Unlawful Sanctions | Work Programme Search | Work Programme Providers | Refuse the Work Programme | Jobseeker Charter

boycott work programme

Boycott Work Programme.

Posted by Work Programme | Posted in boycott work programme, DWP, jobseekers allowance, refuse the work programme, Work Programme | Posted on 24-01-2012

Tags: , , ,

It seems we have started a mini-revolution with thousands of people sticking up for their rights and rebelling against the Work Programme and other workfare schemes. 

We would like to remind people, however, that there is more to refusing the work programme than refusing data protection waivers, as this articles explains.

The below article is snippets from Simple Guide: “How to deal with the Work Programme” for those placed on it  (we recommend you read it in full, but its up to you!) and also additional notes.

 Refuse to sign the modified Jobseekers Agreement (JSAg)

Why refuse to sign the modified Jobseekers Agreement? Simple, apparently the Work Programme is mandatory (we wont get involved in this for this article but browse this website to find out why) so why does Jobcentre Plus want your permission? Especially after all they have (or will soon) send so much of your personal information (including where applicable sensitive personal data) to a third party without your consent!!

The answer is very simple. They need as much information as possible as “evidence” to enforce their authority. But its mandatory so why do they need to prove your consent? Well we will let you work that out for yourself. As a Government department all decisions must be fair and “just”, and they risk judicial reviews at every turn which could damage their authority by forcing a change in law. So they must prove that you understand the law (or atleast agree so much to have an identical understanding as the unnamed decision maker posing as Secretary of State), that you are giving your consent (volunteering as opposed to being forced to undertake a “mandatory” activity), and that you know the consequences (benefit sanctions!!).

Of course this doesn’t really have too much binding as protection of say a judicial review, but its gold dust for benefit sanctions. They will automatically accept any sanction doubt thrown their way, however, if you are to stand a good chance of appealing the sanction decision, you must not consent – and you must not consent through the most important agreement for Jobseekers Allowance… the Jobseekers Agreement!!

Some websites are advising about sticking a line through parts of the Jobseekers Agreement about sharing some details. There are 2 reasons why we do not advise this.

1) Its the clause which states about being referred/attending/finding out about (etc.) the Work Programme that is relevant not so much about sharing CVs etc.

2) Jobseekers Agreement is carried in two forms… The first is the computer copy and the second is the signed copy. Its only typical that the signed (modified by you version) is lost and the first is relied on. You have some grounds of argument considering you haven’t signed it, but they are the authority here.

Refuse to sign the data protection waiver

 Simple as. So we haven’t included this section of the article – but please be aware of the following VITAL one that many people are coming unstuck on.

Refuse to provide details to the Work Programme provider

If you either correct information or confirm, you are giving your consent!

Do not give spoof details either, they don’t need your contact details to raise a sanction doubt… they only need your name or NI. If you are to get a sanction doubt (for another reason) after giving fake details its unlikely you will be able to have a successful appeal.

Yes, that’s right folks…  The Data Protection Act 1998 etc. requires data to be current and up to date, but its not your problem, you have not consent to it being held in the first place.

There is no valid point of being difficult to their staff and refusing the written waiver whilst correcting any mistakes or adding to the data (which is giving them information directly – they become a data controller rather than a data processor) this is giving your VERBAL implied consent!

But they cannot prove it? Well, if you have corrected or added to the additional information that acts as basic evidence – not exactly concrete but it will be their word against yours and as a corporate body they will always win in that argument.

Refuse to sign anything (including the fire register) including Action Plans 

It is of vital importance that you understand you must NOT enter into any contractual or implied agreements.

This means NO Action Plans! Stick your name in the fire register but do not sign (stops them tracing your signature – happened under New Deal which pretty much the same providers such as A4e).

Some websites advise you to withdraw your consent in an “Action Plan” – we disagree, as your are giving implied consent for such data to be processed whilst also trying to revoke the consent… and agreeing to further activities to continue the cycle.

An Action Plan is an contractual agreement between you and the provider - its layout and purpose is proposed and template designed by DWP/Jobcentre Plus, but they are not a party to such contract.

This means you are giving implied consent to process (current appointment), you revoke your consent by Action Plan (post-current appointment) although agreeing to attend again and you give implied consent for your data to be processed (subsequent appointment), then revoke …. (cycle continues, you get the hint).

You aren’t actually revoking your consent at all!!

Participate in all “work-related” activities

It will be lame and the same stuff that you might have done on New Deal before the dawn of the new millennium… but this is “work-related” activity. Of course the scheme actually isn’t mandatory but can only be challenged by judicial review – unless you want 6 months of benefit sanctions!? We thought not.

So anything constituting training or to improve your employment prospects you must attend. This isn’t advisor appointments. These will include modules (CV writing etc.), job interviews etc.  It also doesn’t include induction.

There is no legal requirement to enter into a contractual agreement with the provider (Action Plan).

