BUT WATERSTONES PULLS OUT OF THE PROGRAMME
The government has insisted that its controversial work programme that sees young jobseekers being told to do unpaid internships or risk losing their benefits is NOT promoting forced labour, the Guardian has reported.
The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) was responding to allegations by geology graduate Cait Reilly, who has challenged the government over a two-week unpaid internship she says she was forced to take at the discount store Poundland. She says her job centre told her that failure to complete her “compulsory” placement – which involved sweeping floors and stacking shelves – would result in her losing her Jobseekers’ Allowance payment of £52 a week.
In court papers filed on Wednesday, the DWP admitted that it made a mistake by not telling Reilly she had a chance to opt out of the placement. But it says her scheme and others like it are not contrary to the Human Rights Act, and the department is “strongly resisting” the case.
In an 11-page document setting out a provisional defence for a case that could affect the position of hundreds of thousands of jobseekers in a similar position, the DWP has argued that having benefits docked does not equate to forcing the unemployed to work, claiming:
“Where a person is required to perform a task and, if he or she does not do so, loses benefit, that is not forcing a person to work.”
The Guardian also reports that Cait’s case may not be the only one of its type – the DWP is facing challenges relating to several of its new programmes, on similar grounds. This includes the recently announced Community Action Programme in which those out of work for a number of years must work for six months unpaid, including at profit-making businesses, in order to keep their benefits.
And the newspaper has collected a list of companies participating in the back-to-work schemes. Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Argos, Asda, Maplin, TK Maxx, Matalan, Primark, Holland & Barrett, Boots, McDonald’s, Burger King and the Arcadia group of clothes stores, owned by the billionaire Sir Philip Green have all taken on staff under government programmes.
But one brand – the bookseller Waterstones – has pulled out of the scheme. A spokesperson told the Guardian that after the newspaper highlighted the practice at one of its stores, it initiated a review and no longer allowed branch managers to take on work experience people as it did not want to encourage working without pay.
And concern is growing that those who work unpaid may not be the only ones who lose out from these schemes. Existing paid members of staff at the participating companies are reporting that their hours are being cut as unpaid workers are doing it for free.
A paid staff member at health food store Holland and Barrett – which has 1,000 such placements across 250 stores said:
“We have had a number of placements in our store and have noticed that the hours for part-time staff have been reduced. Staff are upset because we are all struggling to make ends meet. The real benefactors of this scheme are the companies who receive millions of pounds worth of labour absolutely free of charge and the losers are the jobseekers who see potential jobs being filled by workfare placements for months at a time and the loyal part-timers who find their regular overtime hours savagely cut.”
But Holland and Barrett said it had taken on about 50 work experience jobseekers as paid employees, insisting:
“We have committed to working with JobCentre Plus to make available 1,000 work placements available for young people aged between 16 and 24 years. We have 250 stores taking part in the scheme as well as our head office and distribution and packaging site. We ensure they are given skills and confidence to move forward with their job search and of course a valuable reference.”
Tech retailer Maplin said:
“We are more than happy to get behind the different work experience schemes nationwide. We fully support, where possible, placements initiated by the local employment offices to get individuals into the working environment. This is by no means a way of replacing our current paid employees as all the individuals involved are shadowing a full-time member of staff.”
Graduate Fog is gripped by this story – and remains firmly opposed to the exploitation of unpaid workers, whether the placements are privately arranged or done through a government scheme. We hope that these appalling programmes will be banned swiftly and effectively. Unpaid work is not the solution to our nation’s unemployment problem – it is already a big part of the problem.
*WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO CAIT REILLY’S CASE?
Should back-to-work schemes involving unpaid labour be banned? Have you done a government-backed scheme – and did it lead you to a job? Or have you seen evidence that these schemes are actually displacing paid workers?
