Christian charities face Christian protests over use of workfare labour

Christian organisations including the Salvation Army and the YMCA are participating in “workfare” schemes, using workers who must work without pay or face losing their benefits.

Christianity Uncut is writing to the charities to urge them to withdraw from the schemes as a public witness against forced labour.

The call comes at the start of a week of action against workfare. The action has been called by the group Boycott Workfare for the week of 18-24 March. During the week, Christianity Uncut is planning to write to all Christian organisations using workfare labour.

Christianity Uncut welcome the fact that most churches and Christian organisations are not participating in workfare. We encourage them to sign the pledge promising that they will not do so in future.

Chris Wood, a spokesperson for Christianity Uncut, said:

“Workfare workers are not volunteers – their work is not voluntary but obligatory, and they should be paid a living wage. Instead they are being threatened with losing the benefits on which they live if they refuse to take part in this forced labour scheme.

“We are deeply saddened that charities such as the Salvation Army and YMCA are undermining the good work they do, and their witness to Christ, by participating in workfare schemes. Throughout the economy, workfare is increasing poverty and unemployment by reducing the jobs available for paid staff. Christians need to make a public witness against workfare and proclaim Jesus’ teaching that ‘The worker is worthy of his pay’ (Luke 10,7).”

There are numerous workfare schemes currently in operation. Each requires claimants to work without pay or face possible destitution through sanctions (benefit stoppages), which can last for up to three years. A list of schemes currently in operation can be found at http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?page_id=663.

Protests, creative actions and online pickets against workfare will take place on 18-24 March across the UK in a week of action called by the Boycott Workfare network to escalate the campaign against forced unpaid work. More information and a list of actions can be found at http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=1996.

Christianity Uncut

Welfare Wrongs and Human Rights: a summary [kittysjones]

 

A summary of discussion with Anne McGuire, Shadow Minister for disabled people.

The Coalition is not a Government that recognises the intrinsic value and worth of life. It is not a Government that recognises human potential, or values personal growth and development. It is not a Government that values social evolution and progress. Trying to explain these fundamental concepts to a Tory is like pondering how best to describe a rainbow and shooting stars to a blind man with no imagination. Or soul.

It is common opinion amongst us that the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) – no matter how much it may be re-designed – is not fit for purpose, and that no-one has any faith in it because of the appalling damage already inflicted on so many members of the disabled community. The overwhelming consensus is that it needs to be scrapped. Atos have no credibilty whatsoever, with most of us regarding them with loathing and fear. Unfortunately, many sick and disabled people also recognise that successive Governments have contracted Atos, trust and faith in Government and Ministers has receded. I explained to Anne that some blame the previous Labour Government for current problems, as they originally contracted Atos to undertake the WCA. I don’t subscribe to this view,  personally, but I raised the point because it’s one that I’ve encountered frequently, and I recognise that it’s an important issue for some. However, I would like to clarify that I don’t hold a previous Government responsible for what the current one does.

Anne explained that the original Labour Party contract with Atos did not happen within a context of welfare cuts, and was very different to the one that the current Government have with Atos.  Labour support some kind of assessment, and the old system typically involved a decision that was made entirely by the DWP, and the decision was regarded as final. Labour had felt at the time that this needed addressing with some form of independent decision-making mechanism.

We know that the WCA has had such devastating consequences for so many sick and disabled people that it would never be trusted again, no matter how much it was redesigned and “improved” by ANY Government. However, the context of the Labour version of WCA, when it was piloted, was a completely different one to present day. There were many more jobs available, we were not in a recession, and there was support available (and well funded) for disabled people who wanted to work. Anne pointed out again that it is in the context of the welfare reforms, which are about taking away essential support, rather than providing it, that the aims of assessment have become grossly distorted. The original aims were intended to support sick and disabled people. That is clearly not the Coalitions’ aim at all.

“A Conservative Government is organised hypocrisy” – Benjamin Disraeli.

Disability living allowance supports many in work, and despite Labours’ pleas for common sense safeguards, according to the Hardest Hit survey, three in ten disabled people stated that without DLA their carer would not be able to work. Carers UK estimates that 10,000 people could lose carer’s allowance as a result of cuts to DLA. Without this vital care, disabled people could be forced to turn to overstretched social care services. Liam Byrne  stated that here must now be an assessment, in the round, of all the changes hitting disabled people: a cumulative impact assessment. Esther McVey weakly said to the Commons that she wouldn’t order one because “Labour never did one.” Labour did complete a review, and informed this Government of the findings, and raised their concerns regarding the piloted WCA. They were completely ignored. Furthermore, Labour never inflicted the concerted attack we’re now seeing on disabled citizens. It was the Coalition that harshly “reformed” and reduced our welfare provision, and not Labour.

The Access to Work fund was re-established by the last Labour Government to ease the transition to work for disabled people, by paying grants to businesses for vital equipment. It was put in place to support people with disabilities, it aimed to reduce inequalities between disabled people and non-disabled people in the workplace by removing practical barriers to work. This fund has seen severe cuts since 2010, which flies in the face of this Government’s claim to “make work pay” for all. By reducing this essential funding, the Coalition have effectively excluded many from work.

