Step away from forced work experience scheme, charities

Step away from forced work experience scheme, charities

Step away from forced work experience scheme, charities5

Governance | Celina Ribeiro | 20 Feb 2012

Accepting involuntary labour is the last thing that charities should be doing, says Celina Ribeiro. The government’s work experience scheme is a threat to public trust and confidence.

On the weekend, campaigners shut down the Tesco Express across from the seat of government in protest after the supermarket giant advertised for a shelf-stacker at the wage of Job Seekers’ Allowance – plus expenses. So, in essence, work for the cost of the train ticket you used to get in to work.

Payment – or lack thereof - in this way is possible under the government’s controversial work experience scheme, which requires jobseekers to complete 30 hours of work a week for up to eight weeks at an employer, such as a company, charity or public sector organisation.

Really, the Westminster Tesco Express is a bit crap anyway. More of a corridor than a supermarket. But store layout aside, this issue is toxic. Forcing people to work in jobs that may otherwise be filled by paid employees or volunteers has got unions, politicians and even the companies themselves – yes, Sainsbury’s and Waterstone’s have expressed their discomfort about accepting work for no pay – riled. And yet some charities remain on the wrong side of history here.

. Marie Curie has backed away - but not before Sainsbury’s did – and Shelter stopped using the programme last year. Calling around the top charity retailers in the country this morning, I was pleased to find that Oxfam, British Red Cross and Age UK have not taken part in the scheme. I’m still waiting to hear back from many others.

There should have been more of these charity abstainers.

Charities, unlike companies, can legitimately draw on and recruit volunteers. Why then would they want to muddy their hands with getting involved in a scheme which threatens to penalise those volunteers with removing their benefits? This type of ‘volunteering’ potentially pushes those people working for free into a situation of no or greatly reduced income, and therefore capacity, to support themselves.

No. This is one clunky ‘Big Society’ madcap plan that charities should have smelled a mile off. Government has been able to sweeten the distastefulness of this scheme, not just by Chris Grayling labelling those against it as “job snobs”, but by including charities among the employers which these volunteers may lock themselves into working for. What right minded Middle-Englishman would oppose the requirement that the long term unemployed lend a hand to their local, beloved charity shop?

But charities should not be with Tesco and its zero-pounds-an-hour shelf stackers on this one. It’s time that the other charities involved in this scheme either identify the true value their work experience programme is providing their government-supplied volunteers, or retreat. If it’s good enough for 99p Stores, it’s good enough for the organisations that purport to uphold beliefs of social justice and human dignity. 

31 Jan 2014

Oxfam does engage in other schemes, a lot of their volenteers are not little old ladys with time to spare as of old, but people sent from job centres and training schemes. They are treated with contempt by full time staff and are KPI'ed, something that does not happen with 'real volenteers'.

21 Feb 2012

I think the intention is to persuade indolent youth that if they are going to have to work for their benefits they might as well start applying for some of the jobs currently going to the more industrious and less fussy youth from Eastern Europe.

Dave Soper
Funding Advisor
The Ark Trust Ltd
21 Feb 2012

Charities and voluntary organisations already benefit from millions of hours of free labour. Many positions that used to be paid are now taken up by volunteers.

This seems a strange thing for charities to step away from.

Eluned Hughes
Training Manager
Volunteer Centre Liverpool
22 Feb 2012
Response to [Dave Soper]

I think the point here is that when people 'volunteer' they choose when, what and how they get involved. It is something they choose to do, not made to do to receive benefits or have them removed if they do not get involved. Furthermore volunteers are there to assist the service a charity provides. Though I agree that in some cases faced with no service to those in need or using volunteers more is a decision some charities have made

6 Mar 2012
Response to [Eluned Hughes]

No the point is that I, as a hard working disabled tax payer who volunteers in a number of places, object to supporting people who may have made a career choice either not to work at all, or only at certain "select" jobs. I am in a job that is not my ideal but the fact is I’m trying to maintain my financial independence. Some of these people might as well start applying for some of the jobs currently going to the more industrious and less fussy from abroad so tax payers don’t have to support them. There is however a fine line between exploitation and doing a decent days work either as a paid worker, volunteer or a person on benefits who is required to invest some sweat equity in receiving benefits.