Hopefully, Legal Parties will appeal the Judicial Review. After all, if, within a workplace, a candidate has to deliver skills to achieve any objective(s) defined by the employer, typified by the candidate being directed towards replenishing stock levels, or doing anything which staff members would do, then the candidate is not simply occupying a job which could easily be filled by a candidate who is unemployed, but the candidate is unfortunately being complicit in deceit and pursuing behaviours which would be tantamount to fraud.
In response to the judgement, Waterstones have pulled away from any engagement with Slave Labour Schemes of this type.
If, in addition, both individuals and Legal Parties decide to instigate legal action at a local level, where any candidate having been placed on Slave Labour Schemes, submit a claim for Back Pay, this may accelerate the withdrawal of other employers from this type of scheme.
Eowyn, they have set out a provisional defence. As far as I can tell, there has been NO judgement yet. There is no need for anyone to appeal.
Also, could you please clarify your statements regarding fraud? What precisely is tantamount to fraud? Currently, I can’t make heads or tails of what you’re trying to say.
@ all
Don’t you love this bit?:
A spokesperson told the Guardian that after the newspaper highlighted the practice at one of its stores, it initiated a review and no longer allowed branch managers to take on work experience people as it did not want to encourage working without pay.
HOW refreshing is that?? A company actually thinking for itself and saying “No, actually that’s not something we want to be part of, even if everybody else is doing it and the government says it’s okay.”
How amazing would it be if other companies engaged their brains (and hearts?) over this issue, instead of just following the herd…
I thought the same thing – Gives me a lot of respect for Waterstones.
And take it from me – a lot of employers do engage their brains, but certainly not their hearts. It’s not herd mentality if you ask me… It’s taking a purely economic view of labour, considering it a statistic on a balance sheet rather than a purely human endevour.
Purely economic models were not designed for human plight.
We’ve got plenty of thinkers; but not many feelers.
“Where a person is required to perform a task and, if he or she does not do so, loses benefit, that is not forcing a person to work.”
I would guess that those are very dodgy grounds if that is what DWP is relying on as a defence.
“Where a person is required to perform a task and, if he or she does not do so, loses benefit, that is not forcing a person to work.” It raises an interesting philosophical question about the nature of enslavement doesn’t it?
Are you only enslaved if there’s someone cracking a whip behind you, saying “stack that shelf or else”? Or is it enslavement when you are “merely” threatened with losing the money you must have if you’re to eat for the next few days and avoid homelessness?
I’m not sure how subtle this is as a philosophical issue. It depends whether you consider it a given that people should be paid even if they’re not working. Obviously in a civilized society we want people to be able to live at a reasonable standard regardless of whether or not they are employed/are able to work. That’s not being disputed, and I’m not in support of it being suggested that people ought to work for free to keep their benefits. I just don’t think it’s in any way comparable to slavery unless you consider it a human right to be given a certain amount of money to live on even if you’re not working. I think it’s good that people are, don’t get me wrong, but I don’t know if it’s really a right. She could have chosen not to work in Poundland and not to receive JSA. Slavery is being forced to work against your will, she’s not being forced to work, she’s being told that if she doesn’t do a job for two weeks she won’t keep some money that she gets given. It’s not fair, and I’m against the suggestion that she should work for free, but comparing this to slavery in any way seriously damages the credibility of an otherwise perfectly sound objection. People should be paid to work, but she has the choice not to work. There is some argument to be made that the option of losing her JSA is so bad that she essentially doesn’t have a choice, but really I think that’s taking the argument too far unless she really is going to starve to death without that money. Who knows, maybe she would, but I doubt it.
If people are made to work for benefits, why can’t it be doing something worth while for them and the community, not for a rich multi-national? Volunteering within the local community would boost their stagnating CV and help others. I’m not talking about litter picking here. There are loads of interesting and valuable volunteering jobs out there.
It angered me greatly that whilst on Job-seekers, I was not allowed to volunteer and keep my CV fresh, but sit at home like a lemon. My only option was to sacrifice both job-seekers and a salary, doing unpaid internships until I (luckily) got a job in a relevant field as a result of one of them, for which I am grateful.