Additionally, disabled people with the highest support needs have been left in fear and distress following a Government announcement that it is to callously abolish a key source of independent living support. The Government decision to close the Independent Living Fund and devolve responsibility to local authorities follows a consultation that disabled people claim is unlawful and on which an urgent hearing has been scheduled by the High Court to go ahead on 13/14 March 2013. Labour have also challenged the decision to close this crucial source of support. Opportunity for new applications for this funding was closed in June 2010 by the Coalition. Once again this plainly indicates that the Coalition do not consider the needs of disabled people as important, and clearly demonstrates the extent of their eager ideological drive to strip away essential provision and support for the vulnerable.

It’s important to acknowledge that there are those of us  who simply can not work. The  Labour Party agree that regardless of the national employment situation and support for those who could and wish to work, we must, as a civilised Society, make provision and support those who cannot work, too. I’m pleased that this important issue was recognised, because as we know, doctors are providing written evidence to the DWP and Atos that verifies people are not fit for work, and that professional and expert opinion and evidence is being ignored by people who are NOT qualified to decide otherwise. DWP “decision-makers” and Atos assessors have no expertise on medical conditions and how those impact on a persons’ capabilities for work. We know that the majority of Atos assessors are nurses or occupational therapists, and that Atos don’t take into account any medical facts at all: the assessment is entirely about “work capability”.

We informed Anne that we are acutely aware that every single part of the assessment process is designed to interpret any capability a person has to complete a task at all, no matter how small, as an indication that they can work. For example, if a person says that they watch TV, that translates as “can sit unaided for at least half an hour”, even if that half an hours viewing is done laid up in bed, propped up by pillows. Huge inferences are drawn from anything that a person can do, and translated into “work capability,” regardless of whether or not person can fulfil tasks without pain, fatigue and discomfort, and it always assumed that people can complete a task reliably, consistently and safely, unless it is explicitly stated that this isn’t the case. Even when it is expressed clearly, it is often ignored and omitted from the Atos reports. Anne acknowledged that there is a significant problem with the WCA descriptors, not least because of the many cases that have been brought to her attention regarding this issue.

Anne recognised that the WCA makes it very difficult for health professionals to exercise their professional judgement. It’s computer-based and has little or no regard to the complexity of the needs of severely disabled or sick persons. This is why the British Medical Association has condemned the WCA as unfit for purpose. Those who have been assessed often feel the opinion of their own health professionals have been overridden or ignored. As Iain McKenzie, Labour MP for Inverclyde, put it: “It is ridiculous to have people making an assessment based on a tick-list that looks like it should be used for an MOT on a car.” Anne has observed and acknowledged that people are having their lives ruined by a system that was designed to support them. It is outrageous; it is inhumane, it is shameful.

Labour conducted a review of the ESA pilot, and by the time they lost Office, they were aware of the fact that there were problems with the Work Capability Assessment: the main ones being that it did not acceptably accommodate fluctuating conditions, or mental health problems. Labour raised their concerns about this with Iain Duncan Smith, but he refused, as previously stated, to undertake an impact assessment, and he pushed the reforms through and made them law, regardless. Furthermore, the WCA was amended by the Coalition to be even less sensitive to how conditions impact on work capability. We know that when Atos were re-contracted by the Coalition, it was in the context of the “reforms”, and Atos are therefore contracted to remove support from the vulnerable. Dr Steven Bick revealed that there are targets imposed on staff at Atos, and  that only one in eight ESA claimants are passed as eligible for ESA (as “unfit for work”) regardless of their actual state of health and their capabilities.

This exposes what a sham the entire assessment process is, because it has been decided in advance that 7 out of 8 will lose their eligibility for ESA, no matter how much a person needs that support, or  how much of a negative impact this will have on the lives of those stripped of their ESA award. It’s therefore not terribly surprising that Atos reports contain so many widely reported “errors”, “inaccuracies” and “mistakes”. These are actually calculated and deliberate lies, which are also attempts at justifying taking away a persons’ benefit, regardless of the impact this will have on their well being and health. This is what Atos are contracted to do by the Coalition. This has nothing whatsoever to do with genuine assessment. It has everything to do with denying people what they are entitled to, and what they have already paid for. It has everything to do with an ideological drive to strip our welfare provision to the bone.

We know that the PIP assessment has targets attached to it, because Esther McVey has indicated this by stating in advance that “More than 300,000 disabled people to have benefits cut”. It is concerning that in making her statement to Parliament, Disabilities Minister Esther McVey set out very clearly the numbers of people who she believed will qualify for the new benefit. But not surprising in light of how the whole legislative process has been conducted by Esther McVey. Conservatives are not known for following established procedure and protocol, nor do they value transparency and accountability.

Labour recognise it is people that are the most vulnerable who will bear a disproportionate share of the  cuts, simply because of the inequality they face in employment means they are more likely to rely on benefits. In other words they are facing a double penalty simply because of their characteristics – disadvantaged in the (somewhat limited) labour market and now targeted by benefit reform. This also raises concern about human rights, since this constitutes discrimination on the basis of “characteristics”, in accord with Labour’s Equality Act.

