Ah, that explains why the local Primark is consistently staffed with barely-legal teenagers. I did wonder.

the charities, Oxfam, FoE, Salvation Army and Mind have pulled out.

This continues to remind me of nothing so much as a lynch mob baying for blood. And insensible to reason. But by all means, if this is slave labour, if this is crass exploitation, if this was not in fact an expense for these companies that they were only doing out of their sense of corporate social responsibility, why were these charities involved?

Why were Oxfam, Friends of the Earth, the Salvation Army and Mind all using this idiotically named slave labour? What possible reason could they have had?

The fact is such schemes offered young people a chance out of the poverty trap of welfare dependence. And nice well fed, middle class radicals have destroyed their chances and left them to rot on the dole. Well done.

The Salvation Army have not pulled out. They are still using workfare workers from the Work Programme scheme, which despite the repeated claims made by ministers, is mandatory.

I second what SMFS has said – do tell us please Sunny why if workfare was an exploitative scheme various well know and well 3espected charities were involved.

I find it disgusting that it is the left, and the SWP with it’s front group “right to work” that are actively making it harder to get unemployed people with no skills or experience into work – not to mention the downright lies they are telling about workfare. I’ve not seen any solutions from the hard left when it comes to unemployemnt either.

I do see them continually campaigning to make the barriers to getting into employement ever higher though – they essentially want higher benefits, higher wages, higher corporate taxes and more unionisation.

Maybe the SWP should rename the RTW group with something a little closer to the truth. How about “right to work – prefer to be idle”.

I see Tyler has been briefed by the Tories to continue pushing the ‘it’s a far-left plot’ line as much as possible. Even mumsnet is pissed off with this scheme, they now a hotbed of radical leftism too?

@ 4 Tyler

“I find it disgusting that it is the left, and the SWP with it’s front group “right to work” that are actively making it harder to get unemployed people with no skills or experience into work.”

No, that would be the government, who are allowing companies to replace paid jobs with free labour. David Cameron was neither a lefty or a SWP member, last time I checked.

I’ll bite

Why were Oxfam, Friends of the Earth, the Salvation Army and Mind all using this idiotically named slave labour? What possible reason could they have had?

Because, in their different ways, each has become too corporate (and too cosy with Government in some cases). Grass-roots members/supporters/donors have objected to their alignment and endorsement of an exploitative scheme, and they’ve stepped back. They shouldn’t have gone there in the first place.
Tyler may believe that they are well respected, presumably because s/he’s heard of them, but none have the cleanest of reputations. They may maintain that they might have able to work the scheme is a less exploitative fashion, but that’s not the default set-up for the scheme, plus it relies on their putting their aims and objectives ahead of free/cheap labour to aid their business plans.
None of the aforementioned have the most sterling of track records for such principle: all are more corporatised entities than charities.

@ 5

Even mumsnet is pissed off with this scheme, they now a hotbed of radical leftism too?

You didn’t really fall for that, did you?

SWP sockpuppets post on mumsnet and you think they’re genuine mums? (The over use of the F-word is a bit of a giveaway).

As for generally being ‘a hotbed of radical leftism’ – no, there is no Gramscian long march through the Sure Start centres. . But let’s remember mumsnet is run by the wife of the deputy editor of the Guardian, so not exactly Cam-friendly.

@ 7

There’s also the fact that caring deeply about one issue doesn’t make you right about all issues. In fact, I reckon dedicated charity workers are an at-risk group for single-issue fanaticism. I’ve certainly heard charities call for policies that would be generally damaging simply because they would benefit the charity’s aims. If someone feels strongly enough about the environment / the homeless / mental health etc., even if they dislike workfare they might see it as a necessary evil for supporting their cause.

In short, “it was a charity wot dunnit” =/= “it was the right thing to do”.

The funniest thing last was was gorgeous Farmer George (Useless) Eustice, from here in Cornwall, saying on BBC News that the objections to Workfare were being led by communists and the SWP.
On so many issues, you cannot believe the Tories – and they cannot use decent arguments to support their rag-bag policies.
All ‘workfare’ placements should be in organisations where there are jobs available – the scheme should not be used as a continual source of ‘free’ labour for these companies.

How much longer will the government attempt to deflect attention away from their mandaTORY schemes by concentrating on Work Experience and claiming that it entirely voluntary, when in fact that isn’t true either,
They are attempting to use “voluntary ” schemes and the scandal of youth unemployment as a front business to supply cover to the seedy racket of slave labour taking place in the back rooms .

Reds under the bed is so 1950’s. You don’t have to be a member of the SWP or the SP (England & Wales) to see that Workfare is exploitative. Calling it “work experience” is also misleading but this is exactly what I have come to expect from the Tories and their apologists,

@ Chaise (9). That’s terribly benevolent of you in some respects. I’d say that those specific charities (and I know how three of them operate in some detail) weren’t even in the tunnel-vision-but-well-intentioned mindset that you ascribe. I’d say, at best, they decided that maybe they could take the edges off a bad initiative (also keeping in with/maintaining leverage with Govt in the process). At worst, they didn’t really give a damn, and just saw free labour. It’s very hard to see how they could with a straight face say that the initiatives as set out chime with their (legally binding) aims and objectives, without resorting to (corporate) double-think.

