Unemployed bussed in to steward jubilee, unpaid and asked to sleep rough

evanswolves82 · 5 Jun 2012 at 15:42

The Halk said:
I don't know anyone being forced to do volunteer work, and neither do you. You might think you do, or you might know someone who thinks they are.

I was on JSA, and i was told that i have to go and volunteer, there was no ifs or buts, they gave me a letter saying that failure to do attend the volunteer place and look for voluntary work could result in my benefits being stopped, i probably still have the letter somewhere

OpenToSuggestions · 5 Jun 2012 at 15:43

I am all for the unemployed to be forced to work for free.
After all when 'jobless' they get their rent paid, pay no council tax, their children go to school, they have dental/health cover etc., all of which costs money.

Somehow I doubt that will happen as we live in a 'softy' society.

spudbynight · 5 Jun 2012 at 15:44

The Halk said:
Before the changes? After the changes? It's voluntary. You don't need to do it, you can opt out, there are no sanctions for doing so.

Even the Guardian who like to spread discord about it have said as much.

The most recent contact was about 2 weeks ago. The guidelines I have looked at were show to me last week. The sanctions applied if the volunteer didn't show up for the first day or left after the first week and applied to up to three month's worth of benefits.

spudbynight · 5 Jun 2012 at 15:45

evanswolves82 said:
I was on JSA, and i was told that i have to go and volunteer, there was no ifs or buts, they gave me a letter saying that failure to do attend the volunteer place and look for voluntary work could result in my benefits being stopped, i probably still have the letter somewhere

These letters are still going out.

The Halk · 5 Jun 2012 at 15:45

evanswolves82 said:
I was on JSA, and i was told that i have to go and volunteer, there was no ifs or buts, they gave me a letter saying that failure to do attend the volunteer place and look for voluntary work could result in my benefits being stopped, i probably still have the letter somewhere

There were questions over the wording, and there were possible sanctions if you volunteered and then changed your mind.

This Guardian article talks about it.

Kenai · 5 Jun 2012 at 15:46

Maybe someone could back up their point of view with a link to a decent source rather than spend another 20 posts 'It is true', 'It isn't true', 'Yes it is', 'No it isn't'...

The Halk · 5 Jun 2012 at 15:49

Kenai said:
Maybe someone could back up their point of view with a link to a decent source rather than spend another 20 posts 'It is true', 'It isn't true', 'Yes it is', 'No it isn't'...

I think the burden of proof is on the people saying that there are sanctions and that it is not voluntary. However I have linked a Guardian article from February which says the sanctions were removed, and repeatedly says it's voluntary. The Guardian article about the unemployed volunteers who accuse the company running the scheme of treating them poorly says they are volunteers too.

All we have to go on is Spudbynight's assertion that it's not voluntary and there's WTFBBQ sanctions.

spudbynight · 5 Jun 2012 at 15:55

The Halk said:
I think the burden of proof is on the people saying that there are sanctions and that it is not voluntary. However I have linked a Guardian article from February which says the sanctions were removed, and repeatedly says it's voluntary. The Guardian article about the unemployed volunteers who accuse the company running the scheme of treating them poorly says they are volunteers too.

All we have to go on is Spudbynight's assertion that it's not voluntary and there's WTFBBQ sanctions.

I have first hand contact with someone being told as recently as a week ago that their benefits would be cut if they did not take a non paid work.

There is an interesting piece here :

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck...o-explain-disappearing-workfare-document/9652

I don't think the burden of proof is on either side. We have two opposing views.

The Halk · 5 Jun 2012 at 15:56

The burden of proof is on your side. It's a voluntary scheme and the Guardian has made it clear the sanctions have been removed. You need to prove that it's not what the government says.

The C4 article you've linked is from the end of February which is when the controversy last came to the surface and when the scheme was changed to improve wording and remove the sanctions.

spudbynight · 5 Jun 2012 at 15:57

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wp-pg-chapter-3.pdf

Participants who are mandated to undertake activity may incur a loss or
reduction of benefit should they fail to comply without good reason.

The Halk · 5 Jun 2012 at 16:00

spudbynight said:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wp-pg-chapter-3.pdf

It's wrong/out of date. There's numerous news articles from the end of February confirming that no sanctions will be imposed.

