Judges declare UK Workfare Slavery Illegal

[JihadJane]

A rare piece of good news from Tory Apocalypse UK:

Back-to-work scheme breached laws, says Court of Appeal

A university graduate has won a legal challenge on appeal, claiming that a government scheme forces people to work without pay.

Cait Reilly, 24, claimed that requiring her to work for free at a Poundland store breached laws banning slavery and forced labour.

The University of Birmingham geology graduate lost her original case at the High Court, but has now won on appeal.

Her solicitors said this could have major implications for jobseekers.

Three judges in London ruled that the regulations under which most of the government's back-to-work schemes were created were unlawful and quashed them.

...

"All of those who have been stripped of their benefits have a right to claim the money back that has been unlawfully taken away from them."

 

[Sam.I.Am]

"Workfare slavery"?

No agenda there. Nope. Not at all. Completely honest and balanced view of the situation. I applaud you for that.

 

[Nessie]

The only people who should have to work for free are those doing community service punishments.

It is a very mixed up system that has some doing sweet FA on benefits and others have to work for nothing.

 

[JihadJane]

An interesting, clarifying comment from a Guardian reader (RichJames
12 February 2013 11:54am)

'Graduate's Poundland victory leaves government work schemes in tatters
Court backs Cait Reilly's claim, with judges ruling that work and pensions secretary acted unlawfully over unpaid work':

The full ruling is here, for anybody interested.
It says plainly:
"Since the central purpose was to impose “requirements” on claimants, with sanctions for failure to comply, I agree that the Regulations must be quashed".
But it's important to note the following, which is the real crux of the today's ruling:
"The judge drew attention, at paragraphs 44 to 48 of his judgment, to the concern expressed in its 29th Report by the House of Lords Select Committee on the merits of statutory instruments. It referred to the lack of an adequate level of information in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the 2011 Regulations. At paragraph 10, it was stated that “these regulations interpret the Act very broadly so that future changes to the Scheme could be made administratively without any reference to Parliament.” The Committee did not suggest that the Regulations were unlawful but I regard their concern as supportive of the conclusion I have reached
This is a long-winded way of saying that the government created regulations which would enable it to bypass Parliament - effectively putting itself above the law.
It is overstating matters to say that the Court of Appeal declared workfare schemes to be forced labour: they haven't. What they have done is declared the Job Seeker's Allowance regulations Iain Duncan Smith created in 2009 [2011] to be unlawful. Given that the government's immediate response was to draft new regulations, they clearly knew their own actions were unlawful - and have been for four years. That should be the focus here; but I suspect will be largely ignored.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Apparently, the media are reporting this all wrong. She did win the case, but not on the grounds of human rights and slavery. She won on a more limited technicality. I'll find a link shortly.

 

[JihadJane]

"Workfare slavery"?

No agenda there. Nope. Not at all. Completely honest and balanced view of the situation. I applaud you for that.

Thanks. A little bit of unvarnished truth and honesty goes a long way, doesn't it, Sam.I.Am?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Apparently, the media are reporting this all wrong. She did win the case, but not on the grounds of human rights and slavery. She won on a more limited technicality. I'll find a link shortly.

From a quick perusal of the judgement it seems to be because the penalties for not participating were not made sufficiently clear.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

The basis for the decision was that the regulations exceeded the powers given to the secretary of state by statute, and there was no objection to the workfare scheme in principle.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

From a quick perusal of the judgement it seems to be because the penalties for not participating were not made sufficiently clear.

That seems to be the case.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

The only people who should have to work for free are those doing community service punishments.

I agree 100%

It is a very mixed up system that has some doing sweet FA on benefits and others have to work for nothing.

I don't know what you mean by FA.

