Cait Reilly, ‘What a Snooty So-and-So” says Ian Duncan Smith.
January 22, 2012
Cait Reilly: Singled Out For Attack by Ian Duncan Smith.
In the Sunday Times today (22.1.12) Ian Duncan Smith Work and Pensions Secretary says of Cait Reilly,
“What a snooty-so-and-so. She seemed to say she shouldn’t stack shelves because she’s intelligent . The way she sneered -as if she was too good for it,” he says,. “She’s wasting our time and money going to court. It’s ridiculous. What about the human rights of the taxpayer. It’s a human right for the taxpayer to know you’re doing something productive instead of wafting around looking for the job you want while someone else pays for it.”
We can be sure Cait Reilly will receive a fair hearing with that kind of comment from a Minister flying around.
Not to mention his novel definition of human rights.
Wikipedia says “His wealth is estimated at £1 million much of which has been earned by working as a high end after dinner speaker”.
Ian Duncan Smith has never done an honest day’s work in his life.
January 22, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Please don’t get me started on IDS, who the F### does he think he is, what a complete prat…
January 22, 2012 at 4:28 pm
He sounds proper upset – perhaps he feels they (Government) will lose?
I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for Unlawful Sanctions and Mandatory Work Activity websites – lack of updates due to computer problems. (Not always a good idea to save passwords to your computer without remembering them or writing them down just in case they break!)
January 23, 2012 at 11:58 am
Hope it’s sorted Worky – the press is full of stuff on unemployment, work programme etc and we need your skills!
January 23, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Hi Andy
The worst part was I had internet access but no access to my emails and passwords etc. (all stored on the computer)
Still not got access to emails.. its been over a month so I am expecting a few thousand emails lol
I have just submitted a new article for IUA on refusing the work programme… there is much confusion and some bad advice out there.
January 22, 2012 at 1:48 pm
May be ian duncan smith should look closer to home than having a poke at cait reily .because as we see when mps are payed wel ova the top to sleep or play on there phones when in house commons , if that aint enough they then fiddel there expenses to the tune of robbing the hard working tax payers and to round off the insult they dont all get taken to court there is a law for them and one for the rest .if u was found to be making false expenses claim against your employer first thing that would happen is u would get the sack not keep your job we got theifs and liars running our country no wonder why unemployed dont want work what to line mps pockets GET YOUR OWN HOUSE IN SHAPE IAN DUCAN SMITH BEFORE U MAKE JUDGEMENT ON OTHERS U BALD HEADED SCROAT OF A MAN I WOULD OF LOVED TO TAKEN COURT ACTION ON U LIEING CHEATING SCUM BAGS ,ON YOUR SIDE CAIT REILY PRAYING U WIN
January 22, 2012 at 2:30 pm
I agree with policeman .lets not forget many mps have been since day started bin fiddling there expenses it aint just last couple years the robbing swines and its our hard earnt tax payers money . And as the human rights acts states article 23 it states mr ducan smith a fare wage for a fare job not getting unemployed to help big companys benefit and the likes cait reily suffer , I know who when goes to court who I want to win AND IT AINT U LIEING SCUM BAG MP’S I WANT MISS REILY TO SET A PRESIDENT AND PUT A STOP TO THE BIG COMPANYS GETTING RICH Of UNEMPLOYED and if it aint that bad to work 4 a pound I challange ian duncan smith to do it 4 a year and on same money that unemployed get and to to live on same poor estates u would’nt last a wk u shameless little bald headed joke 4 an mp. U GO FOR IT MISS REILY BEHIND U ALL THE WAY AS U ARE CORRECT IN ALL U DOING
January 22, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Ian duncan smith I challange u to make a withdrawl of your statement on cait reily u have no right when u was one them mps who fiddeld his exspenses u no saint and u have never done a honest days work in your life u scum bag. ON YOUR SIDE CAIT REILY
January 22, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Is there a link to this article?
January 22, 2012 at 3:23 pm
After a statement like that IDS may as well be Marie Antoinette in drag.Its a “right” to be paid a wage not benefit when you are doing work and stacking shelves is doing work,no matter how long the duration.Are Poundland “snooty so and so’s” not to pay at least the minimum wage to people they employ,or just greedy bastards?The gall of this unthinking swine is almost beyond comprehension,it is a crime he is allowed to be an MP.
January 23, 2012 at 9:33 am
No, the Sunday Times has a paywall.
You have to fork out to Murdoch to get it on-Line.
January 22, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Why is that horrible guy in charge of UK welfare?
January 22, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Reblogged this on Work Programme: The Work Programme & Community Action Programme.
January 22, 2012 at 5:33 pm
I challenge ian duncan smith to a job swop if it aint to bad to do poundland work for pound an hour .because im sure that I can do his job talk bollox all day fiddle my expenses take tax payers money and spend it on jolly ups and tarts . What u say ian u up 4 a swap u do my unemployed I do your lieing fiddling exspenses job with me eyes shut oh and me 4 tarts u bald headed joke of a human being :
January 22, 2012 at 9:18 pm
What you are trying to do in ingageing cait reily in to a slagging match just goes to show ian duncan smith she is a bit brighter than u and she wil do her shoughting after she wins her court case and it cost u thousands and put a stop to u and every body else getting free labour off the dwp I cant wait am BEHIND U AND JIM DUFFY ALL THE WAY U GO FOR IT CAIT REILY WE ARE AK BEHIND U ALWAYS
January 23, 2012 at 9:03 am
This is what you get for daring to stand up to these bullies. I hope Cait’s strong, because she’s going to need to be. It’s typical bully boy tactics to pretend to speak for others and assume what they think (‘taxpayers have the human right…taxpayers don’t want to pay for her….blah di blah). He has become an increasingly bitter and short tempered creature and I for one think he should be made to resign, along with Grayling (lest he take over!).
