Cait Reilly wins appeal - working for JSA payments determined to contravene UK anti-slavery laws

(49 Posts)
caramelwaffle Tue 12-Feb-13 12:59:28

Cait Reilly had her JSA payments sanctioned when she refused to work for "free" at Pounland instead of performing voluntary work at a museum.

A recent graduate, she lost an initial court case. The court of appeal now says that making her work at Poundland for no wage contravenes UK anti slavery laws.

She is now said to work at a supermarket (for at least minimum wage)

Interesting.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Tue 12-Feb-13 13:01:11

I saw. I sniggered. Government is going to appeal though.

MadCap Tue 12-Feb-13 13:02:37

Good for her!

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Tue 12-Feb-13 13:03:26

What does it mean in real terms then? That the schemes can continue but participants must be paid NMW?

caramelwaffle Tue 12-Feb-13 13:11:46

You'd think so.

However in reality, the owners/bosses of the companies may simply pull out of the scheme.

Lots of headaches by the end of the day.

2old2beamum Tue 12-Feb-13 13:13:39

No doubt this bloody awful government will appeal.

CogitoErgoSometimes Tue 12-Feb-13 15:55:46

If I read the case right she was happy to work voluntarily at a museum for nothing and accept benefits but she drew the line at a supermarket? hmm I expect the scheme will be tweaked but hope they don't give up entirely on the long-term unemployed.

Cogito

Voluntary work at a musuem was far more relevant to her Degree subject than working in poundland. Therefore, while volunteering in a museum, she was already picking up useful skills which could aid her job search. She may even have been in a better position if a paid job in the museum had come up.

She wasnt against working. She was not workshy.

What' I'd like to know is how much money was wasted on this.

CogitoErgoSometimes Tue 12-Feb-13 16:35:04

The principle is the same however. Whether she was volunteering at a museum or a shop, she was still working for a commercial enterprise for no pay. Should people on benefits be able to choose where they work for no pay? Is that the real bone of contention?

AThingInYourLife Tue 12-Feb-13 16:38:23

Cogito - any good dictionary will furnish you with a definition of the word "volunteer".

CogitoErgoSometimes Tue 12-Feb-13 16:42:08

I understand the distinction smile Just think there's not a lot between them on this occasion. As I understand it, she's now working (paid) in a supermarket.

TunipTheVegedude Tue 12-Feb-13 16:45:39

A local authority museum isn't a commercial enterprise.

The point of the scheme is to provide individuals with skills and work experience.

She already had work skills. And she already had retail experience at a higher level than the placement. The placement was pointless and a waste of government money so that poundland got some free work.

Perhaps the government should encourage businesses to employ. Not pay them to take on free staff. The whole idea is undermining the job market, not helping it.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Tue 12-Feb-13 17:01:05

Cogito - IF you read the judgement you will see that aside from museum work she was also very happy to go into retail work, an area where she also had previous experience.

She was also told that Pound land would be training her. Yes, people on JSA should be available for work and not overly fussy. This does not mean they should be made to work for free.

CogitoErgoSometimes Tue 12-Feb-13 17:05:20

"A local authority museum isn't a commercial enterprise."

People are paid to work there. It costs money and has budgets. A volunteer there presumably means they don't have to recruit a paid staff-member. She was happy to work for free for one organisation but not for another.

TunipTheVegedude Tue 12-Feb-13 17:10:19

Having budgets and paid staff does not make an organisation a commercial one. A LA museum's purpose is public interest not making profit. And much of what museum volunteers do wouldn't be done at all if it wasn't for the volunteers, it wouldn't be done by paid staff, because the budgets won't stretch. Whereas a shop will employ enough staff to cover what it needs, because it would lose money if it doesn't. It's not the same at all.

SolomanDaisy Tue 12-Feb-13 17:18:37

I can't believe anyone can argue in favour of someone being forced out of a volunteering role relevant to their qualifications and career goals into an irrelevant forced unpaid role. If the point is to make people more employable, why would that move make sense? Unless of course the scheme's purpose isn't actually making people more employable...

Darkesteyes Tue 12-Feb-13 17:24:08

DarkesteyesWed 30-Jan-13 20:36:36

The store has been sending home paid workers early and using workfare workers

And when the stores involved do this how the fuck are the workers working there on low wages and tax credits supposed to get the extra hours to cover the changes to tax credits that are coming!!!!!!!!!

Darkesteyes Tue 12-Feb-13 17:25:09

Above is a copy and paste from where i posted on another thread about another knock on problem that is caused by workfare.

ttosca Wed 13-Feb-13 13:49:17

> If I read the case right she was happy to work voluntarily at a museum for nothing and accept benefits but she drew the line at a supermarket? hmm I expect the scheme will be tweaked but hope they don't give up entirely on the long-term unemployed.

Oh how good it is of this government to 'not give up' on the long-term unemployed (anyone unemployed for 13 weeks can be forced to take up unpaid work, which according to someone I asked at the DWP is about the avg. time for unemployment) by forcing someone to work for free in an area which has nothing to do with their degree or background, providing free labour for companies who then no longer have to employ paid people.

It's very good of this government indeed. They are such saints the way they care for the poor and unemployed!

ttosca Wed 13-Feb-13 13:52:13

> I can't believe anyone can argue in favour of someone being forced out of a volunteering role relevant to their qualifications and career goals into an irrelevant forced unpaid role. If the point is to make people more employable, why would that move make sense? Unless of course the scheme's purpose isn't actually making people more employable...

The point is none of this. As you can see from Cogito's post, the point of MWA and these other workfare schemes is to satisfy self-righteous Tories with an instinctive hatred of the welfare, the poor and unemployed, and a seething resentment that they are forced to pay pax to temporarily support people so they don't starve whilst they look for work.

CogitoErgoSometimes Wed 13-Feb-13 14:37:56

I do not 'instinctively hate' the poor or unemployed. How ridiculous. However, I found it an odd statement on the part of the plaintiff that, by being made to take up a work placement, she didn't have time left to do her voluntary work. I have every sympathy with someone who is unemployed and trying to get into their chosen field but, if there's a job going in a supermarket (which is what she does now) and no jobs going in museums, they need to revise their ambitions a little.

ttosca Wed 13-Feb-13 15:25:29

cogito-

> I do not 'instinctively hate' the poor or unemployed. How ridiculous.

These work programmees, at least the MWA, has been shown to be ineffective at getting people in to work. So forcing people in to unpaid work, where the job will not even bring them beneficial experience, and furthermore undermines the job market, can only be a punitive measure.

> However, I found it an odd statement on the part of the plaintiff that, by being made to take up a work placement, she didn't have time left to do her voluntary work.

How is that 'odd'? She was already volunteering in an area which was relevant to her work. That is precisely the thing which these work schemes ostensible claim to be about, except the work schemes are ineffective.

> if there's a job going in a supermarket (which is what she does now) and no jobs going in museums, they need to revise their ambitions a little.

Is that right? So people who have worked as IT programmers, nurses, firemen, and qualified mechanics and are out of work should work stacking shelves in a supermarket?

Not only will this make every subsequent employer laugh at your CV and never take you seriously again, but it would deprive less qualified people who desperately need a job of obtaining that job.

Like I said, your ideas are not based on helping people find work at all, they're based in resentment at having to pay for welfare. So you want to punish them.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now