HAz · 5 Jun 2012 at 16:01

So they should work the damn spongers

SouthEastBlue · 5 Jun 2012 at 16:02

Getting unemployed to do normal work trials and work placements is fine if they've been unemployed for a certain time period (over 3 months?) as long as it enhances their chances of employment. Sticking people into inhumane circumstances and from what others are reporting as sleeping under bridges is a joke, whether it's for the Queen's jubilee or not!

spudbynight · 5 Jun 2012 at 16:02

The Halk said:
It's wrong/out of date. There's numerous news articles from the end of February confirming that no sanctions will be imposed.

That is currently on the DWP website. They haven't updated it from what I can see. That article is v3.00 - v2.00 went up at the end of Feb.

Now, I have given a direct link to the DWP and you still claim otherwise. Surely now the burden of proof falls on you to show something more recent from the DWP - not a newspaper.

cheets64 · 5 Jun 2012 at 16:04

Stolly said:
Get a job.

Yeah 3 million jobs are going, shops are booming, business opening new stores and premises, construction sector its booming, why don't they get a job!

spudbynight · 5 Jun 2012 at 16:05

Link here to who is able to volunteer.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wp-pg-chapter-2.pdf

It is mandatory for anyone on JobSeekers Allowance

OpenToSuggestions · 5 Jun 2012 at 16:06

cheets64 said:
Yeah 3 million jobs are going, shops are booming, business opening new stores and premises, construction sector its booming, why don't they get a job!

Whilst there would still be a that number unemployed, it really is not hard for an individual to find a job. Between my B Eng and my PhD I had 5 weeks free to which I went to the job centre (turned down a grad job and an assessment day at another manufacturer for it). Most of the people there looked so gormless that I wouldn't trust them to organise a drinking event in a brewery.
Those who can't find work after 6 months are either completely hopeless and/or lazy.

TJM · 5 Jun 2012 at 16:06

Even if it was entirely voluntarily and walking out carried no sanctions, the 'workers' were still a long way from home and presumably had no money for accommodation. They could either stay under the bridge all night or wander off into a strange city in the hope of finding something better, which would probably count as walking off the job and cost them their bus home.

No-one with any sense would tolerate that sort of treatment from their employer. CPUK took advantage of what they saw as cheap labour that couldn't go anywhere.

TheLegendOfMart · 5 Jun 2012 at 16:07

The Halk said:
It's wrong/out of date. There's numerous news articles from the end of February confirming that no sanctions will be imposed.

The government today caved in to bad publicity and agreed to remove the possibility of sanctions from those who refuse to take part in the work experience scheme. Those guilty of gross misconduct may still be sanctioned with removal of benefits.

However, a DWP spokesperson confirmed to me this afternoon that it is only the work experience scheme which is affected by this change. Those on the work programme, which is run by third party providers such as the disgraced A4e, may still face sanctions if they do not cooperate with the programme.

Work Programme being the 'voluntary' jobs of up to 30 hours a week for no pay.

OpenToSuggestions said:
I am all for the unemployed to be forced to work for free.
After all when 'jobless' they get their rent paid, pay no council tax, their children go to school, they have dental/health cover etc., all of which costs money.

Somehow I doubt that will happen as we live in a 'softy' society.

Yeah and while they are/were working they were paying the same taxes as you, surely this should entitle them to benefits?

When/if you lose your job I bet you wont be singing the same tune.

dowie · 5 Jun 2012 at 16:08

They sound a bit soft tbh... they had 4 hours to sleep on the coach and were told to get their head down for a couple of hours under London bridge (article says they arrived at 3am and got up at 5:30 am - so 2.5 hours under the bridge... )... sounds like they had tents but didn't due to hassle of using them on concrete*... then they had to work in the rain wearing a waterproof supplied to them... (the horror) and later they were taken to a soggy campsite (damn that rain again). Not being funny but if you're going to work outside then you'll likely have to put up with rain and if you're going to do a job working at events then sleeping in tents/sleeping when traveling might well be part of the requirements.

Maybe the company was badly organised but I'd say the combination of people not used to working suddenly being faced with having to put up with less than ideal conditions and a guardian journalist looking for a story has made this look worse than it likely was.

*(strangely enough other unemployed people trouble putting up tents on concrete outside st pauls)