking cunts but this crisis and the bullshit austerity measures they claim will get round it has opened such a vast gulf between them and reality that it is putting their usual spin to shame.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 24, 2012)

revol68 said:


> ... cunts ...


 
Interesting choiceof words - have you seen how Nick Appears to refer to young people?


----------



## elbows (Feb 24, 2012)

revol68 said:


> I don't think I've wanted to witness so many members of government given a real brutal kicking in all my days. Politicians have always been shit talking cunts but this crisis and the bullshit austerity measures they claim will get round it has opened such a vast gulf between them and reality that it is putting their usual spin to shame.


 
Yes, although at times like this we sometimes have to pause and remember that sadly theres a chunk of the wider population who want to hear a lot of tough-sounding bollocks and see some nasty policies. So we shouldn't get too carried away with visions about quite how much of an unsustainable limb the political swine are on, not until we actually start to see them fall.

So to oversimplify a bit I reckon the sorts of things the swine have done to the benefits and welfare system will enrage and energise a core base of anti-coalition people, but its stuff like the NHS that can get a much broader range of people all fired up and questioning the gap between the words of politicians and reality.


----------



## elbows (Feb 24, 2012)

eoin_k said:


> Interesting choiceof words - have you seen how Nick Appears to refer to young people?


 
Im surprised it doesn't happen more often given that we all say cunt so often as part of the word country. In this case, given the love Mr Clegg received from the young after he shafted them on tuition fees, it could be a freudian slip, and even if it isn't its amusing to think of it as one. It also seems to have gone under the radar because he said it quietly, kept going and didn't 'sell it'.


----------



## binka (Feb 24, 2012)

elbows said:


> My eyebrows got a workout when reading this bit of the Guardian article also.


i found those minutes here:
http://ssac.independent.gov.uk/pdf/minutes/07-12-11.pdf

in section 6.3



> 6.3 The following main points were raised in discussion:
> 
> (a) early indications were that the majority of placements had been in retail organisations, however the Department was undertaking a more detailed analysis of the available data. There was, however, evidence to suggest that a greater variety of businesses were beginning to participate in the intiative;
> 
> ...


----------



## elbows (Feb 24, 2012)

Nice one. the start of b, and e and f are worthy of their own rants I think, but Im tired right now.


----------



## elbows (Feb 25, 2012)

Those minutes contain dangerous bouts of sanity.



> there was a public perception that the majority of benefit claimants are fraudsters and scroungers, where in reality two thirds of the revenue lost was due to error. This perception was, in part, due to the fact that benefit fraud tended to generate considerable media interest, whereas error tended to be less newsworthy. There was no funding available for the Department to develop a marketing campaign to present a more balanced view;


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 25, 2012)

Typical Tory attitude. Start a flagship policy then think about it after the fact. Sadly applies to Welfare and NHS reform too.


----------



## binka (Feb 25, 2012)

> 6.2 Ms Humberstone noted that there had been some media coverage, suggesting exploitation by some retailers, and that the Minister had followed the allegations up with the companies named in the media articles. However, all indications were that the initiative was a positive one, particularly on a localised basis with small businesses where people had been retained either into permanent jobs or into apprenticeships. The next set of statistics was due on 15 February which should provide a more accurate picture of the position.


 
well those statistics should have been out for the last ten days. is there a way of getting hold of them?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 25, 2012)

Oh I'm swinging on a lamp-post at the corner of the street  ...

(George Formby doing Chris Grayling)


----------



## binka (Feb 25, 2012)

ive emailed the committee asking if they could tell me where i might be able to get a copy of those updated statistics. be interesting to see if they bother replying


----------



## elbows (Feb 25, 2012)

Maybe try the labour market related publications listed here for 15th Feb:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/release-calendar/index.html

I would do so myself but I am cooking a pie so this is as far as I can get for now.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 25, 2012)

I've searched through the employment stats and can't see anything relevent. Also, I quite fancy a pie now...


----------



## coltrane (Feb 25, 2012)

elbows said:


> Those minutes contain dangerous bouts of sanity.
> "there was a public perception that the majority of benefit claimants are fraudsters and scroungers"


 
Remember the "Benefit Thieves, We're Closing In" campaign that the DWP ran for quite a while about five years ago. TV adverts, newspaper adverts, radio spots, posters - that campaign cost a lot of money.

Ask yourself who those adverts were targetted at? (Dayumn, i keep seeing the target that featured so heavily in those adverts)

It would have been a lot cheaper to send every claimant a glossy threatening brochure delivered personally by a chauffer driven lawyer in a hired limo.

As the advertising campaign was running David Freud (now Lord Freud) an investment banker was appointed by New Labour to assess the welfare system. After diligent research (13 whole weeks of it) he produced a report that underpinned James Purnell's (remember that sneering supercilious cunt) "Welfare Reforms" and the shift towards "Welfare to Work". The buzzword that emerged from Freud's report was that weird and somewhat clumsy word "conditionality".

David Freud soon switched over to the Tory party (like a rat leaving a sinking ship), where he was swiftly ennobled and got a seat in the House of Lords. He is now Minister for Welfare Reform at the DWP.

This shit has been planned for a while. New Labour are complicit in this and are unlikely to challenge any of it in any meaningful manner - apart from scoring party political points in the parliamentary spectacle.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 25, 2012)

coltrane said:


> If you download the current modified pdf file from the DWP website and look at Document Properties you see that the pdf file was:
> 
> "Created: 2012-02-24 15:07:49
> 
> ...


 
cheers for this, i found it hard to believe they were that stupid but it appears they have been, and its not the only disappearing document: http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.com/2012/02/proof-that-workfare-is-indeed-slavery.html


----------



## treelover (Feb 25, 2012)

'2. Give the participants a little extra for taking part so that they can look their loved ones in the eye and feel like they are earning a crust, however thin. Even Thatcher gave them an extra tenner'


E/C may be doing some good work, but this is basically the same as HartIV in Germany, part of which was the policy of one euro an hour jobs brought in Schroder's Blairite Govt and bitterly fought against..


----------



## treelover (Feb 25, 2012)

Has anyone contacted Newsnight about their incorrect twitter tag?, there are thousands and thousands of tweets about workfare

Newsnight sadly has got the Workfare debate completely wrong, and can be accused of misinformation and bias, at one time they gave the US creator of workfare an authored piece with no response from critics..


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 25, 2012)

Just listening to Any Questions, the Brownshirt scum in the audience love the Government's "Arbeit macht frei" scheme - the utterly thick pieces of shit that they are.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 25, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Just listening to Any Questions, the Brownshirt scum in the audience love the Government's "Arbeit macht frei" scheme - the utterly thick pieces of shit that they are.


 
it doesnt matter anymore, if companies and charities wont play ball its over


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 25, 2012)

smokedout said:


> it doesnt matter anymore, if companies and charities wont play ball its over


 
Just to say, I know we've had our difference over stuff like climate change conspiracy theory, but you've been doing a great job on this stuff. Kudos.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 25, 2012)

treelover said:


> '2. Give the participants a little extra for taking part so that they can look their loved ones in the eye and feel like they are earning a crust, however thin. Even Thatcher gave them an extra tenner'
> 
> 
> E/C may be doing some good work, but this is basically the same as HartIV in Germany, part of which was the policy of one euro an hour jobs brought in Schroder's Blairite Govt and bitterly fought against..


 
Harz IV (pronounced "Heartz fear"), just in case anyone wants to google it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 25, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Just listening to Any Questions, the Brownshirt scum in the audience love the Government's "Arbeit macht frei" scheme - the utterly thick pieces of shit that they are.


 
Full UK membership of "cunts 'r' us" seem to be in the audience.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 25, 2012)

smokedout said:


> it doesnt matter anymore, if companies and charities wont play ball its over


 
I wish you were right, but I'm not sanguine about things going that easy.  I reckon (based on nothing but the prior behaviour of neo-iberals in government) that "sweeteners" will be offered, that regulations, "jobseeker's agreements" and contracts will be re-worded. In short, I believe we need to keep a sharp eye on the coalition attempting to finesse themselves out of a hole.
Now ok, so having Duncan Shit and Grayling trotting out their "extremists" narrative doesn't actually help the coalition, but it does distract from real issues, and it does give the wonks time to re-frame and address the problem, so we *should* be prepared to see some PR flim-flam at work in "the corridors of power".


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 25, 2012)

DWP WORK PROGRAMME STATISTICAL RELEASE
This document contains official statistics produced by the Department for Work
and Pensions (DWP) on referrals and attachments to the Work Programme which
are being released for the first time on 21st February 2012 and thereafter on a
quarterly basis. pdf
Just found this and have to go do other things. Should have some figures about workfare I hope.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 25, 2012)

God it seems like every single high street retailer and supermarket either are participating or very recently were. No wonder there's a total absence of jobs in retail all of a sudden.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I wish you were right, but I'm not sanguine about things going that easy. I reckon (based on nothing but the prior behaviour of neo-iberals in government) that "sweeteners" will be offered, that regulations, "jobseeker's agreements" and contracts will be re-worded. In short, I believe we need to keep a sharp eye on the coalition attempting to finesse themselves out of a hole.
> Now ok, so having Duncan Shit and Grayling trotting out their "extremists" narrative doesn't actually help the coalition, but it does distract from real issues, and it does give the wonks time to re-frame and address the problem, so we *should* be prepared to see some PR flim-flam at work in "the corridors of power".


 
for sure, fuck knows what they'll try next, IDS must be going apeshit about this.  theres only so much they can do though, unless they go big and try wipe out jsa altogether or some such madness - the work programme model was developed because it was cheap, in house training and work experience schemes cost a fortune and osborne has already spunked £2 billion making IDS go away and fuck up universal credit for a couple of years

they're in a mess - theres also rumours no-one wants the PIP contract, given theyve just hung emma harrison out to dry, the likes of atos and g4s may well think twice about that as well


----------



## 1%er (Feb 25, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> God it seems like every single high street retailer and supermarket either are participating or very recently were. No wonder there's a total absence of jobs in retail all of a sudden.


Other than not having to pay wages, do these companies get any financial incentive by joining this scheme, I'm thinking of tax breaks or reduced NI on paid employees?


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 25, 2012)

1%er said:


> Other than not having to pay wages, do these companies get any financial incentive by joining this scheme, I'm thinking of tax breaks or reduced NI on paid employees?


I dunno but I wonder what the situation is if someone has an accident and they are not paying/ being paid NI contributions.
Also what's the legal situation for any 'fraud' prosecutions whilst the claimant is effectively working for nothing if the money from JSA has to be repaid. Can that person successfully  sue the placement for effective slave labour.
Just thinking out loud.


----------



## 1%er (Feb 25, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I dunno but I wonder what the situation is if someone has an accident and they are not paying/ being paid NI contributions.
> Also what's the legal situation for any 'fraud' prosecutions whilst the claimant is effectively working for nothing if the money from JSA has to be repaid. Can that person successfully sue the placement for effective slave labour.
> Just thinking out loud.


With regard to slave labor, I did read on one of the links that there is a case going to the ECHR about forced labor, which I believe will succeed.
I think if I were ever forced to do this sort of thing I'd look for an accident waiting to happen and ensure it did happen, involving me and sue the fuck out of them


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 25, 2012)

Just seen a tweet form Maplins that they've pulled out



> *Maplin Electronics* ‏ @*maplintweet*
> I would like to announce that Maplin Electronics will no longer be taking part in the #*workfare* scheme. Please RT.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 25, 2012)

Oh woes Grayling...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ve-to-sabotage-work-experience-for-young.html



			
				torygraph said:
			
		

> Chris Grayling, the employment minister, yesterday condemned “false” Left-wing groups for whipping up controversy about workfare with accusations that the scheme sponsors “slave labour”.
> 
> The programme is descending into chaos as a series of companies — including Tesco, Waterstones, Maplin, Greggs, Poundland, Argos and TK Maxx — review their participation.
> 
> ...


 
Oh noes Telegraph...



			
				torygraph said:
			
		

> His concerns proved well-founded as it emerged that two significant campaigns against the scheme, Youth Fight for Jobs and Right to Work, have links to far-Left groups.


----------



## 1%er (Feb 25, 2012)

Reds under the beds


----------



## BigTom (Feb 25, 2012)

Lol, I bet there's been some real investigative journalism to discover those links between yffj, rtw and far left groups. Like they are selling their papers.

Just let em keep going with this extreme anti-capitalist stuff, the Boycott Workfare twitter admin has taken to tweeting "Extreme Anti-capitalists [company name] have withdrawn/suspended from workfare", and the support for this is so broad that this line won't stand up for too long.
I'm surprised they aren't sticking straight with the "denying valuable work experience" line


----------



## 1%er (Feb 25, 2012)

What is the (amount) difference between benefit payments and minimum wage? I think the people who are being sent to these jobs are on JSA, also on one of the links it was mentioned that some disabled people are involved but I'm not sure if that is the same scheme


----------



## dennisr (Feb 25, 2012)

The 'reds under the beds' is a sign they are getting pretty feckin desperate 
"denying valuable work experience" stacking shelves and "50% get jobs" lie is still the main line being followed though...

Here's Sarrth Lahdon Paul from YFFJ on newsnight with some Tory (two Tories including the interviewer...) and a 'what the feck is this idiot supposed to represent?' add-on: ( from 03.44 to 17.00 )

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01ckx2z/Newsnight_24_02_2012

As he says; "Its shelf stacking, what kind of experience is shelf stacking?"


----------



## weepiper (Feb 25, 2012)

1%er said:


> What is the (amount) difference between benefit payments and minimum wage?


 
For an 18-20 year old 30 hours a week on a 'work placement' works out at £1.72 per hour (JSA is £51.85pw for under 25s) whereas minimum wage for that age group is £4.98


----------



## dennisr (Feb 25, 2012)

Grauniad:* Jobseekers forced to clean private homes and offices for nothing*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/24/jobseekers-unpaid-work-placements?fb=native

The real point being missed by the more rabid cheerleaders of hunting down the unemployed - they will be taking your jobs you plonkers...

(apols to TL - who has already posted the link)


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 25, 2012)

dennisr said:


> Grauniad:* Jobseekers forced to clean private homes and offices for nothing*
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/24/jobseekers-unpaid-work-placements?fb=native
> 
> The real point being missed by the more rabid cheerleaders of hunting down the unemployed - they will be taking your jobs you plonkers...


I saw that. I'm not sure I'd be very happy if I was trying to set up as a self employed cleaner in those areas. At all.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 25, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Lol, I bet there's been some real investigative journalism to discover those links between yffj, rtw and far left groups. Like they are selling their papers.
> 
> Just let em keep going with this extreme anti-capitalist stuff, the Boycott Workfare twitter admin has taken to tweeting "Extreme Anti-capitalists [company name] have withdrawn/suspended from workfare", and the support for this is so broad that this line won't stand up for too long.
> I'm surprised they aren't sticking straight with the "denying valuable work experience" line


yeah  the daily fail piece said their investigation found that  there were leaflets being given out!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Feb 25, 2012)

dennisr said:


> "50% get jobs" lie is still the main line being followed though...


 
Just out of interest, what percentage of claimants manage to find work after 8 weeks anyway?


----------



## Nylock (Feb 25, 2012)

1%er said:


> What is the (amount) difference between benefit payments and minimum wage? I think the people who are being sent to these jobs are on JSA, also on one of the links it was mentioned that some disabled people are involved but I'm not sure if that is the same scheme


 
NMW+21 (21 yrs+) = *£6.08 p/h.* 35 hour week = £212.80
JSA 25+ (25 yrs+) = £67.50 p/w divisible by 35 hours = * £1.92 p/h*

..in percentage terms, the JSA worker earns *31.5%* of the minimum wage worker's wage (or to put it another way, they earn 68.5% less money for exactly the same amount of hours worked).

E2A:
For a 30-hour week it's:
NMW+21 (21 yrs+) = *£6.08 p/h.* 35 hour week = £182.40
JSA 25+ (25 yrs+) = £67.50 p/w divisible by 30 hours = * £2.25 p/h*

..using the 30-hour week: In percentage terms, the JSA worker earns *36.9%* of the minimum wage worker's wage (or to put it another way, they earn 63.1% less money for exactly the same amount of hours worked).

Whichever way you look at it, it's a shite state of affairs


----------



## dennisr (Feb 25, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Just out of interest, what percentage of claimants manage to find work after 8 weeks anyway?


Wouldn't know the details myself - but someone earlier pointed out less than 5% of Tesco work experience get jobs. The 50% figure is a completely bogus figure about people leaving one unemployment status for another.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 25, 2012)

Getting a tad involved ain't they.. On a Saturday too.


----------



## binka (Feb 25, 2012)

whats the betting that the only national agreement was with tesco?


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 25, 2012)

Oldest son told me McDonalds Franchisees were well up for #workfare. Perhaps EPs have neen harrassing local business outlets rather than Govmnt actually geting national agreements


----------



## ddraig (Feb 25, 2012)

Nick Clegg lets his true feeling be known!  all 18-24 yr olds are cunts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17113209
29 secs in


----------



## BigTom (Feb 25, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Just out of interest, what percentage of claimants manage to find work after 8 weeks anyway?


 
http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/people-come-off-jsa-at-the-same-rate-regardle



> Bottom line: it turns out people leave JSA at roughly the same rate, whether they're doing workfare or not.


 
Ben Goldacre, feeding from Full Fact and another blog, which both draw from a proper study done in Nov 2011, that found that people come off JSA at the same rate whether they go on work experience schemes or not.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 25, 2012)

*Chris Grayling; Remedial Student







*


----------



## BigTom (Feb 25, 2012)

Apologies if this has already been posted, but it's really good and useful - 10 facts about workfare, done by Public Interest Lawyers:

http://www.publicinterestlawyers.co.uk/news_details.php?id=231

I think this would be great to print off to have or give out at demos next week - I've only read it once so I'm sure there are holes, but it looks to be perfect, responds to all the main criticisms in a concise and clear way.


----------



## treelover (Feb 25, 2012)

'Eighty-five charities working with large private firms to help people back into work have dropped out of the Work Programme since it was first launched in 2010, citing growing concerns that they were being muscled out of earnings.'

Shame on them for being involved in the first place, Disability Alliance(now defunct/merged with other groups) even had a conference sponspored by Serco, these charities should be outed even now..


----------



## ohmyliver (Feb 25, 2012)

The Mirror are running with 

"McDonald's spends £10m of taxpayer's cash from employment scheme without creating a single job"

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mcdonalds-spends-10m-of-taxpayers-cash-743698

it's going to be interesting to see how this is spun by Grayling et al




*eta* that's not actually related to workfare, rather it's an expose of abuse of an apprehensive scheme, sorry.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 25, 2012)

Telegraph doing a smear job on the anti-workfare protests, suggesting it's all Swaps...


----------



## treelover (Feb 26, 2012)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exclusive-a4e-and-a-200m-backtowork-scandal-7440966.html

'The Labour MP Margaret Hodge, chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, who has seen a copy of Ms Verwaerde's complaint, said it was "horrifying". Tomorrow she will call on Chris Grayling, the Employment minister, to carry out an "urgent investigation" into the state of A4e's contracts with the DWP. She will also present him with documentation outlining allegations that she has received from people describing themselves as clients of A4e or previous employees of the firm.'

Big expose of A4E coming in the Independent On Sunday...

ah, its just come in..

whats wrong with the Indy's formatting?


----------



## treelover (Feb 26, 2012)

'Ms Verwaerde is not the only dissatisfied customer. A dossier of evidence and complaints given to Ms Hodge, details of which _The Independent on Sunday_ has seen, include allegations of past financial fraud, in-work bullying, claims of bad treatment and accusations that the welfare-to-work company delivered poorly run services. One complaint, written by someone who describes himself as a former A4e employee and whom the IoS has agreed not to name, described A4e as "nothing short of a gravy train". He said fraud at A4e had been "systemic" and "common practice".'


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 26, 2012)

*The Indi.. Exclusive: A4e and a £200m back-to-work scandal
I hope all the other Work Providers filling ther pockets are shitting themselves. I was MANDATED to a JHPe two day CV and application course the other week. Using paper and pencil. It was a farce and four peope there were ATOS rejects. I feared one elderly obvious alcoholic wasn't going to last the days out..!! 

To say I was extremely hostile is an understatement and knew all my rights in signing forms and what I was entitled to share with them, which pissed them right off*


----------



## treelover (Feb 26, 2012)

'The Cabinet Office said it has a £300,000 contract, agreed last August, with a subdivision, A4e Insights, which is designing workfare programmes for local authorities. It was already the case that, once those programmes were developed, A4e itself would not bid for the work.'

This needs flagging up, i wonder which local authorities. the ones making lots of redundancies? shades of NYC and the gardeners made redundant and then doing the same job for nothing under Workfare..


----------



## yardbird (Feb 26, 2012)

Frankie
One of the big problems with the likes of A4e and ATOS is that their staff/workers really don't like anyone to question ANYTHING. 
The lies and in my case bullying are fucking unbelievable.
God forbid that anyone should know the correct way to do things!


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 26, 2012)

yardbird said:


> Frankie
> One of the big problems with the likes of A4e and ATOS is that their staff/workers really don't like anyone to question ANYTHING.
> The lies and in my case bullying are fucking unbelievable.
> God forbid that anyone should know the correct way to do things!


Exactly Yardie. I put a few people right over those two days and the whole place had NOTHING to assist disabled people. I had to traipse up and down stairs four or five times each day and was in agony when I got in. 

Gave them what for on their computerised "Tell us what you think" form too. 

Poverty pimping bastards. The sooner their gravy train steams over a cliff the better.


----------



## treelover (Feb 26, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...ew-rawnsley-voters-not-against-welfare-reform

Rather a nasty article in the Observer which appears to endorse Workfare by the arch Blairite Andrew Rawnsley


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 26, 2012)

I got too angry to read that treelover. Too much like a sneery "We might not get the NHS but we GOT welfare" to me. Cannot read Rawnsley anyway. Fuckwit.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 26, 2012)

treelover said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...ew-rawnsley-voters-not-against-welfare-reform
> 
> Rather a nasty article in the Observer which appears to endorse Workfare by the arch Blairite Andrew Rawnsley


poll cited being irrelevant, the question "do you think we spend too much on welfare?" Covers all manner of sins. Doesn't mean they support people being made to work for Tescos for free or any other particular method of reducing welfare spending.


----------



## yardbird (Feb 26, 2012)

.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 26, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> poll cited being irrelevant, the question "do you think we spend too much on welfare?" Covers all manner of sins. Doesn't mean they support people being made to work for Tescos for free or any other particular method of reducing welfare spending.


there's also a self-fulfilling prophecy about all this. All 3 political parties are anti-benefit claimant, all the newspapers are anti-benefit claimant, all the news channels are anti-benefit claimant, all of the above talk about benefit claimants in a negative way, constantly. I'm not one who thinks the newspapers dictate what people think, but if the entire public discourse is like this, 24-7, totally one way, it's hardly surprising that people answer poll questions that way. It's not an indication that a party setting out to challenge that agenda in the right way would find itself unpopular


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 26, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> there's also a self-fulfilling prophecy about all this. All 3 political parties are anti-benefit claimant, all the newspapers are anti-benefit claimant, all the news channels are anti-benefit claimant, all of the above talk about benefit claimants in a negative way, constantly. I'm not one who thinks the newspapers dictate what people think, but if the entire public discourse is like this, 24-7, totally one way, it's hardly surprising that people answer poll questions that way. It's not an indication that a party setting out to challenge that agenda in the right way would find itself unpopular


 
Quite. As long as we let them think that only they can dictate the discourse, we'll continue to be shat on, but lean on that discourse, show that it *isn't* "the only game in town", that it's self-serving bollocks spouted by the boss class for the benefit of the boss class, and just maybe the agenda can be changed.


----------



## treelover (Feb 26, 2012)

'http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bias-favour-hard-Left-militants.html#comments'

Tories ordering the police in, Tories really losing the plot now...

having said that the increasingly marginal SWP being involved in this has been a disaster for the campaign, i just can't see any positives with their bandwagoning


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 26, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bias-favour-hard-Left-militants.html#comments'
> 
> Tories really losing the plot now...


 
What a fucking joke from a bunch of whining cunts.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 26, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bias-favour-hard-Left-militants.html#comments'
> 
> Tories ordering the police in, Tories really losing the plot now...
> 
> having said that the increasingly marginal SWP being involved in this has been a disaster for the campaign, i just can't see any positives with their bandwagoning


Exactly.. I shall be purposely distancing myself from them next week if there are any 'businesses' left to protest at. Have had words in a few places on the net with swappies about their shit involvement.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 26, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bias-favour-hard-Left-militants.html#comments'
> 
> Tories ordering the police in, Tories really losing the plot now...
> 
> having said that the increasingly marginal SWP being involved in this has been a disaster for the campaign, i just can't see any positives with their bandwagoning


I dunno, I think with most people opposed to workfare are going to see through a pretty obvious smear job.


----------



## yardbird (Feb 26, 2012)

Frankie Jack said:


> Exactly.. I shall be purposely distancing myself from them next week if there are any 'businesses' left to protest at. Have had words in a few places on the net with swappies about their shit involvement.


Thanks for having a few words.
One thing though :  Duncan Smith says it's "illegal to prevent people going about their normal business" - is this so?


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 26, 2012)

yardbird said:


> Thanks for having a few words.
> One thing though : Duncan Smith says it's "illegal to prevent people going about their normal business" - is this so?


That's odd because people ordered to quit their own volunteering to do workfare are then being prevented from going about their normal business, and by his own logic, illegal?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 26, 2012)

yardbird said:


> Thanks for having a few words.
> One thing though : Duncan Smith says it's "illegal to prevent people going about their normal business" - is this so?


How could it be, it's so incredibly vague?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 26, 2012)

They are well rattled now. Excellent.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 26, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> That's odd because people ordered to quit their own volunteering to do workfare are then being prevented from going about their normal business, and by his own logic, illegal?


it's like saying that irritation is against the law, meaningless. What illegal thing are the pickets doing?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 26, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> Telegraph doing a smear job on the anti-workfare protests, suggesting it's all Swaps...


 
They actually call the swappies 'highly disciplined' ffs 

Play the ball not the man Telegraph, address the issues at hand or fuck off. You're nailing your colours to the mast of a sinking ship here.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 26, 2012)

yardbird said:


> One thing though : Duncan Smith says it's "illegal to prevent people going about their normal business" - is this so?


 
What if my normal business is being a serial killer?


----------



## yardbird (Feb 26, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> How could it be, it's so incredibly vague?


My thoughts.
I'm also amused at how inarticulate these tory MPs are.
Split infinitives, tautology, the inability to say "deteriorate"  oh and the thing of picking %s out of the air


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 26, 2012)

yardbird said:


> Thanks for having a few words.
> One thing though : Duncan Smith says it's "illegal to prevent people going about their normal business" - is this so?


Words were had in my inimitable usual style Yardie.. 

As for Dung-can Spivs words. Probably trying to MAKE protest illegal behind the scenes. Using the police as their personal thuggish doormen in HiViz and body armour.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 26, 2012)

disastrously will attract people to the swaps...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 26, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> disastrously will attract people to the swaps...


 
And the SWP in turn is a great recruitment agency for anarchism. You don't have to hang out with those clowns for very long to realise socialism is never going to get us anywhere.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 26, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bias-favour-hard-Left-militants.html#comments'
> 
> Tories ordering the police in, Tories really losing the plot now...


interesting that even the sort of people who post comments on the _Fail_ were by and large against both that ridiculous smear piece, and Grayling's scheme itself.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 26, 2012)

Good stuff again from Johnny Void. 


> The shameful attempt to cover up Iain Duncan Smith and Chris Grayling’s lies about workfare appears to have led to another document disappearing from the DWP’s website.  The document, which was a response to a Freedom of Information request, revealed the names of several private companies who have enjoyed free forced labour under the government’s Work Programme scheme.



Can't imagine what else is being erased/deleted that we don't know about and for whatever reasons.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 26, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bias-favour-hard-Left-militants.html#comments'
> 
> Tories ordering the police in, Tories really losing the plot now...


 
Quite. I don't think anyone is against real placements, such as those in the DM article, ones where participants have a real chance of getting a job; but even - or, actually, most particularly - the most die-hard DM reader is going to be against subsidising of Tesco & the like with positions which have no chance of becoming real jobs and are done on a rotating basis.

Speaking of real placements, it's quite telling that in the first case, it was the local jobcentre - you know, people with real knowledge of the local area - that matched her with the salon, not something like A4E.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 26, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Quite. I don't think anyone is against real placements, such as those in the DM article,


actually - and whilst I agree with the rest of what you said - I think quite a few people are against what is effectively forced unwaged - i.e. tantamount to slave - labour, of whatever type, on principle.


----------



## Kippa (Feb 26, 2012)

Can someone clarify, these sanctioned work place schemes, are anyone forced to take them or are they 100% voluntary?


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 26, 2012)

Kippa said:


> Can someone clarify, these sanctioned work place schemes, are anyone forced to take them or are they 100% voluntary?


 
They are Mandatory after a set time on Benefits. The workfare mostly talked about in the press and here is mandatory too after the first week of doing it. No one was telling these people on these schemes that they had the choice to leave it after 1st day and before the week was out.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 26, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> actually - and whilst I agree with the rest of what you said - I think quite a few people are against what is effectively forced unwaged - i.e. tantamount to slave - labour, of whatever type, on principle.


 
I should have been clearer: IMHO it depends upon whether or not you consider them extended interviews - which the jobs featured in the DM appear to have been - or simply free labour, as in the case of Tesco.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 26, 2012)

Kippa said:


> Can someone clarify, these sanctioned work place schemes, are anyone forced to take them or are they 100% voluntary?


 
there's several different schemes, the three main ones are:

Work Programme - which is usually after 6 months claiming is mandatory and can include up to six months mandatory full time work, often for private companies

Mandatory Work Placement - 4 weeks mandatory work placement - its supposed to be for 'community' work, but that can include working for the profit of the host organisation.  this is used if jobcentre advisors think you arent trying hard enough to get a job, you can be mandated onto it from day 1 of your claim, and in theory re-mandated every four weeks

Work Experience - voluntary at first, but becomes mandatory after 1 week


----------



## Quartz (Feb 26, 2012)

Then there are Work Trials, aren't there?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 26, 2012)

That Mail article in post 944 digs into the distant past in its attempt to justify blaming the SWP. Apparently a demonstration in 2010 was dominated by the SWP. They will be delighted to read this. I don't remember reading about this before. The SWP is a mere shadow of its former self and would be in no position to dominate or even figure largely in any protesting that is happening now. The world has changed and more people are standing up against nasty government policies. If they send in the police, the police are going to be very busy and are likely to escalate the protests. Hang on to your hats.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 26, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Then there are Work Trials, aren't there?


 
Those are paid I think, if they still exist.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 26, 2012)

Even following the face value reasoning there's no reason to include the likes of Tesco's in this programme. Tesco's have always hired shelf stackers straight out of school, it's not a job you _need_ work experience to get. Tesco will have their labour requirements and they're going to fill them, they might, just might be more inclined to hire people who have got a foot in the door, and proved to be reliable but ... since their labour requirements are still going to be the same and like I said, they hire unexperienced people anyway, the job the work placement person gets is a job that would've gone to someone anyway - the actual job creation is zero. 

And all that's assuming a best case scenario that Tesco's are _not_ using the programme to fill positions that they otherwise would've hired people for. Something that does not appear to be the case, given all the anecdotal evidence and the balance of probability. As, even if, it was not national policy to use workfare to plug staffing gaps, there's a pretty clear incentive for management at individual stores to do it, because it keeps their costs down and profits high, something they inevitably gets bonuses and personal credit for.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 26, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> Even following the face value reasoning there's no reason to include the likes of Tesco's in this programme. Tesco's have always hired shelf stackers straight out of school, it's not a job you _need_ work experience to get. Tesco will have their labour requirements and they're going to fill them, they might, just might be more inclined to hire people who have got a foot in the door, and proved to be reliable but ... since their labour requirements are still going to be the same and like I said, they hire unexperienced people anyway, the job the work placement person gets is a job that would've gone to someone anyway - the actual job creation is zero.
> 
> And all that's assuming a best case scenario that Tesco's are _not_ using the programme to fill positions that they otherwise would've hired people for. Something that does not appear to be the case, given all the anecdotal evidence and the balance of probability. As, even if, it was not national policy to use workfare to plug staffing gaps, there's a pretty clear incentive for management at individual stores to do it, because it keeps their costs down and profits high, something they inevitably gets bonuses and personal credit for.


 this is absolutelty correct. When I left school, I was taken on by tescos and was told at the time that they had a policy of NOT taking on anyone who had experience of working with other supermarkets- they want to train their staff in how they do it, so the idea that work experience at tesco would help get a job at any other supermarket is laughable-especially as the opinion of other supermarket management is that tesco staff training is abysmal.