You MUST communicate with the provider (send recorded delivery) and Jobcentre Plus to state you will participate in all work related activities to meet your requirements of being “Actively Seeking Employment“. You have to negotiate your right to participate in these modules on your terms – helps prevents benefit sanctions.

Of course, its a positive test (what you have done) not a negative test (what you have not done) to determine this but Jobcentre Plus never does this. 3 steps you have done that week, not any you haven’t done.

Compromise by disclaimer

To undertake that mentioned in the above section you must serve a disclaimer on them.

These above steps (view refusewp.com for full article – as on homepage) is only for those who have not been referred yet. Its too much too late for those who have been referred.  We recommend you to contact PIL or another solicitor first to discuss the issue of workfare, and we suggest you mention at every opportunity the judicial review cases as stated on this website in regards to workfare.

More resources

  • Consent.me.uk  – A brilliant resource to help people with Work Programme Referrals on consent grounds. So much we agree with but we do not agree with everything advised on the consent.me.uk website so if you find anything in consent.me.uk that contradicts with that above and on refusewp.com, we recommend the above in place but of course its completely up to you.
  • Boycott Workfare – Of course, we cannot forget Boycott Workfare!


Wordpress.com blogs for 'boycott work programme'

  • Boycott Work Programme.
    It seems we have started a mini-revolution with thousands of people sticking up for their rights and

Ipswich Unemployed Action comments...