@ A Graduate
Forgive me for saying but if it looks like volunteering, it doesn’t necessarily follow that is legally is volunteering. The transgressions in that sector are the same as internships – calling it ‘volunteering’ when it is likely to be work – essentially its the same problem, different wording.
” The real benefactors of this scheme are the companies who receive millions of pounds worth of labour absolutely free of charge.”
I… don’t think that’s what they meant to say. Benefactors? If anyone’s a benefactor in this it’s the unpaid employees. ‘Beneficiary’, maybe?
If, as suggested, “whilst on Job-seekers, I was not allowed to volunteer and keep my CV fresh, but sit at home like a lemon”, the candidate was on Job Seekers Allowance but did not provide evidence which addressed the “Job Seekers Agreement”, they would not have been awarded Job Seekers Allowance in the first place and more than likely would have been subject to a sanction. In any event, Job Centre Plus has always supported the option for any candidate to volunteer whilst on JSA.
Contrary to any myth which may be alluded to, a “Work Programme Placement” for the unemployed or “Internship” does not constitute “volonteering” – if someone is compelled to do something, this does not constitute volunteering.
Of course, if Job Centre Plus does compel a candidate to attend a “Placement” as part of the work programme, and if the employer attempts to direct the candidate towards delivering skills within the employers place of business to achieve any objective(s), then there may be a case to answer for….the employer may be contravening National Minimum Wage Legislation, and it is entirely down to the candidate whether they take the candidate to an Industrial Tribunal for Back Pay and the payment of damages.
As to whether someone assigned to an “Intern” or “Work Programme Placement”, the following link provides some advice
http://careers.guardian.co.uk/careers-blog/legal-overview-internships
Pippy: “She could have chosen not to work in Poundland and not to receive JSA.”
And then I suppose she could have chosen not to pay her rent, or not to eat…
It feels like you’re saying that because no one was actually either physically forcing her or threatening her, it can’t possibly be as unfair as everyone’s saying. By that logic, people who work in sweatshops for pennies an hour aren’t in an unfair situation either because no one’s physically forcing them or threatening them to do it, therefore they could choose to leave… But it’s not much of a choice, is it? Not if they lose their incomes and homes.
I’m not saying that the two situations are directly comparable, not by a long shot, I’m just saying that the idea of choice isn’t quite as simple as you make out.
@Sarah,
I did mention that point in my post: ‘There is some argument to be made that the option of losing her JSA is so bad that she essentially doesn’t have a choice, but really I think that’s taking the argument too far.’
I’m fully aware the idea of choice is not that simple, I wasn’t implying that physical force is the only thing which can constitute ‘force’. She wouldn’t be losing all her money, she’d be losing the £50 odd of JSA. If she’s supporting herself entirely on that money, that’s pretty impressive. My point is exactly that I doubt she’s going to go hungry or homeless due to this loss. Of course, if she is, you’re exactly right that this would constitute force, but like I say, I don’t think that’s the case.
@ Pippy
None of us know precisely what Cait’s personal circumstances are. That said, there are lots of “Caits” for whom losing the JSA pittance and allied benefits (eg Housing and Council Tax Benefit)WOULD be a catastrophe resulting in hunger and homelessness. You haven’t even factored into your argument yet the likelihood of a “Cait” being sanctioned over any refusal to take up the unpaid shelf-stacking “work placement”.
I wrote an article in my blog “JobCentrePlus Services As Rated By Their Customers”. People posting responses to it described truly shocking behaviour by their local JCP – eg someone whose medical condition meant he could not go too far from a loo being forced to attend the JCP (a long bus ride away) or lose his benefit, another person threatened with being sanctioned when the notoriously unreliable local bus service failed – twice that morning – to turn up and so on.
Governments (and the right wing press) are doing a good job of demonising everyone on benefits (even the terminally ill)as scroungers. I’m appalled at the lack of respect shown to so many people on such flimsy grounds. What we should all be doing is holding present and future governments to account for their management of the national economy and for their progress (or lack of it) towards achieving full employment at decent rates of pay.