----------



## treelover (Feb 26, 2012)

the thing is, imo, worrying, that if they lose on workfare, which they might, they may go down the road of 'time limited' benefits, work or starve..


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 26, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> this is absolutelty correct. When I left school, I was taken on by tescos and was told at the time that they had a policy of NOT taking on anyone who had experience of working with other supermarkets- they want to train their staff in how they do it, so the idea that work experience at tesco would help get a job at any other supermarket is laughable-especially as the opinion of other supermarket management is that* tesco staff training is abysmal*.


 
I'd agree with this, as I recently had to point out to my local Tesco that the crisps I had bought that morning were out of date by three months, and when I went back to check they weren't the oldest packet on the shelf. Stock rotation anybody?


----------



## treelover (Feb 26, 2012)

Just passed my local tesco's, frequented by students, was packed


----------



## treelover (Feb 26, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I'd agree with this, as I recently had to point out to my local Tesco that the crisps I had bought that morning were out of date by three months, and when I went back to check they weren't the oldest packet on the shelf. Stock rotation anybody?


 

The customer service in my local Tesco is really quite poor...


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 26, 2012)

treelover said:


> The customer service in my local Tesco is really quite poor...


There's one person at my local store who give excellent customer service. The others are either hiding in the back or bitching about customers whilst slowly restocking shelves. Often when I'm in each morning she's the only one in the store - nothing is too much trouble for her and she always has a smile.

The others always moan if they have to do anything.


----------



## treelover (Feb 26, 2012)

On a broader point there is something very strange and very alarming about the vast sums that A4E, other providers and other poverty pimps such as ATOS have accrued from Govts of the last twenty years. One can't imagine staff of the Manpower Services Commission(the forerunners of the above) receiving millions. Its almost as if they are the apparachiks (or stormtroopers) of an ideology, in this case neo-liberalism(or Thatcherism) and that regardless of success they must receive the rewards a privatised system can profer on its chosen ones. But, of course it goes against all notions of a free market economy as they don't get the results, they don't deliver, no matter what its adherents argue)

Time to go back in house...


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 26, 2012)

I am not slagging off tescos staff, they do a shit job for shit wages, but that's the same as at other supermarkets too. And the level of customer service is far better, at sainsburys our dopiest Saturday kid is miles better than Tescos best. That has to be the fault of how tescos trains its staff, how it treats them and what it expects of them.
I am code checker, and everytime I go to our local Tesco I pull tons of out of date goods off their shelves.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 26, 2012)

Why the 50% "success" rate is no success at all: http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=647

I wrote this, on the basis of some other blogs and conversations both here and elsewhere.. so thanks to anyone here that pointed out a flaw with the figure that I've included in the post, I have no idea where some of the points I picked up came from


e2a: if any of the resident statisticians here spot things I've got wrong or have things to add, please let me know or comment on the blog post.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 26, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> actually - and whilst I agree with the rest of what you said - I think quite a few people are against what is effectively forced unwaged - i.e. tantamount to slave - labour, of whatever type, on principle.


 
If the placements were completely voluntary, ie no coercion financial or otherwise and you can walk out whenever you like and still keep your benefits then that'd be at least defensible. The DWP and their private sector chums don't understand 'no coercion' though. They're hardwired into thinking that nobody who is unemployed actually wants a job and that everyone is out for what they can get.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 26, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bias-favour-hard-Left-militants.html#comments'
> 
> Tories ordering the police in, Tories really losing the plot now...
> 
> having said that the increasingly marginal SWP being involved in this has been a disaster for the campaign, i just can't see any positives with their bandwagoning


 
It would be quite funny if the SWP's classic attention-seeking hijack tactics got them all rounded up and thrown in jail.

What is less funny is the idea of politicians telling the police to deal with people not according to the legality or otherwise of their behaviour but according to the political and economic consequences of their actions. Obviously they've been doing exactly that since time began but it would be nice if, when it happens in public like this, someone somewhere pointed out that this is not what the police are actually supposed to be for. 

We have the right to protest as long as we don't actually change anything is that it?


----------



## coltrane (Feb 27, 2012)

Looks like the government knew about A4E fraud allegations before Cameron appointed Emma Harrison "families tsar", and before DWP awarded them the Work Programme contracts last April. Cameron's judgement being questioned.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/harrison-hired-despite-a4e-fraud-warning-7441303.html

Ian Duncan Smith is being asked what he knew when and if he told Cameron about the fraud allegations against A4E before Cameron appointed her "families tsar".

IDS has a waterproof explanation i reckon, he will say that he told Cameron about the allegations, but because he is "the quiet man" unfortunately Cameron couldn't hear him. Sounds as plausible as anything else coming out of the DWP recently.

Shades of appointing Andy Coulson by Cameron in the appointing of Emma Harrison as "families tsar".


----------



## elbows (Feb 27, 2012)

Ah well see the big society isn't prejudiced against big people with big trousers that have big pockets for stashing all the big wads of government contract cash. Dave's judgement is beyond question because he has a big forehead, and all the critics are just jealous because they don't have a big vision, or a big ego to compensate for the big gap between Dave's sense of reality and how things actually are. Well we've all got to be big now, for the sake of the nation, keep calm and await the arrival of Christopher Biggins as supreme overlord in chief.

The only problem is the minimum wage is too big, thats the wrong sort of big you see, and people will be fine just as soon as they realise that chocolate rations have gone up again, honest.

Meanwhile inside the HQ of the small society of illustrious parasites....


----------



## StraightOuttaQ (Feb 27, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> If the placements were completely voluntary, ie no coercion financial or otherwise and you can walk out whenever you like and still keep your benefits then that'd be at least defensible. The DWP and their private sector chums don't understand 'no coercion' though. They're hardwired into thinking that nobody who is unemployed actually wants a job and that everyone is out for what they can get.


 
Wrong on every level.

The placements are NOT voluntary. If you don't go, you lose your benefits. Thats not voluntary. thats mandatory.

As for that assumption, you confuse the DWP with the current govt. That assumption works on the idea that everyone is on the make. the DWP enacts the decisions of govt. ministers - that's what its there for. It is the instrument by which policy is enacted.  You assume all DWP staff are unthinking, uncritical, vindictive morons. They are not. A lot of them disagree with these policies, from what I can gather.

Work Trials exist, now on a maximum five day basis. they are not paid except as JSA. A job MUST exist to be filled in order for a Work Trial to  be accepted.

Problem is, that these unpaid mandatory work placements  actually take jobs out of the economy. By filling that job with unpaid people who have no choice in the matter, and you have an unending supply available - you will not need to pay wages. So it takes jobs out of the economy. Its paradoxical, but true. 

In the example of Cait Reilly, from what I can work out, she was actually gaining experience in her chosen field, which may lead to full time work ; plus was qualified. Plus had come out of the graduate uptake 9 months earlier. It doesn't mean she doesnt have a work ethic - she obviously does - plus she does have (or was gaining) relevant and useful experience. However, the course of action that the Work programme dictates treats her the same as someone who left school at 16 with nothing, and ignores this. 

The thing is, if anything, that this scheme is an argument NOT to go to uni, NOT to get qualifications. Why spend 27k on tuition fees+living expenses on top, accruing a debt of probably 50k, just to end up  stacking shelves for NMW?? It would take you 10,000 hours  - 250 odd weeks, roughly five working years without paying a penny in tax, or accomodation, or anything - at NMW to pay that back. Why bother? Seriously, if all you can get is NMW, its a bad investment. And after 9 months, even if you try to get yourself in a good voluntary position such as she did, you get treated the same. 

The private sector 'chums' are the govt's decision. The ideology is that if motivated by profit and incentivised, they will place people into work with success. However, there was a 2008 report that completely disproved this (link escapes me), which states that Jobcentre staff are the best people to do this, disproving the private sector success argument. They aren't chums  - they would gladly take every single thing  the DWP does, outsource it and use it to line their own profits.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 27, 2012)

One of the biggest rounds of applause on R4 Any Questions the other day was for some geezer who said that young people just couldn't expect a job these days with out work experience. This is the attitude of the reactionary bourgeois - they shafted the economy and now expect younger folk to suffer siliently as a consequence. They can't take the blame, they need to pass it onto the evil lying disableds, the greedy lollipop ladies, the jobless with spare rooms and senior folk who haven't sold their house.​


----------



## BigTom (Feb 27, 2012)

StraightOuttaQ said:


> In the example of Cait Reilly, from what I can work out, she was actually gaining experience in her chosen field, which may lead to full time work ; plus was qualified. Plus had come out of the graduate uptake 9 months earlier. It doesn't mean she doesnt have a work ethic - she obviously does - plus she does have (or was gaining) relevant and useful experience. However, the course of action that the Work programme dictates treats her the same as someone who left school at 16 with nothing, and ignores this.


 
Yep, Cait was volunteering at the Birmingham Pen Museum, and was told she had to leave this to get experience at poundland.  Ideally she'd love to be a museum curator, so it's obvious that the experience she was gaining at the museum is better for her.. but she's a job snob for not wanting to leave it and go to poundland.  Of course the right wing press conveniently forget she was already getting experience in her chosen field, and applying for jobs anywhere, when they claim she is too snobbish to want to stack shelves.
One of the silly things about this is that if you decide, off your own back, to find (genuinely) voluntary work in order to get experience, you are limited to 16 hours/wk (I think), and I'm not even sure how clear it is that you are allowed to do this. I know some people don't tell the job centre if they are volunteering becasue they are scared of losing their benefits.
These rules need to be relaxed, at least to allow people to volunteer full time for short periods (or 6 months for long term unemployed as per the community action program workfare scheme), in order to be coherent with the stated ideology of workfare (which is that people need experience to get work, or to get into the habit of work).
The fact that it is not really shows that the ideology of workfare is punishment and an attack on minimum wage/way to lower the wage bill for capital.



> The private sector 'chums' are the govt's decision. The ideology is that if motivated by profit and incentivised, they will place people into work with success. However, there was a 2008 report that completely disproved this (link escapes me), which states that Jobcentre staff are the best people to do this, disproving the private sector success argument. They aren't chums - they would gladly take every single thing the DWP does, outsource it and use it to line their own profits.


 
DWP PDF: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep533.pdf
conclusion:


> There is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time available for job search and by failing to provide the skills and experience valued by employers.


 
There's also a study from Nov 2011 by the centre for economic and social inclusion, the concluded that the chances of someone finding work following the work experience scheme were no higher than those who didn't do it, the study is linked to from here:

http://notthetreasuryview.blogspot.com/2012/02/work-experience-does-it-work.html

their conclusion:


> This appears to show that the youth work experience scheme has had no additional impact on the speed at which young people leave benefit, and may have actually led to them spending longer on benefit than they would have done. However, these figures require some caution – the stated intent of the Department has been to target work experience at those with the biggest barriers to work, who would likely have had offflow rates below the average for all claimants.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 27, 2012)

Show some backbone big business and sock it to those swappies


----------



## BigTom (Feb 27, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2...rt-rose?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Stuart Rose, ex head of M&S defending workfare. Mentions he did shelf stacking etc. as a management trainee. No doubt got paid for it. Thinks young people shouldn't complain about doing the same for free.

This is also in the daily mail, but I'm not linking to it there.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 27, 2012)

stephj said:


> Show some backbone big business and sock it to those swappies


I saw the Newsnight where it discuss the power (or lack of) of the SWP protests etc. Its blatantly nothing to do with the SWP or the protests from what I can see, its because they know they're guilty of getting free labour out of it, and feel caught red handed.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 27, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Thinks *young people* shouldn't complain about doing the same for free.


Its winding me up this - a lot of the 'debate' in the media is painting this as 'young peoples' first experience of work - workfare can apply too everyone signing on no? Last time I was at the job centre it wasn't full of just-left school kids - its adults who are going through this, most often with plenty of experience of shit work thanks.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 27, 2012)

ska invita said:


> Its winding me up this - a lot of the 'debate' in the media is painting this as 'young peoples' first experience of work - workfare can apply too everyone signing on no? Last time I was at the job centre it wasn't full of just-left school kids - its adults who are going through this, most often with plenty of experience of shit work thanks.


 
depends which scheme you are talking about iirc, the "work experience scheme" which the govt. wants to focus on and is the only one they talk about, is just for young people, but the others are for anyone.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 27, 2012)

BigTom said:


> depends which scheme you are talking about iirc, the "work experience scheme" which the govt. wants to focus on and is the only one they talk about, is just for young people, but the others are for anyone.


In both cases its bollocks, but  its always framed around fresh-from-school-children that get talked about -  cases as in the OP (56 year old man) don't seem to register for some reason...


----------



## ska invita (Feb 27, 2012)

Jackobi said:


> Not necessarily, but the Work Program does not enforce voluntary work, it is the Mandatory Work Activity placement that does. It seems that there is some confusion distinguishing between the two separate programs. There is a maximum sanction period of three years for not complying with either.


Could you sketch out the two programs Jackobi - or link to somewhere that does? When it kicks in, whats required etc.?


----------



## BigTom (Feb 27, 2012)

ska invita said:


> In both cases its bollocks, but its always framed around fresh-from-school-children that get talked about - cases as in the OP (56 year old man) don't seem to register for some reason...


 
Yep, that's because they cannot think of any defense for it at all (aside from "it's just exremists who are against this"..).

If they can focus on something that is technically voluntary (but presented as, and becomes, mandatory), is called "work experience scheme" and is for young people they can keep going on about how we are trying to stop young people from volunteering to get their first taste of work which will help them get jobs in the future.
Then say that we think we are above the work that they are doing and that's why we don't like it - making those who work for pay in shops feel like we are looking down on them, and making it harder for us to organise shop staff.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 27, 2012)

ska invita said:


> Could you sketch out the two programs Jackobi - or link to somewhere that does? When it kicks in, whats required etc.?


 
There are currently 5 schemes, and this is a brief bit about each of them:

http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?page_id=663

There's another blog site that had a more comprehensive detailing of each scheme that I'll try to find, I think I may have posted it to this thread earlier but I'll search it out if not.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 27, 2012)

StraightOuttaQ said:


> Wrong on every level.
> 
> The placements are NOT voluntary. If you don't go, you lose your benefits. Thats not voluntary. thats mandatory/snip


 
Yes I'm aware of that. That's why I said *if *they were voluntary then they *might *be defensible. 

As for the DWP, if the staff have a moral issue with what they're told to do but they're willing to do it anyway then they can fuck off quite frankly. I tend to judge people based on how they behave, not how I charitably assume they might be feeling underneath. It makes no difference to the people getting fucked over how bad the DWP staff might feel about it.

And surprisingly enough you're not the first person to have figured out that mandatory unpaid work is going to take paid jobs out of the economy. The wonder is that there are still people who fail to understand this.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 27, 2012)

ska invita said:


> Could you sketch out the two programs Jackobi - or link to somewhere that does? When it kicks in, whats required etc.?


 http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/re...12/feb/22/unemployment-work-programme-welfare

Here, more detail about each of the 5 schemes.. 

This doesn't include the "youth contract" which comes in in April:
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/02/izzy-koksal-workfare-youth-contract/


----------



## ska invita (Feb 27, 2012)

> [Tories order police to halt workfare demos as MP makes formal protest to BBC over bias in favour of hard-Left militants http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...test-BBC-bias-favour-hard-Left-militants.html
> ...
> He said: ‘We have asked the police to be more pro-active. If they receive intelligence that a shop is to be invaded they should stop it happening. And if a shop has been invaded, retailers need to know that they can call on the police to eject them. It is illegal to prevent people going about their normal business.’


upping the ante 


> They claim agitators were responsible for flooding the website Mumsnet with abusive messages attacking firms involved in the scheme, such as Tesco.


It does seem that posting on Mumsnet is about as close as you can get to influencing democracy these days...I might sign up


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2012)

treelover said:


> the thing is, imo, worrying, that if they lose on workfare, which they might, they may go down the road of 'time limited' benefits, work or starve..


 
This has always been where they're heading.
That's why both new Labour and now the coalition have placed so much emphasis on "third sector" involvement; why they've found ways to "lock" charities into the system, to render them complicit and then to eventually shift the "burden" of welfare onto them, removing government from the equation (although we can be fairly certain that government will still tax us at the same rate).


----------



## treelover (Feb 27, 2012)

Yes, Duncan Smith authorised funds for food banks this year..


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 27, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I dunno but I wonder what the situation is if someone has an accident and they are not paying/ being paid NI contributions.
> Also what's the legal situation for any 'fraud' prosecutions whilst the claimant is effectively working for nothing if the money from JSA has to be repaid. Can that person successfully sue the placement for effective slave labour.
> Just thinking out loud.


If they're 'on benefits' their NI contributions are covered by the government.

Interesting point about the fraud thing, and it's not by far the only thing that can affect your money. What if a letter goes astray or the person forgets their 'homework diary' when they sign on and they get sanctioned?


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 27, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> There's one person at my local store who give excellent customer service. The others are either hiding in the back or bitching about customers whilst slowly restocking shelves. Often when I'm in each morning she's the only one in the store - nothing is too much trouble for her and she always has a smile.
> 
> The others always moan if they have to do anything.


Maybe she's the only one on full min wage - the rest are/were workfare, work programme or 'retail' apprenticeships.


----------



## treelover (Feb 27, 2012)

'The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has released figures detailing billions of pounds worth of benefits that went unclaimed in the 2009-10 financial year.
The figures are surprising and reveal that many individuals including pensioner and the unemployed are missing out on benefits worth thousands of pounds to many potential claimants.'

http://victimsofatoscorruption.word...als-billions-in-benefits-unclaimed-each-year/


The Gov't is scapegoating claimants as 'scroungers, when the reality is billions of under-claiming, bet the tabloids don't report on this...


----------



## BigTom (Feb 27, 2012)

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9555334.___Workfare____scheme_slammed_by_Archbishop/#workfare

Archbishop of York slams workfare.. apparently wrote column in the Sun on Sunday, which is good, because only things I've seen in that rag have been pro-workfare.


----------



## treelover (Feb 27, 2012)

'http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/02/izzy-koksal-workfare-youth-contract/'

More Workfare coming, apparently Clegg's 'Youth Contract' much lauded by the media is basically Workfare 2.0


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 27, 2012)

Lazy cunts.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 27, 2012)

Delightfully bitter article here on the collapse of workfare:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...edia-elite-and-its-slavish-twitter-followers/

It's rather gratifying to see even the Torygraph running pieces talking about the 'collapse' of workfare.  It's even more so to see right wing columnists thrashing out blindly, blaming everyone except themselves for the collapse of their lunatic schemes.  If the NHS Bill fails completely (and I'm not optimistic, but we can live in hope!) the reaction from the right will be hilarious.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 27, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Delightfully bitter article here on the collapse of workfare:
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...edia-elite-and-its-slavish-twitter-followers/
> 
> It's rather gratifying to see even the Torygraph running pieces talking about the 'collapse' of workfare. It's even more so to see right wing columnists thrashing out blindly, blaming everyone except themselves for the collapse of their lunatic schemes. If the NHS Bill fails completely (and I'm not optimistic, but we can live in hope!) the reaction from the right will be hilarious.


 
what _is_ this 'elitist snobs' line they're trying to pull with all these type of articles?  it's completely the opposite of what's actually happening.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 27, 2012)

weepiper said:


> what _is_ this 'elitist snobs' line they're trying to pull with all these type of articles?  it's completely the opposite of what's actually happening.


Took the words from under my fingers. Do these arseholes have different meanings  for words that have passed me by??


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 27, 2012)

weepiper said:


> what _is_ this 'elitist snobs' line they're trying to pull with all these type of articles?  it's completely the opposite of what's actually happening.


 
It's a stock right-wing trope. They can't deal with the fact that they've lost the argument and the majority do not support them, so somebody else has to be to blame.  Invariably that's some disgusting liberal elite that doesn't reflect the views of the majority (because, of course, they do) but exercises power enough to force things through anyway.

It's nothing very new. To give an example of the same thing in a different context, Peter Hitchens and his ilk have been blaming a 'liberal elite' for foisting gay rights on an unwilling populace for years, studiously ignoring the fact that they've comprehensively lost the debate, and that never in a million years would they gain significant support for turning the clock back.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 27, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Lazy cunts.


Elitist snobs dear.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 27, 2012)

weepiper said:


> what _is_ this 'elitist snobs' line they're trying to pull with all these type of articles?  it's completely the opposite of what's actually happening.


 
Yep - I said somewhere earlier that I thought that as well as just an attempt to smear us, this is also to make the shopworkers whose jobs are threatened, or the claimants who would love a job, think that we look down on them.  That It'll make it harder to organise shopworkers if you don't have anyone already involved.
divide and rule.
Of course, to some extent at least, they've already failed here because "we" are them. Certainly the claimants, not so much the workers I think. But enough people will understand how workfare threatens their jobs, even if they haven't seen someone lost their job or hours.  It might work in some places though.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 27, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Yep - I said somewhere earlier that I thought that as well as just an attempt to smear us, this is also to make the shopworkers whose jobs are threatened, or the claimants who would love a job, think that we look down on them. That It'll make it harder to organise shopworkers if you don't have anyone already involved.
> divide and rule.
> Of course, to some extent at least, they've already failed here because "we" are them. Certainly the claimants, not so much the workers I think. But enough people will understand how workfare threatens their jobs, even if they haven't seen someone lost their job or hours. It might work in some places though.


 
exactly, everyone I know has at some point had a shitty shop job and been grateful for it. Plenty of people I know are still in shitty shop jobs. Lots of them can see why workfare is bad for everyone except big business.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 27, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Delightfully bitter article here on the collapse of workfare:
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...edia-elite-and-its-slavish-twitter-followers/


 
The sheepishness of modern corporations? Can he possibly be serious?


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 27, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> The sheepishness of modern corporations? Can he possibly be serious?


 
Well he is from _Spiked_, which should never be taken all that seriously!


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 27, 2012)

weepiper said:


> exactly, everyone I know has at some point had a shitty shop job and been grateful for it. Plenty of people I know are still in shitty shop jobs. Lots of them can see why workfare is bad for everyone except big business.


That girl who got pulled out of her own volunteering to work in Tesco for nothing had had plenty of jobs like that before. So no way, no how can she be accused of being a 'job snob' neither could she be accused to desperately needing the experience of retail. Yet idiots still managed to accuse her of both, when it was patently obvious to anyone reading the story and being honest with themselves, this was not the case.
I thought Dave's big society bollox was meant to encourage volunteering anyway?


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 27, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I thought Dave's big society bollox was meant to encourage volunteering anyway?


 
The whole 'Big Society' schtick has gone very quiet of late. I'm starting to think they've given up on the whole stupid idea - or, rather, that they've given up on trying to promote it, presumably having finally realised that it's become nothing more than a standing joke. The closures and the sackings of paid staff - for whom an army of well qualified volunteers are miraculously supposed to turn up and substitute - are still very much ongoing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Delightfully bitter article here on the collapse of workfare:
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...edia-elite-and-its-slavish-twitter-followers/
> 
> It's rather gratifying to see even the Torygraph running pieces talking about the 'collapse' of workfare. It's even more so to see right wing columnists thrashing out blindly, blaming everyone except themselves for the collapse of their lunatic schemes. If the NHS Bill fails completely (and I'm not optimistic, but we can live in hope!) the reaction from the right will be hilarious.


 
Typical _Spiked_ pro-establishment toss, though. Totally ignores that journalists latched onto an already-present phenomenon of dissent amongst the unemployed, people with disabilities, trade unionists etc. Polly Toynbee ignited nothing, and for Brendan O'Neill to "spin" the story as though Toynbee had is of a piece with his usual dishonesty.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2012)

weepiper said:


> what _is_ this 'elitist snobs' line they're trying to pull with all these type of articles?  it's completely the opposite of what's actually happening.


 
Yep. They're trying to spin it as both an "extreme anti-capitalist lefties" thing *and* the creation of a narrow stratum of elite leftie media types, when of course what it actually is, is grassroots dissent that media trendies and the Swappies are trying to hitch a ride on, the parasitic middle-class fucks.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Typical _Spiked_ pro-establishment toss, though. Totally ignores that journalists latched onto an already-present phenomenon of dissent amongst the unemployed, people with disabilities, trade unionists etc. Polly Toynbee ignited nothing, and for Brendan O'Neill to "spin" the story as though Toynbee had is of a piece with his usual dishonesty.


 
Well, exactly.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 27, 2012)

Channel 4 news trailing an interview with someone who says he was forced to work at Asda and regular staff had hours cut as a result. On at 7.20.


----------



## StraightOuttaQ (Feb 27, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> As for the DWP, if the staff have a moral issue with what they're told to do but they're willing to do it anyway then they can fuck off quite frankly. I tend to judge people based on how they behave, not how I charitably assume they might be feeling underneath.


 
Compelled under threat of disciplinary and possible sacking, I would expect.As I've said staff who you will see signing you on don't decide policy ; and those who do never have to deal with the frontline, they would be so high up as to deal with it on an abstract level. Numbers, not individuals. Its a one size fits all policy.



SpookyFrank said:


> And surprisingly enough you're not the first person to have figured out that mandatory unpaid work is going to take paid jobs out of the economy. The wonder is that there are still people who fail to understand this.


 
Me too. Those radio4 listeners on AnyQ?/AnyA have fundamentally misunderstood just quite how draconian this is. Compelling people to work full time for what is, effectively food and board and is not renumerative employment, unwaged - under pain of homeless and starvation as a consequence ....well, how is that different in qualitative or quantitive terms from Indentured servitude? To quote wiki ;

_"The historical practice of contracting to work for a fixed period of time..... in exchange for transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities during the term of indenture. .... most were under the age of 21 .....They were not paid cash."_

Any legal challenge would be best not to focus on the type of work she was seeking, but instead on how it violates Article 4 of the Declaration Of Human Rights, of which the UK is a signatory and is bound to adhere to. Article 4 states ; "_No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their "_


Similarly, reference to Article 23 ; "_ Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity_, " also may apply. 

May also have an ability to challenge the sanctions regime under Article 25 ; "_Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control_"_._

As in, if sanctions are in place due to this, it violates the provision of "_a standard of living adaquete....including .... housing" ._

Similarly you may be able to make a legal challenge on the grounds beause of how sanctions also affect housing benefit. Similarly_, "right to security in event of unemployment" _Is violated due to threat of sanctions for not adhering to something which violates article 4. This may indeed count as malfeasance - the unlawful application of a legal act - because of this violation.

just saying, that is.

EDIT:Sorry the formattings all fucked. Damn copy and paste thing.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 27, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Channel 4 news trailing an interview with someone who says he was forced to work at Asda and regular staff had hours cut as a result. On at 7.20.


Saw it  - disgusting.  Getting paid overtime in the run up to christmas is important, even relied on, to pay for any luxuries.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 27, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Saw it - disgusting. Getting paid overtime in the run up to christmas is important, even relied on, to pay for any luxuries.


 
It is disgusting.

However, at risk of being horribly cynical, the fact that this is being pointed out as a consequence of the workfare scheme might be a good thing in terms of destroying what support remains for it.  It's easy for _Mail_-reading types to nod sagely about what a good idea it is to make some lazy scroungers do a good day's work, but once it's pointed out to them that full-time staff will lose out as a result, they might be a bit less keen on the idea...


----------



## Greebo (Feb 27, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> <snip>once it's pointed out to them that full-time staff will lose out as a result, they might be a bit less keen on the idea...


True, self-interest tends to outweigh altruism.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 27, 2012)

http://www.channel4.com/news/now-asda-is-accused-of-employing-youths-for-no-wage

Here's a link to the C4 story:



> Joseph and 11 other jobseekers were set to work in the local Asda store in Harrogate in North Yorkshire, over the busy Christmas period. He says they weren't shadowing staff, they were just doing the job.
> 
> "We were doing the work itself. For the first week or so I'd have a manager hanging round just to make sure we weren't doing too badly. After that we were basically doing the work," said Joseph.
> 
> ...


----------



## treelover (Feb 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep. They're trying to spin it as both an "extreme anti-capitalist lefties" thing *and* the creation of a narrow stratum of elite leftie media types, when of course what it actually is, is grassroots dissent that media trendies and the Swappies are trying to hitch a ride on, the parasitic middle-class fucks.


 
and the SWP too, hitching a ride that is


----------



## treelover (Feb 27, 2012)

http://www.comedy.co.uk/news/story/00000762/itv_new_sitcom_pilot_russell_tovey/


This doesn't look good, now ITV are getting on the anti-benefits bandwagon with a one off pilot set in a job centre, hope it doesn't get green lighted...


----------



## binka (Feb 27, 2012)

treelover said:


> http://www.comedy.co.uk/news/story/00000762/itv_new_sitcom_pilot_russell_tovey/
> 
> 
> This doesn't look good, now ITV are getting on the anti-benefits bandwagon with a one off pilot set in a job centre, hope it doesn't get green lighted...


made by the same people who made 'him and her' which is a really horrible program. i will be very surprised if this isnt all about 'dole scum' tbh


----------



## weepiper (Feb 27, 2012)

oh dear.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 27, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> It is disgusting.
> 
> However, at risk of being horribly cynical, the fact that this is being pointed out as a consequence of the workfare scheme might be a good thing in terms of destroying what support remains for it. It's easy for _Mail_-reading types to nod sagely about what a good idea it is to make some lazy scroungers do a good day's work, but once it's pointed out to them that full-time staff will lose out as a result, they might be a bit less keen on the idea...


 
The fact that they're still trying to deny it's happening like that would suggest that the government certainly think that. I don't think they'll be keen on too many stories about who's actually being made to work either - a few about people in the forties and fifties who've always worked would be embarrassing for them.


----------



## treelover (Feb 27, 2012)

This the one? note the Xbox controller in the unemployed woman's hands...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2010/sep/27/him-her-bbc


----------



## revol68 (Feb 28, 2012)

I'm beginning to find myself annoyed at the defensive tone that is arising around being unemployed or on benefits, there's almost a clamouring of people wanting to say "I want to work, I just want a job" as if work isn't alienation and exploitation and that they are happy to be good little proles if only given a chance to lick their masters boot. Rather than the truth which is that the only thing worse than a job for most people is the poverty of not having one. 

Even comments like "note the xbox controller in the unemployed woman's hand", as if playing an xbox whilst on the dole removes you from the "deserving poor", what should the unemployed do with their time? It's the same with wankers whinging about people on benefits having Sky television, it's obviously never crossed the dullards minds that xboxs and sky represent cheap forms of entertainment for people on little income, equivalent to half a decent night out.

It's about time we got less defensive on these issues and started talking about abolishing work.


----------



## treelover (Feb 28, 2012)

'It's about time we got less defensive on these issues and started talking about abolishing work.'


speak for yourself....

Bob Black is so 70's...

though i agree with about the Xbox being cheap entertainment, its also a bit addictive..


----------



## revol68 (Feb 28, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'It's about time we got less defensive on these issues and started talking about abolishing work.'
> 
> 
> speak for yourself....
> ...


 
I have no time for Bob Black, however do you not think that the fact abolishment of work was being discussed in the '70's says something? The facts are that capital can/will not provide secure employment in the west, in the US they openly talk about a jobless recovery and basically settling for a 10% unemployment rate as fine, the same situation will happen here.

Capitalism creates a situation were labour saving technology removes large numbers of workers from the drudgery of work only to deliver them to the misery of unemployment and poverty, until such a time that labour becomes so devalued that it gets put to work doing jobs that would otherwise be done by machine or not exist, see the rise in hand car washes and shoe shines in recent years.

