Slave Labour?

[randompostman]

The TUCs position on this is very clear.
http://www.tuc.org.uk/social/tuc-15509-f0.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TUC calls for Government u-turn on workfare schemesThe TUC has slammed Government proposals for workfare that force unemployed people to work on community service schemes in return for their benefits in its submission to the welfare reform Green Paper today (Wednesday).

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: 'Proposals that force unemployed people to work or lose their benefits are a mistake.

'There are already more than adequate sanctions to deal with benefit claimants who are cheating the system, and the majority of people on low incomes want decent work but are struggling, particularly in the current economic climate.

'People who lose their jobs need help in getting new skills and new paying jobs, not schemes that provide no pay, no prospects and no time to search for a new job.

'Workfare policies do nothing to benefit wider society. The economy needs more people in real jobs with real wages to spend, boosting the economy and creating more jobs. And workers in low paid jobs could well be replaced by workfare claimants leading them to lose their jobs in turn.'

The TUC also criticises Government plans to contract out Job Centre Plus services to the private and voluntary sectors.

Brendan Barber said: 'Politicians and newspapers assume that the private sector will be more efficient than the public sector, but we are waiting to see any evidence that proves this is the case. All the research suggests that there are good reasons for being worried about the private sector taking over Job Centre Plus.

'We are also worried that this is not in the interests of the voluntary sector, who by getting involved with running Government services may find their ability to be fully representative of their clients compromised

Looks like CWU HQ know better.

[dvbuk55]

'People who lose their jobs need help in getting new skills and new paying jobs, not schemes that provide no pay, no prospects and no time to search for a new job.

'Workfare policies do nothing to benefit wider society. The economy needs more people in real jobs with real wages to spend, boosting the economy and creating more jobs. And workers in low paid jobs could well be replaced by workfare claimants leading them to lose their jobs in turn.'

Looks like CWU HQ know better.

Well isn't that ever the case? Take a look at BT 2010.

[dvbuk55]

Apparently Tesco are now saying it was a mistake, though I don't think they have withdrawn from the scheme but they may well do if there is sufficient public outcry about it. There was also an article in the Sunday Mirror about charity food banks which is closely related I suppose to the workfare scheme insofar as people cannot afford to feed their family whilst claiming benefits, so wouldn't it be an absolute travesty making people work for nothing when they have to go to a charity to feed themselves because the benefits paid are insufficient to support them. TBH I was quite shocked about it, although I have been quite poor at times throughout my younger days I have never been in that position. It made me a little ashamed to think of the stuff we throw away and what a comparatively easy life we have.

And still the CWU supports the scheme........but why? It is clearly not designed to create permanent positions. There doesn't appear to be any opinion from the usual suspects though does there.

[fishtank]

There doesn't appear to be any opinion from the usual suspects though does there.

That sums up a great deal of the problems within the CWU because i would doubt very much that those you speak about actually support this scheme in fact i would go further and say there is very little support for this scheme within the CWU but....they won't speak out against it....why?

It unfortunately simply reinforces the belief,whether right or wrong that HQ are sitting on Royal Mail's mantle-piece gathering dust...a trophy won a long time ago.
More ammunition for apathy is if it needs any more.

[andy2007]

Apparently Tesco are now saying it was a mistake, though I don't think they have withdrawn from the scheme but they may well do if there is sufficient public outcry about it. There was also an article in the Sunday Mirror about charity food banks which is closely related I suppose to the workfare scheme insofar as people cannot afford to feed their family whilst claiming benefits, so wouldn't it be an absolute travesty making people work for nothing when they have to go to a charity to feed themselves because the benefits paid are insufficient to support them. TBH I was quite shocked about it, although I have been quite poor at times throughout my younger days I have never been in that position. It made me a little ashamed to think of the stuff we throw away and what a comparatively easy life we have.

And still the CWU supports the scheme........but why? It is clearly not designed to create permanent positions. There doesn't appear to be any opinion from the usual suspects though does there.

You're right about the problems of people feeding their families on benefits. The ones who make genuine claims, generally are no better off, than those earning minimum wage. I know a few people who're unemployed at the moment, and they're finding it hard to make ends meet, after working all their adult lives. And yet, there are so many younger people, who've never worked in their lives. Claiming benifits of one kind or another, who seem to be having no problems going out on the p**s, and even running cars. It makes you wonder, exactly what they're claiming their circumstances are, in order to be so much better off than people on JSA, or minimum wage.