Anne has voiced major concerns about the mandatory workfare introduced to the ESA Work Related Activity Group, and the sanctions attached to this. She commented: “How can people be punished into work, especially during a recession?” Again, I pointed out that the issue isn’t so much one concerning the availability of jobs, but rather, it is one concerning the fact that people who have been deemed unfit for work by a doctor are being bullied into unlimited workfare and finding jobs, when they cannot, and ought not be expected to undertake these tasks. Anne agreed again that those who cannot work ought to be fully supported, and should not be not coerced into any kind of work if professional opinion is that they are unfit for work.

Again, the issue of human rights contraventions was raised, and Anne told us that there is a substantial backlog of work, concerning human rights cases, and this is because the  Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) – established by Labour – has had its funding severely reduced  this past two years, as stated previously. One cannot help but wonder just how calculated the cuts are in light of the extremely punitive nature of the reforms, and the continued blatant disregard of basic human rights, which is very evident in Tory-led policies. Such a well-coordinated attack on our rights seems unlikely to have happened by coincidence.

Since the meeting with Anne took place, I have remained in regular contact with her, and Anne Begg, John McDonnell, Tom Greatex, Dennis Skinner and my own MP, Kevan Jones. I send out information and articles on a regular basis, to ensure that the continued impact and the consequences of current policies are known to the Labour party. By raising awareness, we can prompt the Opposition to challenge effectively. That is needed, because we have a Government that doesn’t follow procedure and protocol, and does not like to share information regarding its own policies, even to the relevant Parliamentary Committees, let alone with the Opposition.

I am quite serious when I use the term “authoritarian” to describe the Coalition. This is what happens when we become a complacent population, and leave decision making entirely to politicians. Especially Conservatives. We know from history that under Conservative Governments, poverty, unemployment, inequality and civil unrest increase, whilst the wealthy accumulate even more wealth, and the recognition and accommodation of human rights, welfare, and all of our support provisions and programs decrease.

“Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it” –  Boris Pasternak

We need to learn how to be responsible citizens and participate in how our Country is governed. And we must. We do have a choice: we can each contribute something, when we are able, and in our own way, to raise public awareness and demand positive change. Governments must reflect and serve the needs and interests of the whole population, and not just an elite. It’s our duty and responsibility to make sure that they do.

It’s our responsibility to keep the Labour Party informed of our needs, to push for effective challenges to be made against the Coalition, and to promote, prioritise and value social progress, the recognition of human potential, fairness and equality. We set the policy agenda, as voters, if only we will take that responsibility.
The Coalition are dismantling democratic process. David Cameron has already stated that he wants to “reduce” consultations, judicial review, and equality impact assessments, amongst other processes that are essential to human rights safeguarding, accountability and transparency. “It’s not how you get things done” he said of these essential processes of inclusion and democracy. Ask yourself what it is that he wants to “get done”, which requires bypassing democratic process and human rights safeguarding. Clearly, this is a Government that certainly intends to continue to inflict harm.

We must collectively fight the Coalition’s steady attack on our support programs, welfare provision, human rights, and their determined intentions of undoing all that is civilised and decent about our society. We must maintain those (Labour) principles that make society welcoming, supportive and inclusive to all.  It is our own responsibility to recognise the equal worth and potential of every person, and the intrinsic value of each life. It’s an established, historically verified fact that Conservatives never have, and they never will.

Labour are currently consulting with the public on a National level, regarding the policy content of their Manifesto. That’s democracy in action. Make sure you have your say. It matters.

You can also get involved in Labour policy ideas here  and here , or you can contact your nearest Labour MP here .

Further reading:-

Full length report of the meeting and discussion with Anne McGuire (Original text)

 
This is what happens when we do collectively push for positive change and participate: we arm the Opposition with crucial information, detail and cases studies so that they can challenge effectively (from column 1050 onwards.)

The Shadow State: The “dehumanising, degrading” treatment of disabled people
New Statesman

ESA SOS 
Sue Marsh

The ESA Revolving Door Process 
Kitty Jones

Clause 99, Catch 22
Kitty Jones

Back to the Dark Ages as the Tories plan to scrap your Human Rights
Mike Sivier, Vox Political

 

Many thanks to Robert Livingstone for all of his outstanding artwork

kittysjones

#ESAendgame ~ Please lend your support to this campaign and share as widely as possible ~ Unite!

SUE MARSH WRITES: Wednesday, 6 March 2013

ESA SOS – The Starting Gun

In a few weeks, I’m going to arrange for some very significant stories to break in the very mainstream press about ESA.

I’ve been collecting them for about 6 months and if there’s any justice left at all, they will kill ESA once and for all.

They will totally change your perception of ESA and WCAs

We need a Spartacus 2 and as you all know, I’ve been sick as a dog.

Today is stage one. If you’re in, please leave your Name and user name on twitter or Facebook (Feel free to only provide the latter if you like to keep your anonymity a little) and Constituency

There will be a task most days, so please keep watching my blog.

Today, I would like something very specific. What is the worst thing, for you about ESA/WCAs? I need you to simply leave a one line answer if possible, ie “1 Year Time Limit – It totally undermines any contributory principle”

The most popular of these “subjects” will make up every short section of the new report.