Whilst working hours go up across Europe for those in employment, unemployment rises. Some barely get to see their families or spend time at home, whilst others lack the means to do much else but to sit in their houses all day. The fundamental problem is capitalism, it's about time we stopped feeling embarrassed to say that for fear of sounding like some SWP wanker, and all the bullshit pseudo Keynseian "alternatives" as half heatedly proposed by the cunts in the TUC and their "jobs and growth" program serve only to mask this truth.


----------



## binka (Feb 28, 2012)

treelover said:


> This the one? note the Xbox controller in the unemployed woman's hands...
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2010/sep/27/him-her-bbc


yeah its really really awful. written by a former president of cambridge footlights its an incredibly realistic portrayal of life for unemployed 20 somethings - essentially they stay in bed all day and treat everyone they know like shit


----------



## revol68 (Feb 28, 2012)

binka said:


> yeah its really really awful. written by a former president of cambridge footlights its an incredibly realistic portrayal of life for unemployed 20 somethings - essentially they stay in bed all day and treat everyone they know like shit


 
i'm saying nothing...


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 28, 2012)

revol68 said:


> I have no time for Bob Black, however do you not think that the fact abolishment of work was being discussed in the '70's says something? The facts are that capital can/will not provide secure employment in the west, in the US they openly talk about a jobless recovery and basically settling for a 10% unemployment rate as fine, the same situation will happen here.
> 
> Capitalism creates a situation were labour saving technology removes large numbers of workers from the drudgery of work only to deliver them to the misery of unemployment and poverty, until such a time that labour becomes so devalued that it gets put to work doing jobs that would otherwise be done by machine or not exist, see the rise in hand car washes and shoe shines in recent years.
> 
> Whilst working hours go up across Europe for those in employment, unemployment rises. Some barely get to see their families or spend time at home, whilst others lack the means to do much else but to sit in their houses all day. The fundamental problem is capitalism, it's about time we stopped feeling embarrassed to say that for fear of sounding like some SWP wanker, and all the bullshit pseudo Keynseian "alternatives" as half heatedly proposed by the cunts in the TUC and their "jobs and growth" program serve only to mask this truth.


 
well said.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2012)

treelover said:


> and the SWP too, hitching a ride that is


 
Yes, I mentioned them. "Swappies".


----------



## chilango (Feb 28, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'It's about time we got less defensive on these issues and started talking about abolishing work.'
> 
> 
> speak for yourself....
> ...


 

Never mind Bob Black, _Tommorrow's World_ promised us that robots would do all the work and we could have a life of leisure.


----------



## Schmetterling (Feb 28, 2012)

chilango said:


> Never mind Bob Black, _Tommorrow's World_ promised us that robots would do all the work and we could have a life of leisure.


  Something about that looks veeeeery wrong ... and kinky!


----------



## binka (Feb 28, 2012)

woman interviewer on channel four news (dont remember her name) just made grayling look a right dick. actually called him out on his bullshitting which is a first.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 28, 2012)

binka said:


> woman interviewer on channel four news (dont remember her name) just made grayling look a right dick. actually called him out on his bullshitting which is a first.


 
yeah? I might have to go and watch that on c4+1.. is it with this story?:
http://www.channel4.com/news/no-benefits-if-you-dont-for-for-free-at-maplins

Which is someone who sent them their letter from the dwp, which clearly states that they'll lose benefits if they don't attend, no mention of voluntary..


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 28, 2012)

binka said:


> woman interviewer on channel four news (dont remember her name) just made grayling look a right dick. actually called him out on his bullshitting which is a first.


 
Shame she didn't stove his head in with a length of lead piping.


----------



## binka (Feb 28, 2012)

BigTom said:


> yeah? I might have to go and watch that on c4+1.. is it with this story?:
> http://www.channel4.com/news/no-benefits-if-you-dont-for-for-free-at-maplins
> 
> Which is someone who sent them their letter from the dwp, which clearly states that they'll lose benefits if they don't attend, no mention of voluntary..


yes it was cathy newman doing the interviewing. had a copy of the letter and pretty much said to grayling "either you're lying or the letter is"


----------



## oryx (Feb 28, 2012)

binka said:


> yes it was cathy newman doing the interviewing. had a copy of the letter and pretty much said to grayling "either you're lying or the letter is"


 
Worth watching - she gave him a real grilling.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 28, 2012)

I went and watched it -assume someone will have that up on youtube soon, it was very enjoyable


----------



## binka (Feb 28, 2012)

http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/280212/clipid/280212_BENEFITSINT_28


----------



## ymu (Feb 28, 2012)

binka said:


> http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/280212/clipid/280212_BENEFITSINT_28


Nice one thanks. Was looking for it on 4OD. (What's the difference between 4OD and catch-up? )


----------



## treelover (Feb 28, 2012)

binka said:


> woman interviewer on channel four news (dont remember her name) just made grayling look a right dick. actually called him out on his bullshitting which is a first.


 
there are now a few examples of journalists actually doing the jobs, when it comes to welfare issues, sad they didn't do so when all the origal plans were being discussed under NL...

at some point, these journo's will have to accept that they failed in their jobs on this...


----------



## ymu (Feb 28, 2012)

treelover said:


> there are now a few examples of journalists actually doing the jobs, when it comes to welfare issues, sad they didn't do so when all the origal plans were being discussed under NL...
> 
> at some point, these journo's will have to accept that they failed in their jobs on this...


 


> But, Marr insisted, "there are a lot of disputatious, stroppy, difficult people in journalism, and I have to say I think I know some of them." Chomsky replied that he also knows some of "the better" journalists and they know it's all a sham and play the system "like a violin", looking for occasional windows of opportunity to get things through. Chomsky accepted that Marr was sincere in his beliefs but then "If you believed something different you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting."
> 
> http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/articles_2001/de_marr_chomsky.html


----------



## binka (Feb 28, 2012)

a lot of journalists are just too lazy to get a proper understanding of a story imo. how many different work experience type schemes do the dwp run? i think they also make these schemes overly complicated so that it's easier to deflect criticism. look at the health bill for the same - i heard on tv the other day that this is the single largest piece of legislation ever put before parliament so very few people can fully understand it so criticism is muted.

i don't think journos will ever accept they failed. this is hardly the first time they have done it and it wont be the last


----------



## treelover (Feb 28, 2012)

http://www.latentexistence.me.uk/grayling-mandatory-is-voluntary-black-is-white/

Re: CH4 Grayling interview, someone has already put it up on their website,

btw, I wonder if the general Ch4 news audience sees such interviews as most of us do, ie a failure, what is certain is that Grayling and co are only now being robustly challenged, they have had a very easy ride from the media, Freud when he was rigourously interviewed recently fell apart too, Purnell wasn't very good either, though of course all the 'reforms' went through..


----------



## treelover (Feb 28, 2012)

Oh, and absolutely none of this is on the BBC, shame...


----------



## coltrane (Feb 29, 2012)

binka said:


> woman interviewer on channel four news (dont remember her name) just made grayling look a right dick. actually called him out on his bullshitting which is a first.


 
The slapheaded cunt (Grayling) was eviscerated by Cathy Newman - he was looking particularly shifty as he peddled his "purely voluntary" line.

Grayling was challenged on the fact that the letters sent out to people sent on Work Experience made no mention of the voluntary nature of the "opportunity", made no mention of "cooling off period for a week", and, in fact, threatened withdrawal of benefits for failure to attend. He bleated that:

"We are obliged under the terms of past jobseekers legislation to simply set out to somebody in a letter what law applies to the situation that they're in"

Interesting feint from matey boy; looks like he was trying to lay the blame on previous government legislation (New Labour obviously) for the "misunderstanding" that arose from the wording of the letters.

Two points arise from Grayling's words quoted above:

1) If his words above are true (okay, okay it's a big ask to believe the dissembling blowhard), then the letters are complying with legislation and *correctly* informing people that their benefit "may" (read *will*) be withdrawn if they do not attend the Work Experience placement. Which, of course, directly contradicts all the "voluntary" line that he and his colleagues are spinning about Work Experience. Or....more charitably.....

2) The wording of the letters are an unfortunate state of affairs brought about by legislation that he can do nothing about - "Its the law mate, nothing i can do about it guv. Sorree". Except that he is Minister of State in the Government. Governments enact laws, i know this, you know this - maybe somebody will be kind enough to inform that poor unfortunate soul (Grayling) about this startling revelation.

I loved the way Grayling said that claimants "can face a sanction" for failing to comply with the letter as if sanctions are a rare event that occur once in a blue moon. "We don't sanction many people at all in this" he continued as he became increasingly sweaty. Very convincing.

I also learned a new and intriguing use of the English language. When a politician says "Let's be absolutely clear", "we've been clear" or some such formulation they are about to resort to some particularly big lie. Grayling wanted to be clear over half a dozen times in that interview.

I have a nice big hardback Chambers Dictionary i would like to share with Chris Grayling so that he could learn to differentiate between the words "voluntary" and "mandatory". I want to repeatedly chuck the dictionary at his thick bald head.

I also noted that the follically chalenged clown said that people wouldn't be sent to "mandatory" Work Experience at "big companies" (which may or may not be true). Which begs the question, what about sending people to Work Experience at small and medium companies?


----------



## scifisam (Feb 29, 2012)

binka said:


> yes it was cathy newman doing the interviewing. had a copy of the letter and pretty much said to grayling "either you're lying or the letter is"


 
She was VERY good. Stuck to the point and was polite and calm throughout. But he was actually pretty good at sticking to the government line - it was like he'd been programmed. I don't think a muscle move on his face in the whole interview. Lizard. [/jazzz]

She also has awesome hair.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 29, 2012)

Yeah, I noticed that 'let's be absolutely clear' means 'i'm going to tell a big fat lie now' too.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 29, 2012)

Grayling says nobody gets a given a placement without volunteering for one, but JCP advisers are empowered (not to say encouraged) to cut off people's benefits if they show the merest suggestion of not doing as they are told. I suspect the typical conversation goes a lot like this:

-Oh look, we've got this scheme where you can do eight weeks' work experience shovelling shit for no pay.
-Hmm, I dunno about that.
-Not sure eh? *finger hovers over the 'stop all benefits and leave claimant for the wolves' button on computer*
-No actually, no yeah that sounds bloody marvellous. Whatever you say.
-Excellent, now what sector would you like to work in?
-Well I've spent five years working in the field of care of vulnerable children and I'm qualified to NVQ level...
-Marvellous, well you'll be hearing from Pizza Hut in the next few days.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 29, 2012)

binka said:


> a lot of journalists are just too lazy to get a proper understanding of a story imo. how many different work experience type schemes do the dwp run? i think they also make these schemes overly complicated so that it's easier to deflect criticism. look at the health bill for the same - i heard on tv the other day that this is the single largest piece of legislation ever put before parliament so very few people can fully understand it so criticism is muted.
> 
> i don't think journos will ever accept they failed. this is hardly the first time they have done it and it wont be the last


 
In some cases it's laziness, in most cases it'll be that most journalism jobs don't allow the time or tools to get out of the office or get on the phone to do even the most basic research, hence the reliance on writing up PR and what the government says. Churnalism, innit


----------



## yardbird (Feb 29, 2012)

R5 from 9 - 10 this morning.
Okay, I know it's Nicky Campbell, but I'm going to listen to a shoutie hour about Workfare.
Let Jo Public lose - both sides


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 29, 2012)

People are starting to hit Greggs' facebook page, the same way as Tesco last week.  Might I suggest those with Facebook accounts go along and join in?


----------



## yardbird (Feb 29, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> People are starting to hit Greggs' facebook page, the same way as Tesco last week. Might I suggest those with Facebook accounts go along and join in?


Will do.
While I'm here - I hate Katie Hopkins with a vengeance beyond belief!


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 29, 2012)

yardbird said:


> R5 from 9 - 10 this morning.
> Okay, I know it's Nicky Campbell, but I'm going to listen to a shoutie hour about Workfare.
> Let Jo Public lose - both sides


 
Interesting caller , Irish bloke, who said that he wanted to work for his benefit. He proposed a scheme where by in exchange for the minimum wage jobseekers found their own community based work which would be validated by who ever they were working for to Job centre plus.


----------



## yardbird (Feb 29, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Interesting caller , Irish bloke, who said that he wanted to work for his benefit. He proposed a scheme where by in exchange for the minimum wage jobseekers found their own community based work which would be validated by who ever they were working for to Job centre plus.


 
Interesting idea.

I'm not a man of violence and I've reached 64 without every having hit anyone in anger.
But don't leave me alone in a room with that fucking Katie Hopkins !


----------



## Libertad (Feb 29, 2012)

What is it with Hopkins? Who pays her to do this shit? I'd love to find a link between her and Central Office.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 29, 2012)

Has anyone done a FOI request asking how many people on JSA have been sanctioned for not turning up/refusing a work placement?


----------



## Frankie Jack (Feb 29, 2012)

I watched a JC+ adviser con a young lad into a "scheme" on Monday. She said it was a "new scheme" that was being trialed and he'd been picked to trial it. I couldn't hear which one it was but she started filling in a form and the questions I heard were.
"Does he live with one or both parents? Have one or both parents been in full time employment over the last year?"

These sounded odd questions for JC+ to be asking. I couldn't hear any more as I was called to pointless Monthly inquisition. 

One thing I did notice though is the serious reduction of staff in there now.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 29, 2012)

Was Katie Hopkins saying that people who refused to do workfare should lose the vote? She said that on BBC Radio WM a week or so ago and got ripped for it by every caller 
I didn't hear all of what she said but it was clear she was an odious woman, thought job seekers were untrustworthy and referred to us as "those kind of people" or something similarly disparaging.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 29, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Was Katie Hopkins saying that people who refused to do workfare should lose the vote? She said that on BBC Radio WM a week or so ago and got ripped for it by every caller
> I didn't hear all of what she said but it was clear she was an odious woman, thought job seekers were untrustworthy and referred to us as "those kind of people" or something similarly disparaging.


 
Get back up them chimneys, you!


----------



## Jackobi (Feb 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Has anyone done a FOI request asking how many people on JSA have been sanctioned for not turning up/refusing a work placement?


 
I'd like to see some statistics which back up the statement by Cameron that half of the the 'participants' secured a job at the end of their placement. I smell bullshit.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 29, 2012)

Jackobi said:


> I'd like to see some statistics which back up the statement by Cameron that half of the the 'particapants' secured a job at the end of their placement. I smell bullshit.


It is a typical tory lie, the original claim is half of all who are offered the scheme are no longer claiming new after 6 months. This has become "have a job" by the time it reached callmedave.


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> People are starting to hit Greggs' facebook page, the same way as Tesco last week. Might I suggest those with Facebook accounts go along and join in?


 
The CEO of Greggs has been on a number of programmes, from what I saw he is categorically against any kind of sanctions, ironically considering the products, they seem like an OK employer..


----------



## john cooper (Feb 29, 2012)

Working for nothing , thats slave labour is it not ? and being threatened with loss of benefits is just forced labour , disgusting i think .


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> The CEO of Greggs has been on a number of programmes, from what I saw he is categorically against any kind of sanctions, ironically considering the products, they seem like an OK employer..


 
Maybe so, but until Greggs pulls out of the scheme altogether then it's fair game.  The more companies we can force out of workfare, the more likely it is to collapse completely.


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

Greggs only have 12 people on the scheme across the UK, others have many many more, its a question of limited resources..

http://www.facebook.com/greggsthebakers?sk=wall


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> Greggs only have 12 people on the scheme across the UK, others have many many more, its a question of limited resources..
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/greggsthebakers?sk=wall


 
That's twelve too many.  Why are you trying to defend them?


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

I'm not, but its best if the focus is on the worst offenders,

oh, and Arcadia have pulled out, so why are protesters meeting up at Topshop?, don't cloud the waters, its not a tax protest...


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> I'm not, but its best if the focus is on the worst offenders,


 
Again, maybe so, but that doesn't mean Greggs shouldn't drop the scheme altogether, or that forcing it to pull out wouldn't be a significant victory. They're evidently lukewarm about the scheme anyway, which suggests they're a weak point at which it makes sense to attack.

(edited for grammar)


----------



## Tobermory53 (Feb 29, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> But it makes no sense at all to make people stack boxes for 8 weeks. What the fuck are they supposed to be learning that'll do them any good?


 
How to take responsibility for getting out of bed and turning up on time day after day perhaps?


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 29, 2012)

Tobermory53 said:


> How to take responsibility for getting out of bed and turning up on time day after day perhaps?


 
How silly of me to forget that everyone who can't find a job is a feckless layabout incapable of getting up in the morning.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 29, 2012)

moron


----------



## BigTom (Feb 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> I'm not, but its best if the focus is on the worst offenders,
> 
> oh, and Arcadia have pulled out, so why are protesters meeting up at Topshop?, don't cloud the waters, its not a tax protest...


 
That might just be the best meeting point, we've done uk uncut actions in Birmingham that have met outside Waterstones because it was the best place to meet to go elsewhere.
Also, they may have announced before arcadia pulled out, and decided it was best to leave the meeting point there so as not to confuse anyone, but are now going elsewhere.

If that action has a facebook event though, you could post up there with a link to make sure they know that arcadia aren't taking part anymore.


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

http://www.boycottworkfare.org/

HMV pull out...


----------



## Jackobi (Feb 29, 2012)

Tobermory53 said:


> How to take responsibility for getting out of bed and turning up on time day after day perhaps?


 
How fucking sad is it that unemployment is so rife, young people are grateful to be offered the opportunity to work full-time for nothing for companies making hundreds of millions/billions of pounds of profit per annum? But, it will train them to get out of bed and go to work every day, instil in them that they should be grateful to work, even for free! Yeah, fucking great idea.


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=boycottworkfare

Steven Timms, Shadow Employment Secretary endorses Workfare

Not surprising, Timms, a 'christian socialist' has long been an evangelist for welfare reform:


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

Apparently, the Welfare Reform Act becomes law today, some very very nasty stuff in it,

if only, the opposition to workfare, etc had come about during NL's time in office..


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

'Someone has stuck up a fucking massive "NO TO WORKFARE" banner from their flat opposite Mare St Jobcentre in Hackney.'

From Twitter


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 29, 2012)

BBC News now reporting that Greggs has 'suspended' its participation in workfare.  That's a start, although it's not good enough.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 29, 2012)

From the Guardian news ticker:



> All benefit sanctions in the government's work experience scheme are to be dropped. More details soon …


----------



## Jackobi (Feb 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> Apparently, the Welfare Reform Act becomes law today, some very very nasty stuff in it


 
I don't think that is correct, it is still in the House of Lords.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-12/welfarereform.html


----------



## cemertyone (Feb 29, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> BBC News now reporting that Greggs has 'suspended' its participation in workfare. That's a start, although it's not good enough.


 
The C.E.O. of Greegs was on Newsnight last night...and he told the reporter that they where "told nothing" about the sanctions imposed by the D.W.P. on claimants if they people on the scheme left after the first weeks trail with them....


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 29, 2012)

cemertyone said:


> The C.E.O. of Greegs was on Newsnight last night...and he told the reporter that they where "told nothing" about the sanctions imposed by the D.W.P. on claimants if they people on the scheme left after the first weeks trail with them....


Don't ask,
 don't tell.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 29, 2012)

Sky news are reporting that banardos have said that grayling has offered to drop all compulsion from scheme, which is odd as he has always said there was no compulsion.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 29, 2012)

cemertyone said:


> The C.E.O. of Greegs was on Newsnight last night...and he told the reporter that they where "told nothing" about the sanctions imposed by the D.W.P. on claimants if they people on the scheme left after the first weeks trail with them....


 
I don't believe that for a second, frankly, but it's probably immaterial now.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

It's sanctions that appear to have been dropped and from the WE part of it only.

And this is pressure against a position that polls indicate majority support for.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 29, 2012)

Tobermory53 said:


> How to take responsibility for getting out of bed and turning up on time day after day perhaps?


 
You do realise that the majority of claimants have worked previously, and will work again, don't you?
And that few people actually have problems with time-keeping and discipline?

Nah, of course not. You're an arsehole.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 29, 2012)

cemertyone said:


> The C.E.O. of Greegs was on Newsnight last night...and he told the reporter that they where "told nothing" about the sanctions imposed by the D.W.P. on claimants if they people on the scheme left after the first weeks trail with them....


If the CEO knew nothing before, he knows now.  So now he needs to change what happens, even if he didn't before.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 29, 2012)

Jackobi said:


> How fucking sad is it that unemployment is so rife, young people are grateful to be offered the opportunity to work full-time for nothing for companies making hundreds of millions/billions of pounds of profit per annum? But, it will train them to get out of bed and go to work every day, instil in them that they should be grateful to work, even for free! Yeah, fucking great idea.


 
Yup. 

I'm *almost* glad some days, looking at the clusterfuck of employment regulation that new Labour and the coalition have made, that I'm moderately to severely disabled, and *can't* undertake regular employment.
Other days, I'm furious at myself, because I'd love to be back in the thick of workplace organising, even though it made me want to tear my hair out at times.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 29, 2012)

Also if someone really does have problems to the level they cant manage to turn up at work at a regular time they probably need some help, and also that if they don't get help with it few employers would want to employ them anyway ... 



ViolentPanda said:


> You do realise that the majority of claimants have worked previously, and will work again, don't you?
> And that few people actually have problems with time-keeping and discipline?
> 
> Nah, of course not. You're an arsehole.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 29, 2012)

actually, being one of those people (although not as bad as some i've come across ) working from home suits me down to the ground as i can be a lazy cunt ... (in terms of getting up, not in terms of actually doing the work, i'm pretty obsessed with work frankly)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 29, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> From the Guardian news ticker:


 
Can't wait to see the frothing editorials and blogs from the right-wingers if this actually happens!

Mind you, while I'm *hoping* that what you posted is accurate, I'm *expecting* there to be a sting in the tail - a change of legislative emphasis rather than a rewrite of the rules.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Can't wait to see the frothing editorials and blogs from the right-wingers if this actually happens!
> 
> Mind you, while I'm *hoping* that what you posted is accurate, I'm *expecting* there to be a sting in the tail - a change of legislative emphasis rather than a rewrite of the rules.


 
Same here, and it's almost certainly not a total victory.  It's still bloody good news, though.  

Apparently Grayling is claiming that it's because the government has 'listened' to employers in the scheme, and it's nothing to do with the protests.  Yeah right - and it's not _because _of the protests that employers have pulled out.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It's sanctions that appear to have been dropped and from the WE part of it only.
> 
> And this is pressure against a position that polls indicate majority support for.


 
i know you probably dont want to hear about trot stuff , but on saturday we were out selling papers in my town, and the title of the paper was about workfare. we sold *six papers in an hour* (we were only there for an hour) which i think as a proportion is the best we've ever done. and people also walked by and said they agreed with the title, even if they didn't buy a paper. a lot of people support workfare but a hell of a lot of people don't.

for me one of the best parts of the anti workfare campaigning is that it wasn't just the fucking "usual suspects" again and again on the facebook tesco page. i know it's just facebook but i thought that was pretty great.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 29, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Same here, and it's almost certainly not a total victory. It's still bloody good news, though.
> 
> Apparently Grayling is claiming that it's because the government has 'listened' to employers in the scheme, and it's nothing to do with the protests. Yeah right - and it's not _because _of the protests that employers have pulled out.


 
Another example of them hopelessly trying to cling to their narrative and show that they lead events, rather than events leading them.


----------



## binka (Feb 29, 2012)

grayling was on bbc news about 10 minutes ago being 'interviewed' by some pillock. asked him a couple of times why he let the trotskyists win.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 29, 2012)

Full Graun story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/29/ministers-drop-sanctions-work-experience


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 29, 2012)

Also this from the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17200688

According to Ian Duncan Smith, the largely unemployed 'anarchists' opposing the scheme need to be 'cleared out of the way.'


----------



## BigTom (Feb 29, 2012)

PAtrick Wintour on twitter saying that DWP are removing all sanctions from the work experience scheme 

https://twitter.com/#!/patrickwintour/status/174854410478944257

That's only 1 of 5 schemes though, the others still completely mandatory.
Assume they will be changing the paperwork for the WE as well.

It's possible that a second scheme, Sector Based Work Academies, will also be included in this.. but 3 definitely not. 

They are falling apart on this - we need to make sure that attention isn't just on the one scheme, but also on the other 4, which are far worse.


----------



## Balbi (Feb 29, 2012)

Earning £1.87 an hour still. But it's an improvement, a slight one. Continued pressure will work, it has so far. Interesting that public opinion, social media and quick action's worked here - over the more traditional forms of opposition, like Labour and the unions.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 29, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> for me one of the best parts of the anti workfare campaigning is that it wasn't just the fucking "usual suspects" again and again on the facebook tesco page. i know it's just facebook but i thought that was pretty great.


 
What Grayling probably wouldn't realise is that outside of the political bubble most people have either experienced or know people who have experienced unemployment and know people who were having their jobs undercut. It's one thing for politicians to gain popular support for sanctions against a faceless bunch of workshy scroungers but they hadn't counted on what people would think when reality hits people and places they know.

Definitely need to keep the pressure up about the other schemes.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 29, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Also this from the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17200688
> 
> According to Ian Duncan Smith, the largely unemployed 'anarchists' opposing the scheme need to be 'cleared out of the way.'


 
He is totally bonkers.


----------



## Jackobi (Feb 29, 2012)

It's a shame (in some ways), that the focus has been on Work Experience placements as "In November, 8,100 people were referred to MWA – 1,500 more than started the voluntary Work Experience programme." Guardian

MWA - Mandatory Work Activity is not 'voluntary' (coerced, I suspect, is more apt for Work Experience) in any way whatsoever.

-----
"Mandatory Work Activity Official Statistics - Publication Date: 9:30am Wednesday 15th February 2012"

"From May 2011 up to and including November 2011 there have been:

24,010 initial referrals to a Mandatory Work Activity placement"

"7. The vehicle for MWA is work-based placements delivered by external providers under
contract to DWP. For those referred to a placement, their participation is mandatory."

"8. The placements sourced by the provider:

- last for 4 weeks
- are for 30 hours per week, unless restrictions apply, so allowing the claimant time to meet their actively seeking obligations
- are reduced in line with any restrictions a claimant might have on their Jobseeker’s Agreement. In such circumstances, placements will take up 75% of the time a claimant is available for work.
- are of benefit to the local community
- are additional to any existing or expected vacancies the host organisation might have"

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/pwp/mwa_feb12.pdf
-----
"11. Referrals to Mandatory Work Activity can be made at any point of a claim
when the customer is supported by Jobcentre Plus, but it is expected that
Mandatory Work Activity participants will normally have been claiming
Jobseeker’s Allowance for 13 weeks or more."

"12. Participation on Mandatory Work Activity will be compulsory and customers
who fail to participate/fail to complete/or lose a place due to misconduct will
be sanctioned for 13 weeks. A second failure in a 12 month period will lead
to a 26 week sanction."

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/eia-mandatory-work-activity.pdf
----

Hopefully the focus of protest can shift more to include Mandatory Work Experience as well.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 29, 2012)

Yes, the govt. want to stay focused on the work experience program because it's technically (and now even more so) voluntary, and it's for young people, so they can say we are denying young people valuable work experience.. (yeah? well you are denying young people valuable jobs with your stupid austerity capitalism! share out the work!)

They've been doing a good job - but this may, should, bring us an opportunity to talk more about the other schemes.


----------



## coltrane (Feb 29, 2012)

Channel 4 Fact Check about disappearing document and sneakily altered document (Para 14 in Work Programme Provider Guidance Chapter 3 excised)

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck...o-explain-disappearing-workfare-document/9652

Hopefully this will turn up the heat on Grayling.


----------



## yardbird (Feb 29, 2012)

On PMQs today David said that the Trotsky-ites are involved!


----------



## revol68 (Feb 29, 2012)

coltrane said:


> Channel 4 Fact Check about disappearing document and sneakily altered document (Para 14 in Work Programme Provider Guidance Chapter 3 excised)
> 
> http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck...o-explain-disappearing-workfare-document/9652
> 
> Hopefully this will turn up the heat on Grayling.


 
oh and it's by the lovely Cathy Newman, double win!


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 29, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Also this from the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17200688
> 
> According to Ian Duncan Smith, the largely unemployed 'anarchists' opposing the scheme need to be 'cleared out of the way.'


 
he's sounding more like a mugabe operative or the minister in some other dictatorial corrupt country (more dictatorial and corrupt than this one) by the day. He scares me, he reminds me of some dead eyed nazi bureaucrat, and before someone comes along and has a go, i'm not saying he's a nazi, he just reminds me of one.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 29, 2012)

Egg in a bun cunt called out:


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Feb 29, 2012)

BBC are pissing me off today. It's not fucking work 'experience' - IT'S WORK!!! So pay the minimum wage at least, you cunts.


----------



## coltrane (Feb 29, 2012)

Jackobi said:


> It's a shame (in some ways), that the focus has been on Work Experience placements as "In November, 8,100 people were referred to MWA – 1,500 more than started the voluntary Work Experience programme." Guardian
> 
> MWA - Mandatory Work Activity is not 'voluntary' (coerced, I suspect, is more apt for Work Experience) in any way whatsoever.
> 
> ...


 
Interesting that 24,010 referrals were made to Mandatory Work Experience between May and Nov 2011.

If you look at:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/eia-mandatory-work-activity.pdf

Paragraph 10 states:

" 10. Mandatory Work Activity will be delivered by contracted specialist back to 
work providers. Only a small number of customers will be referred to 
Mandatory Work Activity; providers are expected to deliver around 10,000 
places annually."

So it looks like 4 to 5 times the number of anticipated Mandatory Work Activity referrals are being forced on people.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 29, 2012)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...1-young-jobless-will-get-work-experience.html

Osborne:



> The Youth Contract will offer private sector work experience to every person aged 18 to 24 who has been unemployed for more than three months.
> ...
> Mr Osborne also warned: “Young people who don’t engage with this offer will be considered for mandatory work activity, and those that drop out without good reason will lose their benefits.”


 
This ("The Youth Contract") is a new scheme.. but quite clear that if people refuse work experience, then job centre staff will get told to put them onto mandatory work activity.  Because if you refuse to volunteer for work experience, that means that you are obviously lazy and just don't want to work, because who wouldn't volunteer for the opportunity to work unpaid for a job, right?
And clearly anyone who is just lazy should be forced to work..
bunch of cunts


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 29, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Also this from the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17200688
> 
> According to Ian Duncan Smith, the largely unemployed 'anarchists' opposing the scheme need to be 'cleared out of the way.'


 
So the same bloke who stated that "work makes you free", is now stating that political dissenters against the ruling regime should be removed.

Does he realise the sort of political inspirations that can be attributed to him on the strength of such statements? Hopefully not!!


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> So the same bloke who stated that "work makes you free", is now stating that political dissenters against the ruling regime should be removed.
> 
> Does he realise the sort of political inspirations that can be attributed to him on the strength of such statements? Hopefully not!!


 
it's quite scary the sort of language they're using, isn't it. it's the sort of thing robert mugabe would and has said re: dissent.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 29, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Also this from the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17200688
> 
> According to Ian Duncan Smith, the largely unemployed 'anarchists' opposing the scheme need to be 'cleared out of the way.'


 
Didn't he say that half the protestors were anarchists and the other half unemployed? Shocking isn't it, that unemployed people might be demonstrating about an issue to do with unemployment.. it's an odd slur really.  Plus there is the implied notion that the half that were anarchists all have jobs, which isn't the usual stereotype for anarchists..
oh, and what happened to the SWP? I thought they were behind all this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> He is totally bonkers.


 
Worse, Weeps. He's stone cold sane and cold-bloodedly *means* all this shit.  He actually believes he's "fighting the good fight", the demented bastard.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Worse, Weeps. He's stone cold sane and cold-bloodedly *means* all this shit. He actually believes he's "fighting the good fight", the demented bastard.


 
60 years of post 1945 bourgeois democracy. dying as we speak.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Worse, Weeps. He's stone cold sane and cold-bloodedly *means* all this shit. He actually believes he's "fighting the good fight", the demented bastard.


I'm confused because you have said he's sane and demented in the same paragraph. There's no way Duncan Smith is sane. He's off his fucking head.

eta ooooppps


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 29, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> it's quite scary the sort of language they're using, isn't it. it's the sort of thing robert mugabe would and has said re: dissent.


