People on benefits..

[Geometer]

A friend of mine is now having to do voluntary work at a charity shop for his "Dole Money". ......Problem I have with this is,,, He no longer has to sign on , but still receives his fortnightly benefit payment,,,,,,, Yet he's no longer included in the monthly unemployment figures, but still unemployed.

Is this the "Community Action Programme"? This is the scheme I'm currently on (30 hours a week doing "voluntary" work + up to 10 hrs supervised "job search"). If it is, then he does have to sign on; if he's told you different, get him to check his facts, because he could get into serious trouble if he misses an appointment.

If it isn't CAP, it's one I haven't heard of, and as I have a personal interest in these schemes, I'd be grateful if you could find out a bit more about it and let me know.

 

[Geometer]

So, in effect they are employed by the state? How does their "wage" (ie benefits) compare to minimum wage?

A good question. I shall answer it.

The current adult National Minimum Wage is £6.08 per hour. I'm currently on the Community Action Programme (CAP), which involves 30 hours a week of compulsory, unpaid work for a voluntary organisation, plus 3 hours of supervised job search which requires two hours of travelling there and back (at the tax-payer's expense, to do something I'm quite capable of doing at home, at my own expense).

If I was doing the same hours for NMW, I'd be getting £11065 a year. Add on Working Tax Credits - maybe £1500 or a bit more - and I'd be getting around £13.5K a year.

My annual benefits add up to about £7.5K, so I'm working for a fraction over half what I would be getting if I was being paid the minimum rate for the job.

The National Minimum Wage, if I'm not mistaken, was introduced to protect people from exploitation by unscrupulous employers, and unemployed people are just as entitled to that protection as, say, a community of Asian women in Bradford.

If I'm being forced to work for half the NMW, then I'm being exploited, by definition; and if my de facto employer is the government, then that makes them no better than a sweatshop owner on Manningham Lane.

 

[joe-90]

At least it stops you sitting around watching Jeremy Kyle.

 

[Geometer]

How can they be doing voluntary work if it is enforced?

That is also a good question. The answer is that it's not "voluntary" work, it's "involuntary" work - neither voluntary nor paid but compulsory, it's a wholly new class of work that amounts to 21st century serfdom.

 

[Geometer]

At least it stops you sitting around watching Jeremy Kyle.

I have much better ways of spending my free time than participating in legalised voyeurism, thank you very much

 

[joe-90]

Helping out in a charity shop is one of them so stop whining.

 

[Geometer]

- and I'd be getting around £13.5K a year.

Sorry, that should read "12.5K"

 

[Geometer]

Helping out in a charity shop is one of them so stop whining.

As it happens, I've done quite a lot of voluntary work over the years. Mainly in archaeology and conservation, but just before last Christmas I started doing a couple of afternoons a week at my local Oxfam online retail centre. When I was "mandated" to CAP, I asked if I could continue there as my placement. I was told that:

'Oxfam does not offer placements for participants in the Mandatory Work Activity, or compulsory elements of 'work for your benefits' schemes. We do this for two reasons: firstly because these schemes impact unfairly on the support people receive and so are incompatible with our goal of reducing poverty in the UK, and secondly because these schemes involve forced volunteering, which is not only an oxymoron, but undermines people's belief in the enormous value of genuine voluntary work.'

I was also told that, as I was already a volunteer and there "off my own bat", an exception could be made in my case. Unfortunately, however, after a couple of months word obviously got back to Head Office, and I had an interesting correspondence with their Head of Volunteering and Marketing, who said I was putting them in a compromising position and they would have to consider suspending me.

This was in March, and I've heard nothing further; but as I have great respect for Oxfam, I consider their position to be highly commendable, and I have no desire to embarrass them, I asked for my placement to be switched, and I've been working on a local nature reserve since the beginning of April.

Now, that's one of the world's biggest (if not the biggest) and most respected international aid organisations, with decades of experience fighting poverty around the world, who run one of the biggest volunteer workforces in the country, with unimpeachable moral credentials, refusing to participate in the government's flagship "back to work" schemes on, essentially, moral grounds.

Are they "whining" too?

 

[joe-90]

Considering their CEO earns about £180K he's got to do something to big-note himself.

 

[Geometer]

Considering their CEO earns about £180K he's got to do something to big-note himself.

I'm not sure what point you're making here.

It's also late, I've got a long day tomorrow, and I'm off to bed.

Goodnight.

 

[gregers]

180k thats obscene as its a charity based orginisation dependant of donations etc.