Share this post everywhere you can.

This will be the start of our biggest fightback.

EVERYONE will have to give this everything if it is to work.

We need hundreds of responses to every request to make this a truly representative report from disabled people, by disabled people.

The more join, the more powerful our voice and the more impact any final work will have.

What’s more, by crowdsourcing our information and skills, believe me, we have 100 times the resources and ability of the DWP.

I have an awesome team in place – they produced #esaSOS in just 4 days.

Hard though it will be, PLEASE, I’m still very weak and CAN’T read endless comments or pages and pages of Hansard or reports.

Make this easy for me by keeping as close to the brief each day as you possibly can.

I WILL cover everything, nothing will get missed.

I’ll ask the question you’re itching to comment on, honest, but if we do it this way, I can delegate very much and empower you all to know exactly what we need.

Even a shadow of division will see us fail.

This will need every group, every campaigner, every supporter, no matter how radical or moderate, how powerful or unknown, every journalist that has supported us, every politician who is fully signed up to our arguments.

If you have a prominent welfare/disability/political voice, website or other outlet, please cross post this from me. 

So today, in the comment thread please leave :

• Name and social media name/s (or just the latter if more comfortable)
• Constituency
• The WORST thing for you about ESA/WCAs in one line. 

****ESA is the most terrible failure of any developed nation for a very long time. The reasons are numerous and utterly undeniable. The government has failed to implement Harrington with any commitment and is actively increasing the rate at which vulnerable people face a failing and unfair test. We have engaged with a democratic process that has failed us at every stage. We have no choice left but to stop this ourselves. Over 100,000 people now face some kind of ESA assessment every MONTH. We can’t afford to wait. ****

Enough is Enough. 

From today, please use the hashtag #ESAendgame in all your tweets.

We must build awareness and create an army of support and dissemination. 

Alone we Whisper, Together we Shout

PLEASE COMMENT HERE: http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/esa-sos-starting-gun.html



WHY THE DWP-ATOS BROWN ENVELOPE CAN KILL: Broken Heart Death Syndrome

 

Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy

The government, DWP and Atos surely KNOW about this condition. By placing sick and disabled individuals under severe chronic stress, they are playing russian roulette with each and every life.

 

Daily Mail

 

Why a shock can kill you (even good news): Release of adrenaline after sudden discovery can lead to heart problems 

By Sophie Borland
PUBLISHED: 15:22, 15 October 2012 | UPDATED: 01:35, 16 October 2012

A shock can be fatal – and it makes no difference whether it's the trauma of a loved one's death or the excitement of a lottery win, experts claim.

Research suggests that a startling revelation can pose a danger to health whether the news is positive or negative.

And it seems women who have just been through the menopause are most at risk.

Researchers say they have identified how emotional trauma - from winning the lottery to losing a close relative - can trigger a potentially lethal catastrophe in the body they call the 'broken heart syndrome'.

German scientists say they have discovered exactly how a sudden discovery or traumatic experience can be fatal.

They say the news or event causes the body to produce large amounts of stress hormones including adrenaline, which narrows the main arteries which supply blood to the heart.

This paralyses the heart's main pumping chamber, causing a sudden change in rhythm similar to a heart attack.

The victim will suddenly find it very difficult to breathe, have sharp pains in their chest and may feel very weak. Some die, although many recover if given urgent medical treatment.

Scientists have been aware for some time of 'broken heart syndrome', or patients who apparently die from grief after losing a loved one, but they have not fully understood why it happens.

Professor Nienaber said broken heart syndrome mostly affects women who have gone through the menopause

Now, however, researchers from the University Clinic of Rostock, in northern Germany, have come up with a possible explanation based on studies of patients.

 And they say the reaction isn't necessarily triggered by a bereavement – it could also happen after winning the lottery or even having an argument.

Dr Christoph Nienaber, director of cardiology at the university, said: 'These patients suffer under a heavy emotional load, either positive or negative. Their hearts literally break. It usually happens within minutes to an hour of hearing the news.

 'The typical scenario is bad  news but there are reports of  both and we don't know what causes it most.

'We are very far from a conclusion however, this is only speculative.'

He added: 'It mostly affects women who have undergone the menopause and are aged between 50 and 70 when they fall ill.

'We are still unsure why it seems to affect this group the most.' One theory is that the female body reacts especially strongly to stress hormones after menopause.

It is estimated that 2 per cent of the 300,000 Britons recorded as having a heart attack every year have suffered from broken heart syndrome – amounting to some 6,000 patients.

The exact figures are not known as many will simply be recorded as having had a heart attack.
Dr Nienaber said that most patients in these cases survive, provided they receive swift treatment.

Daily Mail

Why you really can suffer from a broken heart

Last updated at 09:27 10 February 2005

Doctors were today urged to recognise the unique symptoms of "broken heart syndrome" in patients who appear to have suffered a heart attack.

Shocking events such as the death of a loved-one or being the victim of crime have long been known as possible triggers for medical conditions such as a heart attack.

Now researchers in the United States have found that sudden emotional stress can also lead to severe but reversible heart muscle weakness which mimics the symptoms of a heart attack.