 
It's unsurprising though, given that their narrative even before taking power in 2010 was (as for new Labour) black and white "with us or against us" bullshit with scarcely a hint of nuance to it. This sort of language is a logical concomitant, and a historical descendent of the "wreckers"/"enemies within" bullshit pulled from the '60s-onward by the right.
The only surprise is that the likes of Iain Duncan Shit hasn't taken to wearing a black Hugo Boss suit and muttering to himself in German.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 29, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I'm confused because you have said he's sane and demented in the same paragraph. There's no way Duncan Smith is sane. He's off his fucking head.
> 
> eta ooooppps


 
Nope, he's totally sane and cold-blooded about his ideology. That doesn't mean he's a rational individual, though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 29, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Didn't he say that half the protestors were anarchists and the other half unemployed? Shocking isn't it, that unemployed people might be demonstrating about an issue to do with unemployment.. it's an odd slur really. Plus there is the implied notion that the half that were anarchists all have jobs, which isn't the usual stereotype for anarchists..
> oh, and what happened to the SWP? I thought they were behind all this.


 
TBF he probably thinks that the SWP are Trotskyist anarchists, little realising the impossibility and hilarity of such a notion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 29, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> 60 years of post 1945 bourgeois democracy. dying as we speak.


 
"Democracy", such as it is, is pretty much dead. What we have instead is a simulacrum, a seeming designed to satisfy our jaded consumption-numbed palates.
I mean,  count what we've lost in the last 30 years:
Loads of rights pertaining to organising in the work place and exercising the right to strike, both at the individual and organisational levels.
Rights to free assembly have been narrowed under successive governments.
_Habeas Corpus_ has been compromised for some narrow classes of detainee.
Right to asylum has become a sham for some that seek it, due to collusion between nation-states.

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure others can think of loads more instances where our rights as individuals and communities have been eroded, but where the government haven't ceded back any of the power we give them via our consent to be governed.

And before GMart stick his oar in, this isn't an issue for a written constitution. Written constitutions haven't stopped this happening throughout the world. All that happens is that the turkeys in govt vote in amendments.


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

Jackobi said:


> I don't think that is correct, it is still in the House of Lords.
> 
> http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-12/welfarereform.html


 
Thats weird, it was Cameron who said it in PMQT, thought it didn't sound right, what was he up to?, he definitely said today is the day the WRB becomes the WRA,

Hansard?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Feb 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF he probably thinks that the SWP are Trotskyist anarchists, little realising the impossibility and hilarity of such a notion.


 
Using logic eh, VP? That's a sure sign you're an extremist if you ask me. Consider yourself reported to the appropriate authorities.


----------



## Kevin Witt (Feb 29, 2012)

...the Iain Duncan Smith quote "the largely unemployed 'anarchists' opposing the scheme need to be 'cleared out of the way." has now been removed from the article and from the cached google version. Has anyone got the original transcript or can verify that he actually said it?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 29, 2012)

Better than "Stalinist Trotskyites" which some rich twat at Oxford Uni said to me when there was the protests and occupation.


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

Its looks like we do have our own Tea Party going by the accusations from Grayling and Smith, the SWP are marginal, thought I suspect young people may now take another look at them,

still vampires...


----------



## BigTom (Feb 29, 2012)

Kevin Witt said:


> ...the Iain Duncan Smith quote "the largely unemployed 'anarchists' opposing the scheme need to be 'cleared out of the way." has now been removed from the article and from the cached google version. Has anyone got the original transcript or can verify that he actually said it?


 
http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/201...anarchists-for-trashing-forced-labour-scheme/

There's a link to an audio clip here of him talking about anarchists and trade unionists, which I presume is what he actually said, which this came from


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 29, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Better than "Stalinist Trotskyites" which some rich twat at Oxford Uni said to me when there was the protests and occupation.


 
All these PPEs from Oxford and yet a basic understanding of left-wing theory is utterly absent. I wish I was surprised. "Left-wing" areas of study were probably some Giddens third way bullshit.


----------



## binka (Feb 29, 2012)

considering how much power these trotskyist anarchists seem to have i can only assume the revolution must me imminent?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 29, 2012)

lagtbd said:


> All these PPEs from Oxford and yet a basic understanding of left-wing theory is utterly absent. I wish I was surprised. "Left-wing" areas of study were probably some Giddens third way bullshit.


 
yeah. i was thinking to myself how the fuck could you get into oxford and be that fucking stupid.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 29, 2012)

lagtbd said:


> All these PPEs from Oxford and yet a basic understanding of left-wing theory is utterly absent. I wish I was surprised. "Left-wing" areas of study were probably some Giddens third way bullshit.


 
I'd be surprised if they taught much outside of statecraft politics.


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

'Grayling claimed the attacks on the scheme, by what the government has described as the "Trotskyist" Right to Work campaign, had led to an increase in employer interest in joining the scheme.

At prime minister's questions David Cameron said 250 extra firms had shown interest in joining.'



I wouldn't be surprised if some of these want to make a political point and are SME's owned by hard right types


----------



## ayatollah (Feb 29, 2012)

I think the ruling class just have to get their "bogeyman" image straight here.

Obviously "anarchists" is always a goodun ... lots of recent "form" in mass media hate campaigns- riots, etc. to gel the term in the public perception. But "Trotskyists"... hmmm... Joe Public is probably a bit confused about that one...."Who They ?.... . I think the mass media will eventually "bed down" on something a little simpler .. "ANTI BRITISH LEFT WING WRECKERS"... or something like that ... ie a handy catchall that avoids specifics. Of course the lesson for all of us is that WE ARE ALL IN THIS FIGHT TOGETHER on the LEFT, and we'd all be collectively rounded up if the ruling class had their wet dream come true. (Could get down to some REALLY SERIOUS sectarian debate in the camps though couldn't we !!!!!)


----------



## weepiper (Feb 29, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> I think the ruling class just have to get their "bogeyman" image straight here.
> 
> Obviously "anarchists" is always a goodun ... lots of recent "form" in mass media hate campaigns- riots, etc. to gell the term in the public perception. But "Trotskyists"... hmmm... Joe Public is probably a bit confused about that one...."Who They ?.... . I think the mass media will eventually "bed down" on something a little simpler .. "ANTI BRITISH LEFT WING WRECKERS"... or something like that ... ie a handy catchall that avoids specifics. Of course the lesson for all of us is that WE ARE ALL IN THIS FIGHT TOGETHER on the LEFT, and we'd all be collectively rounded up if the ruling class had their wet dream come true. (Could get down to some REALLY SERIOUS sectarian debate in the camps though couldn't we !!!!!)


 
I'm just waiting for Reds under the bed to make a comeback.


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

Still the INDEFINITE Mandatory work experience for sick and disabled people...


----------



## revol68 (Feb 29, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> yeah. i was thinking to myself how the fuck could you get into oxford and be that fucking stupid.


 
by being a goody goody boring swot or being a rich prick, neither of which tend to lend themselves to a very critical attitude to the status quo.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'Grayling claimed the attacks on the scheme, by what the government has described as the "Trotskyist" Right to Work campaign, had led to an increase in employer interest in joining the scheme.
> 
> At prime minister's questions David Cameron said 250 extra firms had shown interest in joining.'
> 
> ...


 
I wouldn't be surprised if some of these hadn't heard about the scheme and feel like getting some free labour!


----------



## Zabo (Feb 29, 2012)

I am very confused. In the past seven days I have heard the following terms used by the right wing media and it's knee jerk serfs: Anarchists. Trotskyists. Leftists. Marxists. Socialists. SWPists.

On which one do I place my Right To Work victory flag?

I take it they don't do politics at Eton or at least read Urban!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 29, 2012)

binka said:


> considering how much power these trotskyist anarchists seem to have i can only assume the revolution must me imminent?


 
It is.

Just don't expect it to be televised.


----------



## JHE (Feb 29, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Better than "Stalinist Trotskyites"...


 
It's not difficult to make sense of the phrase.

1. Apparently, when Stalin turned left in the late 20s, opting for forced collectivisation and five-year plans of fast industrialisation, most Trotskyists became Stalinists. Were they not Stalinist Trotskyites?

2. Trotskyists like to claim that their methods of political work are very different from Stalinist methods. Most other people are unconvinced. As a way of accusing Trotskyists of using Stalinist methods, "Stalinist Trotskyites" seems a useful phrase.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 29, 2012)

treelover said:


> Still the INDEFINITE Mandatory work experience for sick and disabled people...


This is just bizarre. What happens when people have to take time off their 'placements' because they're erm, ill, that's the reason they're on SICKNESS benefits, will we see the spectacle of people who are too ill to work losing money because they actually are too ill to work.
Bizarre. I know Duncan Smith does actually want to kill people for sure, now.
Imagine having a terminal illness and be told that instead of spending time with your family you must now go a stack shelves as punishment for not dying quickly enough.


----------



## ymu (Feb 29, 2012)

revol68 said:


> I'd be surprised if they taught much outside of statecraft politics.


They don't even teach that. It's a bloody awful course, primarily designed to teach you how to argue bad points well. It's training for pompous debate in the Commons and little else. Check out the options (you have to do two core papers and can do up to three optional papers if you give up either philosophy or economics - if you continue with all three, you have to do six core papers and will only be able to choose two optional papers over all three subjects). Utter shite.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 29, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> yeah. i was thinking to myself how the fuck could you get into oxford and be that fucking stupid.


 
Their paters offered generous donations to the restitution fund?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 29, 2012)

My dole advisor has a PPE. Not from oxford though.

Not sure why she has this.


----------



## JHE (Feb 29, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> My dole advisor has a PPE. Not from oxford though.
> 
> Not sure why she has this.


 
Personal Protective Equipment - it's in case you hit her


----------



## ymu (Feb 29, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> My dole advisor has a PPE. Not from oxford though.
> 
> Not sure why she has this.


It's a very common course to choose for people who did more sciencey subjects at school but don't want to do science at university. Was my only reason for choosing it. There aren't a lot of other options if you haven't really learnt to read or write properly yet.


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

A decent opposition could have been making mincemeat of Grayling and co, sadly we haven't got one...


----------



## weepiper (Feb 29, 2012)

The world has turned upside down.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-country-working-Sadly-Workfare-going-it.html


----------



## BigTom (Feb 29, 2012)

Chris Graylings statement http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2012/feb-2012/dwp020-12.shtml



> "Following a productive meeting with employers I am delighted that we have pledges from some of the UK’s top companies to take part in the scheme. The likes of Airbus, Centre Parcs and HP Enterprise Services will join in Voluntary Work Experience helping our young unemployed people get their first vital step into employment.
> 
> "Despite the persistent campaign of the last two weeks we have had contact with over 200 small or medium enterprises also wanting to get involved. The work experience scheme remains and is totally voluntary.
> 
> "*The sanction regime remains in place. Employers continue to have the protection with the use of sanctions for gross misconduct*. We have used the meeting to explain how the regime applies. It has never been an issue with the programme as only 220 people have been sanctioned since it started."


 
So.. sanctions removed or not? What I've quoted is the whole thing, there is no other DWP press release.  It's just got a bit more confusing.


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> The world has turned upside down.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-country-working-Sadly-Workfare-going-it.html


 
She is a columnist who has been on this theme for a while, the editorial stance will stay the same, but yes, its all good...


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 29, 2012)

If workfare is such a wondrous opportunity young people are scrambling to get on why do they need sanctions for gross misconduct? Surely being removed from such a programme, never to get that promised once in a lifetime job maybe/perhaps/we'll see..... should be sanction enough?


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 29, 2012)

I think what he's trying to claim is that sanctions would only apply for somebody who behaved appallingly during their work placement.  What concerns me about that statement is that employers have protection.  In other words, they could use the threat of sanction to make their employees do all sorts of things that would not be kosher and the poor employee would be fucked. 

I'm presuming from this that sanctions are remaining exactly the same as they have done.

So not much progress it seems. =/


----------



## Greebo (Feb 29, 2012)

lagtbd said:


> If workfare is such a wondrous opportunity young people are scrambling to get on why do they need sanctions for gross misconduct? Surely being removed from such a programme, never to get that promised once in a lifetime job maybe/perhaps/we'll see..... should be sanction enough?


Well, quite.

And if sanctions are wrong/ counterproductive for one version of workfare, why not for all the others too?


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> The world has turned upside down.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-country-working-Sadly-Workfare-going-it.html


 
Blimey.  That and Max Pemberton's piece yesterday on the Health and Social Care Bill are two of the best articles I've read in a fair while.  And in the _Daily Telegraph_ and the _Mail_ as well.


----------



## ymu (Feb 29, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Blimey. That and Max Pemberton's piece yesterday on the Health and Social Care Bill are two of the best articles I've read in a fair while. And in the _Daily Telegraph_ and the _Mail_ as well.


It's the massive weakness of this government. They have no clue about how their policies are affecting their base, because they're too isolated from reality to have any real idea of who their base are. They used to bang on about the 50% tax rate and inheritance tax etc being a tax on the middle class, when they only affect the top 1% of earners and 6% of the wealthiest - but they need 30%+ of the electorate to support them. The vicious rhetoric goes down well with some, but the reality bites. Their actual base is not that rich, for the most part. People who are not directly affected by the cuts now have children who can't find work, are having to take in adult children who have lost their jobs, are having to babysit grandchildren so that their children can afford to stay in work, and so on. And many of them are directly affected, or can see that they may very well be reliant on benefits soon. I've noticed a massive change in tune from a few previously rabid right-wingers elsewhere - those that lost their jobs in the crash and now have firsthand experience of the DWP.

Having said that, as butchers and someone else pointed out elsewhere, the Tory press turning on a Tory government is a sign of Labour's weakness. They'll come back to heel as soon as the party is really threatened. Just have to hope that some of this truth-telling permanently shifts the boundaries of what is politically possible.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 29, 2012)

^ Good post.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 29, 2012)

ymu said:


> It's the massive weakness of this government. They have no clue about how their policies are affecting their base, because they're too isolated from reality to have any real idea of who their base are. They used to bang on about the 50% tax rate and inheritance tax etc being a tax on the middle class, when they only affect the top 1% of earners and 6% of the wealthiest - but they need 30%+ of the electorate to support them. The vicious rhetoric goes down well with some, but the reality bites. Their actual base is not that rich, for the most part. People who are not directly affected by the cuts now have children who can't find work, are having to take in adult children who have lost their jobs, are having to babysit grandchildren so that their children can afford to stay in work, and so on. And many of them are directly affected, or can see that they may very well be reliant on benefits soon. I've noticed a massive change in tune from a few previously rabid right-wingers elsewhere - those that lost their jobs in the crash and now have firsthand experience of the DWP.


 
Right-wingers are, as the saying goes, getting mugged by reality.

Not a moment too soon, either.



> Having said that, as butchers and someone else pointed out elsewhere, the Tory press turning on a Tory government is a sign of Labour's weakness. They'll come back to heel as soon as the party is really threatened. Just have to hope that some of this truth-telling permanently shifts the boundaries of what is politically possible.


 
Of course, the above to some extent presupposes Labour being able to differentiate themselves from what the coalition has done, and realistically, all they can do is differentiate themselves by degree of potential screw-tightening, not by actuial policy.  As far as either health or welfare reform are concerned, they're in line to do exactly the same as the coalition, just in a slightly more media-friendly and managed way.

Fuck 'em all with large concrete pillars.


----------



## StraightOuttaQ (Feb 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> I'm just waiting for Reds under the bed to make a comeback.


 
 They probably read this, and think it's real. We are all trots, trying to overthrow them. They can tear down our wall, but they can never take our freedoms! (Courtesy of that pesky European Court Of Human Rights)







I've read some of this stuff. Paranoid, smoke and mirrors, seeing every coincidence and chance meeting as part of a grand conspiracy designed to turn us all into socialist agitators. And there's more from where that came from: With titles like _"Treachery:Betrayals, Blunders, and Cover-ups: Six Decades of Espionage Against America and Great Britain ", "Traitor: The Labyrinths of treason"_ and  "_Their Trade is Treachery". _ Total codswallop.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 29, 2012)

Chapman fucking PIncher, a swivel-eyed intelligence asset with lines in sexual harrassment, alcoholism and recycling the pap he wrote _ad_ fucking _nauseam_.
Like SOQ says, total codswallop. Of a piece of the shite Rupert "Nigel West" Allason used to fart out after having it stuffed up his arse by his handlers at MI5.  Right-wing cuntbubble dupes.


----------



## ymu (Feb 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Of course, the above to some extent presupposes Labour being able to differentiate themselves from what the coalition has done, and realistically, all they can do is differentiate themselves by degree of potential screw-tightening, not by actuial policy. As far as either health or welfare reform are concerned, they're in line to do exactly the same as the coalition, just in a slightly more media-friendly and managed way.


It doesn't presuppose anything other than that the Tory press want a Tory government. Obviously, what you are saying is correct and I agree. Labour started (/continued) this shit and it's ridiculously naive to turn to party politics as a solution. Short of revolution, all we can do is shift the boundaries of what is politically possible regardless of which shower of shites are in power.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 29, 2012)

ymu said:


> It doesn't presuppose anything other than that the Tory press want a Tory government. Obviously, what you are saying is correct and I agree. Labour started (/continued) this shit and it's ridiculously naive to turn to party politics as a solution. Short of revolution, all we can do is shift the boundaries of what is politically possible regardless of which shower of shites are in power.


so what you're saying is that we can determine what the government can get away with


----------



## mrfusion (Feb 29, 2012)

Zabo said:


> I am very confused. In the past seven days I have heard the following terms used by the right wing media and it's knee jerk serfs: Anarchists. Trotskyists. Leftists. Marxists. Socialists. SWPists.


 
I think Dave used 'Trotskyites' in the Commons.


----------



## StraightOuttaQ (Feb 29, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Chris Graylings statement http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2012/feb-2012/dwp020-12.shtml
> 
> So.. sanctions removed or not? What I've quoted is the whole thing, there is no other DWP press release. It's just got a bit more confusing.


 
My reading is that sanctions for failure to participate - and ONLY sanctions for failure to participate - have been removed. As In, if you walk out as its not suitable, there's no comeback, and participation is thus entirely voluntary with no element of compunction

However, if you were to remove all sanctions - which would include removing those for gross misconduct - those taking part could in theory do anything without fear of their benefits being stopped. I'm not agreeing with sanctions here, but if a participant were to commit what would be classified as an act of gross misconduct under normal employment - ie stealing stock, stealing from fellow employees, assaulting staff or customers - such as would lead to dismissal from the post if it was paid work, then sanctions may take place (under Leaving Voluntarily procedures). They would thus be subject to the same code of conduct as an existing employee in this sense. 

That sounds quite fair - if no sanctions at all were in place, it would be a 'do what you want card', and theorectically you could assault members of staff, steal etc. etc. and there would be no consequence (except the possibility of legal action). This way, it protects existing employees / customers from someone going postal one day under fear of sanction. If they did, the participants could just run riot without fear of consequence, whilst actual paid members of staff would end up being sacked on the spot and losing their jobs for the same action. Its thus designed to ensure participants don't go flying off the handle and act totally out of order.

On the other hand, it does remove the mandatory element and the lack of choice and the sanctions for someone deciding they dont want to do it anymore. Which is the pretty much the focus of the anti-workfare campaign to date.

Thats my reading of it, if it makes sense.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 29, 2012)

StraightOuttaQ said:


> My reading is that sanctions for failure to participate - and ONLY sanctions for failure to participate - have been removed. As In, if you walk out as its not suitable, there's no comeback, and participation is thus entirely voluntary with no element of compunction
> 
> However, if you were to remove all sanctions, those taking part could in theory do anything without fear of their benefits being stopped. I'm not agreeing with sanctions here, but if a participant were to commit what would be classified as an act of gross misconduct under normal employment - ie stealing stock, stealing from fellow employees, assaulting staff or customers - such as would lead to dismissal from the post if it was paid work, then sanctions may take place (under Leaving Voluntarily procedures).
> 
> ...


 
OK, yes, that makes sense.. hopefully we'll get a clear and unequivocal statement from DWP about it.. 
regardless there are still 4 schemes which are mandatory, and the work experience scheme will continue to provide unpaid labour to businesses.. and of course Osborne said that anyone refusing to volunteer would be considered for a mandatory program.

It'll be interesting to see if there is pressure put on job centre staff to get people on the WE scheme if it's not mandatory, or if the staff will be/feel able to basically say to claimants that they could do WE but don't have to at all if they don't want to.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 29, 2012)

Well thank Christ - I know at my work you can't move for interns and students going boat happy. If only I could threaten them with destitution I could retire my baseball bat.


----------



## happie chappie (Feb 29, 2012)

Following my letter to Chris Grayling (post 829, no reply received) I thought I'd try Mr Duncan Smith:

"Dear Mr Duncan Smith

I heard you interview on Radio 4’s PM programme this evening when you asserted that opposition to your Government’s employment programmes is the work of “anarchists and the unemployed” and that they “need to be cleared out of the way”.

I am not an anarchist, nor am I unemployed, but I am opposed to these schemes on the grounds that they provide free labour, subsidised by the taxpayer, for large employers many of whom are making millions of pounds of profits each year. This is morally wrong.

Despite your comments, I will carry on opposing these schemes and I refuse to be “cleared out of the way”, whatever that means or implies.

The fact that you've resorted to childish name-calling about “anarchists”, “extremists” and the like shows you’ve lost the argument.

I look forward to your reply, if not a retraction of your smears."

I'll post up any reply.

ps - I always include my name, phone number and email address so he's got no excuse for not getting back to me.


----------



## Jackobi (Feb 29, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Chris Graylings statement http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2012/feb-2012/dwp020-12.shtml


 
"It has never been an issue with the programme as only 220 people have been sanctioned since it started."

"Only 220 people", well fuck, that's alright then. I wonder if it was an issue for those 220 people? I'm guessing that it was quite a big fucking issue. What a twat.


----------



## StraightOuttaQ (Feb 29, 2012)

BigTom said:


> There's a link to an audio clip here of him talking about anarchists and trade unionists, which I presume is what he actually said, which this came from


 
If its the quote I think you mean, its also included in todays BBC Radio4 World At One. Its 12m00s to 12m10s into the podcasts, which you can get from bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/wato. Go to Feb 29 2012, edition.As downloadable from the website, it is; 

*"The kids love it. The public loves it. We love it. The companies love it. The only people that don't love are a bunch of anarchists and a few unions that I can make out, and they are completely out of touch"*

That's the exact quote. Now given that even the Daily mail have turned against It (I wont link) I think its the first time the Daily Mail has been described as a "_bunch of anarchists......_" by a conservative. When even the mail turn against you, how can you say "_the public loves it"_, let alone _"the kids love it"_???


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...after-welfare-reforms-says-David-Cameron.html

The DM has not turned against it, they have attacked Emma Harrison as she has 'sucked on the public money teat' as it were and allow one columnist to challenge it..

btw, The Welfare Reform Bill has become law tonight, Cameron is crowing, the brutality of it all is startling..


----------



## ymu (Feb 29, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> so what you're saying is that we can determine what the government can get away with


To an extent, yes. You think we can't? The NHS still exists because previous governments were warm, fuzzy types?


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

With the Welfare Reform Act now in place, Britain will be a much harsher place...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 29, 2012)

ymu said:


> To an extent, yes. You think we can't? The NHS still exists because previous governments were warm, fuzzy types?


of course i think we can make policies workable - or unworkable. just look at the poll tax, for example. but turning to the nhs, this would be the nhs which has an internal market, where waiting lists exist in part because consultants spend a fair bit of their week working private, where gps advise their patients to go private? i seem to recall an nhs where there was no internal market and where consultants were employed for the benefit of the public - and where a gp advising a patient to go private would be a matter of some note. but that was quite some time ago.


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

'So far as we know @*pizzahut* are still delivering mandatory unpaid work placements on the Work Programme. #*boycottworkfare*'

from twitter..


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2012)

At last a Grayling 'Downfall Parody'


----------



## ymu (Feb 29, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> of course i think we can make policies workable - or unworkable. just look at the poll tax, for example. but turning to the nhs, this would be the nhs which has an internal market, where waiting lists exist in part because consultants spend a fair bit of their week working private, where gps advise their patients to go private? i seem to recall an nhs where there was no internal market and where consultants were employed for the benefit of the public - and where a gp advising a patient to go private would be a matter of some note. but that was quite some time ago.


Yes, they had to privatise it by stealth because it is not politically possible to do it any other way. Now that they're not bothering so much with the stealth, there is an immense backlash. That's how it works. Our power in this so-called democracy is not in choosing which bums sit in which seats, but in how much energy we have, collectively, to oppose regressive policies and promote progressive ones.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 29, 2012)

ymu said:


> Our power in this so-called democracy is not in choosing which bums sit in which seats, but in how much energy we have, collectively, to oppose regressive policies and promote progressive ones.


yes i said that


----------



## StraightOuttaQ (Feb 29, 2012)

Odd thing is, because of last night, they couldn't NOT climb down. Looking at the link to the Channel 4 interview

http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/280212/clipid/280212_BENEFITSINT_28

What is clear is that he is saying "these are not mandatory, these are voluntary".As Minister, he's making a policy decision. it might just be a slip up, but ultimately, he's said it - now its become policy - and this could be used in any legal challenge. hence the change. I mean, that interview would have pretty much destroyed any defence they intended to mount against a challenge.


----------



## treelover (Mar 1, 2012)

'Jamie Oliver's restaurant in Cornwall, Fifteen Cornwall, which joined the work programme at the outset last June, has not had a single person referred to it, the BBC has learned.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17214763

Big news, Boots pulls out of the wider Work Programme, which is mandatory, but that well known progressive Jamie Oliver's charity stays in...

if more pull out of the flagship policy, the W/P may be in trouble...


----------



## Jackobi (Mar 1, 2012)

treelover said:


> With the Welfare Reform Act now in place, Britain will be a much harsher place...


 
Just when you think it can't get any worse.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'Jamie Oliver's restaurant in Cornwall, Fifteen Cornwall, which joined the work programme at the outset last June, has not had a single person referred to it, the BBC has learned.'
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17214763
> 
> ...


Look at the way this BBC report framed this (which is big news, crack in the wider scheme):



> Boots says it is withdrawing from the government's scheme to help the long-term unemployed find work.


 
Didn't Oliver's place burn down - the same week as his for-profit pfi school meals gravy train got the boot in the south west? Edit: no that was river cottage bloke.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Look at the way this BBC repert framed this (which is big news, crack in the wider scheme):


I find this sentence quite interesting considering how companies have defended their participation:



> Some organisations are also complaining that the number of people being referred to them is simply nowhere near the predicted levels.


----------



## wtfftw (Mar 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It is.
> 
> Just don't expect it to be televised.


youtube?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 1, 2012)

Jackobi said:


> "It has never been an issue with the programme as only 220 people have been sanctioned since it started."
> 
> "Only 220 people", well fuck, that's alright then. I wonder if it was an issue for those 220 people? I'm guessing that it was quite a big fucking issue. What a twat.


 
You don't have to actually get sanctioned to suffer from the sanctions regime. It's bad enough to get forced into unpaid work with that sword of damocles ever present above you.

Just being an ordinary benefit claimant and knowing that your entire income can be stopped on a whim is demoralising enough.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2012)

wtfftw said:


> youtube?


 
Hopefully not. We want people on the street revolting, not sitting at home watching footage of it.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 1, 2012)

http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=745

Boycott Workfare statement on the sanctions removal

Great news about Boots pulling out of the work program, first of many I hope..

One of the key things here is that they've shown themselves weak on the idea of sanctions.. that is want the companies could not live with on the work experience program, and it's something we need to keep hammering in for the other 4 schemes.


----------



## treelover (Mar 1, 2012)

'Workfare is fair work with a clear benefit says @*peterwatt123* http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2012/03/01/workfare-fair-work-with-a-clear-benefit/#more-12556 < Horrid: from a former Labour GS'


Peter Watt, disgraced former General Secretary of the L/P and ex friend of an urbanite (pics of him in teenage years were on here) endorses workfare....


----------



## BigTom (Mar 1, 2012)

http://intensiveactivity.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/a4e-work-programme-performance-revealed/

A4e work programme stats revealed.. a quick glance shows that they are really, really bad.. for job entry, only one of their areas has a green box.. almost all are yellow or red and there are many 0%.  Almost every single Future Job Entry is 0%..
I don't know exactly what those mean, but they look really bad, and are clearly related to how many people get into work following their programme..

I'm going to cross post this to the a4e thread, I think it's relevant to both.


----------



## Jackobi (Mar 1, 2012)

BigTom said:


> http://intensiveactivity.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/a4e-work-programme-performance-revealed/
> 
> A4e work programme stats revealed.. a quick glance shows that they are really, really bad..


 
Cue statements from the DWP claiming that results are worse than predicted because of the current economic climate and providers are performing well in these times of austerity blah blah. Providers continue to cream off billions and pay themselves over-inflated wages for years, results do not improve, the Work Programme is tweaked and renamed and reintroduced, performing as badly as it ever has under another name.


----------



## ymu (Mar 1, 2012)

Haven't the govt already excused themselves for giving another contract to A4E despite their known piss poor performance, on the basis that other bidders didn't have a track record, shite or otherwise, so they couldn't use it as a criterion _at all_ for judging the bids?

About as convincing as the Met claiming that they couldn't complete a raid on the NotW in 2006 because they felt physically threatened by the journalists.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 1, 2012)

Someone else I know who was sent on a workfare placement, not provided with any safety gear, and expected to move what they later found out was definitely asbestos with no safety gear or training. 

Don't want to go into any more detail in case they decide to do owt about it legally.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 1, 2012)

BigTom said:


> http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=745
> 
> Boycott Workfare statement on the sanctions removal
> 
> ...


thanks for posting that. I'm working up some stats on that, and A4e and the government have some serious explaining to do if I'm looking at it right.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 1, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Someone else I know who was sent on a workfare placement, not provided with any safety gear, and expected to move what they later found out was definitely asbestos with no safety gear or training.
> 
> Don't want to go into any more detail in case they decide to do owt about it legally.


please get them to report the company to the HSE


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 1, 2012)

free spirit said:


> please get them to report the company to the HSE


They are looking in to it.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 1, 2012)

On tom's link to the A4E report can anyone confirm if the 'time to attachment' column refers to the time until someone is sent on a workfare placement?


----------



## ymu (Mar 2, 2012)

free spirit said:


> thanks for posting that. I'm working up some stats on that, and A4e and the government have some serious explaining to do if I'm looking at it right.


Some useful commentary on that blog in the link. And yes, shockingly bad (to the limited extent I perused the bits I could understand).


----------



## ymu (Mar 2, 2012)

Decent article by Toynbee (if you ignore her usual rose-tinted specs when it comes to Labour), and some seriously shocking numbers. Please post on any other relevant threads I've missed.



> On 6 April, low-paid working couples with children will lose a colossal £3,870 in tax credits from a typical income of £17,000. Where previously someone in the family had to work 16 hours to qualify, now they must work 24 hours a week or lose tax credits. But what if no extra hours are available? Hundreds of thousands of households will be caught in this trap, with 470,000 children. Most already want longer hours. TUC research says 1.3 million part-timers seek full-time jobs; Usdaw, the shopworkers' union, finds 78% of its part-timers can't get extra hours.
> 
> Government figures for people getting jobs forget to say most are part-time. Nor do they proclaim the severe punishment about to fall on families failing to work 24 hours. Oddly, the victims are the very people Conservatives praise – not single parents, but working couples with children, struggling to stay off the dole. Will this enormous drop in incomes fall below the political radar – or will voters discover and be shocked?
> 
> ...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 2, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Someone else I know who was sent on a workfare placement, not provided with any safety gear, and expected to move what they later found out was definitely asbestos with no safety gear or training.
> 
> Don't want to go into any more detail in case they decide to do owt about it legally.


 
Fucking disgraceful


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 2, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Someone else I know who was sent on a workfare placement, not provided with any safety gear, and expected to move what they later found out was definitely asbestos with no safety gear or training.
> 
> Don't want to go into any more detail in case they decide to do owt about it legally.