Making people work whilst claiming JSA, is a perticularly bad idea, as it drastically cuts the amount of time they have to look for work. And even worse. It's taking away jobs that would otherwise be available for people to apply for, and earn their living again.

[dvbuk55]

Apparently Tesco are now saying it was a mistake, though I don't think they have withdrawn from the scheme but they may well do if there is sufficient public outcry about it. There was also an article in the Sunday Mirror about charity food banks which is closely related I suppose to the workfare scheme insofar as people cannot afford to feed their family whilst claiming benefits, so wouldn't it be an absolute travesty making people work for nothing when they have to go to a charity to feed themselves because the benefits paid are insufficient to support them. TBH I was quite shocked about it, although I have been quite poor at times throughout my younger days I have never been in that position. It made me a little ashamed to think of the stuff we throw away and what a comparatively easy life we have.

And still the CWU supports the scheme........but why? It is clearly not designed to create permanent positions. There doesn't appear to be any opinion from the usual suspects though does there.

You're right about the problems of people feeding their families on benefits. The ones who make genuine claims, generally are no better off, than those earning minimum wage. I know a few people who're unemployed at the moment, and they're finding it hard to make ends meet, after working all their adult lives. And yet, there are so many younger people, who've never worked in their lives. Claiming benifits of one kind or another, who seem to be having no problems going out on the p**s, and even running cars. It makes you wonder, exactly what they're claiming their circumstances are, in order to be so much better off than people on JSA, or minimum wage.

Making people work whilst claiming JSA, is a perticularly bad idea, as it drastically cuts the amount of time they have to look for work. And even worse. It's taking away jobs that would otherwise be available for people to apply for, and earn their living again.

I understand what you are saying about the ability of some people to make benefits go further. When I left the army in the very early 70s I had no money, or furniture or house, a wife a child and one on the way. Fortunately the local council recognised that it had not been possible for servicemen to be on the waiting list and so we went to the top of the list and so got a council house immediately. Furniture was donated by relatives and bought from second hand shops. My wife didn't work and for me work was easy to come by and I started work before I officially left the army. We did get family allowance which wasn't very much but I don't remember if it was for both or just one, something tells me it was just one but I might be wrong. That was the sum total of help. People around us had both in work and still got school uniforms vouchers, free school dinners, had cars, went to the pub, smoked and I often wondered how on earth they could get help and we couldn't. Rather than pay rent forever I went to the council to ask if there was any chance of a mortgage - they lent money in those days to get you out of a council house at a fixed rate and so we took a chance and hoped I could earn enough to pay all the outgoings..........well I obviously did - but I knew what it was to go without meals in those days..........I could do with a little of that now to get a couple of stone off

[randompostman]

[quote="fishtank"][quote="dvbuk55"]
There doesn't appear to be any opinion from the usual suspects though does there.[/quote]

That sums up a great deal of the problems within the CWU because i would doubt very much that those you speak about actually support this scheme in fact i would go further and say there is very little support for this scheme within the CWU but....they won't speak out against it....why?

It unfortunately simply reinforces the belief,whether right or wrong that HQ are sitting on Royal Mail's mantle-piece gathering dust...a trophy won a long time ago.
More ammunition for apathy is if it needs any more. :cuppa[/quote]



We are the Union and the choice is ours! Any member can print out this Motion make any changes they feel need to be made, get it proposed. seconded and supported by more than 20 CWU members (the more the better) to outvote any opposition and it should go through and if not we as members can ask why Union democracy has failed.


A call to boycott workfare schemes.

http://www.tuc.org.uk/social/tuc-15509-f0.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The TUC Has called for a Government U-turn on workfare schemes. The TUC has slammed Government proposals for workfare that force unemployed people to work on community service schemes in return for their benefits in its submission to the welfare reform Green Paper today (Wednesday).
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: 'Proposals that force unemployed people to work or lose their benefits are a mistake. 'There are already more than adequate sanctions to deal with benefit claimants who are cheating the system, and the majority of people on low incomes want decent work but are struggling, particularly in the current economic climate. ‘People who lose their jobs need help in getting new skills and new paying jobs, not schemes that provide no pay, no prospects and no time to search for a new job. ‘Workfare policies do nothing to benefit wider society. The economy needs more people in real jobs with real wages to spend, boosting the economy and creating more jobs. And workers in low paid jobs could well be replaced by workfare claimants leading them to lose their jobs in turn.' The TUC also criticises Government plans to contract out Job Centre Plus services to the private and voluntary sectors. Brendan Barber said: 'Politicians and newspapers assume that the private sector will be more efficient than the public sector, but we are waiting to see any evidence that proves this is the case. All the research suggests that there are good reasons for being worried about the private sector taking over Job Centre Plus. 'We are also worried that this is not in the interests of the voluntary sector, who by getting involved with running Government services may find their ability to be fully representative of their clients compromised.

