Posted: July 31st, 2016 | Author: againstworkfare | Filed under: Guest blog, Law, Name and shame | 2 Comments »
This is the second of two linked posts about the DWP’s release of the names of organisations that were using Mandatory Work Activity in 2011-12. The first post – a response from Boycott Workfare – is here. This blog is a guest post by Frank Zola, a member of Boycott Workfare who has been involved since the start in the battle to get the DWP to reveal the names of workfare exploiters through Freedom of Information requests. You can also read the post on his blog here. Frank Zola was previously sanctioned as a flexible new deal (“work for your benefit“) workfare refusenik and A4e conscript.
“READ THIS AND RAGE AGAINST THE SYSTEM!”
— Clare Hepworth OBE (@Hepworthclare) July 31, 2016
1. Report on Court of Appeal ruling
2. Background resources, FOI requests, Media reporting, ICO decisions, Tribunals and Court of Appeal rulings
3. Names of the 534 shameful workfare exploiters (employers)
“In a battle with the information commissioner, the DWP has said that the government’s mandatory work programme would “collapse” if the names were made public due to the likelihood of protests against the organisations involved.”
Guardian – 9th November 2012
1. Report on Court of Appeal ruling
(Joint update with Boycott Workfare)
After a 4 and half year battle, on Wednesday July 27th 2016 the DWP was forced by a Court of Appeal (CofA) ruling to capitulate and release the names of more than 500 – Mandatory Work Activity workfare exploiters.
A matter of judgement and public interest
This decision was reached by three judges on a 2 to 1 basis, citing public interestconsiderations being “firmly” viewed by the first tier tribunal (FTT) as “appreciably” outweighing the commercial interests of the workfare placement hosting employers not to be named and be subject to protests. The FTT ruling(pdf) dealt with three conjoined appeals (Zola, Naysmith and Kelly), as all requested names of workfare exploiters.
“The tribunal is firmly of the view that in these appeals the scales are weighed appreciably in favour of disclosure”
This legal precedent should now mean anyone, anywhere in the world, is free to use the Freedom of Information Act (2000) (FOIA) to request the names of UK workfare exploiting employers. I suggest using whatdotheyknow.com to make such FOIA requests, as it ensures the FOIA process is kept open and transparent. Do not get too complacent or underestimate the importance of this “vast” list of workfare exploiters, just note that Éire disclosed a similar list of nearly 12,000 of it’s Government forced-labour conscript employers. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: July 31st, 2016 | Author: againstworkfare | Filed under: Charities, Law, Name and shame | 7 Comments »
This is the first of two linked posts about the DWP being forced to reveal the names of hundreds of workfare exploiters from 2012, after losing a four year legal battle. Frank Zola has pursued this information since 2012. Mr Zola is a member of Boycott Workfare, and you can read the second post – his detailed account of the Court of Appeal ruling and its background – here: 500+ abusers of workfare conscripts named and shamed. He was previously sanctioned as a flexible new deal (“work for your benefit“) workfare refusenik and A4e conscript.
In January 2012, three Freedom of Information requests were made for the names of organisations that were benefitting from unpaid labour through workfare schemes. This month the Department for Work and Pensions finally released information about one of these schemes – Mandatory Work Activity – after they’d resisted and delayed, appealing from court to court, for four and a half years. The public now officially have a right to know which organisations use workfare. You can read the full list of 534 businesses and charities who were involved in MWA here.
Workfare – forced, unpaid labour in return for social security – relies on businesses and charities being willing to take on benefit claimants as unpaid workers. Up until this week, the DWP has protected the identity of these organisations.
The information the DWP has just released is about the business and charities that were using MWA placements in 2011-12. But the ruling means that the DWP should now disclose further information about which organisations are benefitting from workfare today, in response to further requests. Any of us can use a Freedom of Information request to find out what organisations are using workfare in our area, or across the UK. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: July 1st, 2016 | Author: againstworkfare | Filed under: In-work conditionality, Info on schemes, Law | No Comments »
In-Work Conditionality trial notification letter
Are you a claimant who has been harassed under ‘in-work conditionality’? If you have been earning equal to or above the ‘administrative threshold’ of £338.43 a month for a single claimant and £541.02 a month for a couple, then you should NOT have been subjected to work-related requirements from February 2015. And you are entitled to claim compensation. This briefing from Housing Systems contains information on how to do this, including template letters.
So you should claim compensation if you:
- Are earning equal or above the administrative threshold
- Have been sanctioned
- Ended a Universal Credit claim while still entitled
- Suffered costs and stress as a result of mistaken work-related requirements
- Are not on the in-work conditionality ‘randomised control trial’ pilot scheme (see below).
While the government’s expanded conditionality aims eventually to punish those earning less than 35x the national minimum wage per week, this has not been fully implemented. Many DWP staff have jumped the gun in their zeal to get more sanctioning in. These amendments to the Universal Credit regulations state that sanctions for those earning over the administrative threshold should not be applied from February 2015 onwards, as outlined in point 3 of these DWP regulations. Read the rest of this entry »