DWP orders man to work without pay for company that let him go

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc

originally posted by: Annee
Wait. He's getting unemployment benefits, but refuses to work?

Does it state anywhere he can't look for better employment while working "free" -- which he isn't because he's getting state benefits.

He was working there for the minimum wage then they laid him off and the dole office suspended him for not agreeing to work for them free of charge for the "experience" - Which he clearly doesnt need.

This is insult to injury. Its the age of free labour.

:

He was still getting government benefits. Right?

And refused to work "free" for those benefits. Right?

He was getting government benefits yes, because he has paid into the system to get those benefits. Now all of a sudden the rules seem to have changed..ie, we dont care if you have payed into the system you will work for your benefits from now on. Hell why dont we just scrap a days pay for a days labour and be done with it. Just get everyone to work for free.

If work was such a great thing they wouldn't pay you to do it.

Had to star you for that reply.
Hit the nail on the head.....!

I've talked about this before, great length on ATS, but keep in mind Americans and those in the UK have overwhelmingly rejected Unionization, the election of true progressive politicians, opposing all forms of immigration and taking violent action against "profiteers". So if we ELIMINATE these four strategies from the discussion that leaves only ONE with any possibility of working for the non-1% population: :

Up to the 1940 a person could get just about any job with an 8th grade education, but today you need a BA or Masters for entry level.

Why?

Because the government & big business figured out a long time ago that populations would certainly increase over time, but due to technology advancements, the availability of jobs would not expand to meet that population growth. There is a reason they don’t want people dropping out of high school and then at the same time, encourage those high school graduates to attend junior college, then a 4 year university and finally a Masters degree or PhD. They do so because it DECREASES the amount of people looking for full-time employment at the SAME TIME, chasing after jobs in a market that CANNOT provide employment for everyone looking for, able, qualified for and willing to work.

Look at it this way, when people could get a job with an 8th grade education, they went out and did it as soon as possible (opportunity cost). Then jobs got scarcer and the minimum requirement became a high school diploma, adding 4 more years of people NOT Looking for jobs within their cohort. Then jobs got even scarcer and the minimum became a 2 or 4 year college degree, adding an additional 2-4 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort. Now jobs are really scarce and may require a Masters or PHD, adding an additional 2-7 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort.

Basically the way the economy has been structured TODAY, we are looking at young people within their cohort whom are NOT looking for full-time, career type, employment for 6-15 YEARS, beyond K-12, all while they finish more school!!!

This has been done ON PURPOSE, to keep the number people seeking employment lower. In 1920 after 8th grade everyone who was able, went out to look for work and typically found it, that’s simply NOT possible today under any circumstances. Easily accessed welfare will soon add another 1-3 years of people within a cohort, to those “not seeking employment”. Not to the specific detriment of society, but to continue to mask the illusion that jobs and upward mobility are still available. So, if someone gets a graduate degree and collects 1-3 years of welfare on top of than, that’s ONE less person competing for scarce jobs. The extra years of welfare are then acting in the same way to the larger economy as the increased minimum education levels for employment, with the real goal of decreasing the number of able-bodied applicants out on the job market at the same time. This cohort of people "not pursuing full-time employment" also includes those in Prison, Government pensioners/SSI and the disabled on government assistance. If everyone needed to go out and “get a job” or “start their own business” TODAY, as many “capitalists” and "entrepreneurs" suggest these days, we would all be making 0.25 cents a day.

Newborn babies, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants destroy the wage negotiating power of the 99% and the 1% know this. The "owners of capital" want to keep "baby making" as an "incentive". In contrast, taxing people who make too many babies and use more resources would quickly turn "baby making" into a "disincentive". Which is why they will NEVER do something like that, because more babies "on the way" gives the "owners of capital" absolute control over the wages of the 99%.