Motion: A call to boycott workfare schemes.

This Union Branch notes:
1. The devastating affect the use of workfare placements will have on our part time CWU members particularly those on 22.5 hour contracts as well as those members that rely on earning extra money to pay for the basics in life through overtime that will inevitably be lost through the use of workfare placements.


2. That there are currently several schemes which place benefits claimants on compulsory unpaid work placements. These include:
2. • “Mandatory Work Activity”
3. • The misleadingly named DWP “Work Experience” programme and “Community Action Programme”
4. • As part of what is mandated by the private companies who run the “Work Programme”
3. Each of these schemes mandates a jobseeker to work without pay on threat of loss of benefits (“sanction”). The government will soon be able to stop claimants' money for up to three years.
4. The reform is being rolled out at a time when education and training schemes, housing benefit and other public services are being cut. Unpaid work inevitably replaces paid jobs and pushes wages down.
• For example, 30% of Parks Staff in Haringey have been made redundant, and the council plans to “bridge the gap” with community service and workfare.
• For example, at least one Asda store sent paid staff home over the Christmas period in 2011, but kept unpaid workfare workers on, obliging them to work on both Christmas and New Year’s Eve.
5. Under workfare, ‘volunteering’ loses its voluntary aspect and become compulsion, watched over by charities and companies. Placement providers are expected to monitor the attendance of people on workfare, report on their behaviour, and provide other information to the DWP that can result in severe penalties for recipients.
6. Compulsory unpaid work placements are being offered to the voluntary, public and private sectors. If unions and workplaces refuse to participate, this makes the programme much less viable.

The Union Branch believes:
1. That everyone is entitled to decent work, training and income. Benefits are also a right, not a privilege and need to be protected.
2. That we need to act in solidarity with the most vulnerable in society to protect benefits as part of defending society against a wider attack on the welfare state as a whole.
3. That many claimants wish to contribute to their communities and learn new skills through freely choosing to do voluntary work. But compulsory placements cause resentment, are against the ideal of volunteering and take advantage of the most vulnerable.

The CWU Union branch,---------------------------------------------------------------------------- resolves:
1. To support the call for a boycott of workfare placements by putting its name to the pledge (note below*)
2. To publicise the campaign, as well as the details of different claimants’ support groups, amongst union networks and amongst members of the branch.
3. To make a suggested donation of £50 to Boycott Workfare to help with the costs of the campaign (e.g. printing leaflets and travelling to give talks and workshops). Please make cheques payable to London Coalition against Poverty who kindly manages the funds for Boycott Workfare.
4. To raise this issue to regional/national level of the union.

http://www.boycottworkfare.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
*Boycott Workfare’s pledge reads: We the undersigned commit to refusing to participate in compulsory work-for-benefits placements. We want volunteering to remain just that!

Proposed by CWU Member of the-------------------------------------------------------- Branch.


Seconded by CWU Member of the-------------------------------------------------------- Branch.


Supported by CWU Members of the----------------------------------------------------- Branch.

[fishtank]

The CWU Union branch,---------------------------------------------------------------------------- resolves:
1. To support the call for a boycott of workfare placements by putting its name to the pledge (note below*)
2. To publicise the campaign, as well as the details of different claimants’ support groups, amongst union networks and amongst members of the branch.
3. To make a suggested donation of £50 to Boycott Workfare to help with the costs of the campaign (e.g. printing leaflets and travelling to give talks and workshops). Please make cheques payable to London Coalition against Poverty who kindly manages the funds for Boycott Workfare.
4. To raise this issue to regional/national level of the union.

I'm impressed..your branch should be proud of itself.
Can i ask a question though?
What guidance is your branch giving to local reps in the field?
Are they asking reps to ignore the national position immediately therefore bringing themselves into conflict with both RM and HQ or is this a peaceful protest?

[not me]

I know we have issues ith the union
however I'm quite frankly disgusted by CWU HQs position on this

[dvbuk55]

I know we have issues ith the union
however I'm quite frankly disgusted by CWU HQs position on this

You do get a little bit weary of the same old "well they'll just do it anyway". It's as though that by making a "joint statement" they somehow feel part of the decision making by agreeing to anything and everything RM say. The same goes for the "the company is struggling financially, there's no money for colleagueshares, they've already bought the equipment so we have to go along with it".