The Big Society : Force people to work for nothing taking away job creation and paid employment.

It does not matter which way you look at this but many companies are going to milk this opportunity.

Give it a couple of years and whipping employees will be legalized.

There were reds in the bed and the little one said,
“Troll Mumsnet, troll Mumsnet”
And they all trolled Mumsnet and one fell out,
Hit the floor and gave a shout!
Etc

@ 15 Cylux

Can’t get that bloomin’ tune out of my head now.

@chaise @alistair @tyler

There may well be some truth in the corporatisation theory of why these big charities have got themselves into this mess.

At least as likely an explanation, however, is that their HR departments haven’t fully cottoned on to the fact that some of the people attending are being made to attend or because they think they’re being made to attend.

As we know (see table at http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/the-case-of-the-disappearing-workfare-documents/), some work experience placements are in fact voluntary (for JSA recipients judged to be facing significant barriers), and Clegg’s Youth Contract is due to add a further 250,000 such scheme for JSA recipients not yet at the 9 month mark, when the mandatory rule kicks in). However, we also know that claimants taking up these voluntary placements have a week to decide whether it’s for them, after which they must stick with it or lose benefit, but that people going into these placements have not been made aware of their rights in this respect.

What is also pretty clearly happening, though by its nature it’s hard to quantify, is that Job Centre Plus advisers are using their “flexibilties” to push far more people into Mandatory Work Activity than was originally planned (the rules for this stipulate that “MWA is about offering further support to some JSA claimants who would benefit from a short period of activity”).

Given this lack of clarity about what’s what, it’s perfectly feasible that some of the charities concerned really thought they were dealing solely with voluntary placements, only to find out last week that they weren’t. Therefore their withdrawal doesn’t necessarily mean they’re pulling out of work experience completely – just that to safeguard their reputation they’re pulling out till they’re can be sure they’re not taking on forced labour. That’s what I’d do in their shoes, even if what has been offered is very good, high quality placements which young people do want to take part in because it will give them a lift into employment, and which has been developed by the organisation with the best of motives.

According to Customer.relations@whsmith.co.uk WHSmith is not involved in the Workfare scheme:

Dear Sir or Madam
Many thanks for your email.
We can confirm that WHSmith is not involved in the Workfare scheme.
We trust this addresses your concerns.
If I can help you further, please contact me.

@ 13

“That’s terribly benevolent of you in some respects. I’d say that those specific charities (and I know how three of them operate in some detail) weren’t even in the tunnel-vision-but-well-intentioned mindset that you ascribe.”

I should clarify that I was talking about charities in general. You evidently know more than me about these specific charities, so fair play, I’m not arguing with your conclusions.

“At worst, they didn’t really give a damn, and just saw free labour.”

I suspect it generally boils down to this in any case.

@ 6 Chaise

Care to show any hard evidence companies have or will be supplanting their regular employess with workfare “free” (it most definately not free) labour?

Or are you just going to trot (pun intended) the same drivel Sunny and the SWP are bashing out?

Or better still, are youy going to give us a solution as to what is to be done with the long term unemployed and those with no skills, no experience and often no work ethic either? We all know that 3m jobs were created under the last government, but we also know 90% of those jobs went to immigrants, leaving unemployement stubbornly high in many areas and among British born citizens. Should we really be pround of generational unemployment, and worse still, do nothing about it?

@ 19 Tyler

“Care to show any hard evidence companies have or will be supplanting their regular employess with workfare “free” (it most definately not free) labour?”

Why would I show evidence for a claim I didn’t make? I didn’t say they’d be sacking their employees, did I? No: some future roles that would otherwise have been filled by paid employees will go to these free (unsalaried if you prefer) workers.

It’s difficult to find hard evidence of that because it would require the employers to announce the policy. Half a second’s appliance of reason and a basic understanding of economics (saving money is good!) might have helped you reach the same conclusion, though. You’re just denying the bleeding obvious because you don’t want to admit that workfare could have flaws.

“Or are you just going to trot (pun intended) the same drivel Sunny and the SWP are bashing out? ”

We really need a variant of Godwin’s law for hysterical people like you who see communists under every bed.

“Or better still, are youy going to give us a solution as to what is to be done with the long term unemployed and those with no skills, no experience and often no work ethic either?”

Yeah. Create minimum wage jobs helping charities and doing socially beneficial things that aren’t already being done (so as not to crowd out existing firms). If you run out of useful things to do, substitute busywork. If a healthy person has been on JSA for a certain period (six months, perhaps), cut their JSA to bare subsistence level or remove it entirely, but offer these jobs as an alternative. Make sure people can easily take time off (unpaid) at short notice for job interviews, training courses and the like.

“We all know that 3m jobs were created under the last government, but we also know 90% of those jobs went to immigrants, leaving unemployement stubbornly high in many areas and among British born citizens.”

Really? Got a source?

“Should we really be pround of generational unemployment, and worse still, do nothing about it?”

Oh, for the love of Pete. I never said that generational unemployment is something to be proud of and I really doubt anyone else here did either. Perhaps you should try to stay on-topic?

@19

“Or better still, are youy going to give us a solution as to what is to be done with the long term unemployed and those with no skills, no experience and often no work ethic either?”

