FORCED VOLUNTEERING & THE WORK PROGRAMME

SLAVE LABOUR & 'WORK FOR YOUR DOLE' SCHEMES

"TAMESIDE VOLUNTEER CENTRE WILL NOT BE CO-OPERATING WITH THE WORK PROGRAMME SO LONG AS THE VOLUNTEERING ELEMENT CONTINUES TO BE COMPULSORY."

On the 27th March 2012 I sent an email to:

Sue Vickers: Director of Volunteer Centre Tameside (VCT)

Tony Okotie: CEO of Tameside 3rd Sector Coalition (T3SC)

Ben Gilchrist (T3SC Policy & Participation Manager)

Cllr. David Sweeton

Cllr. Dorothy Cartwright

Cllr. Eileen Shorrock

Cllr. Kieran Quinn (Leader of Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council)

SUBJECT:

Forced Volunteering and the Work Programme - Slave labour and 'work for your dole' schemes

On the 2nd April I received reply from Tony Okotie informing me that "Sue Vickers will be responding to you on this as the Director of Volunteer Centre Tameside and partner organisation in CVAT that is leading on volunteering issues."

Community & Voluntary Action Tameside (CVAT) is the new umbrella organisation formed/forming from the merger of T3SC and VCT. Despite this ongoing merger I was surprised that Tony Okotie passed the buck to Sue Vickers. I'd hoped for a response from both organisations. Still, I am not surprised at the positive response from VCT and the avoidance by T3SC. I'd already made verbal inquries of VCT and was now seeking a written response that would confirm these positive findings.

http://www.tamesidevb.org.uk/volunteers.php

However, T3SC have not made plain their position on this issue! Yes, I fully accept that VCT are the body dealing with volunteers, but T3SC are the other Voluntary Sector Organisation in Tameside. They deal with volunteers in community groups. But because both organisations are combining forces I am concerned to know which organisations ethics will prevail! I sincerely hope it will be VCT! T3SC have largely remained silent on the matter. I've criticised T3SC on many matters and there seeming lack of bottle! I begin to wonder if the organisation has any guts at all!

Now follows the positive response received from Volunteer Centre Tameside which contains excerpts from my original email which you can read in full immediately after this email from Sue Vickers, the Director of Volunteer Centre Tameside and acting on behalf of CVAT.


----- Original Message -----

Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:04 AM
From: Sue Vickers
To: Steve Starlord; Tony Okotie (T3SC)
Cc: Derek Pattison (TUWA); Katy Robinson; Ben Stoddard (VCT)
Subject: Work Programme

Volunteer Centre Tameside,

95-97 Penny Meadow,

Ashton-under-Lyne,

OL6 6EP.

Dear Starlord,

I am sorry for the delay in replying to your email. At a meeting of the VCT board last year it was agreed that the organisation would only engage with the work programme (JobCentre+ and prime/sub-contractors) if the “volunteering” element was truly optional and was not a mandatory  position.

VCT would agree with your statement

"I am very concerned about this Government's anti-volunteering strategy under the WORK PROGRAMME where the DWP/Jobcentre's and Prime Providers and sub-Prime providers/contractors will be forcing/coercing many of the unemployed, especially the young under 25-year-olds, into working for Private sector and Third Sector and Public Sector organisations - ie what are fast becoming known as 'work for your dole' schemes."

VCT have actively campaigned through our National organisation “Volunteering England”  against the use of volunteering and volunteers in this work programme.

Can your organisation give assurances that they WILL NOT be co-operating with this scheme.

Yes, I can give assurances that we will not be co-operating  with the Work programme as long as the Volunteering element continues to be compulsory.

When this is enforced slave labour and 'work for your dole' such as unemployed community chain gangs, then this is completely unacceptable. Do you agree?

Yes, I agree.

How will you differentiate between volunteers who come to you freely of their own volition, and those volunteers referred to you from the Jobcentre or one of their brethren?

We have developed our own ways of differentiating between prospective volunteers. Those who have been sent by the Job Centre are given a letter to take back to the Job Centre explaining our position.

Please see below copies of letters from Volunteering England and Chris Grayling MP.
[Though she says letters I found but a single letter appended.]