“She wouldn’t be losing all her money, she’d be losing the £50 odd of JSA. If she’s supporting herself entirely on that money, that’s pretty impressive”
It currently stands at roughly £53 a week for under-25s, and let me tell you, that £3 extra means something when that’s all the money you have coming in. You say it’s “impressive” like you think it couldn’t possibly be true. I can tell you that it IS true because I lived on £53 (with housing and council tax benefit covering my rent) for eight months. Believe it or not, that is what you’re expected to do if you’re on JSA at that age.
I don’t know whether Reilly has other money coming in – none of us know. I’ll assume you think she’s got parents supporting her, as you can’t earn any money from paid work while you’re on JSA (unless it’s under the £53 a week, in which case, you have to declare it and the amount is deducted from your benefit. If you don’t declare it, it’s considered fraud, and you’ll land a £2k fine). It’s also unlikely that she’s being supported by a partner, as you’re often not allowed to sign on for JSA if your partner is in paid work. You’re also not allowed to have more than £16k in savings, and if you have more than £6k, a certain amount is deducted from your benefit every week (depending on how much you have). Also, if she’s also in receipt of housing or council tax benefit, she wouldn’t only be losing the £53 of JSA – she’d lose the lot. If you apply for housing or council tax benefit through JobCentre Plus, once you lose your JSA, the rest of your benefits get cancelled too, even if you’re still eligible for them. You then have to take it up with your local housing authority, which can take months. I would think her benefits would simply get docked as a result of refusing the work placement, rather than cancelled, but even losing a bit of your income is devastating when you have so little to begin with.
Leaving aside the one possible circumstance in which she has an extra income (parental support), CareersPartnershipUK is right, there are so many other Cat Reillys out there (myself included) who would not have anything other than benefits to rely on if we were out of work. Saying that Cat Reilly is unlikely to go hungry or homeless because of losing her benefit is a) an assumption to begin with and b) completely misses out all of the people who will very likely face this circumstance themselves.
I can understand where the govt came from on this – designed to tackle the Jeremy Kyle generation and the type who have discovered benefits see better return than work. It’s just a shame that a) these are the stories that get picked up and b) they didn’t think of this angle.
@Sarah
‘I can tell you that it IS true because I lived on £53 (with housing and council tax benefit covering my rent) ‘ Ok, I thought she’d only be losing the JSA, so I was going to say that this was my point; she wouldn’t be homeless because the JSA isn’t all the incomings she has. If you’re right about her standing to lose housing/council tax benefits I stand completely corrected. If she risks losing shelter and food then I wholeheartedly agree, this is not a choice she’s being presented with.
I certainly wasn’t assuming she had parental support. I was assuming she had other benefit (housing etc) which would stop her ending up on the streets. Whether she has parental support or not is totally irrelevant because firstly I presume that’s not being factored in, and secondly if it were that would be ridiculous – to assume parental support after age 18 is, to me, an odd and arguably very unfair way to organize things.
When I said it would be impressive to live on £53 a week, I meant including housing. I’ve lived on less than £53 a week excluding my rent, so I’m certainly not of the opinion that it’s surprising that people can survive on that amount. It would be impressive to survive on £53 including rent. When I said that I was making the point that I doubt she is surviving on the JSA alone; that she has other benefits. Your point, however, is that she would lose her other benefits as well if she were to lose the JSA which totally changes my opinion on the case. If that’s true, she’s not being offered a choice in a meaningful sense.
@Pippy. I’m glad that’s cleared up! Unfortunately, even if she could theoretically keep her housing and council tax benefit, all that would do is pay her rent, no more, no less. Food, bills and other expenses wouldn’t be covered, meaning that she’d be in trouble anyway. Housing benefit is generally assigned to only cover the bare minimum of your rent, and council tax benefit is simply deducted from the amount your household would ordinarily pay.
