How Legal is the UK New Deal for Employment?

The New Deal breaks several of the human Rights Laws but who do you suggest taking them to court because I cant afford it and any suggestion this liberal lot on here doing anything for the unemployed, well you have just got to be kidding, the Welfare Reform Bill hardly registered a squeak. Even the events around the privatisation of Housing and subsequent legislation has hardly had a word said about it.

The Department of Work & Pensions it will be argued is in the first instance in breach of Contract Law, in which it clearly states that both parties must agree on terms without the use of Threat. At the start of claiming welfare benefits it is immediately stated that should you not sign the 'Job Seekers Agreement' you will not receive welfare.


The New Deal

The contention here is that being placed onto the new deal is a modern form of slavery, it being argued that it is in breach of the 1930 Forced Labour Convention of the International Labour Organisation to which the UK is a signatory.

The Convention defines forced labour as meaning "all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily".

Also under article No. 105 Abolition of Forced Labour Convention (1957), it prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of 'Political Coercion or Education', punishment for the expression of political or ideological views, workforce mobilization, labour discipline, punishment for participation in strikes, or discrimination.

Descriptions and materials on welfare to work options include political objectives. As the new Deal has developed education has become a factor in which claimants are forced to endure at the cost of repeated attendance if failure occurs or if refusal to comply with directives happen claimants rights to welfare are suspended.

Claimants selected for the scheme will become homeless and destitute unless they perform the required educational service/labour and are always reminded of this. This therefore cannot be classified as a "voluntary" agreement to work and far from being an argument for the betterment of the claimant the present schemes is based on a form of servitude.

New Deal in Breach of Human Rights

The criticism that the New Deal is also in breach of several Articles can be verified by reading the Human Rights Act.

Article 4(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights (prohibition of forced labour) Article 5 (prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment)
Article 22 (every member has a right to social security)
Article 25 (right to security in the event of unemployment)
Article 26(2) Education shall be directed to strengthen respect of human rights

Firstly I want to make it clear that posting this does not mean I agree with the morality of it, having campaigned against New Deal and mandation of various initiatives as a PCS Union representative.

legally, the Government has got themselves pretty well covered on this and I've never spotted much of a possible loophole. Leaving aside appeals against the decision to sanction benefits for alleged misconduct on training courses, non participation etc. which are a different part of the process, once the decision has been made the personal allowance of the Benefit in question is ended.

However, if it is a means testes benefit (Income Support, Income based Jobseekers Allowance) the person can apply for hardship, so what ends up happening if they receive a reduced rate of the benefit rate they previously got (usually 60% or 80%), and they remain to other "additional" resulting entitlements, which includes things like Housing Benefits.

So Theoretically the person is not being forced into homelessness because their rent is still paid.

Realistically is of course another matter, since the person has even less chance than before of being able to cover utility bills, water charges, service charges or similar so may end up not being forced into homelessness anyway. But of course that doesn't hold up in court.

So morally it's wrong, and is little more in many cases than a form of bonded labour but legally, as far as anyone has ever been able to establish, the Government has their arses well and truly covered.

If you want to campaign on something around the issue, then get yourself involved campaigning against the back to work services currently handled by the Civil Servants in Jobcentre Plus offices being handed over to the voluntary or so-called "Third Sector" because then the people are also going to have to cope with dodgy church charities ramming down their throats what they need to do for the organisations imaginary deity of choice to help them find a job, or dig out the old begging bowl to pick up any scraps that fall from the table of the private profiteers who are already rubbing their grubby mitts in glee about how much money they could possibly cream off through using even harsher measures than already exist.