Basically we have TOO many people being born and not enough desire on the behalf of the "owners of capital" to employ them all for the sake of having a stable and safe civilization to live in day to day. The owners of capital want more people born, not simply for "growing the future tax base", but for the true purpose of DECREASING overall wages for everyone. More people MEANS less jobs and pay per person, affecting even the educated and highly skilled. Its actually quite simple for the peons/peasants of the world to start having more say in how the world is run. Simply don't have children nor support those having children (in fact, at this point economically, they should be demonized). The result of such, is soaring wages and diverse employment options expanding for all. Taxing those without kids MORE, per their public service consumption rate, is a subconscious way to influence the birth of more kids. Such a system punishes those whom are abstaining from having kids in their own best FINANCIAL interests and not giving in to the desires for the ever increasing population, coveted by both government and large corporations.

The "owners of capital" OWN us to a certain extent and the only times in history when the "owner of capital" had "less say over wages" was when the population of available labor was significantly smaller (i.e. Black Death). The bigger the pool of labor, the more control they have over all of us. The 1% are playing an age old game called, "pit the desperate against each other". Every newborn baby the 99% creates, the easier it is for "owners of capital" to play the game.

There has ALWAYS been an economic system at work in the USA that limited the number of able bodied workers whom would be PAID, versus those whom WOULD NOT be paid for their labor. The “owners of capital” learned their lesson about labor shortages POST the “Black Death” and figured out from that day forward how to keep wages down and the number of potential available laborers at maximum levels, while forcing these "peasants" to compete for scarce available "paid labor" positions.

In the past when there wasn’t enough money to go around to pay both wages & PROFITS the “owners of capital” simply brought in more indentured servant immigrants (Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc) or used flat out slave labor (Blacks, Native Americans, domestic prisoners, POW’s, etc). The only difference between now and then is that “owners of capital” can’t LEGALLY or publicly have slaves or indentured servants anymore, BUT they have the same pressures as before, to keep their high wages flowing and laborers working even when there isn’t enough “PIE” to go around to pay those laborers for services rendered. The mechanisms today that replaces slaves and indentured servants are the following: longer than needed formal education for basic employment, off-shoring of labor, forced retirement, prisoners and welfare.

Make note, my concern is NOT economic growth for the "owners of capital", only increased wages for the rest. A DELIBERATE cultural shift where "baby making" is reduced to zero, is only bad for the "owners of capital", not the laborers. If "labor" does not have the bargaining chip of Unionization, the election of true progressive politicians, opposing all forms of immigration and taking violent action against "profiteers" AND their supporters, then all labor has left to bargain with, is to willingly and forcefully decrease the population competing over scarce jobs in the larger market.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc

originally posted by: Annee
Wait. He's getting unemployment benefits, but refuses to work?

Does it state anywhere he can't look for better employment while working "free" -- which he isn't because he's getting state benefits.

He was working there for the minimum wage then they laid him off and the dole office suspended him for not agreeing to work for them free of charge for the "experience" - Which he clearly doesnt need.

This is insult to injury. Its the age of free labour.

:

He was still getting government benefits. Right?

And refused to work "free" for those benefits. Right?

He would be working for free, if he isn't then the recycle place and the uk government are breaking about 500 laws.

For a start you can't work a full time job and claim JSA.

There are also minimum wage laws which are being broken.

EU labour laws.

And just not being a complete horrible bastard laws.

The UK government are always very quick to point out that NO ONE is working for benefits (because it would be breaking so many laws).

Also, to qualify for jobseekers allowance you have to look for work for 40 hours a week and be available to work. Not sure how doing an unpaid job on the side fits into that.

originally posted by: bates

The UK government are always very quick to point out that NO ONE is working for benefits (because it would be breaking so many laws).

Also, to qualify for jobseekers allowance you have to look for work for 40 hours a week and be available to work. Not sure how doing an unpaid job on the side fits into that.

Same in US, BTW

This is an interesting one to follow.

a reply to: lambros56

What`s happened to our unions ?

You do remember Margaret Thatcher don't you?


a reply to: boohoo

......but keep in mind Americans and those in the UK have overwhelmingly rejected Unionization

Don't know about the US but that's not strictly true about here in the UK.
Thatcher successfully screwed the unions over.
The first part of her grand strategy was to use MSM to demonise the unions.
She then manipulated events to validate that demonization and introduced legislation that greatly reduced their power or influence.
As a result we have seen the steady decline in workers rights and their standard of living.