Well judging by history the solution to such obstacles were a showcase Olympic games, propaganda campaigns in the press and ultimately extermination camps.

Some guy on a radio feedback programme was pointing out that a lot of people who do low paid jobs rely on overtime to bring them in some extra cash. If there’s a Workfare person picking up the slack for nothing, bang goes their chance at extra hours. That must cause some resentment.

Apprentices and youngsters starting at a job are usually treated with some kindness by older workers (even with the traditional apprentice teasing – “go and fetch the striped paint” and so on.) The older workers are willing to help them out and show them how to do things, and know that everyone has to start somewhere. But if they know these kids are doing work for nothing and possibly undercutting their own chances for extra hours, I can’t see them breaking their necks to be helpful.

And bang goes the chance of any teenager ever getting work experience again. Have none of the people running this website ever had work experience? Do you know a single person who has ever been paid for it? I don’t – it was never part of the deal. And why? Do you actually have any idea of how much it costs a company to get someone in for work experience? At the very least, it costs the time of an experienced person to supervise them, and the time of the HR person to deal with all the associated legislation, not to mention the extra insurance costs to cover an untrained person actually being on the premises. Why should a company also be expected to fork out a wage for them? Schools already find it extremely difficult to get work experience placements – this witch-hunt will make it impossible. If you really want to target someone, try targeting the trendy liberal companies in the city who give people a year-long internship without pay, thus ensuring that those jobs will be filled only by those with parents rich enough to subsidise them for that length of time.

@ 23 Rebecca

“If you really want to target someone, try targeting the trendy liberal companies in the city who give people a year-long internship without pay, thus ensuring that those jobs will be filled only by those with parents rich enough to subsidise them for that length of time.”

Despite your unbelievably weak attempt to lay internships at the feet of “trendy liberals”, I agree with your view of them. However, the problem with internships (increasing the rich-poor divide) is very different to the problems with this scheme (people being strong-armed into working for less than £2 an hour as part of a system that will actually reduce the number of real jobs available). So, in this case: non-sequitur.

@ 23 Rebecca Many Liberal Conspitacy readers will have had the chance to do work experience in their youth, because they come from the well-educated, middle class backgrounds where getting a start in life is much easier. All it takes is for mum or dad to know somebody who can help.

The problem is that they don’t want people less privileged than themselves to have the same opportunities.

Slavery.

IT’S SLAVERY!

Slavery I tell you!

Infantile posturing – you should all be ashamed.

@ 25 hobson

“Many Liberal Conspitacy readers will have had the chance to do work experience in their youth, because they come from the well-educated, middle class backgrounds where getting a start in life is much easier. All it takes is for mum or dad to know somebody who can help.

The problem is that they don’t want people less privileged than themselves to have the same opportunities.”

Wow. I think we might have a new front-runner for the Most Egregious Misrepresentation of an Argument Ever Award. It’s the perfect combination of sweeping generalisation, equivocation, blind assumption, straw man, ad hom and just incredibly deep stupidity. Congratulations, hobson, I don’t think I’ve ever before seen anyone manage to be wrong on so many levels in so few words.

@23

Human Resources dealing with all the associated legislation?

Don’t make me laugh the government have bee instructing contractors on how to get around having to pay the minimum wage, which was put in place to protect against exploitation

Apparently, according to that well known trotskyist group the public accounts committee, A4E managed to get just 9% of people into work – it’s target was 30%.

To compare – The new deal providers had targets of 40%, and none of them got to pay out 11 mill in dividends – 8.9 mill to the chief exec.

Keep telling yourselves the reason people oppose this is because we oppose finding work for unemployed people chaps…

CG @ 24:

“the problems with this scheme …people being strong-armed into working for less than £2 an hour as part of a system that will actually reduce the number of real jobs available”

But where is the hard evidence that this work placement system will actually reduce the number of real jobs available?

And even if it is true that it reduces the number of real jobs available, this is surely true of any subsidised work experience programme.

*****

What seems to be generating the general hysterical hyperbole about slave labour is the notion that companies are profiting from the placement of people on unemployment benefits. This is unlikely, for all the reasons that Rebecca gives above @ 23, and which I have mentioned on another thread. (Incidentally, probably only charities, who are used to managing volunteers, will have the relevant management experience to make significant use of these benefits + expenses placements.) However, assuming that (some) companies do profit from the placements, what is so wrong with that? The claimants on these placements are learning something, even if it is only about the general culture and routine of the world of work, and while at work they are less likely to commit crime or get depressed; so the unemployed person, the companies and wider society all benefit. What is there not to like?

The SWP’s involvement is interesting. As Trotskyite revolutionary socialists, they have no genuine interest in ameliorating the condition of the unemployed: rather, they want to see the condition of the unemployed worsen, so as to increase the potential for violent revolution. The placements scheme will make many participants more employable (if only marginally), and this is the last thing the SWP wants to see. Moreover, if the unemployed can be persuaded by mendacious propaganda that the placement scheme treats them unfairly and exploitatively, the revolutionary potential of the unemployed increases further. To the SWP, democratic socialists and social democrats are just useful idiots to be manipulated and eventually discarded. “He who sups with the devil should have a long spoon.”

There is a world of difference between legitimate volunteering by unemployed people with charities that would not otherwise employ people to do the work through lack of resources and this compulsory workfare which puts paid workers out of a job. Work should be paid – full stop. Volunteering means just that – to freely choose.