The team, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, said that patients with this condition - stress cardiomyopathy or "broken heart syndrome" - were often misdiagnosed with a massive heart attack.

Instead they had actually suffered from a surge in adrenalin and other stress hormones that temporarily "stun" the heart.

The researchers, from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said they while "broken heart syndrome" was not as common as heart attack, it probably occurred more often than doctors realised.

Dr Ilan Wittstein said: "Our study should help physicians distinguish between stress cardiomyopathy and heart attacks. It should also reassure patients that they have not had permanent heart damage."

The researchers found that some people responded to sudden and overwhelming emotional stress by releasing large amount of stress chemicals like adrenalin into the bloodstream, as well as breakdown products and small proteins produced by an excited nervous system.

They said these chemicals could be temporarily toxic to the heart, effectively stunning the muscle and producing symptoms similar to a typical heart attack - chest pain, shortness of breath and heart failure.

By examining a group of 19 patients with symptoms of "broken heart syndrome", the researchers found that it was clinically very different to the typical heart attack.

The patients, 18 of whom were women, had signs of an apparent heart attack after emotional stress, including a death, shock from a surprise party and an armed robbery.

They were compared to seven other patients who had suffered a severe heart attack.

Dr Wittstein said: "After observing several cases of 'broken heart' syndrome at Hopkins hospitals - most of them in middle-aged or elderly women - we realised that these patients had clinical features quite different from typical cases of heart attack, and that something very different was happening.

"These cases were, initially, difficult to explain because most of the patients were previously healthy and had few risk factors for heart disease."

Tests on these patients showed no blockages in the arteries which supplied the heart.

Blood tests also failed to reveal some of the typical signs of a heart attack - such as high levels of cardiac enzymes that are released into the bloodstream from damaged heart muscle.

MRI scans revealed that none of the stressed patients had suffered irreversible muscle damage. The researchers said of one surprise was that recovery rates in the stressed patients were much faster than typically seen after a heart attack.

Within a few days the patients showed dramatic improvement in the heart's ability to pump and had completely recovered in two weeks.

In comparison, partial recovery after a heart attack can take weeks or months, and often the heart muscle damage is permanent.

Levels of stress chemicals in the stressed patient group were also significantly higher than in those with a classic heart attack.

Researcher Dr Hunter Champion said: "How stress hormones act to stun the heart remains unknown, but there are several possible explanations that will be the subject of additional studies.

"The chemicals may cause spasm in the coronary arteries, or have a direct toxic effect on the heart muscle, or cause calcium overloads that results in temporary dysfunction."

The researchers said they expected the number of patients diagnosed with "broken heart syndrome" to increase as more doctors learnt to recognise its unique clinical features.

Daily Mail

 

Why a broken heart really can kill you and women are NINE times more at risk

 

• Condition brought on by sudden or prolonged stress can lead to heart failure

• Tests show dramatic changes in rhythm and blood substances typical of a heart attack, but no artery blockages

By Deborah Arthurs
UPDATED: 09:34, 18 November 2011

The end of a romance or the death of a loved one really can cause the heart to break – and women are the most likely to suffer.

Research shows that a shock or emotional trauma can trigger the symptoms of a heart attack or other cardiac problem.

Women are up to nine times more likely to suffer ‘broken heart syndrome’, the first large-scale study of the condition has concluded.

Women are seven to nine times more likely to suffer a heart attack from shock or distress - with no sign of blocked arteries or previous history of cardiac problems

Doctors say the classic case involves the death of a husband triggering a rush of adrenaline and other stress hormones that cause the heart’s main pumping chamber to balloon suddenly and malfunction. 

Tests show dramatic changes in rhythm and blood substances  typical of a heart attack, but none of the artery blockages that  typically cause one.

Most patients recover with no lasting damage, but 1 per cent of cases prove fatal.
Dr Abhishek Deshmukh, a heart specialist at the University of Arkansas in the U.S., studied the phenomenon after noting he had treated more women for ‘broken heart syndrome’ than men.

A trawl of records of 1,000 hospitals revealed 6,229 cases in 2007. Only 671 of these involved men.

Taking into account factors such as high blood pressure revealed women to be 7.5 times more likely to suffer the syndrome than men.  It was three times more common in females over 55 than those under.

Broken heart syndrome can occur as a result of shock - usually from bad news, but occasionally from good, such as a lottery win

And females under 55 were 9.5 times more likely to suffer it than men of that age, an American Heart Association conference heard.

No one knows why women are more vulnerable but sex hormones may be at play or men’s bodies  may be better at handling stress. The conference also heard that while heart attacks happen more in winter, broken heart syndrome is more common in summer. It can also be brought on by ‘good’ shocks such as winning the lottery.

The study looked specifically at heart problems but bereavement can also damage health in other ways, with men the weaker sex.

A British study found that losing a wife puts the widower at six times a higher risk of death, while a widow’s chances of dying are doubled.

The risk peaks for either surviving spouse in the first year after bereavement, with those married the longest in greatest danger. It is thought the resultant stress depresses the immune system, making existing medical conditions worse.