January 23, 2012 at 10:28 am
Iain Dunkin’ Donuts is a truly abominable piece of excrement. This is a blatant attempt to manipulate public opinion against a courageous person who is not just standing up for her rights but for the rights of all of us. As if the state doesn’t have enough power when dealing with one person IDS tries to enlist the public opinion of “middle England” in an attempt to itimidate Cate and influence the court. Despicable. As for Cate – be aware that there are a lot of people supporting you. I look forward to another challenge against the Community Action Programme. Keep going Cate (and Mr. Duffy). As for the self styled “quiet man” – take your own advice and shut up.
January 23, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Good point, gissajob (abd Dragon Slayer)… something stinks… looks like IBS is trying to stir up dissent in the “movement”
January 23, 2012 at 12:43 pm
What a pathetic and feeble attempt by IBS in speaking of Cait Reilly as “snooty” and “intelligent” to distance and isolate Cait Reilly from the, statistically speaking, who IBS would not doubt refer to as as “unwashed” and “uneducated dole scum” whom in the past tended to be more affected by these evil, Draconian policies which flow from the bowels of IBS. Nothing that comes from the bowels of this turd comes without calculation and evil intent. Wonder if IBS has offered Cait a “deal”. Good luck Cait on your quest to disembowel this festering turd.
January 23, 2012 at 12:59 pm
I am old enough to remember IDS’s “work makes you free” remark… it is not as if it evacuated onto the “Breakfast” sofa without evil intent and calculation – unless IBS has loose bowels or summat
January 23, 2012 at 2:18 pm
”
“No Wealth without Labour”
- Karl Marx
January 23, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Benefits claimant describes being treated as a scrounger
Suicidal Darryl, 46, from London, tells Radio 5 live’s Stephen Nolan that being on benefits is not a luxury and that if he was in prison, people would have more respect for him.
January 23, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Government suffers Lords defeat over benefit cap plan
The government has been defeated in the Lords in a vote on its plans for a £26,000-a-year household benefit cap.
Peers backed a bishop’s amendment by 252 to 237 that child benefit should not be included in the cap.
Critics argued that imposing the same cap on all families, regardless of size, would penalise children.
Ministers say including child benefit would make the cap pointless by effectively raising it to £50,000 and they will seek to overturn the defeat.
Earlier the government defeated another amendment proposed by Labour to exempt people considered at risk of homelessness from the cap.
The annual cap would come into force for working age families in England, Scotland and Wales from 2013.
The government was defeated three times on votes on other parts of its flagship Welfare Reform Bill two weeks ago.
But Work and Pensions Secretary Duncan Smith has said any defeats will be overturned when the legislation returns to the Commons.
In the Commons, the minister accused Labour of saying they were in favour of a cap on benefits – while tabling a “wrecking amendment”.
“They can’t weasle their way out of it and say they are in favour on the one hand and against on the other.”
The Labour amendment would have exempted people who would be considered “threatened with homelessness” under the cap – and obliged to be rehoused by their local council. The opposition says it supports the policy but as it stands it could end up costing the taxpayer more if 20,000 families have to be rehoused.
Shadow work and pensions secretary Liam Byrne said, if the government did not accept Labour’s amendment, the party would support the amendment to exclude child benefit to avoid “another bill for council tax payers to clean up the cost of homelessness”.
On Monday the government revised up its estimate of how many households would be affected – from 50,000 to 67,000, although the amount of money they would lose was revised down from £93-a-week to £83-a-week. More than half of those affected live in London.
‘Relatively generous’
The cap would be £500 a week – equivalent to the average wage earned by working households after tax – for families and £350 a week for single adults without children.
There have been suggestions that some “transitional arrangements” could be introduced for families affected by the cap – which applies to working age benefits.
Prime Minister David Cameron said the cap was “relatively generous”: “I think this is a basic issue of fairness. It’s time to call time on these excessive welfare payouts and that’s what the benefit cap will do.”
Mr Duncan Smith said most of those affected were people who had never worked – and had no incentive to do so because they were living in expensive properties which they would have to move out of if they lost their housing benefit entitlement.
He has rejected suggestions children could be pushed into poverty by the cap or that some families would be left homeless.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, the Rt Rev John Packer, has put down an amendment that would exclude child benefit from the overall cap.
He said: “Child benefit is a universal benefit. I believe that it’s wrong to see it as being a welfare benefit. It’s a benefit which is there for all children, for the bringing up of all children and to say that the only people who cannot have child benefit are those whose welfare benefits have been capped seems to me to be a quite extraordinary argument.”
And the former Bishop of Hulme, the Right Reverend Stephen Lowe, told the BBC if child benefit was included it would “damage those children’s welfare and put potentially another 100,000 children into poverty”.
But Mr Duncan Smith said excluding child benefit would make the cap “pointless” – as it would raise the amount families could receive to an average of about £50,000 a year. He said he wanted to be “fair” to taxpayers on low wages, who were supporting families in homes they themselves could not afford.
Former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown has said he will vote against the plans, unless there are measures to cushion the impact on those affected.
The housing charity Shelter disputed Mr Duncan Smith’s claims about the way “homelessness” is defined by it and the government. The minister told the BBC earlier: “The definition inside government and places like Shelter is that children have to share rooms. For most people who are working, their children share rooms, they would find that a strange definition.”
But Shelter chief executive Campbell Robb said that was “simply not true” and the comments were creating “unnecessary confusion”.
“Shelter uses the same definition of homelessness as the government, as set out in the Housing Act 1996, passed by the last Conservative government.”