Fight for Public Services and against their handing over for Private profit or what we have at the minute will seem like the golden era compared to what we'll end up with!

 http://www.publicnotprivate.org.uk/

Thanks for that terrarech, they are going to love me in the job centre next week. :-)

firstly minor point, but a4e is not a government programme, it is a private company who run some aspects of the new deal in some parts of tghe country. in other parts it is run by reed plc, manpower and other private companies

DWP, you are wrong to attack the so called third sector, the truth is that most voluntary sector organisations (who have been running governments contracts for over 20 years) and are non-profit making and often unionised have been forced oput in favour of the aforementioned private sector companies a4e, reed and manpower

the third sector organisations you speak of were usually small scale, community led initiatives which were originally started as projects to help empower and support the local community and were the only balance against DWP staff who are notorious in their lack of regard and disgraceful treatment of unemployed people

of course Reed and manpower feel the same way and it is them who along with the dwp have pushed for benefit sanctions

the government has never provided specialist services for the homeless, people with drug/alcohol problems. border mental health issues and quite frankly its a good fucking thing because the third sector has been engaged in a running battle with the state to stop thiose groups from being completely fucked over

i was one of them, who when working for a thrid sector organisation running a project for homeless people had constant battles with very senior people from the DWP who tbh didnt give a shit about the punters and just wanted to see people off benefit

so fight government contracts going to the private sector agreed, and to any faith based charities (which is a very new development) but remember that the third sector includes locally managed and run community centres, homeless drop ins, advice agency etc who, being part of the community and working from a more bottem up perspective, do a far better job of it than the state ever could

Welsh Andy - don’t go rushing down to the Jobcentre just yet.

terratech - I’m going to deal with your posting in full. Se also my comments at the end of this posting.

“The Department of Work & Pensions it will be argued is in the first instance in breach of Contract Law, in which it clearly states that both parties must agree on terms without the use of Threat. At the start of claiming welfare benefits it is immediately stated that should you not sign the 'Job Seekers Agreement' you will not receive welfare.”

Simply put, the Jobseeker has the choice of not choosing to enter into this contract and will not be forced to do so. It means they won’t receive any benefit, but nonetheless they have the choice not to enter into the contract in the first place so this runs straight down a legal dead end.

“The contention here is that being placed onto the new deal is a modern form of slavery, it being argued that it is in breach of the 1930 Forced Labour Convention of the International Labour Organisation to which the UK is a signatory. The Convention defines forced labour as meaning "all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily"

The person has entered voluntarily into the conditions attached to signing the Jobseekers Agreement, so it’s not in breach of this.

“Also under article No. 105 Abolition of Forced Labour Convention (1957), it prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of 'Political Coercion or Education', punishment for the expression of political or ideological views, workforce mobilization, labour discipline, punishment for participation in strikes, or discrimination. Descriptions and materials on welfare to work options include political objectives. As the new Deal has developed education has become a factor in which claimants are forced to endure at the cost of repeated attendance if failure occurs or if refusal to comply with directives happen claimants rights to welfare are suspended.”

Sorry but that is nonsense. I have no idea what you are classing as “political objectives” here, but if you think that helping (allegedly) people back into work is a political objective then there is not a single function of Government which doesn’t fall under this. Even anarchists wouldn’t try and use the definition this loosely.

“Claimants selected for the scheme will become homeless and destitute unless they perform the required educational service/labour and are always reminded of this. This therefore cannot be classified as a "voluntary" agreement to work and far from being an argument for the betterment of the claimant the present schemes is based on a form of servitude.”

See my earlier reply

“New Deal in Breach of Human Rights
The criticism that the New Deal is also in breach of several Articles can be verified by reading the Human Rights Act.”

I’ll deal with the articles cited one by one…

“Article 4(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights (prohibition of forced labour) Article 5 (prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment)”

Article 4(2) can’t be used because as previously stated no person is forced to sign a Jobseekers Agreement - or for that matter claim any Social Security Benefits (to do so would be to deny them their freedom of choice).

