Forum Home → Discussion → Access to justice and advice sector issues → Thread
Workfare
As a housing benefit expert I find I’m increasingly being asked to help voluntary organisations that are heavily involved in workfare- taking on claimants who have been compelled to work for them for nothing (although I’m not asked to advise about the workfare provisions themselves) I’m also finding myself working with organisations that have taken money to try to get their residents off of sickness or unemployment benefits.
My gut instinct is not to work for these organisations. Like many welfare rights officers I learned my trade fighting attempts to get me and others to work for employers who would never have been able to recruit staff in a free market because of their lousy conditions. It seems to me that there is no reason to now start colluding in this sort of behaviour just because I am fortunate enough to have a job.
But what do others think? I’m still weighing up what to do.
I would agree that such schemes should be boycotted. They are premised on the ugly assumption that unemployed people don’t want to work and that people with disabilities are shamming and that any work, no matter how worthless or pointless will do (vide making a musuem volunteer work in Poundland)
People should not be required to work for nothing - work should be waged.
[ Edited: 18 Mar 2013 at 02:04 pm by Andrew Dutton ]As a housing benefit expert I find I’m increasingly being asked to help voluntary organisations that are heavily involved in workfare- taking on claimants who have been compelled to work for them for nothing (although I’m not asked to advise about the workfare provisions themselves) I’m also finding myself working with organisations that have taken money to try to get their residents off of sickness or unemployment benefits.
My gut instinct is not to work for these organisations. Like many welfare rights officers I learned my trade fighting attempts to get me and others to work for employers who would never have been able to recruit staff in a free market because of their lousy conditions. It seems to me that there is no reason to now start colluding in this sort of behaviour just because I am fortunate enough to have a job.
But what do others think? I’m still weighing up what to do.
What do they want you to do?
As freelancers we are in the lucky position of being able to refuse to accept instructions. There are organisations whom I have felt uncomfortable about ethically, so I have declined to do work for them. Those involved in workfare would be included - assuming one knows of their workfare involvement (it may not be clear at the outset).
It’s basically no different to choosing to buy Fairtrade products or boycotting Apartheid era South African products.
In reply to Pete, these are usually questions about HB service charges etc, nothing to do directly with workfare.
I’m also finding myself working with organisations that have taken money to try to get their residents off of sickness or unemployment benefits.
Related thread: Voluntary sector involvement in the Work Programme.
There is a range of involvement in the Work Programme. For example, I understand that there could be a contract for an organisation providing financial literacy help, who has agreed to accept referrals for those identified by the provider as likely to benefit from budgeting advice. If participation is voluntary in the sense that not failing to attend will not carry a sanction, is there enough of an association with the Work Programme to taint them?
(My employer is not involved in the above, but a few CABs are)
I can give you a description of my personal experience to think about and it might help you come to a decision.
I once (in 2011) had an interview with a CAB in the north west that, it transpired during the course of the interview, took “volunteers” who had been directed to work for it by a local work programme company. That is, they were not real volunteers but had been told they must work for the CAB under threat of having their benefits sanctioned. My interviewer was blithely chatting away about the range of projects his CAB was involved in, including this one. It had clearly not occurred to him that involvement in the work programme could compromise his organisation’s independence, and could lead to ‘volunteers’ having their benefits stopped by the actions of the very organisation they would normally turn to for advice in such a situation. When I asked the interviewer how many of the work programme people he had referred to the jobcentre for sanctions, he started to waffle. I thanked him for the interview, but regretfully, I was implacably opposed to workfare and so would not be touching his organisation with the business end of a bog brush. I then took my leave.
Of course, this is a fairly transparent instance of exploitation. But I think the moral of the story is: have the courage of your convictions.