Ex-prime minister James Callaghan was said to have died of a  broken heart after he passed away aged 92 in 1995, days after Audrey, his wife of 67 years.

In 2009, the parents of Spandau Ballet’s Martin and Gary Kemp died within 48 hours of each other.Their father Frank, 79, suffered a heart attack. His wife Eileen, 77, was in the same Bournemouth  hospital having a heart bypass. Her sons told her when she came round and she died soon afterwards.

Daily Mail

Charities using forced labour supplied by the DWP

I would avoid giving anything to a charity which uses labour supplied free by the DWP. Nor would I buy from a charity shop which used forced labour. The very word “charity” has been emptied of meaning by organizations which now employ highly paid executives that were founded and run by volunteers who worked for nothing.

Saint Paul wrote that “the love of money is the root of all evil” and when one sees charities using forced labour provided by the DWP it’s hard not to sympathise with his sentiments. The very word “charity” is derived from the latin “caritas” which means love. Today we have in the U.K so called charities which are instrumental in the issuing of welfare sanctions against the poorer segments of society, using forced labour and running what are really businesses set up for the benefit of their executives.

I am no longer taken in by the misuse of words like “charity” to cover the wrongdoings of people motivated by greed and not love. I wonder if we will ever see a political party which will tackle this problem. I think it’s unlikely to happen in the near future so long as politicians see the charity sector as a tool for underming welfare and keeping downward pressure on wages through using forced labour.

When shopping at a charity shop I will ask politely if they are taking on anyone under the Work Programme. If the shop says yes then I will explain that in good conscience I cannot shop there since I believe it to be morally wrong that people are being forced to work for nothing by a so called charity.

Dame Vera Lynn called for charities to go back to being what they were in the past, i.e run by people who did the work out of love and not for money. Sue Ryder who set up the charity associated with her name later blamed the trustees of the Sue Ryder Foundation of hijacking the charity and accusing them of betraying its volunteer helpers and splashing out on new offices in central London.

Several years ago I worked with people who had an association with the Salvation Army and who were really trying to help people with big problems. They would have been as astonished as me to find out that the Salvation Army was using forced labour supplied by the DWP and incredulous that one of the directors of the Salvation Army trading company ran an external company which had made millions out of the clothes donated to the Salvation Army.

The Salvation Army has tried to backtrack on the forced labour issue by referring to its voluntary nature. Let’s be very clear about this. If the Salvation Army is using people supplied by the DWP who are subject to sanctions if they refuse to attend then there is nothing voluntary about it. To take away the welfare benefits of anyone if they refuse to work unpaid is not voluntary but a form of forced/coerced labour.

Iain Duncan-Smith proclaimed his Catholicity on a recent Question Time BBC programme. How he or the Salvation Army can reconcile their Christianity with what they are, or have been, involved in needs some explaining.

Perhaps one of the single biggest causes of the Christianization of the Roman Empire was love given to the poor by the early Christian communities. Charity, in its true and traditional meaning, might be considered Christianity’s unique selling point in the ancient world through it’s scale over and above any spiritual influences. It particularly took hold amongst the poorest and marginalised sectors of society: slaves, women and children. The message of the gospel had a particular meaning and resonated strongly with the poor and oppressed. Today it often seems that the gospel of the poor proclaimed by Jesus has been turned into the Gospel of the Rich – a form of Mammon Worship.

Welfare Sorrows

Unum bragged about ‘driving government thinking’ on incapacity benefit reform

An insurance company set to make huge financial gains from incapacity benefit (IB) reform bragged about “driving” the government towards those reforms, evidence obtained by Disability News Service (DNS) has revealed.

The US insurance giant Unum has repeatedly denied attempting to influence IB reform over the last two decades, despite mounting evidence that it has done so.

Unum is the largest provider of “income protection insurance” (IPI) in the UK, and tougher welfare rules – including replacing incapacity benefit with employment and support allowance (ESA) – are likely to persuade more people to take out IPI, boosting the company’s profits.

Unum even launched a major media campaign in 2011 just as the coalition began a three-year programme to reassess about 1.5 million existing IB claimants through the new, stricter test, the work capability assessment (WCA).

Now DNS has secured a copy of a Unum document on the assessment of “incapacity”, which was published in 2005.

The document was written by Michael O’Donnell, then the company’s chief medical officer and now in the same role at Atos Healthcare, which carries out WCAs on behalf of the government.
O’Donnell says in the document that Unum has “always been at the leading edge of disability assessment and management”.

He adds: “We know that our views and understanding are not yet in the mainstream of doctors’ thinking, but Government Policy is moving in the same direction, to a large extent being driven by our thinking and that of our close associates, both in the UK and overseas.”

Unum has admitted there has been widespread criticism of its past actions in the US, mainly over its refusal to pay out on large numbers of genuine insurance claims by disabled people, a record mentioned in last month’s Commons debate on Atos and the WCA.

But Unum has also faced criticism in the UK. In a parliamentary debate in 1999, MPs accused the company of refusing to pay out on valid insurance claims from disabled people who had lost their jobs due to ill-health or disability.

Unum continues to dismiss claims that it pushed the government to introduce the ESA/WCA system.