“Article 22 (every member has a right to social security)”
“Article 25 (right to security in the event of unemployment)”
“Article 26(2) Education shall be directed to strengthen respect of human rights”
Terratech

None of the three Articles cited above exist within the Human Rights Act. In the European Convention of Human Rights Articles 22, 25 and 26 all relate to the establishment and make up of the European Commission on Human Rights. Can you source these? I have my doubts that the right to Social Security will actually exist in and framework document around Human Rights in the first place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve got no doubt that you are sincere in despising the whole principle of “The New Deal” and other such policies that are a lot more stick than carrot, but principles unfortunately don’t hold up very well in Court, especially since the entire Justice system is heavily weighted against the working classes of the country. I completely share those principles and have campaigned along those lines, including having written several motions on the general area which have been adopted as policy by the PCS Union, which is itself the civil service union.

However, working in the civil service also gives a very good insight into how difficult it is to find small legal loopholes in Government legislation in these types of anti working class measures.

As a dyed in the wool Socialist I’ve gained an understanging is that you will never bring down the machinery of the state through legal channels, especially when you consider that the areas you have to argue have been breached have all been written by that same machinery of state you’re attempting to use it against. The only way to bring down that machinery is through campaigning for mass action from the working classes against it.

I don’t often post on Indy media - usually only when there has been a mass movement to give a report on, so the most recent was the Strike action on 1 May this year. Other than that, I find there’s not really enough debate since most people agree on the big issues here. This one just happened to catch my eye so I thought I’d argue from the other side of where my principles are, because the best way to win an argument is to know what the other side is going to use against you. I generally hone my debating at  http://greatworlddebate.net/gwdsmf/index.php which is a smallish, friendly message board with mainly US/UK members and a broad political range, and it’s a good place to test the water with ideas.

Sorry if that all sounds patronising since it’s not meant to be, I just strongly believe in the use of strategy and tactics to target campaigning action, as just campaigning on a principled stand doesn’t achieve anything in itself.

Hi,

A very long reply, comment, views


A very good article and excellent replies, its very rare on Indymedia uk, to see articles about working class issues such as this and never on the centre column. Historically, issues like New Deal, basically very coercive 'cheap labour programmes which as Riotact mentions are making millions for people like Emma Harrison of A4E and other large third sector training companies, have totally been ignored by activists and the wider left,Sadly, however bad it is it now for disabled people and the unemployed and , it is going to get much worse for a number of reasons. The first is that the the Welfare Reform Bill has received royal assent and is now The Welfare Reform Act 2007(WRA), This cruel and draconian Act will see disabled people threatened with significant loss of benefits, forced into unsuitable work, New Deal for the Disabled Programmes or even medical interventions, an ever more intrusive and brutal welfare regime and the threat of losing homes as housing benefit in the private rented sector is replaced by a fixed rate allowance for each city. Single parents are also to be targeted by the Act(1). The Act has been considered by many, rushed, prejudiced and ‘short on detail’, the Govt also ignored the many submissions to its consultation’s which were critical of the Bill. Further, much of the leglisation will be enacted by what is called secondary leglislation: that is behind closed doors and often influenced by unaccountable civil servants

‘In 2008, Incapacity Benefit (IB) will be replaced by a two tier Employment and Support Allowance. ‘Customers’ who fail to participate in work-focused interviews or to engage in work related activity will lose benefits. With current levels of IB averaging £6500 per annum, claimants could lose as much as £10.93 a week rising to £21.86 for a second refusal. Jim Murphy, Minister of State for Employment and Welfare Reform was blunt : ‘Work is the only way out of poverty... the benefit system will never pay of itself enough to lift people out of poverty] and I don’t think it should.’’

(1)Details of Act:  http://www.disabilityalliance.org/ibchange.htm
(2) http://www.compassonline.org.uk/article.asp?n=563

This nasty and draconian Bill has largely been supported by all the main parties, though hardly debated in parliament, which must raise question about a political process that ignores the concerns of millions of vulnerable people.


The second thing to be concerned about are the proposals in the Freud Review,This review of welfare was commissioned by Tony Blair and endorsed by Gordon Brown and undertaken by contreversial investment banker David Freud, some of the proposals include:

*Single parents with children aged over 11 will have to seek jobs or else face potential benefit sanctions,

*increased privatisation with private employment companies offered bounties if they can keep claimants, whether lone parents or others such as those on incapacity benefit, in work for at least three years. Claimants would lose benefits if they left a brokered job before that time

*‘Intensive mentoring’ by involved agencies which could mean advisers pressuring claimants by constantly ringing them up at up home or even visiting them in their homes.

