Workfare ruled illegal by court of appeal

Dave89 · 12th February 2013, 11:37

Excellent news. Firstly, the government should not be coercing people into work below minimum wage, and secondly, if we are in such austere times that devastating cuts must be made, our taxes, and our unemployed citizens, should not be subsidising the payroll of large companies.

Quote:

A university graduate has won a legal challenge on appeal, claiming that a government scheme forces people to work without pay.

Cait Reilly, 24, claimed that requiring her to work for free at a Poundland store breached laws banning slavery and forced labour.

The University of Birmingham geology graduate lost her original case at the High Court, but has now won on appeal.

Her solicitors said this could have major implications for jobseekers.

Three judges in London ruled that the regulations under which most of the government's back-to-work schemes were created were unlawful and quashed them.

Benefit withdrawal

Miss Reilly, from Birmingham, and 40-year-old unemployed HGV driver Jamie Wilson, from Nottingham, both succeeded in their claims that the unpaid schemes were legally flawed.

Miss Reilly said that in November 2011 she had to leave her voluntary work at a local museum and work unpaid at the Poundland store in Kings Heath, Birmingham, under a scheme known as the "sector-based work academy".

She was told that if she did not carry out the work placement - which, she said, involved stacking shelves and cleaning floors - she would lose her Jobseeker's Allowance.

Mr Wilson was told that his Jobseeker's Allowance would be stopped after he refused to take part in the Community Action Programme, which his lawyers said would have involved him working unpaid for 30 hours per week for six months.

Solicitor Tessa Gregory, of Public Interest Lawyers, which represented the duo, said: "This judgment sends Iain Duncan Smith back to the drawing board to make fresh regulations which are fair and comply with the court's ruling.

"Until that time nobody can be lawfully forced to participate in schemes affected such as the Work Programme and the Community Action Programme.

"All of those who have been stripped of their benefits have a right to claim the money back that has been unlawfully taken away from them."

'Rethink needed'

Miss Reilly said she was delighted with the ruling, claiming that her making her give up her voluntary work and sending her to Poundland was wrong.

"Those two weeks were a complete waste of my time as the experience did not help me get a job," she said.

"I was not given any training and I was left with no time to do my voluntary work or search for other jobs.

"The only beneficiary was Poundland, a multimillion-pound company. Later I found out that I should never have been told the placement was compulsory.

"I don't think I am above working in shops like Poundland. I now work part time in a supermarket. It is just that I expect to get paid for working."

She said she hoped the government would "rethink" how it tackled long-term unemployment.

"I agree we need to get people back to work but the best way of doing that is by helping them, not punishing them."

Drifter · 12th February 2013, 11:58

People power.

MikeUpNorth · 12th February 2013, 12:01

If people are working they should be paid at least the minimum wage - that's the whole point of it.

Guy Incognito · 12th February 2013, 12:09

Quote:

Employment minister Mark Hoban said the Government would seek to appeal the court's decision.

"The court has backed our right to require people to take part in programmes which will help get them into work. It's ridiculous to say this is forced labour. This ruling ensures we can continue with these important schemes," he said.

Yeah, so if a poor person doesn't work, he or she can starve to death and be homeless. What a cunt.

Bill.s.preston · 12th February 2013, 12:18

I'm sort of on the fence with this. It's a good idea to get the long term unemployed used to a daily work routine and updating their skills. However, I admit that some of the work placements are a bit shit and people won't learn much from them. Another problem is that people could be using this time spent on work placements to actually find a job!

There's a good idea in there somewhere, it's just not been implemented properly.

Pexbo · 12th February 2013, 12:22

It should have always been at the rate of minimum wage.

That way:

A. Peoples rights are not broken.
B. The government cannot sell the contracts to firms who should be employing people rather than getting cheap labour.

Count Orduck · 12th February 2013, 12:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill.s.preston

I'm sort of on the fence with this. It's a good idea to get the long term unemployed used to a daily work routine and updating their skills. However, I admit that some of the work placements are a bit shit and people won't learn much from them. Another problem is that people could be using this time spent on work placements to actually find a job!

There's a good idea in there somewhere, it's just not been implemented properly.

