Friday Actions
First used Friday 2nd March
Firstly an email to David Cameron: but you need to use the Number 10 contacts page
Fax Cameron: 020 7925 0918
Postal Address: David Cameron, 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA
Email Template one (Copy and Paste)
Mr Cameron
I am writing to express my deep concern over your insistence on pushing forward with various Workfare programmes. The Policy behind these Programmes is well evidenced internationally to not only be of little effect regarding unemployment figures but also to have the potential to exploit millions of unemployed and disabled people within the UK.
These programmes, when scrutinised, are filled with objectionable policy, policy that directly contradicts that which you are personally conveying to the general public.
That you look to your CEO friends within the private sector to facilitate these schemes raises clear questions of conflict of interest also. Need I mention Mrs Harrison?
The stereotyping your party have sought to use through the media against both 2.6 million unemployed and those that oppose your Workfare schemes shows you to have nothing but contempt for the term ‘public servant'.
Perhaps if you were mandated to your job for £2ph you would begin to understand.
(Template two, Copy and Paste)
Mr Cameron
I shall get straight to the point. I would like to ask. Why you are insistent on championing various ‘Workfare’ styled programmes that are well documented internationally to be a poorly effective when tackling unemployment, especially at times of high unemployment?
Why you have sought to involve the private sector so largely within the facilitation of these schemes? Surely a number of issues regarding conflict of interest arise when doing this? I shall point to your personal friend Mrs Harrison by way of example.
Why you keep expressing publicly that these schemes are not mandatory when various documents from the DWP clearly state otherwise?Why government documents have been revised and altered with there being no reference to this having taken place?Why you seek to use rhetoric that stereotypes the unemployed as being lazy and workshy?
Why do you seek to use rhetoric that stereotypes those who oppose these policies as being ‘Trotskyite’?
I look forward to your answers
nick.clegg.mp@parliament.uk or leader@libdems.org.uk
You can use the same wording and post a letter to David Cameron, 10 Downing Street, London SW1A 2AA
Here’s our template. As ever feel free to use it, edit it or write your own letter instead.
(Copy and Paste)
Dear Mr Clegg
I am writing to you in regard to the coalition government’s pursuit of unfair, unethical policies on welfare reform and getting people back to work. In particular, I refer to ‘workfare’ style programmes which contain elements of conditionality, mandatory activity and the threat of sanction for non-compliance.
Such schemes have come under increasing public scrutiny over recent weeks, both in relation to their fairness and in their vulnerability to abuse and fraud by service providers. On Wednesday 29th February the government, in what can only be described as a U-turn, removed the threat of using sanctions against 16-24 year olds participating voluntarily in the Work Experience Scheme. Whilst this is a step in the right direction, I believe this was done to mislead and divert public attention away from the wider agenda of this government and the considerable injustices that remain within the ‘workfare’ system.
Of course you are well aware that ‘workfare’ relates to a number of other government schemes including Mandatory Work Activity, The Work Programme, Sector-based Work Academy Places and the planned Community Action Programme. These programmes do not only affect 16-24 year olds, they affect people of all ages, and will have added impacts on people over 50, disadvantaged groups and sick and disabled people.
I call on you now to stop the use of mandatory activities, compulsory volunteering and the threat of sanctions in these programmes under the guise of helping people move into work. The international evidence clearly demonstrates that ‘workfare’ is least effective during times of high unemployment. Given the current extremes of joblessness, now is not the time to be expanding the ‘workfare’ system. At a time of widespread cuts to public services members of the general public must be highly dissatisfied to learn of the large profits ‘workfare’ schemes generate for corporate service providers, especially when there is no substantive evidence that the unemployed are moving into work at a faster rate than they would without the intervention of these service providers.
The system has shown itself to be open to abuse in several areas. It clearly undermines the value of community work, and provides free labour to large corporate providers where there is very limited community benefit. It is clear that service providers have been duplicitous, with participants being led to believe that they have no choice and threats of loss of benefits are used to coerce this “forced labour force”.
A number of large companies have seemingly pulled out of the schemes, because they feel that it is wrong to use the threat of sanctions against people. They did this only because people like me, the voters of this country, brought pressure to bear on the companies, highlighting why these schemes are wrong and that we will not support businesses that profit from such an abusive system.
Workfare, in common with many coalition policies, makes no economic sense. If you are reducing wages and creating a culture of fear in the workplace then people will not spend money. If people are not spending money then the economy is not being stimulated and businesses will be less able to sell their products. Why do we have to tell you this? It seems obvious to everyone except the politicians.
Finally, if it was not for public pressure then neither your government nor the companies would have backed down. In exercising our rights and demonstrating our objections you have seen fit to attack us as some tiny minority consisting of the unemployed, bullies and extremists. The fact is that a broad cross-section of British society finds the punitive and often seemingly vindictive nature of the schemes and their implementation abhorrent.
The torrent of insults emanating from the government is not acceptable. There is no place in politics for such unfounded pettiness. There is no place in our welfare system for sanctions, coercive malpractice or corporate fraud. I will continue to press you on these issues until such time as you change these policies and practices and replace these with non-punitive, constructive and creative measures.
