A new blow for the Government with its Work Programme, Community Action Programme, Mandatory Work Activity and Work Experience schemes as it has been suggested that the jobseekers being placed on mandatory placements through statutory legislation are in effect Crown employees.

Regardless of being assigned to the premises of an company (we prefer not to say employer in such context) or the street:-

• there is no employment contract expressly written, verbal or implied between the worker and the company;
• no payment in cash or in kind from said company;
• jobseekers on the employment programme schemes are statistically employed; and
• such appointment is exercised through statutory instrument (of an Act of Parliament)

Thus these workfare workers are employees of the Crown, an employee of the State and a public sector worker (regardless if you are operating in a private sector environment) – this is what workfare is all about, working for your benefits.

So, when you are about to start a 6 month stint at Poundland or Tescos stacking shelves with threats to your benefits, make sure you:-

• Register with UNISON (public sector trade union) for around 81p per week
• Serve notice on the workfare general (the company you are based at) to alert them of your union membership status
• Remain active within the union in particular about your working conditions

A reliable source overheard provider discussion on one of the Work Programme providers in Ipswich, Papworth Trust (on behalf of Ingeus) or Seetec, likely to lose their contract come Summer 2012.

We don’t know if this rumour (as not officially been confirmed) means:-

• Nationally, the two (or three) providers will come down to one (or two in three provider areas) – removing the poorest performing (lowest number of outcomes etc)
•  Nationally, the two (or three) providers will come down to one (or two in three provider areas) by random method, by feedback (i.e. the ones with the most complaints are to go) or by bid
• One of the providers in this region are having financial issues so severe that the DWP are threatening to withdraw the contract, and replace the provider with another provider or get the other provider to take on the case loads

We have previously reported how Seetec could be in financial difficulties, when they refused to reimburse travel.

Generally both providers (Papworth Trust and Seetec) have had very bad feedback – Flexible New Deal was very mixed with some jobseekers happy with the service received.

This is only a stub article to pass on the information. If anyone who attends either provider, or who work for either provider or the DWP wishes to anonymously build on the above information, confirm or deny, or more specifics; it will be very much welcomed and appreciated.

Community Action Programme (Workfare).

Government Guidelines for Providers (Extracts and Comments).

From here.

“This scheme  is for “very long-term JSA claimants who  may reach the end of the Work Programme from 2013.”

Note: There are 750,000 long-term unemployed. This figure is not expected to go down by 2013.

The government’s approach, already in place, and adopted by Work Programme providers,  is summed up in the Guardian today,

“The subtext is that external economic factors can never be the cause of someone’s unemployment: the problem must somehow lie with the individual.”

Those long-term unemployed who have gone through thee Work Programme will now have to face up to this further effort to make them solve ‘their’ problems.

“10.  Participation is mandatory and a claimant’s benefits may be stopped if they fail to start or complete the programme. “   

Those who will have to participate  include,

3.  The majority of these claimants will have been unemployed for a substantial amount of time, and having received support through both Jobcentre Plus and contracted provision, should display similar characteristics to those we expect of claimants still out of work at the of the WP.
 
4.  The claimant group set out above will include a range of claimants with circumstances that need be taken into account in designing CAP  support. These will include:
•  claimants with caring responsibilities, including lone parents
•  disabled claimants or those with health conditions
•  claimants who are over 50 years old
•  claimants serving a community sentence which could involve
Community Payback
•  socially excluded claimants, including ex-offenders, offenders,homeless claimants, and claimants with a drug or alcoholdependency problem.

What is the nature of the work?

9.  CAP work experience placements must deliver a contribution to the local community and must not displace what would otherwise be paid jobs.
 

 Those who are succesful to run the scheme will have to deliver,

“provider-led jobsearch support for a minimum of 30 hours each week where a participant is not in a work experience placement •  delivering up to 10 hours of compulsory provider-led jobsearch ( Note: more pointless sitting in front of Computers)  each week for each participant
•  raising compliance doubts with JCP Decision Makers, and notifying us when participants subsequently re-engage
•  reporting specified participant changes of circumstance to JCP
•  producing an exit report, when a participant completes CAP, within ten working days of a participant leaving CAP
 
Duration of the CAP
 
12.  Each work experience placement will last for up to 26 weeks, however a single work experience placement of 26 weeks may not be possible in every case.  If necessary, CAP can be made up of several shorter work experience placements, but you will need to ensure the participant completes a minimum of 21 weeks on a work experience placement or combination of work experience placements and employment (off benefits) to achieve a 100%  completion fee.  