I agree that people should be helped to find work and "strongly suggested" that they do it. I'm also of the belief that someone who turns down work when it's found shouldn't go on being able to claim jobseekers indefinitely.

HOWEVER, jobseeker's allowance is less than the minimum wage, and so these people were effectively working for free. If they get put into Poundland and made to work for six months, fine, but you can damn well pay them the minimum wage whilst they do it. It's totally unreasonable to expect them to work for less than that. On the one hand, you're not getting paid nothing because you're still getting jobseeker's allowance, but that's less than the minimum wage (which is called the MINIMUM for a reason), and the company itself is getting you for free.

x42bn6 · 12th February 2013, 12:58

There's also the fact that it might not help hiring - why pay for a new hire when you can grab an unemployed person for free? Especially in low-skilled jobs.

MikeUpNorth · 12th February 2013, 13:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by x42bn6

There's also the fact that it might not help hiring - why pay for a new hire when you can grab an unemployed person for free? Especially in low-skilled jobs.

Yes, it undercuts the job market and should be illegal. If you're working you should get at least the minimum wage.

Pat_Mustard · 12th February 2013, 17:23

Hopefully this actually turns out to be the breakthrough that it seems. The government seem to be particularly determined to discredit and ignore the ruling.

Silva · 12th February 2013, 17:25

Good.

TheReligion · 12th February 2013, 18:51

I agree with the ruling, however, doesn't really solve anything

RK · 12th February 2013, 19:38

As far as I was aware, these cases (and potential ones) were decided on a technicality, and that the schemes will stay in place pretty much as they are?

Feel free to correct me though.

Dave89 · 12th February 2013, 19:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by RK

As far as I was aware, these cases (and potential ones) were decided on a technicality, and that the schemes will stay in place pretty much as they are?

Feel free to correct me though.

Haven't gone in depth, but that's what I've heard too. Bugger.

RedCafe.net

The Leading Manchester United Forum

Member's Login

Workfare ruled illegal by court of appeal

Latest Forum Topics

Jump to Forum

Not yet registered?

12th February 2013, 11:58	#2 (permalink)
Drifter American Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 36,516	People power.

12th February 2013, 12:01	#3 (permalink)
MikeUpNorth Wobbles like a massive pair of tits Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 14,256	If people are working they should be paid at least the minimum wage - that's the whole point of it.

12th February 2013, 12:18	#5 (permalink)
Bill.s.preston Fluffybunnykins Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Call Of Duty Dog Posts: 11,836	I'm sort of on the fence with this. It's a good idea to get the long term unemployed used to a daily work routine and updating their skills. However, I admit that some of the work placements are a bit shit and people won't learn much from them. Another problem is that people could be using this time spent on work placements to actually find a job! There's a good idea in there somewhere, it's just not been implemented properly.

12th February 2013, 12:22	#6 (permalink)
Pexbo He'll have your eye out and listed on Amazon before you can say "ow!" Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: T'Internet Posts: 11,857	It should have always been at the rate of minimum wage. That way: A. Peoples rights are not broken. B. The government cannot sell the contracts to firms who should be employing people rather than getting cheap labour.

12th February 2013, 12:58	#8 (permalink)
x42bn6 First Team Regular Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: 西田麻衣の谷間. Being a nerd, geek and virgin Posts: 17,800	There's also the fact that it might not help hiring - why pay for a new hire when you can grab an unemployed person for free? Especially in low-skilled jobs.

12th February 2013, 17:23	#10 (permalink)
Pat_Mustard Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: A never-nude? I thought he just liked cut-offs. Posts: 4,411	Hopefully this actually turns out to be the breakthrough that it seems. The government seem to be particularly determined to discredit and ignore the ruling.

12th February 2013, 17:25	#11 (permalink)
Silva Sticky tip Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 9,782	Good.

12th February 2013, 18:51	#12 (permalink)
TheReligion Abusive Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 12,043	I agree with the ruling, however, doesn't really solve anything

12th February 2013, 19:38	#13 (permalink)
RK First Team Regular Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15,163	As far as I was aware, these cases (and potential ones) were decided on a technicality, and that the schemes will stay in place pretty much as they are? Feel free to correct me though.