  • Comment on Work Programme in Disarray: Up the Ante! by Wayne green
    Am flabbegasted that the big work programme consist's of you going once a wk from minute you walk in to minute you walk out half hour latter you get no contact with a work programme provider apart from them making sure you sign their attendance book and thats only so they can get paid if sitting you in front of a computer half hour a week looking on web sites at jobs that dont change from one month or the next or looking at dwp site at jobs that are made up and never was a real paid job then god help us and the sum thing for nothing excuse me its what we have payed in to the system when we was working that we are getting paid with in fact we are paying our self's with our own money by rights, only people getting sum thing for nothing is the likes of tesco and the rest that take free labour and of course emma harrison and all the other work programme providers that are getting paid what for they dont give us any help to help us back into work so please drop the sum thing for nothing as its what we have paid in to system when we was working and only people to rob the tax payer is all the mp's who fiddled their exspenses and of couse emma and the other chums
  • Comment on Work Programme in Disarray: Up the Ante! by Noam Chomsky
    It is an imperative that you transform yourself from a consumer of the rich man’s bullshit, to a manufacturer of the people’s truth. – Noam Chomsky, <i>Manufacturing Consent</i>
  • Comment on Work Programme in Disarray: Up the Ante! by mrmrkrchrdson
    Regarding this letter, I'm no legal eagle - but do remember that in the McLibel case, the European Court of Human Rights criticised the UK for not adequately protecting individuals' rights to publicly criticise private companies, especially where the activities of the company affects people's lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_Case
  • Comment on Work Programme in Disarray: Up the Ante! by A4e Corruption
    In these recessionary times, we’re all very interested in unemployment. Newspapers and commentators pore over unemployment figures, whether they’re up or down and reflect on what this says about the state of our economy. But nobody seems to care much about the unemployed. Apart from Iain Duncan Smith, of course – or so he would have us believe. In a speech last May, in which he introduced his ideas for welfare reform, he announced, ‘We must be here to help improve people’s lives, not just park them on long-term benefits. Aspiration, it seems, is in danger of becoming the preserve of the wealthy’ One of the proposals in IDS’s welfare reforms which are currently being pushed through parliament is to involve more private companies in getting the unemployed back to work, who will then be paid for their successes. It’s hardly an original idea – Jobcentre Plus already has contracts with hundreds of such organisations (‘training providers’ they’re called in a classic example of New Labour-speak ) whereby claimants of Jobseekers Allowance are forced to attend ‘employability training’, which often involves little more than them being sat in a room with some newspapers and the Internet for 5 hours a day (if you care to search the web, there are a fair few ranting forums and blogs devoted to these places). The providers have various targets, for getting people into work or onto work placements, and they are paid according to their results. This was the New Labour version, so one can only assume that the Tory version is going to be even more wedded to free market dogma. I worked in the employability sector for a while in the mid-noughties and have friends who still do. I can say fairly confidently that it is run by a bunch of cowboys. A4E, one of the government’s largest private contractors, was investigated by the DWP in 2009 for fraudulent practices, including falsifying employer signatures. It was brushed off by A4E as an aberration, but it is symptomatic of the way that many such companies are run; I know of many cases, from my own and others’ experiences, in which signatures have been forged, paperwork falsified and evidence faked in order for targets to be met and money to be claimed from the Job Centre. One such instance involved a bewildered client being asked to pose for a photograph standing by a photocopier, only to find out later that this was being used as evidence of an office work placement that she had never done. These organisations treat their unemployed clients with contempt. People are regularly put on unpaid work placement schemes, usually with unglamourous high street outfits like Iceland or Poundstretcher, sometimes with the vague promise of a job at the end but just as often not, and expected to be grateful. One man I knew, a 50 year old from Sri Lanka, began a 2 week placement as a shelf filler at a high street chain on the understanding he would be offered a job at the end. The period was extended to 4 weeks and then to 6 weeks, at the end of which he had sustained a bad back injury from the heavy lifting and the offer of a job was withdrawn. 6 weeks of slave labour for a crappy minimum wage supermarket job that never materialised and which gave him a bad, possibly long term, back injury. Is this the kind of aspiration that IDS wants to see more of?
  • Comment on Work Programme in Disarray: Up the Ante! by A4e Corruption
    In these recessionary times, we're all very interested in unemployment. Newspapers and commentators pore over unemployment figures, whether they're up or down and reflect on what this says about the state of our economy. But nobody seems to care much about the unemployed. Apart from Iain Duncan Smith, of course - or so he would have us believe. In a speech last May, in which he introduced his ideas for welfare reform, he announced, 'We must be here to help improve people's lives, not just park them on long-term benefits. Aspiration, it seems, is in danger of becoming the preserve of the wealthy' One of the proposals in IDS's welfare reforms which are currently being pushed through parliament is to involve more private companies in getting the unemployed back to work, who will then be paid for their successes. It's hardly an original idea – Jobcentre Plus already has contracts with hundreds of such organisations ('training providers' they're called in a classic example of New Labour-speak ) whereby claimants of Jobseekers Allowance are forced to attend 'employability training', which often involves little more than them being sat in a room with some newspapers and the Internet for 5 hours a day (if you care to search the web, there are a fair few ranting forums and blogs devoted to these places). The providers have various targets, for getting people into work or onto work placements, and they are paid according to their results. This was the New Labour version, so one can only assume that the Tory version is going to be even more wedded to free market dogma. I worked in the employability sector for a while in the mid-noughties and have friends who still do. I can say fairly confidently that it is run by a bunch of cowboys. A4E, one of the government's largest private contractors, was investigated by the DWP in 2009 for fraudulent practices, including falsifying employer signatures. It was brushed off by A4E as an aberration, but it is symptomatic of the way that many such companies are run; I know of many cases, from my own and others' experiences, in which signatures have been forged, paperwork falsified and evidence faked in order for targets to be met and money to be claimed from the Job Centre. One such instance involved a bewildered client being asked to pose for a photograph standing by a photocopier, only to find out later that this was being used as evidence of an office work placement that she had never done.
  • Comment on Work Programme in Disarray: Up the Ante! by analiensaturn
    These organisations treat their unemployed clients with contempt. People are regularly put on unpaid work placement schemes, usually with unglamourous high street outfits like Iceland or Poundstretcher, sometimes with the vague promise of a job at the end but just as often not, and expected to be grateful. One man I knew, a 50 year old from Sri Lanka, began a 2 week placement as a shelf filler at a high street chain on the understanding he would be offered a job at the end. The period was extended to 4 weeks and then to 6 weeks, at the end of which he had sustained a bad back injury from the heavy lifting and the offer of a job was withdrawn. 6 weeks of slave labour for a crappy minimum wage supermarket job that never materialised and which gave him a bad, possibly long term, back injury. Is this the kind of aspiration that IDS wants to see more of?
  • Comment on Work Programme in Disarray: Up the Ante! by analiensaturn
    The government schemes are for those with a full brain and low morals to milk those with less mental skills for profit.I had dealing with similar organisations and know them as wolves.
  • Comment on Work Programme in Disarray: Up the Ante! by Wayne_Kerr
    https://twitter.com/#!/pha_digital
  • Comment on Work Programme in Disarray: Up the Ante! by Eli
    <a href="http://elibloglondon.blogspot.com/2012/02/welfare-to-work-gravy-train.html" rel="nofollow">Eli Blog</a> The Welfare to Work Gravy Train
  • Comment on Work Programme in Disarray: Up the Ante! by Eli
    <a href="http://elibloglondon.blogspot.com/2012/02/welfare-to-work-gravy-train.html" rel="nofollow">Eli Blog</a> Eli Blog

RSS Work Programme Network

  • Top 50 UK Training Companies 2011
    1: Babcock International 2: A4e * 3: Learndirect (UFI)* 4: Kaplan 5: BPP 6: QA 7: ESG Group* (Sheffield Trainers Ltd, Sencia, Triangle Training, Orient Gold, Platinum Training) 8: JHP Group* 9: Pearson in Practice 10: Aviation Training International 11... […]
  • Mandatory Work Activity is slavery: lawyers mount legal challenge
    Public Interest Lawyers have launched a legal challenge of the Government’s Mandatory Work Activity scheme arguing that it amounts to unlawful forced labour. If this succeeds, the outcome could also apply to the Community Action Programme and the... […]