An Ipswich jobseeker was escorted out of Ipswich St Felix House this week by two police officers.

News have reached Ipswich Unemployed Action that a jobseeker was forcefully removed from the Ipswich Jobcentre by two police officers before almost arrested and banned from the town centre for 48 hours under a Section 27 order (IUA note: s27 is just for drunk and disorderly in a public place?)

We had previously reported about the Nazi security at Jobcentre Plus offices back in 2009!

A fellow concerned jobseeker has described in an email how he experienced in the third person severe abuse of powers at Jobcentre Plus in Ipswich from jobcentre staff, G4s security guards and the even the police!!!

I am sure 1% of the jobseekers in viewing this website might be hoping an employment officer got his or hers comeuppance, perhaps knifed, punched, reduced to tears by insults or soaked with water…

Before we disclose the reasons why police were dispatched and a jobseeker escorted off the premises, the reason for this post is to highlight this ever increasing trend of abuse by G4s security in jobcentres – it seems the police are on side also. Perhaps this doesn’t come as a surprise to some.

The actual reason why this 30 minute incident erupted was due to the employment officer refusing to sign a jobseeker because he read a hand out sheet she had just given him. Even I (who is never surprised at much) had to have this confirmed. Its a shame it wasn’t recorded on video camera to upload to youtube.

Ipswich Jobcentre (like many) is cracking down hard on claimants. Jobseekers are no longer being asked verbally for evidence and a completed ES4JP (job log) is required. Some jobseekers are being forced to trip up …into benefit sanctions.

To make this easier to read, we have split it up (originally was a huge paragraph).

Reading a handout sheet was enough to refuse to sign

This is what had occurred:-

1. Employment Officer tripped up the jobseeker in question
   “Did you apply for the ##### job we gave you?” (The employer wasn’t remembered).
2. Jobseeker redeemed himself
   After answering “No” and being threatened with benefit sanctions for 5 minutes or so, the jobseeker claimed he had applied for the position stating he had only answered Nodue to the job position wasn’t given from an member of staff but he had applied for it after visiting directGov.After making the bossy old woman red-faced after the jobseeker insisted her to check the system at the jobseekers request for the job position which returned negative; her attitude got quite aggressive.
3. Jobseeker was given a form
   The jobcentre woman said she was issuing him with a notice and if he had failed to apply for a job again he would lose 2 weeks money “or more”. It sounded as if it was his final warning. Jobseeker picked up the form to read it but was requested to wait until he got home to read it.
4. Jobcentre woman turned to G4s security guard before wandering off
   Listening to the mild argument with security, it appeared that the jobcentre staff member either highlighted part of the document or wrote on it. Although when the jobseeker went to read it, the interview was terminated. He had claimed he was only folding the document the time after she had warned him to read it at home… The jobseeker who contacted us didn’t see that bit as he was facing the jobpoints but when security was called over the jobseeker had the paper in his hand which was folded into four (in half, than in half again) to fit in his pocket.
5. Code Zero – G4s security intimidation begins
   After a radio call, the two guards became four… one wandered off somewhere perhaps to call the police (why the radio then?! Maybe low on staff?) the 3 remaining guards surrounded the jobseeker in a triangle formation. When the guard came back it became four.The jobseeker claimed he wanted to just sign on and then he will go. The guards decided to block him in so he couldn’t leave. He seemed rather calm and immune to the bullshit, he even joked out loud about how long it took for the police to get here considering its only a few minutes away. A G4s security guard then gave him the option of leaving or that they will get the police. Surely no lawful authority to hold him if they haven’t even called the police? He stayed. Sounds like they didn’t even call the police in the first place.
6. Two police officers arrived
   The typical bullshit of pretending to be your friend (Using words like “mate” in every sentence). Officers seems to think it was a criminal offence to be “rude” on “private” premises. (The jobseeker who reported this left the premises at this point)
7. Section 27 Order
   Outside, one of the police officers were heard threatening to arrest him and ban the jobseeker from Ipswich for 48 hours before they both were trying to drag him along – although he had only stopped to provide details when the officer stopped to get out his notebook to ask him questions.

