General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs it Slavery Yet - DWP orders man to work without pay for company that let him go
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/03/dwp-benefits-electrician-work-placement-labour<snip>
Electronics specialist John McArthur, now unemployed, says he is living off 16p tins of spaghetti and without heating after being sanctioned by a jobcentre for refusing to work unpaid for LAMH Recycle in Motherwell, a Scottish social enterprise.
He says he was happy to work for LAMH under the now-defunct future jobs fund for the minimum wage in 2010-2011, but refuses on principle to do the same job unpaid.
McArthur, 59, says he is surviving on a monthly pension of £149 after the DWP stopped his unemployment benefit until January as punishment for his refusal to go on the 26-week community work placement (CWP).
For almost three months, McArthur has spent two hours each weekday morning parading outside the plant wearing a placard reading: Say no to slave labour.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Interesting story, and pretty widespread. Good for him.
Wonder about the companies profiting from the taxpayer-provided labor...
"
...
Last Wednesday, the DWP continued to battle the information commissioner and hostile court judgments ordering it to reveal where possibly hundreds of thousands of people are being sent to work without pay, sometimes for months at a time.
At the tribunal, the DWP argued that if the public knew exactly where people were being sent on placements political protests would increase, which was likely to lead to the collapse of several employment schemes and undermine the governments economic interests.
...
We are not naming the charities and community groups involved in the scheme in order to protect them from those who seem intent on stopping us helping people into work.
If there was sunlight into their slavery the public wouldn't like it, so we don't want to give you info.
Please, I would like the name of the person who thought that argument up, so I can avoid them in the future.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Pay people with public money to go do some sort of social good that needs to be done?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)day telling them to go do it for free. And oh, btw, we are going to take this other money that wasn't contingent too, if I understand his protest.
Change of rules, seems unfair from afar - and even if we don't think it is, he does, and that's enough for me.
In this case it's not exactly public or charity work, rather, it's for private profit run under charity umbrellas which I see as much different. Even if that isn't the case, if there is work that needs to be done they need to pay a wage.
I do think some effort should be a part of unemployment, if it really is to be a stopgap between jobs. Getting together, studying the market, realizing that the people you elected really don't give a rat's ass about you or your neighbors and you are on your own - maybe you can go in on a coop lawnmower and earn a few bucks together?
Unemployment It is not earned money, it is money paid into an insurance fund from which people who have a valid claim can be paid, to guard against what happens. I think limits against it becoming a vacation fund are appropriate.
But once that job is gone no one really knows if it is coming back. (I'm not talking about the arranged corporate giveaway to keep seasonal employees coming back) so there should be lots, and lots, and lots of opportunity to explore, learn, create, whatever, a way forward, just in case the plantation doesn't provide it.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)One of our worst government ministers (and this isn't even the very worst of his policies).
To give an idea what he's like: he once co-authored an article on Compassionate Conservativism with RICK SANTORUM!
marble falls
(57,106 posts)a prisoner shelter, nominal payment, food, clothing, medical treatment. Shocking!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So calling it "unpaid" is a little iffy -- he's being paid by the government, not the company.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)If it's the Job Seeker's Allowance, which it sounds like, then it would be £72.40 per week. The minimum wage is £6.50 per hour. If it's a roughly full time job, he'd be paid about £2 per hour. And it would make it harder for him to find a proper job - he's already worked at this place, so it's not as if this is would make his work experience look better; but it would mean he has less time to look for work.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)2 pounds an hour.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)K&R
-- Howard Zinn
A People's History of the United States - Chapter 11: Robber Barons And Rebels
malaise
(269,054 posts)Every family should have a copy
Monk06
(7,675 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)At least in this case.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)It's in exchange for his benefits. Seems reasonable enough.