 
One phone call to the HSE would have that firm shut down immediately.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 2, 2012)

Mr.Bishie said:


> One phone call to the HSE would have that firm shut down immediately.


 
Yes. Your associate will be wanting to do this immediately and worry about suing them later. I suspect he'll have lawyers biting his hand off to take the case tbh.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 2, 2012)

Mr.Bishie said:


> One phone call to the HSE would have that firm shut down immediately.


Yes, they're on the case. Just goes to show how much the workfare system can be taken advantage of. Like I said I don't want to go into massive detail on here because they should be going down the legal route but suffice to say that I'm not surprised, and that I can see where they thought they would get away with it because of the location and the nature of the work.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 2, 2012)

I'll say one thing: this government is great at producing insults. First it was "deficit denier", now it's "job snob". No half-decent policies, just ad hominems and stupid epithets.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 2, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> I'll say one thing: this government is great at producing insults. First it was "deficit denier", now it's "job snob". No half-decent policies, just ad hominems and stupid epithets.


Do they include 'people not willing to work a 6 day week' in their idea of a 'job snob'?

ETA: Oh I see it's if you won't work part time in Tescos. Well if they want people to take these part time jobs they better extend tax credits, cause you will only screw yourself over trying to pay all your rent and that on part time hours.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 2, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Do they include 'people not willing to work a 6 day week' in their idea of a 'job snob'?
> 
> ETA: Oh I see it's if you won't work part time in Tescos. Well if they want people to take these part time jobs they better extend tax credits, cause you will only screw yourself over trying to pay all your rent and that on part time hours.


 
The job snob thing is an attempt to deflect from our objecting to the work being unpaid and forced, rather than because it is unskilled.
The claim is that we object to workfare because we think we are above stacking shelves.  It is a simple ad hominem attack to deflect from the biggest issues in this, and perhaps to try to drive a wedge between shop workers and campaigners.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 2, 2012)

BigTom said:


> The job snob thing is an attempt to deflect from our objecting to the work being unpaid and forced, rather than because it is unskilled.
> The claim is that we object to workfare because we think we are above stacking shelves. It is a simple ad hominem attack to deflect from the biggest issues in this, and perhaps to try to drive a wedge between shop workers and campaigners.


Well I for one would be more than delighted with 30+ hours of shelf stacking, I just can't see it happening.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 2, 2012)

Mr.Bishie said:


> One phone call to the HSE would have that firm shut down immediately.


 
I wish that were true, Bish, but even 20 years ago, getting someone from HSE to do a site visit was hit and miss as fuck, and you can't shut someone down without a site visit. 
Of course, consistent cuts in the size of the inspectorate, along with a consistent increase in their responsibilities over the last 30 years  haven't helped make workers safer, either.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 2, 2012)

ymu said:


> Decent article by Toynbee (if you ignore her usual rose-tinted specs when it comes to Labour), and some seriously shocking numbers. Please post on any other relevant threads I've missed.
> 
> _On 6 April, low-paid working couples with children will lose a colossal £3,870 in tax credits from a typical income of £17,000. Where previously someone in the family had to work 16 hours to qualify, now they must work 24 hours a week or lose tax credits. But what if no extra hours are available? Hundreds of thousands of households will be caught in this trap, with 470,000 children. Most already want longer hours. TUC research says 1.3 million part-timers seek full-time jobs; Usdaw, the shopworkers' union, finds 78% of its part-timers can't get extra hours._


 
I find that bit very interesting. As much for what it doesn't say, as for what it does.
What it doesn't say, of course, is that you can't get extra hours not because they aren't available, but that it is more advantageous to the employer to have , say, 20 part-timers doing 20 hours a week than a dozen full-timers doing 30+ hours a week and accruing the protections that full-time employment has over part-time.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I wish that were true, Bish, but even 20 years ago, getting someone from HSE to do a site visit was hit and miss as fuck, and you can't shut someone down without a site visit.
> Of course, consistent cuts in the size of the inspectorate, along with a consistent increase in their responsibilities over the last 30 years haven't helped make workers safer, either.


 
I hear what you're saying, but the asbestos regs are very strict (as you're aware) due to the fact that joe public can be at risk (if building sealing & bagging is shoddy), not just the workers exposed on site. I'd like to think the HSE would be round for a visit - even though they're stretched. Tbh, I'd fuckin' make sure they went round


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 2, 2012)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I hear what you're saying, but the asbestos regs are very strict (as you're aware) due to the fact that joe public can be at risk (if building sealing & bagging is shoddy), not just the workers exposed on site. I'd like to think the HSE would be round for a visit - even though they're stretched. Tbh, I'd fuckin' make sure they went round


 
Which reminds me, contacting the local authority EH office would be helpful too.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which reminds me, contacting the local authority EH office would be helpful too.


 
Most definitely! They'd probably be demanding the HSE pay a site visit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 2, 2012)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Most definitely! They'd probably be demanding the HSE pay a site visit.


 
That's what occurred to me. tend to forget that the local EHO is the best "first port of call" for stuff like that.

 @ self


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 2, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Do they include 'people not willing to work a 6 day week' in their idea of a 'job snob'?
> 
> ETA: Oh I see it's if you won't work part time in Tescos. Well if they want people to take these part time jobs they better extend tax credits, cause you will only screw yourself over trying to pay all your rent and that on part time hours.


 
The other side of this argument is that the British workforce has been deskilled over the last 20+ years, thanks in no small part to the Thatcher government.


----------



## treelover (Mar 2, 2012)

ymu said:


> Decent article by Toynbee (if you ignore her usual rose-tinted specs when it comes to Labour), and some seriously shocking numbers. Please post on any other relevant threads I've missed.


 

Over the next year we are going to see some very serious poverty: H/Benefit cuts, all benefits, inc pensions, linked to CPI, extra room deduction , council tax benefit cut by 10% then paid at councils discretion, social fund scrapped, now at discretion of cash stapped councils, hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people losing IB and DLA, WTC cuts, and of course more public sector redundancies, and services chopped..


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 2, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> The other side of this argument is that the British workforce has been deskilled over the last 20+ years, thanks in no small part to the Thatcher government.


I have mad skillz, but I still can't get a job!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 2, 2012)

treelover said:


> Over the next year we are going to see some very serious poverty: H/Benefit cuts, all benefits, inc pensions, linked to CPI, extra room deduction , council tax benefit cut by 10% then paid at councils discretion, social fund scrapped, now at discretion of cash stapped councils, hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people losing IB and DLA, WTC cuts, and of course more public sector redundancies, and services chopped..


 
We're also going to see the concomitant homelessness that all of these policies will cause, so not only will lives be ruined, but fortunes will be made by the shit-eating dog-fuckers who supply "temporary accommodation" to local authorities, and *massive* pressure will be put on those rendered homeless, or under threat of homelessness, to move where there is a surfeit of social housing (and a distinct lack of work).  Those in the north need to prepare themselves for an influx of southerners, cos it's on the cards.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> We're also going to see the concomitant homelessness that all of these policies will cause, so not only will lives be ruined, but fortunes will be made by the shit-eating dog-fuckers who supply "temporary accommodation" to local authorities, and *massive* pressure will be put on those rendered homeless, or under threat of homelessness, to move where there is a surfeit of social housing (and a distinct lack of work). Those in the north need to prepare themselves for an influx of southerners, cos it's on the cards.


*coming up here stealing our council houses*
But seriously there's no point in coming to Leeds, there's already a massive housing crisis.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 2, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> *coming up here stealing our council houses*
> But seriously there's no point in coming to Leeds, there's already a massive housing crisis.


 
What, you mean it's all shite?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 2, 2012)

ime glad they are scraping the idea it was victorian .


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 2, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime glad they are scraping the idea it was victorian .


 
They were indeed scraping this idea from the bottom of the cruel and unnecessary barrel.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 2, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime glad they are scraping the idea it was victorian .


do you mean 'i am glad they are scrapping the idea [that] it [was] victorian', that is, you are pleased they are no longer claiming the idea was victorian; or do you mean that you are pleased they are scrapping the idea BECAUSE it was victorian?


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> We're also going to see the concomitant homelessness that all of these policies will cause, so not only will lives be ruined, but fortunes will be made by the shit-eating dog-fuckers who supply "temporary accommodation" to local authorities, and *massive* pressure will be put on those rendered homeless, or under threat of homelessness, to move where there is a surfeit of social housing (and a distinct lack of work). Those in the north need to prepare themselves for an influx of southerners, cos it's on the cards.


Think it's pretty bad up here in Scotland too. There already seems to be a lot more homeless people.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 2, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> do you mean 'i am glad they are scrapping the idea [that] it [was] victorian', that is, you are pleased they are no longer claiming the idea was victorian; or do you mean that you are pleased they are scrapping the idea BECAUSE it was victorian?


 
He means he's glad they are scrapping the idea. It was a Victorian idea. I reckon. I should have worked at Bletchley.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 2, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> He means he's glad they are scrapping the idea. It was a Victorian idea. I reckon. I should have worked at Bletchley.


yeh, you'd have done better than turing if you can decipher john cooper's nonsense without an enigma


----------



## Gmart (Mar 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Democracy", such as it is, is pretty much dead. What we have instead is a simulacrum, a seeming designed to satisfy our jaded consumption-numbed palates.
> I mean, count what we've lost in the last 30 years:
> Loads of rights pertaining to organising in the work place and exercising the right to strike, both at the individual and organisational levels.
> Rights to free assembly have been narrowed under successive governments.
> ...


All true, but we the people vote for these MP's who decide to do these things. I disagree that democracy is 'dead', it is slumbering maybe, but democracy is a double edged sword, on the one hand it means that revolution is vastly less likely, because everyone is free to stand for election themselves if they think they can do a better job. At the same time the democracy has to be run reasonably well or else the result might not be trusted.

I would say here that one of the saddest images of the last election were those of the queues of people who were unable to vote - so I am of course arguing that there can be improvements, but if we want our representatives to improve then we need to engage in the process, and if we don't then we can hardly be surprised if others, who we might not agree with, decide to do so.

Over the past thirty plus years the few rights that the previous consensus provided to keep the people quiet have been slowly eroded away, exposing the system for what it is: a mess. Companies will just follow their nature and it is a duty of government to protect the people from the worst of its excesses. Unfortunately parliament refuses to accept any such restriction, and thus the UK stumbles forward.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 3, 2012)

Parliamentary Democracy is simply window dressing for the dictatorship of capital, the idealised notion a lot of people have of it is based on the post war social democratic consensus, which was in the bigger picture something of a blip born from a balance of class forces, a state of affairs that no longer exists and with it the last residues of legitimacy for parliamentary democracy. Certain columnists on the right have already been talking about enfranchising business's and reintroducing property qualifications to voting, whilst obviously lunatic stuff and never likely to fly, do serve to articulate how far the balance of class forces has swung.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 3, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime glad they are scraping the idea it was victorian .


 
They haven't scrapped workfare.. they've removed the sanctions from one of five schemes ("Work Experience Scheme") but have in the past made it quite clear that if someone doesn't volunteer for work experience they will be sent on one of the mandatory schemes instead.
The other schemes are - Mandatory Work Activity (up to 8 weeks), Sector Based Work Academy (6 month program with up to 8 weeks on the "work experience scheme" - and it's not clear whether there will be sanctions if you do not do this element of SBWA), Community Activity Program (6 months of work placement, supposedly in community roles but a Guardian article revealed that in fact CAP people were being used by private, profit making, companies), and the Work Program (up to 6 months I think.  For people with disabilities, the work placement element of the work program can be *unlimited*. Yep, they will be able to be sent to work forever unpaid).

The job isn't done yet.. but the government want to make people think it is, by focussing on just one of the five schemes and pretending that we aren't talking about the others.
Don't let them get away with this.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 3, 2012)

BigTom said:


> They haven't scrapped workfare.. they've removed the sanctions from one of five schemes ("Work Experience Scheme") but have in the past made it quite clear that if someone doesn't volunteer for work experience they will be sent on one of the mandatory schemes instead.
> The other schemes are - Mandatory Work Activity (up to 8 weeks), Sector Based Work Academy (6 month program with up to 8 weeks on the "work experience scheme" - and it's not clear whether there will be sanctions if you do not do this element of SBWA), Community Activity Program (6 months of work placement, supposedly in community roles but a Guardian article revealed that in fact CAP people were being used by private, profit making, companies), and the Work Program (up to 6 months I think. For people with disabilities, the work placement element of the work program can be *unlimited*. Yep, they will be able to be sent to work forever unpaid).


Seems like they agree with that crazy Shipley MP in saying disabled people are inherently worth less than other workers and deserve to be paid less. Or in this case, nothing.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 3, 2012)

Gmart said:


> All true, but we the people vote for these MP's who decide to do these things. I disagree that democracy is 'dead', it is slumbering maybe, but democracy is a double edged sword, on the one hand it means that revolution is vastly less likely, because *everyone is free to stand for election themselves if they think they can do a better job*. At the same time the democracy has to be run reasonably well or else the result might not be trusted.


 
No, not "everyone" is free to stand for election: you need a lot of money to stand for parliament. In that sense alone, we live in something less than a real democracy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2012)

Gmart said:


> All true, but we the people vote for these MP's who decide to do these things.


 
And *that* is the only "compensation" we get from these leeches for permitting them to govern us. We get to decide which bunch of shills legislate our rights away.



> I disagree that democracy is 'dead', it is slumbering maybe, but democracy is a double edged sword...


 
Could you be any more pompous and clichéd? Of course democracy has more than one facet, but when you (i.e. "we, the people", have control of the sum of *none* of those facets, then it's still meaningless!



> ...on the one hand it means that revolution is vastly less likely, because everyone is free to stand for election themselves if they think they can do a better job.


 
No, everyone is *notionally* free to do so, provided they have the time and money to garner support, and even then, what the usual fate of an independent MP in the H of C?
Personally, I don't believe that the "deal" we're getting, the "social compact" (whether it's written or not) as it currently is, is worthy of the name. It's certainly not worthy of our consent and, in sharp contrast to your trite observation that the ability to stand makes rebellion less unlikely, people appear to be indicating where the lines should be re-drawn.



> At the same time the democracy has to be run reasonably well or else the result might not be trusted.


 
Wow, who'd have guessed?



> I would say here that one of the saddest images of the last election were those of the queues of people who were unable to vote - so I am of course arguing that there can be improvements, but if we want our representatives to improve then we need to engage in the process, and if we don't then we can hardly be surprised if others, who we might not agree with, decide to do so.


 
That's not an issue to do with democracy, that's an issue that was entirely to do with bureaucracy. Confusing or conflating the two is unhelpful.



> Over the past thirty plus years the few rights that the previous consensus provided to keep the people quiet have been slowly eroded away, exposing the system for what it is: a mess. Companies will just follow their nature and it is a duty of government to protect the people from the worst of its excesses. Unfortunately parliament refuses to accept any such restriction, and thus the UK stumbles forward.


 
But don't worry, GMart's written constitution will set everything right!

Except that, because it will leave much the same interests in place, it won't.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> But don't worry, GMart's written constitution will set everything right!
> 
> Except that, because it will leave much the same interests in place, it won't.


 
I have stated many times that my argument for this safety net is the same argument I would be making if we had no legal system, or NHS - it will not solve all ills, as you appear keen to suggest, I am simply stating that this safety net is used by nearly all other democracies to make their country a better place - sure there will be difficulties in drafting, the same could be said for all laws, and yet no one would argue against having laws. 

It is better to have a system based on empowering people. Then we can work towards making things better. We have a shared ideal of fairness, and so we could start from there.


nino_savatte said:


> No, not "everyone" is free to stand for election: you need a lot of money to stand for parliament. In that sense alone, we live in something less than a real democracy.


I agree that £500 is a lot to pay to become an MP, but if you truly believe you can make a difference, then what would stop you?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 3, 2012)

I couldn't be arsed arguing with GMart because he's impervious to facts or logic, but I would point something out in the context of the argument that he's currently using.

John McDonell and the People's Charter had some polling done a few years back. It showed that over 70% of the country would like to see the utilities re-nationalised.

What plausibly electable political party can we vote for who would enact the wishes of a clear majority of citizens in this respect? In fact, that isn't an available option.

We're about as democratic as Iran. Yes we have a choice of people to vote for, but the options which are on offer are heavily restricted by undemocratic forces.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 3, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I couldn't be arsed arguing with GMart because he's impervious to facts or logic, but I would point something out in the context of the argument that he's currently using.
> 
> John McDonell and the People's Charter had some polling done a few years back. It showed that over 70% of the country would like to see the utilities re-nationalised.
> 
> ...


I am simply pointing out that the veneer of democracy we have (a poor system as I have said many times), stops revolution because of the freedom to stand yourself if you feel that your representative is not doing as well as you could do. Thus the only route towards change is to engage with the process and organise large numbers of people to join a single party (either of the two) and to go along to the events and argue one's case. No one on here or anywhere else has a realistic alternative because any violence would be clamped down on by the police/army. It may not be a great route towards real change, but it is all we have.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 3, 2012)

Gmart said:


> I agree that £500 is a lot to pay to become an MP, but if you truly believe you can make a difference, then what would stop you?


 
Well not having £500 is what stops me.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 3, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I couldn't be arsed arguing with GMart because he's impervious to facts or logic, but I would point something out in the context of the argument that he's currently using.
> 
> John McDonell and the People's Charter had some polling done a few years back. It showed that over 70% of the country would like to see the utilities re-nationalised.
> 
> ...


How much democracy does Italy and Greece have at the moment?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 3, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> How much democracy does Italy and Greece have at the moment?


 
This is relevant for what reason? Maybe I'm being slow today, heavy cold etc.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 3, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> This is relevant for what reason? Maybe I'm being slow today, heavy cold etc.


I'm not disagreeing by the way. Just thinking outloud. Both have had elected representatives overturned by the real leaders. It's pretty blatant we don't have a 'real' democracy here either.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 3, 2012)

basically we are left to choose the monkey whilst the organ grinder stays well out of view.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 3, 2012)

Gmart said:


> I agree that £500 is a lot to pay to become an MP, but if you truly believe you can make a difference, then what would stop you?


 
I take it you are familiar with the electoral system in this country? But £500 is the least of one's worries, how much do you think all those election boards, handouts and posters (and all the rest) are going to cost you? Pick and number and treble it, then treble it again.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 3, 2012)

One of the most important costs is the very specialised market research required to accurately identify the few thousand key voters in key marginals whose votes actually count in elections, and precisely profile them to facilitate targeting them.

This runs into the many millions. What do you think Tony Blair spent the millions he got from selling peerages on? Or what Ashcroft did with the millions in that large brown paper bag he got off some anonymous bloke he met in a public toilet in Antigua?

The corrolary of this being of course, if you need a bunch of hot money from dodgy millionaires to use this essential election-winning body of technique, then your policies had better be acceptable to dodgy millionaries as well as few thousand middle class swing voters in key marginals. Of course you can always bullshit the latter.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 4, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> One of the most important costs is the very specialised market research required to accurately identify the few thousand key voters in key marginals whose votes actually count in elections, and precisely profile them to facilitate targeting them.
> 
> This runs into the many millions. What do you think Tony Blair spent the millions he got from selling peerages on? Or what Ashcroft did with the millions in that large brown paper bag he got off some anonymous bloke he met in a public toilet in Antigua?
> 
> The corrolary of this being of course, if you need a bunch of hot money from dodgy millionaires to use this essential election-winning body of technique, then your policies had better be acceptable to dodgy millionaries as well as few thousand middle class swing voters in key marginals. Of course you can always bullshit the latter.


You can also bullshit the former too.


nino_savatte said:


> I take it you are familiar with the electoral system in this country? But £500 is the least of one's worries, how much do you think all those election boards, handouts and posters (and all the rest) are going to cost you? Pick and number and treble it, then treble it again.


 
It still comes down to persuading people on the doorstep that you are a worthy candidate. If you persuade them, then they will tell their friends and with a well organised campaign you can win an election. If you happen to have all your friends at the same party, say the local Labour party, then if your arguments make sense then you will be able to persuade them too, and they will also help you.

In some ways I am playing devil's advocate here, but I am trying to describe the democratic box we have been put in as a nation - it is indeed hard to get elected, of course - and part of that is the poor system we have based on having no written constitution. In other countries the ability to get elected is also difficult, but it can be a route to real change - see Harvey Milk in the US who ran several times before getting elected - but in the end he was successful and effected great change. I am agreeing with you that the system in the UK sucks because it is archaic and in evident need of review, but that doesn't mean that we should give up, or get seduced by extremists - it means that we should all cooperate and agree that this needs to happen.

Maybe I am trying to point out something that you already know (if so then please forgive me). There will be no revolution in the UK because the election system is perceived as a fair way to change things. Maybe it isn't fair enough, but it persuades enough people that it makes only the democratic process a reasonable way forward. 

As far as Tesco goes, it is in its nature to maximise profits - it might pull out of schemes which are unpopular under the basic principle of staying out of trouble, but it will be happy to join the next one because it is its nature to squeeze the system for what it can get. It is down to our representatives to set up a reasonable system, which is what they are failing to do, which is why it is they who are the problem, Tesco and other countries are just being themselves.


----------



## ymu (Mar 4, 2012)

You are naive beyond belief.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 4, 2012)

ymu said:


> You are naive beyond belief.


In what way? Because I want to solve the basic problems left over from history before I address the modern ones?


----------



## ymu (Mar 4, 2012)

You've been told a million times. If you want to know, read what other people post instead of endlessly speaking your branes as if there was nothing new for you to learn.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 4, 2012)

ymu said:


> You've been told a million times. If you want to know, read what other people post instead of endlessly speaking your branes as if there was nothing new for you to learn.


Any time you wish to tell me where my reasoning is wrong, rather than vaguely alluding to the fallacy of appeal to popularity, then I will be happy to engage in constructive discourse. I would say that it is me who is continuously having to reject strawman misrepresentations of my position, among other fallacies - a fact that you seem to have failed to pick up on. If you feel that I am ignoring something, then speak up, that is what a discussion is about. Do you think that we should have a written constitution, same as any other democracy? Feel free to vote here.


----------



## ymu (Mar 4, 2012)

You're telling people how they can get elected to parliament as a response to the lack of democracy in this country. Do you not see how ridiculous that is?


----------



## Gmart (Mar 4, 2012)

ymu said:


> You're telling people how they can get elected to parliament as a response to the lack of democracy in this country. Do you not see how ridiculous that is?


Not quite, I am pointing out that in their efforts to put the people into a box, they have left a weakness - it is still a long shot, but it is the only route to real change - I am not saying it will be easy, but I am saying that if everyone cooperates then it is still possible. Better than just being defeatist.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 4, 2012)

Still teaching english in Korea fella? expatriat wisdom

Yo've no real understanding of the mechanisms that underly liberal democracy. I don't even know why the fuck I bother.

Why do you think refusing to engage in a rigged game is defeatist?


----------



## Gmart (Mar 4, 2012)

I'll post the answer to DC in the UK Oppressive Regime thread because this thread deserves better than being hijacked by an only vaguely relevant tangent.

What rights and duties would you allow a business entity anyway - they exist and will continue - parliament can legislate literally without restriction and so how would you fix this?


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 4, 2012)

> It still comes down to persuading people on the doorstep that you are a worthy candidate. If you persuade them, then they will tell their friends and with a well organised campaign you can win an election. If you happen to have all your friends at the same party, say the local Labour party, then if your arguments make sense then you will be able to persuade them too, and they will also help you.


 
You still don't get it, do you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2012)

Gmart said:


> I have stated many times that my argument for this safety net is the same argument I would be making if we had no legal system, or NHS - it will not solve all ills, as you appear keen to suggest, I am simply stating that this safety net is used by nearly all other democracies to make their country a better place - sure there will be difficulties in drafting, the same could be said for all laws, and yet no one would argue against having laws.
> 
> It is better to have a system based on empowering people. Then we can work towards making things better. We have a shared ideal of fairness, and so we could start from there.
> 
> I agree that £500 is a lot to pay to become an MP, but if you truly believe you can make a difference, then what would stop you?


 
It's what you pay to register to *stand* as a lone MP, plus another £150 if you want to register with the Electoral Commission as a political party.  You then have to find ways to overcome the "built-in" advantages that established mainstream parties have in terms of recognition and finance. This can only usually be done (as shown by the examples of Martin Bell and Dr. Richard Taylor) by independent candidates standing on local single-issue platforms. There's no precedent for "out of the blue" new politics succeeding. The political momentum they have to operate against is too great and too ingrained.


----------



## treelover (Mar 4, 2012)

alert: massive derail in process


----------



## ymu (Mar 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's what you pay to register to *stand* as a lone MP, plus another £150 if you want to register with the Electoral Commission as a political party. You then have to find ways to overcome the "built-in" advantages that established mainstream parties have in terms of recognition and finance. This can only usually be done (as shown by the examples of Martin Bell and Dr. Richard Taylor) by independent candidates standing on local single-issue platforms. There's no precedent for "out of the blue" new politics succeeding. The political momentum they have to operate against is too great and too ingrained.


Plus the fact that you need 330 like-minded people to do the same if you want to actually change anything. And if you ever got that far, you and the others would already have been co-opted by the establishment.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2012)

treelover said:


> alert: massive derail in process


 
Happens every time GMart starts spouting his obsession on a thread.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 4, 2012)

Is GMart an MP?


----------



## dennisr (Mar 4, 2012)

*Workfare: We won't work for free *


_Youth Fight for Jobs join the central London protest against the workfare slave labour scheme. Paul Callanan, Youth Fight for Jobs national organiser, explains the socialist case for real jobs, and a mass trade union-led campaign to scrap the slave labour schemes._


----------



## BigTom (Mar 4, 2012)

There's a thread in the protest/demo forum which is probably better for discussion about yesterdays actions, but here are lots of links to reports:

http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=799

It doesn't seem to have made the mainstream press though, which is  disappointing given how much of a story workfare has been recently.
I'm hoping the accidental release of the a4e work program stats will keep that story moving next week, after journos have had a chance to look at and verify the stats.

Meanwhile, I guess the other workfare stuff needs another new development to bring it back into the news cycle.  Still pressuring though - especially with charities, which I think is what some of the focus will move to now - push hard to get them (especially disability charities) to withdraw, to undermine the remaining schemes.  
Right to Work still look to be focused on McDonalds, and also have a demo at DWP iirc on March 14th when the next unemployment figures are, forming a huge dole queue, which I'd go to if I was in London, good idea for an action I think. 

Locally, I've got the meeting in Kings Heath (which is the area of Birmingham that my job centre is in) on Wednesday https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/birmingham/2012/02/492293.html so possibly will decide to do an action in Kings Heath at that meeting (I hope so, I really wanted to do a uk uncut action on Kings Heath high street but we never got anywhere near the numbers or very local activists to do it).


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 5, 2012)

I see Tesco have just announced they will create another 20,000 (crap) jobs over the next 2 years. How strangely convenient given their current "difficulties" over Workfare. I would  be prepared to bet that most of these jobs never actually  ever appear. Tesco always were very , on the ball, in the propaganda output sphere.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 5, 2012)

Gmart said:


> It still comes down to persuading people on the doorstep that you are a worthy candidate.


 
LMFAO

Ty, I really needed a good laugh this morning.

I don't even know where to begin if you actually believe this.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 5, 2012)

Holiday Inn say they have no future plans to be involved in the work experience scheme, waiting for clarification on whether they will still us work programme staff,they can be asked at: http://www.facebook.com/HolidayInnUKIreland#!/HolidayInnUKIreland?sk=wall


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 5, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> I see Tesco have just announced they will create another 20,000 (crap) jobs over the next 2 years. How strangely convenient given their current "difficulties" over Workfare. I would be prepared to bet that most of these jobs never actually ever appear. Tesco always were very , on the ball, in the propaganda output sphere.


 
I suspect every 20,000 jobs created by tesco equates to about 30,000 jobs lost elsewhere in the retail sector.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 5, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> I suspect every 20,000 jobs created by tesco equates to about 30,000 jobs lost elsewhere in the retail sector.


 
Nice way of putting it. Very likely you're right too ...


----------



## BigTom (Mar 5, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> I suspect every 20,000 jobs created by tesco equates to about 30,000 jobs lost elsewhere in the retail sector.


 
http://brightgreenscotland.org/index.php/2011/04/10-facts-about-tesco/
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/tesco_exposed.pdf




			
				FoE PDF page 4 said:
			
		

> The British Retail Planning Forum found that every time a large supermarket opens, on average 276 jobs are lost


 
Doesn't say how many jobs there are in the average large supermarket though, so we can get a net figure 

In other workfare news, businesses to be removed from one of the workfare schemes?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2109745/Is-50-000-defuse-child-benefit-time-bomb.html

scroll down to the second item - not clear what this refers to, or if it's an actual change rather than a restating of the supposed rules of the Community Activity Program. Either way, shows we need to keep up pressure on charities to withdraw.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 5, 2012)

It must be very hard to quantify the damage tesco does in terms of job losses and business closures, but only a fucking moron would buy their 'job creation' spiel. They are able to employ people because they sell stuff. There is a finite market for stuff. Building a new tesco does not increase the size of that market, it just diverts a bigger chunk of it to tesco's pockets.

Then there's the way a massive company like tesco can control the price they pay to suppliers and drive them out of business as well. When you see buy one get one free strawberries that's not tesco making up the difference for you, they've just paid the people who grew the strawberries half as much as normal. The strawberry farmer will have no idea whether he will even get paid as much as it cost him to produce the strawberries in the first place until the Tesco bloke turns up in his truck. Poor Mr strawberry man cannot sell his wares elsewhere of course, because elsewhere has long since gone out of business thanks to Tesco. He could sell to another supermarket, but the other supermarket will pull the exact same shit as Tesco.

Mr strawberry man runs a big monoculture operation, because a small farm could not produce strawberries cheaply enough to make any money at all from the prices Tesco pay. Mr strawberry man employs fewer people than several smaller farms would, but he doesn't really have a choice. Take on extra staff, or pay his existing staff a living wage, and he's out of business and his staff are in the dole queue.

Then you've got distibution, warehousing, shipping. Tesco's economies of scale put the squeeze on everyone.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 5, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> It must be very hard to quantify the damage tesco does in terms of job losses and business closures, but only a fucking moron would buy their 'job creation' spiel. They are able to employ people because they sell stuff. There is a finite market for stuff. Building a new tesco does not increase the size of that market, it just diverts a bigger chunk of it to tesco's pockets.


 
Unfortunately I think a lot of people do buy their job creation spiel (and not just for tesco, but in general).  Came up against this so often doing UK Uncut actions with people saying how many jobs the businesses create, how much extra tax that generates etc..


----------



## john cooper (Mar 5, 2012)

BigTom said:


> They haven't scrapped workfare.. they've removed the sanctions from one of five schemes ("Work Experience Scheme") but have in the past made it quite clear that if someone doesn't volunteer for work experience they will be sent on one of the mandatory schemes instead.
> The other schemes are - Mandatory Work Activity (up to 8 weeks), Sector Based Work Academy (6 month program with up to 8 weeks on the "work experience scheme" - and it's not clear whether there will be sanctions if you do not do this element of SBWA), Community Activity Program (6 months of work placement, supposedly in community roles but a Guardian article revealed that in fact CAP people were being used by private, profit making, companies), and the Work Program (up to 6 months I think. For people with disabilities, the work placement element of the work program can be *unlimited*. Yep, they will be able to be sent to work forever unpaid).
> 
> The job isn't done yet.. but the government want to make people think it is, by focussing on just one of the five schemes and pretending that we aren't talking about the others.
> Don't let them get away with this.


 why did they get rid of apprenticeships ? workfare , the names ironic theres nothing fair about working for nothing after all it is a capitalist state we are living in .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 5, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Unfortunately I think a lot of people do buy their job creation spiel (and not just for tesco, but in general). Came up against this so often doing UK Uncut actions with people saying how many jobs the businesses create, how much extra tax that generates etc..


 yes i totally agree , i think they do see the public as morons , they have just announced they are creating thousands more jobs , how is the goverment greasing thier palms i would love to know .


----------



## BigTom (Mar 5, 2012)

john cooper said:


> why did they get rid of apprenticeships ? workfare , the names ironic theres nothing fair about working for nothing after all it is a capitalist state we are living in .