 

[AronSearle]

The National Minimum Wage, if I'm not mistaken, was introduced to protect people from exploitation by unscrupulous employers, and unemployed people are just as entitled to that protection as, say, a community of Asian women in Bradford.

If I'm being forced to work for half the NMW, then I'm being exploited,

Circular logic.

A group of people decide X amount is fine, and anything under that is exploitation. That's not the same as saying it is exploitation, it's just an opinion. The minimum wage is just an arbitrary number, you may agree it's the "right" amount to pay someone, but that doesn't automatically mean someone earning 1/2 of it is being exploited.

Are you being exploited if you are just given the money?

No.

So why is it exploitation if you have to work for it, what, because it doesn't total up to X amount?

That's not exploitation.

------------------

I have sympathy for you situation, but you have a roof over your head (I assume you are not posting from a wireless laptop in a cardboard box), food and board.

Fact is, far to many people lose or do not develop a work ethic on benefits, getting them to do "something" is better for everyone.

My annual benefits add up to about £7.5K, so I'm working for a fraction over half what I would be getting if I was being paid the minimum rate for the job.

I would be surprised if you are on benefits, but not receiving some housing benefit or council housing.

It would be unusual if you were not, and I wonder how much your benefits total up to if you include those figures?

 

[Geometer]

The National Minimum Wage, if I'm not mistaken, was introduced to protect people from exploitation by unscrupulous employers, and unemployed people are just as entitled to that protection as, say, a community of Asian women in Bradford.

If I'm being forced to work for half the NMW, then I'm being exploited,

Circular logic.

A group of people decide X amount is fine, and anything under that is exploitation. That's not the same as saying it is exploitation, it's just an opinion. The minimum wage is just an arbitrary number, you may agree it's the "right" amount to pay someone, but that doesn't automatically mean someone earning 1/2 of it is being exploited.

Are you being exploited if you are just given the money?

No.

So why is it exploitation if you have to work for it, what, because it doesn't total up to X amount?

That's not exploitation.

Fair comment, and an interesting point. Before I respond (it's likely to be a lengthy response, and I'd rather deal with it tomorrow, when I'm not so whacked) I just want to clarify some points:

1. Would you concur that, a) the purpose of the NMW is to protect people from exploitation, and b), the NMW is, for all intents and purposes, generally considered to be the minimum livable wage?

2. My benefits:
JSA @ £70 p.w. = £3640 p.a.
HB @ £280 p.c.m. = £3360 p.a.
CTB @ £961 - 25% = £721 p.a.

Total annual benefits = £7721

The slight discrepancy is because I'd forgotten to add this year's increase to JSA of £2.50 p.w.

3. Finally, I want to make something clear: In no way do I begrudge the time and energy I'm putting into the work I'm doing, nor do I have any grievance with the Wildlife Trust who own the reserve I'm working on. Quite the contrary; as a keen naturalist, I spend a great deal of my free time there anyway, and I'm happy to be putting something back. The days are long, the weather has been foul, and the work is tiring but not arduous. I'm actually enjoying it - but then, I had the foresight to arrange a placement doing something I know I enjoy. Many people have not been, and will not be, so lucky.

I'm grateful for your sympathy, Aron, and you're right; there are many, many people a lot worse off than me. I'm only too aware of this (I might illustrate this at some point). In many ways I'm extremely fortunate, relatively speaking, but my personal circumstances are irrelevant, except insofar as they are representative of many other unemployed people, or they illustrate a point. I'm not simply "whining" abut my own problems; I'm protesting, on behalf of 1.6 million powerless, voiceless people, at what I believe is a serious breach of fundamental Human rights, and a grave misjudgment by our government which could have serious consequences for all involved.

I'll come back to this when I've had some kip.
------------------

Fact is, far to many people lose or do not develop a work ethic on benefits, getting them to do "something" is better for everyone.

I have something to say on this as well, but I'll save it for later.

 

[Geometer]

180k thats obscene

Is it?

Emma Harrison, the founder and ex-Chair of A4E (one of the govt's principal contractors for providing the Work Programme and other "welfare to work" initiatives) was not only on £365K until she resigned when A4E came under investigation for fraud, but also awarded her shareholders an £11m dividend, and herself a dividend of £8.6m, before she went.

I'm sure running the UK branch of a major international aid agency is at least as difficult as running a glorified, taxpayer-funded, recruitment agency with a 50% success rate.

 

[joe-90]

I'm sure there are capable people could do it for way less. Charities are money making machines for those that run them. Bunch of crooks the lot of them.