Defining principles.
 
A2.2   The community benefit of a CAP placement should:
 
•  be of benefit to the community and the individual 
•  directly create, or significantly contribute to the creation of, tangible  and lasting benefit to the community, or particular groups or individuals within the community;
•  be clearly demonstrated in the placement activity, and not be an    “add on”; and •  where the placement does not directly benefit the community, there must be clear demonstrable evidence that the placement provider business objectives are to deliver community benefits.

What ‘community’ is, and what ‘benefits’ are is open to question. 

Who will decide what is, or is not, of ‘benefit’ to a ‘community’? 
 

Who Will Deliver Workfare?

A2.4  Examples of organisation types that deliver direct/indirect benefit to thecommunity for the purposes of this section include; 
 
•  Local Authorities and Councils 
•  Government Departments and Agencies
•  Charities and third sector organisations
• Social Enterprises
• Environmental Agencies

Unsuitable activities: or, there are limits you know.

A2.8  Participants must not be expected to engage in activities which could   put them at risk, or are against their personal beliefs. It would be difficult to produce an exhaustive list of unsuitable activities.

 
Please note this list is not exhaustive. 
 
•  where there are doubts as to compliance with the relevant Health   and Safety legislation 
•  where it may involve the claimant breaking the law e.g. street    sales without a licence from the local authority where one is required
•  involvement in religion or party politics. 
 You should take account of a claimant’s personal belief. All participants on CAP should be treated fairly regardless of their religion or beliefs. They should not be asked to undertake any activity which goes against their beliefs, for instance, working within certain types of industry (e.g. particular sectors of the food industry). You should also make allowances wherever possible to accommodate religious holidays and practices.  

My political and ethical belief is that workfare is wrong.

So?

Exploitation.

Ensuring participants are not exploited by placement providers
 
A2.10  You are responsible for ensuring that participants are not exploited. 
 
A2.11  Some placement providers may be tempted to get involved in the delivery of provision as a way of getting cheap labour or getting someone in to help during a busy period. This is not acceptable. Placements must be additional to existing or expected vacancies and should not replace what would otherwise be paid jobs.

Comment.

The last area is the trickiest one.

Clearly working with Councils and Charities will replace what could be paid jobs.

These organisations, and businesses, are already suspected of being deft hands at ‘re-defining’ jobs so that a placement on the Work programme (work experience) is not considered a ‘replacement’ for paid employment.

We can expect that they will find ways of making it appear that Community Action Programme people will take positions that could get a salary. But they will now, thanks to generous government payments, get somebody to do this for nothing.

Cuts in local government, from libraries, spending on the environment, to social services,  mean plenty of things are no going to get done.

The Community Action Programme will fill the gaps, without ‘replacing’ anybody – nobody is going to be doing the work at the moment.

In any case working for way below the minimum wage  is by definition exploitation.

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!

Cait Reilly: Singled Out For Attack by Ian Duncan Smith.

In the Sunday Times today (22.1.12) Ian Duncan Smith Work and Pensions Secretary says of Cait Reilly,

“What a snooty-so-and-so. She seemed to say she shouldn’t stack shelves because she’s intelligent . The way she sneered -as if she was too good for it,” he says,. “She’s wasting our time and money going to court. It’s ridiculous. What about the human rights of the taxpayer. It’s a human right for the taxpayer to know you’re doing something productive instead of wafting around looking for the job you want while someone else pays for it.”

We can be sure Cait Reilly will receive a fair hearing with that kind of comment from a Minister flying around.

Not to mention his novel definition of human rights.

Wikipedia says “His wealth is estimated at £1 million much of which has been earned by working as a high end after dinner speaker”.

Ian Duncan Smith has never done an honest day’s work in his life.