 
They've not got rid of apprenticeships.. 10,000 of the 20,000 jobs that tesco are "creating" are apprenticeships.  These pay £2.60/hr, and you get an nvq which is valueless compared to the experience you've gained.  They are simply a way of allowing businesses to undercut the minimum wage, and to devalue entry level jobs.

workfare is a play on welfare, I've no idea who came up with the word though.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 5, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/05/work-experience-scheme-open-abuse




			
				Fiona MacTaggart MP said:
			
		

> A constituent who works for one of the big retail chains asked her manager if she could do extra hours, but he said he did not want to give more work to people he had to pay at full rate, because he could meet his needs with people on work experience who were getting jobseeker's allowance and to whom he paid nothing.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 5, 2012)




----------



## Belushi (Mar 5, 2012)

BigTom said:


> They've not got rid of apprenticeships.. 10,000 of the 20,000 jobs that tesco are "creating" are apprenticeships.


 
I'm pretty sure John is refering to the old apprenticeships where you really did learn a trade, rather than the YTS schemes which masquerade as apprenticeships nowadays.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 5, 2012)

Yep.. she also said this to a house of commons committee at the start of February:



> Q43 Fiona Mactaggart: I had a question that I really wanted to ask Geraldine. You were talking about placing people in Westfield. Your prime contractor is a voluntary sector organisation, and I am quite interested in the situation that I am observing in retail *where people are being placed for free in retail operations for work experience. In my view, that seems to be squeezing out permanent employment in relatively low-paid retail.* I have noticed companies such as Tesco making their standard contracts four-hour contracts. WH Smith has a zero-hour contract policy, as do places such as Primark in my constituency. I have constituents who have worked in those places and who are not getting the hours of work that they used to have, which is obviously having very substantial follow-on impacts on tax credits and so on. Have you encountered that?
> 
> Geraldine Blake: I am not aware of our encountering that.


 
(my emphasis) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpubacc/uc1814-i/uc181401.htm


----------



## weepiper (Mar 5, 2012)

BigTom said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/05/work-experience-scheme-open-abuse


 
the main problem with this whole thing in a nutshell. It's not helping people into new jobs, it's helping people into other people's jobs. And then not paying them.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 5, 2012)

Well, I think there's another issue in the question of whether it actually helps people who are out of work at all.. the little evidence we have suggests that it doesn't..

Plus in a different way, workfare is about the way that we view benefits - that it's a "wage" we pay people to find work (something which maybe began with job seeker's allowance?), rather than a benefit / kind of insurance scheme that exists partly out of the self interest of knowing you could need it, and partly out of the idea that we have a responsibility to everyone in our community regardless of whether they are working or not.
Beyond that of course, workfare plays on the idea that it is the individuals fault that they are unemployed - they don't have the drive to get work / are lazy / addicted to free state cash, or they don't have the experience, or skills, or contacts.. not because capitalism (and the way we run capitalism) creates, demands and needs a level of unemployment.

That's not to say that there is no truth to the idea that being unemployed is down to the individual, and certainly people can (and are) helped to get work through retraining - but that's only really effective when there are specific skills shortages, not when there is high unemployment.

In this case, if I was sent on workfare to a retail shop, it would do me no good at all. I have 2 years customer service experience from 16-18. Since then all the work I've done has been in offices (admin + data entry), as a technician or project manager in the arts world, and in schools. I couldn't get retail work no matter how hard I tried, even with an additional 8 weeks of work experience - there are far too many people with lots of customer service experience looking for work.. and there are lots of people with lots of work experience getting sent on workfare, for whom the work experience cannot possibly help them to find work.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 6, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2...work-programme-benefits?mobile-redirect=false

Released prisoners who sign on will go straight onto work programme ... they'll do the sign on whilst still in prison and go straight from being free labour in prison to being free labour outside.

Given how poor the a4e stats are for the work program, I wonder how they'll do with offenders, who have a real hard time getting work anyway.
Clearly there needs to be support for prisoners when they leave, because I should imagine that the best thing you can do to help someone not re-offend is to get them into a proper job.. but being forced to work for free? fuck that.. I bet reoffending rates will rise amongs the group sent on the work programme compared to previous people who have signed on.

I wonder how long the policy will last if that is the case?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 6, 2012)

BigTom said:


> They've not got rid of apprenticeships.. 10,000 of the 20,000 jobs that tesco are "creating" are apprenticeships. These pay £2.60/hr, and you get an nvq which is valueless compared to the experience you've gained. They are simply a way of allowing businesses to undercut the minimum wage, and to devalue entry level jobs.
> 
> workfare is a play on welfare, I've no idea who came up with the word though.


 yes i see what you mean , mind i am refering back when i mention apprenticeships and i do mean qualty jobs , engineering science biology ect , not menial service industry jobs .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 6, 2012)

BigTom said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/05/work-experience-scheme-open-abuse


 yes so it is slave labour then .


----------



## BigTom (Mar 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes i see what you mean , mind i am refering back when i mention apprenticeships and i do mean qualty jobs , engineering science biology ect , not menial service industry jobs .


 
Yeah, someone else suggested that was what you meant.. I just misunderstood


----------



## john cooper (Mar 6, 2012)

Belushi said:


> I'm pretty sure John is refering to the old apprenticeships where you really did learn a trade, rather than the YTS schemes which masquerade as apprenticeships nowadays.


 yes i am refering to the old system , the only draw back i see now is after you finish one are the jobs there , i doubt it .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 6, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Yep.. she also said this to a house of commons committee at the start of February:
> 
> 
> 
> (my emphasis) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpubacc/uc1814-i/uc181401.htm


 its strange how polititians only mention service industry jobs , are the no long term jobs of substance anymore ?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 6, 2012)

weepiper said:


> the main problem with this whole thing in a nutshell. It's not helping people into new jobs, it's helping people into other people's jobs. And then not paying them.


 i agree temparary jobs with no future and little money .


----------



## BigTom (Mar 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes so it is slave labour then .


 
I still don't agree with this.. simply because I think for most people the strongest association with slave labour is with the transatlantic slave trade, and workfare is nowhere near as violent as that was.  Workfare does not kidnap people, put them on ships to go halfway roudn the world in conditions that half of them will die before they get there, to be sold to individuals who will own them and their children with no legal route to redemption.

The comparison is not that far off, but I prefer to stick to forced labour as the term. It's far closer to the workhouses than the transatlantic slave trade.
(And I'm aware that the way the OED defines slavery fits to workfare.. I just think that the most recent historical reality of that term is far enough removed from workfare as to make the comparison wrong)


----------



## john cooper (Mar 6, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Yeah, someone else suggested that was what you meant.. I just misunderstood


 no problem , i forget sometimes there are people far younger than me on here , so as i refer back its from my experiences but can confuse younger members .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 6, 2012)

BigTom said:


> I still don't agree with this.. simply because I think for most people the strongest association with slave labour is with the transatlantic slave trade, and workfare is nowhere near as violent as that was. Workfare does not kidnap people, put them on ships to go halfway roudn the world in conditions that half of them will die before they get there, to be sold to individuals who will own them and their children with no legal route to redemption.
> 
> The comparison is not that far off, but I prefer to stick to forced labour as the term. It's far closer to the workhouses than the transatlantic slave trade.
> (And I'm aware that the way the OED defines slavery fits to workfare.. I just think that the most recent historical reality of that term is far enough removed from workfare as to make the comparison wrong)


 i see that but the meaning (slave labour) is somebody working for nothing with a theat hanging over them , in this case the threat of stoping benefits , thats the connection .


----------



## BigTom (Mar 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> its strange how polititians only mention service industry jobs , are the no long term jobs of substance anymore ?


 
Possibly it's because workfare is almost/entirely service industry jobs?  
I'm not sure how much of our economy the service industry makes up now - it's pretty substantial though.. and it can have long term substantive jobs.. but we've moved towards casualisation everywhere.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 6, 2012)

BigTom said:


> I still don't agree with this.. simply because I think for most people the strongest association with slave labour is with the transatlantic slave trade, and workfare is nowhere near as violent as that was. Workfare does not kidnap people, put them on ships to go halfway roudn the world in conditions that half of them will die before they get there, to be sold to individuals who will own them and their children with no legal route to redemption.


Give IDS a bit of time......


> The comparison is not that far off, but I prefer to stick to forced labour as the term. It's far closer to the workhouses than the transatlantic slave trade.
> (And I'm aware that the way the OED defines slavery fits to workfare.. I just think that the most recent historical reality of that term is far enough removed from workfare as to make the comparison wrong)


I think it is more akin to a workhouse. Obviously, plenty of people see this as a good thing and actively want it.
(As long as it doesn't happen to them).


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 6, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I think it is more akin to a workhouse. Obviously, plenty of people see this as a good thing and actively want it.
> (As long as it doesn't happen to them).


 The workhouse analogy is pretty apposite, it's the same logic that the only way to make the poor work is to threaten with a choice between starvation or forced labour. The free labour has to be doled out to the private sector because otherwise public corporations with free labour would undercut them.

It's trying to make a free market utopia with labour as a just another commodity, when, unfortunately we're all human beings with personalities


----------



## BigTom (Mar 6, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Give IDS a bit of time......
> 
> I think it is more akin to a workhouse. Obviously, plenty of people see this as a good thing and actively want it.
> (As long as it doesn't happen to them).


 
Ah, but it own't happen to them will it, because they've bought the line that unemployment is the individuals fault, it is people who are lazy or scroungers and that's not them.. until it is..


----------



## coltrane (Mar 6, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> The workhouse analogy is pretty apposite, it's the same logic that the only way to make the poor work is to threaten with a choice between starvation or forced labour. The free labour has to be doled out to the private sector because otherwise public corporations with free labour would undercut them.
> 
> It's trying to make a free market utopia with labour as a just another commodity, when, unfortunately we're all human beings with personalities


 
It brings a whole new meaning to the concept of "free market" in the labour market. For those that worship at the altar of the "Free Market", coerced humans are just another malleable input to be exploited in their rigged game.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 6, 2012)

BigTom said:


> I still don't agree with this.. simply because I think for most people the strongest association with slave labour is with the transatlantic slave trade, and workfare is nowhere near as violent as that was. Workfare does not kidnap people, put them on ships to go halfway roudn the world in conditions that half of them will die before they get there, to be sold to individuals who will own them and their children with no legal route to redemption.
> 
> The comparison is not that far off, but I prefer to stick to forced labour as the term. It's far closer to the workhouses than the transatlantic slave trade.
> (And I'm aware that the way the OED defines slavery fits to workfare.. I just think that the most recent historical reality of that term is far enough removed from workfare as to make the comparison wrong)


 
Forced labour under duress, contracted indenture under duress, servitude under duress. The name doesn't matter half as much as the unacceptability of duress.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 6, 2012)

I agree, but I think that it can put people off, either because they think "this isn't slave labour" and so that discredits everything else you have to say, makes people think that you are exaggerating, or because they think it is offensive to the memories of those who suffered in the transatlantic slave trade.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 6, 2012)

BigTom said:


> I agree, but I think that it can put people off, either because they think "this isn't slave labour" and so that discredits everything else you have to say, makes people think that you are exaggerating, or because they think it is offensive to the memories of those who suffered in the transatlantic slave trade.


 
And no it's not full on whips and chains and throw the sick ones over the side into the sea slavery, but it's certainly not acceptable in this day and age to threaten whole families with homelessness and starvation. It's closest imho to indentured servitude, not the workhouse (not yet anyway) from the way it's constructed - though it's the government's contract with the people not to let them starve if they fall on hard times is what is really being breached.

It's also surprising and saddening how much some of the not so politically inclined unemployed people I've met have fallen hook line and sinker for the idea that workfare will help them to get a job; that mentioning bad practice is putting other people's chance of getting employment in jeopardy, etc. I was shocked to find any that thought like this tbf. 



john cooper said:


> why did they get rid of apprenticeships ? workfare , the names ironic theres nothing fair about working for nothing after all it is a capitalist state we are living in .


They haven't, you can do an apprenticeship in all sorts of things you didn't used to be able to do one in: Care Work, Retail, Warehousing, etc...


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 6, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Ah, but it own't happen to them will it, because they've bought the line that unemployment is the individuals fault, it is people who are lazy or scroungers and that's not them.. until it is..


To be honest I think people who thought this couldn't happen to them are starting to find out otherwise. Hence the Mail reacting in the way they (mainly) have about workfare. They've started to realise that it might affect them or someone they know.


----------



## treelover (Mar 7, 2012)

'Right to Work still look to be focused on McDonalds, and also have a demo at DWP iirc on March 14th when the next unemployment figures are, forming a huge dole queue,'

Where are they going to get the numbers from?, not the membership...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> To be honest I think people who thought this couldn't happen to them are starting to find out otherwise.


 
Just like they did in the '80s, when the people who bought into the "Labour isn't working" campaign when unemployment was under a million in '78-'79 found that unemployment had doubled by 1982-83, and was at 3 million or thereabouts by the middle of the decade.



> Hence the Mail reacting in the way they (mainly) have about workfare. They've started to realise that it might affect them or someone they know.


 
And that readers with little disposable income won't be able to afford luxuries like newspapers.


----------



## treelover (Mar 7, 2012)

Do people think the weekend on workfare protests were successful?, I've withheld judgement as I don't want to be overly cynical(me?), but in my town, it was the usual suspects, no GP, no UKUC it was a very traditional megaphone protest, no street theatre, music, etc, mostly male and tbh, it was slightly aggressive, (noticeably no older SWP were there either) more importantly, the brief period i was near it, most people were indifferent and is some cases hostile, it reminded me of JSA protests down the rougher end of town, where the very people we were trying to help, slagged us off, but kudos to those who went on it. On a wider scale: B/W did a great job and the national scale of it was impressive but the national media seemed to ignore it, the numbers seemed very low, the middle class UKUNCUT groups seemed absent, the wide coalition of people needed inc churches, unions, etc did not seem to materialise.

In fact, i think its the same old story, basic class issues are still way down the interest level of many middle class progressives, etc and sadly many of the W/C are still not involved, though when we did stuff on the first WRB, there was a lot of support from people who would be affected...

still not sure...


----------



## treelover (Mar 7, 2012)

Oh, and for me the killer fact on the lack of interest is that how anyone can tolerate the idea of No DHSS when applying for accomodation?, how can that be acceptable by progressives, liberals, anyone, really...


----------



## BigTom (Mar 7, 2012)

treelover said:


> Do people think the weekend on workfare protests were successful?, I've withheld judgement as I don't want to be overly cynical(me?), but in my town, it was the usual suspects, it was a very traditional megaphone protest, no street theatre, music, etc, mostly male and tbh, it was slightly aggressive, (noticeably no older SWP were there either) more importantly, the brief period i was near it, most people were indifferent and is some cases hostile, it reminded me of JSA protests down the rougher end of town, where the very people we were trying to help, slagged us off, but kudos to those who went on it. On a wider scale: B/W did a great job and the national scale of it was impressive but the national media seemed to ignore it, the numbers seemed very low, the middle class UKUNCUT groups seemed absent, the wide coalition of people needed inc churches, unions, etc did not seem to materialise.
> 
> In fact, i think its the same old story, basic class issues are still way down the interest level of many middle class progressives, etc and sadly many of the W/C are still not involved, though when we did stuff on the first WRB, there was a lot of support from people who would be affected...
> 
> still not sure...


 
Well,Birmingham.. yep,usual suspects, normal megaphone type demo (but then that's been true for uk uncut stuff as well, we've never been any good at getting together any street theatre or anything), with a brief occupation of McDonalds.  There were quite a few people who have done UK Uncut stuff but not the mood to occupy in that way - partly because for some of us, one of the things that didn't work with UK Uncut was that there was no connection with the shop workers who were mostly just pissed off at us for interrupting their day, and personally I want to make those connections before we occupy any places again, because we failed to do so whilst we were occupying as uk uncut.

Leaflets were flying out, people stopping to talk, definite interest. I didn't see or hear anyone slagging anyone off, and there were no cries of "get a job" or anything like that.

National media was totally uninterested, which surprised me given how the workfare story had been in the media - perhaps the day of action came just too late?

Got the local meeting tonight, it'll be interesting to see if the time I've spent flyering the job centre pays off or if it's just the usual people there.  Had lots of good discussions doing the job centre though, only one person has had a good experience on workfare (though obviously those who got jobs straight from it won't be at the job centre, and possibly those who had a good experience are less likely to stop and talk).  
I've had a small number of people who think it's a good idea stop and talk to me and have changed their minds, to some extent at least - mostly with the argument that it is taking away paid jobs and most people who go on the schemes say it doesn't benefit them.


----------



## coltrane (Mar 10, 2012)

Fresh in from the Guardian:

Anyone expecting some sage advice from Her Majesty's Opposition about the iniquities inherent in the Work Programme may be disappointed when they read the article beneath the headline.

"*Labour warns jobless over work programme*"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/10/labour-welfare-benefits-work-programme

"Party takes hardline position on welfare, with proposal to stop benefits for six months if job offer is refused

Labour has said it would withdraw benefit from the unemployed for six months if they refused a government-provided job guarantee after completing a placement on the work programme.
The proposals, hardening the party's position on welfare, were set out in a speech by the shadow work and pensions secretary, Liam Byrne, and in a Smith Institute pamphlet written by the shadow employment minister, Stephen Timms.

Byrne said: "The right to work must carry with it a responsibility to work.

"The truth is that the government is actually weakening the obligation to work. It is perfectly possible under the government's arrangements to sail through two years of the work programme and straight back on to the dole on the other side. We don't think that is good enough.""


Now we know where the Labour party stand. They ain't going to challenge what the ConDems are doing, nothing so passe as a critique into their useless schemes.

No, in a cunning tactical move they are going to outflank the ConDem position on welfare by going even further to the right. The spirit of James (the smug sneer) Purnell is alive and well.

Or could it be that they are crapping themselves because any inquiry (as if the DWP are going to find anything wrong) into A4E or wefare-to-work in general (New Deal, Flexible New Deal) will expose the bogus sham bollocks that they were only too happy to coerce claimants to endure.


----------



## wtfftw (Mar 10, 2012)

Shall we just bomb parliament?


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 10, 2012)

We always knew what the Labour position was, surely? They started it all didn't they.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 10, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> We always knew what the Labour position was, surely? They started it all didn't they.


They didn't take it this far.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 10, 2012)

Greebo said:


> They didn't take it this far.


They didn't need to. No way on earth would the tories be able to come in and stop single mums looking after their kids with no conditionality until 16 and start telling cancer patients and other sick people, including the terminally ill to work fulltime or starve if there wasn't the groundwork done to make this acceptable.
As you know, Labour started this off and the absolute silence on this just says it all.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 10, 2012)

Okay, so Labour (or rather, New Labour) started this, unless you include the conditions for JSA which Major's government brought in.

What do we do about it, from where we are now?


----------



## BigTom (Mar 10, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Okay, so Labour (or rather, New Labour) started this, unless you include the conditions for JSA which Major's government brought in.
> 
> What do we do about it, from where we are now?


 


wtfftw said:


> Shall we just bomb parliament?


----------



## ymu (Mar 10, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Okay, so Labour (or rather, New Labour) started this, unless you include the conditions for JSA which Major's government brought in.
> 
> What do we do about it, from where we are now?


We stop believing that voting for the least worst option every 5 years is a reasonable substitute for democracy?


----------



## treborc (Mar 10, 2012)

It' s not mandatory now it seems personally I would not mind doing something for a few weeks if only to prove to everyone my disability is not a joke, but of course I'd do it because it helped me find work not Tesco or any other firm get free labour.

I've a spinal cord injury


----------



## BigTom (Mar 10, 2012)

More seriously, in order to change this we have to change the rhetoric and ideas about what unemployment is.

At the moment, the dominant ideology is that unemployment is the failing of the individual - whether that is the undeserving individual (lazy, scrounger, faker, fraudster etc.) or the deserving individual (not the right skill set, not enough experience etc.).  The only time that structural issues come in are when individuals are said to be priced out of the market by NMW or shut out by over-regulation.
The whole discussion around unemployment is about the individual, the labour market and companies.

This needs to be changed so that unemployment is about the way that we choose to organise the production side of our society.  So that people are unemployed because we have chosen not to spread the work that needs to be done around, or because we've let our manufacturing base disappear, or because capitalism demands a pool of unemployed/reserve army of workers, to keep a downward pressure on wages, to help divide and rule etc..

As unemployment rises, and more and more people are unemployed because there are not enough jobs, not because they are lazy or don't have the skills/experience, more and more people are going to start recognising that unemployment is a structural issue.  How much effect that will have I don't know - I was too young in the 80s to compare it. I was fully aware of the early 90s recession but as an adult, this is the first time there has been serious economic problems, and the first time it is easy to say that there aren't enough jobs.  5-10years ago, in many places in the UK, you could fairly easily get a job, even if it wasn't what you wanted to do, and even though there would never be enough jobs for everyone.  The rhetoric surrounding the failure of the individual makes much more sense in that environment, than the one we are in now. 

I don't know how we do this though.. for me that is the strategy.. tactics though, not a clue, aside from demos/direct action etc., and I'm not sure how much more that'll do. oh and, of course, revolution -> full communism


----------



## BigTom (Mar 10, 2012)

treborc said:


> It' s not mandatory now it seems personally I would not mind doing something for a few weeks if only to prove to everyone my disability is not a joke, but of course I'd do it because it helped me find work not Tesco or any other firm get free labour.
> 
> I've a spinal cord injury


 
Only one of the 5 schemes (the Work Experience Scheme) has had sanctions removed - the other 4 (including the work programme that I assume you would go in from the WRAG group of ESA claimants) still have sanctions applied if you don't do everything - and if you don't volunteer for work experience, they'll send you on one of the mandatory schemes instead.




			
				George Osborne said:
			
		

> “Young people who don’t engage with [The Work Experience Scheme] will be considered for mandatory work activity, and those that drop out without good reason will lose their benefits.


 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-young-jobless-will-get-work-experience.html]


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2012)

wtfftw said:


> Shall we just bomb parliament?


 
Bombing is too quick and "surgical".

How about a couple of hundred thousand of us converge on Parliament, overwhelm the old bill, enter the place and tear it down with our bare hands, preferably tearing apart the members of both Houses while we're about it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2012)

ymu said:


> We stop believing that voting for the least worst option every 5 years is a reasonable substitute for democracy?


 
More importantly, we disseminate the idea that "voting for the least worst option every 5 years is a reasonable substitute for democracy" as widely as possible. Legitimate the nagging feeling in the guts of people that "something isn't right".


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> More importantly, we disseminate the idea that "voting for the least worst option every 5 years is a reasonable substitute for democracy" as widely as possible. Legitimate the nagging feeling in the guts of people that "something isn't right".


How realistic is it to get the turnout down below even 10%? Even then a parliament would form and the opportunity for change will have passed again.

We need to stand ourselves not just be more apathetic.


----------



## Libertad (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> We need to stand ourselves not just be more apathetic.


 
Who are you calling apathetic? I can't be arsed.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> More importantly, we disseminate the idea that "voting for the least worst option every 5 years is a reasonable substitute for democracy" as widely as possible. Legitimate the nagging feeling in the guts of people that "something isn't right".


 
Much like Iran, we are allowed to vote, but there's a number of undemocratic processes which act to veto the choices we have available to vote for.

In their case its a bunch old religious guys with beards, in our case: its the media owners, the dynamics of the electoral process (specifically the need to have a slush fund of millions to pay specialised market researchers to identify and help to target the few thousand people whose votes will actually count) and the anticipated reaction of a bunch of fucking bond traders to any policy that they happen not to like.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Much like Iran, we are allowed to vote, but there's a number of undemocratic processes which act to veto the choices we are permitted to vote for. In their case some old guys with beards, in our case: the media, the dynamics of the electoral process (specifically the need to have a slush fund of millions to pay specialised market researchers to identify the few thousand people whose votes will actually count) and the reaction of a bunch of fucking bond traders to any policy that they happen not to like.


Indeed, we have an elective dictatorship. We have only one way to change this: vote for people who will actually change this system - that means cooperation, the one thing 'they' bank on us not doing...


----------



## Libertad (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> We have only one way to change this: vote for people who will actually change this system - that means cooperation, the one thing 'they' bank on us not doing...


 
There's more than one way and being politically naive isn't one of them.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

Libertad said:


> There's more than one way and being politically naive isn't one of them.


The only other way would be force, which would inevitably be put down by the army et al. There is only one way - persuade people through discussion and get voted in to actually change the system.


----------



## treelover (Mar 10, 2012)

'"The truth is that the government is actually weakening the obligation to work. It is perfectly possible under the government's arrangements to sail through two years of the work programme and straight back on to the dole on the other side. We don't think that is good enough.""



This is unbelievable: ''sailing through the work programme'' free, maybe even hard labour working on manual jobs for two years is a doddle,, this is really dark, the 30's awaits..

these public school politicians disgust me..


----------



## treelover (Mar 10, 2012)

'The proposals, hardening the party's position on welfare, were set out in a speech by the shadow work and pensions secretary, Liam Byrne, and in a Smith Institute pamphlet written by the shadow employment minister, Stephen Timms.'



Didn't the Smith Institute start off a centre left think tank, these are hard right proposals, which even in the US where they have been implemented are being scaled back...

the LP: a hard right party...

btw, how did i know the article about it would be written by Patrick Wintour, he may be the guardians political editor, but i get the impression he likes reporting on these nasty reforms, and is a friend of Byrne's...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> The only other way would be force, which would inevitably be put down by the army et al. There is only one way - persuade people through discussion and get voted in to actually change the system.


 
Look to British history.
There's little inevitability involved in suppression of rebellion, given that so many social factors have changed, including the fact that we no longer have a yeomanry that draws mostly from the middle-classes for its' officers and NCOs, we no longer have large garrisons based on UK soil and we no longer have a state willing to go the whole mile necessary in order to properly suppress mass dissent. They talk a good game, but when the total military and police establishment numbers less than 380,000, they don't have the manpower either, unless they can rely on any dissent conforming to the set-piece scenarios they've war-gamed.

You're wedded to parliamentary democracy, so like all people wedded to parliamentary democracy, you say that there's no alternative to it.  Fortunately for any free-thinking people, that's not true.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2012)

Libertad said:


> There's more than one way and being politically naive isn't one of them.


 
Although it's a great way of abstaining from involvement in anything "messy".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'The proposals, hardening the party's position on welfare, were set out in a speech by the shadow work and pensions secretary, Liam Byrne, and in a Smith Institute pamphlet written by the shadow employment minister, Stephen Timms.'
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't the Smith Institute start off a centre left think tank, these are hard right proposals, which even in the US where they have been implemented are being scaled back...


 
We shouldn't confuse Smith himself (centrist, not socialist) and the "institute" that carries his name but *not* his imprimatur[/i].



> the LP: a hard right party...


 
As soon as nL started moving in the direction of embracing neo-liberalism, that was the only place they could inevitably head. ANyone who deceived themselves with all that Gittens bollocks about a "third way" was deluding themselves that neo-liberalism could be accommodated but held at arms-length.



> btw, how did i know the article about it would be written by Patrick Wintour, he may be the guardians political editor, but i get the impression he likes reporting on these nasty reforms, and is a friend of Byrne's...


 
Because Wintour is an arse?


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Look to British history.
> There's little inevitability involved in suppression of rebellion, given that so many social factors have changed, including the fact that we no longer have a yeomanry that draws mostly from the middle-classes for its' officers and NCOs, we no longer have large garrisons based on UK soil and we no longer have a state willing to go the whole mile necessary in order to properly suppress mass dissent. They talk a good game, but when the total military and police establishment numbers less than 380,000, they don't have the manpower either, unless they can rely on any dissent conforming to the set-piece scenarios they've war-gamed.
> 
> You're wedded to parliamentary democracy, so like all people wedded to parliamentary democracy, you say that there's no alternative to it. Fortunately for any free-thinking people, that's not true.


Free-thinking? I have been on enough demos to note that when the police are exhausted, they bring in the riot police, when they get tired then they bring in the army - all the time they film everything and everyone they can for later convictions of any violence. That is what parliament does. It will never suddenly turn around and admit defeat until we manage to force their hand through the only way in - an election.

OK then, if you have details then do tell me - how are you going to do it? No engagement in the election process, so at best a big crowd in all the metropolitan areas a la Occupy? You would need serious numbers though. How would you get them? The Iraq war brought out millions and yet they ignored us easily. You will need to force their hand, not just hope that they will suddenly inexplicably run out of law enforcers...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> How realistic is it to get the turnout down below even 10%? Even then a parliament would form and the opportunity for change will have passed again.
> 
> We need to stand ourselves not just be more apathetic.


 
The only way your "solution" can work is to take every seat.
That's 615 seats, min £650 a pop. Know anyone with that kind of money willing to sponsor candidates for true democracy?
Even then, you've only captured the lower house. The upper house can sink any legislation you care to table, and they're not elected either, so replacing them is a lot harder.

You see apathy in people not following your prescriptions. I see good sense. Why contribute to the pantomime when you can be stage-left actually doing something meaningful?


----------



## BigTom (Mar 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The only way your "solution" can work is to take every seat.
> That's 615 seats, min £650 a pop. Know anyone with that kind of money willing to sponsor candidates for true democracy?
> Even then, you've only captured the lower house. The upper house can sink any legislation you care to table, and they're not elected either, so replacing them is a lot harder.
> 
> You see apathy in people not following your prescriptions. I see good sense. Why contribute to the pantomime when you can be stage-left actually doing something meaningful?


 
As much as I agree with you, you only need to capture a bit more than half the seats, and the upper house can't actually stop, only delay (as the welfare reform bill shows).. plus once you have the lower house you can reform the fuck out of the upper house.
As long as the Queen lets you, of course.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> Free-thinking? I have been on enough demos to note that when the police are exhausted, they bring in the riot police, when they get tired then they bring in the army.


 
Where? When?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

> That is what parliament does. It will never suddenly turn around and admit defeat until we manage to force their hand through the only way in - an election.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Much like Iran, we are allowed to vote, but there's a number of undemocratic processes which act to veto the choices we have available to vote for.
> 
> In their case its a bunch old religious guys with beards, in our case: its the media owners...


 
Many of whom pretend to have religious imperatives. 



> ...the dynamics of the electoral process (specifically the need to have a slush fund of millions to pay specialised market researchers to identify and help to target the few thousand people whose votes will actually count)...


 
Another point that certain posters don't seem to "get".



> ...and the anticipated reaction of a bunch of fucking bond traders to any policy that they happen not to like.


 
Yes. If nothing else, the coalition's tenure has proven their slavish adherence to the whims of finance.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The only way your "solution" can work is to take every seat.
> That's 615 seats, min £650 a pop. Know anyone with that kind of money willing to sponsor candidates for true democracy?
> Even then, you've only captured the lower house. The upper house can sink any legislation you care to table, and they're not elected either, so replacing them is a lot harder.
> 
> You see apathy in people not following your prescriptions. I see good sense. Why contribute to the pantomime when you can be stage-left actually doing something meaningful?


But your alternative is to sit back and enjoy the cage. I have no intention of doing so - you have no realistic alternative because there isn't one - we are caught in an oppressive regime, and the only way out would be to get everyone to stand for election - I agree it is highly unlikely to happen, but I would prefer not to (as Pink Floyd put it so well) exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> Free-thinking? I have been on enough demos to note that when the police are exhausted, they bring in the riot police, when they get tired then they bring in the army - all the time they film everything and everyone they can for later convictions of any violence. That is what parliament does. It will never suddenly turn around and admit defeat until we manage to force their hand through the only way in - an election.


 
Hmmm, you're talking about where, exactly?
You see, here, parliament is encumbered. While they may put the "riot police" to work, bringing in the army is a little more involved than phoning the nearest barracks.

As for filming, wear a mask. Film them. Upload *their* pictures to a database.

As for your fantasy about winning an election, that's all it is.

G-d, how they love people like you, with your faith that electoral politics is the only valid politics. You're doing their job for them!



> OK then, if you have details then do tell me - how are you going to do it? No engagement in the election process, so at best a big crowd in all the metropolitan areas a la Occupy?