CG @ 27:

“Wow. I think we might have a new front-runner for the Most Egregious Misrepresentation of an Argument Ever Award. It’s the perfect combination of sweeping generalisation, equivocation, blind assumption, straw man, ad hom and just incredibly deep stupidity. Congratulations, hobson, I don’t think I’ve ever before seen anyone manage to be wrong on so many levels in so few words.”

Bwahahaha. An amusing, clever and elegant retort. Spluttering with laughter, I nearly choked on my coffee.

Rebecca @ 23

And bang goes the chance of any teenager ever getting work experience again.

Every company on that list have been providing teenagers with work experience for decades. Mo one is attempting to deny anyone ‘work experience’. The question is why should we be paying Macdonals’s 10 million quid and provide them with free labour to employ people when they should be employing people anyway?

@ 30 TONE

“But where is the hard evidence that this work placement system will actually reduce the number of real jobs available? ”

Hard evidence? Do you want me to show you a photo from the future?

It’s simple reason. Letting companies use unsalaried workers gives them an incentive not to hire salaried workers. In some cases, this incentive will be seen as being worthwhile. Each time that happens, a real job disappears.

“And even if it is true that it reduces the number of real jobs available, this is surely true of any subsidised work experience programme.”

I’m not sure what your point is.

“What seems to be generating the general hysterical hyperbole about slave labour is the notion that companies are profiting from the placement of people on unemployment benefits.”

The general hysterical hyperbole (and I agree that’s an accurate description) is based on the fact that the unemployed are exploited under this scheme. The hysteria and hyperbole only comes in when people equate exploitation with slavery.

OK, there are some people who think that companies benefiting from this is a reason in itself not to do it. I’ll ignore them if you will.

“This is unlikely, for all the reasons that Rebecca gives above @ 23, and which I have mentioned on another thread. (Incidentally, probably only charities, who are used to managing volunteers, will have the relevant management experience to make significant use of these benefits + expenses placements.)”

I still think you’re underestimating the cost benefit of saving around £6 per hour per employee here.

“The claimants on these placements are learning something, even if it is only about the general culture and routine of the world of work, and while at work they are less likely to commit crime or get depressed; so the unemployed person, the companies and wider society all benefit. What is there not to like?”

The bit where they get paid less than £2 per hour. Incidentally, someone who had worked for 30 years, been made redundant and found themselves unable to find work since, would probably not appreciate being told that you were threatening them into stacking shelves to learn about “the general culture and routine of the world of work”. They’d probably much prefer to be paid a living wage than to be told they were learning what they already knew.

“The SWP’s involvement is interesting. As Trotskyite revolutionary socialists, they have no genuine interest in ameliorating the condition of the unemployed: rather, they want to see the condition of the unemployed worsen, so as to increase the potential for violent revolution. ”

You’ll need a source for that, and all that comes after it. In any case, it’s not relevant to the discussion, you’re just trying to tar with the same brush.

@ 32 TONE

Much obliged!

The fact that the Tories have been forced into ‘defending’ this expensive scheme by smearing anyone who smells a rat as a ‘trot’ or a front for the SWP is proof we need as to the moral bankruptcy of these bastards.

So anyone who objects to a morally repugnant scheme of forced labour is a trot? What these folk need is jobs, not a scheme designed to keep millionairs donors sweet via a source of cheap labour.

CG @ 27:

“Wow. I think we might have a new front-runner for the Most Egregious Misrepresentation of an Argument Ever Award. It’s the perfect combination of sweeping generalisation, equivocation, blind assumption, straw man, ad hom and just incredibly deep stupidity. Congratulations, hobson, I don’t think I’ve ever before seen anyone manage to be wrong on so many levels in so few words.”

I feel that this scheme provides an opportunity for working class children to enjoy the benefits of work experience which middle class youngsters take for granted. I also believe that is a good thing. I am sorry you find this stupid.

Just an open question, would people support a ‘scheme where:
1) The jobs were in charities, small or struggling businesses, or simply created by the government ie community services like cleaning parks etc, instead of in hugely profitable multinational corporations
2) People only worked as many hours as their unemployment benefits are equivalent to on the minimum wage – which would amount to a maximum of about 12 hours a week

CG @ 34:

“Hard evidence? Do you want me to show you a photo from the future?”

No. Just solid research. Other countries have more stringent types of workfare than the UK version, and quite a lot of research has been done into their outcomes. I haven’t been able to find any evidence to support your conclusion here.

“Letting companies use unsalaried workers gives them an incentive not to hire salaried workers. In some cases, this incentive will be seen as being worthwhile. Each time that happens, a real job disappears.”

This is a priori reasoning about a matter that is empirical. Basically, you are saying ‘It stands to reason, dunnit?’. Moreover, as Richard W points out above, folk on here are thinking of the jobs available in the economy as a stock when it’s a flow. Millions of jobs are being created every year in the UK and millions are being destroyed: the balance is the increase/decrease in unemployment. Even if taking an unemployed person on were to destroy a job, that doesn’t mean that the net number of vacancies in the economy or even in the company will fall.

“I’m not sure what your point is.”