I hope this provides adequate response to your questions.
Regards
Sue Vickers on behalf of CVAT

21 October 2011

Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP
Minister for Work and Pensions
Department for Work and Pensions
Caxton House
Tothill Street
London
SW1H 9DA. 

Dear Mr Grayling

Work Programme

I am writing to you regarding the practice of a Work Programme prime provider that has recently been brought to my attention. One of our members was approached by a private sector provider and asked to provide volunteers to help deliver one of its projects to prepare clients for employment.

We are concerned about this because we believe that volunteers should never be considered as ‘free labour’ or a replacement for paid staff. They have a unique role in adding value, complementing the work of employees and bringing benefits to the community. In this case, the organisation seems to be seeking to involve volunteers for no other reason than to reduce its costs.

The involvement of volunteers in this way has the potential to undermine the unique value of volunteering and damage the image of volunteering at a time when it has a higher profile than ever. I would appreciate knowing your thoughts on this issue.

We were made aware of this latest development during the course of investigations into reports that some Work Programme providers are directing their clients to Volunteer Centres without any prior approach or formal relationship in place. We recently briefed Gareth Davies at the Office for Civil Society on this matter, and I have enclosed the briefing for your information.

Yours sincerely

Mike Locke

Senior Policy & Information Manager

Briefing on Work Programme and Work Together

Work Programme

1. A number of Volunteer Centres have responded to approaches from Work Programme providers (or their clients) by speaking to the provider about establishing a formal contractual relationship for support and brokerage. In many cases the provider has been unwilling to enter into such a relationship, hoping to send their clients to the Volunteer Centre for free.

2. Volunteer Centres exist to support anyone who is interested in volunteering. However, greater resource is required to support someone who does not have an interest in volunteering but believes they have been told they must volunteer. As with Jobcentre Plus referrals, they are less likely to be volunteering ready, requiring one-to-one support and training.

3. Some Volunteer Centres have expressed surprise that Work Programme providers are advising their clients to seek their services without an associated payment when the providers will be paid for helping someone back into work. They are concerned that this is not in line with the DWP Merlin Standards.

4. This situation must be seen in the light of other developments that are having an impact on Volunteer Centres. Many have seen their funding decrease and enquires rise. 12 of 15 Volunteer Centres recently visited said that they have seen an increase in referrals from Jobcentre Plus.

5. Volunteering England is concerned that an unwillingness on the part of Work Programme providers to enter into a contractual relationship in these cases could  

• a. have a negative impact on the image of the Get Britain Working initiative;  
• b. undermine the work that has been done between DWP, OCS, Jobcentre Plus and Volunteer Centres prior to and as a result of Work Together; and  
• c. breach the conditions of the DWP Merlin Standards.  

Merlin Standards

6. Volunteering England asked its contacts at DWP for an opinion on whether or not this represents a breach of the Merlin Standards. DWP said that as Merlin is an independently assessed standard, it would not be appropriate for it to pre-judge the assessments that will be carried out within the next year.

7. Under the Merlin Standards, a prime contractor must demonstrate “that its procurement processes are fair and transparent” and “that funding arrangements are fair, proportionate and do not cause undue financial risk for supply chain partners”. It is clear that Work Programme providers see Volunteer Centres as useful in meeting the objectives for which they will be remunerated under their DWP contract.

8. Volunteering England is investigating ways in which feedback from Volunteer Centres can be fed into the Marlin Standards assessment process.

Work Programme prospectus

9. There may be a distinction between Work Programme clients being merely signposted – rather than referred - by their adviser to Volunteer Centres as a potential source of support. However, the Work Programme prospectus does state that participants in the Work Programme “must undertake the activities specified by their adviser.”

10. The Work Programme prospectus also states that “Jobcentre Plus will help people to volunteer, do work experience or take advantage of peer-to-peer support before they enter the Work Programme”, citing Work Clubs and Work Together as initiatives in this regard. This raises questions of whether simply signposting someone to a Volunteer Centre is the appropriate approach for a Work Programme provider.