 
I do enjoy the way you place these silly limitations on ideas. "at best a big crowd...". Pffft.

Read what I said, rather than indulging yourself in fantasies.



> You would need serious numbers though.


 
You're razor-sharp, aren't you?



> How would you get them? The Iraq war brought out millions and yet they ignored us easily.


 
Tell you what, why not spend a few minutes analysing exactly *how* the government were able to do so, hmm?



> You will need to force their hand, not just hope that they will suddenly inexplicably run out of law enforcers...


 
Like I said, razor-sharp.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


>


 

<racist>
Mexican standoff.
</racist>


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> But your alternative is to sit back and enjoy the cage.


 
Nope, that's not my alternative. That's the alternative you attribute to me because it suits your narrative to do so.
I've made my alternative clear, and it's extra-parliamentary.



> I have no intention of doing so - you have no realistic alternative because there isn't one - we are caught in an oppressive regime, and the only way out would be to get everyone to stand for election - I agree it is highly unlikely to happen, but I would prefer not to (as Pink Floyd put it so well) exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.


 
You offer an alternative that isn't an alternative, it's a request for more of the same.

My alternative is to re-build democratic practice from the ground up, not attempt to do it from the top down.


----------



## Libertad (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> There is only one way - persuade people through discussion and get voted in to actually change the system.


 
Such utter shite. You can fuck about with your democracy bollocks if you like but some of us would rather see things pushed forward in our own lifetimes. This is not a game, this is about building a more equitable and just future. You're getting in the way and the bus won't stop for you. Make yourself comfortable at home whilst those of us who are able go ahead and bloody ourselves for the sake of social progress.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2012)

BigTom said:


> As much as I agree with you, you only need to capture a bit more than half the seats, and the upper house can't actually stop, only delay (as the welfare reform bill shows).. plus once you have the lower house you can reform the fuck out of the upper house.


 
The reason I said "capture all" is because with "a bit more than half" of the seats you'll be fighting a constant war of attrition with an opposition that are going to have the backing of every vested (as well as every overt) interest in the kingdom. GMart appears to assume that winning an election gives him the power to do all he desires in terms of reform. It doesn't. There's massive institutionalised inertia against reform that can't be overcome through an election victory.



> As long as the Queen lets you, of course.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Such utter shite. You can fuck about with your democracy bollocks if you like but some of us would rather see things pushed forward in our own lifetimes. This is not a game, this is about building a more equitable and just future. You're getting in the way and the bus won't stop for you. Make yourself comfortable at home whilst those of us who are able go ahead and bloody ourselves for the sake of social progress.


 
And then watch the GMarts come out of the woodwork and claim credit.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Tell you what, why not spend a few minutes analysing exactly *how* the government were able to do so, hmm?


Because the parliament has no limits on its actions.


ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, that's not my alternative. That's the alternative you attribute to me because it suits your narrative to do so.


 
So you feel that the UK is not oppressive - then why get upset at all. I am sorry that I misrepresented you, I thought you agreed that the UK was oppressive. At least I know now.



ViolentPanda said:


> I've made my alternative clear, and it's extra-parliamentary.
> 
> You offer an alternative that isn't an alternative, it's a request for more of the same.
> 
> My alternative is to re-build democratic practice from the ground up, not attempt to do it from the top down.


The idea of 'extra parliamentary' is just fantasy, they will ignore you because you will not represent anyone with power. Even if you got a few million people to sign up to something, you still won't be able to effect any change because you refuse to engage in the power structures which will continue to govern us until the next election. Any violence will be put down, so you are left with peaceful protest - how convenient for them.

It is not that I believe in the system (there you go misrepresenting again), it is that I recognise the cage, and the inability to get out of it - even with your 'extra parliamentary' solution, which you still have not really fleshed out yet, there will be no change until the people are at the heart of the solution.

I am reminded of the episode of South Park where everyone decided to stick their heads in the sand. I don't mean to be rude, but your solution will result in no change. You will not be able to motivate a reasonable number of rebellious/apathetic people to your cause. And if you stray towards violence you might just end up in prison, which will be useless to everyone.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

> So you feel


 
That's the new _are you suggesting_


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 10, 2012)

vote gmart for a bigger cage with fresh water and newspaper changed daily


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Such utter shite. You can fuck about with your democracy bollocks if you like but some of us would rather see things pushed forward in our own lifetimes. This is not a game, this is about building a more equitable and just future. You're getting in the way and the bus won't stop for you. Make yourself comfortable at home whilst those of us who are able go ahead and bloody ourselves for the sake of social progress.


How are you going to do that? Go to war against 'them' - what's the point, you'll just get yourself arrested if you are violent, and will be just another peaceful protester to ignore if not.


----------



## JHE (Mar 10, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Such utter shite. You can fuck about with your democracy bollocks if you like but some of us would rather see things pushed forward in our own lifetimes. This is not a game, this is about building a more equitable and just future. You're getting in the way and the bus won't stop for you. Make yourself comfortable at home whilst those of us who are able go ahead and bloody ourselves for the sake of social progress.


 
How do you propose to 'push'?  What is this 'bus' you're on?  More disturbingly, how exactly are you going to 'bloody yourself' and what 'social progress' do you expect to come from 'bloodying yourself'?

Bold fighting talk on Urban 75 deserves a






Gmart's politics may be uninspiring and inadequate, but he is obviously correct about one important thing:  you've got to persuade people - in fact, you've got to persuade many millions of them.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

...and who on earth argues otherwise? What a banal thing to point out.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> ...and who on earth argues otherwise? What a banal thing to point out.


 
Well you have suggested at times that your solution might not be democratic. That is why I have you down as an authoritarian. If you wish to declare yourself  a democrat then I will move you to the minority democratic politics section with pleasure.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

I'm not sure you're up to that.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2012)

Wasn't this thread actually about something a while back? 

It's just that opportunities for Gmart to spout his tiresome drivel would seem to abound elsewhere on these boards, ie on any one of the many threads he's already killed with exactly the same shit.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 10, 2012)

gmarts filing system must be fucking surreal


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Wasn't this thread actually about something a while back?
> 
> It's just that opportunities for Gmart to spout his tiresome drivel would seem to abound elsewhere on these boards, ie on any one of the many threads he's already killed with exactly the same shit.


Actually, yes. Not going to help kill a very good thread with this sat aft bored crap any further.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 10, 2012)

That's precisely why I try to avoid engaging with him.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 11, 2012)

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/will-workfare-slaves-be-used-staff-train-stations/

Will workfare slaves be used to staff train stations?

This is the way that I got Birmingham Against the Cuts involved in the workfare campaign here - the knowledge that workfare will be used to cover for cuts, that public sector workers will get laid off to find themselves doing a 6 month unpaid placement which is classed as community work - and is what they used to get paid to do...

This is the "big society" that Cameron and co talk of.  

I think Johnny Void also talks about workfare labour being used as strike breakers, since they'll have no right to strike, and it'll be scab or starve.  Will any of the trade unions step up here to give strike pay anyone who refuses to cross a picket line and loses their benefits because of it?
I can't see that happening.. perhaps in some places union members will raise collections for workfare labourers who refuse to cross the picket lies, but I don't see it going on at an institutional level.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 11, 2012)

Unison produce tons of tat and we still get a full colour glossy every few weeks. But in half dozen disputes I've seen not even a token strike pay was offered to members. I can't imagine them putting hand in pocket for non members...


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 11, 2012)

I'm a member of USDAW (Useless Seven Days A Week).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2012)

BigTom said:


> I think Johnny Void also talks about workfare labour being used as strike breakers, since they'll have no right to strike, and it'll be scab or starve. Will any of the trade unions step up here to give strike pay anyone who refuses to cross a picket line and loses their benefits because of it?
> I can't see that happening.. perhaps in some places union members will raise collections for workfare labourers who refuse to cross the picket lies, but I don't see it going on at an institutional level.


 
I'm not sure, but I think that you still retain a right to refuse any work you find politically or morally distasteful. The old "you can't force a vegan to work in an abattoir" scenario. Well, I suspect that a lot of those who will fall under workfare's remit at sometime in the next few years will need to exercise our right to refuse work that involves crossing a picket line - if it's accepted as a legitimate reason for non-attendance by the DWP for their own workers, they can hardly deny the same right to workfare helots without exposing themselves to a sustained charge of hypocrisy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I'm a member of USDAW (Useless Seven Days A Week).


 
When I was a member, we had the acronym stand for something quite a bit cruder.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not sure, but I think that you still retain a right to refuse any work you find politically or morally distasteful. The old "you can't force a vegan to work in an abattoir" scenario. Well, I suspect that a lot of those who will fall under workfare's remit at sometime in the next few years will need to exercise our right to refuse work that involves crossing a picket line - if it's accepted as a legitimate reason for non-attendance by the DWP for their own workers, they can hardly deny the same right to workfare helots without exposing themselves to a sustained charge of hypocrisy.


 
hmmm.. interesting point.. at some point soon I need to be digging into all the documents and FoI requests that have been made to get a clearer picture of workfare people's rights wrt employment law so hopefully going to get some answers (although I think it'll just be lots of questions which lead to further FoI requests...)


----------



## weepiper (Mar 12, 2012)

Scottish Power swamped with applications for apprenticeships

But they're all lazy and feckless these young people, no get up and go, they're not interested in jobs, that's why we have to make them work for their benefits.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2012)

What's the apprentice rate?

(not having a pop at you wp, re-inforcing your point if anything)


----------



## weepiper (Mar 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What's the apprentice rate?
> 
> (not having a pop at you wp, re-inforcing it if anything)


 
exactly. People are so desperate for work they're prepared in their droves to work at apprentice rates just to get a foot in the door.


----------



## weepiper (Mar 12, 2012)

And here's the rates:

Year 1 £9,161
Year 1 (after six months) £9,956
Year 2 £11,949
Year 3 £14,439


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2012)

Ta wp.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2012)

Them rates are pure thievery,


----------



## weepiper (Mar 12, 2012)

I wonder what the situation with housing benefit/tax credits etc is with apprenticeship rates too. Bet they're not eligible for much


----------



## nogojones (Mar 12, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I'm a member of USDAW (Useless Seven Days A Week).


 
When I was in the ISTC we knew it as I'm Scared To Complain.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Them rates are pure thievery,


Yet it'll look tantalising compared to 40 hours for 50 quid's benefits (if they even get that)!


----------



## BigTom (Mar 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Them rates are pure thievery,


 
yep - £2.60/hr iirc.  Apprenticeships = just another way to get past minimum wage.. when people say yeah but Labour introduced NMW so obviously they are socialist, remember they also introduced apprenticeships and workfare to allow companies to bypass it.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 12, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/voluntary...ar/12/large-charities-government-work-schemes

Nice attack on charities involved in workfare schemes.. to me this is where we should focus for now with workfare, I suspect that we've got most of what we're going to get from private companies, at least until the legal challenges are worked through.  But I think we can get charities to pull out, and in doing so remove a key plank from the workfare schemes.. people are generally ok with claimants being forced to work for charities, in a way they are not when it's profit making companies, but I don't think anyone is feeling comfortable about forcing disability claimants into work - not least the charities who are supposedly involved with supporting those same claimants..

We are doing a walk round Kings Heath high st on Saturday, think I'll be looking to finish outside British Heart Foundation.. does anyone here know what heart conditions will put you into the wrag group?
Other charity option is Sue Ryder, and tbh, I don't even know what they do!


----------



## killer b (Mar 12, 2012)

Sue Ryder is a cancer  charity


----------



## BigTom (Mar 12, 2012)

well, that leaves makes them a good place to go, terminal cancer patients with more than 6 months to live are in the wrag..


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 12, 2012)

BigTom said:


> http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/will-workfare-slaves-be-used-staff-train-stations/
> 
> Will workfare slaves be used to staff train stations?
> 
> ...


 
Well, I'm glad I didn't get any offers from the Russel Group. There are no universities or colleges listed on the boycottworkfare site, is there a list of which ones are participating, or will I have to trawl the sites individually?


----------



## BigTom (Mar 12, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Well, I'm glad I didn't get any offers from the Russel Group. There are no universities or colleges listed on the boycottworkfare site, is there a list of which ones are participating, or will I have to trawl the sites individually?


 
No list that I know of, and actually the KCL thing mentioned isn't workfare, it's a really dodgy internship (looking at it, I'm actually surprised and think that will get caught under the current NMW laws quite clearly).


----------



## treelover (Mar 12, 2012)

'In November 2010, McKinsey and Company provided hospitality in the form of a dinner for Terry Moran, DWP Chief Executive, Pension, Disability and Carers Service (to 30 November) Director General, Universal Credit (from 1 December).

National Audit Office include a summary of a McKinsey Quarterly article, "Five ways CFOs can make cost cuts stick, May 2010" in the NAO document "Reducing Costs in the DWP" published 23 June 2011 (www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1012/hc10/1089/1089.pdf).

The DWP should focus on reducing the money the DWP pays out in benefits irrespective of whether the claim of the claimant is valid or not. Adding complexity and delaying payment helps the DWP to reduce the money paid out. Formal and informal consultations, independent inquires and name changes such as DLA to PIP, which deliver nothing of substance to claimants, are all delaying tactics deployed to reduce benefits paid. The influence of influential group such as cancer patients needs to be neutered.'

link is from an older Cif article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/15067603

Monbiots article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/12/nhs-health



Just found this, someone reposted it on Monbiots excellent 'secret state' article in the Guardian , it's something i suspected all along, the new system is geared up to saving money by imposing sanctions, delaying claims, etc. incredible, where is the media on all this...


----------



## treelover (Mar 12, 2012)

http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html

Ah, its from an amazing blog by Mike Bach, ''terminally ill with a brain tumour, declared 'fir for work' by an Atos midwife after the 10 minute Work capability Assessment, which ignores medical history and the opinion of the patient's doctor, consultant, specialist etc.''


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Unison produce tons of tat and we still get a full colour glossy every few weeks. But in half dozen disputes I've seen not even a token strike pay was offered to members. I can't imagine them putting hand in pocket for non members...


 recruit recruit recruit 
wish they could replace at least one of them with 'fight'


----------



## ymu (Mar 12, 2012)

They put that in writing? Bloody hell, that's cocky.

Bring on the lamp-posts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2012)

ymu said:


> They put that in writing? Bloody hell, that's cocky.
> 
> Bring on the lamp-posts.


 
You're going to dignify the shits with a lamp-post based death?

I reckon the fustuarium would be as dignified a death as they deserve.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 13, 2012)

Last autumn we had the public services strike, and much leftish hurrahs for the pcs, is any work being done by that union to get its members to stop enforcing these schemes onto claimants? Or are they "only obeying orders"?


----------



## weepiper (Mar 13, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> Last autumn we had the public services strike, and much leftish hurrahs for the pcs, is any work being done by that union to get its members to stop enforcing these schemes onto claimants? Or are they "only obeying orders"?


 
Yes: http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_e...ex.cfm/id/FCB48E7B-FF54-45DC-9630763E50AF13AA


----------



## BigTom (Mar 13, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> Last autumn we had the public services strike, and much leftish hurrahs for the pcs, is any work being done by that union to get its members to stop enforcing these schemes onto claimants? Or are they "only obeying orders"?


 
Nothing concrete afaik, beyond the words of support weepiper posted up (they also did a similar message of support for the Boycott Workfare action on 3rd March).  Really would be good if they would produces guidelines for their members showing what they can do to not send people on the schemes or not sanction them without getting in trouble for it.. and even better if they would refuse to send people on these schemes, but legally I don't know if they can strike or take industrial action over it.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 13, 2012)

I am a little obsessed on this issue, I know, but I do wonder when someone can be said to have deposed the line, when they force a young person onto workfare, when they remove their benefits,  when they take them to court and have them imprisoned. PCS members do all this as a regular part of their jobs.


----------



## ymu (Mar 13, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> I am a little obsessed on this issue, I know, but I do wonder when someone can be said to have deposed the line, when they force a young person onto workfare, when they remove their benefits, when they take them to court and have them imprisoned. PCS members do all this as a regular part of their jobs.


A non-cooperation action which has all their members refusing to refer people to these schemes or apply sanctions?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 13, 2012)

ymu said:


> A non-cooperation action which has all their members refusing to refer people to these schemes or apply sanctions?


 
Unfortunately, just about anything that employees of the DWP, JC+ etc might do at work would probably transgress their employment T & Cs, and put them in the frame for either disciplinary action or dismissal.
That means that any action undertaken would have to be under the rubric of industrial action, with all the hassle w/r/t "procedure" that that entails.

Of course, that's not to say that employees couldn't, as individuals, "forget" to refer their "clients" to such schemes, or to sanction them.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Mar 13, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> <snip>
> 
> Of course, that's not to say that employees couldn't, as individuals, "forget" to refer their "clients" to such schemes, or to sanction them.


If only they could. The message to refer comes up on the database unfortunately. My advisor told me in January that I'd be refered to the Work Program in May. She's as much as told me she doesn't want to and said she wishes I could find some kind of work before then. *fatchance*


----------



## ymu (Mar 13, 2012)

Well, yeah. I'm asking why PCS aren't taking this kind of action. It's tough to expect individuals to take such risks with no back up.


----------



## harpo (Mar 13, 2012)

The Work Programme is automatic referral after (usually) a claim of a year but they 'park and cream'.  If you really put up passive resistance they can't be arsed to devote the resources to you and will pretty much leave you alone.  From anecdotal evidence it's a much easier ride than going to the JCP.  And if you do get work while on WP there is no need to tell them.  They will try to pressure the answers out of you but if you tell them you're 'going travelling' or something, they can't claw in the in-work subsidy.

The WP is not the same as mandatory work activity or whatever the equivalent for 18-24s.  Not the same strictures at all.


----------



## harpo (Mar 13, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Yes: http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_e...ex.cfm/id/FCB48E7B-FF54-45DC-9630763E50AF13AA


 That is opposing the notion of workfare but it isn't offering constructive advice to members who refuse to refer.  They can't do that, they have no mechanism to do that.


----------



## weepiper (Mar 13, 2012)

harpo said:


> That is opposing the notion of workfare but it isn't offering constructive advice to members who refuse to refer. They can't do that, they have no mechanism to do that.


 
I will ask Fed if he has any info about this when he's finished being depressed about the football.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 14, 2012)

Frankie Jack said:


> If only they could. The message to refer comes up on the database unfortunately. My advisor told me in January that I'd be refered to the Work Program in May. She's as much as told me she doesn't want to and said she wishes I could find some kind of work before then. *fatchance*


What happens if you're too ill to go on it? Which sounds pretty stupid because you've got to be ill in the first place to get on disability/ sickness benefits.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 14, 2012)

Ah, Catch-22


----------



## treelover (Mar 14, 2012)

'Unemployed absent fathers who refuse to take up work experience offers should be stripped of their benefits, a report has recommended.
Policy Exchange has called for a job placement programme, similar to the controversial scheme that last month sparked accusations that young people were being forced into "slave labour", to be created for welfare claimants who do not live with their children.
Under its plans, "feckless" parents would be fast-tracked on to the compulsory scheme and forced to stick with it until the end or lose state payments.
After a wave of protests last month ministers announced youngsters would no longer be sanctioned for quitting placements.
The influential centre-right think-tank believes a mandatory programme would make it more likely claimants would leave benefits and take paid work.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/strip-absent-fathers-benefits-002058658.html

do we have government by thinktank, how are they accountable, how far do they want to go?


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 14, 2012)

What paid work?  ARGH!! 

The unemployed are not to blame for unemployment, FFS.


----------



## treelover (Mar 14, 2012)

The Govt, Labour, and the media are doing a very very good job of convincing most people that they are...


----------



## Yata (Mar 14, 2012)

Just got a letter saying im gonna be on work related ESA from April and need to see an adviser about work at some point as well as have an assessment. Does this mean I'll be on this workfare thing soon? Cause I already found a placement with a charity doing admin but I dunno how much to tell this advisor cause I haven't told social anything yet don't like talking to them but if I say I'm doing this admin work which might actually get me somewhere seems like they're gpnna knock me down to jsa and then onto the shelf stacking if I don't find anything? which would be a bit counter productive for me really. Don't understand any of this didn't even know about workfare till last week. Should I be honest about the placement I got or what? I'm a shit liar but don't want them to say I'm fit for work and end up a tesco slave when I could be better off with what I'm doing and the support I get at the charity :s


----------



## StraightOuttaQ (Mar 14, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'Policy Exchange has called for a job placement programme,.......


 
I'd rather have  a 'job replacement programme', where - you know - the govt actually creates jobs rather than destroys them. But hey, that's just me....


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 14, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'Unemployed absent fathers who refuse to take up work experience offers should be stripped of their benefits, a report has recommended.
> Policy Exchange has called for a job placement programme, similar to the controversial scheme that last month sparked accusations that young people were being forced into "slave labour", to be created for welfare claimants who do not live with their children.
> Under its plans, "feckless" parents would be fast-tracked on to the compulsory scheme and forced to stick with it until the end or lose state payments.
> After a wave of protests last month ministers announced youngsters would no longer be sanctioned for quitting placements.
> ...


 
You are automatically 'feckless' if you don't live with your children? I'm sure many fathers in that situation would dearly love to have their children living with them but find that circumstances (most likely including the punitive and arbitrary rules on benefit claims) dictate otherwise. Yet more disgraceful nonsense from Policy Exchange, who the fuck are these people anyway?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 14, 2012)

treelover said:


> The Govt, Labour, and the media are doing a very very good job of convincing most people that they are...


 
I don't think anyone looking for employment in one of the countless unemployment blackspots (anywhere except Aberdeen or St Albans basically) could believe that it is their fault that thirty people are chasing every single minimum wage job. Government and press announcements to the contrary are more likely to induce murderous rage than guilt IME.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Mar 14, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> What happens if you're too ill to go on it? Which sounds pretty stupid because you've got to be ill in the first place to get on disability/ sickness benefits.


WRA States to WPs that they will be paid according to the status of referred person at time of refferal. If that status changes, They become ill or get better then the payment to them will remain at initial referral status. I'll try and find the legislation. 

So I'm classed as "fit" by ATOS at the moment. I may fall apart while on the WP and be put into the WRAG or Support category. I will not be allowed out of the WP unless I'm put in the support group. Given that the criteria for the support group is extreme disability or near death, almost everyone who is on JSA/ESA will be put on the WP. It'll be up to the Work Provider who will be allowed to access your medical status to decide what to do with you. 

Yes they will be allowed to acces your medical status.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Mar 14, 2012)

Policy Exchange. Is that the Think Tank that despicable bastard James Purnell now works for?


----------



## treelover (Mar 14, 2012)

'Since losing government funding the organisation I work/worked for has not renewed the contract of most employees. Now; even though I'm still officially employed by the organisation and therefore don't appear on any unemployment figures, I am on a zero hours contract - which quite often means I get 'zero hours work'. I work in adult education (IT) and even though there are over a million NEETS (School leavers not in employment, education or training). The adult education budget has been slashed'


in light of the latest employment figures, this post from Guardian CIF is revealing, it just shows how really fucked people are now, and how its going to get worse..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2012)

Frankie Jack said:


> Policy Exchange. Is that the Think Tank that despicable bastard James Purnell now works for?


 
No, Purnell works for the IPPR, *anther* bunch of neo-liberal cocksuckers who dress their quasi-fascism up in left-wing clothing.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 14, 2012)

Frankie Jack said:


> WRA States to WPs that they will be paid according to the status of referred person at time of refferal. If that status changes, They become ill or get better then the payment to them will remain at initial referral status. I'll try and find the legislation.
> 
> So I'm classed as "fit" by ATOS at the moment. I may fall apart while on the WP and be put into the WRAG or Support category. I will not be allowed out of the WP unless I'm put in the support group. Given that the criteria for the support group is extreme disability or near death, almost everyone who is on JSA/ESA will be put on the WP. It'll be up to the Work Provider who will be allowed to access your medical status to decide what to do with you.
> 
> Yes they will be allowed to acces your medical status.


I sort of meant what happens when you phone in sick. The scenario of having money docked because you didn't work, precisely the benefits that you're supposed to get because you are sick in the first place?


----------



## Frankie Jack (Mar 14, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I sort of meant what happens when you phone in sick. The scenario of having money docked because you didn't work, precisely the benefits that you're supposed to get because you are sick in the first place?


Ah sorry Angel. Misunderstood. Not sure what will happen for those on ESA. For JSA claimants I'm hoping that the ability to self sick twice in a 6 month period will still be in place and that it applies to those on ESA too.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 14, 2012)

Frankie Jack said:


> Ah sorry Angel. Misunderstood. Not sure what will happen for those on ESA. For JSA claimants I'm hoping that the ability to self sick twice in a 6 month period will still be in place and that it applies to those on ESA too.


Would make sense for people on disability benefits to self sick note more than that, else the doctors surgeries are going to be full. (And they charge for a sick note as well £15 a time here! How do you pay that out of benefits?)


----------



## Frankie Jack (Mar 14, 2012)

They charge you for a sick note..!! What the fuck..!! Where's that and is it normal for docs to charge in England..? I'm seriously taken aback at that..

Edited to add. Ahhhh.. 

GPs are not obliged to issue NHS medical certificates for periods of sickness of less than seven days' duration. However, if a patient requires a short-term certificate, the GP is entitled to charge a fee. It is clearly not an appropriate use of NHS time, however, to see patients for no other purpose than to provide a sick certificate


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 14, 2012)

Frankie Jack said:


> They charge you for a sick note..!! What the fuck..!! Where's that and is it normal for docs to charge in England..? I'm seriously taken aback at that..


Well, they charge you for a letter at least, so I would have thought it was kind of the same thing. I got charged for more or less a well note, to try and convince the school not to keep sending home sons on spurious reasons when nothing was wrong with them!


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

That could be another useful vulnerability.

Sick people can sign themselves off sick whenever they are sick, which could mean daily.

Their GPs, who will mostly be very unhappy that their clinical judgement has been overturned by an unregistered medic with a checklist.

It would be irresponsible of GPs to sign off people who might conceivably be able to work for more than a day or two at a time.

Billing (*not* charging) their patients for 2-3 sick notes a week would produce an incredibly costly PR problem for DWP.

And no disabled person need ever turn up to do unpaid labour unless they think it will be worthwhile for them.


----------



## harpo (Mar 14, 2012)

Frankie Jack said:


> Ah sorry Angel. Misunderstood. Not sure what will happen for those on ESA. For JSA claimants I'm hoping that the ability to self sick twice in a 6 month period will still be in place and that it applies to those on ESA too.


 Twice in a YEAR, surely.  And the first you will know is when you get a claim closure letter.  This isn't a sanction it's a closure, which will fuck up HB claims.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 15, 2012)

Yata said:


> Just got a letter saying im gonna be on work related ESA from April and need to see an adviser about work at some point as well as have an assessment. Does this mean I'll be on this workfare thing soon? Cause I already found a placement with a charity doing admin but I dunno how much to tell this advisor cause I haven't told social anything yet don't like talking to them but if I say I'm doing this admin work which might actually get me somewhere seems like they're gpnna knock me down to jsa and then onto the shelf stacking if I don't find anything? which would be a bit counter productive for me really. Don't understand any of this didn't even know about workfare till last week. Should I be honest about the placement I got or what? I'm a shit liar but don't want them to say I'm fit for work and end up a tesco slave when I could be better off with what I'm doing and the support I get at the charity :s


 
Sorry mate, only just seen this. Text me when you're free for a phone call and we'll see what we can do. I'm assuming you've had the medical then? Why the fuck haven't you told me about this before?


----------



## binka (Mar 15, 2012)

http://www.fish4.co.uk/jobs/search/orgid-1086106658/

at my last place they made about 50-100 people redundant throughout the company a couple of months before christmas (the company was in profit btw) rumour was just before i left that the company would be taking advantage of government apprentice schemes this year in order to replace the people they binned. basically getting rid of experienced staff and replacing them with apprentices doing exactly the same job on half / third of the pay.

obviously i think some of those jobs i linked to above may be genuine apprenticeships. but sales apprentice ffs?

"During your apprenticeship you will earn £400 per month plus commission, so a great opportunity to earn while you learn. Additionally you will benefit from bespoke training and development that is delivered throughout the 20 months of your apprenticeship. "​ 
20 months to learn how to do tele sales? i thought it was bad enough that pretty much the only jobs available in abundance are minimum wage sales jobs (plus ote of course!) but apparently even that is too generous​


----------



## BigTom (Mar 15, 2012)

http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=851

employee from one of the workfare provider companies spills the beans.. they won't say which company they worked for because they say that it's all the companies that are like that, and it shouldn't be about one company - it should be about all of them..
Definitely need more of this kind of stuff - a4e might be going down, but lets not stop there, pressure them to look at all the providers and reveal the rotten greedy bastards.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 15, 2012)

BigTom said:


> http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=851
> 
> employee from one of the workfare provider companies spills the beans.. they won't say which company they worked for because they say that it's all the companies that are like that, and it shouldn't be about one company - it should be about all of them..
> Definitely need more of this kind of stuff - a4e might be going down, but lets not stop there, pressure them to look at all the providers and reveal the rotten greedy bastards.


From that this bit jumped out at me:


> The service as a whole, reacted to this with discrimination and confusion, blinded by the articulate and well presented city type who were classed by us as “work ready”. We went to great lengths to ensure that this ‘special class’ of people did not have to endure the punitive measures that were set out for the rest of the cohort if they failed any of their job seeking obligations. Many of this ‘special class’ often refused to consider opportunities of less than £50k or more, and this was routinely tolerated. Other jobseekers in exactly the same position save for the fact they were used to minimum wage and perhaps less interpersonal vigour, were relegated to the cattle class and rigorously pursued, and then penalised if they were not shown to be taking opportunities presented to them.


 
Which would chime in with what I've been reading about people with disabilities or on sickness benefit being sanctioned many many more times than those on JSA without disability.
http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/201...pplied-to-sick-and-disabled-people-last-year/


----------



## treelover (Mar 16, 2012)

O.P.A.W. has received a blog entry from someone who is well experienced with the ‘client focussed’ nature of A4e. The author wishes to remain anonymous as the threat of future sanctions is a very real one when speaking out against the governments work providers. We thank the author hugely for the insight that this piece delivers.'
'http://onlineprotestagainstworkfare.wordpress.com/'

Another insider story, its incredible all this wasn't challenged earlier by WILOTL, progressives, etc, imo, Welfare to Work, workfare, etc, is(along with warfare) the 'ideological spearhead' of neo-liberalism and to read of the cavalier way Gov'ts have allowed the providers to operate speaks volumes..

btw, what is interesting (as with this blog), the people getting involved with the anti-workfare stuff are not just the 'usual suspects' but citizens who just see it as unfair and unjust...


----------



## treelover (Mar 16, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/16/miliband-labour-youth-unemployment-work-experience

Oh and Labour attempt to beat the Condems from the right, endorsing workfare and adding some nasty sanctions themselves....

though in the G Wintour spins it into something positive.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 16, 2012)

treelover said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/16/miliband-labour-youth-unemployment-work-experience
> 
> Oh and Labour attempt to beat the Condems from the right, endorsing workfare and adding some nasty sanctions themselves....
> 
> though in the G Wintour spins it into something positive.


 
What Milliband says in the article:



> To business, we say 'we'll pay the wages if you provide the training'; to young people, 'if you're out of work for a year we'll guarantee you the opportunity to work'."


 
What he means:



> To business, we say "we'll provide you with free labour if you provide the usual training for the job"; to young people, "if you're out of work, we'll force you to work for a company on a short-term contract rather than spend the money creating proper jobs in the public sector", to the daily mail readership we (don't) say "ahahahahha you're paying for business' wage bills and you love it because we've got you to hate the unemployed so much"


----------



## treelover (Mar 19, 2012)

'During the past three decades, Guy Standing argues, politicians struck a Faustian
pact. In return for ‘labour market flexibility’, government would top up declining wages
through subsidies and tax credits and redirect social protection from an emphasis
on social solidarity and social insurance to means-tested social assistance. In the
 aftermath of rioting, they must now face the following fact: it is the economic policies they have
supported that are a major cause of the underlying malaise.'