@redheadfashionista
…or, indeed, those employers being complicit and deceit, and perpetrating recruitment practises which effectively “obtain pecuniary advantage by deception”.
Of course, if candidate refuse to play the game, and commence the legal process designed to recover Back Pay from the employer for any “Unpaid Internship” or “Work Programme Placement”, then employers will return to standard recruitment practises and start to play their part in economic regeneration, with the £20K-£30K per annum per job they save by recruiting some willing slave (or Stockholm Syndrome Slave), returned to the system through the payment of salary, tax, national insurance.
Of course, irrespective of whether an employer calls a job an “Unpaid Internship” etc, the Judicial Process accepts that employers may not attempt to evade their responsibilities where employing staff, and that staff may not sign away their rights, particularly their entitlement to at least the National Minimum Wage.
@Eowyn Rohan
I have so much difficulty following what you’re saying Eowyn.
Firstly, obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception is no longer an offence. It was repealed by the Fraud Act 2006.
Secondly, even if it wasn’t, how is an unpaid internship or a workscheme obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception? Who is deceiving who and who is gaining? And why does this matter?
Thanks for this story, Tanya (as always!). I was made redundant from a senior management role two months ago and I have 20+ years of experience. Even though I’m not a young person or an addict, my Job Centre put me forward for a back-to-work scheme intended for either young people (up to age 24) or people “with zero experience caused by alcohol or drug abuse.” This was with a major UK charity the preserves historic places. The charity offered it as a “volunteer” position, but a back-to-work scheme supplemented it with a minimum wage pay for a few weeks. Excuse me, but surely this type of role should: A. Go to someone who desperately NEEDS work experience, either due to their lack of experience, or to help them along the way from substance abuse; B. be paid BY THE CHARITY, who employs the person, rather than expecting a handout from yet another charity. How on earth are young people and vulnerable people going to get even the most paltry, underpaid work experience if senior managers like me, with decades of experience, are being put forward for these volunteer/minimum wage roles? The whole thing is utterly disgusting and is completely slanted towards the “national charity” getting what it wants for as little as possible-indeed, for free.
Developments!
The TUC (UK trade unions’ central body for those who don’t know) is producing a Smartphone application enabling prospective interns to type in the details of their placement offer and receive advice whether it’s legal. Presumably the application will also advise what the options are if the offer is ILLEGAL.
This TUC application will SLIGHTLY change the balance of power between employers and interns, to interns’ advantage. Employers will be less inclined to to risk paying “employees” less than NMW because informed interns are so much more likely to put in compensation claims whenever it suits their circumstances to do so.
@Abi
That’s a really awful eye-opener 🙁 It just goes to show that they really don’t care about the opportunities of young people as much as they do about painting us all as feckless scroungers. I hope things improve for you soon.
@Sarah,
It definitely is. When I asked, “Shouldn’t this be set aside for someone who really needs it?” the condescending woman from the work scheme programme said, “Oh, I think [the charity getting my free labour] would be more than happy to have someone with your experience!” I said, “Yes, I’m sure they would. And for free!”
She either willfully missed my point, or chose to ignore it for the purpose of ticking a box. Young people simply do not stand a chance with these horrid jobsworths in charge of EVERYTHING. In my opinion, it’s scandalous at best, and should be illegal as it seems to me a misdirection of public funds away from those who need it to those who don’t, just for the sake of employer convenience and meeting placement targets. This all needs to be regulated!
I so wish I could afford to start up a business. I would hire young people and truly give them proper, valuable work experience WITH PAY.
Good luck to you as well, Sarah, and everyone else.
Contrary to any myth which may be cited, the Government has yet to repeal ANY legislation for which fraud is a crime, and anyone or any organisation which sets out to “obtain pecuniary advantage by deception”, typified by the attitude of some employers to redesignate any job which should at least be covered by National Minimum Wage Legislation as an “Unpaid Internship” where candidates may not waive their rights, MAY be covered accordingly.