OK, let me try again. If you are right and placements of this type destroy (some) jobs, then this is, a fortiori, an argument against any and all government-subsidised work experience programmes. So are you against all such programmes or just this one? If the latter, you are being inconsistent, bcause your stated objection to the scheme we are discussing applies to all such schemes.

“the fact that the unemployed are exploited under this scheme”

Leaving aside that this is not a fact but a value-judgement, what do you mean by ‘exploited’ here? Even if the company makes a profit from the placement, that does not make it exploitative. The charitable company I work for profits from my labour, but I’m not exploited, even though my salary could be much larger if I took my labour elsewhere. I stay because the job has certain non-monetary advantages – just as a placement has some non-monetary value to someone on the scheme we are discussing. Marx’s labour theory of value is no help to you, as it’s discredited. So what is this exploitation you are referring to?

“I still think you’re underestimating the cost benefit of saving around £6 per hour per employee here.”

And I think you are under-estimating the costs of managing, supervising, instructing, monitoring and administering such placements. Think of the hourly rate of everyone involved in their induction and management. Then add in the costs of name badges/ID, uniforms, H & S folders, corporate policy folders, work plans, IT access, insurance, etc. I have a paid graduate trainee with us for 6 weeks: we are struggling to find work for her to do…

“someone who had worked for 30 years, been made redundant and found themselves unable to find work since, would probably not appreciate being told that you were threatening them into stacking shelves to learn about “the general culture and routine of the world of work”. ”

They might not appreciate it; but if they were long-term unemployed, I think they’d benefit from it.

“They’d probably much prefer to be paid a living wage than to be told they were learning what they already knew.”

True. However,if they approach the experience negatively, then they will get nothing from it. If nothing else, being in a workplace is a good opportunity to network – to impress acquaintances with your abilities and ask them to let you know of any vacancies they hear of…

“You’ll need a source for that, and all that comes after it.”

Classic Trotskyism, I’m afraid. Ask almost any non-revolutionary socialist trade union activist…

“In any case, it’s not relevant to the discussion, you’re just trying to tar with the same brush.”

No, I’m not trying to tar non-revolutionary socialists with any brush. I’m trying to explain why they should be very wary of working in campaigns – like the Right to Work – that are dominated by Trotskyites.

@39.

I would support a scheme where;

(1) there were a range of options available to people involving (re) training, a variety of different types of work experience or a mixture of both.
(2) placements lasted longer than 3 weeks so they were actually valuable, and the types of work offered were designed to help people with career development.
(3) they were a max of 30 hours a week (unless the person wanted to work for longer) so people could also have time for job search. Time would be flexible to accommodate private lives
(4) People on work placements were paid extra on top of their benefits (even if it was only £20 a week)
(5) Companies that offered placements would be paid for training costs, but would be required to ensure the roles they offered genuinely helped with career progression
(6) Participants could end a particular placement at any time without sanction
(7) Whilst I’d accept compulsory participation was ok for people who were long term unemployed – (I don’ t have a problem with requiring long term unemployed to participate in a scheme generally, but they should always have a right to withdraw from a particular placement), it would be optional for everyone else from day 1 – there is no point making people wait a year for a scheme that works.
(8) People already making the effort with voluntary work, internships etc would be allowed to continue with doing this instead

Jim @ 37:

“So anyone who objects to a morally repugnant scheme of forced labour is a trot?”

Straw man. No-one, least of all the Tories, has said that everyone opposing the scheme is a Trot – only that the RTW campaign is SWP-dominated. The SWP regard you as just another ‘useful idiot’ to be manipulated in furtherance of their fantasy of revolutionary change in the UK. (‘Useless idiot’ might be more accurate.)

@ 38 hobson

“I feel that this scheme provides an opportunity for working class children to enjoy the benefits of work experience which middle class youngsters take for granted. I also believe that is a good thing. I am sorry you find this stupid.”

Still making with the straw men, I see! I don’t think that POV is stupid. I just think it’s utterly moronic and twattish to claim that people opposed to workfare are eeeevil middle-class people trying to keep the working classes down. I suppose you could say I think you’re stupid.

Hobson @ 38

I feel that this scheme provides an opportunity for working class children to enjoy the benefits of work experience which middle class youngsters take for granted. I also believe that is a good thing. I am sorry you find this stupid.

wouldn’t a full time job do that anyway? Why do we need a forced labour scheme when people have been working in this country for at least a thousand years?

@ 40 TONE

“No. Just solid research. Other countries have more stringent types of workfare than the UK version, and quite a lot of research has been done into their outcomes. I haven’t been able to find any evidence to support your conclusion here.”

What evidence did you find? Because if evidence is available on a comparable scenario, it should give us some big indicators one way or the other. Honest question, not snark: evidence is always good.

“This is a priori reasoning about a matter that is empirical. Basically, you are saying ‘It stands to reason, dunnit?’.”

Not really, given as I explained the process. The fact that people appeal to reason and common sense *but fail to show their working* does not mean that all use of rationality can be dismissed in kind.

