It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A man who was let go at the end of a temporary job has been ordered by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to work for the same firm for six months without pay. Electronics specialist John McArthur, now unemployed, says he is living off 16p tins of spaghetti and without heating after being sanctioned by a jobcentre for refusing to work unpaid for LAMH Recycle in Motherwell, a Scottish social enterprise. He says he was happy to work for LAMH under the now-defunct future jobs fund for the minimum wage in 2010-2011, but refuses on principle to do the same job unpaid. McArthur, 59, says he is surviving on a monthly pension of £149 after the DWP stopped his unemployment benefit until January as punishment for his refusal to go on the 26-week community work placement (CWP). For almost three months, McArthur has spent two hours each weekday morning parading outside the plant wearing a placard reading: “Say no to slave labour”. “It was simply a case of: ‘Go here, work for nothing and if you don’t we’ll stop your subsistence level benefit,’” he said.
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of the UK’s biggest charities, including the British Heart Foundation, Scope, Banardo’s, Sue Ryder, and Marie Curie had withdrawn from the CWP scheme, causing a significant loss of placements.
originally posted by: SearchLightsInc
Isnt remembrance day soon?
Least we ever forget how many people gave their lives so their grandchildren could be slaves to corporations.
This country makes me sick.
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.
:
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.
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?