Charities pull out of controversial work experience scheme 3

Governance | Celina Ribeiro | 20 Feb 2012

Marie Curie Cancer Care, Shelter and Scope have led charities in publicly pulling out of the government’s controversial work experience scheme which requires welfare recipients to do unpaid work to receive their benefits.

The charities have followed high street retailers such as Sainsbury’s, Waterstones and TK Maxx in distancing themselves from the work experience programme which is becoming an increasingly toxic issue for the government and employers. The scheme requires that jobseekers work for charities, private businesses or the public sector for 30 hours a week, for eight weeks, or face having their benefits cut off if they withdraw.

Waterstones withdrew from the programme last week saying it did not want to “encourage work for no pay”. Then on Friday Marie Curie Cancer Care and Shelter both released statements saying they had decided to stop participating. Scope followed suit on Saturday, and civilsociety.co.uk understands that Barnardo’s – which has been lobbying hard against welfare reforms – is reviewing its involvement.

A statement from Marie Curie said: “We participated in this scheme because we believed it could offer volunteers an opportunity to gain valuable experience. However, there is a difference between volunteering and being forced to work, and if there is any chance that people with terminal illnesses could be made to take part in this scheme we would take this very seriously.”

Marie Curie said that it is possible that people taking part in the scheme are still deployed in its charity shops, adding that it will offer them a permanent voluntary position if they want it.

Shelter similarly had used work experience labour in its charity shops, but says it decided last year to withdraw from the scheme. “Shelter decided that it was in the best interests of both potential volunteers and Shelter not to participate in the programme,” a statement from the charity read.

Scope’s chief executive Richard Hawkes issued this statement on Saturday about the charity’s decision to suspend its involvement in the programme: "We know there are many disabled people who want to work but struggle to get the right support or the right opportunities to build skills, confidence and experience.

"We would welcome the opportunity to work with the government to ensure it understands the reality of disabled people's lives and how different types of support could be delivered."

Boycott Workfare plans day of action

The decisions to step away from the programme from these large charities comes ahead of a national day of action planned against the scheme. Campaign group Boycott Workfare has selected 3 March as a day of action and called on employers involved in the scheme to withdraw and for the government to scrap the programme.

Joanna Long, spokeswoman for the lobby effort, said of the Department of Work and Pensions scheme: “The government needs to realise that this storm will not go away. People know that workfare is bad news for everyone: it replaces paid work and drives down wages and conditions. Boycott Workfare will continue to mobilise against these schemes until there is an end to them all.”

The scheme has also been attacked by the unions. TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said retailers involved in the scheme are “in danger of exploiting participants” and that the scheme could undermine the pay and jobs of employees.

A law firm in Birmingham, Public Interest Lawyers, has contacted large companies involved in the scheme to warn them about action filed in the high court by a jobseeker forced to work for free.

Some large charity retailers refrain from Work Programme

Some charities with large retail networks have avoided involvement in the scheme, however. Oxfam, the second-largest charity retailer in the UK, is not involved, nor is the British Red Cross, which is the seventh-largest charity retailer by income in the UK with 317 shops.

Age UK, with 460 shops, said it had no formal agreements with the programme; however Steph Harland, director of strategy and people and performance, said the charity is investigating whether there is involvement with the scheme at a local level.

Read Celina Ribeiro's blog about the news 'Step away from the work experience programme, charities'

Place a comment

Nonny Mouse
20 Feb 2012

Here are some pictures of these exploited no-wage slave workers on workfare: http://bit.ly/zM7lHo

Some of these poor souls could have been working for charities.

[Reply]

P.cialfi
20 Feb 2012

A thriving, dynamic and successful Charity sector depends upon the altruism of its volunteers.
Introduce compunction and the Charity sector is destroyed.
- or isn't that the point of the exercise ?
The Charity sector is worth billions to the government, if only the activities and assets of its volunteers could be monetised.
Since 1997, Government has despised the fact that genuine Charities do for nothing what the Government would like to charge for, using paid workers, who pay taxes, as would their corporate employers. We have seen encroachment in this direction for over a decade, not least with pseudo-job creation that destroys a Charitable sector ( for example the squeezing out of voluntary creches and playgroups, replaced by expensive and unaffordable SureStart ) and the creation of so-callec charities that are just money-spinners.
Workfare is but yet another attack upon Charity itself.

[Reply]

Barbara
20 Feb 2012

Brits always had these strange ideas about making 'less fortunate' do things thought of to be benefitical for them, work houses being only one example. And what is the point of it? It's not people's fault they don't want to work if they can afford living off the state, it's the system's fault and it has to be changed to influence people's attitudes. It is surpirsing that any charity in their right mind would want to participate in this activity in the first place. Bad volunteering is not only immoral but cost-intensive for charities that have enough costs to cover without getting invovled in dubious government ideas.

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk 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

Please:

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.