“Moreover, as Richard W points out above, folk on here are thinking of the jobs available in the economy as a stock when it’s a flow. Millions of jobs are being created every year in the UK and millions are being destroyed: the balance is the increase/decrease in unemployment. Even if taking an unemployed person on were to destroy a job, that doesn’t mean that the net number of vacancies in the economy or even in the company will fall. ”

Sure, in theory taking on that one person could allow the company to grow and take on another person on full pay. But then,maybe they’d just take another freebie. I agree that “total number of non-new roles filled with unsalaried staff” =/= “total number of real jobs lost”, I just don’t think that the second figure would be zero or lower.

“OK, let me try again. If you are right and placements of this type destroy (some) jobs, then this is, a fortiori, an argument against any and all government-subsidised work experience programmes. So are you against all such programmes or just this one? If the latter, you are being inconsistent, bcause your stated objection to the scheme we are discussing applies to all such schemes.”

I’d certainly raise the same objection to any other work experience programme that people are strongarmed into if I didn’t think it circumvented the problem. I’m not going to rule them all out now because people may have come up with better systems than I can devise.

Obviously even totally voluntary programs have this effect, but less so as people aren’t forced, so there’s a limit to the amount of free workers companies can get, and at that point I suspect the benefits outweigh the positives as long as placements are short-term. I’m not about to start campaigning against secondary school kids doing a week of work experience.

“Leaving aside that this is not a fact but a value-judgement,”

Fair enough.

“what do you mean by ‘exploited’ here? Even if the company makes a profit from the placement, that does not make it exploitative. The charitable company I work for profits from my labour, but I’m not exploited, even though my salary could be much larger if I took my labour elsewhere. I stay because the job has certain non-monetary advantages – just as a placement has some non-monetary value to someone on the scheme we are discussing. Marx’s labour theory of value is no help to you, as it’s discredited. So what is this exploitation you are referring to?”

First off, I’m certainly not trying to make out that any transaction is automatically exploitation. I hate it when people do that. I’m calling exploitation on this specifically because desperate people are being given the choice of working for about a quarter of what we previously decided was the minimum reasonable wage, or starving. If exactly the same scheme existed, but completely voluntary and with no threat against benefits, I’d be fine with it.

“And I think you are under-estimating the costs of managing, supervising, instructing, monitoring and administering such placements. Think of the hourly rate of everyone involved in their induction and management. Then add in the costs of name badges/ID, uniforms, H & S folders, corporate policy folders, work plans, IT access, insurance, etc. I have a paid graduate trainee with us for 6 weeks: we are struggling to find work for her to do…”

All of these costs apply regardless of whether the employee is paid, though, you’re making out as if they’re specific to work experience and they’re not.

“They might not appreciate it; but if they were long-term unemployed, I think they’d benefit from it.”

I fail to see how. Their problem is that they can’t find work, not that they don’t know what work is. Making them do unpaid work, for patronising reasons, is not likely to do anything other than waste their time and piss them off.

“True. However,if they approach the experience negatively, then they will get nothing from it.”

You could say that about anything.

“If nothing else, being in a workplace is a good opportunity to network – to impress acquaintances with your abilities and ask them to let you know of any vacancies they hear of…”

Yes, but it’s hardly optimal compared to scouring the web, job papers and local employers for work.

“Classic Trotskyism, I’m afraid. Ask almost any non-revolutionary socialist trade union activist…”

“Ask this hypothetical bloke” is not citation.

“No, I’m not trying to tar non-revolutionary socialists with any brush. I’m trying to explain why they should be very wary of working in campaigns – like the Right to Work – that are dominated by Trotskyites.”

Well, as I’ve already said, you’ve got no sources here. However, perhaps that would be a wise move. I assume you’re talking about setting up a seperate pressure group rather than abandoning the issue altogether?

Are right-wingers still whining over this?

Surely there must come a point where they give up and stop wasting their time defending this crap?

do they really think I’m going to wake up one day and say – oh yeah. Chris Grayling woz right! I like this Workfare thing! – fools.

@44. Jim

I agree that helping people get a full time job is what matters. But even in periods of strong economic growth and low unemployment, it’s easier for some people to get a job than others. One thing that helps young people – even in the best of times – is being able to state on their CV that they have experience in the workplace. Simply being able to say “I know what it’s like to get up in the morning and go to work” counts for something.

The middle classes have always been able to use this advantage for their children, as they are better positioned to get their kids into work experience. They’ll pull all the strings at their disposal to ensure their children have four weeks of experience on their CV.

What would help is to ensure work experience opportunities are available to more young people, including those from working class backgrounds. It certainly wouldn’t compensate for a lack of jobs, but *whether in times of low or high unemployment* it would go some way to ensuring those jobs were distributed on a slightly more equitable basis (and yes there are lots of caveats there because I only claim it would help a little bit).

The difficulty with social mobility is that while we all say we support it, by definition it can actually disadvantage the middle class. Mobility means it is easier to go up, and easier to go down. Hence, you get issues of perceived enttilement and people becoming very angry at the idea that their privileged position might be threatened.

But social mobility won’t go away as an issue and the fact is that for middle class parents, getting their child into work experience, unpaid as it may be, even if they are just making the coffee or indeed stacking shelves, is not seen as slave labour but as a way of giving their child an advantage in life. Let’s open those advantages to more people.

There is no evidence to judge anything on because the DWP refuse to release it, the contractors are not allowed to discuss it and now even FOI requests for a list of contractors taking part are being refused on the grounds we are boycotting them.