A combined hour to hour and a half of police time for this rather silly incident.

Our analysis

Was the jobseeker wrong to stay?

Neither the jobcentre woman or the four G4s security guards even asked him to leave. The employment officer had asked the security guard to make the jobseeker leave and the security guard had only asked if the jobseeker planned of leaving.

Under law this was no trespass – he had consent to attend a signing on appointment and should have been signed on. The police had no authority to forcefully remove the jobseeker from Ipswich Jobcentre Plus. The security had no right to intimidate and prevent the jobseeker from leaving (Did they expect the jobseeker having to assault someone just to be able to leave?)

As signing labour market declarations was part of the appointment and the employment officer had not terminated the appointment (although stormed off – she had not actually communicated to the jobseeker about this) the jobseeker had every right to wait even until the end of the day to be signed on.

Could the police actually fight real crime instead?

Probably.. lots of it these days.

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.

Support this Campaign (see Box Bottom Right for link).

The Cait Reilly case has brought workfare (unpaid work for benefits)  to people’s attention.

Some seem to think this is a new policy.

Red Pepper reports,

Karina was mandated to work in Primark under New Labour’s Flexible New Deal. She had been sent to a private ‘welfare to work’ provider whose regime included putting claimants to work without pay in businesses, charity shops and public sector workplaces. Although regulations meant that she could only be obliged to work for up to 12 weeks without pay, she worked for 24 weeks, fearing she would have her benefits stopped if she did not agree. She had signed up to and paid for a college course that would help her find work but she had to give it up to do the placement: ‘They told me they would stop my JSA, so I stopped my English course.’

This sytem  began with the New Deal in 1998.

This is what the programme offered, (Wikipedia),

The NDYP begins with an initial consultation session, referred to as Gateway, that focuses on improving job search and interview skills. This training is provided by an external organisation such as a4e, CSV or YMCATraining. If the search for employment is still unsuccessful after the Gateway sessions, to continue to receive unemployment benefits, one of four options must be chosen:

• A subsidised job placement. The subsidy is £60 per week, and lasts 6 months; a £750 training allowance is also available to participants. Clients are paid a wage from the employer.

• Full-time education and training, for up to 12 months.

• Work in the voluntary sector, the client is paid JSA plus a £15 training allowance. This is called Community Task Force.

• Work with the Environmental Task Force.(DWP website; Peck, “Workfare” 304; Glyn 53)

Participation in one of the four options is mandatory to receive benefits, refusal to participate will lead to the benefit being stopped and will be referred to a Decision Maker who will decide whether a recipient should receive a sanction should they decide to reclaim.”

Gateway normally meant some CV writing (highly useful) job application and interview techniques (also useful).

It could also included less useful ‘courses’ including those based on the kind of self-help manuals that made Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus school of thought.

Despite appearing to offer a number of ‘options’ most people were put, without any choice, on the 3rd (I know nobody who did the first, which meant they got paid). Placements were rapidly extended beyond the ‘voluntary sector’ and the ‘Community Task Force’. They included working in local government, and private companies.

Why did people participate?

‘Work experience’ might be useful (for your CV for example). There was always the possibility of paid work. But more important perhaps was that getting an extra £15 and doing something was preferable to sitting in a room being hectored and told, 5 days a week, to do “job search”.

These Placements lasted from 13 weeks to 26 weeks.

I know personally cases of people of working in Ipswich warehouse-mega-stores shelving and carrying stuff around. One told me that his boss bought him a couple of drinks at Christmas – as well he might.

Charities and the ‘voluntary sector’ might seem a good idea. The Labour Government began farming out welfare services to them. The unemployed were used instead of paid employees – when they were not working alongside people sentenced to do Community Service.  Or, in Ipswich, working alongside prisoners on day release from Hollesley Bay.

Without the rights of salaried employees the unemployed were open to a wide range of abuses. Charites (often with highly paid executives) and the Third Sector are not always good employers.