Tel: 0161 339 2345

www.tamesidevb.org.uk

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 1:42 AM

From: Steve Starlord

To: Tony Okotie (T3SC); Sue Vickers (VCT)

Cc: Derek Pattison (TUWA); Katy Robinson

Subject: Fw: Forced Volunteering and the Work Programme - Slave labour and 'work for your dole' schemes

Tony Okotie & Sue Vickers,

Approaching 2 months since I sent this email to you Tony.

I've yet to hear anything from anyone let alone Sue Vickers!

Love, Light & Laughter

Starlord

Tameside Unemployed Worker's Alliance (TUWA)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----

Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 6:22 PM

From: Tony Okotie

To: Steve Starlord

Subject: RE: Forced Volunteering and the Work Programme - Slave labour and 'work for your dole' schemes

Starlord

Sue Vickers will be responding to you on this as the Director of Volunteer Centre Tameside and partner organisation in CVAT that is leading on volunteering issues.

Regards

Tony Okotie

Chief Executive

Tameside Third Sector Coalition

131 Katherine Street

Ashton-under-Lyne

OL6 7AW

Tel: 0161 339 4985 x2023

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----

Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 5:06 PM

From: Steve Starlord

To: Tony Okotie (T3SC)

Cc: Derek Pattison (TUWA) ; Katy Robinson

Subject: Fw: Forced Volunteering and the Work Programme - Slave labour and 'work for your dole' schemes

Hi Tony,

Re: your recent separate email.

I said I would respond to the specific emails referenced separately.

----- Original Message -----

From: Tony Okotie

To: Steve Starlord

Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 9:00 AM

Subject: RE: Comment Received for Website Blog

Starlord

I am just back from leave. I have not received a comment via the blog from you. I did receive a very long email from you (which I have attached) about mandatory volunteering. Is this the email you are referring to? We will respond to this in due course. The comment facility on the blog is specifically to allow people to respond / comment on specific blog articles. I also received another email from you on 23/3 (again, attached) which I did respond to, asking what the email was about – it isn't clear.

Regards

Tony Okotie

I did not receive a response to this email which was about average length by my standards.

I consider emails to be letters and treat them as such.

I received a standard read-receipt.

I suspect this to be the email to which you refer when you say: "we will respond to this in due course".

Good!

Love, Light & Laughter

Starlord

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 3:55 PM
From: Steve Starlord
To: Ben Gilchrist (T3SC P&PM) ; Sue Vickers (VCT) ; Tony Okotie (T3SC) ; Cllr. David Sweeton ; Cllr. Dorothy Cartwright ; Cllr. Eileen Shorrock ; Cllr. Kieran Quinn
Cc: Be Dazzled ; John Bevan (DERA) ; Katy Robinson ; Derek Pattison (TUWA)
Subject: Forced Volunteering and the Work Programme - Slave labour and 'work for your dole' schemes

Dear VCT, T3SC, CAVAT & TMBC,

I am very concerned about this Government's anti-volunteering strategy under the WORK PROGRAMME where the DWP/Jobcentre's and Prime Providers and sub-Prime providers/contractors will be forcing/coercing many of the unemployed, especially the young under 25-year-olds, into working for Private sector and Third Sector and Public Sector organisations - ie what are fast becoming known as 'work for your dole' schemes.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/

Can your organisation give assurances that they WILL NOT be co-operating with this scheme.

Tameside Unemployed Worker's Alliance (TUWA), a local voluntary community group are opposed to such measures and we hope you are too!

We have no objection whatsoever to the unemployed freely giving their time to contribute to the community. That, after all, is the true nature of volunteering. That it is done freely from the heart because one cares, and not because one is being forced.

When this is enforced slave labour and 'work for your dole' such as unemployed community chain gangs, then this is completely unacceptable. Do you agree?

This includes the Government's Mandatory Work Programme. The Work Experience scheme has been much in the media of late and Chris Grayling has been squirming somewhat and has been forced to say he/they shall be re-writing some of the relevant legislation to make this volunteering element abundantly clear, and that any participating unemployed person can now leave the scheme at any time without incurring a benefit sanction.