The whole sorry affair is one big secret which is costing us billions. If all was well do you really think it would be kept secret?

@47. hobson: “The middle classes have always been able to use this advantage for their children, as they are better positioned to get their kids into work experience. They’ll pull all the strings at their disposal to ensure their children have four weeks of experience on their CV.”

Thank you for attempting to bring some rationality back to this debate.

I don’t believe in workfare. Workfare is not slave labour as some hyperbolic posters have claimed, but it is akin to the public works (picking up litter alongside a canal) that is performed by offenders as social restitution. Given that unemployed people are not guilty of an offence, we should not bully them into anything.

But a short term voluntary work placement is not workfare. If UK government and/or employers presented workfare as a requirement, they were well and truly wrong. That is not an argument against unpaid work placement.

Less hot headed debates about work placement have discussed whether the employer benefits from temporary labour. There are arguments about whether the temporary labour is cost effective wrt admin and training costs. Some of the commenters here acknowledge that employers train employees but cannot see that stacking shelves and working in a warehouse is more complicated than it sounds. Zero wage labour is not free labour, and for the period of a work placement it may cost something to the business.

Other less hot headed debates have discussed whether work placement is sufficient to benefit the recipient. Again this is a good argument. For the work placement to be meaningful, the worker has to be given a meaningful role.

There is, potentially, a meaningful debate about meaningful work placements for the unemployed. And a separate one about political organisations who use interns to avoid paying wages.

@48

There is no evidence to judge anything on because the DWP refuse to release it,

Oh, we’ve gone far beyond refusing to release stuff. We’re now in full-on ‘we have always been at war with eastasia’ cover-up retroactively mode.

Sunny re comment 46:

“do they really think I’m going to wake up one day and say – oh yeah. Chris Grayling woz right! I like this Workfare thing! – fools.”

No, they think you are enjoying yourself getting-off on removing opportunities from people who have few prospects. Hardly something to be so smug about.

Are right-wingers still whining over this?

I’m not sure. There’s a lot of different people with a lot of different views.
I’ve still yet to hear anyone on Liberal Conspiracy talking about these schemes by there proper names and stating exactly what they do and don’t entail.

I’m wondering if the scheme called ”Steps to Work” is only running in Northern Ireland, as no one ever mentions it by name, and yet that is definitely the scheme that’s running here. It would have been helpful if someone on LC had explained this exactly.
Because Steps to Work is definitely not just for young people, it’s for everyone on JSA, but no one is bothering with the detail. Just using the generic ”workfare” tag.

Ha, I hear Occupy LSX is getting broken up right now. It will be interesting to see if anyone will defend what it had become.

You’ve got your point via a great deal far better than I at any time could, thank you!

CG @ 45:

“What evidence did you find?”

I wouldn’t claim to be an expert on the back of a few googlings. However, what leaps out at me is that the more stringent types of workfare elsewhere in the anglosphere are modestly successful at getting people into work (single figure %s), but are remarkably effective at cutting benefit applications (up to 50%). The interesting question is, where are these people going? Crime? There’s no evidence of soaring crime rates. Black economy? Perhaps some. Self-employment/untraced jobs/poor methodology? Or were they benefit fraudsters? Some undoubtedly, but not these sort of numbers, surely.

“But then,maybe they’d just take another freebie.”

Unlikely when some schemes are just for three weeks or so. Having people for such short periods is not productive or cost-effective for the employer, but it can benefit the person so placed.

“I’m calling exploitation on this specifically because desperate people are being given the choice of working for about a quarter of what we previously decided was the minimum reasonable wage, or starving”

They are being given the potentially advantageous chance to work short-term while they receive benefits + expenses. The employer has to take pot luck with the quality of those on the placements – some will be stars, some will be duffers. Moreover, they are not being forced to work in poor conditions, supervised by bullies or gang-masters. I can’t see exploitation here; but then we might be heading for one of our definitional debates…so I’ll stop now. 😉

“All of these costs apply regardless of whether the employee is paid, though, you’re making out as if they’re specific to work experience and they’re not.”

True; but the point is that people on short-term placements are not particularly productive. It takes weeks or months (depending on the job) for new employees to ‘get up to speed’. Meanwhile, the employer has all the costs mentioned.

“Their problem is that they can’t find work, not that they don’t know what work is.”

Not true, because it’s often both. Think of NEETs and the long-term unemployed.

“You could say that about anything.”

Almost anything, yes. But that doesn’t make it false or irrelevant.

“…but it’s hardly optimal compared to scouring the web, job papers and local employers for work. ”

Actually, it’s very important. Many vacancies are never advertised. And having advance notice of an impending vacancy can give you a crucial advantage in the application process. The long-term unemployed and NEETs do not have access to these work-related networks, and these schemes offer them that opportunity.

@ 54 TONE

“I wouldn’t claim to be an expert on the back of a few googlings. However, what leaps out at me is that the more stringent types of workfare elsewhere in the anglosphere are modestly successful at getting people into work (single figure %s), but are remarkably effective at cutting benefit applications (up to 50%). ”

Have you got any of that to hand? Along with your question below, the other obvious thing to check is how they resemble and differ from this system.

“The interesting question is, where are these people going?”

It’s a very good question, and the answers could be all over the place (you didn’t factor suicide into your list, for example, but then I do suspect that reducing fraud could also be a big player).