In 2011, John Letizia, Unum’s head of public affairs, told Disability News Service (DNS): “At no time have we influenced the government on the design of the reforms to the welfare state or on the level of benefits that claimants receive.”

And in the same year, at the Conservative Party conference, Unum’s chief executive, Jack McGarry, said: “We haven’t tried to influence the welfare agenda around reducing welfare or making it harder to claim. To my knowledge we have not done that.”

This week, Letizia told DNS again that Unum had not attempted to influence the government’s welfare reform agenda.

He said: “We will never ever deny that there were discussions between Unum and the previous government and there continue to be [with the coalition].”

But he added: “In all the discussions going back over the last five years on welfare reform Unum made absolutely no attempt to influence government policy on the welfare debate, on the ESA or WCA or personal independence payment or disability living allowance, in setting the government agenda.”

After DNS shared the document with Letizia, he declined to comment further.

Mo Stewart, the disabled activist who has done most to highlight concerns about Unum, said the new evidence was “very significant”, and called for an independent inquiry into the role of the company in influencing UK welfare reform, particularly when it had such a “disturbing past history”.

She said: “This entire situation confirms the dangers of a government that confuses its priorities, and places the welfare budget as a much higher priority than the needs of its own chronically sick and disabled people.”

She added: “The WCA is a replica of the assessment system used by Unum to resist funding insurance claimants.

“It is a bogus, dangerous assessment and, with this evidence, it is now time that this DWP medical tyranny was ended.”

A DWP spokesman said: “The WCA was designed from the outset with the involvement of a wide range of experts and disability representative groups and has been subject to rigorous independent review.”

14 February 2013

Disability News Service

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

There’s No Pay At The Y-M-C-A!*

“By all means, pay companies incentives to employ young people, but do not take advantage of the vulnerable by using them as free labour.”

The above quote is from Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu and one of a growing number of  voices in the Church condemning this Government’s obsession with unpaid labour.

Unfortunately the Bishop is also the president of workfare riddled YMCA, as has just been revealed by @boycottworkfare.

YMCA are involved in the Mandatory Work Activity (MWA) programme – four weeks full time unpaid work for organisations with a ‘community benefit’.  This scheme is the teeth of the workfare regime, used solely as punishment for those who refuse ‘voluntary’ workfare or are judged to be not trying to hard enough to find work.  The evidence shows that MWA does not help people find a job, and it is not intended to.  Under current rules it is not possible to volunteer for MWA.

The YMCA (@YMCA_England) have remained silent about their use of unpaid workers ever since the workfare row broke out.  Dr John Sentamu can be found on twitter (@JohnSentamu).     Perhaps he will have the grace to tell the truth about how his own charity takes “advantage of the vulnerable by using them as free labour”.

*I really wish I could claim credit for the above headline, but that goes to @wolvopingu

Follow me on twitter @johnnyvoid

The Void

The Salvation Army and #Workfare Controversy

To be upfront, I didn’t know what the issue was with the government Workfare scheme. I’ve not really been interested in this until this morning, when I read Johnny Void’s provocatively entitled post: Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness (unless thou is the Salvation Army fibbing about workfare).

Void’s post alleges the Salvation Army continuous to use Workfare workers and he links to a rather grim story in the Daily Record (Scotland). Void also links to a Jobcentre referral to Mandatory Work Activity letter (dated 17th Jan) which clearly cites the venue as an Salvation Army shop.

I spoke briefly with Void and he Tweeted:

@echurchblog and this about scheme Salvation Army are using: johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/wor…
— johnnyvoid (@johnnyvoid) January 19, 2013

So, where to start with finding out about Workfare; Wikipedia of course:

Workfare in the United Kingdom refers to government workfare policies whereby individuals must undertake work in return for their benefit payments or risk losing them. Workfare policies are politically controversial. Supporters argue that such policies help people move off of welfare and into employment (See welfare-to-work) whereas critics argue that they are analogous to slavery and counterproductive in decreasing unemployment.

OK, where too next, Twitter of course, and the link given by a couple of folk was on the Boycott Workfare website, which I’ll let you read, but I will cite their raison d’etre:

Boycott Workfare is a UK-wide campaign to end forced unpaid work for people who receive welfare. Workfare profits the rich by providing free labour, whilst threatening the poor by taking away welfare rights if people refuse to work without a living wage. We are a grassroots campaign, formed in 2010 by people with experience of workfare and those concerned about its impact. We expose and take action against companies and organisations profiting from workfare; encourage organisations to pledge to boycott it; and actively inform people of their rights.

Bernadette Meaden kindly linked to Public Interest Lawyers who are challenging the government’s Workfare program in the courts on behalf of their clients.

BoycottWelfare Tweeted me directly:

@echurchblog What’s wrong with charity #workfare? boycottworkfare.org/?p=1573 @salvationarmyuk
— BoycottWorkfare (@boycottworkfare) January 19, 2013

The Boycott Workfare link is well worth reading; it very clearly sets out their objections to Charity Workfare. Here’s a quote:

By colluding with the government to increase the number of benefit sanctions charities are pushing vulnerable people further into poverty and destitution. Oxfam have refused to take part in workfare because they say it is incompatible with the goal of reducing poverty in the UK. When homelessness charity SHP left the Work Programme earlier this year they warned that sanctions were pushing vulnerable individuals further into poverty and leaving them with little option but to beg and steal. The increase in benefit sanctions is one of the reasons that we are seeing an increase in the use of food banks.