Signed
*delete and insert name here*
Download Template as a Word.doc
Ed Miliband (Labour Leader) milibande@parliament.uk
(Copy and Paste)
Dear Mr Miliband,
I am writing to you as Leader of the Opposition to urge you to oppose the coalition government’s pursuit of unfair, unethical policies on welfare reform and getting people back to work. In particular, I refer to ‘workfare’ style programmes which contain elements of conditionality, mandatory activity and the threat of sanction.
Such schemes have come under increasing public scrutiny over recent weeks, both in relation to their fairness and in their vulnerability to abuse and fraud by service providers.
The government has tried its hardest to ensure that the discussion remains focussed on the Work experience Programme whilst surely being well aware that ‘workfare’ relates to a number of other schemes including Mandatory Work Activity, The Work Programme, Sector-based Work Academy Places and the planned Community Action Programme. Many members of the public are particularly concerned about the potential impacts on disadvantaged groups, the sick and disabled people.
I call on you now to raise the level of debate to ensure there is clarity on the use of mandatory activities, compulsory volunteering and the threat of sanctions in these programmes under the guise of helping people move into work.
You will no doubt be aware of the evidence from North America and Australia that clearly demonstrates that ‘workfare’ is least effective during times of high unemployment. Given the current extremes of joblessness, now is not the time for the government to be expanding the ‘workfare’ system. At a time of widespread cuts to public services members of the general public will be appalled to know about the large profits ‘workfare’ schemes generate for corporate service providers, especially as there is no substantive evidence that the unemployed are moving into work at a faster rate than they would without the intervention of these service providers.
The existing system is open to abuse. It clearly undermines the value of community work, and provides free labour to large corporate providers where there is very limited community benefit. It is clear that service providers have been duplicitous, with participants being led to believe that they have no choice and threats of loss of benefits are used to coerce this “forced labour force”.
Workfare, in common with many coalition policies, makes no economic sense. Reducing wages and creating a culture of fear in the workplace makes people less prepared to spend money. If people are not spending money then the economy is not being stimulated and businesses will be less able to sell their products. This all seems very obvious to me.
Finally, if it was not for public pressure then neither your government nor the companies would have backed down. In exercising our rights and demonstrating our objections you have seen fit to attack us as some tiny minority consisting of the unemployed, bullies and extremists. We look to you as Leader of the Opposition to defend us and to compel the government to ditch these abhorrent policies and practices and replace them with non-punitive, constructive and creative measures.
Signed
*delete and insert name here*
Download Template as a Word.doc
any of the following, please insert the Party Leader’s name where shown and then sign.
Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party) Alex.Salmond.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru)
ieuan.wynjones@wales.gov.uk
Caroline Lucas (Green Party)
caroline.lucas.mp@parliament.uk
(Copy & Paste)
Dear *insert name here*,
I am writing to you as a key member of the Opposition to urge you to oppose the coalition government’s pursuit of unfair, unethical policies on welfare reform and getting people back to work. In particular, I refer to ‘workfare’ style programmes which contain elements of conditionality, mandatory activity and the threat of sanction.
Such schemes have come under increasing public scrutiny over recent weeks, both in relation to their fairness and in their vulnerability to abuse and fraud by service providers.
The government has tried its hardest to ensure that the discussion remains focussed on the Work experience Programme whilst surely being well aware that ‘workfare’ relates to a number of other schemes including Mandatory Work Activity, The Work Programme, Sector-based Work Academy Places and the planned Community Action Programme. Many members of the public are particularly concerned about the potential impacts on disadvantaged groups, the sick and disabled people.
I call on you now to raise the level of debate to ensure there is clarity on the use of mandatory activities, compulsory volunteering and the threat of sanctions in these programmes under the guise of helping people move into work.
You will no doubt be aware of the evidence from North America and Australia that clearly demonstrates that ‘workfare’ is least effective during times of high unemployment. Given the current extremes of joblessness, now is not the time for the government to be expanding the ‘workfare’ system. At a time of widespread cuts to public services members of the general public will be appalled to know about the large profits ‘workfare’ schemes generate for corporate service providers, especially as there is no substantive evidence that the unemployed are moving into work at a faster rate than they would without the intervention of these service providers.
The existing system is open to abuse. It clearly undermines the value of community work, and provides free labour to large corporate providers where there is very limited community benefit. It is clear that service providers have been duplicitous, with participants being led to believe that they have no choice and threats of loss of benefits are used to coerce this “forced labour force”.
Workfare, in common with many coalition policies, makes no economic sense. Reducing wages and creating a culture of fear in the workplace makes people less prepared to spend money. If people are not spending money then the economy is not being stimulated and businesses will be less able to sell their products. This all seems very obvious to me.
Finally, if it was not for public pressure then neither our government nor the companies would have backed down. In exercising our rights and demonstrating our objections they have seen fit to attack us as some tiny minority consisting of the unemployed, bullies and extremists. We look to you as an eminent member of the Opposition to defend us and to compel the government to ditch these abhorrent policies and practices and replace them with non-punitive, constructive and creative measures.