*Greater use of private and voluntary sector resources and expertise so harder-to-help benefit claimants receive more employment support.This may mean religious charities and other faith groups running welfare similar to Mission Australia in Oz who now run the whole welfare system
with all that entails.

From this perspective: welfare will be run akin to high pressure sales teams where putative Willie Lomax’s (Death Of A Salesman) but now with God on their side, will aspire to ‘reach their targets’ their target being disabled people, single mothers and the unemployed again forced into work or training. One very worrying ‘incentive’ in this review towards an ‘activist’ welfare system is the notion that if you leave a job which these ‘proactive agencies’ have procured you before three years, you can lose your right to benefits, yes, three years, they can come after you after that long.(3)

(3)Welfare Reform: The ‘unthinkable’ may be about to happen
20 Mar 2007  http://www.swansheffield.org.uk/

With all these 'reforms' its clear we are now rapidly moving to a US style ruthless, maximum surveillance, minimal and privatized welfare system where the individual is blamed for their incapacity/poverty, etc. Further, as EX DWP points out however bad people on benefits have been treated by the DWP, etc, in the past , the new totally privatised regime would be much worse. It is also clear that the coming clamp down on low skill migration means as Hutton has made plain, that it will be disabled people, single parents, etc, who will fill these jobs, no matter what their educational level.

Left to fight alone?

However, sadly, there has been little or no response to these awful changes from the left, civil society, etc, the small under-resourced welfare campaign groups, like the Campaign Against The Welfare Reform bill, Sheffield Welfare Action Network , Welfare Reform UK, have had little or no support. Indeed, while clearly there was a ‘media blackout on the Bill which left many people in the dark about its implications: with the exception of John McDonnell MP, Green Party members, some NUS officers, and a number of idividuals, the general lack of support to challenge these reforms from progressive forces of all kinds: from unions, charities, churches, M.P’s etc to the far left, anti-capitalists, etc, (exactly the sort of positive coalition that develops over internationalist issues) has been ‘disgraceful’. There have been no public meetings organized by left groups, union meetings, and faith group gatherings on the reforms. Indeed, Brendan Barber, president of the T.U.C has broadly supported the Act. Protests organized by the above claimants groups were poorly supported, by activists and the above-mentioned groups, if at all.


Basically, one can argue that disabled people and others were left to fend for themselves. Disabled people are not victims, but surely they could have expected some solidarity from those who declare they are fighting for a better world, Its clearly not a question of resources: for instance there have been numerous anti-war marches while the Act has been developed, environmental and global poverty campaigns. migrant issues for example have been energetic, well resourced and active.

The Bigger picture: welfare as big business

Imo, welfare in the U.K is an issue for all decent people: even leaving aside the notion of solidarity with those in difficulty: in an excellent article on Compass Online (and to be published in Soundings magazine): 'New Labour And The End Of Welfare, Jonathan Rutherford'
exposes the genesis of the welfare reforms and the Freud review, but also the links between the now global nature of welfare identifying global insurance companies, such as Unum Provident and the massive influence they have with all Gov'ts, etc. Welfare is now big business....(4)


(4)  http://www.compassonline.org.uk/article.asp?n=563#comments


A ‘Hierarchy of Oppression?’

Perhaps sadly, there really is a ‘hierarchy of oppression’ in
the U.K political and social culture. People on welfare and benefits, millions of people would appear to be at the bottom of that hierarchy, despite enduring humiliating and often brutal treatment. The sad thing is when the bill become law, disabled claimants will become even more isolated as all they can do is challenge the new reforms on an individual basis. Many have expressed real fears about these changes, with some individuals saying they are ‘dreading the things that are coming’

The Future
The limited amount of activists involved in the campaign against this act will be watching this legislation as it unfolds (and of course The Freud Review), bearing witness to the misery it will undoubtedly cause, hopefully progressive people on here and elsewhere will do the same and not remain silent this time.


resources

www.benefitsandwork.co.uk
sheffield welfare action network: www.swansheffield.org.uk

The claim that people have the right to choose NOT to sign a Jobseeker's contract is on the surface plausible but in actuality totally insane. Not to do so would be to make yourself destitute. And having been given the pittance you get as an emergency provision to exist on, no-one in their right mind would consider that a viable alternative.