For me the idea is that if you are on (as you guys put it) benefits and you cannot find work then you work for the government at low level positions in return for the benefits that you receive. In other words you are not working for free but for a set wage. If you don't like the wage or the work then look for something that pays more and that you like and work your way up. It takes time and it's not going to be easy but everyone who has worked hard for their wage knows that the food that it buys tastes better than the food that was given to you for essentially nothing, or at least the people with a sense of self respect do.

 

[JihadJane]

For me the idea is that if you are on (as you guys put it) benefits and you cannot find work then you work for the government at low level positions in return for the benefits that you receive. In other words you are not working for free but for a set wage. If you don't like the wage or the work then look for something that pays more and that you like and work your way up. It takes time and it's not going to be easy but everyone who has worked hard for their wage knows that the food that it buys tastes better than the food that was given to you for essentially nothing, or at least the people with a sense of self respect do.

Romantic, reactionary rubbish.

There is a minimum wage law in the UK.

Good to know that you support forced labour, though, not to mention wage slavery.

 

[JihadJane]

I don't know what you mean by FA.

It mean "Have sex" All., i.e. Nessie, after in-depth research into the lives of people on benefits, knows that they spend their days doing absolutely nothing. His statement, in other words, is bigoted toss.

 

[Nessie]

It mean "Have sex" All., i.e. Nessie, after in-depth research into the lives of people on benefits, knows that they spend their days doing absolutely nothing. His statement, in other words, is bigoted toss.

I agree.

 

[JihadJane]

'Workfare Is Broken! New Court Ruling and Charity Exodus Are Death Knell For Forced Labour!'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Legal clarification from 'Public Interest Lawyer (UK and International Law)':

'Court of Appeal Rules that the Government’s “Back to Work” Regulations are Unlawful and Must Be Quashed'

The result is that over the past two years the Government has unlawfully required tens of thousands of unemployed people to work without pay and unlawfully stripped thousands more of their subsistence benefits.

 

[Doctor Plop]

Good for Cait Reilly; she's gone from slaving in Poundland to having tens of thousands of friends with benefits.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Romantic, reactionary rubbish.

There is a minimum wage law in the UK.

Good to know that you support forced labour, though, not to mention wage slavery.

Note that I never said that the hours should go under minimum wage laws or sidestep whatever govt regulations cover that particular job. I said that the people on benefits should earn them instead of sitting on their butts collecting them with no payback in personal time. Time is what someone has plenty of if they aren't working or looking for a steady job.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Note that I never said that the hours should go under minimum wage laws or sidestep whatever govt regulations cover that particular job. I said that the people on benefits should earn them instead of sitting on their butts collecting them with no payback in personal time. Time is what someone has plenty of if they aren't working or looking for a steady job.

One of the claimants had to cancel a voluntary work placement she had arranged for herself at a local museum to improve her work prospects in order to go and work at poundland - which likely would do sweet FA for her work prospects.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

One of the claimants had to cancel a voluntary work placement she had arranged for herself at a local museum to improve her work prospects in order to go and work at poundland - which likely would do sweet FA for her work prospects.

That would have to do with paid versus unpaid internships, no? That's a tweak to the system and not a condemnation of the system as a whole.

I don't live there so perhaps I'm missing something but I'm willing to learn.

And FA means **** all. Right?

 

[Manger Douse]

That would have to do with paid versus unpaid internships, no? That's a tweak to the system and not a condemnation of the system as a whole.

I don't live there so perhaps I'm missing something but I'm willing to learn.

And FA means **** all. Right?

My problem with the system as a whole is that if you were employed as a shelf stacker at Poundland then you'd probably loose your job to someone on this scheme who Poundland would get for free.

Your correct about the FA thing BTW

 

[Darat]

Note that I never said that the hours should go under minimum wage laws or sidestep whatever govt regulations cover that particular job. I said that the people on benefits should earn them instead of sitting on their butts collecting them with no payback in personal time. Time is what someone has plenty of if they aren't working or looking for a steady job.

If the jobs (that you think those wanting to claim benefits should do) exist surely someone else would already be employed in that job?