Signed
*delete and insert name here*
Download Word Doc
Finally, we’ve wanted to address the issue of charities involvement in workfare all week but weren’t really sure how to go about doing this, or indeed whether we really should. We know it’s a divisive issue and understand if you’d rather skip this action. However yesterday we were made aware of a statement from an umbrella organisation named ‘Disability Works UK’. Disability Works is a group made up of 8 leading disability based charities that have joined forces to have more ‘clout’ in the marketplace. Here’s the statement that got us rather annoyed (and offended)
“Together we have the capacity, specialist expertise and track record to deliver large-scale subcontracts for Work Programme Prime Providers.”
Why would disability based charities want to work with exploitative middle men who are helping to facilitate an exploitative government initiative that itself has serious repercussions on disabled people placed within Work Related Activity Group? Are they just being naive? We hope so because the alternative is damning!
Maybe we should send a message to Disability Works to find out.
Email: info@disabilityworksuk.org
(Copy and Paste)
Dear Disability Works UK
(Advance, Mind, Pluss, Action for Blind People, Scope, Mencap, United Response, Leonard Cheshire Disability)
I am writing as I am confused by Disability Works UK’s statement that you “are not involved in the delivery of the government’s Workfare Scheme” and several of your member organisations have made similar statements.
Your statement goes on to say “Disability Works UK has secured a number of sub-contracts to deliver the Work Programme; the government’s employment initiative aimed at supporting long-term unemployed and disabled people into work. This programme is not related in any way to the Workfare scheme”.
I feel that this shows at best that; you clearly do not understand the term ‘workfare’, and worst you have attempted to ‘fudge’ and mislead the public and your supporters regarding your involvement in delivering government employment programmes.
You will be aware that there is no government scheme called the Workfare Scheme. ’ Workfare’ is a collective term, first used in the late 1960’s. The term describes a system of welfare that places additional conditions and responsibilities, including mandatory activities, compulsion and sanctions on benefit claimants.
There are currently 4 ‘workfare’ style programmes in the UK and this week the Government did a U-turn by removing the threat of sanctions from 16 to 24-year-olds on the Work Experience Scheme.
You should welcome this change, but recognise that this is only a small step and does not address conditionality and sanctions in other programmes and in particular does not address the issues faced by the people that you as disability charities represent. In fact, each of your member organisations have campaigned against the use of conditionality and sanctions as you recognised these would not be productive, and may in fact be detrimental to a person’s health.
I am very concerned over your involvement as a sub contractor to deliver the Work Programme:
You are well aware of the very real fears and anxieties expressed by people living with disabilities, and those participants are compelled to do mandatory activities reinforced by conditionality and the threat of sanctions against their benefit. Your members have and continue to actively campaign against such measures yet you are actively supporting the Work Programme.
Your involvement supports a system whereby ex-IB customers are referred to the Work Programme often with complex needs, entering a stressful “revolving door” situation only to appeal and then leave following successful appeals against the WCA decision due to illness or disability.
As representatives of major charities you are well aware of the damaging effects through the loss of valuable services and jobs that funding changes have had on voluntary sector across the UK with organisations often used as "bid candy" to win contracts.
Despite several large ‘for profit’ organisations having now said that they will not support or participate in programmes that involve the threat of sanctions, Disability Works UK continues its involvement in The Work Programme.
Like many people I recognise the value and benefits that charities bring to society, I also recognise the value of work, either paid or voluntary, but I feel on this occasion you are not leading by example.
I call on you as an organisation and as individual member charities to send out a strong message that you oppose the use of conditionality and sanctions; that you will not support programmes that maintain these elements; and that you will not profit from a programme that adversely affects both the groups you represent, or damages the value that the voluntary sector brings to society.
Signed
*delete and sign here*
Download Template here as a Word.doc
For our last Facebook Wall hit of the week we thought we’d pay a visit to one of the three companies that Chris ‘Fail’ Grayling used in his meek ‘victory’ speech on Wednesday to make it seem that hadn’t just had his political weight squashed by business leaders.
It seemed to us rather odd that these companies would allow themselves to be so openly named, let alone think it was good promo to be entering ‘Workfare’ when so many others are fleeing!!
Now, I’m sure you can come up with your own comment, but if you’d like to use our template, you are (as ever) most welcome to.
(Copy & Paste)
Joining Workfare whilst other companies are dropping out shows just how little regard Center Parcs has for social responsibility.’Workfare’ related schemes continue to be mandatory for the majority of the unemployed (including those with disabilities). As such, your company’s participation is nothing short of appalling. I shall be boycotting your holiday parks and advising others to do the same.
@CenterParcsUK Do not join #workfare exploitation! WAGE experience not work experience! #centerparcs #boycottworkfare http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17220227
@Airbus Keep off the #workfare runway! A fair day's work for a fair day's pay! http://www.recruiter.co.uk/airbus-touches-down-in-much-criticised-workfare-scheme/1013054.article #boycottworkfare #airbus
