"Volunteer" at Poundland or lose benefits

Don't get me going on that one!!

Call for inquiry into use of unpaid jobseekers as jubilee stewards



The former deputy prime minister Lord Prescott has written to the home secretary to complain about a security firm that used unpaid jobseekers to steward the Queen's diamond jubilee celebrations in London.

He said he was "deeply concerned" by the revelations, published in the Guardian on Tuesday, that up to 30 unpaid jobseekers on the government's work programme were asked to sleep under London Bridge before the river pageant on Sunday.

He is calling for Theresa May to investigate whether the company has broken the security industry's own employment standards and is urging the government to review the company's contract for the Olympics.

The firm, Close Protection UK (CPUK), has issued "sincere apologies" for what it called the "London Bridge incident", but insisted that it had not been exploiting individuals but providing work experience.

Up to 30 jobseekers and another 50 people on apprentice wages were taken to London by coach from Bristol, Bath and Plymouth on Saturday before the pageant on Sunday as part of the government's work programme.

Two jobseekers, who did not want to be identified in case they lost their benefits, later told the Guardian that they had to camp under London Bridge overnight, to change into security gear in public, had no access to toilets for 24 hours, and were taken to a swampy campsite outside London after working a 14-hour shift in the pouring rain on the banks of the Thames on Sunday.

In the letter, Prescott said the situation raised "very serious questions" about the "suitability of using private security contractors to do frontline policing instead of trained police officers" and that the company had shown a "blatant disregard for the care of its workers".

He wrote: "It is totally unacceptable that young unemployed people were bussed in to London from Bristol, Bath and Plymouth and forced to sleep out in the cold overnight before stewarding a major event with no payment.

"I am deeply concerned that a private security firm is not only providing policing on the cheap but failing to show a duty of care to its staff and threatening to withdraw an opportunity to work at the Olympics as a means to coerce them to work unpaid."

Sounds like good Tory principles there.....

As Prince Charles sees it...

Unpaid work scheme ruling at high court could prompt wave of benefit rebates

Tens of thousands of jobseekers have had their benefits stripped unlawfully and are likely to be entitled to a rebate following a high court ruling on Monday, lawyers have said.

In a judicial review, claims by two jobseekers that the government's back-to-work schemes amounted to "forced labour" were rejected. They also failed to persuade a judge that the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) had failed to publish enough official information about the schemes for them to be lawful.

However, in a 50-page ruling, Mr Justice Foskett said that a letter sent out by the DWP to a 41-year-old benefit claimant did not conform to its own rules on providing clear information, making his six-month benefit sanction for failing to work unpaid for 26 weeks unlawful.

Lawyers acting for Jamieson Wilson, an unemployed lorry driver who was forced to live on handouts from family and friends after the DWP stripped him of all benefits, say the ruling will affect tens of thousands of jobseekers who have been sanctioned after being sent the same or similar letters and many should therefore be entitled to a rebate.

PIL solicitor Tessa Gregory said the issuing of unlawful warning letters meant that "tens of thousands of people stripped of their benefits must now be entitled to reimbursement by the DWP".

PIL added: "Today's decision should mean that many of those subjected to benefit sanctions will be entitled to reimbursement by the Department of Work and Pensions.

"It is truly extraordinary that the government has found itself in this position by failing to provide basic information to those affected."

The National Association of Welfare Rights Advisers called on the government to launch an urgent review. It said: "It's a disgrace that people have had benefits stopped because of misleading information routinely issued by the DWP. The DWP must now urgently review all such cases. Sanctions plunge people into severe hardship and advisers see the harm that sanctions cause to claimants and their families."

Following the ruling, the DWP confirmed that it had changed its sanction letters but denied any fault, and said it would be appealing against the judgment and contest any rebate claims.

The DWP said: "We don't think there's anything wrong with our letters, and believe they are both clear and concise.

The DWP said: "We don't think there's anything wrong with our letters, and believe they are both clear and concise.

That is a joke I hope. I've never seen such twaddle as the DWP (amongst other government agencies such as CSA) turn out. They are almost deliberately designed to confuse.

source : http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/aug/08/prisoners-call-centre-fired-staff

Oh, what a surprise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Unemployed cannot be forced to work in Poundland"

The Government has been dealt a major blow after judges ruled that the regulations under which most of its back-to-work schemes were created are unlawful.

Ministers said they were “disappointed and surprised” after Cait Reilly, a university graduate, won her Court of Appeal claim that requiring her to work for free at a Poundland discount store was unlawful.

Miss Reilly, 24, from Birmingham, and a 40-year-old unemployed HGV driver Jamieson Wilson, from Nottingham, both succeeded in their claims that the unpaid schemes were legally flawed.

Their solicitors said later the ruling means “all those people who have been sanctioned by having their jobseekers' allowance withdrawn for non-compliance with the back-to-work schemes affected will be entitled to reclaim their benefits”.

Her legal team was seeking to have two Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) back-to-work schemes – the Community Action Programme and Work Academy Scheme – declared unlawful.

The Government said it will attempt to appeal the ruling and said that it is “ridiculous” to describe the schemes as forced labour.

The Government will now introduce new regulations to ensure future schemes are lawfully based.

The Government will now introduce new regulations to ensure future schemes are lawfully based.

I somehow have little faith in that statement.