We now have Cameron - who idolises Thatcher - using the same process to demonise the most needy and vulnerable in our society.

All part of the move backwards to a Victorianesque society.

originally posted by: Britguy
It does seem a bit of a catch 22 situation for some, when the only work doesn't pay a living wage, but they are forced to take it or lose any benefits, even if they have paid into the system all their working lives.
I have gone through 3 rounds of redundancy in my working life, since leaving school at 16 and starting work, to present day at 50 years old. On 2 out of the 3 redundancies, I was out looking for work right away and managed to find another job a month or so later. On those 2 occasions though I ended up telling Jobcentre staff exactly what I thought of them due to the way I was treated and never claimed a penny, even though I was entitled to it. On the 3rd occasion I was lucky enough to have savings and a good pay-off and spent the next 12 months traveling and enjoying myself and paying my own way.

The trouble though is I see so many young people claiming money and talking about their right to do so and their entitlement to benefits. Entitlement? Really?
The young mother in the council provided flat below me has 3 kids, all from different fathers, and has everything provided for her. She has never worked and is probably unemployable, yet is "entitled" to claim for so much. In other words, she has contributed nothing at all to society, but expects her benefits every month with no thought to where that money comes from.
The same goes for some of the immigrants. There was a programme on TV here a few weeks ago about polygamy amongst immigrants in the UK. One guy had, if I remember, 3 wives, all with children and all supported by benefits. The husband of these 3 families didn't work and was also on benefits. He was allowed to have 3 wives under Sharia law and gets away with it for religious reasons. Since when did Sharia law hold any legal power in the UK? THIS is where all the bloody money goes!

Don't get me wrong, there are people in society who, due to illness or injury cannot work and I fully support society's role in supporting them. A good friend of mine now claims certain benefits due to MS. She worked all her adult life and eventually had to stop after she could barely even walk. She still works from home part time and still contributes to society.
Where I draw the line though is supporting those who refuse to put anything into society, instead opting for the benefits route and gaming the system at every opportunity.
Those who have worked all their lives and paid into the system, when trying to legitimately claim, seem to run into so many roadblocks, whereas the wasters and those gaming it seem to get what they want every time.

Bit of a rant, but I am getting crankier the older I get.

You guys set up a really nice system to help people genuinely in need, and then you opened the floodgates to people who are quite happy to sh!t all over that system whilst outbreeding you WITH YOUR OWN MONEY collected via benefits....

I feel for people who see the light, but collectively the British people LET this happen. Too much apologist bullsh!t for Britains' imperialism when in reality Britain spread a culture of success and discipline to the far reaches of the globe.

Nothing to apologize for, now go-on Britain! grow a pair of balls and a stiff upper lip again!

The real kicker with these "Workfare" schemes, is that the government pays 3rd party agencies, and the "employer", money to place people like this in positions.
The fees for doing so are several times bigger than what is paid to the person on JSA. So, not only is the employer receiving taxpayer money to hire a job seeker, they often do so under the guise of "work experience" and don't pay any wages, as is the case here I suspect.

Like most government decisions, someone needs to be shot for setting up such schemes.

A snippet from the article in The Guardian:

Last Wednesday, the DWP continued to battle the information commissioner and hostile court judgments ordering it to reveal where possibly hundreds of thousands of people are being sent to work without pay, sometimes for months at a time.

At the tribunal, the DWP argued that if the public knew exactly where people were being sent on placements political protests would increase, which was likely to lead to the collapse of several employment schemes and undermine the government’s economic interests.

The DWP confirmed some of the UK’s biggest charities, including the British Heart Foundation, Scope, Banardo’s, Sue Ryder, and Marie Curie had withdrawn from the CWP scheme, causing a significant loss of placements.

Giving evidence, senior civil servant Jennifer Bradley confirmed that numerous charities and businesses were receiving cash payments as an incentive to take on the unemployed.