The changes would affect England, Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland has its own social security legislation, but it is expected that what is approved at Westminster would be introduced there too.
Government suffers Lords defeat over benefit cap plan
January 23, 2012 at 10:38 pm
Nasty man, nasty party, nasty government.
I was unemployed during the early years of the Thatcher regime. I do not believe I fully recovered from the ever present sense of helplessness I experienced. The reality of Hayek free-market philosophy. I occasionally meet those I knew at the time, same age, same educational background, nearly all ended up in dead end jobs, many are now unemployed and will remain so.
These people, these Conservatives do not care about ordinary people, they enjoy the misery they visit on peoples lives. We are damned. The class war has been lost, get used to it.
January 23, 2012 at 10:45 pm
It’s not that far fetched that one day they will herd the unemployed up like cattle, pile them into freight trains and send them to camps to work and once they are there, if they’re found to be not fit to work, who know what might happen?
January 23, 2012 at 10:50 pm
Funneling money from the public purse into private companies is this government’s raison d’etre. If they’re allowed to complete their term hardly anything of this country will still exist. What to do?
And the issue of forced labour for slave labour wages is the most important question of our time. A reintroduction of iniquities we thought banished from Britain forever, all under the ridiculous guise of ‘helping the unemployed’.
Helping them into an early grave, more like, as the mix of long working hours and insufficient nutrition on £67 a week take its toll.
January 23, 2012 at 11:49 pm
I have been unemployed for one year, (Network Data Security Manager, local government, 10 years’ service)my local Job Centre made an appointment for me to attend an interview with a Back To Work Programme Provider. I was assured that the interview would be confidential, one-to-one, designed to provide me with the opportunity to discuss my circumstances and receive tailored advice regarding job search, CV construction, interview techniques, skill assessment, and relevant training etc. I checked out their website and I must say that I was impressed, indeed, hopeful.
My interview was at 10:30 Monday morning, I arrived 10 minutes early, signed in and was asked by the receptionist to take a seat, forty minutes later I am called to a desk where I am asked to provide identification, confirm my name, address, NI, ethnicity, provide a copy of my CV and examples of recent job search actives, this information was then entered into a company computer database.
Now, this ‘provider’ is an American company, awarded a contract by the Government to alleviate the growing problem of unemployment and not a Government department (DWP, Home Office, etc.)
As mentioned, my previous job was Network Data and Security Manager, so, several quite natural questions came to mind:
How will this data be processed?
Who has access to this personal information?
What securities are in place to protect this information?
Do you have a privacy policy addressing the protection of clients’ data?
The person collecting my information would not answer my concerns.
I returned to my seat where another ‘client’ is waiting to be ‘processed’, as I sit down my fellow ‘client’ is called over by the ‘data collector’.
After a further wait of approximately thirty minutes, myself and my fellow ‘client’ are approached by a person eating a biscuit, we are asked to follow him to an interview room. (Recall the confidential one-to-one interview?) We are taken to what can only be described as the ‘store cupboard’. Stacked in one corner of the room are boxes of A4 printing paper, scattered on the floor are a number of printer toner cartages and propped against one wall a broken Christmas tree, no window, the room was so small it was impossible to fully open the door without it banging into the small table that occupied the centre of the room.
The ‘interviewer’ had not introduced himself, nor had he any form of identification that could distinguish him as an employee of the company, no name visible name badge. He began the ‘interview’ by reminding us that our attendance was mandatory and threatening to impose sanctions if we did not fully cooperate with him, he then boasted that he had ‘personally sanctioned five people the previous week’.
My first, obvious question was “Who are you?” He described himself as an ‘Employment Consultant’ (still no name, nor had he asked for our names ) He informed me that the business was awarded a commission for every unemployed that was found a job. I asked about his qualifications and any training he had undertaken with regards to his position as an ‘Employment Consultant’ the reply was ‘No training or qualifications were necessary’
During this ‘interview’ the ‘data collector’ I mentioned earlier, opened the door and presented him with two folders which he opened and placed the contents on the table in full view of myself and my fellow client, the folders contained computer printout copies of the data collected earlier and the photocopies of the documents I had handed over.
He then handed out a twenty five page questionnaire and we were ‘told’ to complete it.
Questions included: Substance abuse…marital status…number of children…do I own my home…savings…number of children.
I asked how this information was relevant and I again raised the concerns mentioned previously, I was informed that anyone within the company had access to the folders. I felt that some of the questions were intrusive, that the data requested would not be secure so I refused to complete the questionnaire. I was then threatened with sanctions if I refused to provide the information required.
At this point I requested to speak to the business manager or the regional executive director his response was ‘If you do not cooperate I will inform the Job Centre and get you sanctioned’
I left.
I have written to the head office of the company and I am awaiting a reply.
So, to sum up, an American business wins a Government contract to help tackle the growing unemployment problem, no checks on the suitability of staff employed at these offices, no training for the staff, no awareness of Health and Safety, total disregard for the Data Protection act. To achieve the quota of so many unemployed removed from the benefit system and to gain the ‘bonus per head’ threats of sanctions and intimidation towards what could be a genuinely vulnerable unemployed person are used.
It seems to me that the unemployed are now a money making commodity for business.
January 24, 2012 at 9:13 am
Well abizmal – what can I say except welcome to the world of the Work Proramme! You are obviously well educated and no one’s fool so all I can say is 1. Learn your rights, 2. Take no crap.and 3. remember you are not alone.
January 24, 2012 at 12:00 am
Being one of those strange people who does’nt own a mobile phone, I was told I had to buy one , (apparently tesco’s do a cheap one for £10) when I pointed out that I did not want a mobile phone, and that the £10 out my jsa for this phone would mean I would not be able to afford heating for the week as thats what it normally costs me, I was told I could be sanctioned. When I replied that nowhere in my initial agreement with my work programme providers does it state I have to buy a mobile phone, I was told I could be sanctioned, and when I then pointed out that surely the money you get for having me on your programme is enough that you can equip people with mobile phones,….yep you guessed it I could be sanctioned.
January 24, 2012 at 10:01 am
I don’t have a mobile either.
I point out that if anyone wants to contact me and I use the library Internet for E-Mail.
I do not want a mobile.
As you say Cheftty, the people running these programmes get enough money to pay for you to have a Blackberry.
January 24, 2012 at 12:06 am
I work in recruitment, on a self employed basis. From my perspective, having spent the last 18 years placing people in jobs, giving them advice on how to increase their chances of success in those interviews, and giving them further general advice on the job market and strategies to increase their chances, I despair of this, I really do. I come across candidates whose confidence has been destroyed by these companies and the total lack of professionalism, let alone simple compassion for people who are in a difficult and vulnerable situation. How can it possibly help people to so damage their feelings of self-worth that they are even less likely to be successful in an interview process if they even get this far after being bullied in this way and given inappropriate and useless career ‘advice’?
January 24, 2012 at 12:13 am
IF YOU ARE PUT ON THE WORK PROGRAMME DO NOT SIGN THE CONSENT FORM THAT YOU WILL BE GIVEN ON YOUR INDUCTION DAY. IT IS COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY IF YOU SIGN IT OR NOT WITH NO RISK OF LOSING YOUR BENEFITS. THE REASON TO DO THIS IS THE PROVIDER THAT YOU ARE SENT TO WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CONTACT ANY 3RD PARTY ABOUT YOU (INCLUDING COMPANIES WHO WANT YOU TO STACK THEIR SHELVES AND SWEEP THEIR FLOORS FOR FREE AND THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET PAID IF YOU ARE LUCKY ENOUGH TO FIND A JOB!!…WHY SHOULD THEY BE HANDSOMELY REWARDED IF YOU FIND A JOB OFF YOUR OWN BACK??) THUS YOU CAN HELP PUT THESE POVERTY PIMPS OUT OF BUSINESS….WATCH THE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE CALLED ”HOW TO DESTROY THE WORK PROGRAMME” AND SPREAD THE WORD.ABOUT IT….VICTORY SHALL BE OURS!!
January 24, 2012 at 12:13 am
you absolutely DO NOT have to give the provider a telephone number OR e-mail address. They are breaking the Data Protection Act Law for lying to you, and they are simply trying to frighten you into giving in to them. Check out the website consent.me.cv/uk this will provide you with all the info you need. the DWP themselves state in black and white: ”There is no legal requirement for a Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) customer to supply their Provider (or DWP Jobcentre) with a CV, an e-mail address or a telephone number. Claimants only have to ”show” a copy of their CV, they do not have to use the DWP’S or Providers job brokerage service if they don’t want to. Providers do have to ask the claimant for permission to contact prospective employers. In short, the claimant is correct in quoting the Data Protection Act.”
January 24, 2012 at 12:15 am
”THERE IS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR A JOBSEEKERS ALLOWANCE (JSA) CUSTOMER TO SUPPLY THEIR PROVIDER WITH A CV, AN E-MAIL ADDRESS OR A TELEPHONE NUMBER. CLAIMANTS ONLY HAVE TO ”SHOW” PROVIDERS A COPY OF THEIR CV, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO USE THE DWP’S OR PROVIDERS JOB BROKERAGE SERVICE IF THEY DON’T WANT TO. PROVIDERS DO HAVE TO ASK THE CLAIMANT FOR PERMISSION TO CONTACT PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYERS. IN SHORT, THE CLAIMANT IS CORRECT IN QUOTING THE DATA
PROTECTION ACT.”…….SOURCE: DWP.
see this vitally important information for yourselves and print it off for your next visit to the JobCentre and Work Programme session at consent.me.cv/uk
Do not be frightened if they threaten to Sanction you as it is an empty threat as they know the Law is on your side and are just hoping that most claimants are ignorant of their Data Protection Act rights. Even if they are vindictive and put a doubt on your claim, rest assured it will be overturned without fail on appeal.
consent.me.cv/uk
January 24, 2012 at 7:49 am
consent.me.uk/cv
January 24, 2012 at 12:18 am
These Work Schemes are nothing new. When I was nineteen years old back in 1992, I was put into one. They put me into a little GAS supplier firm. I was given an extra £10 a week on top of my benefit for travelling expenses.
The Boss in that job treated me like vermin, when his own paid workers sat for lunch, he would make me spray paint gas bottles. I had to go to the shop for for all the paid workers for cigarettes, lunch, etc…
The place was a complete dump, and The Boss hired a skip then he made me clean out his whole shop from to to bottom. He would actually send me out with one of his friends who delivered coal, to help him deliver coal all day. At the end of the week when everyone was getting paid, I walked home empty handed. I was taught absolutely no skills, I was an unpaid skivvy and the Boss knew I was terrified of losing my dole. However he was paid a sum of £300 a week for having the kindness to train me. He would joke about this, and I would laugh pretending it was funny.
I had a pretty decent education, and had just finished my A levels, but could not afford University at that time.
My niece has been put into one of these schemes in the past month, and she has a degree. The Jobs and Benefits Centre told her they would give her extra training to help augment her degree, and now she is stacking shelves and brushing floors at a local hardware store. The Law Society have agreed to take her case.
Heading towards two years of Tory Rule now, imagine what it will be like in 2015? Maybe you shouldn’t.
January 24, 2012 at 12:21 am
you know when i read comments calling for labour and the lib dems to do something. do you think that the system represents you? does it f*uck the only answer is to f*uckin burn this shithole down and start again and round up all the bastards and find the shittiest council estate and turn it into a vast prison and f*uckin well wall the c*unts up in there and subject the bastards to what they inflict on others.
January 24, 2012 at 12:27 am
From Richard J. Evans’s book, The Coming of the Third Reich:
Social workers and welfare administrators had already long been prone to regard claimants as scroungers and layabouts. Now, encouraged by new senior officials put in place by Nazi local and regional administrations, they could give free rein to their prejudices. Regulations passed in 1924 had allowed authorities to make benefits dependent on the recipient agreeing to work “in suitable cases” on communal job schemes. These had already been introduced on a limited scale before 1933. Three and a half thousand people were working on compulsory labour schemes in Duisburg in 1930, and Bremen had been making such employment a condition of benefit receipt since the previous year. But in the dire economic situation of the early 1930s only a small proportion of the unemployed were covered – 6,000 out of 200,000 people on benefit in Hamburg in 1932, for example. From the early months of 1933 onwards, however, the number rapidly increased. Such work was not employment in the full sense of the word: it did not involve health insurance or pension contributions, for example, indeed it was not even paid: all that those who were engaged in it got was their welfare support plus, sometimes, pocket-money for travel or a free lunch…
Welfare snoopers reported on hidden sources of income and encouraged neighbours to send in denunciations of those who refused to reveal them. Moreover, welfare agencies, lacking the staff necessary to process a large number of claims rapidly, caused endless delays in responding to applications for support as they corresponded with other agencies to see if claimants had received benefits previously, or tried to shift the burden of supporting them elsewhere. Thus, the Weimar welfare administration quickly became an instrument of discrimination and control, as officials made it clear to claimants that they would only receive the minimum due to them, and enquired intrusively into their personal circumstances to ensure that this was the case…
Sound familiar?
January 24, 2012 at 9:21 am
I windered where the nazis (whoops I mean Tories) got the idea of the Community Action Programme from. Now I know. Still I guess they won’t have to tattoonumbers on ui as electronic tagging has now been invented.
Arbeit Macht frei!
January 25, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Hello Vordermont
Your comments on the Third Reich are interesting.
Another intersting matter is the German word ARBEITSSCHEU.
It means “workshy” – a highly derogatory word appearing frequently in UK media these days to stigmatise welfare recipients.
ARBEITSSCHEU was the word used in Nazi concentration camps where categorised inmates were made to wear a black triangle on their already degrading striped uniforms. Bearers of this particular badge included the “asocial”, homeless people, alcoholics, the mentally ill and the disabled.
An intersting account of conditions at Dachau concentration camp before the start of the Second World War appears in an archive of the British Legion. A visiting delegation from the British Legion was shown the solitary confinement cells there in 1935 – before the gas chambers were installed. Inmates included “returning Jewish emigrants under observation”, professional criminals, moral perverts, and, yes, the WORKSHY (Arbeitsscheu).
You can see a BBC report about it here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660668
Current UK media material promoting resentment in disgruntled taxpayers towards malingering workshy benefit scroungers, is chillingly similar to what the Nazi propaganda
machine did by scapegoating the weak and the unproductive. One UK Government document currently speaks of “cleansing” one million benefit claims!
I believe we should take warnings from history.
January 25, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Hello again vordermont
Have a look at the following Nazi propaganda photograph:
http://mindinflux.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/nazi1.jpg
The photograph depicts a genetically diseased person kept in an asylum who is a burden on the Nazi State. It is aimed at the disgruntled taxpayer.
It really is no different from these rancorous UK headlines you see frequently these days about “THE WORKSHY BLEEDING THE TAXPAYER DRY”!
January 24, 2012 at 12:29 am
Lets get things straight, I am being FORCED to work for one of these SO CALLED CHARITIES, I dont know if im allowed to name them here but they are running a prominent ad campaign with vinnie jones and initials BHF.
These “charities” are nothing of the sort, they are run for the benefit of people at the top making millions from the generous british public who believe they are doing good deeds by donating.
This “charity” is treating me and fellow workers who have been placed there like garbage and we are working our arses off for 6 hours+ a day for dole money, there is no way that this “charity” would be able to function without this free slave labour and they would have to “hire” some real workers with real wages if it wasn’t for this scheme.
I am going to advise all my friends and family NEVER to donate to this charity or any other charity that is exploiting people using the “work programme” these “charities” are no better morally than private sector companies and probably treat the work programme people worse than they would be in the private sector.
Constant threats of sanction if everything is not done on time or in the way they want, I hate seeing the way they demoralise people and make them feel like human garbage. Its disgusting its despicable and “charity” is not a name that belongs to most of these charities, they are a disgrace.
January 24, 2012 at 9:35 am
BHF = British Heart Foundation ?
January 25, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Hi barclay
“Forced or Compulsory Labour” is defined by the International Labour Organisation as follows:
“ALL WORK OR SERVICE WHICH IS EXACTED FROM ANY PERSON UNDER THE MENACE OF A PENALTY AND FOR WHICH THE SAID PERSON HAS NOT OFFERED HIMSELF VOLUNTARILY”
Sounds as though that applies to your circumstances!
Have a look at Section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and Section 47 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, both of which outlaw forced or compulsory labour.
January 26, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Hi again barclay
After you’ve had a look at the above legislation, I would strongly advise you – and any other reader – to see a lawyer.
Then update the matter by posting your experience.
It is vitally important for unemployed people to oppose these harsh measures with strong LEGAL countermeasures rather than following a series of well intentioned opinions – but lay opinions after all!
You can also contact your local Press to publicise the legal defence suggested in my earlier post.
Remember, there is no such thing as a mandatory volunteer, so this is one area where the “big mandatory stick” which the Jobcentre and WP Providers are so fond of waving about to intimidate you into aceptance, will backfire on them!
January 24, 2012 at 12:45 am
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16693329
January 24, 2012 at 10:00 am
** BIG PRIZE **
As a mark of appreciation for your support and by way of celebration I intend to award a Big Prize of 2 weeks Jobseekers’s Allowance* ) for unemployed visitor number 200,000 to this blog.
Thank you for visiting Ipswich Unemployed Action
Andrew Coates
* not subject to arbitrary and/or vindictive sanction
January 24, 2012 at 12:41 pm
Competition is now closed – lucky winner will be notified in due course!! Congratulations
Andrew Coates
Ipswich Unemployed Action
January 24, 2012 at 2:41 pm
I won.
January 24, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Cheeky devil! Spent all morning refreshing me blooming browser!
January 26, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Royal Mail faces wave of employment tribunals over delayed Christmas pay
Scores of temporary sorting office workers claim they are still owed money and dispute calculations in their wages
Royal Mail could be facing a wave of employment tribunal claims from temporary sorting office workers who say they have been subjected to serious delays and miscalculations in their pay packets over Christmas and the new year.
The Guardian has received dozens of complaints from casual workers, some claiming Royal Mail owes them money for hours worked before Christmas. Many dispute the number of hours worked logged by Royal Mail, while others say they have been paid at different hourly rates to those advertised.
The problems stem from failures within Royal Mail’s new in-house recruitment agency, Angard Staffing Solutions, which struggled to cope with the 110,000 applications it received for 18,000 temporary Christmas jobs.
A Royal Mail spokesman admitted there had been payroll problems but claimed the “vast majority” of its temporary workers had been paid correctly and on time.
However, Liam Nam, the administrator of Royal Mail Chat, an internet message board not affiliated with the company, said temporary workers had visited his site in their thousands as frustration grew over the range of issues faced and difficulty in contacting Angard to resolve them.
“I estimate that over 5,000 people have come to the site looking for answers,” said Nam. “A few hundred per month is normal, but not thousands. The site has crashed twice because of the number of people coming on.”
Chris Bailey, a pensioner taken on at the Cambridge mail centre, said he was still awaiting payment for a week he worked in early December.
“As a pensioner with only the state pension, I was relying on this extra money for Christmas expenses and to pay bills, but after six weeks I have still not been paid correctly or even had the problem acknowledged by Angard,” Bailey said. “I had to borrow from my mother to pay my share of the gas and electric bill.”
A Royal Mail spokesman said the company was “very conscious of the need to ensure temporary workers were paid during the Christmas period”.
Some temporary workers were surprised to receive letters telling them they owed money to Royal Mail, a problem it said was related to emergency post office vouchers handed out to some unpaid casual workers in December.
“When it was clear that an individual would not receive payment through the normal method directly into their bank account, we arranged for an emergency payment to be made in the form of a voucher,” said the spokesman.
“The usual value was £350, [which was] in many cases, more than the gross amount of pay due. We carefully explained in a letter that we would be making future deductions for income tax and national insurance against the value of the voucher to reclaim any overpayment.”
Earlier this month Royal Mail set itself an internal deadline – Wednesday 11 January – by which time any outstanding payments to temporary workers ought to have been processed.
“To the best of our knowledge, any outstanding pay – and the vast majority had already been paid before last week – has now been paid. But if anyone has any queries, they should contact the helpline number (0845 460 7318) as we are determined to resolve any queries as quickly as possible,” the spokesman said.
But many temporary workers say they have not resolved their issues with Royal Mail and a growing number are now considering employment tribunal claims, which must be made within three months of a disputed issue taking place.
Philip Landau, an employment lawyer with Landau Zeffertt Weir solicitors, said if it could be proved that Royal Mail had failed to pay wages properly owed to workers, it could be considered an unlawful deduction.
“Any temporary Royal Mail worker who this applies to should initially write to Royal Mail setting out why it is considered an unlawful deduction has occurred and asking for the shortfall to be rectified within a short period. If no satisfactory response is received, a claim can then be made to an employment tribunal,” Landau said.
Case study
Simon Noble, 59, from Gosport, Hampshire has worked casual shifts for Royal Mail since 2003. After hearing of problems experienced by colleagues at the Portsmouth mail centre this Christmas, he noticed the rates he was being paid were significantly lower than those stated when he applied.
The advertised hourly rates for casuals at Portsmouth were £6.08 for a 6am-10pm shift Monday to Saturday; £7.84 for 10pm-6am Monday to Saturday; £8.18 for 6am-10pm Sunday; and £9.94 for 10pm-6am Sunday.
However, the hourly pay rates he received for these respective shifts were: £6.08, £6.58, £7.58, and £8.58. When he queried them with a line manager, he was told he should have been getting the higher rates.
His letters to Angard asking for an explanation went unanswered but he eventually spoke to a phone operator, who had no answer to his question. “It looked as though I had been given a sort of default pay rate as a guestimate,” he said.
After learning of Noble’s case from the Guardian, Royal Mail investigated and admitted it had made an error.
“He has, in error, been paid for his work at the national Angard rates when he should have been paid at higher local rates,” a spokesman admitted. “We are making adjustments to the pay he has earned and are fast-tracking to him an additional payment of around £80.
“Royal Mail is grateful to Mr Noble and to all our temporary workers for their hard work in the success of Royal Mail’s Christmas operation. We do not believe his case is at all typical.”