End of a Faustian Pact: Workfare and riots
http://www.cpag.org.uk/info/Povertyarticles/Poverty140/CPAG_Poverty140_Faustian_workfare_riots.pdf


Good CPAG article by Guy Standing, author of 'The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class'


----------



## BigTom (Mar 19, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/18/back-to-work-court-hearing

Court hearing granted for 2 of the court cases - Cait Reilly's challenge to Sector Based Work Academies (she was sent on the "work experience scheme" as part of the (totally mandatory) SBWA, and had to leave a voluntary post at the Birmingham Pen Museum in order to do it) and for someone who is challenging the Community Activity Programme (which is 6 months placements, supposedly in community roles - but there was an expose in the Guardian not too far back that showed how people that were supposed to be on community placements were actually being used by private, profit making companies).

May sometime.. hopefully will rule that these schemes do constitute forced labour under the ECHR so they'll be stopped .... until the Tories pull us out of the ECHR of course.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2012)

Jobseekers who shunned voluntary scheme forced to do unpaid work




> Jobseekers have been made to do compulsory unpaid work for up to eight weeks after refusing to take part in the voluntary work experience scheme.
> The revelation, supported by documents released through the Freedom of Information Act, calls into question the concessions made to the programme last month, which removed a two-week benefit sanction imposed on those dropping out of the voluntary scheme, as refusal to complete a mandatory placement can lead to jobseekers' benefits being stopped for three to six months.
> Others have reported being placed on mandatory work schemes just weeks after signing on to claim unemployment benefits.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 20, 2012)

fucking tory scum somehow seems inadequate


----------



## BigTom (Mar 20, 2012)

One Quarter of Holland and Barrett staff may be workfare slaves

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/201...lland-barrett-staff-could-be-workfare-slaves/

The logic runs that h&b have 3,500 staff and will be taking 1,000 workfare placements over the next 12 months.

I know Johnny likes the hyperbolic statements (and I love him for them) but it'll be nowhere near 1/4.
Even if all of those are the 6 month placements, that means 500 FTE over the year (1/7th).  At a minimum they could all be 2 week placements, which is only equivalent to 40 jobs.  I've no idea how many of the work experience placements are 2 weeks - I think 4 or 5 weeks is more typical, in which case it'd be around 100 jobs.

still, nice to get more numbers on this.  h&b are on Kings Heath high street so I think I might be bringing up this at our meeting on thursday.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 20, 2012)

some of their current staff might be temporary.  taking this into account, if they reduce their paid staff by a thousand and replace them with workfare staff that that could be as many as a third!!!  

(nearly)


----------



## BigTom (Mar 20, 2012)

It's exactly the kind of statistical jiggery pokery the govt. used when declaring a 50% success rate and therefore perfectly fine


----------



## smokedout (Mar 20, 2012)

hyperbole aside, when you consider tesco only had around 1,200 people on the WE its a very big number for much smaller company and seems to suggest that companies are doing this for more than altruistic reasons as has been claimed, i doubt h&b could afford to take that many placements unless they were making a profit from it

from what I can tell h&b have quite a comprehensive training scheme, i'd suggest they've found a way to get the government to pay for this - the ones they want they can train up as witchdoctors and keep them on workfare, the ones they dont they can get to stack shelves for a couple of months and then fob them off


----------



## BigTom (Mar 20, 2012)

Absolutely - Tesco were taking 3,000 over a year but they are a far, far larger employer.  And for Tesco as well, it might be seen to be worth doing even if it wasn't profitable directly as a bargaining chip with govt. to make sure they are able to keep getting whatever planning permission they want / not have a supermarket regulator / whatever else they need from govt.



smokedout said:


> from what I can tell h&b have quite a comprehensive training scheme, i'd suggest they've found a way to get the government to pay for this - the ones they want they can train up as witchdoctors and keep them on workfare, the ones they dont they can get to stack shelves for a couple of months and then fob them off


 
This is I think is absolutely true - something I keep saying on demos is that when I was 16, with no work experience, I got a job (at McDonalds) with a 1 month probation period.  Now taxpayers are paying for that probation period.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 20, 2012)

exactly.

The way it should as a kid with no experience is the company takes you on, pays you minimum wage while it trains you up for whatever menial role they've got going, then you gradually pick up more experience, get bumped up the scale to something less menial etc etc.

The employers already have lower minimum wage levels for 16-17 and 18-20 year olds, as well as the ability to sack anyone on the spot for the first month their employed, which should easily be enough flexibility for them to take on these age ranges.

I can't see any way at all that this can be doing anything other thanthe  replacing these entry level paid roles that this age range have always taken to get into the job market with unpaid roles which will be filled by the exact same young people who'd have otherwise been getting the paid roles that have been lost.

The other aspect being that it will also be taking away the basic part time roles that 16-17 year olds rely on to get them through while in 6th form / college, at the exact same time as they've removed the EMA payments.

This basically comes across as a deliberate concerted attack on the youth of the country other than those rich enough not to have to work until they've finished University and the old boy network can sort them out. Well, them and the sick, the elderly, and basically anyone who didn't go to Eton.

utmost respect for those taking action to challenge this bullshit.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 21, 2012)

Sat March 31st, SolFed called a day of action..

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/03/493775.html

Bristol, Brighton, London, Lincoln and Liverpool 

Also event planned in Halifax & Manchester and one going on in Edinburgh: http://www.facebook.com/events/213729382068549/ 

We've got an organising meeting in Birmingham on the 29th, I don't think we'll do anything on the 31st.  This issue is still live and wants pressure brought to bear right now.  They are seriously in trouble over this, charities are flustered and could start pulling out in droves and PCS are possibly feeling a bit bolder about this at the moment, I know they're focussed on pensions but I hope that they're going to actually start doing something in terms of finding ways for JCP staff to not send people on the schemes / not sanction people.


----------



## jan9206 (Apr 14, 2012)

Hi, long-time lurker here, I've been following this topic with interest for some time now due to my own experiences and am just delurking in order to share. Bit of a complicated story, so apologies in advance for length.

I was made redundant from my call centre job in March 2011 and managed to pay the rent after that by doing various temp jobs, but even that dried up after about six months and by October, I had no choice but to sign on. A month after that, I turned 25, so although I'd heard some fucking ridiculous stories from friends about this "work experience" bullshit - including my former colleague's brother who was actually prevented by the DSS from taking a job as a bouncer in FAVOUR of this stupid free labour - I thought it wouldn't apply to me, which technically it doesn't, although between then and now I have been ROYALLY fucked about, big time; being told first one thing, then another. 

In January 2012, my JSA advisor - a genuinely helpful bloke - asked me to email him a copy of my CV, which he said he would forward onto any interested parties needing call centre or office staff, which is my general line of experience anyway, so that was fine. Two days later he emailed me to say that a certain company was opening in Birmingham city centre who had some market research/customer service/admin roles and that they were interested in my CV, BUT they wanted me to do 2 months' work experience first. I did remind him of my change of age but he said it depended what the employer wanted, and that he was prepared to make an exception in my case. I wasn't particularly happy about this, but couldn't really afford to have my benefits stopped either, so I agreed to go along with it. 

                                                                                                         That evening, I had a phone call from the business owner himself, who sounded really nice and asked me about myself and my work history, after chatting for 10 minutes we arranged to meet at my local Jobcentre (Ladywood for any Brummies reading - nice to meet you BigTom!) Anyway, I turned up and met him in the flesh - again, came across as a nice guy and there was another girl too, looking to do the same thing as me. He took our full names, addresses, DOBs and NI numbers so he could confirm our identities with Jobcentre bosses, then he asked us to start on March 1st as that's when the premises would be available for use. I was OK with this, but 2 days before we were due to start he phoned me to say I wouldn't be eligible after all - yeah you guessed it - due to my change of age! Although part of me was relieved because I wouldn't have to work for free, I was pissed off that the Jobcentre people were aware of this and insisted it wouldn't be a problem. Especially considering I'd known about this "opportunity" for 2 MONTHS by then, and in that time could have completed the 2 month trial - I refuse to call it work experience as I did that when I was 15 - and started the job proper. 

                                                                                                             I made a complaint to the Jobcentre, who promised to look into it - this was at the beginning of March - and a woman from JCP only just got back to me by phone on April 11th! She said if I still wanted to be on board she would ring the employer and let him know, but that if I didn't want to, she understood and it wouldn't affect my benefits as I am over 25 and not technically obliged to take part. I said I was still happy to work for him but only for a wage. She said she would pass this on and he phoned me yesterday. I told him exactly what I'd told the JCP - that if he wanted to employ me that was great, but I wasn't working for nothing. I suggested the compromise of a temp contract for 2 months paying me a weekly wage and he could always show me the door after that if he wasn't happy with me. He refused to do this as he didn't have any vacancies. I explained it was illegal for him to be taking part in the scheme then, in that case. He got really angry with me, saying he'd been fucked about by the DWP himself as they've now cut his funding, and how come I hadn't objected to WE before. I explained I hadn't realized I had a choice but now I know I do - I don't have to work for nothing and I won't - and the difference between me and him is I have to compromise with JCP in case they slash my benefits, whereas this guy's an employer choosing to take part in this scheme invented by the government, and now he's complaining because they've turned round and bit him in the arse! 

                                                                                                          We were on the phone for more than an hour arguing the toss - him alternating between saying he understood how I felt, then saying I had an entitled attitude, wanting something for nothing, and shame on me for not trusting him! He said he agreed with me that WE is an immoral, exploitative thing for the government to be doing to people but the difference is he's taking part in it for the right reasons, which ended with me bollocking him for being a hypocrite. He claimed he didn't care what I thought about him, to which I asked him why had he spent more than an hour arguing with me on the phone then? He kept asking what had he ever done to me, and that he was offended that I felt this way - when I replied that if he didn't agree with the scheme he shouldn't be taking part in it because that made him just as guilty by association, even if he personally doesn't treat participants like shit. He said he didn't care. (OK, why do you keep asking me then?!) Then he backtracked on not having any payable vacancies, saying that only applied to the researchers' positions, he'd pay people for sales/lead generating, so I said I'd be happy to do that. His response was why should he after the way I'd spoken to him. I was like, "fine, get off me line then! I've told you what will make me trust you, if you can't pay me, fine, but you can't force me to work for you anyway." He said he could pay me a wage but he wouldn't for 2 months. After realizing he couldn't bully me into doing what he wanted, he hung up after an hour. 


I just hope he remembers me for being as stubborn and bloody minded as he is.


Edited because I do understand the importance of paragraphs, thanks Frankie Jack


----------



## Frankie Jack (Apr 14, 2012)

^^ Paragraphs please. ^^


----------



## BigTom (Apr 14, 2012)

Hi Jan9206 

Good on you for not taking this shit, your suggestion of a 2 month probation period seems perfectly reasonable to me, and that he didn't take it just shows that he was after the free labour..
if they try to send you on the work programme soon, have a look at www.consent.me.uk for ways to use the data protection act to stop them from sending you on work placements. 

We're still organising around Birmingham, nothing by you but have a thing in Acocks Green on the 28th, and something in Erdington in May or June, if you fancy getting involved or coming along to either.  Will be doing stuff in the city centre too, but also want to go to some of the high streets around the suburbs of birmingham.


----------



## jan9206 (Apr 14, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Hi Jan9206
> 
> Good on you for not taking this shit, your suggestion of a 2 month probation period seems perfectly reasonable to me, and that he didn't take it just shows that he was after the free labour..
> if they try to send you on the work programme soon, have a look at www.consent.me.uk for ways to use the data protection act to stop them from sending you on work placements.
> ...


 
Nice one dude, that is some useful info to have! I'll definitely try and make it to one of your demos, please do keep me updated.


----------



## BigTom (Apr 14, 2012)

jan9206 said:


> Nice one dude, that is some useful info to have! I'll definitely try and make it to one of your demos, please do keep me updated.


 
Acocks Green on Sat 28th is the next one - simple action, walk of shame down the high street, basically stopping outside lots of shops that are involved in workfare and explaining it bit by bit.
We're meeting at 12 noon outside the British Heart Foundation store which is by the roundabout at Shirley Road / Warwick Road.
I know the 11 and 1 stop there, and think the 35 and 37 do, or the train station is nearby.
So if you can make that it'd be great - I'll be guiding the walk so you'll know who I am 

I'll let you know when any other dates are sorted and hopefully you'll be able to make it to one.


----------



## purenarcotic (Apr 14, 2012)

BT let me know about future dates please, the 28th is a no go for me, it's 2 days before a final.


----------



## treelover (Apr 15, 2012)

Hi Jan, incredibly brave that you acted the way you did, have you posted this to Boycott Workfare?

welcome to the boards (as a poster!)


----------



## binka (Apr 15, 2012)

jan9206 said:


> He got really angry with me, saying he'd been fucked about by the DWP himself as they've now cut his funding,


does anyone know what that funding is he is refering to?


----------



## BigTom (Apr 15, 2012)

jan9206 said:


> Nice one dude, that is some useful info to have! I'll definitely try and make it to one of your demos, please do keep me updated.





purenarcotic said:


> BT let me know about future dates please, the 28th is a no go for me, it's 2 days before a final.


 
Going to be in Erdington on May 19th for a walk of shame, probably 11am meeting, but I'll let you know the details once sorted if you reckon you can make the date and want to come.


----------



## BigTom (Apr 15, 2012)

binka said:


> does anyone know what that funding is he is refering to?


 
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


----------



## jan9206 (Apr 15, 2012)

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.


----------



## jan9206 (Apr 16, 2012)

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!


----------



## Balbi (Apr 18, 2012)

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

The bastards


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 18, 2012)

ouch!


----------



## Balbi (Apr 18, 2012)

@ the targeted bastardry of it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 18, 2012)

Balbi said:


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


 
Even more reason to gut the bastards like fish!!


----------



## treelover (May 27, 2012)

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'


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2012)

DWP's own assessment of mandatory work activity programme finds it has 'no impact on the likelihood of being employed'



> Thousands of jobseekers have been referred to a mandatory work scheme that has done nothing for their employment chances, has made them more likely to claim benefits in the long run, and may have had adverse consequences on their physical and mental health, government research has found.


----------



## krink (Jun 13, 2012)

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


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 13, 2012)

The Bastards said:
			
		

> the 'Polly Toynbee left'.


 


Sufficiently left to be a lib-dem cheerleader?


----------



## BigTom (Jun 13, 2012)

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



> what the analysis shows is that the programme as currently structured is not working. It has no impact on employment; it leads to a small and transitory reduction in benefit receipt; and worst of all, it may even lead to those on the programme moving from Jobseekers' Allowance to Employment and Support Allowance.


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


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 13, 2012)

> a small and transitory reduction in benefit receipt


 
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?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 13, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


> 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?


 
Highly unlikely.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 13, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


> 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?


 
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


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 13, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Highly unlikely.


 


BigTom said:


> No


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


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 13, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


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


 
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.


----------



## treelover (Jul 15, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jul/15/welfare-work-firm-bankrupt

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...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2012)

treelover said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jul/15/welfare-work-firm-bankrupt
> 
> 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.


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



> I'm sure the claimants who were forced into cheap labour thought that all along...


 
When they had enough energy to think.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2012)

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?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 15, 2012)

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


----------



## elbows (Jul 15, 2012)

Thats a shame isnt it 

Oh more bad news, how tragic:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jul/15/labour-work-programme-chaos



> The government's flagship employment scheme is facing an "almighty mess", Labour has said, after a revision of official forecasts showed 1 million fewer people would be eligible.
> In the latest blow to the work programme, in which companies are paid by results to find work for the long-term unemployed, the government has almost halved the number of people expected to use the scheme. There are now fears that people hired to find work for the unemployed could in turn lose their jobs.
> Liam Byrne, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said: "Chaos is engulfing the government's flagship back-to-work scheme.Unemployment is at a 16-year high and yet welfare to work now appears to be in the hands of the Keystone Cops."
> The government disclosed in May that 1.4 million people would be eligible for the scheme, rather than the 2.6 million forecast in December. This represents a 43% fall in the number of people expected to go through the work programme between now and 2015-16.


----------



## JHE (Jul 15, 2012)

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.


----------



## nogojones (Jul 15, 2012)

First one to go through the hoop.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jul/15/welfare-work-firm-bankrupt


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 15, 2012)

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.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 6, 2012)

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

http://www.publicinterestlawyers.co.uk/news_details.php?id=268



> In a decision that has potentially far-reaching consequences the Judge held that the decision to strip our client of his benefits for six months was unlawful because the DWP failed, as required by law, to provide information to him about the consequences of not participating in the scheme. Mr Wilson received the DWP’s standard form letters requiring his attendance on the Community Action Programme. These letters, which have been sent out to thousands of other people mandating their attendance on such schemes, failed to comply with the basic notice requirements that would allow the DWP to lawfully impose benefit sanctions.
> 
> *Over the last year, across the country, tens of thousands of people have been stripped of their benefits and must now be entitled to reimbursement by the DWP.*


 
(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.


----------



## savoloysam (Aug 6, 2012)

krink said:


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


 
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.


----------



## treelover (Aug 6, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/aug/06/unpaid-work-scheme-ruled-lawful-poundland

Cait lost, forced labour is now effectively codified in british law(though whether Scotland will accept it is another matter)


----------



## Greebo (Aug 6, 2012)

BigTom said:


> 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
> <snip> 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.


 
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.


----------



## treelover (Aug 6, 2012)

'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..


----------



## treelover (Aug 6, 2012)

''characterising such a scheme as involving or being analogous to 'slavery' or 'forced labour' seems to me to be a long way from contemporary thinking". "

Judges comments'



But whose contemporary thinking?, the DWP, The Gov't, the man in the street or the saloon bar?, the Daily Mail, the Sun?, his rich privately educated milieu?

whom?

I reckon lots of people would donate to an appeal


----------



## BigTom (Aug 6, 2012)

There'll still be legal aid for the appeal.. an tbh, I reckon given the amount of news coverage, PIL might take it forward for free anyway, from what I know the head person/found of PIL loves to see his name/his company in the news.

I was on BBC RadioWM again this morning, on first had a little say then listened to the rest of the program, had some boss of Pertemps on defending the scheme, having a go at cait for not wanting to be forced to work in poundland whilst totally ignoring that she was volunteering elsewhere already (although I'd made that point very strongly so listeners do know she was forced to leave a voluntary position) and claiming people have enhanced benefits on the SBWA.  I wish I'd been on at the same time as him so I could have torn him a new one.  I did however tweet to Adrian Goldberg (presenting the show) that there was no enhanced benefits and he did read it out and question the Pertemps guy who basically went "look, I work for Pertemps and they have enhanced benefits, ok!".  
Fucking hate how these people just lie about things, Adrian is pretty good as far as presenters go but doesn't have the specific knowledge to challenge these statements.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 6, 2012)

treelover said:


> ''characterising such a scheme as involving or being analogous to 'slavery' or 'forced labour' seems to me to be a long way from contemporary thinking". "
> 
> Judges comments'
> 
> ...


 
Quite, as a summing up it's just infested with ideology rather than law. Following the same logic you should never rule against any legislation framed by the government, as it clearly represents mainstream contemporary thinking.

Essentially it boils down to "there's no whipping involved so it's not forced labour".


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 6, 2012)

> A DWP spokeswoman said: "We are delighted, although not surprised, that the judge agrees our schemes are not forced labour.
> "Comparing our initiatives to slave labour is not only ridiculous but insulting to people around the world facing real oppression.
> "Thousands of young people across the country are taking part in our schemes and gaining the vital skills and experience needed to help them enter the world of work – it is making a real difference to people's lives.
> *"Those who oppose this process are actually opposed to hard work and they are harming the life chances of unemployed young people who are trying to get on."*


 
I think hard work actually predates workfare by a significant number of millennia. To say that workfare is a necessary condition for hard work to take place is therefore not a case that holds water from a logical standpoint. 

Furthermore, it is not hard work that people are objecting to. There are no protestors hanging around building sites, shipyards, factories or anywhere else where people are getting paid for their day's work, what the protests are about are those instances where people are not getting paid for a day's work. 

I really do think that statements made by government spokespersons should at the very least adhere to established fact and the basic principles of logic, otherwise they're just taking the piss out of us surely?


----------



## treelover (Aug 6, 2012)

i wonder if Newsnight will cover this tonight?


----------



## treelover (Aug 6, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> Quite, as a summing up it's just infested with ideology rather than law. Following the same logic you should never rule against any legislation framed by the government, as it clearly represents mainstream contemporary thinking.
> 
> Essentially it boils down to "there's no whipping involved so it's not forced labour".


 
The thing is 'contemporary thinking' on workfare is almost unanimously against it, public may have an issue with 'scroungers' etc, but polls and the massive public outcry over Tesco indicates mass opposition to all this, so again, whose CT?

now the law is compromised, the country slides ever more into a banana republic


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> I think hard work actually predates workfare by a significant number of millennia. To say that workfare is a necessary condition for hard work to take place is therefore not a case that holds water from a logical standpoint.
> 
> Furthermore, it is not hard work that people are objecting to. There are no protestors hanging around building sites, shipyards, factories or anywhere else where people are getting paid for their day's work, what the protests are about are those instances where people are not getting paid for a day's work.
> 
> I really do think that statements made by *government spokespersons* should at the very least adhere to established fact and the basic principles of logic, otherwise they're just taking the piss out of us surely?


 
The crux of it is that Civil Servants cannot make such partisan statements, so if this was said by a Civil Servant, then they deserve sacking.
If, however, this was a comment made by a political appointee working for the DWP, they can unfortunately get away with it, because the Civil Service Code is difficult to apply to such people/animals/wankers.


----------



## captainmission (Aug 6, 2012)

full judgement here - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/2292.html

ECHR article 4 consideration (whether it's force labour or not) from point 196 onwards.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 6, 2012)

> For my part, I do not see any material distinction in principle between _Van der Mussele_ in terms of the matters considered in that case by the Court to render the requirement on the applicant lawful and the schemes or programmes under challenge in the present case: each can be seen as a step towards obtaining eventual employment for the person concerned.


 
So it seems there was no attempt made to address the question of whether or not these workfare placements were in any way likely to lead to employment. The case this judgement appears to rest on, that of a Belgian trainee lawyer obliged to undertake certain cases for free, is clearly different to Reilly and Wilson's cases as they had no reason to expect that a paid position would result from their efforts on workfare placements. The judge has apparently discounted this fact entirely.

Quite why the judgement of a Belgian court should draw any water with British judges is beyond me.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 6, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> So it seems there was no attempt made to address the question of whether or not these workfare placements were in any way likely to lead to employment. The case this judgement appears to rest on, that of a Belgian trainee lawyer obliged to undertake certain cases for free, is clearly different to Reilly and Wilson's cases as they had no reason to expect that a paid position would result from their efforts on workfare placements. The judge has apparently discounted this fact entirely.
> 
> Quite why the judgement of a Belgian court should draw any water with British judges is beyond me.


 
It's about the European Convention on Human Rights so I would say that is a Belgian court has made a ruling from a challenge under the ECHR, that it would be relevant in a British court.
But I agree that the case (as you've described it, I haven't looked at myself) is clearly different, so hopefully that will provide a point which PIL can use to get an appeal.


----------



## captainmission (Aug 6, 2012)

it was the European court of human rights, not a Belgian court


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2012)

Apparently the report by the DWP on the Jubilee Workfare scandal, where unpaid workers ended up sleeping under a bridge has been completed but Smith/Grayling refuses to publish it!


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 11, 2012)

treelover said:


> Apparently the report by the DWP on the Jubilee Workfare scandal, where unpaid workers ended up sleeping under a bridge has been completed but Smith/Grayling refuses to publish it!


At least whilst the Olympics is still on, in case there's bad publicity. Although you 'd have thought it would have been prime bad news burying time.


----------



## Meltingpot (Aug 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> *The crux of it is that Civil Servants cannot make such partisan statements, so if this was said by a Civil Servant, then they deserve sacking.*
> If, however, this was a comment made by a political appointee working for the DWP, they can unfortunately get away with it, because the Civil Service Code is difficult to apply to such people/animals/wankers.


 
I think this is sometimes ignored when pro-government policy statements are concerned though. It was apparently OK in the 1980s for MoD civil servants to make anti-CND statements to the Press (Frank Cooper comes to mind). Cathy Massiter didn't get such an easy ride, and nor did Clive Ponting.

I've also seen a similar thing in the early days of the CSA in the early 90's, when the *CSA staff administering the policy appeared on a documentary discussing it and speaking for all the world as though they were the government itself ("we're trying to change a whole culture", etc.).

*Whatever you might think of the CSA, back then under Lilley it was totally Treasury-driven and mothers didn't get any of the money at all.


----------



## denniseagle (Aug 12, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Getting fired for organising would be interesting. Legally.


I know of a newly elected shop steward (next day) being  suspended then sacked supposedly for bullying ,incident apparently  occured some 8 weeks prior to election and not  'reported' until day after election......................... appeal and tribunal in progress


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-18887436

http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Bu...ight&utm_medium=OnSite&utm_campaign=copyright

2 Sisters, a catering firm close one factory in Leicester after a series of strikes and open up another in Nottingham with workfare people.

though, all the parties involved try to spin it...


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2012)

just noiced this thread has had 36,000 views!


----------



## Quartz (Sep 12, 2012)

treelover said:


> just noiced this thread has had 36,000 views!


 
Thoroughly deserved. The scummy behaviour of certain employers really needs publicising.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 13, 2012)

Is there a fuill list of workfare 'employers' anywhere?

Sorry if its already on this thread, but I aint trapsing through 50 pages to find it.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 13, 2012)

sim667 said:


> Is there a fuill list of workfare 'employers' anywhere?
> 
> Sorry if its already on this thread, but I aint trapsing through 50 pages to find it.


 
No, you can't get it as the govt. refuse to release lists due to commercial sensitivity (we'll go and demonstrate outside their shops, thus affecting their business).
However they have been told they have to release lists for mandatory work activity:
http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/information-commissioner-slams-chris-grayling-and-dwp/

PArt of the issue of getting a list might also be that on the work programme at least they are passed through a private company that is not directly subject to freedom of information requests and so it may be harder to get that information.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 13, 2012)

BigTom said:


> *No, you can't get it as the govt. refuse to release lists due to commercial sensitivity (we'll go and demonstrate outside their shops, thus affecting their business).*
> However they have been told they have to release lists for mandatory work activity:
> http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/information-commissioner-slams-chris-grayling-and-dwp/
> 
> PArt of the issue of getting a list might also be that on the work programme at least they are passed through a private company that is not directly subject to freedom of information requests and so it may be harder to get that information.


 
This needs to be leaked.

I guess you cant get it under the FOI either?


----------



## BigTom (Sep 13, 2012)

sim667 said:


> This needs to be leaked.
> 
> I guess you cant get it under the FOI either?


 
No, it was FOI requests that led to the refusal to release the lists of work programme contracters/providers, the information commissioner is the ombudsman that you can appeal to when there is a decision not to release info under FoI request.

It's probably even less likely to be leaked than the NHS risk register tbf.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 13, 2012)

Is anyone compiling a list?

That could be an idea


----------



## BigTom (Sep 13, 2012)

yeah, boycott workfare have a list and want people to keep telling them who they are being sent to but it didn't look to be updated online, there may have been issues with verification and companies/orgs complaining they are not taking part when BW have been told they are.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Sep 22, 2012)

Looking at DWP Spends for August 2012 it seems BHS ltd *British Home Stores* are now taking part in the Work Program and Work Based Learning for Adults. For this they have billed the DWP £98.948.00. 

Link to the DWP August 2012 spends will open in cvs .xls spreadsheet if installed. 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dwp-payments-august2012.csv


----------



## JessCarr (Jun 21, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> This raises the interesting question of what happens if you get 'fired' from your mandatory work placement. Only I can imagine my attitude to my beneficiaries would be somewhat less than convivial if I was forced to work for nothing. I can also imagine stealing everything I could lift and burning everything else, management included...


 
I can tell you what happens if you get "fired" from your MAN (Mandatory Work Activity). 

After waiting many weeks you receive a letter containing a series of allegations by the "Employer", up to and including criminal activity. The allegations are not couched as such, eg "It is claimed that ... " Instead they are delivered as facts. "You did this. Why?" Although judgement has not yet been entered, the format is such that it appears to have been, so that all you have to do is try and mitigate your offence.

No accompanying booklet explaining the process. No details as to standard of proof and in whose favour (eg in crime beyond reasonable doubt in favour of Defendant; general civil rule is balance of probs 51% towards applicant or respondent depending on area of law). No details as to who is judging you. Trained lawyers? I think not ... 

You are not given any details. "Staff said you did this." Which staff? When? How often? 

The initial document is a fishing-expedition, inviting self-incrimination as the wretched Respondent desperately second-guesses what the hell this allegation might be referring to.

Appeals process. First off, to an ICE - Independent Case Examiner. Will this character be a lawyer? Can you attend? No. Can the people making the allegations be cross-examined? No. 

What law governs people on MANs? Employment? No. Volunteer regs? No. 

Further appeals are to the ICE, accompanied if I understand the regs - such as they are - aright - by a financial penalty of £5000 if finding against Respondent. 

After that recourse is to the Ombudsman.

In any other court judgement on unsworn documents is the weakest possible form of adjudication, and heavily predisposes the court to a finding against the weaker party. 

NB this para:

"36. You must ascertain if the dismissal was due to behaviour that has fallen below acceptable standards and is considered to be gross misconduct. _Gross misconduct is considered to be Failure To Participate_ (FTP). Further information regarding gross misconduct can be found in Work Programme Guidance Chapter 3c – work experience on a voluntary basis and community benefit work placements. 37. If you consider that the participant has committed gross misconduct you will need to complete the WP08. You are expected to make your own arrangements regarding how you get information about an incident of gross misconduct from the host employer." Chapter 6 Work Programme Provider Guidance. 

So I was sacked unjustly, because I wanted to participate and was dismissed against my will! However, having failed to participate, for whatever reason, the case is proven. 

I was bullied throughout my 4-week placement and mistreated very badly from the off. Travel time is supposed to be a max of 3 hours a day; I was doing over 4.  The allegations against me are lies and one is a defamatory allegation of persistent criminal misconduct. I fully expect the finding to be against me, to be sanctioned, and to have a permanent smear on my record at the DWP. 

There is no longer any advice about welfare law available from solicitors in this area. There is no longer any legal aid available to claimants in this area. The work activity provider is a subsidiary of one of Emma Harrison's outfits, and operates in an employment blackspot.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 21, 2013)

JessCarr said:


> I can tell you what happens if you get "fired" from your MAN (Mandatory Work Activity).
> 
> After waiting many weeks you receive a letter containing a series of allegations by the "Employer", up to and including criminal activity. The allegations are not couched as such, eg "It is claimed that ... " Instead they are delivered as facts. "You did this. Why?" Although judgement has not yet been entered, the format is such that it appears to have been, so that all you have to do is try and mitigate your offence.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you for posting this, sorry that you (and probably many others) have been treated so badly.


----------



## cemertyone (Jul 2, 2013)

so instead of working for Poundland..im starting to work for a charity thats brings excess for to the needy....


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 3, 2013)

JessCarr said:


> I can tell you what happens if you get "fired" from your MAN (Mandatory Work Activity).
> 
> After waiting many weeks you receive a letter containing a series of allegations by the "Employer", up to and including criminal activity. The allegations are not couched as such, eg "It is claimed that ... " Instead they are delivered as facts. "You did this. Why?" Although judgement has not yet been entered, the format is such that it appears to have been, so that all you have to do is try and mitigate your offence.


 
Did you get this letter from the DWP or from your 'employer'? Was it related to your dismissal or to a benefit sanction which resulted from it?



> So I was sacked unjustly, because I wanted to participate and was dismissed against my will! However, having failed to participate, for whatever reason, the case is proven.


 
So if I understand you right you've been sanctioned by the DWP for not turning up to your placement, and the only reason you didn't turn up is because you'd been fired? I suppose then the DWP need only prove that you haven't been at your placement in order to apply the sanction, and needn't concern themselves with the reasons why you hadn't been on your placement. 

In any case, this sounds like a fucking horrible situation and one which shows that you have pretty much no option but to stick with a workfare placement no matter what. As usual with these issues, I'm at once appalled and not in the least bit surprised


----------