She said several DWP schemes used mandatory unpaid work as a tool to help people but stressed that it was written into the terms that charities and businesses could not use people out of work to replace their paid workforce.

So, the information commissioner and courts have ordered the release of information and the DWP have stalled and refused. Excuse me?
They are a taxpayer funded government organisation and as such, when ordered to do so are obliged to provide that information.

"charities and businesses could not use people out of work to replace their paid workforce" Yet, it seems that is what has been happening, and the DWP damn well know it. I seem to remember a news story from a while back when there were allegations that Tesco were doing just that.

He wasn't told to work for free, he was told to work in exchange for his benefits.

This isn't a new thing, this scheme has been ongoing for at least 2 years, possibly a lot longer.

Yes, companies will join the workfare scheme, dismiss low level labour personnel, then acquire 'free to them' labour off the workfare scheme, quite often the very same people they just dismissed. I say 'free to them', because the tax-payer foots the bill for their free labour, as we pay their benefits.

Is it fair? In its current state, no, it most certainly isn't.

How would I change it? I would make the companies hiring the workfare people, pay their benefits, and maintain their eligibility for the workfare system only as long as they actually hire some of the people after, for a minimum of 2 years.

The system does have some positives, it ensures layabouts actually get some work experience, but as I said, in its current incarnation, its abusable, and being abused.

Our government should differentiate between contribution based and income based benefits. Those who have worked for long enough to claim on the basis of stamp payments, clearly are not lazy money grabbing fools and should not be forced to toe the job centre line.

Those who haven't paid NI stamp should be pushed to contribute their labour as they are receiving money for nothing so need work experience and all the other help they can get to become a contributing member of society.

Sadly this is all too common. We do not have food stamps in the EU, but many companies have been known to pay below subsistence salaries to then send off their employees to the unemployment office for the public to close the gap. Of course this happens mostly in jobs with many jobseekers and few jobs.

This makes it even worse because the man was blackmailed by the unemployment office.

originally posted by: Annee
Wait. He's getting unemployment benefits, but refuses to work?

Does it state anywhere he can't look for better employment while working "free" -- which he isn't because he's getting state benefits.

He's not refusing to work...he was working for minimum wages, at the very same place which said there was no longer a job for him, but as soon as they sacked him, the very same job magically appeared again, but this time, with no pay.

It is illegal to withhold paid for benefits, if people will not work at a regular job without wages. It is not illegal to withhold benefits if people simply refuse to seek work, that is why they call it 'Jobseekers benefit', rather than unemployment benefit.

The Jobcenter concerned, and of course their employers, the UK government are breaking laws, probably many employment laws and benefits legislation too, not to mention Human rights laws.

I would sue them faster than a ferret shooting up a drainpipe if it were me, i'd take them to the ECHR, they'd throw the books at them.

Wasn't the fact that the employer can get their labor free like this an incentive to lay him off in the first place??

So basically what is happening is that they are taking the burden of labor costs off of the employer and placing it onto the taxpayer? And this isn't going to spread out through the economy like a cancerous growth till all but the top are working for their gov't benefits?

I wonder how much the top will complain when they are the only ones paying taxes and they find out that paying their employees their wages directly was far cheaper.

a reply to: grainofsand

IDS changed the rules so that if you appeal a DWP decision you lose all benefits for six months. Mainly because ATOS were doing such a bad job.

You guys set up a really nice system to help people genuinely in need, and then you opened the floodgates to people who are quite happy to sh!t all over that system whilst outbreeding you WITH YOUR OWN MONEY collected via benefits....

Nonsense, a study released today shows immigrants contribute £20Bn to the UK economy.

freshnews-uk.com...

originally posted by: dawnstar
Wasn't the fact that the employer can get their labor free like this an incentive to lay him off in the first place??

So basically what is happening is that they are taking the burden of labor costs off of the employer and placing it onto the taxpayer? And this isn't going to spread out through the economy like a cancerous growth till all but the top are working for their gov't benefits?

I wonder how much the top will complain when they are the only ones paying taxes and they find out that paying their employees their wages directly was far cheaper.

