HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in
Latest topics
» Are you more or less likely to fight Maximus since it hired Sue Marsh?
Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:36 pm by Admin

» Maximus and the Gestapo (Bill Gunnyeon)
Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:30 pm by Admin

» Company fined millions for fraud in US tipped to take over hated fit-for-work tests
Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:26 pm by Admin

»  Work And Pensions Committee: Post-Match Analysis II Overview
Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:25 pm by Admin

» Where's Maximus
Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:23 pm by Admin

» Concern as Maximus recruits former DWP ‘fit for work’ boss
Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:21 pm by Admin

» Template Letter to Request That Your WCA be Recorded
Thu Nov 20, 2014 11:04 pm by Admin

» Template letter requesting mandatory reconsideration.
Thu Nov 20, 2014 11:03 pm by Admin

» GP Template PIP
Thu Nov 20, 2014 11:02 pm by Admin

» PIP Diary templates
Thu Nov 20, 2014 11:01 pm by Admin

» SAR for PIP Documents
Thu Nov 20, 2014 11:00 pm by Admin

» Use this to demand your WCA documents off the DWP/Atos
Thu Nov 20, 2014 10:59 pm by Admin

» Template letter for SAR ESA
Thu Nov 20, 2014 10:58 pm by Admin

» Nothing to do with this forum
Thu Jul 17, 2014 10:18 pm by Admin

» Benefits cap is evidence of Tories' vile political smearing of sick, disabled and jobless poor
Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:45 am by whybother

» 'Murdering scumbags': How did outsourcing get into this mess
Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:58 am by whybother

» A full house on Benefits Street
Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:53 am by whybother

» I take my hat off to Iain Duncan Smith. Only he could turn a disability crisis into a fiasco
Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:51 am by Davo

» Battle for Britain
Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:48 am by Sicknote

» Hopefully it's last we hear of Atos
Mon Mar 10, 2014 6:33 pm by Itsonlymedontworry


Share | 
 

 Government blocks publication of names of 'workfare' employers

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Admin
Admin
avatar

Posts : 68
Join date : 2012-10-24

PostSubject: Government blocks publication of names of 'workfare' employers   Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:09 am

Government blocks publication of names of 'workfare' employers

DWP appeals against ruling that businesses and charities in mandatory work activity programme must be revealed



The Department of Work and Pensions is refusing to publish the names of charities and businesses where tens of thousands of unemployed people are being made to work without pay for four weeks at a time.

In a battle with the information commissioner, the DWP has said that the government's mandatory work programme would "collapse" if the names were made public due to the likelihood of protests against the organisations involved.

In August the commissioner ruled that the names should be released. However, in a 14-page appeal document leaked to the Guardian, DWP lawyers have argued that the details of companies and charities involved in the mandatory work activity scheme – which compels unemployed people to do 30 hours of unpaid labour a week in order to retain their jobseeker's allowance – must remain secret.

The Guardian has also learned that the British Heart Foundation – one of the largest charities already known to be associated with the mandatory work activity scheme (MWA) – is to drop out of the programme, moving instead toward a more long-term voluntary scheme.

During the nine month secrecy battle – directly sanctioned by employment minister at the time, Chris Grayling – the DWP has fought hard against releasing the full list of names of organisations involved.

Government lawyers say the entire scheme would have come unhinged had they released placement details at the time of the request because campaign groups would have focused their protests and forced the charities and businesses involved to withdraw.

"Previous targeted campaigns had resulted in the withdrawal of providers from MWA and WE [work experience]," the leaked document reveals. "The DWP considered that, of all the workfare programmes being described externally as 'workfare schemes', the MWA programme was the most likely to be influenced by pressure from campaign groups and negative publicity, given that MWA programmes were generally provided by charitable organisations … and the placements were mandatory," lawyers said.

"Put simply, disclosure [of names] would have been likely to have led to the collapse of the MWA scheme, with incalculable losses to the taxpayer and many thousands of persons in long-term unemployment who are supported by the scheme," the appeal states.

Since its introduction in May 2011, mandatory work activity has been the subject of fierce criticism from campaigners who say that it represents a form of 'forced labour' or workfare.

The government's own research also showed that the scheme does not help the unemployed to get a job once they've finished the four weeks of work. It also had no effect on getting people off benefits in the long term.

Following a change in the rules a fortnight ago, unemployed people who refuse to take the unpaid placements can have their jobseeker's allowance stripped from them for up to three years. The appeal, filed on 27 September, also reveals that those involved in MWA "tend to be charitable organisations". Previously the DWP has given assurances that only organisations who provide 'social benefit' could take part in MWA. Campaigners say it is of paramount public interest to know how many profit-making businesses are involved in using labour from forced work schemes.

Using a freedom of information request, the Guardian was able to discover that unpaid jobseekers were being used by businesses to clean private homes.

In a statement about their withdrawal from the MWA scheme, the British Heart Foundation's retail director, Mike Taylor, said: "We rely on our fantastic BHF volunteers to help us fight heart disease and are very proud of the training, skills and experience we can offer people working in our shops. Last year alone we helped over 600 staff and volunteers gain vocational qualifications.

"We are always striving to improve the ways in which we recruit and retain volunteers. Currently we are moving away from involvement in the mandatory work activity programme towards schemes which provide longer term voluntary placements."

BHF said it was now working with Jobcentre Plus to "actively promote volunteering as an option for people from all walks of life who find themselves unemployed."

Campaign group Boycott Workfare, welcomed BHF's move. "It is good to see a charity that was using workfare on a massive scale acknowledge that forced unpaid work isn't palatable for their supporters or customers."

"For workfare to succeed, the government needs charities to co-operate. We hope BHF's retreat marks a new line in the sand: charities should not be making people poorer by putting them at risk of benefit stoppages. They have an ethical obligation not to profit from forced unpaid work."

Commenting on the FoI battle, Joanna Long from Boycott Workfare said: "That the government fears MWA would collapse if it publishes who is using workfare reveals how unsuccessful and unpopular with the public these schemes are.

"With people now compelled to work without pay on threat of three-year benefit stoppages, alongside a scarcity of jobs and overtime this Christmas, it is really important that information about the schemes is published so they can be held to account."

The DWP said it would not comment "on ongoing litigation". However, speaking about the BHF's move, a spokesperson said: "Mandatory work activity placements benefit local communities while giving jobseekers valuable skills. We are grateful for the support of the charitable sector in helping unemployed people re-engage with the system and move closer to work.

"British Heart Foundation has assured us their decision to move away from mandatory work activity has not been influenced by any protests and they are working with Jobcentre Plus to promote longer-term volunteering."
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://atosdwp.your-talk.com
 
Government blocks publication of names of 'workfare' employers
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 :: Media ?-
Jump to: