TUC uncovers £67,000 pensions postcode lottery

A woman in her late 40s from East Dorset can expect to receive £67,000 more in state pension when she retires, compared to a women of the same age living in Corby, due to a widening gap in life expectancies and a rising state pension age, according to a new report published today by the TUC.

The report looks at life expectancy projections by gender, occupation and geographical area, and their effect on the amount of state pension people are set to receive. The state pension age is due to rise to 66 between 2018 and 2020 and to 67 between 2026 and 2028.

The research shows that by 2028 a woman living in East Dorset – the area of the UK with the longest post-65 life expectancy for both men and women – can expect to live nine years longer than a woman in Corby (the area with the shortest life expectancy) when they retire. This state pension divide works out at £67,000 over their lifetime. The state pension divide for men living in East Dorset and Manchester (the area with the shortest male post-65 life expectancy) will be £53,000.

This state pension divide will also grow for different types of workers. A female managerial or professional worker retiring in 2028 can expect to live 3.8 years longer than a female manual worker, compared to 2.4 years today. This state pension divide works out at £29,000. The equivalent gap for male manual and professional workers is £23,000, or 3.1 years.

The TUC report also shows that millions of people will receive less state pension, despite having to work for a further two years, because their life expectancy is not keeping pace with the increasing state pension age. People living in poor areas such as Corby, Manchester, Salford and Hull will receive substantially less state pension over their lifetime. A woman in her late 40s in Corby will have to work for two more years before retiring but will receive £12,000 less state pension during her retirement than those retiring in 2016.  A man of a similar age living in Manchester will receive £7,500 less during his retirement.

The lifetime state pension for men, based on a full ‘single-tier’ state pension award, will fall from £147,000 in 2016 (when the single-tier is introduced) to £146,000 in 2028. Women retiring in 2028 will have to work longer in order to receive the same state pension (£164,000) as those retiring in 2016.

The government’s failure to consider persistent inequalities in life expectancy when accelerating the rise in the state pension age, will leave millions far worse off in retirement, says the TUC.

The TUC believes that the government should reverse its decision to raise the state pension age in light of new evidence on life expectancy projections, and instead set up an independent commission to examine inequalities in life expectancy and their effect on people’s retirement incomes.

TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said: “The government’s decision to accelerate the rise in the state pension age will mean millions of people having to work for longer in order to receive less in retirement.

“There is already a shocking divide in life expectancies across England, and if current trends continue that inequality will get worse in the coming decades. The government’s pension reforms will add to the problem, with people in richer areas receiving more from the state, while those in poorer areas receive less.

“It cannot be right that people living in a wealthy area can receive tens of thousands of pounds more in state pension than someone living in a less well off part of the country, particularly as richer people are likely to have earned more during the career and have a bigger private pension too.

“The government should abandon its plan to raise the state pension age in light of the new evidence on projected life expectancies. It should instead set up an independent commission to examine health inequalities and the impact on people’s expected retirement incomes.”

Source

Related articles:

1. TUC’s pension warning over growing north-south life expectancy divide
2. Tory MP says he won’t change “unfair” pleural plaque postcode lottery
3. UCU condemns elite university postcode lottery

Supreme Court to hear Government’s workfare appeal

On Monday 29 July 2013, the Supreme Court of England and Wales, will consider the Department for Work and Pension’s (DWP) appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal which unanimously held that the Regulations under which most of the Government’s "Back to Work" schemes were created were unlawful and had to be quashed.

Supreme Court to hear Government’s appeal on the “Back to Work” Regulations

The ruling which was handed down on 12 February 2013 was a huge setback for the DWP whose flagship reforms have been beset with problems since their inception.

The case was brought by our clients Cait Reilly, who was made to stack shelves in Poundland for two weeks, and Jamie Wilson, who was stripped of his Jobseeker’s allowance for 6 months after refusing to participate in a scheme which required him to work 30 hours a week for six months for free.

The Court of Appeal in its ruling held that over a two year period the Government unlawfully required hundreds of thousands of unemployed people to work without pay and unlawfully stripped tens of thousands more of their subsistence level benefits.

In March 2013, following the judgment, Iain Duncan Smith not only applied for permission to appeal but also took the wholly extraordinary step of rushing through parliament - The Jobseekers (Back to Work Act) 2013 - emergency legislation which overturned the Court of Appeal’s judgment and retrospectively declared lawful what the Court of Appeal had declared unlawful. That legislation, is the subject of a fresh judicial review challenge4 but it make the Government’s appeal to the Supreme Court academic because the law has now retrospectively changed since the Court of Appeal judgment.

"The decision of the Supreme Court on the DWP’s appeal will in the main be academic because the Government has already retrospectively changed the law to overturn the Court of Appeal’s judgment. However, the Supreme Court will also be considering our clients’ cross appeal in which we argue that the DWP is under an obligation to publish clear and accessible information about these schemes for jobseekers so that those like our clients understand what the schemes are and what can be lawfully required from them"

Tessa Gregory, solicitor, Public Interest Lawyers
Source; PIL

Watch this hearing on Monday at 10.30am on Sky Courts…

R (on the application of Reilly and another) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Appellant)

Court 2 | 10:30

Source; Sky Courts

DWP Finally Own Up To Fake Online Campaign

The DWP have admitted their involvement in the Role Models: Inspire A Generation youtube channel after first attempting to mislead people that it was initiated ‘by young disabled people for young disabled people’.

The youtube channel hosts 50 videos of disabled people with successful careers and has been criticised as being soft propaganda for the vicious cuts to disability benefits.

The youtube page previously gave no indication that it was a government run campaign, however this has now been changed to admit that: “This account is a co-production between young disabled people and the Department for Work and Pensions.”

The facebook page for the campaign, which also gave no information that it was a government run page, is still missing after it disappeared shortly after it was launched.  Scores of people had visited the page to criticise DWP inspired policies which are forcing hundreds of thousands of disabled people into desperate poverty.

Luckily the youtube channel, which currently has a less than impressive 49 subscribers, is still accepting comments.  The DWP say they want to encourage open and lively debate – but no swearing.
You can join in the open and lively debate at: http://www.youtube.com/user/rolemodelsinspire/

The Void

Supreme Court grants IDS appeal against Reilly and Wilson

R (on the application of Wilson and another) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Appellant)

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has granted the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision in this matter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Respondents’ claim that the ‘back-to-work scheme’ run under the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011/917 was in breach of provisions made pursuant to the Jobseekers Act 1995.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Respondent’s claim in its judgment dated 12 February 2013, which can be found on the BAIILI website

The hearing before the Supreme Court in this case will take place on 29 July 2013.

Supreme Court UK

The Tory Trussel Trust: Food Banks replacing benefits?

The Trussell Trust Food Bank founders, The people behind it:

The Trussel Trust, was introduced to dole offices specifically as an alternative to the ‘crisis fund’ previously run by the state

The Trussell Trust describes itself as “a Christian charity that does not affiliate itself with any political party”. It is controlled by Tory Party Councillor and Mayor of Worthing, Neil Atkins and director Chris Mould, who splits his time between the Trussell Trust and the Shaftesbury Partnership.

The Shaftesbury Partnership is a “practice of professionals committed to large scale 21st Century social reform.”

Co-founder was Nat Wei, who was appointed the Government’s Chief Adviser on Big Society in May 2010, now a life peer.

Other people in the Shaftesbury Partnership :

Dominic Llewellyn(Conservative party candidate in 2010 )who co-authored the government’s Big Society policies.

Shaftesbury’s recently departed head of operations Antony Hawkins states that he “developed conservative unemployment and welfare reform policy (“The Work Programme”). Planned the implementation of Conservative welfare policies in the Get Britain Working manifesto”.

The Shaftesbury Partnership’s aim is to “design our solutions so that they are both scalable and have sustainable business models, maximising the potential for social transformation”.

The Trussel Trust, was introduced to dole offices specifically as an alternative to the ‘crisis fund’ previously run by the state

If the Tories believe that their policies will reduce poverty, why are the instigators and creators of its ‘Big Society’ policies investing in, and directing food banks?

READ MORE

Work Programme can't keep up with number of jobless, government told

Private firms in flagship back-to-work scheme complain of too little funding and too much demand

A Work Programme session for the long-term unemployed in Hull.

Photograph: Christopher Thomond for the Guardian

 

The coalition's flagship Work Programme for the long-term unemployed is failing because there are just too many people needing help, according to a government report.

The quality of the service is being affected by the high level of demand, according to the companies responsible for training the unemployed.

In some cases firms involved were not able to provide interpreters for those seeking help who did not speak English. It was also found that firms were unable to provide any transport for the jobless in isolated rural parts of the country who needed one-to-one assistance.

In January, the Commons public accounts committee branded the programme as "extremely poor" after it was found that only 3.6% of claimants had moved into work in its first 14 months, far less than the 11.9% the Department for Work and Pensions had expected, and below its estimate of what would have happened without intervention.

The latest analysis is contained in an evaluation of the payment model behind the Work Programme published by the department. Firms involved are given attachment fees for each unemployed person they help, but are only paid a full fee if they find someone sustainable work.

The report said that providers complained they "did not have the funding to provide the level of support they wanted". It added: "Particular issues reported as resulting from a lack of funding included an inability to pay for interpreters and for participant transport in rural areas. Some subcontractors felt this also had an impact on their ability to meet the needs of particular groups of participants."

Another provider said that due to the high numbers of unemployed people needing help too often "support was provided online or in group sessions, with one-to-one support used only where necessary".

One firm told government officials compiling the report that they were "very limited in the amount of time" they could allocate to each person.

A individual at the firm, which was not named in the report, is reported as saying: "We try and provide as much added value in the programme as we can possibly afford. So, for example, things like basic skills support, it's very expensive to provide that.

"We do try and provide it as best we can but not to the level that would really make a difference to the customer."


The report suggests that further research is required on how economic conditions have affected investment in support. A government spokesman said yesterday that the work programme had already put more than 207,000 long-term unemployed into work. He added that the scheme was providing value for taxpayers.

Guardian

Government invoke Godwin’s law to refuse to meet disabled people

Esther McVey: Talk to the hand

The government has cited one line in the guest  foreward of a review of the work capability assessment as the reason why it refuses to meet with representatives of sick and disabled people. The line they objected to referred to wounded soldiers being sent back to the front by the Nazis.

As Michael Meacher MP said in Parliament “This work is evidence based, uses the DWP’s figures wherever possible, has never been challenged on accuracy.” He pointed out that it has been used by the Work and Pensions select committee, the joint committee on human rights, and in many parliamentary debates.

Mark Hoban, Minister of State for Work and Pensions, refused to meet Meacher to talk about the Work Capability Assessment and he flatly refused to meet representatives of We Are Spartacus. In Michael Meacher’s own words:

He simply replied blankly “I’m not seeing you”, and repeated it 3 0r 4 times.   I kept on insisting ‘Why not?’ and finally he said “I’m not seeing Spartacus”.   Again I was taken aback and asserted that in my view Spartacus had analysed hundreds of cases, prepared a very detailed and thoughtful analysis of the implications arising from these cases, and even if he disagreed strongly for whatever reasons it was his responsibility to meet them.   To this he simply kept repeating “I’m not meeting Spartacus”.

Michael Meacher took it to the speaker of the house and arranged a debate to face Hoban in Parliament. Hoban didn’t turn up. Instead he send Esther McVey, Minister for Disabled People. Who publicly refused to meet disabled people. The reason given, eventually, was that it “wouldn’t be constructive”. The evidence presented was one sentence from the guest foreward of The People’s Review of the Work Capability Assessment.

The process is reminiscent of the medical tribunals that returned shell shocked and badly wounded soldiers to duty in the first world war or the ‘KV-machine’, the medical commission the Nazis used in the second world war to play down wounds so that soldiers could be reclassified ‘fit for the Eastern front’.

- Guest Foreward to The People’s Review of the Work Capability Assessment by Professor Peter Beresford OBE, BA Hons, PhD, AcSS, FRSA, Dip WP, Professor of Social Policy, Brunel University

The government have essentially invoked Godwin’s Law to get out of meeting the most effective campaign against their welfare policy. They are afraid, desperate, and grabbing at any way out they can find.

Please sign the WOW petition to call for a cumulative impact assessment of the government’s welfare reforms.

Michael Meacher MP: DWP Ministers run frit of seeing delegation on Atos Healthcare
Benefit Scrounging Scum: Polite? Constructive? Request to meet with Minister Mark Hoban 10/2012
We Are Spartacus: The People’s Review of the Work Capability Assessment
Where’s The Benefit: Is It Coz We Is Disabled?
A Latent Existence: Godwin’s Law Must Die
We Are Spartacus

A Latent Existence

Is it constitutional for Parliament to reverse a judicial decision (in a hurry)?

The House of Lords Constitution Committee published its report earlier today on the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill. (Professor Adam Tomkins has drawn attention to this issue on his blog, and has promised a longer post on the subject in due course.)

The background to the Bill is formed by the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in R (Reilly and Wilson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 66, in which certain regulations concerning entitlement to benefits were struck down. New secondary legislation has already been made in order to fill the legal gap left by the quashing of the old regulations, but the new rules operate only prospectively. What, then, about people who were sanctioned improperly (i.e. by reference to the old, invalid rules)?

Normally, when a court quashes administrative acts or secondary legislation, the effect is to render (or, more accurately, confirm) that the measures are void ab initio (i.e. legally ineffective “from the very beginning”). So those who were sanctioned under the old rules were treated unlawfully, and are entitled to be paid the benefits they were improperly denied. But, says the Government, this would cost it £130 million: and so it is inviting Parliament to pass legislation—the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill—which would retrospectively change the law. That is, the Bill would make lawful the denial of benefits to individuals, even though the Court of Appeal ruled that denial to have been unlawful. What this amounts to, therefore, is the Executive using primary legislation to reverse the effect of a judicial decision.

One of the concerns raised by the Constitution Committee relates to the use of a fast-track procedure in order to enact this legislation—the effect of which is to reduce the time for parliamentary scrutiny. Even more fundamental, however, is the other issue raised in the report: namely, the retrospective nature of the legislation. As the Committee notes at para 14 of its report, this

engages the cardinal rule of law principle that individuals may be punished or penalised only for contravening what was at the time a valid legal requirement. According to the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament, retrospective legislation is lawful. Nonetheless, from a constitutional point of view it should wherever possible be avoided, since the law should so far as possible be clear, accessible and predictable. This applies to civil penalties as well as criminal offences. In the words of the late Lord Bingham of Cornhill: “If anyone—you or I—is to be penalised it must not be for breaking some rule dreamt up by an ingenious minister or official … It must be for a proven breach of the established law of the land.”

This will not be the first time that a judicial decision has been undone via primary legislation. But that does not detract from the compelling nature of the points raised by the Constitution Committee. At root, this episode calls into question the relationship between the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament—and in this context it is worth reminding oneself that not all judges today accept that the latter necessarily prevails over the former. For example, in Jackson v Attorney-General [2005] UKHL 56, Lord Hope said:

Our constitution is dominated by the sovereignty of Parliament. But Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute. It is not uncontrolled in the sense referred to by Lord Birkenhead LC in McCawley v The King [1920] AC 691, 720. It is no longer right to say that its freedom to legislate admits of no qualification whatever. Step by step, gradually but surely, the English principle of the absolute legislative sovereignty of Parliament which Dicey derived from Coke and Blackstone is being qualified.

Of course, it does not follow from this that the courts would respond to the new legislation by putting Parliament back it its place; such an outcome is highly unlikely. But what this episode does demonstrate is a profound lack of respect by the Executive (which is, inevitably, behind this legislation) for the judicial branch of Government. That lack of respect is evidenced by the use of a fast-track procedure to enact legislation which, given the enormity of any decision to reverse a judicial decision, deserves close and searching scrutiny.

The broader point, then, is that if our constitution is (as I think it is) based upon an unwritten but crucial mutual respect between the political and judicial branches, there are likely to be (unpredictable) consequences if one party ceases to treat the other with adequate respect. The capacity of courts to ensure the lawfulness of Executive action forms the centerpiece of our constitutional machinery for upholding the rule of law. And the use of primary legislation to reverse the effects of that process is therefore a fundamental attack upon it. If politicians fail to treat the courts and the rule of law with appropriate respect, politicians should not be surprised if the courts repay them in kind. Nor should it be assumed that judges would be acting unconstitutionally in doing so. This is not a plea for judicial supremacism. Far from it: it is a plea for the Executive and Parliament to recognise the need for restraint that is essential to the effective operation of our unwritten constitution.

Public law for everyone

Why won't DWP REALLY meet Spartacus?

Reblogged from Sue Marsh:

Any of you who just watched the car-crash that was Esther McVey trying to undermine the credibility of the Spartacus network, might like to see the quote that upset ministers so much, they refuse to meet us and treat us like aggressive radicals.

The quote, picked out  from 100s of 1000s of words laid bare over the last 3 years. You can decide for yourselves if you think it justifies DWP not meeting leading disability campaigners.

"The WCA is a statement of political desperation. The process is reminiscent of the medical tribunals that returned shell shocked and badly wounded soldiers to duty in the first world war or the ‘KV-machine’, the medical commission the Nazis used in the second world war to play down wounds so that soldiers could be reclassified ‘fit for the Eastern front".

- Quoted from:
       Professor Peter Beresford OBE, BA Hons, PhD, AcSS, FRSA Dip WP
       Professor of Social Policy, Brunel University

 

Diary of a Benefit Scrounger

Workfare: Will we get more results?

We were told that more Work Programme performance data would be published this month.  I would be very surprised if that happens.  It would be only four more months after the last lot, and one cannot imagine that there's been such a dramatic improvement that the government will be keen to publish.  Without that improvement, A4e and the other providers will be in real difficulties.  The attachment fees were just about keeping them ticking over, and we know that A4e were in trouble a year ago.  So, will we soon hear about contracts being ended?

While we wait and wonder, you might care to read a couple of DWP documents.  There's an impact assessment justifying the legislation to ensure that they don't have to pay back the £130m wrongly taken from people who were sanctioned while the compulsory work schemes were illegal.  Then you could look at a number of documents which tell "the DWP reform story", downloadable from their website.  They call it a "communications toolkit".

Last week we were told that under Universal Credit, enquiries would have to be made via an 0845 phone number - in other words, expensively.  In fact, this was raised a year ago by the Mirror.  Last November the DWP confirmed this but said that "free claimant access phones" would be available in "a large number" of Jobcentres.  So that's all right, then.

One other item: there's an article about the Trussell Trust and food banks on the Independent's website.  What caught my attention was a comment by someone calling himself Marchie1053 - scroll down and find it.    He draws attention to the close links between the Trussell Trust and the Conservative party.  Interesting. 

Watching A4e

The myth of the “welfare scrounger”

A little noticed piece of DWP research shows that four out of five claimants spent at least three quarters of the past four years off unemployment benefit.

BY IAN MULHEIRN PUBLISHED 15 MARCH 2013 14:58

A man stands outside the Jobcentre Plus on January 18, 2012 in Trowbridge, England. Photograph: Getty Images.

In its effort to save money on the working age welfare bill, the government has used some bold imagery. The Chancellor is fond of saying, 

“where is the fairness…for the shift-worker, leaving home in the dark hours of the early morning, who looks up at the closed blinds of their next-door neighbour sleeping off a life on benefits?”

And the Prime Minister has talked of the benefits bill

“sky-rocketing”

while

“generations languish on the dole and dependency”.

The benefit scrounger is the bogeyman of British politics, stalking the corridors of Westminster.

In the real world, it’s pretty hard to find families that have never worked, let alone generations of people on the dole.

But as well as being political cover for the public spending squeeze, this rhetoric reflects an apparent hardening of public attitudes.

The British Social Attitudes survey shows that in 2011 54 per cent of people thought that if benefits were lower people would “learn to stand on their own two feet”, more than double the 26 per cent who felt that way just 20 years earlier. It appears that the idea of dependency is almost synonymous with the dole in many people’s minds. As a result, moves to erode benefits, through things like the 1 per cent up-rating plan, garner widespread public support.

Into this rhetorical maelstrom, was last week released a fascinating – and little noticed -piece of research by the Department for Work and Pensions on the benefit histories of dole recipients.

It’s a precious piece of evidence in an argument that tends to be fuelled by anecdote, prejudice and fear (on all sides). And it rather undermines the picture that our welfare system is awash with people taking advantage of its ‘something for nothing’ deal.

The analysis looks at the benefit claims history, going back four years, of people who made a claim for unemployment benefit in 2010-11.

For a sample group of 32-33 year olds who claimed Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) in 2010-11, 40 per cent of them had not made a claim before in that period.

Sixty three per cent had spent no more than six months of the previous four years on JSA.

And almost four out of five claimants had spent at least three quarters of the past four years off the dole.

The idea that these claimants are ‘trapped’ in a ‘dependency culture’ is absurd.

What all this implies is that the overwhelming majority of people who claim unemployment benefit each year spend at least three-quarters of their time in work.

And for 40 per cent of claimants, the need to claim JSA clearly comes as quite a shock since they have no recent history of having done so before.
But you would never tell that from the tone of the debate.

Only a small minority of adults – 11 per cent of claimants in 2010-11 – have a history of spending more than half of recent years on the dole.

The government is right to want to take action to help that 11 per cent achieve sustainable employment rather than spending half their time on the dole. But when four out of five claimants draw benefits for an unemployment spell that is obviously an unfortunate aberration, it’s clear that the excoriating rhetoric isn’t based in reality.

If all claimants are to be labelled ‘scroungers’, then today’s striver is tomorrow’s scrounger – and that could be any of us.

It’s worth remembering that the next time we hear a welfare squeeze being justified by a pervasive ‘culture of dependency’.

The New Statesman 

CAPITA will NOT be offering claimants Audio Recording of PIP Assessments

A FOI Request has confirmed Capita will not be offering PIP Claimants the opportunity of having their assessments audio recorded as was previously thought to be the case.

It now seems the government are determined to stop audio recording in any way they can, claimants will if they choose be able to record PIP assessments with their own equipment if they can provide a copy to the HCP at the end of their assessment, it’s the same old crap basically.

The government/DWP/Capita don’t want the truth to come out about how the assessment process is carried out, a bigger bunch of shysters I doubt we will ever come across again…

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/capita_pip_contract_audio_record#incoming-369105

Top judges use 'human rights' to protect their pensions

The wealthiest judges in the country are using human rights laws to challenge the Government over cuts to their gold-plated pensions worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

Judges have instructed top barristers to advise them on using human rights laws to sue Ministers who have reduced pensions in line with those paid to senior civil servants.

In the past, judges have not contributed to a pension that pays them half their former salary plus a lump sum pay-off. The changes will result in them contributing for the first time and paying tax on the income the pensions provide.

The government wants public sector workers to pay more into their pensions, work longer and retire with less.

PCS members have rejected the government's proposals and are supporting a programme of action with other unions.

Perhaps the judiciary should join us in taking action.

Read more...

Shameful Failure to Tackle Slavery and Human Trafficking in the UK

'Ministers, the police and social workers have been accused of a 'shocking' failure to prevent the spread of modern slavery in the UK, leading to sexual exploitation, forced labour and the domestic servitude of adults and children from across the world.

Describing government ministers as 'clueless' in their response to tackling human trafficking, both into and within the UK, the most exhaustive inquiry yet conducted into the phenomenon concludes that the approach to eradicating modern slavery is fundamentally wrong-headed.

Instead of helping vulnerable victims who are trapped into forms of slavery after being trafficked from overseas, the legal system prosecutes many for immigration offences.'

Read more: 'Shameful' Failure to Tackle Slavery and Human Trafficking in the UK

Work When You’re Sick Say New DWP Guidelines

New advice issued to doctors, patients and employers on sick pay shows just how far the Government intend to push the brutal regime for people on disability or sickness benefits into the workplace.

The DWP recently renamed ‘sick notes’ as ‘fit notes’ which in the new guidance has led to some genuinely Orwellian gobbledygook in the guidance such as:  “if your employee’s doctor thinks they are fit for work, they will not be issued with a fit note.”

Just like the despised Atos run Work Capability Assessment, doctors can now declare a patient ‘fit for work’, unfit for work, or capable of some work but not necessarily the job they usually do.  This means that if an employer makes some changes to a staff member’s working conditions then they may be forced back to work.

The new rules, which were devised in consultation with the Confederation of British Industry, seem little more than an attempt to bully people into work when they aren’t really well enough.  The document is littered with bold claims that work is good for your health such as “People can often come back to work before they are 100% fit – in fact work can even help their recovery”.

Nowhere in the documents does it warn that people’s conditions may also be made far worse by going back to work before they are ready.

Bosses have welcomed the chance to force their sick employees back to work with one quoted as calling the new system ‘a joy’:

“The joy of the fit note is that it’s flexible enough for us to interpret and fit the GP’s recommendation within the context of our business.”

The truth is that the DWP are playing a dangerous game and could tempt employers into a legal minefield.  One stark warning says:  “You may need to carry out a risk assessment to accommodate the clinical judgment in the fit note (eg if it states that your employee should avoid lifting, you are liable if you give them work that involves manual handling).”

In a further complication, according to guidance from Citizen’s Advice, if employers refuse to make changes to an employee’s working conditions to accommodate doctor’s recommendations, then they are still liable to pay Statutory Sick Pay.  The confusion doesn’t even end there.  ‘Fit Notes’ are advice only and bosses are not legally obliged to follow that advice.  They can sack you even if a doctor claims you are too ill to work.  They could however then be taken to court.  Employment tribunal lawyers will be rubbing their hands in glee at the DWP’s meddling with an already complex  legal situation.

The DWP have already shown they are happy to play fast and loose with the Courts.  Bosses who act the same way may be in for an expensive shock.

The guidance can be read at: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/fitnote/

Follow me on twitter @johnnyvoid

The Void

IDS slips up: “She was PAID jobseeker’s allowance to do this”



Illustration by @dochackenbush


Iain Duncan Smith was interviewed on the Andrew Marr show today. He made some telling statements.

“I understand she said she wasn’t paid. She was paid jobseeker’s allowance, by the taxpayer, to do this.”



Funny, the government have always said that this wasn’t a work-for-your-benefits scheme but IDS seems to think it is.  In fact, the official response by the DWP to a petition to abolish Workfare said:

“We do not have Work for Your Benefit or Workfare schemes in this country.”

Furthermore, in a response to a Freedom of Information request the DWP said:

“Benefit is not paid to the claimant as remuneration for the activity. “

They continue:



“Instead, performing it is one of a number of conditions which may have to be fulfilled by the claimant in order to be paid Jobseeker’s Allowance.  The relationship between the claimant, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and any third parties involved in providing the activity is not one of employment.”

In my opinion that is a serious mistake by IDS. If, as IDS says, benefits are being paid as wages for work experience schemes, then it I suspect that it breaches minimum wage laws. If they are not, as officially claimed by his department, then we have forced unpaid labour. I thought that people paid National Insurance in the expectation that when people needed help they would be supported. Having to work for it is a breach of contract.



“I’m sorry, but there is a group of people out there who think they’re too good for this kind of stuff.”



People don’t think they’re too good for shelf stacking, they think they’re too good for shelf stacking without receiving a fair wage for it. Is “A fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work” really a controversial statement in the 21st century?

“Who is more important – them, the geologist, or the person who stacked the shelves?”

Every person is important, including shelf stackers. Geologists are pretty important especially in the oil industry.



“Let me remind you that [former Tesco chief executive] Terry Leahy started his life stacking shelves.”



He was paid for it!

BBC News: Duncan Smith: Shelf-stacking is more important than geology

My thanks to @A11_Seeing_Eye and @Spoonydoc for help with this article.

A Latent Existence



IDS confirms: IT IS WORKFARE!

On the Andrew Marr show on BBC  IDS was speaking about the Poundland case in which Cait Reilly was forced to work in a Poundland store for two weeks and thus had to abandon a voluntary position at a museum. During the interview he said:

‘She was paid jobseeker’s allowance by the taxpayer to do this.’

thereby confirming what most had known all along that, far from being an individually-tailored training scheme, the Work programme is nothing other than Workfare in which the benificiaries are the companies who get a free workforce at taxpayer expense.

soiniciulacht

IDS: Shelf-stacking more important than geology

Iain Duncan Smith: "Terry Leahy started his life stacking shelves"

The work and pensions secretary has criticised people "who think they're too good" to stack supermarket shelves on back-to-work government schemes.

On the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, Iain Duncan Smith suggested that many "smart people" overlooked the importance of effective shelf-stacking.

A geology graduate recently won a legal victory over the back-to-work scheme.

But Mr Duncan Smith warned against assuming that geology was more important than supermarket work.

Geology graduate Cait Reilly, 24, argued at the Appeal Court that her unpaid work placement at Poundland, which she had been required to undertake in return for continued benefits payments, breached laws on forced labour.


'Most successful' scheme

I don't think I am above working in shops like Poundland. I now work part-time in a supermarket. It is just that I expect to get paid for working”      -Cait Reilly

Although Miss Reilly won the case, Mr Duncan Smith said the judges had decided her argument that the scheme breached her human rights was "rubbish".

The court had ruled against the government, he explained, because "the regulations were set too wide and weren't specific enough".

"I've already put emergency regulations down, and that's ended it," he added.

Commenting further on the case, Mr Duncan Smith said: "I understand she said she wasn't paid. She was paid jobseeker's allowance, by the taxpayer, to do this.

"I'm sorry, but there is a group of people out there who think they're too good for this kind of stuff.

"Let me remind you that [former Tesco chief executive] Terry Leahy started his life stacking shelves.

"The next time somebody goes in - those smart people who say there's something wrong with this - they go into their supermarket, ask themselves this simple question, when they can't find the food they want on the shelves, who is more important - them, the geologist, or the person who stacked the shelves?"

Mr Duncan Smith argued that "most young people love" their work experience placements.

It was the government's "most successful" back-to-work scheme, he said: "It's been so successful that over half of those kids have left benefits."

The scheme had been launched to help young people trapped in a vicious circle where they could not get a job because they did not have any experience on their CVs, he said.

'Complete waste of time'

Mr Duncan Smith added: "But what we've said to them is: once you commit to doing that programme, because companies have to make arrangements around it, then if you don't do this you may suffer a benefit withdrawal because you have messed them around and they are therefore going to suffer as a result of that.
"It's a point that anyone out there listening to this will know. You have to learn early that if you commit to something, you stay and do it."

Miss Reilly, a University of Birmingham geology graduate, and 40-year-old unemployed HGV driver Jamie Wilson, from Nottingham, both succeeded in their claims that the unpaid schemes were legally flawed.

This was because the regulations behind the schemes did not comply with the Act of Parliament that gave the DWP the power to introduce the programme.

Miss Reilly said that in November 2011 she had to leave her voluntary work at a local museum and work unpaid at the Poundland store in Kings Heath, Birmingham, under a scheme known as the "sector-based work academy".

"Those two weeks were a complete waste of my time, as the experience did not help me get a job," she said, after the court ruling on 12 February.

"I was not given any training and I was left with no time to do my voluntary work or search for other jobs.

"The only beneficiary was Poundland, a multi-million pound company. Later I found out that I should never have been told the placement was compulsory.

"I don't think I am above working in shops like Poundland. I now work part-time in a supermarket. It is just that I expect to get paid for working."

In a wide-ranging interview, Mr Duncan Smith also said:

• The UK faces a "big battle" in the EU institutions over rules governing access to benefits, accusing EU officials of trying to "take control" of policies previously left to member states.
• Labour's attempts to characterise planned housing benefit changes as a "bedroom tax" were "nonsense". He added: "We have in social sector housing a very large number of people in houses where they have many more bedrooms than they actually need."

Analysis

---

Alan Soady Political reporter, BBC News

The Cait Reilly case has clearly niggled Iain Duncan Smith. To him, it's about a wider political principle that there should not be a "something-for-nothing" culture.
While Cait Reilly argued she was being asked to work for free, Mr Duncan Smith has in effect said that Job Seeker's Allowance should be seen as an equivalent of a wage for those sent on work placements.
Meanwhile his remarks about the importance of supermarket shelf-stackers suggest he believes that some job seekers are too snobbish about certain kinds of work.

Related Stories

• Back-to-work schemes breached law
• Defeat for 'forced labour' claim
• Government work schemes explained

BBC

JobCentre pressures firms to turn jobs into workfare

Angus MP Mike Weir has demanded that the Prime Minister personally intervene and act on claims that some JobCentre managers are putting pressure on employers to convert paid vacancies into workplace experience placements to meet targets set by the Department of Work and Pensions.

He said: “On the day that unemployment figures showed unemployment in Scotland had fallen to the lowest levels in four years it is scandalous to hear that a Westminster Government department is apparently seeking to undermine real jobs.

“Whilst I was pleased the Prime Minister appeared to accept the seriousness of the issue I was disappointed he did not undertake to ensure that the practise was immediately stopped.”

Source

#PMQs Discussion of suicide as a result of benefit cuts .