[randompostman]

[quote="fishtank"][quote="randompostman"]

The CWU Union branch,---------------------------------------------------------------------------- resolves:
1. To support the call for a boycott of workfare placements by putting its name to the pledge (note below*)
2. To publicise the campaign, as well as the details of different claimants’ support groups, amongst union networks and amongst members of the branch.
3. To make a suggested donation of £50 to Boycott Workfare to help with the costs of the campaign (e.g. printing leaflets and travelling to give talks and workshops). Please make cheques payable to London Coalition against Poverty who kindly manages the funds for Boycott Workfare.
4. To raise this issue to regional/national level of the union. [/quote]

I'm impressed..your branch should be proud of itself.
Can i ask a question though?
What guidance is your branch giving to local reps in the field?
Are they asking reps to ignore the national position immediately therefore bringing themselves into conflict with both RM and HQ or is this a peaceful protest? [/quote]

Did I say Branch had any input into this? This is for Postal workers that have a few brain cells and KNOW how this workfare scheme will be used against them.
My branch is of no concern to this issue other than they are only there to represent it`s members wishes like yours I hope! If I could take your last question first though the national position is only what could happen and not what will happen but rather how Headquarters feel about an issue you may note that this scheme on the part of CWU officials is VOLENTARY! And can only happen with the help of both a puppy walker (Hope they are CWU) and more importantly a CWU Health & Safety Representative! If a branch takes up the position of wishing to protect its members terms, pay and conditions in that Branch I think you will find the Branch is perfectly entitled to instruct both its Branch Representatives and CWU members to not do anything that will cause harm to other CWU members pay terms and conditions so it cannot happen or Royal Mail are in breach of their own fudged bit of paper on this issue. If DW had wanted the membership to go along with this then it would be watertight (lol) All members have a choice to lay down yet again and take another kick in or stand up for themselves against all that wish to have a go.
As for the first part of your question that is for my Branch and its members to instruct it`s Reps and shall remain Branch business until such time as it is posted to the CWU as a whole.
Oh and the "is this a peaceful protest?" bit I don’t get. Are you saying you wish for unpaid workers to do our paid work for JSA and are happy to go along with it? Protest is the wrong word for this issue at this moment as that may come later! This is away of informing workers how to inform their representatives of our wishes and aspirations and what they "WILL DO FOR THE MEMBERSHIP." This time no CWU member on RMC should say it was forced on them by others and they had no choice but to follow instructions as they have been given the tools to have their say.

[dvbuk55]

To support the deployment the following Joint Statement has been agreed.

“Royal Mail has committed to participate in a new government initiative to offer young people the opportunity to gain valuable work experience within a business, which will have a positive impact upon their confidence, their employability and their future prospects. Following full consultation on the detail of the initiative the CWU are pleased to support the Royal Mail Work Experience Programme and would encourage our representatives and members to ensure that the Work Experience participants placement with Royal Mail is a positive experience that will reconnect them to the world of work.”

That doesn't sound ambiguous to me random, in fact it is quite the opposite. If the CWU was against the scheme they should "grow a pair" as is often quoted and say so and make sure that all members and branches are aware of their opposition to the scheme. Does anyone believe that this is a good thing in the rank and file, the PEC, Area and Div Reps............ I mean if they ever had a job and wanted to be "reconnected" to the world of work I would imagine they would like to be reconnected to a payroll.

[randompostman]

"and would encourage our representatives and members " That does not sound like CWU representatives and members will do as they are told. Still members have a choice to do something about or not, it is up to them.

[POSTMAN]

We need a test case,one comes in,the WPC says feck that,the mentor says feck that,our colleagues say feck that...

[fishtank]

Did I say Branch had any input into this?

The CWU Union branch,---------------------------------------------------------------------------- resolves:

Maybe i misunderstood that

First of all let me make myself clear,as i've said before i have no intention of co-operating with this scheme,neither do any of the other reps in my unit or the workplace coach or in fact the members,if that brings us into conflict with Branch or HQ which i fully expect....so be it,nothing new there.

However we are well aware that what we are doing is in direct conflict with the position that HQ and Royal Mail are taking and as such is in breach of Rule 4.
Do we care?...not particularly but if there are any Branches out there who will take this position as a Branch i would like to hear about it especially whether they intend to give guidance to their reps to boycott the scheme.
Peaceful Protest was a kind way of saying are branches going to bottle it,say how terrible it is but ultimately do nothing of substance and toe the national line....which i suspect many of them will do.