You're right dawnstar...it's an 'old boy network' of you scratch our backs and we'll scratch yours, all based on corporate cost free labour, which isn't like slavery, it is actual forced servitude, AKA slavery.

Why would they have paid for regular jobs, when they can simply fire the employees, and get them back a week later, doing the exact same work, but this time around not costing the corporation anything in wages.

That would be bad enough, and it is, but also on top of all that, the Government actually pays the corporation 'supplying these free work placements out of the goodness of their hearts' (sarcasm) a weekly tariff FOR employing the poor sods in the first place.

So, the corporations earn once by sacking the waged worker. Earn again by getting the worker back to work for them wages free, and then they earn a third time, when the government pays the corporation for helping to provide a work placement.

What an absolutely astonishing and disgusting racket.

a reply to: MysterX

actually for the employer it's better than the old fashioned slavery! The slave owners of old had to buy their slaves and then they had to house them and feed them or watch their investment die of starvation.
Now it's the people's gov't that delivers the slaves to them free of charge heck pays them to take them and well it's the taxpayer that feeds and houses them! I imagine that they will let this scheme play out till the burden is resting solely on the top earners and then they'll decide that the slaves have it too good and start reducing the standard of living for the peons to the point where it's lower than the developing countries and they again have the competitive edge on the world market!

a reply to: dawnstar

Excellent post sir.

Also, I've noticed a few people using the old "they're not working for free, they get other benefits whilst they're doing it" and then adding up all the things like housing benefits and what not.

Very similar to what pro slavery people use to say.

"they're not working for free, we provide them with food, shelter and protection"

It's like the people on the bottom rung should be thankful to the masters for being allowed the opportunity to exist.

originally posted by: bates
a reply to: dawnstar

Excellent post sir.

Also, I've noticed a few people using the old "they're not working for free, they get other benefits whilst they're doing it" and then adding up all the things like housing benefits and what not.

Because its the truth. However, despite being the truth, they are in no way implying that its the right thing to do.

Just because something is the truth doesn't necessarily mean that is is the morally right thing to do.

They are NOT working for free, they are being made to work for their benefits.

If that is a right or wrong thing to be forcing them to do, is for an entirely other discussion.

a reply to: BMorris

is this for just non-profits or can the big corps get into the action also??
I'm sorry but I see it as forcing the taxpayers to subsidize the company's payroll so they can make bigger and better profits to pass on to their upper management.
We have tried something similar here in the US..
Take a single mom who is at home raising her kids and demand she goes to work...
I just can't see how it doesn't add more of a burden onto the taxpayer..
First a new need is often created for the taxpayer to meet- childcare. along with transportation costs along with clothing allotment ect.
Second- there are other mothers in need of work also who don't have the option to work for less than the cost of the childcare she needs so well all these people that are being forced to work without any care how much they make ( since all their needs are cared for by the fine gov't) kind of puts her at a disadvantage and might conceivably created more needy that the taxpayers have to prop up!
all this just to make some feel better that they are making the lazy work for their benefits.

ya know I worked with one of these single mothers...
she often lent money to our foreman!! she thought she had it made!!!
all at the expense of the taxpayer of course! her mother watched the kids while she was at work the gov't paid for the childcare while she was at work (we worked graveyard) she got extra money to cover the cost of transportation along with clothing and meals even!!!
she had it better than me who had a husband working along with me!!

originally posted by: BMorris

originally posted by: bates
a reply to: dawnstar

Excellent post sir.

Also, I've noticed a few people using the old "they're not working for free, they get other benefits whilst they're doing it" and then adding up all the things like housing benefits and what not.

Because its the truth. However, despite being the truth, they are in no way implying that its the right thing to do.

Just because something is the truth doesn't necessarily mean that is is the morally right thing to do.

They are NOT working for free, they are being made to work for their benefits.

If that is a right or wrong thing to be forcing them to do, is for an entirely other discussion.

THEY Might very well become either one of US.

a reply to: bates

This country has a minimum wage which is bad enough but there you go.

So going by that logic, if the guy works, he like anyone else is entitled to be paid the minimum wage, nuff said.