However, though this Work Experience scheme is itself not mandatory/compulsory, non-compliance is met soon after with a placement on the Mandatory Work Programme itself which is compulsory. So, in effect, if you don't volunteer you will be forced to do so later under another similar scheme! That is something the Public and Voluntary sector need to be made well aware of. Many unemployed will be coming your way with the appearance of having volunteered. Many will have been coerced and really don't want to be there.

How will you differentiate between volunteers who come to you freely of their own volition, and those volunteers referred to you from the Jobcentre or one of their brethren?

So Chris Grayling is being disingenuous to put it mildly when he speaks about such matters. Of course, he will say, and does say, that such matters are left to the discretion of individual Jobcentre Officers who, simply because they suspect someone is not looking for work properly, and despite evidence to the contrary, can force them onto a work for their dole scheme for otherwise their benefit will be stopped.

Under the forthcoming Universal Credit it is unclear whether this will also include Housing Benefit such that the unemployed person will become almost instantly homeless as well, and intentionally so for non-payment of rent! RSL's like New Charter will be placed in a difficult position having to take unemployed tenants to court for non-payment of rent, but I doubt very much the courts will evict such tenants and so RSL's will not get their rent and the tenant will stay free of charge, even if starving to death. But I would not be surprised if such results in increasing crime in Tameside. After all I would never condemn a starving man for stealing a loaf of bread! Would you?

How can we tell the difference between the very long term unemployed (defined as 2 years) forced to carry out 6 months community work under the 'Community Action Programme' (CAP) and convicted criminals doing same under 'Community Payback'? Surely this is little more than criminalisation of the unemployed? Do you agree? In fact one may as well commit crime for the punishment is the same anyway! "CAP work experience placements must deliver a contribution to the local community and must not displace what would otherwise be paid jobs."

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wp-cap-1.pdf

I've just set-up a Tameside Unemployed Worker's Alliance (TUWA) Facebook 'Group' and Facebook 'Page' linked to my personal Facebook account. Unfortunately you cannot access these links unless you are a Facebook member. That's one of the many drawbacks of being on Facebook. It's an exclusive part of the internet!

https://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100000535948822

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/20/jobseekers-work-experience-compulsory-unpaid?fb=native
"A spokeswoman for the Department for Work and Pensions strongly rejected that mandatory placements would be used as a sanction, but said they could be offered in circumstances where advisers felt they were appropriate. In a statement, it was stressed that such referrals were not automatic."It is not the case that claimants who do not volunteer for work experience would automatically be referred to mandatory work activity," it said. "Jobcentre Plus advisers have the flexibility to use mandatory work activity, where they feel it is appropriate, as part of a wider range of support options. The decision to refer a claimant to mandatory work activity is taken on a case-by-case basis and claimants are only referred to the scheme where it is appropriate in their individual circumstances."Speaking with regard to individuals being placed on mandatory programmes after just a few weeks of unemployment, the spokeswoman said: "We have said that we expect most referrals to mandatory work activity will be for claimants who have been unemployed for 13 weeks or more. However, we have not ruled out the possibility that some claimants may be referred before this point where Jobcentre Plus advisers consider this to be appropriate in their individual case." 

My highlights! The approach taken by Jobcentre Plus officers is entirely subjective and not evidence based!

I have much experience of dealing with Jobcentre staff. I can assure you that some of them are nasty pieces of work and extremely prejudiced and judgmental in their dealings with the unemployed. I have acted as representative at meetings advising unemployed people of their rights during the interview process. I call such staff 'dragons' and I've had many battles with such over the years. It seems that a slight disagreement, or a personal prejudicial dislike, is all that it will now take for a sanction to be applied, even if one is complying precisely with the conditions stated in the so-called Jobseeker's Agreement, which by the way is to be re-named with the word agreement removed! Agreement was very far from the reality in the first place for a disagreement would result in a benefit suspension pending a slow appeals procedure effectively starving one into agreement! The only option was to agree and then to appeal to have it overturned, which because one had signed and agreed made it all the more difficult!

When is an agreement not an agreement?

When it's a Job Seeker's Agreement, of course!

Thank you

Love, Light & Laughter

Starlord

Tameside Unemployed Worker's Alliance (TUWA)