“Unlikely when some schemes are just for three weeks or so. Having people for such short periods is not productive or cost-effective for the employer, but it can benefit the person so placed.”

Agreed that the employer benefits are a lot more noticable when it’s medium to long term. Do we know what’s in place to prevent people staying in these roles for ages?

“They are being given the potentially advantageous chance to work short-term while they receive benefits + expenses.”

It’s not a “chance” if it’s a threat.

” The employer has to take pot luck with the quality of those on the placements – some will be stars, some will be duffers. Moreover, they are not being forced to work in poor conditions, supervised by bullies or gang-masters. I can’t see exploitation here; but then we might be heading for one of our definitional debates…so I’ll stop now. ”

We may be at risk of that, yes!

“True; but the point is that people on short-term placements are not particularly productive. It takes weeks or months (depending on the job) for new employees to ‘get up to speed’. Meanwhile, the employer has all the costs mentioned.”

Sure; again, it’s more beneficial for longer-term placements.

“Not true, because it’s often both. Think of NEETs and the long-term unemployed.”

Yes, but we were specifically talking about people who had worked for decades and then been made redundant.

“Almost anything, yes. But that doesn’t make it false or irrelevant.”

What it does do is make it a great method of victim-blaming. It’s not that you’ve been misused or taken advantage of… it’s your own fault for not entering into it with a song in your heart! You could say this about prison, (actual) slavery, being dumped by the person you love… and maybe all of those things could have positive effects on people but they could hardly be blamed for not seeking them out.

“Actually, it’s very important. Many vacancies are never advertised. And having advance notice of an impending vacancy can give you a crucial advantage in the application process. The long-term unemployed and NEETs do not have access to these work-related networks, and these schemes offer them that opportunity.”

I don’t dispute this, but I still don’t think that finding out about one vacancy a week (say) from a colleague, even with advance warning, is as likely to get you a job as spending that week job-hunting.

CG @ 55:

“Have you got any of that to hand?”

This was cited (selectively) in an LC piece:
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep533.pdf
I’ve been googling some of their sources more or less at random.

On the other points, it seems to me that we are not that far apart – more differences of degree than kind.

@ 56

Agreed – cheers for the link.

“The interesting question is, where are these people going? Crime? There’s no evidence of soaring crime rates.”

But in the US (which is essentially the country we are discussing when it comes to workfare) they have a rising prison population with ever increasing punishments for minor offences (15 years because your boyfriend counted his drug dealing profits in the room next door is a highlight).

Essentially the crime rates are not reflecting the desperation being suffered, but this is because once caught the system is incapacitating people for longer, and whilst in prison the person at least gets their meals and a roof over their head.

It’s also far more expensive for the US taxpayer (but at least keeps profits flowing to the prison industrial complex).

The issue at hand for advanced industrial societies is essentially this; there is a significant percentage of the working population who – for a variety of reasons – are only capable for unskilled and semi-skilled work. It is likely this will always be with us. Prior to the Thatcher/Reagan years governments persued policies aimed at full employment and people in this category could find work and essentially live independantly. Since then many unskilled jobs have moved away and left a significant population whose working lives are characterised by periods of unemployment and short term work (even if the job is permanant, reduancies and restructuring occur frequently), and unsurprisingly this segmant of the population also suffers from relationship breakdown, drug abuse, and mental health problems. In the UK we manage this through having a welfare system, in the US they have chosen to deal with it through an expensive prison system and high military spending (employment for cannon fodder). The conservatives want to switch away from a welfare system, but are not prepared to accept an alternative is needed.

56
I had a quick look at the report you cited and the real problem is that benefits are time limited, therefore, it is impossible to tease apart how many people actually obtained work and how many were taken off benefits because of the time limitation.
I visited the USA two years ago and spoke to several people about unemployment levels (at that time the official figure was 10%) the general consensus was that it was far higher because of the time limitation of benefits.

There is also one Workfare Programme, the Community Action Porgramme (30 Hours a week for 6 months, plus 20 Hours ‘job-search’) now being piloted. It could well be being used to fill the gaps in local community services left by the government cuts.

Or how A4E treat critics with threats as Ipswich Unemployed Action has found:

http://intensiveactivity.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/pha-media-defends-fraudsters-a4e/#comment-10291

@ 58:

“…the US (which is essentially the country we are discussing when it comes to workfare)…”

The report covers Canada and Australia, too.

steveb @ 59: A fair point. Noted.

Any idea where the ‘50% coming off of benefits’ figure Nick Clegg was using all day comes from? My experience is they are mostly living at home, and simply sign off for fear of being sent back to often quite awful ’employers’. Their parents are in effect paying their benefits.

If its a fake statistic, he should be reported to the office of national statistics, whose Head has a duty in law to see that any statistic that is used as a government statistic is accurate .

In bournemouth, the local paper (Bournemouth Evening Echo) was getting tons of free workers, at the same time they made 200 workers at exchange and mart redundant, a few dozen printers in southampton got the push and they were sacking two telesales girls every week. Newsquest media bought them – that was about a year ago, so down here, we cant get any coverage for protests etc. Newsquest own a lot of local papers – dont know which ones, but I wonder if any other groups had found it difficult to get coverage of protests?