I know of a number of significant cases where people felt ill-treated.

In nearly all cases when the Placement ended there was no job.

The attitude is thank you very much and now for the next placement-person.

The Flexible New Deal was introduced in October 2009.  James Purnell Work and Pensions Secretary was behind the change, though he had to resign that years when his expenses claims were found out.  

The Flexible New Deal reduced the time of Placements to 6 weeks. It got rid of the ‘sitting in front of a computer doing job search’ (though not the ‘courses’). It abolished the £15 bonus.

But the slide towards using the unemployed as free labour became more explicit.

They also used ‘volunteers’ from the Dole in place of genuine volunteers.

The Work Programme was introduced last summer. On this site Worky has explored its details.

Cait Reilly appears to have got into one of its programmes, a 2 week placement.

There is already the Mandatory Work Activity to punish people – which we have discussed here.

The plan now to make everyone who is unemployed for over 2 years participate in the Community Action Programme.

This is full-time unpaid workfare.

When it’s introduced it will be used to fill the gaps in public services - caused by the Liberal-Conservative Coalition cuts.

That is “picking up litter”  tidying up parks, and no doubt carrying all kinds of tasks not getting done because of government cuts.

It will be US style workfare.

There is conclusive evidence against workfare – here.

But, as reactions to Cait Reilly show, there are people in this country who simply want to order the out-of-work around, and make them sweat.

Something that Lord Freud, a former banker and wheeler-dealer, the man who advised the Labour Government on the Flexible New Deal and now, the Coalition on the Work Programme, has only ever done in a Sauna.

Cait Reilly [David Sillitoe/Guardian]

Cait Reilly was told she otherwise would lose her Jobseeker’s Allowance

A university graduate was told she had to stop volunteering at a local museum for four weeks and do unpaid work in a Poundland store in order to continue receiving Jobseeker’s Allowance.

Cait Reilly, who graduated from Birmingham University in 2010, was regularly volunteering part-time at the Pen Museum & Learning Centre in Birmingham because she hoped to pursue a career in museums.

But last autumn she was told by her local Jobcentre Plus that she had been placed on a “sector-based work academy”, a four-week programme made up of two weeks’ employability training and two weeks’ unpaid work at Poundland.

Reilly has this week launched proceedings to seek a judicial review of the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011, which include a power to compel JSA claimants to carry out work.

Her solicitor, Jim Duffy of Public Interest Lawyers, said Reilly had been volunteering at the museum since May. He said she was placed on the work academy programme by her local Jobcentre Plus and agreed to do it after being told about the scheme in “vague and inaccurate terms”.

Duffy said when Reilly found out more about the programme, she told staff at the Jobcentre Plus that she did not want to take part, but was told that it was mandatory. She did the Poundland placement in November.

Brian Jones, another volunteer at the Pen Museum, a registered charity, said Reilly was not able to give much notice that she would have to stop her work for a month. “She is a valued volunteer here, so to lose her in that period was very difficult for us,” he said.

A spokeswoman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: “Working in retail is perfectly good experience for a career in a museum. There are very similar transferable skills involved.”

Here.

Comment.

The Daily Mail seems to think that working for your dole in Poundland is a good idea.

Someone calling herself Dominique Jackson writes, “We should be grateful that Poundland has signed up to the scheme to provide work placements, training and a guaranteed interview for kids trying to improve their employability.” (Here)

I suppose anyone under 25, who gets a reduced JSA, is a “kid”.

To be treated as such.

The idea that Poundland have found a nice little earner – getting workers for free – seems to have escaped her attention.

Or that it is indeed a human right to be able to choose your job.

As in, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Article 23

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice  of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (Here)

Naturally for those who want to see the unemployed forced to clean the streets (and why not with Toothbrushes – there was a Pilot Scheme in Vienna in the late 1930s) this right does not exist.

On the Background to Workfare and details of how Private Companies, Local Government, the Third Sector and Charities are going to exploit this Harpy Marx is highly recommended – here.