Full article here .
January 26, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Background to Jim Duffy the Public Interest Lawyer fighting the Cait Reilly case:
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/lawyer-in-the-news/solicitor-acting-graduate-who-took-unpaid-work-government-scheme
January 26, 2012 at 8:24 pm
About an e-mail that I sent to my Reed adviser at The Work Programme last night:
Hi (first name)
I would like to make it absolutely clear that I am not willing to sign a consent form and I do not agree for Reed to share my information.
Although I was asked to sign the back of the Action Plan this afternoon, you did not point out that the action plan itself contained practically the same consent agreement as the one given to me on a separate sheet, which I was not willing to sign anyway. I was led to believe that I was only signing an undertaking to an action plan. Only when I got home, and I read the form properly, I noticed the sub-section under the Data Protection Act sub-heading. I now feel that I was being tricked into signing a consent form against my will. You offered me the back of the action plan to sign, and you pointed to the action plan… at no stage did you draw my attention that there was a second request for a signed consent to share my information.
Also, I was not told anything about the complaints procedure – which is mentioned in the faded paragraph above my signature.
What was the point of giving me “Annex 1 – Employment Programmes – consent to share information” form which on page two says: “if you do not give consent, this will ot affect your entitlement to participate in the programme, or any job offer or employment obtained. You can write to Reed in Partnership Providers at any time to withdraw your consent and this will not affect your placement on the programme or any employment or offer of employment made.”? Please accept now that I have withdrawn my consent to those paragraphs in the Action Plan that refer to me sharing my information with third parties.
To sneak a consent agreement on the same sheet as an Action Plan was a contradiction to my right regarding consent. In the future, please do not attempt to make one document serve two distinct purposes and ask me to sign it, because such an attempt to extract a consent from me, I find to be quite upsetting and underhanded.
Yours sincerely
cvitae
I received a reply to my email, and here it is (I offer this information so that it may help anyone experiencing something similar):
Hi cvitae
Apologies that you felt that the Data Protection statement was hidden and that it was not made clear, this was not in our intentions.
You are not obliged to sign the Data Protection Act at Reed in Partnership although this effectively restricts us from passing on your details to prospective employers and internal vacancies. This could diminish your chances of gaining employment.
Please be advised that on all future action plans you can cross out the Data Protection statement and write that you do not agree to this.
In regards to our complaints procedure, if you have any issues please address them with me in the first instance, if you are unable to find a solution with myself the complaint will be passed to my Business Manager who will write to you with their findings within five working days. If you are not satisfied with the outcome of the initial investigation your issue will be escalated to a senior member of staff who will investigate further and aim to provide written feedback within ten working days. We will investigate complaints thoroughly and look to provide a positive resolution to all issues presented to us.
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Regards
(full name)
Employment Adviser
Work Programme
Reed in Partnership
http://www.reedinpartnership.co.uk
cvitae
January 27, 2012 at 12:21 pm
WORKFARE – INIQUITOUS, IRRATIONAL AND ILLEGAL
Here is yet another major flaw in the workings of Workfare – and another spanner in its iniquitous works!
Have a look at the following report from Corporate Watch on how the DWPs own rules are being disregarded by corporate employers in the everyday practice of Workfare placements:
http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=4111
According to the DWP, these Workfare placements are supposed to be “genuinely additional” [to real gainful employment positions].
The DWP go on to say: “that a [Workfare] participant must not fulfil a role which would otherwise be advertised as vacant”.
These rules are not being adhered to in everyday reality!
Interestingly, back in the Thatcher era, the Unions objected to the so-called training schemes dreamed up by the Tories by demanding that these (Workfare) schemes were “surplus to requirements”.
In other words, these transient Workfare placements were reduced to non-jobs, mere revolving-door boondoggles leading nowhere except straight back to the dole.
Nothing changes!
January 30, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Having worked in retail myself, I have absolutely no sympathy for those who truly do think that retail work is an “easy” job, or that they’re somehow above it.
That said, I simply do not believe that Cait Reilly is one of those people. In fact, far from being snooty and sneering towards retail, I’m getting the distinct impression that had Poundland offered her a paid full-time job, she’d have grabbed it with both hands.
If this scheme is to help people back into work, Cait had the right to expect to benefit from it. But she already had retail experience to her name, so what was this placement giving her? She did not turn down a placement that would have given her new experience. She did not turn down an offer of paid work or a placement that had a chance of paid work at the end. She did not turn down a placement, despite having made no arrangements of her own. She did not turn down a placement because it was not in line with her dream job.
I simply don’t see why she is being accused of snobbery. Snobbery would be if she turned down a job offer from Poundland, or turned down the placement, despite having no previous retail experience. In my opinion, this really isn’t a case of “Nothing but the best graduate jobs are good enough for me”,
Unfortunately, I think she’ll only damage herself by suing, but I do have a great deal of sympathy with her.
January 30, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Nic the only people to gain from anybody let alone cait reily is poundland and the work programme as poundland get free labour work programme get paid by goverment these schemes help no body that unemployed perhaps people should take a look at article 23 human rights act it states freedom to choose and a fair pay for a fair job no body thats unemployed gets ne that do they these courses only benefit big companys and work programme providers so please lets see cait reily win her case and put a stop to the rich exploiting the poor unemployed u go gal behind u all the way
January 30, 2012 at 6:27 pm
CAIT REILLY IS INNOCENT! FREE CAIT REILLY NOW!
January 30, 2012 at 6:32 pm
CAIT REILLY IS INNOCENT! FREE CAIT REILLY NOW!
WE DEMAND THE IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF CAIT REILLY AND ALL THE OTHER WORK PROGRAMME PRISONERS!