A couple of general points I have noticed from my many years on Her Majesty's Inflation Sop to Capitalist Destruction of Communities (a.k.a state benefits) there are certain things you CAN do that will work and others that are guaranteed to make your life a misery.


1. Always be friendly, polite and APPEAR to trying to comply with their wishes. I nothing else you can extend your non-compliance for amazing stretches if you have a pleasant manner.

1b. If you act aggressively, unsympathetically, accusingly you can expect the natural human reaction of the target to shit on you from as great a height possible.

1c. If there is a problem makes sure you remove blame from yourself and the person you are dealing with. All problems are beyond the control of the person in from of you and you acknowledge they don't set the rules. It's amazing how helpful people can be when you empathise.


2. Dole courses are psychological warfare pure and simple. If you are going to be signing on for a long time, get used to the sensory deprivation. If you find yourself getting upset then try and refocus your mind on something pleasant and beyond the immediate situation.

2b Keep a low profile. The people running these courses mostly know they are a pile of shit too. If you publicly humiliate anyone they strike back one way or another. And if you are bored and frustrated doing that shit for a few weeks, then just imagine what a cess pit the head of the course supervisor must be doing it every day.

2c. Again, alway be pleasant and compliant. If they give you application forms to fill in. Then they can be easily lost in the post or forgotten about. I have never once had the dole check up on declared job applications.


3. The dole cannot make you take any job but they can make your life a misery.

3b. It is easier and more effective to go through the whole charade of job searches and applications than to make a stand. If you make a stand they will just crush you under bureaucracy (make you sign weekly, daily, generally turn up the pressure till you snap).

3c. Yes, you can refuse a job based on your beliefs, but it is far more sensible to keep such a tactic low key. If they ask you to work for MacDonoalds, say you can't because you are a vegan and ask what else they have and agree to apply for that (see 2c)


4. Consider if you really need to be on the dole to start with. Many people who are long-term claimants are simply on the wrong benefit. The figures mask a multitude of people with minor mental or emotional issues who would be better off on Incapacity.

The government never has a crackdown on people who are receiving JSA instead of Incapacity Benefit, because they save money out the situation. They do however like to demonise IB claimants by referring to IB fraud and forgetting to tell people that the figure for fraudulent IB claims is under 1%.

If you are signing on because you don't actually want to work, have a good real think about the reasons you don't want to work in the first place. If it isn't for health reasons then you are better off working.

JSA shouldn't be a lifestyle but rather a stop gap.

Welsh Andy
I would hold back on challenging the dole office, done it and got as far as what `Former DWP worker ` has laid out as the come back. If you have the positive/non-aggressive attitude that `Doley Scum` puts forward then you might get away with it, generally agree with what he said as a course of action in dealing with them.

Former DWP Worker

Are you sure it`s `Former DWP Worker`the tone sounds very familiar, only kidding  Come across the same argument as is written and no it didnt sounds patronising. I was at odds to understand why you would say that said `Articles` (22, 25, 26(2) ) within the (Universal Declaration) of Human Rights do not exist? Then realised I had put down `European `. I`ve however attached the declaration in PDF format and highlighted those sections I feel are relevant.

I`ve also attached the 1930 Forced Labour Convention of the International Labour Organisation, now clearly language is important (listen to me) especially with Law so my position on this is where `Choice` is used this term has to be defiantly insulted as just what it is `A Marketing Ploy` and the terms of the `Forced Labour Convention` clearly states that it is `Menace of Penalty` which clearly defines the terms of Forced Labour; conclusion it being slavery. Everything is possible if you use self-contradiction; you are able to both work for a company, and rebel against it. Corporate rebellion = loyalty as much as the Orwellian slogans, Peace = War, Slavery = Freedom which, in 1984, reduced a future society's minds to value-free mush.