[Cancel] | Reply to:

Close »

Community Standards

The community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

  • Robust but respectful debate
  • Strongly held opinions
  • Intelligent relevant discussion
  • The sharing of relevant experiences
  • New participants

We will not publish:

  • Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
  • Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
  • The posting of contact details for yourself or others
  • Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
  • Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
  • Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
  • Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
  • The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

  • Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
  • Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
  • You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear


  • Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
  • Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.

Celina Ribeiro

Celina Ribeiro is the commissioning editor of Fundraising Magazine and contributor to Civil Society News.

Follow Celina @Celina_Ribeiro_

Celina Ribeiro (38) Niki May Young (22) Kirsty Weakley (20) Hugh Radojev (17) David Ainsworth (12) Jenna Pudelek (9) Stephen Cotterill (9) Michael Naidu (7) Andrew Chaggar (7) David Philpott (7)
Tobin Aldrich (7) Leon Ward (7) Emily Corfe (7) Tania Mason (5) Lucy Caldicott (5) Alistair McLean (5) Alice Sharman (5) Adrian Beney (4) Reuben Turner (4) Vibeka Mair (3) Alan Gosschalk (3) Joe Saxton (3) Pauline Broomhead (3) Jonathon Grapsas (3) Beth Yorath (3) Robert Ashton (3) Lisa Clavering (3) Mark Astarita (2) Richard Radcliffe (2) Andrew Scadding (2) Suzie Who (2) Tod Norman (2) Andrew Purkis (2) Liz Tait (2) Stephen Lee (2) Dan Corry (2) Claire Routley (2) Making Good: The Future of the Voluntary Sector (2) Andrew O'Brien (2) Beth Breeze (1) Tony Elischer (1) Derek Humphries (1) Alan Clayton (1) Matthew Bowcock (1) Cathy Pharoah (1) Stephen George (1) Stephen Pidgeon (1) Andy Taylor (1) Martin Farrell (1) Morag Fleming (1) Ian MacQuillin (1) Paul Farthing (1) Ken Burnett (1) Rodney Buse (1) John Low (1) Rowena Lewis (1) Danielle Atkinson (1) Joe Jenkins (1) Mark Flannagan (1) Geetha Rabindrakumar (1) Chester Mojay-Sinclare (1) Amanda McLean (1) Jason Suckley (1) Imogen Ward (1) Kath Abrahams (1) Peter Lewis (1) Jonathan Last (1) Jenni Cahill (1) Marcelle Speller (1) Nick Aldridge (1) Philip Spedding (1) Tom Latchford (1) Sir David Varney (1) Liam Barrington-Bush (1) Lucy Gower (1) Martin Edwards (1) Jeff Brooks (1) Dawn Austwick (1) Dan Thompson (1) Steven George-Hilley (1) Emma-Lynn Houghton (1) Peter Horah (1) Ian Clark (1) Neelam Makhijani (1) George Matafonov (1) Marcus Missen (1) Denise Lillya (1) Jaz Nannar (1) Ali Stunt (1) Robin Fisk (1) Ben Russell (1) Gillian Claugher (1) Lynne McMahon (1) Emma Callagher (1) Angharad McKenzie (1) Raj Rajukumar (1) Dominic Will (1) Eudora Pratt (1)
Less +++ More +++

The Libor process is murky, but it is not the charities who are to blame

20 Sep 2016

The Libor process is worryingly unclear, but we should not be attacking the charities for receiving the...

Love, trust and the teachable moment - a better way?

20 Sep 2016

Three months after politicians were united in paying tribute to Jo Cox, which highlighted the importance...

May daze: when it comes to the charity sector, our new PM is as bland as a cheeseless water biscuit

8 Sep 2016

Ian Allsop is gasping for breath after a tumultuous summer – can Theresa May successfully bore him?...

Society Diary: Is a woman really shacked up with this dead philanthropist?

23 Sep 2016

Our weekly round-up of interesting and outlandish information, collected from the corners of the charity...

Dear Andrew: How do I deal with my board's poor attendance?

22 Sep 2016

In this regular column, Andrew Hind answers readers’ queries about governance issues. This week a trustee...

The regulator: Charities should get on the front foot

22 Sep 2016

Many charities have responded proactively to the recent media storm, and are stronger as a result, says...