CAIT REILLY IS INNOCENT! FREE CAIT REILLY NOW!
January 30, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Here’s a video about the Mandatory Work Activity (MWA).
January 30, 2012 at 9:04 pm
Cait Reilly is continually being accused of being “above” retail work while Poundland get away with being “above” paying people at least the minimum wage ,its scandalous.
February 4, 2012 at 6:31 pm
its always the same in these situations’,i can well remember on new deal the manager doing her best to dissuade appeals.
“their working people what do you think they are going to say” being the claim
duncan smith has totally lost the argument instead watching to many clint eastwood movies’,playing to so called public opinion also ignoring the recent loss of 400m under the northern rock sale to the taxpayer.this is a shoddy outfit that continues to perpetrate hate against those on benefits.
February 4, 2012 at 7:47 pm
Perhaps if ian duncan smith spent more time weeding out the lying cheating mp’s who fiddeled exspences for years who never got taken to court including him being one them at least we only unemployed- they are cheats and liars what do u exspect off these people that we have running the country- immagrants have more rights than we do out the 345.000 that are unemployed how many them on work programme there aint one on mine they all got council flats we aint and we lived here all our life its a law for mp’s and a law for immagrants and no law for the unemployed or people of england I am ashamed to say that I am british this goverment should be ashamed and to say we all in it together I dont see them and the immagrants suffering its only us english and til we all make a stand like the students did this wont stop ????????
February 5, 2012 at 11:02 am
So, you;d complain if ‘immigrants’ were working, and you’d complain if they were unemployed?
We need to unite, not rubbish other people off.
Btw: there are indeed people not born in the UK on the Work Programme here.
February 5, 2012 at 12:46 pm
In reply to andrew coates . There aint one immagrant on the work programme that im on and excuse me I speak 4 many people who say why the fuck do they have a council house and we ave lived here all our life and aint got one . And yes send em home then there be work for us english and stop free labour then employers would have to take paid labour , I take it that u so far up immagrants arses u must be married to one of them c–ts
February 11, 2012 at 11:46 am
Cait Reilly: Why The Government Was Wrong To Make Me Work In Poundland For Free
Forcing young people like me into unpaid work is wrong – and evidence shows it won’t solve the unemployment crisis
In a routine appointment with my personal Job Centre Plus adviser last October, I was informed of an open day for people interested in potential retail jobs. Having been unemployed for some time, I was more than happy to attend, and was told by my adviser that, if chosen, I would undergo a week’s “training” followed by a guaranteed job interview. It quickly became clear at the open day, however, that the period of “training” would potentially last for up to six weeks. I explained to my adviser my reservations about taking part: I was already in the middle of a work experience placement that I had organised for myself (and which was more relevant to the museum career I hope to pursue), and I already had retail experience.
I thought the “training” was optional, and it came as a shock to be told I was required to attend or risk cancellation or reduction of my £53 per week jobseekers’ allowance – despite the fact I have always actively sought paid work. So I began the “placement” with Poundland – it was not training, but two weeks’ unpaid work stacking shelves and cleaning floors. I came out with nothing; Poundland gained considerably.
For me, this unpaid labour scheme lasted only two weeks, but some people, as part of the government’s work programme, will have to do such unpaid work for up to six months – longer than the community service orders handed out to many criminals.
The nature of such work is not the problem. I would be happy to do it if I had a say in it and, crucially, was paid. While hoping for a career in museums, I have also been applying for any job I am able to do. Like more than a million young people today, I find living on £53 a week extremely difficult, and would be delighted to find any paid work.
Many people seem to think all job seekers are lazy scroungers, sponging off the government. The reality of trying to carve out a career in a tough job market is much more difficult than many appreciate, and not a position anyone would choose to put themselves in.
Last week, I launched judicial review proceedings in the high court – a challenge to regulations that require up to 50,000 jobseekers to carry out unpaid work at major corporations. A case such as this cannot result in significant damages; from day one, my challenge has been about the principle, not the money. It is about social justice.
I expected criticism, but some of the comments about me have been hurtful as well as inaccurate. Jan Moir’s attack in the Daily Mail, for example, overlooked the fact that I was not paid for the work I carried out and implied that I believed such work, as well as Poundland itself, to be beneath me. This is not the case – I would grab a paid job in Poundland with both hands. Similarly, Vanessa Feltz attempted to humiliate me on the radio. Such coverage has made taking a stand more difficult than I had imagined.
I am lucky to live in a country that offers financial support to jobseekers. I am also lucky to live in one where citizens to have the right to challenge government decisions. Making a million “neets” (not in employment, education or training) work for free for high-street chains leaves them feeling useless and demeaned, denies paid workers the chance to do overtime, and potentially takes jobs from those who need them. It does nothing to build on young unemployed peoples’ skills, or to tackle the causes of long-term unemployment. I hope many more people stand up to what is a badly thought-out system created without the involvement of parliament.
The coalition’s commitment to getting people into work is admirable, but this is not the right way to do it. Similar schemes have not worked in other countries, and there is evidence that coercing people into unpaid work masks rather than solves the unemployment crisis. The Department for Work and Pensions hired experts find whether “work for your benefit” schemes delivered benefits. After studying similar programmes in Canada, the US and Australia, they found no evidence such schemes increased an the chances of gaining employment. Whether or not my case is successful, I hope it will make the government think again, and work with young people rather than against them.
http://www.publicinterestlawyers.co.uk/news_details.php?id=211
February 13, 2012 at 8:12 am
[...] course we all know about the ‘snooty’ (sic) graduate who wasn’t happy about working at Poundland…except that most people with a view got it [...]