I do believe that my second argument was a bit weak in explanation with regard to Education. I know that you know how the unemployed have been forced to take tests for English and Maths in face of a Direction by job Centre staff. This has to seen in the context of a Government spinning it no end on education and by implication by setting the test in this atmosphere the figures garnered where used as a stick to prove a political need for such services that arose from it. Pissed off with this personally I only did enough to tell them to piss off on any `direction` (Off course politely).

You last sentiments I wholeheartedly agree with except I have trouble with any idea of not standing up for my `Principles`, but yes it has to be followed up by strategy & tactics. It is hoped that those that do read this take heart and do realise that the attack on the welfare system will one way or another affect them through either being on it or through its use to restrict wage claims.

Whilst I totally agree with the morality of your point, I would advise you to read the EU Human Rights Declaration very closely. You will soon discover that almost every principal has a get out clause rendering it "mostly harmless" as a legal tool. A sad charade.

The Neoliberalisation of the Unemployed is not just a British idea, the same thing is happening all over the EU. In fact, a course leader once told me that they were using material licensed off the US. I wouldn't be surprised if it enshrined in the World Bank rules by now.

The real, core problem is of course class war, pure and simple. They have all but destroyed the power of labour and replaced it with fragmented, unskilled employment opportunities that keep the power in the hands of the employers/investors. This is creeping quickly out beyond the working classes and swallowing up the middle classes too.



To add to my point 4, I would add that if you aren't willing to work on the basis of the shit jobs on offer (which I agree is a sound reason to refuse employment: dignity is after all a human right)) then you should have a good long think about getting yourself employed in some other manner.

They don't generally advertise this fact but the long-term unemployed are entitled to a whole host of free part-time higher education, and many proper qualifications too. Ask the your local college about it and find out what is on offer. There are also schemes to support people with self-employment ideas.

Let's face it an indefinite future of the 14-day week and being King for a (giro) Day is pretty bleak.


I'd love to see some sort of legal challenge mounted against PPP schemes targetting the unemployed (a.k.a bigger dole scroungers than the targets) but I won't hold my breath. Given the slice of taxation that goes on state benefits, I could foresee the Gvt stopping at nothing to make sure they didn't lose.

They know they have people by the balls, and the people have no great means of fighting back.

And if you think that the treatment of JSA recipients is bad, then you should hear about some of the appalling stories of how the disabled get treated: I know a disabled girl who got asked what sexual positions she is capable of; someone suffering PTSD being asked what the content of the nightmares were, and that just the Dole DOCTORS...

But News of the World will never run THOSE stories. Stories far more common than some building contractor in Kent with 2 Rolls Royces claiming IB.

Doley Scum completely agree with you, with very much an idea that a Clas concensus needs to be built up against the very real attack of legislation. So we have the stories of the Black market economy, the question is, is it so wrong to work in that area? Many govt officials now recognise this may be a way into work. This combined with with a growing arguement for a Basic Income could lead us all into a future of work independance and an arguement that a populace free from the constraints of govt control would be more inclined to embrace new ideas about possible future directions.

I'm a single bloke living by myself(apart from my son at weekends)in a council flat. I'm about to be forced on a 13wk course thing which is 2hrs away using 3 different bus companies to gain "work experience". I'll get an extra £15 on me dole. However there a few local jobs I am qualified for but they are either over 16hrs a week or temporary for less than 3months. Because I live by myself I am practically forbidden to get these jobs, as I'd either be worse off coz I'll have to pay council tax and full rent(about £75 a week)on an income of about £100. Or if I got a temp job because of the delays in claiming dole/housing benefit I'd have to survive on nothing for about 8wks once the temp job ends. But because I choose to live by myself I have to go work for someone for free. This is so wrong.