OK, so where are we?

Workfare is a highly controversial and contentious issue, so much so, that some big highstreet names and charities have very publicly suspended their involvement in the Workfare program.

The evidence suggests that the Salvation Army are involved in the scheme at some level, so what is the Sally Army’s formal response:

There is no mandatory voluntary work for the three sub contracts we deliver within the Work Programme. Anyone who volunteers their services to us does so in the knowledge that their benefits will not be affected.

We do not have any national agreements in place to provide mandatory 4-week work placements, but on a local level we are aware that our trading company has been approached by independent welfare to work providers which have been offering short-term work experience, locally, in some of our retail shops. We must stress that no placements are in place of paid work and we trust the decision of our local representatives to provide valuable professional experience.

We don’t take people in short-term placements for work that would otherwise be paid as we believe in empowering the person who is volunteering, by treating them with the respect that everyone in society is due. We believe strongly that every person has worth, irrespective of what they can offer society and it is our desire to help all who are willing to work, irrespective of their starting point. For some, the route to employment can be a long one with several milestones on the way.

Working in stages back into the workplace helps to build confidence as a lack of confidence is one of the overriding barriers to work. We believe that it is important that people on long term benefits ‘test’ themselves in the workplace, to gain work experience without any threat of losing benefit or having to start the process again.

It is sensible to partner with the private and voluntary sector to provide many of the programmes, not because the work will be done ‘on the cheap’ but because better value will be achieved by the flexibility of our sector to tailor programmes to individual need and achieve better results. We have the expertise and broad working base to help achieve effective outcomes.

How does this read to you? For me, I am left with absolutely no idea whether the Salvation Army participates in the Workfare scheme or not.

Whether you be for, or against, Workfare, it would strike me the prudent move as a Christian organisation, with such an morally explosive issue, would be to withdraw from the scheme and publicly state as much. Otherwise, you might just find yourself on the receiving end of responses such as this:

@echurchblog oh and Deuteronomy 24:15 and Jeremiah 22:13
— johnnyvoid (@johnnyvoid) January 19, 2013

I have Tweeted the Salvation Army direct:

@salvationarmyuk Hi, can you confirm if your organisation participates in the government #Workfare scheme?
— eChurch Blog (@eChurchBlog) January 19, 2013

I’ll let you know if I receive a response.
UPDATE: Three Tweets received from BoycottWorkfare which really cast the Salvation Army in a poor light in regard to this issue:

@echurchblog Note that until this week the @salvationarmyuk were telling people that they weren’t involved in #workfare at all.
— BoycottWorkfare (@boycottworkfare) January 19, 2013 

@echurchblog It was only when the MWA referral letter was posted that @salvationarmyuk deleted the claim not to be involved from their site.
— BoycottWorkfare (@boycottworkfare) January 19, 2013

@echurchblog Cache of earlier @salvationarmyuk claims here: webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache…
— BoycottWorkfare (@boycottworkfare) January 19, 2013

Oh dear!

Source

PCS Union: Workfare a stain on welfare state

Standing up for the poor and vulnerable: Day Four at TUC Congress

A vigorous defence of the welfare state was spearheaded by PCS to open the final day of proceedings at the 2012 TUC Congress.

Since the coalition government came into power in May 2010 there has been a clear rise in the levels of deprivation. New inequalities are having a destructive impact upon the lives of vulnerable people and services are becoming ever more fragmented, leading to wide variations in access across the UK.

Around £30billion of welfare cuts have been announced by the government, coupled with a sinister vilification by this government and right-wing tabloids to denigrate the welfare state and to demonise those without work, or unable to work, and young people, migrants and the disabled.

Proposing composite Motion 8 - which includes reiterating the principles of fair and equal pay, condemns ‘workfare’ policies and re-instating services necessary to support vulnerable groups – PCS president Janice Godrich said: “We face a government firmly in the interests of the richest 1% of society. It tells us that the welfare state is unaffordable but has already found the money to cut the top rate of income tax from 50% to 45% and to cut corporation tax from 28% to 24%.

“Cameron and Osborne are taking money from the disabled, the unemployed, lone parents and those struggling to pay rent to give to the super rich. But it’s not just this perverse re-distribution we should be concerned about, what we see is the see is the vilification and bullying of anyone on benefits. We see this with the work capability assessments carried out by Atos, the private I.T. company paid £100million a year to carry out these tests formerly performed by public sector workers. We know these tests are deeply flawed because disabled people tell us they are and the British Medical Association has called for them to be scrapped.

“Unemployed people are being bullied as well. The workfare schemes are a disgraceful stain on the welfare state our movement created. A society which refuses to support its most vulnerable has lost the right to call itself a civilised society.”

The motion was unanimously carried.

12 September 2012
Public and Commercial Services Union

Find out more about the PCS alternative to the cuts